Resilience Management in Social-ecological Systems: a Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Approaches to natural resource management are often based on a presumed ability to predict probabilistic responses to management and external drivers such as climate. They also tend to assume that the manager is outside the system being managed. However, where the objectives include long-term sustainability, linked social-ecological systems (SESs) behave as complex adaptive systems, with the managers as integral components of the system. Moreover, uncertainties are large and it may be difficult to reduce them as fast as the system changes. Sustainability involves maintaining the functionality of a system when it is perturbed, or maintaining the elements needed to renew or reorganize if a large perturbation radically alters structure and function. The ability to do this is termed "resilience." This paper presents an evolving approach to analyzing resilience in SESs, as a basis for managing resilience. We propose a framework with four steps, involving close involvement of SES stakeholders. It begins with a stakeholder-led development of a conceptual model of the system, including its historical profile (how it got to be what it is) and preliminary assessments of the drivers of the supply of key ecosystem goods and services.Step 2 deals with identifying the range of unpredictable and uncontrollable drivers, stakeholder visions for the future, and contrasting possible future policies, weaving these three factors into a limited set of future scenarios.Step 3 uses the outputs from steps 1 and 2 to explore the SES for resilience in an iterative way. It generally includes the development of simple models of the system's dynamics for exploring attributes that affect resilience.Step 4 is a stakeholder evaluation of the process and outcomes in terms of policy and management implications. This approach to resilience analysis is illustrated using two stylized examples.

Sensitivity of health sector indicators' response to climate change in Ghana

“…Resilience is different from, but integrates the standard public health system properties such as disease prevention (e.g. vaccination coverage), wellness check-ups, and epidemiologic assessment of disease burden (Luthar and Cicchetti, 2000;Walker et al, 2002).…”

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

“…Continuing with our example around climate change, it is clear that consideration of climate change impacts, which are now already evident, calls into question a focus on maintaining the existing baseline and implementing mitigation measures (Walker et al, 2002). Canter and Atkinson (2010) focus on adaptive management to increase system resilience and Walker et al (2002) propose resilience management as a means of preventing unwelcome system reconfigurations.…”

“…Canter and Atkinson (2010) focus on adaptive management to increase system resilience and Walker et al (2002) propose resilience management as a means of preventing unwelcome system reconfigurations. Our approach is to embed elements of adaptive management and resilience management into the well-known stages of the IA process, recognising that attempting to understand systems is typically (although not universally) a strategic-level activity rather than project-level.…”

“…In this context, we draw heavily on Walker et al (2002) who, as part of the Resilience Alliance (see www.resalliance.org), have suggested an approach for managing resilience in socioecological systems. They recommend a four-stage approach including: 1) establishing important attributes of the study system through stakeholder engagement; 2) identifying predictable and unpredictable drivers and obtaining stakeholder visions of possible trajectories; 3) quantitative analysis of where resilience resides; and 4) integrated evaluation by a wide range of stakeholders of the management and policy implications.…”

“…This approach is consistent with the views of Hermans and Knippenberg (2006) who identified that participatory processes are key in a context where stakeholder views on potential outcomes are highly variable amidst high levels of uncertainty, and with the need for great pluralism espoused by Bond et al (2013) when considering assessment of sustainability (participatory deliberation is identified as a suitable method for dealing with ambiguity in Figure 1). Such participatory approaches are also required for the achievement of legitimacy (Walker et al, 2002;Owens et al, 2004) and fit into the participatory discourse framing required for a postnormal science approach to IA.…”