140 Agroecology and Sustainability
other times, change is abrupt, disorganizing or turbulent. During such periods,
experience is often insufficient for understanding, consequences of actions are
ambiguous, and the future of system dynamics often uncertain (Gunderson and
Holling, 2002). Evidence points to a situation where periods of abrupt change are
likely to increase in frequency and magnitude (Steffen et al, 2004), which poses
new fundamental challenges for science, management, policy and governance.
Theories, models and policies for resource and environmental management
have to a large extent been developed for gradual or incremental change situations
focusing on a unique state with assumptions of linear dynamics and generally dis-
regarding interactions across scales. Recent research has revealed that the imple-
mentation of such theory and policy tend to invest in controlling a few selected
ecosystem processes, at the expense of key ecological functions, in the urge to fulfil
economic or social goals (e.g. Gunderson et al, 1995; Holling and Meffe, 1996;
Allison and Hobbs, 2004). This behavioural pattern causes loss of resilience (capac-
ity to buffer change and continue to develop) of desired states (Holling, 1973; Folke,
2006a). Loss of resilience results in vulnerable systems. Historical loss of resilience
has put whole regions and cultures into vulnerable states with constrained options
for development (Kasperson et al, 1995; Redman, 1999; Schröter et al, 2005). Vul-
nerable systems subject to change may easily shift from one state (stability domain,
basin of attraction) into another (Walker and Meyers, 2004). When such shifts occur
the common focus tends to be on the event that revealed the shift and not on the
variables, processes and trajectories that caused loss of resilience prior to the event.
To what extent are human societies adapting their capacity for learning and
foresight to deal with this new global and challenging situation? We agree with the
findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that the societal capacities to
manage the Earth’s ecosystems are evolving more slowly than humanity’s [over]use
of the same systems. Conventional resource models, based on single resources and
linear dynamics, are of limited use for the purpose of navigating society towards
sustainability.
The perspective presented here emphasizes the following features:
1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-ecological systems;
2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems;
3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new challenges for governance
and management in relation to interdependent social-ecological systems and
ecosystem services.
Research for sustainability increasingly addresses the intricate feedbacks of social-
ecological systems, their complex dynamics and how they play out across spatial
and temporal scales. A deeper understanding of coupled systems undergoing
change is essential in this context. The implications for current management and
policy are challenging.
Here, we provide a brief overview of the three features and then turn to a dis-
cussion of systems of adaptive governance (Dietz et al, 2003, Folke et al, 2005)