David H. M. Cumming

Scale Mismatches in Social-Ecological Systems: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions

Scale is a concept that transcends disciplinary boundaries. In ecology and geography, scale is usually defined in terms of spatial and temporal dimensions. Sociological scale also incorporates space and time, but adds ideas about representation and organization. Although spatial and temporal location determine the context for social and ecological dynamics, social-ecological interactions can create dynamic feedback loops in which humans both influence and are influenced by ecosystem processes. We hypothesize that many of the problems encountered by societies in managing natural resources arise because of a mismatch between the scale of management and the scale(s) of the ecological processes being managed. We use examples from southern Africa and the southern United States to address four main questions: (1) What is a “scale mismatch?” (2) How are scale mismatches generated? (3) What are the consequences of scale mismatches? (4) How can scale mismatches be resolved? Scale mismatches occur when the scale of environmental variation and the scale of social organization in which the responsibility for management resides are aligned in such a way that one or more functions of the social-ecological system are disrupted, inefficiencies occur, and/or important components of the system are lost. They are generated by a wide range of social, ecological, and linked social-ecological processes. Mismatches between the scales of ecological processes and the institutions that are responsible for managing them can contribute to a decrease in social-ecological resilience, including the mismanagement of natural resources and a decrease in human well-being. Solutions to scale mismatches usually require institutional changes at more than one hierarchical level. Long-term solutions to scale mismatch problems will depend on social learning and the development of flexible institutions that can adjust and reorganize in response to changes in ecosystems. Further research is needed to improve our ability to diagnose, understand, and resolve scale mismatches in linked socialecological systems.

Collapse and Reorganization in Social-Ecological Systems: Questions, Some Ideas, and Policy Implications

We tested the explanatory usefulness and policy relevance of Holling’s (2001) “adaptive cycle” theory in exploring processes of “collapse,” also called “release,“ and recovery in regional socialecological systems (SESs) in Zimbabwe and Australia. We found that the adaptive cycle is useful in recognizing changes in system behavior during the various phases. However, our small sample of cases did not generally show either the sequential passage of stages or the prerelease decline in resilience that adaptive cycle theory implies. In all cases, however, the reasons for releases were apparent with hindsight. On the other hand, our examples mostly supported the proposition that resilience is controlled by slowly changing variables. Although we found the adaptive cycle, and complex system theory in general, to be useful integrating frameworks, disciplinary theories are required to explain causes and effects in specific cases. We used theories linking distribution of political power to institutional change; to investment in natural, human, social, and physical capitals; and to access to financial capital. We explored patterns of change of these capitals before, during, and after release and reorganization. Both the patterns of change and relative importance of the different capitals during reorganization varied widely, but the importation of resources from broader scales was often a key to recovery. We propose that the resilience of most regional or national SESs can be explained in these terms. The capacity to self-organize emerged from our studies as a critical source of resilience. Although rebuilding this capacity at times requires access to external resources, excessive subsidization can reduce the capacity to self-organize. The policy implication is that cross-scale subsidization should end when self-organization becomes apparent, because subsidization can increase the vulnerability of the system as a whole. When the aim is to recover without changing the system fundamentally, the focus should be upon conserving or investing in the elements of capital critical for this. If the current system is not viable, it is necessary to invest in forms of capital that will enable fundamental change. It will also be necessary to stop investing in the capitals that maintained the unviable regime. The political difficulty of doing this is why SESs so often remain maladapted to current conditions and opportunities and eventually reach the point of collapse.

Understanding protected area resilience: a multi‐scale, social‐ecological approach

Protected areas (PAs) remain central to the conservation of biodiversity. Classical PAs were conceived as areas that would be set aside to maintain a natural state with minimal human influence. However, global environmental change and growing cross-scale anthropogenic influences mean that PAs can no longer be thought of as ecological islands that function independently of the broader social-ecological system in which they are located. For PAs to be resilient (and to contribute to broader social-ecological resilience), they must be able to adapt to changing social and ecological conditions over time in a way that supports the long-term persistence of populations, communities, and ecosystems of conservation concern. We extend Ostroms social-ecological systems framework to consider the long-term persistence of PAs, as a form of land use embedded in social-ecological systems, with important cross-scale feedbacks. Most notably, we highlight the cross-scale influences and feedbacks on PAs that exist from the local to the global scale, contextualizing PAs within multi-scale social-ecological functional landscapes. Such functional landscapes are integral to understand and manage individual PAs for long-term sustainability. We illustrate our conceptual contribution with three case studies that highlight cross-scale feedbacks and social-ecological interactions in the functioning of PAs and in relation to regional resilience. Our analysis suggests that while ecological, economic, and social processes are often directly relevant to PAs at finer scales, at broader scales, the dominant processes that shape and alter PA resilience are primarily social and economic.

Termite Mounds Increase Functional Diversity of Woody Plants in African Savannas

Fine-scale spatial heterogeneity influences biodiversity and ecosystem productivity at many scales. In savanna systems, Macrotermes termites, through forming spatially explicit mounds with unique woody plant assemblages, emerge as important sources of such heterogeneity. Despite a growing consensus regarding the importance of functional diversity (FD) to ecosystem processes, no study has quantified how termite mounds affect woody plant FD. We address whether termite mounds alter the distribution of functional traits, and increase FD of woody plant communities within Africa’s largest savanna woodland, the 2.7 million km2 miombo system. Using plant traits that change according to soil resources (for example, water and nutrients), and disturbance (for example, fire and elephant herbivory), we identified response functional groups and compared relative representation of these groups between mound and matrix habitats. We also asked whether mound and matrix habitats differed in their contribution to FD within the system. Although species representing most functional groups were found in both mound and matrix habitats, relative abundance of functional groups differed between mound and matrix. Mound plant assemblages had greater response diversity to soil resources than matrix plots, but there was no difference in response diversity to disturbance. High trait values on mounds included tree height, leaf nitrogen, phosphorus, and palatability. Species with root ectomycorrhizae dominated the matrix. In conclusion, these small patches of nutrient-enriched substrate emerge as drivers of FD in above-ground woody plant communities.

One Health: an ecological and conservation perspective.

This chapter initially discusses paradigm shifts in epidemiology and ecology, as well as their converging approaches to health and disease, during the 20th century. An examination of the difficulties in defining and measuring ecosystem health, ecosystem integrity and environmental health then follows, using specific examples to illustrate the complexity of these interactions and the important role of conservation in a developing One Health paradigm. Relevant concepts of adaptive capacity, resilience and transformability in social-ecological systems are also discussed.

Beyond fences: wildlife, livestock and land use in Southern Africa.

The formerly open rangelands and savannahs of the world are increasingly being enclosed by boundaries that demarcate smaller and smaller parcels of land. The resulting changes in the scales at which these landscapes are managed have impacts on both ecological and social processes, and ultimately on system health and human health and well-being. A One Health approach provides a novel conceptual framework within which to examine the issue of fragmentation in southern African rangelands. Fences of one sort or another now dominate southern Africa’s landscapes. Veterinary cordon fences, separating domestic livestock and large wild mammals, are a major feature in many parts of the region (Gadd, 2012). The rapid transition from vast open landscapes with few natural barriers to ones fragmented by roads, railways and multiple boundaries demarcated by fences is, in evolutionary terms, a very recent development. Wire fences first appeared in the region less than 140 years ago. In South Africa, fences demarcating farm boundaries became a legal requirement in 1912 (Salomon et al., 2013); however, in the last two decades there have been moves to dismantle fences in order to re-establish wildlife migration routes in several larger conservation landscapes. Groups of farmers on private land have formed conservancies and removed intervening fences that once demarcated internal farm boundaries (e.g. Lindsey et al., 2009). Southern Africa is now tentatively experimenting with a return to open rangelands in selected areas, the most prominent example being the development of transfrontier conservation areas (Osofsky et al., 2005; Andersson et al., 2013). A move to more open rangelands will require developing a range of social, policy and legal instruments (i.e. institutions) to effectively manage large open landscapes. New methods and approaches will be needed to manage what are essentially common property regimes with varying forms of land tenure, property and resource access rights. Managing the transmission of infectious diseases at a potentially more open human–livestock–wildlife interface will also be a challenge. These issues arise whether it involves a few farmers joining properties to develop a conservancy, or a transfrontier conservation area (TFCA) that encompasses state, private and communal land. 21 Beyond Fences: Wildlife, Livestock and Land Use in Southern Africa