9 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
Journal Article Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems(2006) Walker, Brian H.; Gunderson, Lance; Kinzig, Ann P.; Folke, Carl; Carpenter, Stephen; Schultz, Lisen"This paper is a work-in-progress account of ideas and propositions about resilience in socialecological systems. It articulates our understanding of how these complex systems change and what determines their ability to absorb disturbances in either their ecological or their social domains. We call them 'propositions' because, although they are useful in helping us understand and compare different social-ecological systems, they are not sufficiently well defined to be considered formal hypotheses. These propositions were developed in two workshops, in 2003 and 2004, in which participants compared the dynamics of 15 case studies in a wide range of regions around the world. The propositions raise many questions, and we present a list of some that could help define the next phase of resilience-related research."Journal Article Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability(2010) Folke, Carl; Carpenter, Stephen; Walker, Brian H.; Scheffer, Marten; Chapin, Terry; Rockström, Johan"Resilience thinking addresses the dynamics and development of complex social–ecological systems (SES). Three aspects are central: resilience, adaptability and transformability. These aspects interrelate across multiple scales. Resilience in this context is the capacity of a SES to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds. Adaptability is part of resilience. It represents the capacity to adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and thereby allow for development along the current trajectory (stability domain). Transformability is the capacity to cross thresholds into new development trajectories. Transformational change at smaller scales enables resilience at larger scales. The capacity to transform at smaller scales draws on resilience from multiple scales, making use of crises as windows of opportunity for novelty and innovation, and recombining sources of experience and knowledge to navigate social–ecological transitions. Society must seriously consider ways to foster resilience of smaller more manageable SESs that contribute to Earth System resilience and to explore options for deliberate transformation of SESs that threaten Earth System resilience."Journal Article Drivers, 'Slow' Variables, 'Fast' Variables, Shocks, and Resilience(2012) Walker, Brian H.; Carpenter, Stephen; Rockström, Johan; Crépin, Anne-Sophie; Peterson, Garry D."Different uses of the terms 'drivers,' 'variables,' and 'shocks' cause confusion in the literature and in discussions on the dynamics of ecosystems and social–ecological systems. Three main sources of confusion are unclear definition of the system, unclear definition of the role of people, and confusion between variables and drivers. As a contribution to resolving some of the confusion, we offer one interpretation of how the terms might be used."Journal Article Scenarios for Ecosystem Services: An Overview(2006) Carpenter, Stephen; Bennett, Elena M.; Peterson, Garry D."The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) scenarios address changes in ecosystem services and their implications for human well-being. Ecological changes pose special challenges for long-term thinking, because of the possibility of regime shifts that occur rapidly yet alter the availability of ecosystem services for generations. Moreover, ecological feedbacks can intensify human modification of ecosystems, creating a spiral of poverty and ecosystem degradation. Such complex dynamics were evaluated by a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analyses in the MA scenarios. Collectively, the scenarios explore problems such as the connections of poverty reduction and ecosystem services, and trade-offs among ecosystem services. Several promising approaches are considered by the scenarios, including uses of biodiversity to build resilience of ecosystem services, actively adaptive management, and green technology. Although the scenarios do not prescribe an optimal path, they illuminate the consequences of different policies toward ecosystem services."Journal Article Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems(2004) Walker, Brian H.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, Stephen; Kinzig, Ann P."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."Journal Article Assessing Future Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin(2003) Peterson, Garry D.; Beard, T. Douglas; Beisner, Beatrix E.; Bennett, Elena M.; Carpenter, Stephen; Cumming, Graeme S.; Dent, C. Lisa; Havlicek, Tanya D."The Northern Highlands Lake District of Wisconsin is in transition from a sparsely settled region to a more densely populated one. Expected changes offer benefits to northern Wisconsin residents but also threaten to degrade the ecological services they rely on. Because the future of this region is uncertain, it is difficult to make decisions that will avoid potential risks and take advantage of potential opportunities. We adopt a scenario planning approach to cope with this problem of prediction. We use an ecological assessment framework developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment to determine key social and ecological driving forces in the Northern Highlands Lake District. From these, we describe three alternative scenarios to the year 2025 in which the projected use of ecological services is substantially different. The work reported in this paper demonstrates how scenarios can be developed for a region and provides a starting point for a participatory discussion of alternative futures for northern Wisconsin. Although the future is unknowable, we hope that the assessment process begun in this paper will help the people of the Northern Highlands Lake District choose the future path of their region."Journal Article Spatial Complexity, Resilience, and Policy Diversity: Fishing on Lake-Rich Landscapes(2004) Carpenter, Stephen; Brock, William A."The dynamics of and policies governing spatially coupled social-ecological mosaics are considered for the case of fisheries in a lake district. A microeconomic model of households addresses agent decisions at three hierarchic levels: (1) selection of the lake district from among a larger set of alternative places to live or visit, (2) selection of a base location within the lake district, and (3) selection of a portfolio of ecosystem services to use. Ecosystem services are represented by dynamics of fish production subject to multiple stable domains and trophic cascades. Policy calculations show that optimal policies will be highly heterogeneous in space and fluid in time. The diversity of possible outcomes is illustrated by simulations for a hypothetical lake district based loosely on the Northern Highlands of the State of Wisconsin. Lake districts are frequently managed as if lakes were independent, similar, endogenously regulating systems. Our findings contradict that view. One-size-fits-all (OSFA) policies erode ecological and social resilience. If regulations are too stringent, social resilience declines because of the potential rewards of overharvesting. If regulations are too lax, ecological resilience is diminished by overharvesting in some lakes. In either case, local collapses of fish populations evoke spatial shifts of angling effort that can lead to serial collapses in neighboring fisheries and degraded fisheries in most or all of the lakes. Under OSFA management, the natural resources of the entire landscape become more vulnerable to transformation because of changes in, e.g., human population, the demand for resources, or fish harvesting technology. Multiplicity of management regimes can increase the ecological resilience, social resilience, and inclusive value of a spatially heterogeneous social-ecological system. Because of the complex interactions of mobile people and multistable ecosystems, management regimes must also be flexible over time. A rights-based scheme may facilitate policy regimes with appropriate spatial patterns and intertemporal fluidity. In lake fisheries, habitat protection adds an important dimension to policy design. Habitat is a slowly changing variable that creates ecological resilience and thereby provides managers with a broader range of options."Journal Article Adaptive Capacity and Traps(2008) Carpenter, Stephen; Brock, William A."Adaptive capacity is the ability of a living system, such as a social-ecological system, to adjust responses to changing internal demands and external drivers. Although adaptive capacity is a frequent topic of study in the resilience literature, there are few formal models. This paper introduces such a model and uses it to explore adaptive capacity by contrast with the opposite condition, or traps. In a social-ecological rigidity trap, strong self-reinforcing controls prevent the flexibility needed for adaptation. In the model, too much control erodes adaptive capacity and thereby increases the risk of catastrophic breakdown. In a social-ecological poverty trap, loose connections prevent the mobilization of ideas and resources to solve problems. In the model, too little control impedes the focus needed for adaptation. Fluctuations of internal demand or external shocks generate pulses of adaptive capacity, which may gain traction and pull the system out of the poverty trap. The model suggests some general properties of traps in social-ecological systems. It is general and flexible, so it can be used as a building block in more specific and detailed models of adaptive capacity for a particular region."Journal Article Resilience: Accounting for the Noncomputable(2009) Carpenter, Stephen; Folke, Carl; Scheffer, Marten; Westley, Frances"Plans to solve complex environmental problems should always consider the role of surprise. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to emphasize known computable aspects of a problem while neglecting aspects that are unknown and failing to ask questions about them. The tendency to ignore the noncomputable can be countered by considering a wide range of perspectives, encouraging transparency with regard to conflicting viewpoints, stimulating a diversity of models, and managing for the emergence of new syntheses that reorganize fragmentary knowledge."