3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Conference Paper Resilience and the Co-Evolution of Ecosystems and Institutions(1995) Folke, Carl; Berkes, Fikret"Resilience is the ability of a system to cope with change without collapsing. It is the capacity to absorb external perturbations, by actively adapting to an ever changing environment. Reduction in resilience means that vulnerability increases, with the risk that the whole system flips from one equilibrium state to another. Such flips are often a consequence of the misuse of the environment and the inertia of institutions to change. Smaller unpredictable perturbations that previously could be handled turn into major crises when extreme events intersect with internally generated vulnerability due to loss of resilience. To avoid such situations there is a need for institutions with the ability to respond to and manage environmental feedbacks, institutions that can cope with unpredictable perturbations before they accumulate and challenge the existence of the whole social-ecological system. This implies that it is not enough to only understand the institution in question. The dynamics of the ecosystems that form the biophysical precondition for the existence of the institution need to be taken into account as well. This study focuses on the linked social-ecological system, and its dynamic interrelationships. We regard it as one system with its social and ecological components co-evolving over time. It is in this context that we study traditional and newly-emergent social-ecological systems. We are analyzing 1) how the local social system has adapted to and developed a knowledge system for dealing with the dynamics of the ecosystem(s) including the resources and services that it generates, 2) specifically, how the local system maintains ecosystem resilience in the face of perturbations, and 3) those combinations of property rights arrangements, institutions, and knowledge systems which accomplish the above successfully. Examples will be presented from the Cree Indians of the Canadian eastern subartic and their resource management, and pastoral herders and rangeland management in semi-arid Africa."Conference Paper Comparative Analysis of Mountain Landuse Sustainability: Case Studies from India and Canada(1998) Gardner, James S.; Sinclair, A. John; Berkes, Fikret"Mountain people typically have lived on the economic margins of society, making a living as woodcutters, herders, gatherers, and small-scale agriculturalists. Yet, for many societies, mountains are at the center of the universe. A number of mountains in Asia, such as Mount Kailas in Tibet, take on the character of the sacred mountain 'which stands as a cosmic axis around which the universe is organized in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology' (Bernbaum 1996). In our Indian study area (Figure 1), the mountains around the source of the Beas River are of great cultural and historical significance, as a site and inspiration of the Great Indian epics. "This suggests that the study of sustainability requires a broad approach, taking into account social and cultural matters, as well as the ecological and economic. We started the project with a special interest in the management of forested mountain environments, and in the use of participatory or people-oriented approaches to resource management. We adopted a view of sustainable development which explicitly included three elements: (1) the environmental imperative of living within ecological means, (2) the economic imperative of meeting basic material needs, and (3) the social imperative of meeting basic human and cultural needs. Such an approach to sustainable development is concerned with much more than maximizing resource yields. It covers a broad range of environmental values as well as economic and social needs, and opens up the scope of decision-making not only to a wider range of natural and social sciences but also to a range of stakeholders' interests affected by resource management decisions. "Under the overall goal of studying policy development for the sustainable use of forested mountain ecosystems, the objectives of this study were four-fold. We deal with each in turn and expand on the policy implications. 1) To develop integrated methodologies best suited for the comparative study of land resource management policies in forested mountain ecosystems; 2) To study the successes and failures of mountain environment resource management policies and their social, economic, and historical context as revealed in case studies; 3) To evaluate and develop criteria for assessing and monitoring sustainability in mountain environments and in particular, for examining relevant cross-cultural dimensions of SD in these ecosystems; and 4) To communicate policy implications of the study to the appropriate agencies and people concerned with resource management and sustainable development, and to interact with policy-makers."Conference Paper Framework for the Study of Indigenous Knowledge: Linking Social and Ecological Systems(1995) Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl"A considerable amount of evidence has accumulated to indicate that ecologically sensible indigenous practices have indeed existed in diverse ecosystems. Based on these findings, there is potential for improvement of resource management in environments such as northern coastal ecosystems, arid and semi-arid land ecosystems, mountain ecosystems, tropical forest ecosystems, subarctic ecosystems and island ecosystems. As compared to the rather narrow set of prescriptions of Western scientific resource management systems, some of which may inadvertently act to reduce ecosystem resilience, indigenous management is often associated with a diversity of property rights regimes and common-property institutions and locally-adapted practices, and it may operate under systems of knowledge substantially different from Western knowledge systems. "The framework we propose distinguishes seven sets of variables which can be used to describe social and ecological system characteristics and linkages in any indigenous resource use case study: (1) ecosystem, (2) resource users and technology, (3) local knowledge, (4) property rights, (5) institutions, (6) pattern of interactions, and (7) outcomes. Our framework borrows from that of Oakerson for the analysis of common-property management, and that of Ostrom for institutional analysis. "The key concept in our framework is resilience, to emphasize the importance of conditions in which disturbances (perturbations) can flip a system from one equilibrium state to another. We use Holling's definition of resilience, the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behavior. We hypothesize that: (1) maintaining resilience is important for both resources and social institutions, and therefore the well-being of social and ecological systems is closely linked; (2) successful traditional knowledge systems will allow perturbations to enter an ecosystem on a scale which does not threaten its structure and functional performance, and the services it provides; and (3) there will be evidence of co-evolution in such traditional systems, making the local community and their institutions "in tune" over time with the natural processes of the particular ecosystem."