Enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services (ES) that underpin human well-being is critical for meeting current and future societal needs, and requires specific governance and management policies. Using the literature, we identify seven generic policy-relevant principles for enhancing the resilience of desired ES in the face of disturbance and ongoing change in social-ecological systems (SES). These principles are (P1) maintain diversity and redundancy, (P2) manage connectivity, (P3) manage slow variables and feedbacks, (P4) foster an understanding of SES as complex adaptive systems (CAS), (P5) encourage learning and experimentation, (P6) broaden participation, and (P7) promote polycentric governance systems. We briefly define each principle, review how and when it enhances the resilience of ES, and conclude with major research gaps. In practice, the principles often co-occur and are highly interdependent. Key future needs are to better understand these interdependencies and to operationalize and apply the principles in different policy and management contexts.

We developed a "continual engagement" model to better integrate knowledge from policy makers, communities, and researchers with the goal of promoting more effective action to balance poverty alleviation and wildlife conservation in 4 pastoral ecosystems of East Africa. The model involved the creation of a core boundary-spanning team, including community facilitators, a policy facilitator, and transdisciplinary researchers, responsible for linking with a wide range of actors from local to global scales. Collaborative researcher−facilitator community teams integrated local and scientific knowledge to help communities and policy makers improve herd quality and health, expand biodiversity payment schemes, develop land-use plans, and fully engage together in pastoral and wildlife policy development. This model focused on the creation of hybrid scientific−local knowledge highly relevant to community and policy maker needs. The facilitation team learned to be more effective by focusing on noncontroversial livelihood issues before addressing more difficult wildlife issues, using strategic and periodic engagement with most partners instead of continual engagement, and reducing costs by providing new scientific information only when deemed essential. We conclude by examining the role of facilitation in redressing asymmetries in power in researcher−community−policy maker teams, the role of individual values and character in establishing trust, and how to sustain knowledge-action links when project funding ends.A lthough pastoralists and rangelands have been the subject of research study for decades around the globe, it is only recently that pastoral communities and policy makers have been part of the research process rather than the subjects of study alone or excluded altogether (1). In Africa, the current structure of academic incentives and poor research funding makes it difficult for local researchers to work closely with pastoral communities over the long term, particularly if those researchers live in cities far from pastoral lands. Researchers from outside the region rarely have the opportunity to engage at the depth and over the time required to ensure research is useful to local actors. Agricultural extension in African pastoral lands is difficult not only because of the mobility of some pastoral populations (2) but also because many extension specialists do not recognize the highly adaptive nature of indigenous pastoral management (3). Pastoral households and communities are often the subjects of postgraduate theses or larger research projects in which students and researchers collect information from households and rangelands but rarely have the funds to interpret and return this information to the communities that provided it (e.g., ref. 4). It is even rarer to find research that, from the outset, integrates communities or policy makers in collaborative efforts for the purpose of creating ''research-action arenas'' (5), wherein different groups are integrated to support local action in an action research framewo...

Network analysis provides a powerful tool to analyze complex influences of social and ecological structures on community and household dynamics. Most network studies of social-ecological systems use simple, undirected, unweighted networks. We analyze multiplex, directed, and weighted networks of subsistence food flows collected in three small indigenous communities in Arctic Alaska potentially facing substantial economic and ecological changes. Our analysis of plausible future scenarios suggests that changes to social relations and key households have greater effects on community robustness than changes to specific wild food resources.multiplex networks | food sharing | mixed subsistence-cash economies | climate change | social-ecological systems G lobally, while millions of people combine subsistenceand market-based activities for their livelihoods, they are increasingly exposed to substantial perturbations from both climate change and globalization (1-4). Mixed subsistence-cash economies are characterized by strong human-landscape connections, in which social relations facilitate flows of food and other resources among households (5). Early termed the moral economy (6), cultural norms of sharing and cooperation enable risk sharing, improve food security, improve health and equity outcomes, and contribute to group identity and cohesion (7-10). Embedded social relations have been termed the "capital of the poor" (11) as they allow flexible access to resources in times of stress and rapid change (12-16). Yet inequities can emerge as cooperative institutions are stressed (17, 18) and effects of specific exposures on people, social relations, and landscapes are uncertain (3,4,19).The indigenous Alaskan communities considered here represent two ethno-linguistic groups occupying distinct ecological zones with differential access to marine and terrestrial resources: coastal Iñupiat and interior Athabascan Gwich'in (SI Appendix, Fig. 1). Common to all three communities are (i) exposure to significant ecological and economic change, (ii) substantial reliance on subsistence production of local wild foods, (iii) engagement in the market economy, and (iv) a strong focus on social relations. Within communities, households are characterized by strong heterogeneity in roles and degree of subsistence engagement (20,21). Although many challenges face Arctic communities (22, 23), we focus on three frequently cited scenarios: changes in resource abundance or distribution due to climate, shifts in cultural practices related to sharing and cooperation, and loss of key productive households. Specifically, climate change could affect access to critical species or entire species groups. Engagement in the cash economy and high food and fuel costs could displace dependence on social relations (2). Sharing and contributions have been described as particularly vulnerable to these changes (24, 25). Finally, loss of highly productive key households-it is well documented in Alaska that 30% of rural households produce 70% of food and redistri...

In Kajiado District, Kenya, ranches held communally by Maasai are being subdivided into individually owned parcels. Livestock owners know that herds on parcels that are too small cannot be viable, but the decline in the capacity of parcels to support livestock has not been quantified. We used ecosystem modeling to represent the effects of subdivision as Maasai group ranches were divided into 196, 10, 5, 3, and 1 km 2 parcels. Within the spatially explicit, process-based SAVANNA ecosystem model, we used maps that constrained the movements of livestock to be within parcels. We also modeled cooperative grazing associations, giving groups of herders access to parcels composed of dispersed or contiguous 1 km 2 parcels. Vegetatively productive areas had higher carrying capacities when isolated because resident animals did not compete with animals moving in seasonally from other areas. In a ranch of low but heterogeneous productivity, we saw a steady decline in capacity under subdivision, until 25% fewer livestock could be supported on the ranch of 1 km 2 parcels relative to the intact ranch. On a ranch with both low productivity and heterogeneity, 20% fewer livestock were supported when parcels were still 10 km 2. The most productive ranch studied saw small population changes with subdivision. Participation in grazing associations was helpful in the ranch intermediate in productivity and heterogeneity, but not other ranches. Subdivision of Kajiado lands might be inevitable, but our results show the relative benefits to stakeholders if land owners and policy makers act to maintain open or flexible access to individually held parcels. Resumen En el Distrito Kajiado, Kenya, los ranchos manejados comunalmente por los Massai está n siendo subdivididos en parcelas de propiedad individual. Los propietarios de ganado saben que los hatos en parcelas muy pequeñ as no son viables, pero la disminució n de la capacidad de las parcelas para sostener el ganado no ha sido cuantificada. Usamos el modelaje de ecosistemas para representar los efectos de la subdivisió n de có mo el grupo de ranchos Massai fueron divididos en parcelas de 196, 10, 5, 3 y 1 km 2. Dentro de la explicitud espacial del modelo de ecosistemas SAVANNA, basado en procesos, usamos mapas que limitaban los movimientos del ganado dentro de las parcelas. También modelamos las asociaciones cooperativas de apacentamiento, dando, a grupos de pastores, acceso a parcelas compuestas de parcelas de 1 km 2 dispersas o contiguas. Cuando se aislaron, las áreas vegetativamente productivas tuvieron mayores capacidades de carga animal porque los animales residentes no compitieron con animales moviéndose estacionalmente de otras á reas. En un rancho de productividad baja pero heterogénea, observamos una disminució n gradual de su capacidad bajo la subdivisió n, hasta que 25% menos del ganado pudo ser sostenido en el rancho de parcelas de 1 km 2 en relació n al rancho intacto. En un rancho con baja productividad y heterogeneidad, 20% menos ganado fue soportado aun cuando las parcelas ...

Two opposing narratives describe future prospects for mixed economic livelihoods in Alaska and the broader Arctic. On the one hand, Arctic anthropologists have written about the emergence of persistent mixed economies in Native communities. A second narrative echoes modernization assumptions and assumes that "subsistence is dying," mixed economies are transitional, and Native communities are headed inevitably toward full market dependence. We provide evidence that mixed economies are not transitional. Mixed economies have three components: households engage in (1) market exchange, (2) subsistence activities, and (3) culturally embedded social relationships sustained by flows of wild food and other resources. Using household-level social network and economic data from two Iñupiat communities spanning 30 years, we explore hypotheses designed to test an assumed transition to market dependence. If transition assumptions hold, households with high engagement in the cash economy will have low engagement in subsistence production and diminished social relationships. Results do not support this narrative of change. Although there is considerable variability in household harvest, income, and social relationships, those highly engaged in market activities are also disproportionately involved in subsistence activities, sharing, and cooperation. Beyond broad narratives, an assessment of underlying processes and conditions supporting persistent mixed economies is warranted. [Arctic, mixed economies, subsistence hunting, cash economy, social networks] RESUMEN Dos narrativas opuestas describen las perspectivas de futuro de los medios económicos mixtos de sustento en Alaska y más ampliamente en la regiónártica. Por un lado, los antropólogos de la regiónártica han escrito sobre la emergencia de persistentes economías mixtas en comunidades nativas. Una segunda narrativa hace eco de las asunciones de la modernización y asume que esa "subsistencia está muriendo", las economías mixtas son transicionales, y las comunidades nativas se están dirigiendo inevitablemente hacia una dependencia total de los mercados. Proveemos evidencia que las economías mixtas no son transicionales. Las economías mixtas tienen tres componentes: hogares toman parte en (1) intercambio en los mercados, (2) actividades de subsistencia, y (3) relaciones sociales culturalmente embebidas sostenidas por flujos de alimentos silvestres y otros recursos. Usando redes sociales a nivel de hogares e información económica de las dos comunidades Iñupiat abarcando 30 años, exploramos hipótesis diseñadas para evaluar una asumida transición a una dependencia de mercados. Si las asunciones sobre la transición se sostienen, los hogares con alto involucramiento en la economía monetaria tendrán bajo involucramiento en la producción de subsistencia y reducidas relaciones sociales. Los resultados no apoyan esta narrativa de cambio. Aunque hay una considerable variabilidad en la cosecha del hogar, el ingreso y las relaciones