ABSTRACT. Faced with numerous seemingly intractable social and environmental challenges, many scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in understanding how to actively engage and transform the existing systems holding such problems in place. Although a variety of analytical models have emerged in recent years, most emphasize either the social or ecological elements of such transformations rather than their coupled nature. To address this, first we have presented a definition of the core elements of a socialecological system (SES) that could potentially be altered in a transformation. Second, we drew on insights about transformation from three branches of literature focused on radical change, i.e., social movements, socio-technical transitions, and social innovation, and gave consideration to the similarities and differences with the current studies by resilience scholars. Drawing on these findings, we have proposed a framework that outlines the process and phases of transformative change in an SES. Future research will be able to utilize the framework as a tool for analyzing the alteration of social-ecological feedbacks, identifying critical barriers and leverage points and assessing the outcome of social-ecological transformations.

The term tipping point has experienced explosive popularity across multiple disciplines over the last decade. Research on social-ecological systems (SES) has contributed to the growth and diversity of the term's use. The diverse uses of the term obscure potential differences between tipping behavior in natural and social systems, and issues of causality across natural and social system components in SES. This paper aims to create the foundation for a discussion within the SES research community about the appropriate use of the term tipping point, especially the relatively novel term 'social tipping point.' We review existing literature on tipping points and similar concepts (e.g. regime shifts, critical transitions) across all spheres of science published between 1960 and 2016 with a special focus on a recent and still small body of work on social tipping points. We combine quantitative and qualitative analyses in a bibliometric approach, rooted in an expert elicitation process. We find that the term tipping point became popular after the year 2000-long after the terms regime shift and critical transition-across all spheres of science. We identify 23 distinct features of tipping point definitions and their prevalence across disciplines, but find no clear taxonomy of discipline-specific definitions. Building on the most frequently used features, we propose definitions for tipping points in general and social tipping points in SES in particular.

The purpose of applying social-ecological resilience thinking to food systems is twofold: First, to define those factors that help achieve a state in which food security for all and at all scales is possible. Second, to provide insights into how to maintain the system in this desirable regime. However, the resilience of food systems is distinct from the broader conceptualizations of resilience in social-ecological systems because of the fundamentally normative nature of food systems: humans need food to survive, and thus system stability is typically a primary policy objective for food system management. However, society also needs food systems that can intensify sustainably i.e., feed everybody equitably, provide livelihoods and avoid environmental degradation while responding flexibly to shocks and uncertainty. Today's failure in meeting food security objectives can be interpreted as the lack of current governance arrangements to consider the full and differential dimensions of food system functions -economic, ecological and social -at appropriate scales: in other words, the multifunctionality of food. We focus on functional and response diversity as two key attributes of resilient, multifunctional food systems; respectively, the number of different functional groups and the diversity of types of responses to disturbances within a functional group. Achieving food security will require functional redundancy and enhanced response diversity, creating multiple avenues to fulfill all food system objectives. We use the 2013-15 drought in California to unpack the potential differences between managing for a single function -economic profit -and multiple functions. Our analysis emphasizes how the evolution of the Californian food system has reduced functional and response diversity and created vulnerabilities. Managing for the resilience of food systems will require a shift in priorities from profit maximization to the management for all functions that create full food security at multiple scales.

No abstract

Although agricultural value chain resilience is a crucial component to food security and sustainable food systems in developing countries, it has received little attention. This paper synthesizes knowledge from the social-ecological systems (SES), supply chain management, and value chain development literature to make three contributions to this research gap. First, we conceptualize agricultural value chain resilience and relate it to overall food system resilience. Second, we identify seven principles that are hypothesized to contribute to SES resilience, relate them to supply chain management theory, and discuss their application in agricultural value chains. A key insight is that the appropriateness of these principles are important to assess on a case-by-case basis, and depend in part on trade-offs between resilience and other dimensions of value chain performance. Third, we integrate two common tools, the Resilience Alliance's assessment framework and value chain analysis techniques, to outline an adaptable participatory approach for assessing the resilience of agricultural value chains in developing countries. The objectives of the approach are to cultivate a chain-wide awareness for past and potential disturbances that could affect food security and other essential services provided by the value chain, and to identify upgrades that can build resilience against these key disturbances.

The ecological impact of energy production and consumption is often relegated in analytical accounts of the evolution of energy systems, where production and consumption patterns are often analysed as the interaction of social, economic and technological factors. Ecological and socialecological dynamics are, we argue, critical in the context of imperatives for access to modern energy services that are inadequate for significant sections of the world's population. The ecological impacts of energy use are often analysed as a set of externalities, many of which are uncertain or unquantifiable, particularly if they stem from earth system change such as anthropogenic climate change. Here we outline the benefits from analysing energy systems as social-ecological systems. We review the extensive literature from ecology and resilience theories, and compare the analytical domains, major findings and emphasis of social-ecological systems with socio-technical transition research. We illustrate these differences with the example of the multi-scale impacts of biofuel expansion. We show that social-ecological systems research combines analysis of interactions with ecological systems and power relations between actors in energy systems, and has the potential to do so across production, distribution and consumption domains whilst illustrating the dynamics of such energy systems, identifying potential trade-offs and regime shifts.

This paper synthesizes current knowledge on the impacts of the Gibe III dam and associated large-scale commercial farming in the Omo-Turkana Basin, based on an expert elicitation coupled with a scoping review and the collective knowledge of an multidisciplinary network of researchers with active data-collection programs in the Basin. We use social-ecological systems and political ecology frameworks to assess the impacts of these interventions on hydrology and ecosystem services in the Basin, and cascading effects on livelihoods, patterns of migration, and conflict dynamics for the people of the region. A landscape-scale transformation is occurring in which commodities, rather than staple foods for local consumption, are becoming the main output of the region. Mitigation measures initiated by the Ethiopian government—notably resettlement schemes—are not adequately buffering affected communities from food insecurity following disruption to indigenous livelihood systems. Therefore, while benefits are accruing to labor migrants, the costs of development are currently borne primarily by the agro–pastoralist indigenous people of the region. We consider measures that might maximize benefits from the changes underway and mitigate their negative outcomes, such as controlled floods, irrigating fodder crops, food aid, and benefit sharing. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-018-1139-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Since the turn of the century, biofuels have been promoted not only for their potential to mitigate climate change and address energy security but also for the potential benefits to socio‐ecological systems. However, the purported benefits were almost immediately called into question as evidence began to emerge of the potential negative consequences of biofuel production. Recent debates have highlighted the social impacts, particularly land access and food security, yet much of the academic literature on these social impacts remains in high level. This paper identifies peer‐reviewed literature that documents the social impacts of biofuel expansion at the local (household and community) scale. A systematic review identified just seventeen research papers that presented evidence of the local livelihood impacts of biofuel production and processing. Three issues emerge from the review as especially important at the local level: household economics, food security and ecosystem services. Within the research, there is a bias towards the cultivation of Jatropha curcas in particular geographies (Africa and Asia). The evidence also shows that the costs and benefits are unevenly distributed within and between communities, with consequences for the ways in which social, economic and environmental impacts are experienced. We conclude by arguing that more evidence on the impacts of biofuels at the local level is desperately needed in order to demystify this complex issue and stimulate a more nuanced understanding of the winners and losers of this commodity.