scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems

TL;DR: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling's (1973) seminal paper as discussed by the authors and different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion, and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow.
Abstract: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social– ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks) has four components—latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance. INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow. Because different groups adopt different interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose, however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development. In what follows, we provide an interpretation and an explanation of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles of complex, multi-scalar SESs. We need a better scientific basis for sustainable development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “sustainability science”). The “Consortium for Sustainable Development” (of the International Council for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of Science), the US National Research Council (1999, 2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), have all focused increasing attention on such notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature emerge from three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. The purpose of this paper is to examine these three attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their implications for our future well-being. There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper. What is new is that it uses established theory of nonlinear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of regional development, regional poverty, and regional CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arizona State University Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 sustainability. These include, among others, the Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These regions provide examples of both successes and failures of development. Some from rich countries have generated several pulses of solutions over a span of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some cases, have been dragged back by higher-level autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as localscale solutions and then developed as transformations across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes were determined by the interplay of their resilience, adaptability, and transformability. There is a major distinction between resilience and adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely related set of systems. Transformability refers to fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing line between “closely related” and “fundamentally altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative set of definitions, without reference to conceptual frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. We then use some examples and the literature on “basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to further refine our definitions. Before giving the definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the concept of adaptive cycles. Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them— a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K phase continues, resources become increasingly locked up and the system becomes progressively less flexible and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and during which, innovation and new opportunities are possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r phase or be significantly different. This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on observed system changes, and does not imply fixed, regular cycling. Systems can move back from K toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”— adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales. These cross-scale effects are of great significance in the dynamics of SESs.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
23 Sep 2009-Nature
TL;DR: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
Abstract: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.

8,837 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social-ecological systems as mentioned in this paper, which emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales.
Abstract: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social–ecological systems. This article presents the origin of the resilience perspective and provides an overview of its development to date. With roots in one branch of ecology and the discovery of multiple basins of attraction in ecosystems in the 1960–1970s, it inspired social and environmental scientists to challenge the dominant stable equilibrium view. The resilience approach emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales. The history was dominated by empirical observations of ecosystem dynamics interpreted in mathematical models, developing into the adaptive management approach for responding to ecosystem change. Serious attempts to integrate the social dimension is currently taking place in resilience work reflected in the large numbers of sciences involved in explorative studies and new discoveries of linked social–ecological systems. Recent advances include understanding of social processes like, social learning and social memory, mental models and knowledge–system integration, visioning and scenario building, leadership, agents and actor groups, social networks, institutional and organizational inertia and change, adaptive capacity, transformability and systems of adaptive governance that allow for management of essential ecosystem services.

4,899 citations


Cites background from "Resilience, Adaptability and Transf..."

  • ...It may prove very difficult to transform a resilient system from the current state into a more desirable one (Scheffer et al., 2001; Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Walker et al., 2004)....

    [...]

  • ...Social–ecological resilience Interplay disturbance and reorganization, sustaining and developing and re-organize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Walker et al., 2004)....

    [...]

  • ...It is argued that managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustaining desirable pathways for development in changing environments where the future is unpredictable and surprise is likely (Walker et al., 2004; Adger et al., 2005)....

    [...]

  • ...In resilience work adaptability is referred to as the capacity of people in a social–ecological system to build resilience through collective action whereas transformability is the capacity of people to create a fundamentally new social–ecological system when ecological, political, social, or economic conditions make the existing system untenable (Walker et al., 2004)....

    [...]

  • ...…in a social–ecological system to build resilience through collective action whereas transformability is the capacity of people to create a fundamentally new social–ecological system when ecological, political, social, or economic conditions make the existing system untenable (Walker et al., 2004)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed a new approach to global sustainability in which they define planetary boundaries within which they expect that humanity can operate safely. But the proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development.
Abstract: Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems. We have identified nine planetary boundaries and, drawing upon current scientific understanding, we propose quantifications for seven of them. These seven are climate change (CO2 concentration in the atmosphere <350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 W m-2 in radiative forcing); ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥ 80% of pre-industrial levels); stratospheric ozone (<5% reduction in O3 concentration from pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N2 to 35 Tg N yr-1) and phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); global freshwater use (<4000 km3 yr-1 of consumptive use of runoff resources); land system change (<15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland); and the rate at which biological diversity is lost (annual rate of <10 extinctions per million species). The two additional planetary boundaries for which we have not yet been able to determine a boundary level are chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading. We estimate that humanity has already transgressed three planetary boundaries: for climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. Planetary boundaries are interdependent, because transgressing one may both shift the position of other boundaries or cause them to be transgressed. The social impacts of transgressing boundaries will be a function of the social-ecological resilience of the affected societies. Our proposed boundaries are rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps. Filling these gaps will require major advancements in Earth System and resilience science. The proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development. Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the "planetary playing field" for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major human-induced environmental change on a global scale.

4,771 citations


Cites background from "Resilience, Adaptability and Transf..."

  • ...conditions are followed by periods of abrupt, non-linear change, reflected in critical transitions from one stability domain to another when thresholds are crossed (Scheffer et al., 2001; Walker et al. 2004; Lenton et al. 2008, Scheffer 2009)....

    [...]

  • ...(Holling 1973; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Walker et al. 2004; Folke 2006) and its links to complex dynamics (Kaufmann 1993; Holland 1996) and self-regulation of living systems...

    [...]

  • ...…manifests itself when long periods of seemingly stable conditions are followed by periods of abrupt, non-linear change, reflected in critical transitions from one stability domain to another when thresholds are crossed (Scheffer et al. 2001, Walker et al. 2004, Lenton et al. 2008, Scheffer 2009)....

    [...]

  • ...The third is the framework of resilience (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Walker et al. 2004, Folke 2006) and its links to complex dynamics (Kaufmann 1993, Holland 1996) and self-regulation of living systems (Lovelock 1979, Levin 1999), emphasizing multiple basins of attraction and…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the social dimension that enables adaptive ecosystem-based management, focusing on experiences of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems during periods of abrupt change and investigates social sources of renewal and reorganization.
Abstract: ▪ Abstract We explore the social dimension that enables adaptive ecosystem-based management. The review concentrates on experiences of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems during periods of abrupt change (crisis) and investigates social sources of renewal and reorganization. Such governance connects individuals, organizations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organizational levels. Key persons provide leadership, trust, vision, meaning, and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment. Adaptive governance systems often self-organize as social networks with teams and actor groups that draw on various knowledge systems and experiences for the development of a common understanding and policies. The emergence of “bridging organizations” seem to lower the costs of collaboration and conflict resolution, and enabling legislation and governmental policies can support self-organization while framing creativity for adaptive comanagement efforts. A resilient social-eco...

4,495 citations


Cites background from "Resilience, Adaptability and Transf..."

  • ...Resilience in this context is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (18)....

    [...]

  • ...In a social-ecological system with high adaptability, the actors have the capacity to reorganize the system within desired states in response to changing conditions and disturbance events (18)....

    [...]

  • ...Transformability means creating and defining a new attractor that directs the development of the social-ecological system by introducing new components and ways of making a living, thereby changing the state variables, and often the scales of key cycles, that define the system (18)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
13 Sep 2012-Nature
TL;DR: Viewing the microbiota from an ecological perspective could provide insight into how to promote health by targeting this microbial community in clinical treatments.
Abstract: Trillions of microbes inhabit the human intestine, forming a complex ecological community that influences normal physiology and susceptibility to disease through its collective metabolic activities and host interactions. Understanding the factors that underlie changes in the composition and function of the gut microbiota will aid in the design of therapies that target it. This goal is formidable. The gut microbiota is immensely diverse, varies between individuals and can fluctuate over time — especially during disease and early development. Viewing the microbiota from an ecological perspective could provide insight into how to promote health by targeting this microbial community in clinical treatments.

3,890 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience.
Abstract: Individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. That is one view of the world. But another view of the world concentrates not so much on presence or absence as upon the numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of their numbers. These are two very different ways of viewing the behavior of systems and the usefulness of the view depends very much on the properties of the system concerned. If we are examining a particular device designed by the engineer to perform specific tasks under a rather narrow range of predictable external conditions, we are likely to be more concerned with consistent nonvariable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted. A quantitative view of the behavior of the system is, therefore, essential. With attention focused upon achieving constancy, the critical events seem to be the amplitude and frequency of oscillations. But if we are dealing with a system profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of the relationships. Attention shifts, therefore, to the qualitative and to questions of existence or not. Our traditions of analysis in theoretical and empirical ecology have been largely inherited from developments in classical physics and its applied variants. Inevitably, there has been a tendency to emphasize the quantitative rather than the qualitative, for it is important in this tradition to know not just that a quantity is larger than another quantity, but precisely how much larger. It is similarly important, if a quantity fluctuates, to know its amplitude and period of fluctuation. But this orientation may simply reflect an analytic approach developed in one area because it was useful and then transferred to another where it may not be. Our traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience. There can in some years be more owls and fewer mice and in others, the reverse. Fish populations wax and wane as a natural condition, and insect populations can range over extremes that only logarithmic

13,447 citations


"Resilience, Adaptability and Transf..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The robustness provided by the consideration of multiple possible futures has served several groups well; the authors present examples from business, government, and conservation planning that illustrate the value of scenario planning.
Abstract: Conservation decisions about how, when, and where to act are typically based on our expectations for the future. When the world is highly unpredictable and we are working from a limited range of expecta- tions, however, our expectations will frequently be proved wrong. Scenario planning offers a framework for developing more resilient conservation policies when faced with uncontrollable, irreducible uncertainty. A scenario in this context is an account of a plausible future. Scenario planning consists of using a few con- trasting scenarios to explore the uncertainty surrounding the future consequences of a decision. Ideally, sce- narios should be constructed by a diverse group of people for a single, stated purpose. Scenario planning can incorporate a variety of quantitative and qualitative information in the decision-making process. Often, con- sideration of this diverse information in a systemic way leads to better decisions. Furthermore, the participa- tion of a diverse group of people in a systemic process of collecting, discussing, and analyzing scenarios builds shared understanding. The robustness provided by the consideration of multiple possible futures has served several groups well; we present examples from business, government, and conservation planning that illustrate the value of scenario planning. For conservation, major benefits of using scenario planning are (1) increased understanding of key uncertainties, (2) incorporation of alternative perspectives into conservation planning, and (3) greater resilience of decisions to surprise.

1,265 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Many case studies in adaptive-management planning for riparian ecosystems have failed to produce useful models for policy comparison or good experimental management plans for resolving key uncertainties, and proposals for experimental management regimes have exposed and highlighted some really fundamental conflicts in ecological values.
Abstract: Many case studies in adaptive-management planning for riparian ecosystems have failed to produce useful models for policy comparison or good experimental management plans for resolving key uncertainties. Modeling efforts have been plagued by difficulties in representation of cross-scale effects (from rapid hydrologic change to long-term ecological response), lack of data on key processes that are difficult to study, and confounding of factor effects in validation data. Experimental policies have been seen as too costly or risky, particularly in relation to monitoring costs and risk to sensitive species. Research and management stakeholders have shown deplorable self-interest, seeing adaptive-policy development as a threat to existing research programs and management regimes, rather than as an opportunity for improvement. Proposals for experimental management regimes have exposed and highlighted some really fundamental conflicts in ecological values, particularly in cases in which endangered species have prospered under historical management and would be threatened by ecosystem restoration efforts. There is much potential for adaptive management in the future, if we can find ways around these barriers.

721 citations


"Resilience, Adaptability and Transf..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Adaptive management (Walters 1986), widely and deservedly promoted as a necessary basis for sustainable development, has frequently failed (Walters 1997) because the existing governance structures have not allowed it to function effectively....

    [...]