Lisen Schultz

A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems

This paper is a work-in-progress account of ideas and propositions about resilience in socialecological systems. It articulates our understanding of how these complex systems change and what determines their ability to absorb disturbances in either their ecological or their social domains. We call them “propositions” because, although they are useful in helping us understand and compare different social-ecological systems, they are not sufficiently well defined to be considered formal hypotheses. These propositions were developed in two workshops, in 2003 and 2004, in which participants compared the dynamics of 15 case studies in a wide range of regions around the world. The propositions raise many questions, and we present a list of some that could help define the next phase of resilience-related research.

Enhancing the Fit through Adaptive Co-management: Creating and Maintaining Bridging Functions for Matching Scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden

Enhancing the fit through adaptive comanagement: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden

Powerless Spectators, Coping Actors, and Adaptive Co-managers: a Synthesis of the Role of Communities in Ecosystem Management

We provide a synthesis of the papers in the Special Issue, the Communities Ecosystems and Livelihoods component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), and other recent publications on the ada ...

A Theory of Transformative Agency in Linked Social-Ecological Systems

We reviewed the literature on leadership in linked social-ecological systems and combined it with the literature on institutional entrepreneurship in complex adaptive systems to develop a new theory of transformative agency in linked social- ecological systems. Although there is evidence of the importance of strategic agency in introducing innovation and transforming approaches to management and governance of such systems, there is no coherent theory to explain the wide diversity of strategies identified. Using Hollings adaptive cycle as a model of phases present in innovation and transformation of resilient social- ecological systems, overlaid by Dorados model of opportunity context (opaque, hazy, transparent) in complex adaptive systems, we propose a more coherent theory of strategic agency, which links particular strategies, on the part of transformative agents, to phases of system change.

Enhancing ecosystem management through social-ecological inventories: lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden

In an increasingly complex, rapidly changing world, the capacity to cope with, adapt to, and shape change is vital. This thesis investigates how natural resource management can be organized and practiced to nurture this capacity, referred to as resilience, in social-ecological systems. Based on case studies and large-N data sets from UNESCO Biosphere Reserves (BRs) and the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), it analyzes actors and social processes involved in adaptive co-management on the ground. Papers I & II use Kristianstads Vattenrike BR to analyze the roles of local stewards and bridging organizations. Here, local stewards, e.g. farmers and bird watchers, provide on-site management, detailed, long-term monitoring, and local ecological knowledge, build public support for ecosystem management, and hold unique links to specialized networks. A bridging organization strengthens their initiatives. Building and drawing on multi-level networks, it gathers different types of ecological knowledge, builds moral, political, legal and financial support from institutions and organizations, and identifies windows of opportunity for projects. Paper III synthesizes the MA community-based assessments and points to the importance of bridging organizations, leadership and vision, knowledge networks, institutions nested across scales, enabling policies, and high motivation among actors for adaptive co-management. Paper IV explores learning processes catalyzed by bridging organizations in BRs. 79 of the 148 BRs analyzed bridge local and scientific knowledge in efforts to conserve biodiversity and foster sustainable development, provide learning platforms, support knowledge generation (research, monitoring and experimentation), and frame information and education to target groups. Paper V tests the effects of participation and adaptive co-management in BRs. Local participation is positively linked to local support, successful integration of conservation and development, and effectiveness in achieving developmental goals. Participation of scientists is linked to effectiveness in achieving ‘conventional’ conservation goals and policy-makers enhance the integration of conservation and development. Adaptive co-management, found in 46 BRs, is positively linked to self-evaluated effectiveness in achieving developmental goals, but not at the expense of conservation. The thesis concludes that adaptive collaboration and learning processes can nurture resilience in social-ecological systems. Such processes often need to be catalyzed, supported and protected to survive. Therefore, bridging organizations are crucial in adaptive co-management.

Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital

Significance Adaptive governance (AG) has been suggested as a suitable approach for ecosystem management in changing environments. It rests on the assumption that landscapes and seascapes need to be understood and governed as complex social–ecological systems rather than as ecosystems alone. We compared three AG initiatives and their effects on natural capital and ecosystem services. In comparison with other efforts aimed at conservation and sustainable use of natural capital, adaptive governance developed capacity to manage multiple ecosystem services and respond to ecosystem-wide changes and enabled collaboration across diverse interests, sectors, and institutional arrangements. Internal and external pressures continuously challenge the adaptive capacity of the initiatives. To gain insights into the effects of adaptive governance on natural capital, we compare three well-studied initiatives; a landscape in Southern Sweden, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, and fisheries in the Southern Ocean. We assess changes in natural capital and ecosystem services related to these social–ecological governance approaches to ecosystem management and investigate their capacity to respond to change and new challenges. The adaptive governance initiatives are compared with other efforts aimed at conservation and sustainable use of natural capital: Natura 2000 in Europe, lobster fisheries in the Gulf of Maine, North America, and fisheries in Europe. In contrast to these efforts, we found that the adaptive governance cases developed capacity to perform ecosystem management, manage multiple ecosystem services, and monitor, communicate, and respond to ecosystem-wide changes at landscape and seascape levels with visible effects on natural capital. They enabled actors to collaborate across diverse interests, sectors, and institutional arrangements and detect opportunities and problems as they developed while nurturing adaptive capacity to deal with them. They all spanned local to international levels of decision making, thus representing multilevel governance systems for managing natural capital. As with any governance system, internal changes and external drivers of global impacts and demands will continue to challenge the long-term success of such initiatives.

Three necessary conditions for establishing effective Sustainable Development Goals in the Anthropocene

The purpose of the United Nations-guided process to establish Sustainable Development Goals is to galvanize governments and civil society to rise to the interlinked environmental, societal, and economic challenges we face in the Anthropocene. We argue that the process of setting Sustainable Development Goals should take three key aspects into consideration. First, it should embrace an integrated social-ecological system perspective and acknowledge the key dynamics that such systems entail, including the role of ecosystems in sustaining human wellbeing, multiple cross-scale interactions, and uncertain thresholds. Second, the process needs to address trade-offs between the ambition of goals and the feasibility in reaching them, recognizing biophysical, social, and political constraints. Third, the goal-setting exercise and the management of goal implementation need to be guided by existing knowledge about the principles, dynamics, and constraints of social change processes at all scales, from the individual to the global. Combining these three aspects will increase the chances of establishing and achieving effective Sustainable Development Goals.

Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in biosphere reserves

The interdependence of society and nature, the inherent complexity of social–ecological systems, and the global deterioration of ecosystem services provide the rationale for a growing body of literature focusing on social–ecological resilience – the capacity to cope with, adapt to and shape change – for sustainable development. Processes of learning‐by‐doing and multiple‐loop social learning across knowledge systems and different levels of decision‐making are envisioned to strengthen this capacity, combined in the concept of adaptive governance. This study explores how learning for resilience is stimulated in practice; investigating learning opportunities provided in UNESCO‐designated biosphere reserves (BRs). A global survey (N = 148) and qualitative interviews with key informants of selected BRs (N = 10) reveal that a subset (79) of the BRs serve as ‘potential learning sites’ and: (1) provide platforms for mutual and collective learning through face‐to‐face interactions; (2) coordinate and support the generation of new social–ecological knowledge through research, monitoring and experimentation; and (3) frame information and education to local stewards, resource‐based businesses, policy‐makers, disadvantaged groups, students and the public. We identify three BRs that seem to combine, in practice, the theoretically parallel research areas of environmental education and adaptive governance. We conclude that BRs have the potential to provide insights on the practical dimension of nurturing learning for social–ecological resilience. However, for their full potential as learning sites for sustainability to be realized, both capacity and incentives for evaluation and communication of lessons learned need to be strengthened.

Effective leadership for adaptive management

Schultz, L., Fazey, I. (2009). Effective leadership for adaptive management. Chapter 16, pp. 295-303 in: Allan, C.; Stankey, G. H. (Eds), Adaptive Environmental Management. ISBN: 978-90-481-2710-8 (Print) 978-1-4020-9632-7 (Online)

Adaptive People for Adaptive Management

Fazey, I., Schultz, L. (2009). Adaptive people for adaptive management. In: Adaptive Environmental Management - A Practitioners Guide, Allan, C.; Stankey, G.H. (Eds). Chapter 18, pp. 323-338. ISBN:9789048127108.