Week 1: Foundations
March 30th:
Holling, C. (1973). "Resilience and stability of ecological systems." Annual review of ecology
and systematics 4(1): 1-23.
Very theoretical – the diagrams just about summarized it. He did distinguish between resilience
and stability as essentially opposite, stressing the necessity of flexibility in order to
overcome disturbances and be resilient. Largely important as the first use of the term
resilient and as kick-off for later discussions leading to panarchy and the adaptive cycle.
Holling, C. (1996). "Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people."
Ecological Applications: 733-735.
Holling has now changed his mind about the definition of resilience, falling in line with the more
common perception of the ability of a system to return from a disturbance, closer to the
definition of stability. He emphasizes that our current management system can’t deal
with that kind of dynamic and suggests EBM as a means to cover all the moving parts in
a system. Again, nothing revolutionary, but nice to know who said it first.
April 6th:
Gunderson, L. and C. Holling (2002). Panarchy Synopsis: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems, Island Press. Chapters 1 – 3.
The lazy-8 described. Important to note that he stresses its use in ecological, not social contexts
and that it is not meant to describe all systems as that would make it a not useful tool.
Week 2: Berkes and Folke 1998 book – focus on:
April 8th:
Berkes, F. and C. Folke (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press: 1 - 26.
Begossi, A. (1998). Resilience and neo-traditional populations: the caicaras (Atlantic Forest) and
caboclos (Amazon, Brazil). Linking social and ecological systems. F. Berkes and C. Folke.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 129 -157.
Jodha, N. (1998). Reviving the social system - ecosystem links in the Himalayas. Linking Social
and Ecological Systems. F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
285 - 310.
April 12th:
Finlayson, A. C. and B. McCay (1998). Crossing the threshold of ecosystem resilience: the
commercial extinction of northern cod. Linking social and ecological systems. F. Berkes
and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 311 - 337.
Focuses on the “practical” knowledge (problematizes the use of terms “indigenous” and “traditional”) of
fishers and that of professional scientists and the extent to which public resource management would
benefit from their collaboration. Primarily sees role for practical knowledge in terms of monitoring:
“Skippers monitoring is a relatively untapped resource.” He suggests putting scientists on boats and
letting them observe
Article does not answer these important questions: What is the connection between the form (formal
vs. informal) of data collected and design of policy/institutions? If fisher knowledge were better
collected/communicated, would there be a fundamentally different policy?
Hanna, S. S. (1998). Managing for human and ecological context in the Maine soft shell clam
fishery. Linking social and ecological systems. F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press: 190 - 211.
This is a case study of successful co-management/nested institutions for the management of the
Maine soft shell clam fishery. Decentralization of some management decisions led to
management diversity at the local level. Residents interact with other resource users by
cooperation and reciprocity. Bottom line is context matters for design of institutions for
resource management; i.e. Equity of access due to technology was important in the
Maine soft shell clam fishery as is cooperative generation of scientific information
Palsson, G. (1998). Learning by fishing: pratical engagement and environmental concerns.
Linking Social and Ecological Systems. F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 48 - 66.
Collapse caused not by open access nature of common property but by government policies,
fishing technologies, corporate interests, international situations, and the errors and
uncertainties of science. The revolutionary policies on fishing industry (rationalization)
may constitute a left-handed confirmation of the Holling theory of crisis and revolution
but it does not represent a revolution in the basic structure and process of
management.
(no class April 14th)
Week 3: Panaceas (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39)) – focus on:
April 19th:
Nagendra, H. (2007). "Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15218-15223.10.1073/pnas.0702319104
Ostrom, E. (2007). "A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15181-15187.10.1073/pnas.0702288104
Wilson, J., L. Yan, et al. (2007). "The precursors of governance in the Maine lobster fishery."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 1521215217.10.1073/pnas.0702241104
April 21st:
Anderies, J. M., A. A. Rodriguez, et al. (2007). "Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control
framework in sustainability science." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
104(39): 15194-15199.10.1073/pnas.0702655104
Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). "Beyond panaceas in water institutions." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15200-15205.10.1073/pnas.0702296104
Berkes, F. (2007). "Community-based conservation in a globalized world." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15188-15193.10.1073/pnas.0702098104
Week 4: Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2003 book – pay particular attention to:
April 27th:
Gunderson, L. (2003). Adaptive dancing: interactions between social resilience and ecological
crises. Navigating Social-ecological systems. F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 33 - 52.
Davidson-Hunt, I. J. and F. Berkes (2003). Nature and society through the lens of resilience:
toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. F.
Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 53 - 82.
Colding, J., T. Elmquist, P. Olsson. 2003. Living with disturbance: building resilience in socialecological systems. F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 163 – 186.
Summary: Modern day management practices, striving to reduce the effects of natural
disturbance, actually render the ecosystem more vulnerable to surprise events. In
contrast, small-scale societies, relying heavily on the sustainable management of
ecosystems, practice “backloop management,” where natural disturbances are an
integral part of the social ecological system, and communities are able to respond
accordingly due to flexible management practices. Thus, “ecosystem people” are
distinguished from western resource management institutions because 1) they depend
directly on functioning local ecosystems for survival, and 2) they don’t have the
resources to alter disturbances, so they learn to adapt in the presence of disturbances.
Exemplary case studies include, Samoan farmers, Bangladeshi char-dwellers, and
African pastoralists.
April 28th:
Kendrick, A. 2003. Caribou co-management in northern Canada: fostering multiple ways of
knowing. F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 241
– 268.
Seixas, C.S., F. Berkes. 2003. Dynamics of social – ecological changes in a lagoon fishery in
southern Brazil. F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press: 271 – 298.
Summary: A small-scale fishing lagoon in southern Brazil, only seasonally connected to the
ocean, is examined as a social-ecological system. First, the ecological cycle of the lagoon
is placed within the context of the lazy eight; exploitation, conservation, release, and
renewal are characterized by the status of the channel connecting the lagoon to the
Atlantic, and the ecological processes inherent to the level of connectivity. Next, the
social component of the system is analyzed within the context of alternative state lazy
eights; the collapse of the traditional fisheries governance system gives way to a new
stable state characterized as the development crisis of the 1970s, which in turn gives
way to lagoon restoration in the 1980s. Finally, lagoon restoration collapses with the
onset of the enforcement crisis. The authors seem doubtful that the social-ecological
system will be able to recover from this last stable state because of institutional
instability. The authors identify the following variables affecting social-ecological
resilience in this small-scale lagoon fishery: breakdown of traditional institutions, rapid
technological changes, changes in the local socio-economic system, and institutional
instability across scales.
Folke, C. J. Colding, F. Berkes. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in
social-ecological systems. F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 352 – 387.
In short, Madonna embodies resilience! Synthesizing all the preceding chapters, the authors
posit that systems can be ecologically resilient but socially undesirable, socially resilient
but degrade their ecosystems, or both socially and ecologically resilient. Primarily
concerned with combined social and ecological resilience the authors suggest the
following four critical factors for building resilience and adaptive capacity: 1) accepting
change and uncertainty, 2) nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal, 3)
combining types of knowledge, and 4) creating opportunities for self-organization.
Week 5:
May 4rd: Ecology and Society 11(1):2006 – focus on:
Janssen, M., Ö. Bodin, et al. (2006). "Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in
social-ecological systems." Ecology and Society 11(1): 15.
Kinzig, A., P. Ryan, et al. (2006). "Resilience and regime shifts: assessing cascading effects."
Ecology and Society 11(1): 20.
Wilson, J. A. (2006). "Matching social and ecological systems in complex ocean fisheries."
Ecology and Society 11(1): 9.
th
May 6 : Frameworks of analysis
Anderies, J.M., M.A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom (2004). “A framework to analyze the robustness of
social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective.” Ecology and Society 9 (1):
Jun 2004.
Leslie, H. M., M. Schluter, et al. (2009). "Modeling responses of coupled social-ecological
systems of the Gulf of California to anthropogenic and natural perturbations." Ecological
Research 24(3): 505 - 519.
Week 6: Rights to nature (the book + some):
May 10th: The book chapters: Hanna, S., C. Folke, and K. Maler (1996). Rights to Nature. Washington DC,
Island Press.
Costanza, R. and C. Folke (1996). The Structure and Function of Ecological Systems in Relation
to Property Rights Regimes. Rights to Nature. S. S. Hanna, C. Folke and K.-G. Maler.
Washington DC, Island Press: 13 - 34.
Article was normative, striving to reconcile social and ecological hierarchies.
- Relied on lazy 8, defining humans as a keystone species in the conservation phase
- “systems with an improper balance of longevity across scales can become either
“brittle” when their parts last too long and cannot adapt fast enough or
“unsustainable” when their parts do not last long enough and the higher system’s
longevity is cut unnecessarily short” (21)
- The latent energy in highly organized systems is not commodified well.
- Attempted a framework of stocks and flows incorporating Ostrom’s (1990) design
principles
- Heirarchy is thought of as top-down but really represents a means to discuss crossscale dynamics.
Holling, C. and S. Sanderson (1996). Dynamics of (Dis)harmony in Ecological and Social
Systems. Rights to Nature. S. S. Hanna, C. Folke and K.-G. Maler. Washington DC,
Island Press: 57 - 86.
Overall, an attempt to apply the lazy 8 framework to social systems and incorporate existing
social theory.
- Three sets of relevant social theories: life cycle representations, revolutionary
change models, complex evolving systems
- Humans and their institutions have motivation and intention
o Therefore “is it necessary for a social system or a complex human
organization to face crisis in order to reform, and if so, is a crisis a functional
attribute of the system itself”
o Purposive action of institutions is beyond the individual lifespan, creating a
difference in natural and social time horizons
- Unresolved question: Are social and ecological systems always at the same point in
the cycle?
May 12th:
Berkes, F. and N. Turner (2006). "Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation
practice for social-ecological system resilience." Human Ecology 34(4): 479-494.
Brand, F. (2009). "Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable
development." Ecological Economics 68(3): 605-612.
Week 7:
May 18th: Scale
Young, O., F. Berkhout, et al. (2006). "The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda
for scientific research." Global Environmental Change 16(3): 304-316.
Alessa, L., A. Kliskey, et al. (2007). "Social–ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for
identifying coupled social–ecological space." Landscape and Urban Planning.
Berkes, F. (2006). "From Community-Based Resource Management to Complex Systems: The
Scale Issue and Marine Commons." Ecology and Society 11(1): 45.
May 20th: Moving on
Ostrom, E. 2007. "Sustainable Social-Ecological Systems: An Impossibility?".
Nelson, D., W. Adger, et al. (2007). "Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a
resilience framework."
Carpenter, S., W. Brock, et al. (1999). "Ecological and social dynamics in simple models of
ecosystem management." Conservation Ecology 3(2).
Week 8:
May 24th and 26th: reserved for added articles if we discover something else cool or decide we need
more of a particular aspect.