This chapter described the first part of the conceptual framework that guided the study of EASES: a way of thinking about society–nature relations based on the theory of complex adaptive SES. It explained how such a framework is grounded in the concept of system and general systems theory, which underpin a complex systems approach to analysis. The chapter located SES research in the context of CAS theory. This provided a basis for understanding the complexity and dynamics of persistence and change in EASES. The chapter described key characteristics of CAS, including agents and interconnectedness, openness and fuzzy boundaries, inherent nonlinearity, feedback loops, path dependence, self- organisation, emergence and emergent properties, scale and hierarchy, cross-scale linkages, adaptation, co-evolution and, very briefly, robustness and resilience. The chapter then looked at the main concepts underlying the dynamics of complex adaptive SES, including system regimes, basins of attractions and stability landscapes; and multiple stable states, thresholds and regime shifts. The theory of the adaptive cycle and associated concept of panarchy were explained. In the context of nascent SES theory, I then outlined my understanding of what a SES is. Finally, the chapter looked at the conceptual SES model used in the study and, briefly, a network perspective. Overall, this chapter provided a foundation for the conceptualisation of EASES described in Chapter 6.
Chapter 3
Resilience theory
The previous chapter addressed complex adaptive social–ecological systems (SES) theory. This chapter describes a particular element of that: resilience theory. It presents a framework for the analysis of resilience in the European Atlantic social–ecological system (EASES).
3.1 Introduction
The multifaceted concept of resilience provides a theoretical framework and analytical lens through which complex relationships and interactions between humans and the rest of nature can be examined. The ‘resilience perspective’ (Folke 2006) or ‘resilience thinking’ (Walker and Salt 2006) is an organising framework for understanding the complex interplay between persistence and change, between adaptation and transformation, and between disturbance and reorganisation in complex adaptive SES (Berkes and Folke 1998b; Folke et al. 2002; Berkes et al. 2003a; Folke et al. 2010). Such dynamics are essential for maintaining the key functions, structures, feedbacks and therefore identity of whole SES (Walker et al. 2004: 6, 2006: 2). A resilience perspective emphasises a SES’s capacity to deal with change and continue to develop in a changing world facing many uncertainties and challenges (Huitric et al. 2009: 32 & 41). The theory of resilience in SES provides a sound basis for understanding sustainability and sustainable development in maritime macro-regional SES.
The remainder of this chapter describes resilience thinking. Section 3.2 considers some of the different ways in which resilience is defined. Section 3.3 presents the conceptualisation of resilience adopted for this research. The different sources of resilience are outlined in section 3.4. The chapter then considers the factors involved in the loss (section 3.5) and increase (section 3.6) of resilience. Section 3.7 examines the interrelated concepts of adaptability and transformability. The chapter concludes with a summary (section 3.8).
3.2 Defining resilience
The term ‘resilience’ is widely used across different disciplines and intellectual traditions, resulting in different conceptual definitions and interpretations. The current popularity of the concept of resilience has been attributed to a generally heightened sense of uncertainty, insecurity and apprehension regarding contemporary environmental, economic and political crises and shocks, as well as the effects of globalisation (Christopherson et al. 2010: 3; Davoudi 2012: 299). Müller (2011: 1) attributes the concept’s appeal to its positive connotations. Nevertheless, resilience is an often contested concept. Much of the contentiousness arises because, according to Davoudi (2012), ‘it is not quite clear what resilience means, beyond the simple assumption that it is good to be resilient’ (p. 299). In order to arrive at conceptual clarity we must first recognise that the concept of resilience has four principal points of departure: psychological resilience, social resilience, engineering resilience and ecological resilience. From these, the concept has evolved along different paths according to different schools of thought. At times the paths have variously diverged, converged, intersected or coalesced. Unfortunately, space precludes consideration of resilience at individual and group levels in the social sciences.
The concept of resilience as a material property has been in use in the physical sciences and civil and industrial engineering since the mid-19th century. The concept of resilience as a systemic property emerged much more recently in ecological studies. This was largely as a result of systems theoretical work concerning population and community ecology and ecosystem science undertaken by C.S. “Buzz” Holling. This led to publication of Holling’s seminal 1973 article in which he proposed that the behaviour of ecological systems is defined by the interplay between two system properties: stability and resilience (p. 17). According to Holling (1973), in addition to stability
‘[…] there is another property, termed resilience, that is a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and
disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables’ (p. 14).
Holling also emphasised the practical implications of this ecological resilience theory for natural resource management. The concept of social–ecological resilience evolved from the ecological resilience lineage.
From ecological resilience to social–ecological resilience
Holling (1973) introduced the concept of resilience into the ecological literature in order to understand nonlinear ecosystems dynamics. In general usage, the term ‘resilience’ signifies the capacity of a system to rebound or recover after a disturbance. Holling recognised two different but complementary conceptions of resilience. One of these – traditionally emphasised in ecology (and economics) – is centred on stability and a single equilibrium; that is, on the tendency of a system to maintain a steady state condition (constancy) and return to a position of equilibrium following disturbance.33 This conception assumes near to equilibrium behaviour as the norm, a fixed carrying capacity34 and, therefore, a desirable management goal of minimising variability (Holling 2006: 6). In temporal terms, the measure of this type of resilience is how far in time the system has moved from equilibrium and the speed of return to equilibrium (Ludwig et al. 1997). Holling (1996: 33) calls this type of resilience ‘engineering resilience’. According to Folke (2006), the engineering interpretation of resilience ‘focuses on maintaining efficiency of function, constancy of the system, and a predictable world near a single steady state’ and is ‘about resisting disturbance and change, to conserve what you have’ (p. 256). The equilibrium-centred stability view has helped shape conventional command and control approaches to environmental and natural resource management, which attempt to suppress natural variation and optimise control of resource flows (Holling and Meffe 1996).
The other conception of resilience identified by Holling (1973, 1986, 1996) assumes the existence of multiple equilibria and, therefore, more than one possible
33 A mechanical system is at equilibrium if the forces acting on it are in balance (Ludwig et al. 1997: 2).
34 ‘Carrying capacity’ refers to the maximum population size or number of species that can be supported by a specific area or environment.
stable state (basin of attraction, stability domain or regime) in which an ecological system can exist (Gunderson 2000). This view emphasises far from equilibrium conditions and the boundaries of stability where even a minor disturbance can ‘flip’ a system into an alternative stable state. On the one hand, it recognises the role of high variability, spatial heterogeneity and nonlinear processes in maintaining the state of a system. On the other hand, it recognises the role of instability in facilitating transitions between alternative stable states. In this case, resilience is measured by the magnitude of disturbance a system can absorb before it shifts into a different stable state with different controls on structure and function (Holling 1996; Gunderson 2000; Carpenter et al. 2001; Folke et al. 2004: 558). Hence, resilience refers to the width or limit of a basin of attraction (Gunderson et al. 2002: 255). Holling (1996) calls this type of resilience ‘ecological resilience’.
The two conceptualisations of engineering resilience and ecological resilience are not incompatible. For Gunderson (2010), the main difference between them ‘is whether the system of interest returns to a prior state or reconfigures into something very different’ (p. 2). Gallopín (2006: 299) points out that resilience can operate at different levels and scales, reflecting different types of system stability: the level of local stability or engineering resilience; the intermediate level of changes between multiple stable states or ecological resilience; and the level of changes to the entire stability landscape.
Since Holling’s 1973 paper, many different definitions and interpretations of the concept of ecological resilience have appeared in the literature (see Table 3.1). Brand and Jax (2007: 11) conclude that, for greater conceptual clarity and practical relevance, the redefined and extended meaning of resilience may be termed ‘social–ecological resilience’.
Table 3.1 Definitions of ecological resilience and social–ecological resilience.
Author and reference Definition
Holling 1973: 14 Resilience is a measure of the persistence of ecological systems and of their ability to absorb
change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables. Holling 1986: 301 Resilience is the ability of an ecosystem to maintain its structure and patterns of behaviour in the face of disturbance. The size of the stability domain of residence, the strength of the repulsive forces at the boundary, and the resistance of the domain to contraction are all distinct measures of resilience. Holling et al. 1995: 50 Resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be
absorbed before an ecosystem changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behaviour.
Holling 1996: 33 Ecological resilience is the amount of disturbance that can be sustained before a change in system control and structure occurs.
Berkes and Folke
1998a: 6 Resilience is the buffer capacity or the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances. Levin et al. 1998: 224 Resilience is the ability of a natural or socioeconomic
to experience change and disturbance without
catastrophic qualitative change in the basic functional organisation; it is a measure of the system’s integrity. Peterson et al. 1998:
10 Ecological resilience is a measure of the amount of change or disruption that is required to transform a system from being maintained by one set of mutually reinforcing processes and structures to a different set of processes and structures.
Gunderson 2000: 425 & 435
Resilience in ecological systems is the amount of disturbance that a system can absorb without changing self-organised processes and structures (defined as alternative stable states).
Carpenter et al. 2001: 766
In any study of resilience, we are concerned with the magnitude of disturbance that can be tolerated before a system moves into a different region of state space and a different set of controls, as originally conceived by Holling (1973, 1996). Based on this interpretation, resilience has the following three properties: (a) the amount of change the system can undergo (and implicitly, therefore, the amount of extrinsic force the system can sustain) and still remain within the same domain of attraction (that is, retain the same controls on structure and function); (b) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organisation (versus lack of organisation, or organisation forced by external factors); and (c) the degree to which the system can build the capacity to learn and adapt.
Gunderson 2002: 50 experience disturbance and still maintain its ongoing functions and controls. A measure of resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be experienced without the system flipping into another state or stability domain.
Walker et al. 2002: 6 Resilience is the potential of a social–ecological system (SES) to remain in a particular configuration and to maintain its feedbacks and functions, and involves the ability of the system to reorganise following disturbance-driven change.
Walker et al. 2004: 6-7 Resilience is the capacity of a SES to absorb
disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. In other words, stay in the same basin of attraction. Resilience has the following four aspects:
• Latitude: the maximum amount the system can be changed before losing its ability to recover; basically the width of the basin of attraction. • Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the
system; related to the topology of the basin. • Precariousness: the current trajectory of the
system, and how close it currently is to a limit or threshold.
• Panarchy: how the above three attributes are influenced by the states and dynamics of the (sub)systems at scales above and below the scale of interest.
Walker et al. 2006: 2 Resilience is the capacity of a SES to experience shocks while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identity. It follows Holling’s (1973) notion of resilience as the amount of disturbance a system can absorb without shifting into an alternate regime.
Walker and Salt 2006: 164
Resilience is the amount of change a system can undergo (its capacity to absorb disturbance) and remain within the same regime – essentially retaining the same function, structure and feedbacks.
Folke et al. 2010: 3 Resilience is the capacity of a SES to absorb
disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity; that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity.
Stockholm Resilience
Centre 2015* Resilience is the capacity to deal with change and continue to develop. Specifically, ecosystem resilience is a measure of how much disturbance (like storms,
fire or pollutants) an ecosystem can handle without shifting into a qualitatively different state. It is the capacity of a system to both withstand shocks and surprises and to rebuild itself if damaged.
Resilience Alliance 2015**
Resilience is the capacity of a SES to absorb or withstand perturbations and other stressors such that the system remains within the same regime,
essentially maintaining its structure and functions. It describes the degree to which the system is capable of self-organisation, learning and adaptation.
* Source: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/resilience-dictionary.html [web page created 22/1/2015; accessed 23/11/2015].
** Source: http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/resilience [accessed 23/11/2015].
Natural resource science and management has traditionally viewed humans and their actions (e.g. fishing or polluting) as external drivers of ecosystem dynamics, and the manager as ‘an external intervener in ecosystem resilience’ (Folke et al. 2010: 2). However, it was increasingly recognised that this view fails to take into account the crucial interdependencies and feedbacks between ecosystem development and social dynamics, not to mention their cross-scale interactions (Gunderson and Folke 2005: 1). Consequently, the concept of ecological resilience has been extended and modified towards a concept of social–ecological resilience. In many cases, this has been accomplished through the work of the Resilience Alliance35 community of scientists and practitioners from different disciplines who collaborate to explore SES dynamics.
Rather than a purely ecological interpretation, social–ecological resilience thinking is intended to be an integrative and transdisciplinary theoretical framework for exploring the dynamics of SES in the context of sustainability science (Folke 2006: 260; Walker and Salt 2006; Folke et al. 2010). A social– ecological resilience perspective views people and nature as interdependent systems. The cross-scale dynamics of SES and other CAS require a multidimensional conceptualisation of resilience. These dimensions are reflected in the Walker et al. (2004) definition of resilience as ‘the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks’ (p. 6).
Much of the work on ecosystem resilience has focused on the capacity to absorb disturbance or the buffer capacity that allows persistence. However, social– ecological resilience is also about the windows of opportunity that disturbance opens up in terms of recombination of evolved structures and processes, renewal of the system and emergence of new trajectories (Folke 2006: 259). Therefore, the extended interpretation of social–ecological resilience makes it possible to explicitly address the cyclical adaptive interplay between disturbance and reorganisation that enables a system to continuously develop (Folke et al. 2010). Folke (2006) provides a table (p. 259, Table 1) summarising the concepts of engineering, ecological and social–ecological resilience; this is reproduced (with slight modifications) below (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 A sequence of resilience concepts, from the more narrow interpretation
to the broader social–ecological context.
Resilience concepts Characteristics Focus on Context
Engineering resilience Return time, efficiency Recovery, constancy Vicinity of a stable equilibrium Ecological/ecosystem resilience, social resilience Buffer capacity, withstand shock, maintain function Persistence, robustness Multiple equilibria, stability landscapes Social–ecological resilience Interplay disturbance and reorganization, sustaining and developing Adaptive capacity, transformability, learning, innovation Integrated system feedback, cross-scale dynamic interactions Whether one takes the view that the original ecological meaning of resilience has been diluted (Brand and Jax 2007) or that the concept has evolved to become more broadly applicable and useful, the meaning of resilience has certainly shifted. As it currently stands, the term ‘social–ecological resilience’ describes a broad framework encompassing both persistence (i.e. resilience as a buffer for conserving and recovering) and the dynamic interplay of persistence, adaptability
and transformability in SES across multiple scales and between multiple attractor basins or regimes (Folke et al. 2010: 6). This broad framework forms a starting point for the conceptualisation of social–ecological resilience in this thesis.
3.3 Conceptualisation of resilience
At the outset of this thesis, research planning and design was guided by Walker et al.’s (2004: 6) definition and conceptualisation of resilience (see Table 3.1). This formulation was useful, being neither too broad nor too narrow. Nevertheless, it was deemed necessary to adapt the conceptualisation of resilience to suit the particular circumstances of the study. The result presented below and in subsequent sections is elaborate, but it remains consistent with Walker et al. (2004) and similar definitions and conceptualisations (including Walker et al. 2006; Walker and Salt 2006; Folke et al. 2010).
Put simply, resilience is the capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop in a world facing many challenges and uncertainties (Huitric et al. 2009: 32). In this thesis, I use the concept of resilience to represent the capacity of an integrated SES to tolerate and deal with change in ways that sustain system integrity, adaptive capacity and options for future development and transformation of people, society and the rest of nature. More precisely (based on Walker et al. 2002, 2004, 2006; Folke et al. 2003, 2010; Folke 2006; Gallopín 2006; Chapin et al. 2009b), I define social–ecological resilience as
a social–ecological system’s capacity to persist by absorbing, resisting and recovering from disturbances and shocks while adapting to, managing and, when necessary, initiating change; it is the capacity that enables a system to retain and develop the same fundamental functions, internal structure, external relations and, therefore, system identity.
Assuming that social–ecological realities involve complex stability landscapes with multiple attractors and, therefore, that there are alternative stable states for a given SES – resilience is also the tendency of a system to remain within a
particular basin of attraction (stability domain or regime). That is, resilience is the tendency to retain (1) the same controls on structure and function; and (2) essentially the same configuration (system components and their relationships) and patterns of behaviour. In this sense, resilience is a system’s potential to undergo some degree of change without exceeding critical threshold levels on key controlling variables, which would result in abrupt changes in patterns and processes, including important feedbacks. In other words, resilience is the potential to avoid a critical transition or regime shift into a qualitatively different alternative state (Carpenter et al. 2001; Scheffer and Carpenter 2003; Kinzig et al. 2006). Therefore, resilience is a critical dimension of a SES’s overall ability to persist and evolve in continually changing conditions.
Resilience is not a single concept, but rather ‘a broad, multifaceted, and loosely organized cluster of concepts, each one related to some aspect of the interplay of transformation and persistence’ (Carpenter and Brock 2008: 1). Key aspects of the resilience capacity of a SES include:
Absorption. The capacity of a system to persist by absorbing a spectrum of recurrent exogenous and endogenous disturbances, that is, to absorb shocks