-
1A Framework for UnderstandingChange
F. Stuart Chapin, III, Carl Folke, and Gary P. Kofinas
Introduction
The world is undergoing unprecedentedchanges in many of the
factors that deter-mine both its fundamental properties andtheir
influence on society. Throughout humanhistory, people have
interacted with andshaped ecosystems for social and
economicdevelopment (Turner et al. 1990, Redman1999, Jackson 2001,
Diamond 2005). Duringthe last 50 years, however, human
activitieshave changed ecosystems more rapidly andextensively than
at any comparable period ofhuman history (Steffen et al. 2004,
Foley et al.2005, MEA 2005d; Plate 1). Earths climate,for example,
is now warmer than at any timein the last 500 (and probably the
last 1,300)years (IPCC 2007a), in part because of atmo-spheric
accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2)released by the burning of
fossil fuels (Fig. 1.1).Agricultural development largely
accountsfor the accumulation of other trace gases that
F.S. Chapin, III ()Institute of Arctic Biology, University of
AlaskaFairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USAe-mail:
[email protected]
contribute to climate warming (see Chapter 12).As human
population increases, in part dueto improved disease prevention,
the increaseddemand for food and natural resources hasled to an
expansion of agriculture, forestry,and other human activities,
causing large-scaleland-cover change and loss of habitats
andbiological diversity. About half the worldspopulation now lives
in cities and depends onconnections with rural areas worldwide
forfood, water, and waste processing (see Chap-ter 13; Plate 2). In
addition, increased humanmobility is spreading plants, animals,
diseases,industrial products, and cultural perspectivesmore rapidly
than ever before. This increasein global mobility, coupled with
increasedconnectivity through global markets and newforms of
communication, links the worldseconomies and cultures, so decisions
in oneplace often have international consequences.
This globalization of economy, culture, andecology is important
because it modifies thelife-support system of the planet (Odum
1989),i.e., the capacity of the planet to meet the needsof all
organisms, including people. The dramaticincrease in the extinction
rate of species (100-to 1,000-fold in the last two centuries)
indicatesthat global changes have been catastrophicfor many
species, although some species,
3F.S. Chapin et al. (eds.), Principles of Ecosystem
Stewardship,DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2 1, Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
-
4 F.S. Chapin et al.
Globalpopulation
Peop
le (b
illion)
0
2
4
6
0
Water use
(10
00 km
)3 yr
1
2
4
6
1800
1750
1850
1900
1950
2000
Northern hemisphere temperature
Tem
p. a
nom
aly
( oC
)
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
Land conversion
% o
f lan
d ar
ea
0
25
50
1800
1750
1850
1900
1950
2000
% o
f fish
erie
s
0
20406080
100Fisheries exploited
Year
Year
Year
Year
1800
1750
1850
1900
1950
2000
1800
1750
1850
1900
1950
2000
Species extinctions
0
# (10
3 )
10
20
30
Human well-being ?
Ecosystemintegrity
? Challenges to ecosystemstewardship
Human drivers
Human impacts
Feedbacksto people
Ecosystemconsequences
Figure 1.1. Challenges to ecosystem stewardship.Changes in human
population and resource con-sumption alter climate and land cover,
which haveimportant ecosystem consequences such as
speciesextinctions and overexploitation of fisheries. These
changes reduce ecosystem integrity and have region-ally variable
effects on human well-being, whichfeeds back to further changes in
human drivers. Panelinserts redrawn from Steffen et al. (2004).
especially invasive species and some diseaseorganisms, have
benefited and expanded theirranges. Human society has both
benefited andsuffered from global changes, with increased
food production, increased income and livingstandards (in parts
of the world), improvedtreatment of many diseases, and longer
lifeexpectancy being offset by deterioration in
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 5
ecosystem services, the benefits that societyreceives from
ecosystems. More than halfof the ecosystem services on which
societydepends for survival and a good life havebeen degradednot
deliberately, but inadver-tently as people seek to meet their
materialdesires and needs (MEA 2005d). Change cre-ates both
challenges and opportunities. Peoplehave amply demonstrated their
capacity to alterthe life-support system of the planet. In thisbook
we argue that, with appropriate steward-ship, this human capacity
can be mobilized tonot only repair but also enhance the capacity
ofEarths life-support system to support societaldevelopment.
The unique feature of the changes describedabove is that they
are directional. In otherwords, they show a persistent trend over
time(Fig. 1.1). Many of these trends have becomemore pronounced
since the mid-twentieth cen-tury and will probably continue or
acceler-ate in the coming decades, even if societytakes concerted
actions to reduce some ratesof change. This situation creates a
dilemmain planning for the future because we cannotassume that the
future world will behave aswe have known it in the past or that our
pastexperience provides an adequate basis to plan
for the future. This issue is especially acute forsustainable
management of natural resources.It is no longer possible to manage
systems sothey will remain the same as in the recentpast, which has
traditionally been the referencepoint for resource managers and
conservation-ists. We must adopt a more flexible approach
tomanaging resourcesmanagement to sustainthe functional properties
of systems that areimportant to society under conditions wherethe
system itself is constantly changing. Man-aging resources to foster
resilienceto respondto and shape change in ways that both
sustainand develop the same fundamental function,structure,
identity, and feedbacksseems cru-cial to the future of humanity and
the Earth Sys-tem. Resilience-based ecosystem stewardship isa
fundamental shift from steady-state resourcemanagement, which
attempted to reduce vari-ability and prevent change, rather than
torespond to and shape change in ways that bene-fit society (Table
1.1). We emphasize resilience,a concept that embraces change as a
basic fea-ture of the way the world works and devel-ops, and
therefore is especially appropriate attimes when changes are a
prominent featureof the system. We address ecosystems that pro-vide
a suite of ecosystem services rather than a
Table 1.1. Contrasts between steady-state resource management,
ecosystem management, and resilience-based ecosystem
stewardship.
Resilience-based ecosystemSteady-state resource management
Ecosystem management stewardship
Reference state: historic condition Historic condition
Trajectory of changeManage for a single resource or
speciesManage for multiple ecosystem
servicesManage for fundamental
socialecological propertiesSingle equilibrium state whose
properties can be sustainedMultiple potential states Multiple
potential states
Reduce variability Accept historical range of variability Foster
variability and diversityPrevent natural disturbances Accept
natural disturbances Foster disturbances that sustain
socialecological propertiesPeople use ecosystems People are part
of the
socialecological systemPeople have responsibility to sustain
future optionsManagers define the primary use of
the managed systemMultiple stakeholders work with
managers to define goalsMultiple stakeholders work with
managers to define goalsMaximize sustained yield and
economic efficiencyManage for multiple uses despite
reduced efficiencyMaximize flexibility of future options
Management structure protectscurrent management goals
Management goals respond tochanging human values
Management responds to and shapeshuman values
-
6 F.S. Chapin et al.
single resource such as fish or trees. We focus onstewardship,
which recognizes managers as anintegral component of the system
that theymanage. Stewardship also implies a sense ofresponsibility
for the state of the system ofwhich we are a part (Leopold 1949).
The chal-lenge is to anticipate change and shape it
forsustainability in a manner that does not leadto loss of future
options (Folke et al. 2003).Ecosystem stewardship recognizes that
soci-etys use of resources must be compatible withthe capacity of
ecosystems to provide services,which, in turn, is constrained by
the life-supportsystem of the planet (Fig. 1.2).
This chapter introduces a framework forunderstanding and
managing resources in aworld where persistent directional changes
arebecoming more pronounced. We first presenta framework for
studying changeone thatintegrates the physical, ecological, and
socialdimensions of change and their interactions. Wethen describe
the general properties of systemsthat magnify or resist change.
Finally we discussgeneral approaches to sustaining desirable
sys-tem properties in a directionally changing worldand present a
road map to the remaining chap-ters, which address these issues in
greater depth.
Earths life support system
Human societies
EconomiesSu
stai
nab
ility
Figure 1.2. Socialecological sustainability requiresthat
societys economy and other human activitiesnot exceed the capacity
of ecosystems to provide ser-vices, which, in turn, is constrained
by the planetslife-support system. Redrawn from Fischer et
al.(2007).
An Integrated SocialEcologicalFramework
Linking Physical, Ecological,and Social Processes
Changes in the Earth System are highlyinterconnected. None of
the changes men-tioned above is purely physical, ecological,
orsocial. Therefore understanding current andfuture change requires
a broad interdisciplinaryframework that draws on the concepts
andapproaches of many natural and social sciences.We must
understand the world, region, orcommunity as a socialecological
system (alsotermed a coupled humanenvironment system)in which
people depend on resources and ser-vices provided by ecosystems,
and ecosystemdynamics are influenced, to varying degrees, byhuman
activities (Berkes et al. 2003, Turner etal. 2003, Steffen et al.
2004). Although the rel-ative importance of social and ecological
pro-cesses may vary from forests to farms to cities,the functioning
of each of these systems, andof the larger regional system in which
they areembedded, is strongly influenced by physical,ecological,
economic, and cultural factors. Theyare, therefore, best viewed,
not as ecological orsocial systems, but as socialecological
systemsthat reflect the interactions of physical, ecologi-cal, and
social processes (Westley et al. 2002).
Forests, for example, are sometimes man-aged as ecological
systems in which the nitrogeninputs from acid rain or the economic
influenceson timber demand are considered exogenousfactors (i.e.,
factors external to the system beingmanaged) and therefore are not
incorporatedinto management planning. Production of lum-ber or
paper, on the other hand, is often man-aged as an economic system
that must balancethe supply and costs of timber inputs against
thedemand for and profits from products withoutconsidering
ecological influences on forest pro-duction. Finally, local
planners make decisionsabout school budgets and the zoning for
devel-opment and recreation, based on assumptionsabout regional
water supply, which depends onforest cover, and economic
projections, whichare influenced by the economic activity of
forestindustries. The system and its components are
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 7
more vulnerable to unexpected changes (sur-prises) when each
subsystem is managed in iso-lation. These surprises might include
harvestrestrictions to protect an endangered species,development of
inexpensive lumber supplies onanother continent, or expansion of
recreationaldemand for forest use by nearby urban resi-dents. More
informed decisions are likely toemerge from integrated approaches
that rec-ognize the interdependencies of regional com-
ponents and account for uncertainty in futureconditions (Ludwig
et al. 2001). Resource stew-ardship policies must therefore be
ecologically,economically, and culturally viable, if they areto
provide sustainable solutions.
In studying the response of socialecologicalsystems to
directional change, we pay par-ticular attention to the processes
that linkecological and social components (Fig. 1.3).The
environment affects people through both
Ecological properties
Climate,regional
biota,etc.
Exogenous controls
Exogenous controls
Social properties
Slowvariables
Fast variables Fast variables
Tem
pora
l sca
le
Ecosystem services Human actorsEnvironmental impacts
Socialimpacts
Inst
itu
tio
nal
resp
on
ses
Social-ecologicalSystem
Regionalgovernance
systems,regional economy,
etc.
Soil resources,functional types,
disturbanceregime,
etc.
Soil nitrate,deer density,
fire event,etc.
Communityincome,
population density,
access to resources,
etc
Wealth andinfrastructure,
cultural tiesto the land,
etc.
Slowvariables
Spatial scale
Globe
Figure 1.3. Diagram of a socialecological system(the rectangle)
that is affected by ecological (left-hand side) and social
properties (right-hand side). Inboth subsystems there is a spectrum
of controls thatoperate across a range of temporal and spatial
scales.At the regional scale exogenous controls respond toglobal
trends and affect slow variables at the scaleof management, which,
in turn, influence fast vari-ables that change more quickly. When
changes in fastvariables persist over long time periods and
large
areas, these effects cumulatively propagate upwardto affect slow
variables, regional controls, and even-tually the entire globe.
Changes in both slow and fastvariables influence environmental
impacts, ecosys-tem services, and social impacts, which,
together,are the factors that directly affect the well-being
ofhuman actors, who modify both ecological and socialsystems
through a variety of institutions. Modifiedfrom Chapin et al.
(2006a).
-
8 F.S. Chapin et al.
direct environmental events such as floodsand droughts and
ecosystem services suchas food and water quality (see Chapter
2).Many economic, political, and cultural pro-cesses also shape
human responses to the physi-cal and biological environment (see
Chapter 3).Human actors (both individuals and groups)in turn affect
their ecological environmentthrough a complex web of social
processes (seeChapter 4). Together these linkages betweensocial and
ecological processes structure thedynamics of socialecological
systems (seeChapter 5).
The concept that society and nature dependon one another is not
new. It was wellrecognized by ancient Greek philosophers(Boudouris
and Kalimtzis 1999); economistsconcerned with the environmental
constraintson human population growth (Malthus 1798);geographers
and anthropologists seeking tounderstand global patterns of land
use andculture (Rappaport 1967, Butzer 1980); andecologists and
conservationists concerned withhuman impacts on the environment
(Leopold1949, Carson 1962, Odum 1989). The complex-ity and
importance of socialecological inter-actions has led many natural
and social sci-ence disciplines to address components of
theinteraction to both improve understanding andsolve problems. For
example, resource man-
agement considers the actions that agencies orindividuals take
to sustain natural resources,but typically pays less attention to
the inter-actions among interest groups that influencehow
management policies develop or how thepublic will respond to
management. Similarly,environmental policy analysis addresses
thepotential interactions of environmental policiesdeveloped by
different organizations, but typ-ically pays less attention to
potential social orecological thresholds (critical levels of
driversor state variables that, when crossed, triggerabrupt changes
or regime shifts) that determinethe long-term effectiveness of
these policies.The breadth of approaches provides a wealth oftools
for studying integrated socialecologicalsystems. Disciplinary
differences in vocabu-lary, methodology, and standards of what
con-stitutes academic rigor can, however, createbarriers to
communication (Box 1.1; Wilson1998). The increasing recognition
that humanactions are threatening Earths life-support sys-tem has
recently generated a sense of urgency inaddressing socialecological
systems in a moreintegrated fashion (Berkes et al. 2003, Clarkand
Dickson 2003, MEA 2005d). This requiresa system perspective that
integrates social andecological processes and is flexible enough
toaccommodate the breadth of potential humanactions and
responses.
Box 1.1. Challenges to Navigating SocialEcological Barriers and
Bridges.
The heading of this box combines the titlesof two seminal books
on integrated socialecological systems (Barriers and Bridgesand
Navigating Social Ecological Systems;Gunderson et al. 1995, Berkes
et al. 2003).These titles capture the essence of the chal-lenges in
integrating natural and social sci-ences. In this book we adopt the
follow-ing conventions in addressing two importantchallenges in
this transdisciplinary integra-tion (i.e., integration that
transcends tradi-tional disciplines to formulate problems innew
ways).
The same word often means differentthings.
1. To a sociologist, adaptation means thebehavioral adjustment
by individuals totheir environment. To an ecologist itmeans the
genetic changes in a pop-ulation to adjust to their environment(in
contrast to acclimation, which entailsphysiological or behavioral
adjustment byindividuals). To an anthropologist adap-tation means
the cultural adjustmentto environment, without specifying
itsgenetic or behavioral basis. In this bookwe use adaptation in
its most generalsense (adjustment to change in environ-ment).
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 9
2. To an engineer or ecologist describing sys-tems with a single
equilibrium, resilienceis the time required for a system to
returnto equilibrium after a perturbation. Tosomeone describing
systems with mul-tiple stable states, resilience is capacityof the
system to absorb a spectrum ofshocks or perturbations and still
retainand further develop the same funda-mental structure,
functioning, and feed-backs. We use resilience in the
lattersense.
3. Natural scientists describe feedbacks asbeing positive or
negative to denotewhether they are amplifying or sta-bilizing,
respectively. These words areoften used in the social sciences
(andin common usage) to mean good orbad. The terminology is
especially con-fusing for socialecological systems,because negative
feedbacks are oftensocially desirable (= good) and pos-itive
feedbacks socially undesirable (=bad). We therefore avoid these
termsand talk about amplifying or stabilizingfeedbacks.
4. Words that represent important conceptsin one discipline may
be meaningless orviewed as jargon in another (e.g., post-modern,
state factor). We define each tech-nical word the first time it is
used and use
only those technical terms that are essentialto convey ideas
effectively.
Approaches that are viewed as good sci-ence in one discipline
may be viewed withskepticism in another.
1. Some natural scientists use systemsmodels to describe (either
quantitativelyor qualitatively) the interactions amongcomponents of
a system (such as a socialecological system). Some social
scien-tists view this as an inappropriate tool tostudy systems with
a strong human ele-ment because it seems too deterministicto
describe human actions. We use com-plex adaptive systems as a
framework tostudy socialecological systems because itenables us to
study the integrated nature ofthe system but recognizes legacies of
pastevents and the path dependence of humanagency as fundamental
properties of themodel.
2. Some natural scientists rely largely onquantitative data as
evidence to test ahypothesis, whereas some social scien-tists make
extensive use of qualitativedescriptions of patterns that are
lessamenable to quantification. We considerboth approaches
essential to understandingthe complex dynamics of
socialecologicalsystems.
A Systems Perspective
Systems theory provides a conceptual frame-work to understand
the dynamics of integratedsystems. A socialecological system
consistsof physical components, including soil, water,and rocks;
organisms (plants, microbes, andanimalsincluding people); and the
productsof human activities, such as food, money, credit,computers,
buildings, and pollution. A socialecological system is like a box
or a board game,with explicit boundaries and rules, enabling usto
quantify the amount of materials (for exam-ple, carbon, people, or
money) in the systemand the factors that influence their flows
into,through, and out of the system.
Socialecological systems can be defined atmany scales, ranging
from a single householdor community garden to the entire planet.
Sys-tems are defined to include those componentsand interactions
that a person most wants tounderstand. The size, shape, and
boundariesof a socialecological system therefore dependentirely on
the problem addressed and theobjectives of study. A watershed that
includesall the land draining into a lake, for example,is an
appropriate system for studying the con-trols over pollution of the
lake. A farm, city,water-management district, state, or
countrymight be a logical unit for studying the effectsof
government policies. A community, nation,
-
10 F.S. Chapin et al.
or the globe might be an appropriate unitfor studying barter and
commerce. A neigh-borhood, community, or multinational regionmight
be a logical unit for studying culturalchange. Defining the most
appropriate unit ofanalysis is challenging because key
ecologicaland social processes often differ in scale andlogical
boundaries (for example, watershedsand water-management districts;
Ostrom 1990,Young 1994). Most socialecological systemsare open
systems, in the sense that there areflows of materials, organisms,
and informationinto and out of the system. We therefore
cannotignore processes occurring outside our definedsystem of
analysis, for example, the movementof food and wastes across city
boundaries.
Socialecological processes are the intercon-nections among
components of a system. Thesemay be primarily ecological (for
example, plantproduction, decomposition, wildlife
migration),socioeconomic (manufacturing, education,fostering of
trust among social groups), or amix of ecological and social
processes (plowing,hunting, polluting). The interactions
amongmultiple processes govern the dynamics ofsocialecological
systems. Two types of inter-actions among components (amplifying
andstabilizing feedbacks) are especially impor-tant in defining the
internal dynamics ofthe system because they lead to
predictableoutcomes (DeAngelis and Post 1991, Chapinet al. 1996).
Amplifying feedbacks (termedpositive feedbacks in the systems
litera-ture) augment changes in process rates andtend to
destabilize the system (Box 1.2).They occur when two interacting
componentscause one another to change in the samedirection (both
components increase or bothdecrease; Fig. 1.4). A disease epidemic
occurs,for example, when a disease infects susceptiblehosts, which
produce more disease organisms,which infect more hosts, etc., until
some otherset of interactions constrains this spiral ofdisease
increase. Overfishing can also lead toan amplifying feedback, when
the decline infish stocks gives rise to price supports thatenable
fishermen to maintain or increase fish-ing pressure despite smaller
catches, leadingto a downward spiral of fish abundance.
Otherexamples of amplifying feedbacks include
Cattle
Grass Shrubs
Soil moisture
A D
EB
C+ +
+
++
+
Resource uptakeCompetitionHerbivoryResource
exploitationDisturbance cycle
ProcessNature of feedback
A or DA+D
BCE
Livelihoods
Fire
StabilizingStabilizingStabilizing
StabilizingAmplifying
Figure 1.4. Examples of linked amplifying and stabi-lizing
feedbacks in socialecological systems. Arrowsshow whether one
species, resource, or condition hasa positive or a negative effect
on another. The feed-back between two species is stabilizing when
thearrows have opposite sign (for example, species 1 hasa positive
effect on species 2, but species 2 has a neg-ative effect on
species 1). The feedback is amplify-ing, when both species affect
one another in the samedirection (for example, more cattle
providing moreprofit, which motivates people to raise more
cattle;feedback loop C in the diagram).
population growth, erosion of cultural integrityin developing
nations, and proliferation ofnuclear weapons.
Stabilizing feedbacks (termed negative feed-backs in the systems
literature) tend toreduce fluctuations in process rates,
although,if extreme, they can induce chaotic
fluctuations.Stabilizing feedbacks occur when two interact-ing
components cause one another to changein opposite directions (Fig.
1.4). For example,grazing by cattle reduces the biomass of
foragegrasses, whereas the grass has a positive effecton cattle
production. Any increase in densityof cattle reduces grass biomass,
which then con-strains the food available to cattle, thereby
sta-bilizing the sustainable densities of both grass
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 11
and cattle at intermediate levels. Other exam-ples of
stabilizing feedbacks include prices ofgoods in a competitive
market and nutrientsupply to plants in a forest. One of the keysto
sustainability is to foster stabilizing feed-backs and constrain
amplifying feedbacks that
might otherwise push the system toward somenew state.
Conversely, if the current state issocially undesirable, for
example, at an aban-doned mine site, carefully selected
amplifyingfeedbacks may shift the system to a preferrednew
state.
Box 1.2. Dynamics of Temporal Change
The stability and dynamics of a systemdepend on the balance of
amplifying and sta-bilizing feedbacks and types and frequenciesof
perturbations. The strength and natureof feedbacks largely govern
the way a sys-tem responds to change. A system with-out strong
feedbacks shows chaotic behav-ior in response to a random
perturba-tion. Chaotic behavior is unpredictable anddepends
entirely on the nature of the pertur-bation. The behavior of a ball
on a surfaceprovides a useful analogy (Fig. 1.5; Hollingand
Gunderson 2002, Folke et al. 2004). The
location of the ball represents the state of asystem as a
function of some variable such aswater availability. In a chaotic
system with-out feedbacks, the surface is flat, and we can-not
predict changes in the state (i.e., location)of the system in
response to a random per-turbation (Fig. 1.5a). This system
structureis analogous to theories that important deci-sions can be
described in terms of the poten-tial solutions and actors that
happen to bepresent at key moments (garbage-can poli-tics; Cohen et
al. 1972, Olsen 2001).
a. b.
c. d.
e. f.
Figure 1.5. The location of the ball represents thestate of a
system in relationship to some ecological orsocial variable (e.g.,
water availability, as representedby the position along the
horizontal axis). Changesin the state of the system in response to
a perturba-tion depend on the nature of system feedbacks
(illus-trated as the shape of the surface). The likelihood
that the system will change its state (location alongthe line)
differs if there are (a) no feedbacks, (b)stabilizing feedbacks,
(c) amplifying feedbacks, (d)alternative stable states, (de)
changes in the internalfeedback structure (complex adaptive
system), and(ef) response of a complex adaptive system to
per-sistent directional changes in a control variable.
A system dominated by stabilizing feed-backs tends to be stable
because the interac-tions occurring within the system minimizethe
changes in the system in response toperturbations. Using our
analogy, stabiliz-ing feedbacks create a bowl-like depressionin the
surface so the ball tends to return tothe same location after a
random perturba-
tion (Fig. 1.5b). The resilience of the sys-tem, in this
cartoon, is the likelihood that itwill remain in the same state
despite per-turbations. This analogy characterizes theperspective
of a balanced view of nature, inwhich there is a carrying capacity
(maximumquantity) of fish, game, or trees that the envi-ronment can
support, allowing managers to
-
12 F.S. Chapin et al.
regulate harvest to achieve a maximum sus-tained yield. This
view is often based on con-siderable depth of biological
understandingbut is incomplete (Holling and Gunderson2002).
A system dominated by amplifying feed-backs tends to be unstable
because the ini-tial change is amplified by interactions occur-ring
within the system. Amplifying feedbackstend to push the system
toward some newstate by making the depressions less deepor creating
elevated areas on the surface(Fig. 1.5c). This analogy
characterizes theview that small is beautiful and that any
tech-nology is bad because it causes change. Thereare certainly
many examples where technol-ogy has led to unfavorable outcomes,
butthis worldview, like the others, is incomplete(Holling and
Gunderson 2002).
Many systems can be characterized byalternative stable states,
each of which isplausible in a given environment. Neighbor-hoods in
US cities, for example, are likely tobe either residential or
industrial but unlikelyto be an even mix of the two. In the
sur-face analogy, alternative stable states rep-resent multiple
depressions in the surface(Fig. 1.5d). A system is likely to return
toits original state (=depression) after a smallperturbation, but a
larger disturbance mightincrease the likelihood that it will shift
tosome alternative state. In other words, thesystem exhibits a
nonlinear response to theperturbation and shifts to a new state if
somethreshold is exceeded. There may also bepathways of system
development, such as thestages of forest succession, in which the
inter-nal dynamics of the system cause it to movereadily from one
state to another. Some of
these depressions may be deep and representirreversible traps.
Others may be shallow, sothe system readily shifts from one state
toanother through time. This worldview incor-porates components of
all the previous per-spectives but is still incomplete.
The previous cartoons of nature implythat the stability
landscape is static. How-ever, each transition influences the
internaldynamics of a complex adaptive system andtherefore the
probability of subsequent tran-sitions, so the shape of the surface
is con-stantly changing (Fig. 1.5e). Reductions inAtlantic cod
populations due to overfishing,for example, increased pressures for
estab-lishment of aquaculture and charter fishingbusinesses, which
then made it less likelythat industrial-scale cod fishing would
returnto the North Atlantic. This analogy of astability landscape
that is constantly evolv-ing suggests that precise predictions of
thefuture state of the system are impossibleand focuses attention
on understanding thedynamics of change as a basis for
stewardship(Gunderson and Holling 2002).
Now imagine that rather than havinga random perturbation in some
importantstate variable like water availability, thisparameter
changes directionally. This ele-ment of directionality increases
the likeli-hood that the system will change in a spe-cific
direction after perturbation (Fig. 1.5f).The stronger and more
persistent the direc-tional changes in exogenous control
vari-ables, the more likely it is that new stateswill differ from
those that we have knownin the past. This represents our concept
ofsystem response to a directionally changingenvironment.
Issues of Scale: Exogenous, Slow,and Fast Variables
Changes in the state of a system depend onvariables that change
slowly but strongly influ-ence internal dynamics. Socialecological
sys-tems respond to a spectrum of controls thatoperate across a
range of temporal and spatial
scales. These can be roughly grouped as exoge-nous controls,
slow variables, and fast variables(Fig. 1.3). We describe these
first for ecologicalsubsystems, then consider their social
counter-parts.
Exogenous controls are factors such asregional climate or biota
that strongly shapethe properties of continents and nations.
They
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 13
remain relatively constant over long time peri-ods (e.g., a
century) and across broad regionsand are not strongly influenced by
short-term,small-scale dynamics of a single forest stand orlake. At
the scale of an ecosystem or watershed,there are a few critical
slow variables, i.e., vari-ables that strongly influence
socialecologicalsystems but remain relatively constant overyears to
decades despite interannual variationin weather, grazing, and other
factors, becausethey are buffered by stabilizing feedbacks
thatprevent rapid change (Chapin et al. 1996,Carpenter and Turner
2000). Soil organic mat-ter, for example, retains pulses of
nutrients fromautumn leaf fall, crop residues, or
windstorms;retains water and nutrients; and releases theseresources
which are then absorbed by plants.The quantity of soil organic
matter is bufferedby feedbacks related to plant growth and lit-ter
production. Critical slow variables includepresence of particular
functional types of plantsand animals (e.g., evergreen trees or
herbivo-rous mammals); disturbance regime (propertiessuch as
frequency, severity, and size that char-acterize typical
disturbances); and the capacityof soils or sediments to supply
water and nutri-ents. Slow variables in ecosystems, in turn,
gov-ern fast variables at the same spatial scale (e.g.,deer or
aphid density, individual fire events)that respond sensitively to
daily, seasonal, andinterannual variation in weather and other
fac-tors. When aggregated to regional or globalscales, changes that
occur in ecosystems, forexample, those mediated by human
activities,can modify the environment to such an extentthat even
regional controls such as climateand regional biota that were once
consideredconstant parameters are now directionallychanging at
decade-to-century time scales(Foley et al. 2005). Regardless of the
causes,persistent directional changes in broad regionalcontrols,
such as climate and biodiversity,inevitably cause directional
changes in crit-ical slow variables and therefore the struc-ture
and dynamics of ecosystems, including thefast variables. The
exogenous and slow vari-ables are critical to long-term
sustainability,although most management and public atten-tion focus
on fast variables, whose dynamics aremore visible.
Analogous to the ecological subsystem, thesocial subsystem can
be viewed as composed ofexogenous controls, critical slow
variables, andfast variables (Straussfogel 1997). These consistof
vertically nested relationships, ranging fromglobal to local, and
linked by cross-scale inter-actions (Ostrom 1999a, Young 2002b,
Adgeret al. 2005). At the sub-global scale a predomi-nant history,
culture, economy, and governancesystem often characterize broad
regions ornation states such as Europe or sub-SaharanAfrica
(Chase-Dunn 2000). These exogenoussocial controls tend to be less
sensitive tointerannual variation in stock-market pricesand
technological change than are the internaldynamics of local
socialecological systems;the exogenous controls constrain local
options.This asymmetry between regional and localcontrols occurs in
part because of asymmetricpower relationships between national and
localentities and in part because changes in a smalllocality must
be very strong to substantiallymodify the dynamics of large
regions. Regionalcontrols sometimes persist for a long time
andchange primarily in response to changes thatare global in extent
(e.g., globalization of mar-kets and finance institutions), but at
other timeschange can occur quickly, as with the collapseof the
Soviet Union in the 1990s or the global-ization of markets and
information (Young etal. 2006). As in the biophysical system, a
fewslow variables (e.g., wealth and infrastructure;property-and-use
rights; and cultural ties to theland) are constrained by regional
controls andinteract with one another to shape fast variableslike
community income or population density.Both slow and fast social
variables can havemajor effects on ecological processes
(Costanzaand Folke 1996, Holling and Sanderson1996).
Systems differ in their sensitivity to differ-ent types of
changes or the range of conditionsover which the change occurs. The
!Kung Sanof the Kalahari Desert will be much more sen-sitive than
people of a rainforest to a 10-cmincrease in annual rainfall
because it repre-sents a doubling of rainfall rather than a
5%increase. Regions also differ in their sensi-tivity to
introduction of new biota (sprucebark beetle, zebra mussel, or West
Nile virus),
-
14 F.S. Chapin et al.
new economic pressures (development of aqua-culture, shifting of
car manufacture to Asia,collapse of the stock market), or new
culturalvalues. There are typically relatively few (oftenonly three
to five) slow variables that are crit-ical in understanding the
current dynamics ofa specific system (Carpenter et al. 2002),
somanagement designed to reduce sensitivity todirectional changes
in slow variables is not animpossible task. The identity of
critical con-trol variables may change over time, however,requiring
continual reassessment of our under-standing of the
socialecological system. Thekey challenge, requiring collaborative
researchby managers and natural and social scientists, isto
identify the critical slow variables and theirlikely changes over
time.
Incorporating Scale, Human Agency,and Uncertainty into Dynamic
Systems
Cross-scale linkages are processes that con-nect the dynamics of
a system to events occur-ring at other times or places (see Chapter
5).Changes in the human population of a region,for example, may be
influenced by the wealthand labor needs of individual families
(finescale), by national policies related to birth con-trol (focal
scale), and by global inequalitiesin living standards that
influence immigration(large scale). Events that occur at each
scaletypically influence events at other scales. Theuniversal
importance of cross-scale linkages insocialecological systems makes
it important tostudy them at multiple temporal and spatialscales,
because different insights and answersemerge at each scale (Berkes
et al. 2003).
Legacies are past events that have largeeffects on subsequent
dynamics of socialecological systems. This generates a
pathdependence that links current dynamics topast events and lays
the foundation for futurechanges (North 1990). Legacies include
theimpact of plowing on soils of a regeneratingforest, the impact
of the Depression in the1930s on economic decisions made by
house-holds 40 years later, and the continuation ofsubsistence
activities by indigenous people whomove from villages to cities.
Because of path
dependence, the current dynamics of a systemalways depend on
both current conditions andthe history of prior events.
Consequently, dif-ferent trajectories can occur at different
timesor places, even if the initial conditions werethe same. Path
dependence is absolutely crit-ical to management, because it
implies thathuman actions taken today, whether construc-tive or
destructive, can influence the future stateof the system. Good
management can make adifference!
Human agency (the capacity of humans tomake choices that affect
the system) is oneof the most important sources of path
depen-dence. Human decisions depend on both pastevents (legacy
effects) and the plans that peoplemake for the future (reflexive
behavior). Thestrong path dependence of socialecologicalsystems is
typical of a general class of systemsknown as complex adaptive
systems. These aresystems whose components interact in waysthat
cause the system to adjust (i.e., adapt)in response to changes in
conditions. This isnot black magic, but a consequence of
inter-actions and feedbacks. Some of the most fre-quent failures in
resource management occurbecause managers and resource users fail
tounderstand the principles by which complexadaptive systems
function. It is therefore impor-tant to understand their dynamics.
Understand-ing these dynamics also provides insights intoways that
managers can achieve desirable out-comes in a system that is
responding simultane-ously to management actions and to
persistentdirectional changes in exogenous controls.
Whenever system components with differ-ent properties interact
spontaneously with oneanother, some components persist and oth-ers
disappear (i.e., the system adapts; Levin1999; Box 1.2). In
socialecological systems,for example, organisms compete or eat
oneanother, causing some species to become morecommon and others to
disappear. Similarly,purchasing or competitive relationships
amongbusinesses cause some firms to persist and oth-ers to fail.
Those components that interactthrough stabilizing feedbacks are
most likelyto persist. This self-organization of compo-nents linked
by stabilizing feedbacks occursspontaneously without any grand
design. It
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 15
causes complex adaptive systems to be rela-tively stable (tend
to maintain their proper-ties over time; DeAngelis and Post 1991,
Levin1999). This self-regulation simplifies manage-ment challenges
in many respects. A complexadaptive system like a forest, for
example, tendsto take care of itself. This differs from adesigned
structure like a car, whose compo-nents do not interact
spontaneously and wheremaintenance must be continually applied just
tokeep the car in the same condition (Levin 1999).
If conditions change enough to alter theinteractions among
system components, the sys-tem adapts to the new conditions, hence
theterm complex adaptive system (Levin 1998).The new balance of
system components, in turn,alters the way in which the system
respondsto perturbations (path dependence), creatingalternative
stable states, each of which couldexist in a given environment (see
Chapter 5).Given that exogenous variables are alwayschanging on all
time scales, socialecologicalsystems are constantly adjusting and
chang-ing. Consequently, it is virtually impossible tomanage a
complex adaptive system to attainconstant performance, such as the
constant pro-duction of a given timber species. System prop-erties
are most likely to change if there aredirectional changes in
exogenous controls. Thestronger and more persistent the
directionalchanges in control variables, the more likely itis that
a threshold will be exceeded, leading toa new state.
If a threshold is exceeded, and the systemchanges radically, new
interactions and feed-backs assume greater importance, and
somecomponents of the previous system may dis-appear. If a region
shifts from a mining to atourist economy, for example, the
communitymay become more concerned about fundingfor education and
regulations that assure cleanwater. The regime shifts that occur as
the sys-tem changes state also depend on the past stateof the
system (path dependence). The presenceof a charismatic leader or
nongovernmentalorganization (NGO), for example, can be crit-ical in
determining whether large cattle ranchesare converted to
conservation easements orsubdivisions when rising land values and
taxesmake ranching unprofitable.
These simple generalizations about complexadaptive systems have
profound implicationsfor resource stewardship: (1) Social and
ecolog-ical components of a socialecological systemalways interact
and cannot be managed in iso-lation from one another. (2) Changes
in socialor ecological controls inevitably alter socialecological
systems regardless of managementefforts to prevent change. (3)
Historical eventsand human actions, including management,
canstrongly influence the pathway of change. (4)The thresholds and
nonlinear dynamics asso-ciated with path dependence, compounded
bylack of information and human volition, con-strain our capacity
to predict future change.Resource management and policy
decisionsmust, therefore, always be made in an envi-ronment of
uncertainty (Ludwig et al. 1993,Carpenter et al. 2006a).
Adaptive Cycles
The long-term stability of systems depends onchanges that occur
during critical phases ofcycles of long-term change. All systems
expe-rience disturbances such as fire, war, reces-sion, change in
leadership philosophy, or clo-sure of manufacturing plants that
cause largerapid changes in key system properties. Suchdisturbances
have qualitatively different effectson socialecological systems
than do short-term variability and gradual change. Adap-tive cycles
provide a framework for describ-ing the role of disturbance in
socialecologicalsystems (Holling 1986). They are cycles of sys-tem
disruption, reorganization, and renewal. Inan adaptive cycle, a
system can be disruptedby disturbance and either regenerate to a
sim-ilar state or be transformed to some new state(Fig. 1.6a;
Holling 1986, Walker et al. 2004).Adaptive cycles exhibit several
recognizablephases. The cycle may be initiated by a distur-bance
such as a stand-replacing wildfire thatcauses a rapid change in
most properties ofthe system. Trees die, productivity
decreases,runoff to streams increases, and public faithin fire
management is shattered. This releasephase occurs in hours to days
and radicallyreduces the structural complexity of the system.Other
factors that might trigger release include
-
16 F.S. Chapin et al.
Connectednessweak strong
Co
nservation
Release
Renewal
Growth
Cap
ital
littl
elo
ts
a. Adaptive cycle
b. Panarchy
Intermediatesize and speed
Large andslow
Small andfast
Revo
ltRe
volt
Reme
mber
Figure 1.6. (a) Adaptive cycle and (b) cross-scalelinkages among
adaptive cycles (panarchy) in asocialecological system. At any
given scale, a systemoften goes through adaptive cycles of release
(col-lapse), renewal (reorganization), growth, and conser-vation
(steady state). These adaptive cycles of changecan occur at
multiple levels of organizations, suchas individuals, communities,
watersheds, and regions.These adaptive cycles interact forming a
panarchy.For example, dynamics at larger scales (e.g., migra-tion
dynamics or wealth) provide legacies, context,and constraints that
shape patterns of renewal (sys-tem memory). Dynamics at finer
scales (e.g., insectpopulation dynamics, household structure) may
trig-ger release (revolt; e.g., insect outbreak). Redrawnfrom
Holling and Gunderson (2002) and Hollinget al. (2002b).
threshold response to phosphorus loading ofa lake, collapse of
the local or regional econ-omy, or a transition from traditional to
inten-sive agriculture. Following release, there is a rel-atively
brief (months to years) renewal phase.For example, after forest
disturbance, seedlingsestablish and new policies for managing
theforest may be adopted. Many things can hap-
pen during renewal: The species and policiesthat establish might
be similar to those presentbefore the fire. It is also a time,
however, whenthere is relatively little resistance to the
estab-lishment of a new suite of species or poli-cies that emerge
from the surrounding land-scape (see Fig. 2.4). These innovations
may leadto a system that is quite different from theprefire system,
i.e., a regime shift. After thisbrief window of opportunity for
change, theforest goes through a growth phase over sev-eral
decades, when environmental resources areincorporated into living
organisms, and policiesbecome regularized. The nature of the
regener-ating forest system is largely determined by thespecies and
regulations that established duringrenewal. During the growth
phase, the forest isrelatively insensitive to potential agents of
dis-turbance. The high moisture content and lowbiomass of early
successional trees, for exam-ple, make regenerating forests
relatively non-flammable. Constant changes in the nature ofthe
forest cause both managers and the publicto accept changing
conditions and regulationsas a reasonable pattern. As the forest
developsinto the steady-state conservation phase, theinteractions
among components of the systembecome more specialized and complex.
Lightand nutrients decline in availability, for exam-ple, leading
to specialization among plants touse different light environments
and differentfungal associations (mycorrhizae) to acquirenutrients.
Similarly, in the policy realm, therelatively constant state of the
forest leads tomanagement rules that are aimed at main-taining this
constancy to provide predictablepatterns of recreation, hunting,
and forest har-vest. Due to the increased interconnectednessamong
these social and ecological variables, theforest becomes more
vulnerable to any factorthat might disrupt this balance, including
fire,drought, changes in management goals, or ashift in the local
economy. Large changes in anyof these factors could trigger a new
release inthe adaptive cycle.
Many human organizations also exhibitcyclic patterns of change.
A business or NGO,for example, may be founded in response toa
perceived opportunity for profit or socialreform. If successful, it
grows amidst constant
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 17
adjustment to changes in personnel and activ-ities. Eventually
it reaches a relatively sta-ble size, at which time the internal
structureand operating procedures are regularized, mak-ing it less
flexible to respond to changes inthe economic or social climate.
When condi-tions change, the business or NGO may eitherenter a new
period of adjustment (growth) ordecline (release), followed by
potential renewalor collapse.
Perhaps the most surprising thing aboutadaptive cycles is that
the sequence of phases(release, renewal, growth, and
conservation)can be used as a way of thinking aboutmany types of
social-ecological systems, includ-ing lakes, businesses,
governments, nationaleconomies, and cultures, although the
sequenceof phases is not always the same (Gundersonet al. 1995).
Clearly the specific mechanismsunderlying cycles in these different
systemsmust be quite different. One of the unsolvedchallenges in
understanding socialecologicalsystems is to determine the general
systemproperties and mechanisms that underlie theapparent
similarities in cyclic patterns of dif-ferent types of systems and
to clarify the dif-ferences. The specific mechanisms of adap-tive
cycles in different types of systems aredescribed in many of the
following chapters.
One of the most important managementlessons to emerge from
studies of adaptivecycles is that socialecological systems
aretypically most vulnerable (likely to change toa new state in
response to a stress or distur-bance) and create their own
vulnerabilitiesin the conservation phase, where they typi-cally
spend most of their time. In this stage,managers frequently seek to
reduce fluctu-ations in ecological processes and preventsmall
disturbances in order to increase theefficiency of achieving
management goals(e.g., the amount of timber to be harvested;number
of houses that can be built; the budgetto pay salaries of
personnel), increasing thelikelihood that even larger disturbances
willoccur (Holling and Meffe 1996, Walker andSalt 2006). Flood
control, for example, reducesflood frequency, which encourages
infrastruc-ture development in floodplains where it isvulnerable to
the large flood that will eventu-
ally occur. Prevention of small insect outbreaksincreases the
likelihood of larger outbreaks.Management that encourages
small-scaledisturbances and innovation during the conser-vation
phase reduces the vulnerability to largerdisruptions (Holling et
al. 1998, Carpenter andGunderson 2001, Holling et al. 2002a).
Thespecific mechanisms that link stability in theconservation phase
to triggers for disruptionare described in later chapters.
Release and crisis provide important oppor-tunities for change
(Gunderson and Holling2002, Berkes et al. 2003; Fig. 1.5b). Someof
these changes may be undesirable (inva-sion of an exotic species,
dramatic shift inpolitical regimes that decrease social
equity),whereas others may be desirable (implemen-tation of
innovative policies that are moreresponsive to change). Recognition
of thesechanging properties of a system through thelens of an
adaptive cycle suggests that effec-tive long-term management and
policy-makingmust be highly flexible and adaptive, looking
forwindows of opportunity for constructive policyshifts.
Most socialecological systems are spatiallyheterogeneous and
consist of mosaics of subsys-tems that are at different stages of
their adap-tive cycles. Interactions and feedbacks amongthese
adaptive cycles operating at differenttemporal and spatial scales
account for theoverall dynamics of the system (termed panar-chy;
Fig. 1.6b; Holling et al. 2002b). A forest, forexample, may consist
of different-aged standsat different stages of regeneration from
loggingor wildfire. In this case, the system as a wholemay be at
steady state (a steady-state mosaic)even though individual stands
are at differentstages in their cycles (Turner et al. 2001). In
gen-eral, there are different benefits to be gainedat different
phases of the cycle, so policies thatpermit or foster certain
disturbances may beappropriate. Many families contain individualsat
various stages of birth, maturation, and deathand benefit from the
resulting diversity of skills,perspectives, and opportunities.
Similarly, in ahealthy economy new firms may establish atthe same
time that other less-efficient firms goout of business. Maintenance
of natural cyclesof fire or insect outbreak produces wildlife
-
18 F.S. Chapin et al.
habitat in the early growth phase and preventsexcessive fuel
accumulation that might other-wise trigger more catastrophic fires.
Perhaps themost dangerous management strategy would beto prevent
disturbance uniformly throughout aregion until all subunits reach a
similar state ofmaturity, making it more likely that the
entiresystem will change synchronously.
Sustainability in a DirectionallyChanging World
Conceptual Frameworkfor Sustainability Science
A systems perspective provides a logical frame-work for managing
changes in socialecologicalsystems. To summarize briefly the
previous sec-tions, the dynamic interactions of ecologicaland
social processes that characterize most oftodays urgent problems
necessitate a socialecological framework for planning and
stew-ardship. Any sustainable solution to a resourceissue must be
compatible with current socialand ecological conditions and their
likely futurechanges. A resource policy that is not eco-logically,
economically, and culturally sustain-able is unlikely to be
successful. Sustainableresource stewardship must therefore be
mul-tifaceted, recognizing the interactions amongecological,
economic, and cultural variables andthe important roles that past
history and futureevents play in determining outcomes in
specificsituations. In addition, systems undergo cyclicchanges in
their sensitivity to external perturba-tions, so management
solutions that may havebeen successful at one time and place may
ormay not work under other circumstances.
The complexity of these dynamics helpsframe the types of
stewardship approaches thatare most likely to be successful. It is
unlikelythat a rigid set of rules will lead to success-ful
stewardship because key decisions mustfrequently be made under
conditions of nov-elty and uncertainty. Moreover, under
currentrapid rates of global environmental and socialchanges, the
current environment for decision-making is increasingly different
from past
conditions that may be familiar to managers orthe future
conditions that must be accommo-dated. The more rapidly the world
changes, theless likely that rigid management approacheswill be
successful. By considering the systemproperties presented above,
however, we candevelop resilience-based approaches that
sub-stantially reduce the risk of undesirable socialecological
outcomes and increase the likelihoodof making good use of
unforeseen opportuni-ties. This requires managing for general
sys-tem properties rather than for narrowly definedproduction
goals. In this section, we present aframework for this approach
that is describedin detail in subsequent chapters.
Sustaining the desirable features of our cur-rent world for
future generations is an impor-tant societal goal. The challenge of
doing soin the face of persistent directional trends inunderlying
controls has led to an emerging sci-ence of sustainability (Clark
andDickson 2003).Sustainability has been adopted as a centralgoal
of many local, national, and internationalplanning efforts, but it
is often unclear exactlywhat it is or how to achieve it. In this
bookwe use the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP)
definition of sustainability:the use of the environment and
resources tomeet the needs of the present without com-promising the
ability of future generations tomeet their own needs (WCED 1987).
Accord-ing to this definition, sustainability requiresthat people
be able to meet their own needs,i.e., to sustain human well-being
(that is, thebasic material needs for a good life, freedomand
choice, good social relations, and personalsecurity) now and in the
future (Dasgupta2001; see Chapter 3). Since sustainability
andwell-being are value-based concepts, there areoften conflicting
visions about what shouldbe sustained and how sustainability should
beachieved. Thus the assessment of sustainabil-ity is as much a
political as a scientific pro-cess and requires careful attention
to whosevisions of sustainability are being addressed(Shindler and
Cramer 1999). Nonetheless, anyvision of sustainability ultimately
depends onthe life-support capacity of the environmentand the
generation of ecosystem services(see Chapter 2).
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 19
Types and Substitutability of Capital
Sustainability requires that the productive baserequired to
support well-being bemaintained orincreased over time. Well-being
can be definedin economic terms as the present value offuture
utility, i.e., the capacity of individualsor society to meet their
own needs (Dasguptaand Maler 2000, Dasgupta 2001). Well-beingalso
has important social and cultural dimen-sions (see Chapter 3), but
the economic def-inition enables us to frame sustainability ina
systems context. Sustainability requires thatthe total capital, or
productive base (assets) ofthe system, be sustained. This capital
has nat-ural, built (manufactured), human, and socialcomponents
(Arrow et al. 2004). Natural cap-ital consists of both nonrenewable
resources(e.g., oil reserves) and renewable ecosystemresources
(e.g., plants, animals, and water) thatsupport the production of
goods and serviceson which society depends. Built capital
consistsof the physical means of production beyondthat which occurs
in nature (e.g., tools, clothing,shelter, dams, and factories).
Human capital isthe capacity of people to accomplish their goals;it
can be increased through various forms oflearning. Together, these
forms of capital con-stitute the inclusive wealth of the system,
i.e.,the productive base (assets) available to soci-ety. Although
not included in the formal defini-tion of inclusive wealth, social
capital is anotherkey societal asset. It is the capacity of
groupsof people to act collectively to solve problems(Coleman
1990). Components of each of theseforms of capital change over
time. Naturalcapital, for example, can increase throughimproved
management of ecosystems, includ-ing restoration or renewal of
degraded ecosys-tems or establishment of networks of
marine-protected areas; built capital through invest-ment in
bridges or schools; human capitalthrough education and training;
and social cap-ital through development of new partnershipsto solve
problems. Increases in this productivebase constitute genuine
investment. Investmentis the increase in the quantity of an asset
timesits value. Sustainability requires that genuineinvestment be
positive, i.e., that the productivebase (genuine wealth) not
decline over time
(Arrow et al. 2004). This provides an objectivecriterion for
assessing whether management issustainable.
To some extent, different forms of capital cansubstitute for one
another, for example, naturalwetlands can serve water purification
functionsthat might otherwise require the constructionof expensive
water treatment facilities. Well-informed leadership may be able to
implementmore cost-effective solutions to a given prob-lem (a
substitution of human for economic cap-ital). However, there are
limits to the extentto which different forms of capital can be
sub-stituted (Folke et al. 1994). Water and food,for example, are
essential for survival, and noother forms of capital can completely
substi-tute for them (see Chapter 12). They there-fore have
extremely high value to society whenthey become scarce. Declines in
the trust thatsociety has in its leadership; sense of
culturalidentity; the capacity of agricultural soils toretain
sufficient water to support production;or the presence of species
that pollinate criti-cal crops, for example, cannot be readily
com-pensated by substituting other forms of capital.Losses of many
forms of human, social, and nat-ural capital are especially
problematic becauseof the impossibility or extremely high costsof
providing appropriate substitutes (Folkeet al. 1994, Daily 1997).
We therefore focusparticular attention on ways to sustain
thesecomponents of capital, without which futuregenerations cannot
meet their needs (Arrowet al. 2004).
Well-informed managers often have guide-lines for sustainably
managing the componentsof inclusive wealth. For example,
harvestingrates of renewable natural resources shouldnot exceed
regeneration rates; waste emissionsshould not exceed the
assimilative capacityof the environment; nonrenewable
resourcesshould not be exploited at a rate that exceedsthe creation
of renewable substitutes; edu-cation and training should provide
opportu-nities for disadvantaged segments of society(Barbier 1987,
Costanza and Daly 1992, Folkeet al. 1994).
The concept of maintaining positive genuineinvestment as a basis
for sustainability is impor-tant because it recognizes that the
capital assets
-
20 F.S. Chapin et al.
of socialecological systems inevitably changeover time and that
people differ through timeand across space in the value that they
placeon different forms of capital. If the productivebase of a
system is sustained, future generationscan make their own choices
about how best tomeet their needs. This defines criteria for
decid-ing whether certain practices are sustainable ina changing
world. There are substantial chal-lenges in measuring changes in
various forms ofcapital, in terms of both their quantity and
theirvalue to society (see Chapter 3). Nonetheless,the best current
estimates suggest that manu-factured and human capital have
increased inthe last 50 years in most countries but that nat-ural
capital has declined as a result of deple-tion of renewable and
nonrenewable resourcesand through pollution and loss of the
functionalbenefits of biodiversity (Arrow et al. 2004). Insome
countries, especially some of the poorerdeveloping nations, the
loss of natural capitalis larger than increases in manufactured
andhuman capital, indicating a clearly unsustain-able pathway of
development (MEA 2005d).Some argue that there have also been
substan-tial decreases in social capital as a result
ofmodernization and urban life (Putnam 2000).
Managing Change in Ways that FosterSustainability
Managing for sustainability requires atten-tion to changes
typical of complex adaptivesystems. In the previous section we
definedcriteria to assess sustainability. These crite-ria are of
little use if the system to whichthey are applied changes
radically. Now wemust place sustainability in the context of
the
directional changes in factors that govern theproperties of most
socialecological systems.Three broad categories of outcome are
possi-ble: (1) persistence of the fundamental prop-erties of the
current system through adapta-tion, (2) transformation of the
system to afundamentally different, potentially more desir-able
state, or (3) passive changes (often degra-dation to a
less-favorable state) of the sys-tem as a result of failure of the
system toadapt or transform. Intermediate outcomesare also
possible, if some components (e.g.,ecological subsystems,
institutions, or socialunits) of the system persist, others
transform,and others degrade (Turner et al. 2003). Sus-tainability
implies the persistence of the fun-damental properties of the
system or of activetransformation through deliberate substitutionof
different forms of capital to meet societysneeds in new ways. In
contrast, degradationimplies the loss of inclusive wealth and
there-fore the potential to achieve sustainability.
How can we manage the dynamics of changeto improve the chances
for persistence ortransformation? Four general approaches havebeen
identified as ways to foster sustainabil-ity under conditions of
directional change:(1) reduced vulnerability, (2) enhanced
adap-tive capacity, (3) increased resilience, and(4) enhanced
transformability. Each of theseapproaches emphasizes a different
set ofprocesses by which sustainability is fostered(Table 1.2, Fig.
1.7). Vulnerability addresses thenature of stresses that cause
change, the sensi-tivity of the system to these changes, and
theadaptive capacity to adjust to change. Adap-tive capacity
addresses the capacity of actorsor groups of actors to adjust so as
to minimizethe negative impacts of changes. Resilience
Table 1.2. Assumptions of frameworks addressing long-term human
well-being. Modified from Chapin et al.(2006a).
Assumed change in Nature of mechanisms Other approachesFramework
exogenous controls emphasized often incorporated
Vulnerability Known System exposure and sensitivity todrivers;
equity
Adaptive capacity, resilience
Adaptive capacity Known or unknown Learning and innovation
NoneResilience Known or unknown Within-system feedbacks and
adaptive governanceAdaptive capacity,
transformabilityTransformability Directional Learn from crisis
Adaptive capacity, resilience
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 21
Learning, coping,
innovating, adapting
Drivers System dynamics Outcomes
Externaldrivers
Imp
acts
Inte
ract
ion
s
Sensitivity
Natural &human capital
Biotic &social
interactions
Vulnerability
Adaptability
Resilience
Transformability
Persistence
Activelynavigated
transformation
Unintendedtransformation
Exp
osu
re
Figure 1.7. Conceptual framework linking humanadaptive capacity,
vulnerability, resilience, and trans-formability. See text for
definition of terms. Thesystem (e.g., household, community, nation,
etc.)responds to a suite of interacting drivers (stresses,events,
shocks) to produce one of three potentialoutcomes: (1) persistence
of the existing systemthrough resilience; (2) actively navigated
transfor-mation to a new, potentially more beneficial statethrough
transformability; or (3) unintended trans-formation to a new state
(often degraded) due tovulnerability and the failure to adapt or
transform.These three outcomes are not mutually exclusive,because
some components (e.g., ecological subsys-tems, institutions, or
social units) of the system maypersist, others transform, and
others degrade. Thesensitivity of the system to perturbations
dependson its exposure (intensity, frequency, and duration)to each
perturbation, the interactions among dis-tinct perturbations, and
critical properties of the sys-tem. The system response to the
resulting impacts
depends on its adaptive capacity (i.e., its capacity tolearn,
cope, innovate, and adapt). Adaptive capac-ity, in turn, depends on
the amount and diversityof social, economic, physical, and natural
capitaland on the social networks, institutions, and entitle-ments
that influence how this capital is distributedand used. System
response also depends on effec-tiveness of cross-scale linkages to
changes occurringat other temporal and spatial scales. Those
compo-nents of the system characterized by strong stabi-lizing
feedbacks and adaptive capacity are likely tobe resilient and
persist. Alternatively, if the existingconditions are viewed as
untenable, a high adaptivecapacity can contribute to actively
navigated trans-formation, the capacity to change to a new,
poten-tially more beneficial state of the system or sub-system. If
adaptive capacity of some componentsis insufficient to cope with
the impacts of stresses,they are vulnerable to unintended
transformationto a new state that often reflects degradation
inconditions.
incorporates adaptive capacity but also entailsadditional
system-level attributes of socialecological systems that provide
flexibility toadjust to change. Transformability addressesactive
steps that might be taken to change thesystem to a different,
potentially more desirablestate. Although anthropologists,
ecologists, and
geographers developed these approaches some-what independently
(Janssen et al. 2006), theyare becoming increasingly integrated
(Berkeset al. 2003, Turner et al. 2003, Young et al.2006). This
integration of ideas provides pol-icy makers and managers with an
increasinglysophisticated and flexible tool kit to address
-
22 F.S. Chapin et al.
the challenges of sustainability in a directionallychanging
world. We apply the term resilience-based ecosystem stewardship to
this entiresuite of approaches to sustainability, becauseof its
emphasis on sustaining functional proper-ties of socialecological
systems over the longterm despite perturbation and change.
Theseissues represent the core challenges of man-aging
socialecological systems sustainably. Wenow briefly outline this
suite of approaches.
Vulnerability
Vulnerability is the degree to which a sys-tem is likely to
experience harm due to expo-sure to a specified hazard or stress
(Turneret al. 2003, Adger 2006). Vulnerability theoryis rooted in
socioeconomic studies of impactsof events (e.g., floods or wars) or
stresses (e.g.,chronic food insecurity) on social systems buthas
been broadened to address responses ofentire socialecological
systems. Vulnerabilityanalysis deliberately addresses human
valuessuch as equity and well-being. Vulnerability toa given stress
can be reduced by (1) reducingexposure to the stress (mitigation);
(2) reduc-ing sensitivity of the system to stress by sustain-ing
natural capital and the components of well-being, especially for
the disadvantaged; and/or(3) increasing adaptive capacity and
resilience(see below) to cope with stress (Table 1.3;Turner et al.
2003). The incorporation ofadaptive capacity and resilience as
integralcomponents of the vulnerability framework(Turner et al.
2003, Ford and Smit 2004) illus-trates the integration of different
approaches tosustainability science.
Exposure to a stress can be reduced byminimizing its intensity,
frequency, duration,or extent. Prevention of pollution or banningof
toxic pesticides, for example, reduces thevulnerability of people
who would otherwisebe exposed to these hazards. Mitigation(reduced
exposure) is especially challengingwhen the stress is the
cumulative effect of pro-cesses occurring at scales that are larger
thanthe system being managed. Anthropogeniccontributions to climate
warming through theburning of fossil fuels, for example, is
globally
Table 1.3. Principal sustainability approaches andmechanisms.
Adapted fromLevin (1999), Folke et al.(2003), Turner et al. (2003),
Chapin et al. (2006a),Walker et al. (2006).
VulnerabilityReduce exposure to hazards or stressesReduce
sensitivity to stressesSustain natural capitalMaintain components
of well-beingPay particular attention to vulnerability of the
disadvantagedEnhance adaptive capacity and resilience (see
below)
Adaptive capacityFoster biological, economic, and cultural
diversityFoster social learningExperiment and innovate to test
understandingSelect, communicate, and implement appropriate
solutions.ResilienceEnhance adaptive capacity (see above)Sustain
legacies that provide seeds for renewalFoster a balance between
stabilizing feedbacks and
creative renewalAdapt governance to changing conditions
TransformabilityEnhance diversity, adaptation, and
resilienceIdentify potential future options and pathways to
get thereEnhance capacity to learn from crisisCreate and
navigate thresholds for transformation
dispersed, so it cannot be reversed by actionstaken solely by
those regions that experiencegreatest impacts of climatic change
(McCarthyet al. 2005). Other globally or regionally dis-persed
stresses include inadequate suppliesof clean water and uncertain
availability ofnutritious food (Steffen et al. 2004, Kaspersonet
al. 2005).
Sensitivity to a stress can be reduced in atleast three ways:
(1) sustaining the slow eco-logical variables that determine
natural capital;(2) maintaining key components of well-being;and
(3) paying particular attention to theneeds of the disadvantaged
segments of soci-ety, who are generally most vulnerable. Thepoor or
disadvantaged, for example, are espe-cially vulnerable to food
shortages or eco-nomic downturns, and people living in flood-plains
or the wildlandurban interface areespecially vulnerable to flooding
or wild-fire, respectively. An understanding of the
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 23
causes of differential vulnerability can lead tostrategies for
targeted interventions to reduceoverall vulnerability of the
socialecologicalsystem.
The causes of differential vulnerability areoften deeply rooted
in the slow variables thatgovern the internal dynamics of society,
suchas power relationships or distribution of land-use rights among
segments of society (seeChapter 3). Conventional vulnerability
anal-ysis assumes that the stresses are known orpredictable (i.e.,
either steady state or chang-ing in a predictable fashion).
However, long-term reductions in vulnerability often
requireattention to adaptive capacity and resilience atmultiple
scales in addition to targeted effortsto reduce exposure and
sensitivity to knownstresses.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity (or adaptability) is thecapacity of actors,
both individuals and groups,to respond to, create, and shape
variabilityand change in the state of the system (Folkeet al. 2003,
Walker et al. 2004, Adger et al.2005). Although the actors in
socialecologicalsystems include all organisms, we focus
par-ticularly on people in addressing the role ofadaptive capacity
in socialecological change,because human actors base their actions
notonly on their past experience but also on theircapacity to plan
for the future (reflexive action).This contrasts with evolution,
which shapes theproperties of organisms based entirely on
theirgenetic responses to past events. Evolutionhas no
forward-looking component. Adaptivecapacity depends on (1)
biological, economic,and cultural diversity that provides the
buildingblocks for adjusting to change; (2) the capacityof
individuals and groups to learn how theirsystem works and how and
why it is changing;(3) experimentation and innovation to testthat
understanding; and (4) capacity to governeffectively by selecting,
communicating,and implementing appropriate solutions(Table 1.3) We
discuss the social and culturalbases of adaptive capacity in
Chapters 3 and
4 and here focus on its relationship to systemproperties.
Sources of biological, economic, and cul-tural diversity provide
the raw material onwhich adaptation can act (Elmqvist et al.
2003,Norberg et al. 2008). In this way it defines theoptions
available for adaptation. People canaugment this range of options
through learning,experimentation, and innovation. This capac-ity to
create new options is strongly influencedby peoples access to
built, natural, human,and social capital. Societies with little
accessto capital are constrained in their capacity toadapt. People
threatened with starvation, forexample, may degrade natural capital
by over-grazing to meet their immediate food needs,thereby reducing
their potential to cope withdrought or future food shortage. Rich
coun-tries, on the other hand, have greater capac-ity to engineer
solutions to cope with floods,droughts, and disease outbreaks.
Natural cap-ital also contributes in important ways toadaptive
capacity, although its role is oftenunrecognized until it has been
degraded. Sys-tems that have experienced severe soil erosion,for
example, have fewer options with whichto experiment and innovate
during times ofdrought, and highly engineered systems thathave lost
their capacity to store floodwatershave fewer options to adapt in
response tofloods. The role of human capital in adaptivecapacity is
especially important. It is muchmorethan formal education. It
depends on an under-standing of how the system responds to
change,which often comes from experience and localknowledge of past
responses to extreme eventsor stresses. As the world changes, and
new haz-ards and stresses emerge, this understandingmay be
insufficient. Willingness to innovate andexperiment to test what
has been learned and toexplore new approaches is crucial to
adaptivecapacity.
Social capital through networking to select,communicate, and
implement potential solu-tions is another key component of
adaptivecapacity. Leadership, for example, is often crit-ical in
building trust, making sense of complexsituations, managing
conflict, linking actors, ini-tiating partnerships among groups,
compilingand generating knowledge, mobilizing broad
-
24 F.S. Chapin et al.
support for change, and developing and com-municating visions
for change (Folke et al. 2005;see Chapter 5). It takes more than
leaders,however, for society to adapt to change. Socialnetworks are
critical in effectively mobilizingresources at times of crisis
(e.g., war or floods)and in providing a safety net for vulnerable
seg-ments of society (see Chapters 4 and 5).
In the context of sustainability, adaptivecapacity represents
the capacity of a socialecological system to make appropriate
substi-tutions among forms of capital to maintain orenhance
inclusive wealth. In this way the sys-tem retains the potential for
future generationsto meet their needs.
Resilience
Resilience is the capacity of a socialecologicalsystem to absorb
a spectrum of shocks orperturbations and to sustain and develop
itsfundamental function, structure, identity, andfeedbacks through
either recovery or reor-ganization in a new context (Holling
1973,Gunderson and Holling 2002, Walker et al.2004, Folke 2006).
The unique contribution ofresilience theory is the recognition and
identifi-cation of several possible system properties thatfoster
renewal and reorganization after pertur-bations (Holling 1973).
Resilience depends on(1) adaptive capacity (see above); (2)
biophysi-cal and social legacies that contribute to diver-sity and
provide proven pathways for rebuild-ing; (3) the capacity of people
to plan for thelong term within the context of uncertainty
andchange; (4) a balance between stabilizing feed-backs that buffer
the system against stressesand disturbance and innovation that
createsopportunities for change; and (5) the capacityto adjust
governance structures to meet chang-ing needs (Holling and
Gunderson 2002, Folkeet al. 2003, Walker et al. 2006; Table 1.3).
Lossof resilience pushes a system closer to its lim-its. When
resilience has been eroded, a distur-bance, like a disease, storm,
or stock marketfluctuation, that previously shook and revital-ized
the resilient system, might now push thefragile system over a
threshold into an alter-native state (a regime shift) with a new
trajec-
tory of change. Such system changes radicallyalter the flow of
ecosystem services (Chapter 2)and associated livelihoods and
well-being ofpeople and societies. Clearly, resilience is
anessential feature of resource stewardship underconditions of
uncertainty and change, so thisapproach to resource management is
evenmoreimportant today than it has been in the past.
We have already discussed the role of sta-bilizing feedbacks in
buffering systems fromchange and the role of adaptive capacity
incoping with the impacts of those changes thatoccur. Sources of
diversity, which is essen-tial for adaptation, are especially
important inthe focal system and surrounding landscape attimes of
crisis, i.e., during the renewal phaseof adaptive cycles, when
there is less resis-tance to establishment of new entities.
Fosteringsmall-scale variability and change logicallycontributes to
resilience because it maintainswithin the system those components
that arewell adapted to each phase of the adaptivecycleranging from
the renewal to the con-servation phase. This reduces the
likelihoodthat the inevitable disturbances will have catas-trophic
effects. Conversely, preventing small-scale disturbances such as
insect outbreaks orfires tends to eliminate
disturbance-adaptedcomponents, thereby reducing the capacity ofthe
system to cope with disturbance.
Biophysical and social legacies contribute toresilience through
their contribution to diver-sity. Legacies provide species,
conditions, andperspectives that may not be widely repre-sented in
the current system. A buried seedpool or stems that resprout after
fire, for exam-ple, give rise to a suite of early
successionalspecies that are well adapted to
postdisturbanceconditions but may be uncommon in the matureforest.
Similarly, the stories and memories ofelders and the written
history of past eventsoften provide insight into ways in which
peoplecoped with past crises as well as ideas for futureoptions
that might not otherwise be considered.This often occurs by drawing
on social memory,the social legacies of knowing how to do
thingsunder different circumstances. A key challengeis how to
foster and maintain social memory attimes of gradual change, so it
is available whena crisis occurs.
-
1 A Framework for Understanding Change 25
One of the key contributions of resiliencetheory to resource
stewardship is the recogni-tion that complex adaptive systems are
con-stantly changing in ways that cannot be fullypredicted or
controlled, so decisions mustalways be made in an environment of
uncer-tainty. Research and awareness of processesoccurring at a
wide range of scales (e.g.,the dynamics of potential pest
populations orbehavior of global markets) can reduce uncer-tainty
(Adger et al. 2005, Berkes et al. 2005),but managing for
flexibility to respond to unan-ticipated changes is essential. This
contrastswith steady-state management approaches thatseek to reduce
variability and change as a wayto facilitate efficient harvest of a
given resourcesuch as fish or trees (Table 1.1).
Transformability and Regime Shifts
Transformability is the capacity to reconcep-tualize and create
a fundamentally new sys-tem with different characteristics (Walker
et al.2004; see Chapter 5). There will always be acreative tension
between resilience (fixing thecurrent system) and transformation
(seeking anew, potentially more desirable state) becauseactors in
the system usually disagree aboutwhen to fix things and when to cut
losses andmove to a new alternative structure (Walkeret al. 2004).
Actively navigated transformationsrequire a paradigm shift that
reconceptualizesthe nature of the system. During transforma-tion,
people recognize (or hypothesize) a fun-damentally different set of
critical slow vari-ables, internal feedbacks, and societal
goals.Unintended transformations can also occur insituations where
management efforts have pre-vented adjustment of the system to
changingconditions, resulting in a fundamentally differ-ent system
(often degraded) characterized bydifferent critical slow variables
and feedbacks.The dividing line between persistence of a
givensystem and transformation to a new state issometimes fuzzy.
Total system collapse seldomoccurs (Turner andMcCandless 2004,
Diamond2005). Nonetheless, actively navigated trans-formations of
important components of a sys-tem are frequent (e.g., from an
extractive to
a tourism-based economy). In general, diver-sity, adaptive
capacity, and other componentsof resilience enhance
transformability becausethey provide the seeds for a new beginning
andthe adaptive capacity to take advantage of theseseeds.
Transformations are often triggered by crisis,so the capacity to
plan for and recognize oppor-tunities associated with crisis
contributes totransformability (Gunderson and Holling 2002,Berkes
et al. 2003). Crisis is a time when soci-ety, by definition, agrees
that some componentsof the present system are dysfunctional.
Duringcrisis, society is more likely to consider novelalternatives.
It is also a time when, if novel solu-tions are not seized, the
system can becomeentrenched in the very policies that led to
crisis,increasing the likelihood of unintended trans-formations.
Climate-induced increases in wild-fires in the western USA, for
example, threatenhomes that have been built in the wildlandurban
interface. One potential transformationwould be policies that cease
assuming publicresponsibility for private homes built in
remotefire-prone areas and instead encourage moredense development
of areas that could be pro-tected from fire and served by public
trans-portation. This would reduce the need and costof wildfire
suppression, increase the economicefficiency of public
transportation, and reducethe use of fossil fuels. Alternatively,
currentpolicies of fire suppression and dispersed res-idential
development in forested lands mightpersist and magnify the risk of
catastrophicloss of life and property as climate warmingincreases
wildfire risk and fire suppression leadsto further fuel
accumulation.
Sometimes systems exhibit abrupt transi-tions (regime shifts) to
alternate states becauseof threshold responses to persistent
changes inone or more slow variables. Continued phos-phorus inputs
to clearwater lakes, for example,may lead to abrupt transitions to
a turbid-wateralgal-dominated regime (Carpenter 2003). Sim-ilarly,
persistent overgrazing can cause shrubencroachment and transition
from grasslandto shrubland (Walker et al. 2004). Regimeshifts are
large changes in ecosystems thatinclude both changes in stability
domains ofa given system (e.g., clearwaterturbid-water
-
26 F.S. Chapin et al.
transitions; Fig. 1.7d) and system transforma-tions (Carpenter
2003, Groffman et al. 2006).
Challenges to Sustainability
The major challenges to sustainability varytemporally and
regionally. Issues of sustainabil-ity are often prominent in
developing nations,especially where substantial poverty,
inade-quate educational opportunities, and insuffi-cient health
care limit well-being (Kaspersonet al. 2005). These situations
sometimes coin-cide with a high potential for
environmentaldegradation, for example, soil erosion and
con-tamination of water supplies, as people try tomeet their
immediate survival needs under cir-cumstances of inadequate social
and economicinfrastructure. Sustainable development seeksto improve
well-being, while at the same timeprotecting the natural resources
on which soci-ety depends (WCED 1987). In other words,it seeks
directional changes in some under-lying controls, but not others.
Questions areoften raised about whether sustainable devel-opment
can indeed be achieved, given its twingoals of actively promoting
economic devel-opment while sustaining natural capital.
Thefeasibility of sustainable development dependson the multiple
effects of development on sys-tem properties and the extent to
which thesenew system properties can be sustained overthe long
term. In other words, how does devel-opment influence the slow
variables that gov-ern the properties of socialecological
systemsand how can t