Interdependent Social-Ecological Systems and Adaptive Governance 143(including experience for dealing with change) (Olick and Robbins, 1998; McIn-
tosh, 2000) are essential for the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt to
and shape change (Folke et al, 2003).
Complex adaptive systems
In our view, social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems characterized
by historical (path) dependency, non-linear (non-convex) dynamics, regime shifts,
multiple basins of attraction and limited predictability (Costanza et al, 1993).
Theories of complex systems portray systems not as deterministic, predictable and
mechanistic, but as process dependent organic and self-organizing with feedbacks
between multiple scales (e.g. Kaufmann, 1993; Holland, 1995; Arthur, 1999;
Levin, 1999). The ecosystem-based approach recognizes the role of the human
dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics (Dale et al, 2000) and
that human actions have pushed ecological systems into less productive or other-
wise less desirable states with negative consequences for human livelihood and
security. The existence of ‘regime shifts’ in ecosystems is an area of intense research
(Scheffer et al, 2001) with examples from forests, lakes, wetlands, coastal areas,
fisheries, coral reefs (Folke et al, 2004), grazing lands (Scholes and Walker, 1993),
agriculture (Rockström, 2003) and marine systems (Troell et al, 2005; Grebmeier
et al, 2006). In some cases, these shifts may be irreversible or too costly to reverse
(Mäler, 2000).
The human dimension reflects properties of complex adaptive systems such as
a diverse set of institutions and behaviours, local interactions between actors and
selective processes that shape future social structures and dynamics (Holland et al,
1986; Arthur, 1999; Janssen and Jager, 2001; Lansing, 2003). Complexity makes
it hard to forecast the future. Not only are forecasts uncertain, the usual statistical
approaches will likely underestimate the uncertainties since key drivers like climate
and technological change are unpredictable and may change in non-linear fashions
(Kinzig et al, 2003; Peterson et al, 2003). Gunderson (2001) nicely illustrates the
need for learning and flexibility in the social system when confronted with alterna-
tive and uncertain explanations of ecosystem change.
The complex adaptive systems approach shifts the perspective on governance
from aiming at controlling change in resource and ecosystems assumed to be stable,
to enhancing the capacity of social-ecological systems to learn to live with and shape
change and even find ways to transform into more desirable directions following
change (van der Leeuw, 2000; Berkes et al, 2003; Norberg and Cumming, 2007).
It is in this context that the resilience perspective becomes central. Resilience is
the capacity to absorb change, reorganize and continue to develop. The concept of
resilience was invented to address the paradox of how change and persistence work
together (Holling, 1973). Resilience research addresses how systems assimilate dis-
turbance and make use of change for innovation and development, while simulta-
neously maintaining characteristic structures and processes (Folke, 2006a). It is
argued that managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustaining and