Socio-ecological system

Last updated

A social-ecological system consists of 'a bio-geo-physical' unit and its associated social actors and institutions. Social-ecological systems are complex and adaptive and delimited by spatial or functional boundaries surrounding particular ecosystems and their context problems. [1]

Contents

Definitions

A social-ecological system (SES) can be defined as: [2] (p. 163)

  1. A coherent system of biophysical and social factors that regularly interact in a resilient, sustained manner;
  2. A system that is defined at several spatial, temporal, and organisational scales, which may be hierarchically linked;
  3. A set of critical resources (natural, socio-economic, and cultural) whose flow and use is regulated by a combination of ecological and social systems; and
  4. A perpetually dynamic, complex system with continuous adaptation. [3] [4] [5]

Scholars have used the concept of social-ecological systems to emphasise humans as part of nature and to stress that the delineation between social systems and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary. [6] While resilience has somewhat different meaning in social and ecological context, [7] the SES approach holds that social and ecological systems are linked through feedback mechanisms, and that both display resilience and complexity. [5]

Theoretical foundations

Social-ecological systems are based on the concept that humans are a part of—not separate from—nature. [8] This concept, which holds that the delineation between social systems and natural systems is arbitrary and artificial, was first put forth by Berkes and Folke, [9] and its theory was further developed by Berkes et al. [10] More recent research into social-ecological system theory has pointed to social-ecological keystones as critical to the structure and function of these systems, and to biocultural diversity as essential to the resilience of these systems. [11]

Integrative approaches

Through to the final decades of the twentieth century, the point of contact between social sciences and natural sciences was very limited in dealing with social-ecological systems. Just as mainstream ecology had tried to exclude humans from the study of ecology, many social science disciplines had ignored the environment altogether and limited their scope to humans. [5] Although some scholars (e.g. Bateson 1979) [12] had tried to bridge the nature-culture divide, the majority of studies focused on investigating processes within the social domain only, treating the ecosystem largely as a "black box" [6] and assuming that if the social system performs adaptively or is well organised institutionally it will also manage the environmental resource base in a sustainable fashion. [13]

This changed through the 1970s and 1980s with the rise of several subfields associated with the social sciences but explicitly including the environment in the framing of the issues. [5] These subfields are:

Each of the six areas summarised is a bridge spanning different combinations of natural science and social science thinking. [5]

Conceptual foundations and origins

Elinor Ostrom and her many co-researchers developed a comprehensive "Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework", which includes much of the theory of common-pool resources and collective self-governance. It draws heavily on systems ecology and complexity theory. The studies of SES include some central societal concerns (e.g. equity and human wellbeing) that have traditionally received little attention in complex adaptive systems theory, and there are areas of complexity theory (e.g. quantum physics) that have little direct relevance for understanding SES. [19]

SES theory incorporates ideas from theories relating to the study of resilience, robustness, sustainability, and vulnerability (e.g. Levin 1999, [20] Berkes et al. 2003, [5] Gunderson and Holling 2002, [4] Norberg and Cumming 2008 [19] [21] ), but it is also concerned with a wider range of SES dynamics and attributes than any one of these terms implies. While SES theory draws on a range of discipline-specific theories, such as island biogeography, optimal foraging theory, and microeconomic theory, it is much broader than any of these individual theories alone. [19]

SES theory emerged from a combination of disciplines [19] and the notion of complexity developed through the work of many scholars, including the Santa Fe Institute (2002). [21] Due to the social context in which SES research was placed, and the possibility of SES research translating into recommendations that may affect real people, SES research was seen as more "self-conscious" and "pluralistic" in its perspectives than complexity theory. [19]

Studying SESs from a complex system perspective attempts to link different disciplines into a body of knowledge that is applicable to serious environmental problems. [19] Management processes in the complex systems can be improved by making them adaptive and flexible, able to deal with uncertainty and surprise, and by building capacity to adapt to change. SESs are both complex and adaptive, meaning that they require continuous testing, learning about, and developing knowledge and understanding in order to cope with change and uncertainty. [22]

A complex system differs from a simple system in that it has a number of attributes that cannot be observed in simple systems, such as nonlinearity, uncertainty, emergence, scale, and self-organisation. [5] [21]

Nonlinearity

Nonlinearity is related to fundamental uncertainty.[ dubious – discuss ] [5] It generates path dependency, which refers to local rules of interaction that change as the system evolves and develops. A consequence of path dependency is the existence of multiple basins of attraction in ecosystem development and the potential for threshold behaviour and qualitative shifts in system dynamics under changing environmental influences. [23] An example for non-linearity in socio-ecological systems is illustrated by the figure on "Conceptual Model of Socioecological Drivers of Change". [24]

Conceptual Model Socioecological Drivers of Change Conceptual Model Socioecological Drivers of Change.jpg
Conceptual Model Socioecological Drivers of Change

Emergence

Emergence is the appearance of behaviour that could not be anticipated from knowledge of the parts of the system alone. [25]

Scale

Scale is important when dealing with complex systems. In a complex system many subsystems can be distinguished; and since many complex systems are hierarchic, each subsystem is nested in a larger subsystem etc. [26] For example, a small watershed may be considered an ecosystem, but it is a part of a larger watershed that can also be considered an ecosystem and a larger one that encompasses all the smaller watersheds. [5] Phenomena at each level of the scale tend to have their own emergent properties, and different levels may be coupled through feedback relationships. [4] Therefore, complex systems should always be analysed or managed simultaneously at different scales.

Self organisation

Self organisation is one of the defining properties of complex systems. The basic idea is that open systems will reorganise at critical points of instability. Holling's adaptive renewal cycle is an illustration of reorganisation that takes place within the cycles of growth and renewal. [4] The self-organisation principle, operationalised through feedback mechanisms, applies to many biological systems, social systems and even to mixture of simple chemicals. High speed computers and nonlinear mathematical techniques help simulate self-organisation by yielding complex results and yet strangely ordered effects. The direction of self-organisation will depend on such things as the system's history; it is path dependent and difficult to predict. [5]

Examples of conceptual framework for analysis

There are several conceptual frameworks developed in relation to the resilience approach.

Role of traditional knowledge

Berkes and colleagues [6] distinguish four sets of elements which can be used to describe social-ecological system characteristics and linkages:

  1. Ecosystems
  2. Local knowledge
  3. People and technology
  4. Property rights institutions

Knowledge acquisition of SESs is an ongoing, dynamic learning process, and such knowledge often emerges with people's institutions and organisations. To remain effective it requires institutional framework and social networks to be nested across scales. [4] [5] It is thus the communities which interact with ecosystems on the daily basis and over long periods of time that possess the most relevant knowledge of resource and ecosystem dynamics, together with associated management practices. [32] [33] Some scholars have suggested that management and governance of SESs may benefit from combination of different knowledge systems; [34] [35] [36] others have attempted to import such knowledge into the scientific knowledge field [37] There also those who have argued that it would be difficult to separate these knowledge systems from their institutional and cultural contexts, [38] and those who have questioned the role of traditional and local knowledge systems in the current situation of pervasive environmental change and globalised societies. [39] [40] Other scholars have claimed that valuable lessons can be extracted from such systems for complex system management; lessons that also need to account for interactions across temporal and spatial scales and organisational and institutional levels, [41] [42] and in particular during periods of rapid change, uncertainty and system reorganisation. [43]

Adaptive cycle

Three levels of a panarchy, three adaptive cycles, and two cross-level linkages (remember and revolt) Panarchy-adaptive-cycles.png
Three levels of a panarchy, three adaptive cycles, and two cross-level linkages (remember and revolt)

The adaptive cycle, originally conceptualised by Holling (1986) interprets the dynamics of complex ecosystems in response to disturbance and change. In terms of its dynamics, the adaptive cycle has been described as moving slowly from exploitation (r) to conservation (K), maintaining and developing very rapidly from K to release (Omega), continuing rapidly to reorganisation (alpha) and back to exploitation (r). [4] Depending on the particular configuration of the system, it can then begin a new adaptive cycle or alternatively it may transform into a new configuration, shown as an exit arrow. The adaptive cycle is one of the five heuristics used to understand social-ecological system behaviour. [44] The other four heuristics are: resilience, panarchy, transformability, and adaptability, are of considerable conceptual appeal, and it is claimed to be generally applicable to ecological and social systems as well as to coupled social-ecological systems. [4] Adaptability is the capacity of a social-ecological system to learn and adjust to both internal and external processes. Transformability is the capacity of a system to transform into a completely new system, when ecological, economic, or social structures make the current system unsustainable. Adaptability and transformability are prerequisites for resilience. [45] [46]

The two main dimensions that determine changes in an adaptive cycle are connectedness and potential. [4] The connectedness dimension is the visual depiction of a cycle and stands for the ability to internally control its own destiny. [47] It "reflects the strength of internal connections that mediate and regulate the influences between inside processes and the outside world" [4] (p. 50). The potential dimension is represented by the vertical axis, and stands for the "inherent potential of a system that is available for change" [47] (p. 393). Social or cultural potential can be characterised by the "accumulated networks of relationships-friendship, mutual respect, and trust among people and between people and institutions of governance" [4] (p. 49). According to the adaptive cycle heuristic, the levels of both dimensions differ during the course of the cycle along the four phases. The adaptive cycle thus predicts that the four phases of the cycle can be distinguished based on distinct combinations of high or low potential and connectedness.

The notion of panarchy and adaptive cycles has become an important theoretical lens to describe the resilience of ecological systems and, more recently, social-ecological systems. Although panarchy theory originates in ecology, it has found widespread applications in other disciplines. For example, in management, Wieland (2021) describes a panarchy that represents the planetary, political-economic, and supply chain levels. [48] Hereby, the panarchical understanding of the supply chain leads to a social-ecological interpretation of supply chain resilience.

Adaptive governance

The resilience of social-ecological systems is related to the degree of the shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state. [49] The concept of resilience is a promising tool for analysing adaptive change towards sustainability because it provides a way for analysing how to manipulate stability in the face of change.

In order to emphasise the key requirements of a social-ecological system for successful adaptive governance, Folke and colleagues [50] contrasted case studies from the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon. Both are complex social-ecological systems that have experiences unwanted degradation of their ecosystem services, but differ substantially in terms of their institutional make-up.

The governance structure in the Everglades is dominated by the interests of agriculture and environmentalists who have been in conflict over the need to conserve the habitat at the expense of agricultural productivity throughout history. Here, a few feedbacks between the ecological system and the social system exist, and the SES is unable to innovate and adapt (the α-phase of reorganisation and growth).

In contrast, different stakeholders have formed an adaptive management workgroup in the case of Grand Canyon, using planned management interventions and monitoring to learn about changes occurring in the ecosystem including the best ways to subsequently manage them. Such an arrangement in governance creates the opportunity for institutional learning to take place, allowing for a successful period of reorganisation and growth. Such an approach to institutional learning is becoming more common as NGOs, scientist and communities collaborate to manage ecosystems. [49]

The concept of social-ecological systems has been developed in order to provide both a promising scientific gain as well as impact on problems of sustainable development. A close conceptual and methodological relation exists between the analysis of social-ecological systems, complexity research, and transdisciplinarity. These three research concepts are based on similar ideas and models of reasoning. Moreover, the research on social-ecological systems almost always uses transdisciplinary mode of operation in order to achieve an adequate problem orientation and to ensure integrative results. [51] Problems of sustainable development are intrinsically tied to the social-ecological system defined to tackle them. This means that scientists from the relevant scientific disciplines or field of research as well as the involved societal stakeholders have to be regarded as elements of the social-ecological system in question. [51]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human ecology</span> Study of the relationship between humans and their natural, social, and built environments

Human ecology is an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study of the relationship between humans and their natural, social, and built environments. The philosophy and study of human ecology has a diffuse history with advancements in ecology, geography, sociology, psychology, anthropology, zoology, epidemiology, public health, and home economics, among others.

Starting in the early 1990s, James F. Moore originated the strategic planning concept of a business ecosystem, now widely adopted in the high tech industry. The basic definition comes from Jim Moore's book, The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems.

Adaptive management, also known as adaptive resource management or adaptive environmental assessment and management, is a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring. In this way, decision making simultaneously meets one or more resource management objectives and, either passively or actively, accrues information needed to improve future management. Adaptive management is a tool which should be used not only to change a system, but also to learn about the system. Because adaptive management is based on a learning process, it improves long-run management outcomes. The challenge in using the adaptive management approach lies in finding the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcome based on current knowledge. This approach has more recently been employed in implementing international development programs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental resource management</span> Type of resource management

Environmental resource management or environmental management is the management of the interaction and impact of human societies on the environment. It is not, as the phrase might suggest, the management of the environment itself. Environmental resources management aims to ensure that ecosystem services are protected and maintained for future human generations, and also maintain ecosystem integrity through considering ethical, economic, and scientific (ecological) variables. Environmental resource management tries to identify factors affected by conflicts that rise between meeting needs and protecting resources. It is thus linked to environmental protection, resource management, sustainability, integrated landscape management, natural resource management, fisheries management, forest management, wildlife management, environmental management systems, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">C. S. Holling</span> Canadian ecologist (1930–2019)

Crawford Stanley "Buzz" Holling, was a Canadian ecologist, and Emeritus Eminent Scholar and Professor in Ecological Sciences at the University of Florida. Holling was one of the conceptual founders of ecological economics.

Ethnoecology is the scientific study of how different groups of people living in different locations understand the ecosystems around them, and their relationships with surrounding environments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health ecology</span> Study of human health and ecosystems

Health ecology is an emerging field that studies the impact of ecosystems on human health. It examines alterations in the biological, physical, social, and economic environments to understand how these changes affect mental and physical human health. Health ecology focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to understanding all the factors which influence an individual's physiological, social, and emotional well-being.

The idea of public ecology has recently emerged in response to increasing disparities over political, social, and environmental concerns. Of particular interest are the processes that generate, evaluate and apply knowledge in political, social, and environmental arenas. Public ecology offers a way of framing sustainability problems, community dynamics and social issues. Forests, watersheds, parks, flora, fauna, air, and water all constitute environmental quality and are therefore public goods. The processes society engages in to negotiate the meaning of these goods, upon which decisions and actions are based, reside within the public domain.

Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. In the context of ecosystems, adaptive capacity is determined by genetic diversity of species, biodiversity of particular ecosystems in specific landscapes or biome regions. In the context of coupled socio-ecological social systems, adaptive capacity is commonly associated with the following characteristics: Firstly, the ability of institutions and networks to learn, and store knowledge and experience. Secondly, the creative flexibility in decision making, transitioning and problem solving. And thirdly, the existence of power structures that are responsive and consider the needs of all stakeholders.

Ecology and Society is a quarterly open access interdisciplinary academic journal published by the Resilience Alliance. It covers an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human well-being ultimately depends. The journal's editors-in-chief are Marco Janssen and Lance Gunderson. C. S. Holling was the founding editor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological resilience</span> Capacity of ecosystems to resist and recover from change

In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and subsequently recovering. Such perturbations and disturbances can include stochastic events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation, fracking of the ground for oil extraction, pesticide sprayed in soil, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Disturbances of sufficient magnitude or duration can profoundly affect an ecosystem and may force an ecosystem to reach a threshold beyond which a different regime of processes and structures predominates. When such thresholds are associated with a critical or bifurcation point, these regime shifts may also be referred to as critical transitions.

Ecological threshold is the point at which a relatively small change or disturbance in external conditions causes a rapid change in an ecosystem. When an ecological threshold has been passed, the ecosystem may no longer be able to return to its state by means of its inherent resilience. Crossing an ecological threshold often leads to rapid change of ecosystem health. Ecological threshold represent a non-linearity of the responses in ecological or biological systems to pressures caused by human activities or natural processes. Critical load, regime shift, critical transition and tipping point are examples of other closely related terms.

Brian Harrison Walker is a scientist specialized in ecological sustainability and resilience in socio-ecological systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem management</span> Natural resource management

Ecosystem management is an approach to natural resource management that aims to ensure the long-term sustainability and persistence of an ecosystem's function and services while meeting socioeconomic, political, and cultural needs. Although indigenous communities have employed sustainable ecosystem management approaches implicitly for millennia, ecosystem management emerged explicitly as a formal concept in the 1990s from a growing appreciation of the complexity of ecosystems and of humans' reliance and influence on natural systems.

In ecology, the theory of alternative stable states predicts that ecosystems can exist under multiple "states". These alternative states are non-transitory and therefore considered stable over ecologically-relevant timescales. Ecosystems may transition from one stable state to another, in what is known as a state shift, when perturbed. Due to ecological feedbacks, ecosystems display resistance to state shifts and therefore tend to remain in one state unless perturbations are large enough. Multiple states may persist under equal environmental conditions, a phenomenon known as hysteresis. Alternative stable state theory suggests that discrete states are separated by ecological thresholds, in contrast to ecosystems which change smoothly and continuously along an environmental gradient.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carl Folke</span> Swedish environmental scientist (born 1955)

Carl Folke, is a trans-disciplinary environmental scientist and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He is a specialist in economics, resilience, and social-ecological systems, viewing such systems as intertwined and potentially unexpected in their interactions. As a framework for resource management, this perspective brings important insights to environmental management, urban planning, and climate adaptation. He suggests ways to improve our ability to understand complex social-ecological interactions, deal with change, and build resilience, often working at smaller scales as a step towards addressing larger scales.

Beatrice Crona is an ecologist, a professor at Stockholm University, and the Executive Director of the Program on Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In 2023 she became a Science Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Fikret Berkes is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba's Natural Resources Institute. Berkes studies community-based natural resources management in societies around the world.

Supply chain resilience is "the capacity of a supply chain to persist, adapt, or transform in the face of change".

Sander Ernst van der Leeuw is an archaeologist, historian, academic, and author. He is an Emeritus Foundation Professor of Anthropology and Sustainability, Director Emeritus of the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability, and the Founding Director of School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University.

References

  1. ↑ Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B., and Welp, M. (2008) Human-Nature-Interaction in the Anthropocene. Potential of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis. [Website], Available from: <https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/oekom/gaia/2008/00000017/00000001/art00018?crawler=true> [Assessed: 28 Feb 2020]
  2. ↑ Redman, C., Grove, M. J. and Kuby, L. (2004). Integrating Social Science into the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social Dimensions of Ecological Change and Ecological Dimensions of Social Change. Ecosystems Vol.7(2), pp. 161–171.
  3. ↑ Machlis, G.E., Force J.E, and. Burch, W.R Jr. (1997) The human ecosystem part I: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, Vol.10, pp.347–367.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gunderson, L. H., and Holling C. S. (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., US.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2003) Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2001) Linking Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. ↑ Adger, N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 24, pp. 347–364.
  8. ↑ Balee, W. (2006). "The research program of historical ecology". Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35: 75–98. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123231.
  9. ↑ Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press.
  10. ↑ Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.
  11. ↑ Winter, Kawika B.; Lincoln, Noa K.; Berkes, Fikret (2018). "The Social-Ecological Keystone Concept: A Quantifiable Metaphor for Understanding the Structure, Function, and Resilience of a Biocultural System". Sustainability. 10 (9): 3294. doi: 10.3390/su10093294 .
  12. ↑ Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and Nature: A necessary unit. [Website], Available from:<http://www.oikos.org/mind&nature.htm> [Assessed: 12 May 2011].
  13. ↑ Folke, C. (2006), Resilience : The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analysis, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16, pp. 253–267.
  14. ↑ Greenberg, J.B and Park, TK. (1994) Political ecology. Journal of Political Ecology, Vol. 1 pp. 1–12.
  15. ↑ Costanza R; Low BS; Ostrom E; Wilson J., eds. (2001). Institutions, Ecosystems, and Sustainability. Boca Raton, FL. ISBN   9780367397753.
  16. ↑ McCay, B.J. and Acheson, J.M. (1987) The Question of the Cotntnons. The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
  17. ↑ Berkes, F. (1989) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Comtnunity-Based Sustainable Development London: Belhaven Press.
  18. ↑ Warren, DM., Slikkerveer, LJ., Brokensha, D. (1995) The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge System. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cumming, G.S. (2011), Spatial Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems, Springer, London.
  20. ↑ Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
  21. 1 2 3 Norberg, J., & Cumming, G. S. (2008). Complexity theory for a sustainable future. New York: Columbia University Press.
  22. ↑ Carpenter, S. R., and Gunderson, L. H. (2001) Coping with collapse: ecological and social dynamics in ecosystem management. BioScience, Vol.51, pp. 451–457.
  23. ↑ Levin, S. A. (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems Vol.1, pp. 431–436.
  24. 1 2 Aravindakshan, S., Krupnik, T.J., Groot, J.C., Speelman, E.N., Amjath-Babu, T.S. and Tittonell, P., 2020. Multi-level socioecological drivers of agrarian change: Longitudinal evidence from mixed rice-livestock-aquaculture farming systems of Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems, 177, p.102695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102695
  25. ↑ Centre for Complex Systems Science (2011), Complexity in Socio-ecological systems. [Website], Available from: <http://www.csiro.au/science/ComplexSocial-EcologicalSystems.html> [Assessed: 15 May 2011].
  26. ↑ Allen T.F.H. and Starr T.B. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  27. ↑ Andeies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, Vol.9 (1), p.18, available from: <www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/>.
  28. ↑ Giampietro M, Mayumi K (2000). Multiple-Scale Integrated Assessment of Societal Metabolism: Introducing the Approach. Population and the Environment 22.2:109–153.
  29. ↑ Giampietro M, Mayumi K (2000). Multiple-Scale Integrated Assessments of Societal Metabolism: Integrating Biophysical and Economic Representations Across Scales. Population and the Environment 22.2:155–210.
  30. ↑ Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K. and Bukkens, S.G.F. 2001. Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: an analytical tool to study development and sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability 3 (4): 275–307.
  31. ↑ Madrid-Lopez C. And Giampietro M. 2015 TheWater Metabolism of Socio-Ecological Systems Reflections and a Conceptual Framework Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(5): 853–865.
  32. ↑ Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, Vol.10, pp.1251–1262.
  33. ↑ Fabricius, C., and Koch, E. (2004). Rights, resources and rural development: community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa. Earthscan, London, UK.
  34. ↑ McLain, R., and R. Lee. (1996) Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 20, pp.437–448.
  35. ↑ Johannes, R. E. (1998) The case of data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 13, pp. 243–246.
  36. ↑ Ludwig, D., Mangel, M., and Haddad, B. (2001) Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 32, pp. 481–517.
  37. ↑ Mackinson, S., and Nottestad, L.( 1998) Combining local and scientific knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, Vol. 8, pp.481–490.
  38. ↑ Berkes, F. (1999) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia and London, UK.
  39. ↑ Krupnik, I., and Jolly, D. (2002) The Earth is faster now: indigenous observation on Arctic environmental change. Arcus, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.
  40. ↑ du Toit, J. T., Walker, B. H., and Campbell, B. M. (2004) Conserving tropical nature: current challenges for ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.19, pp.12–17.
  41. ↑ Barrett, C. B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C., and Gjertsen, H. (2001) Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. BioScience , Vol. 51, pp. 497–502.
  42. ↑ Pretty, J., and Ward, H. (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Development, Vol. 29, pp. 209–227.
  43. ↑ Berkes, F., and Folke, C.. 2002. Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. Pages 121–146 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  44. ↑ Walker, B. H., Gunderson L. H., Kinzig, A. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., and. Schultz, L (2006) A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 13. [Website] Available from: <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/> [Assessed: 12 May 2011].
  45. ↑ Folke, Carl; Carpenter, Stephen; Walker, Brian; Scheffer, Marten; Chapin, Terry; Rockström, Johan (2010-11-15). "Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability". Ecology and Society. 15 (4). doi: 10.5751/ES-03610-150420 . hdl: 10535/7422 . ISSN   1708-3087.
  46. ↑ Walker, Brian; Holling, C. S.; Carpenter, Stephen; Kinzig, Ann (2004-09-16). "Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems". Ecology and Society. 9 (2). doi: 10.5751/ES-00650-090205 . hdl: 10535/3282 . ISSN   1708-3087.
  47. 1 2 Holling, C. S. (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems, Ecosystems, Vol.4(5), pp. 390–405.
  48. ↑ Wieland, A. (2021). Dancing the Supply Chain: Toward Transformative Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57 (1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12248
  49. 1 2 Evans, J. (2011). Environmental Governance, Rutledge, London.
  50. ↑ Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. Holling, C. and Walker, B. (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations, Ambio, Vol.31, pp. 437–440.
  51. 1 2 Jahn, T., Becker, E., Keil, F., and Schramm. E., (2009), Understanding Social-Ecological Systems: Frontier Research for Sustainable Development. Implications for European Research Policy. Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.