A G S - E S: Daptive Overnance of Ocial Cological Ystems

26 Sep 2005 15:56 AR ANRV256-EG30-13.
tex XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24) P1: KUV

10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:441–73

doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Copyright c 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
First published online as a Review in Advance on July 25, 2005
ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL

SYSTEMS
Carl Folke,1,2 Thomas Hahn,1 Per Olsson,1
and Jon Norberg2
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
1
Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research and 2 Department of Systems
Ecology, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden;
email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Access provided by 181.33.89.21 on 05/21/20. For personal use only.
Key Words adaptive capacity, ecosystem management, leadership, resilience,

social capital, governance
■ Abstract We explore the social dimension that enables adaptive ecosystem-based
management. The review concentrates on experiences of adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems during periods of abrupt change (crisis) and investigates social
sources of renewal and reorganization. Such governance connects individuals, organi-
zations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organizational levels. Key persons provide
leadership, trust, vision, meaning, and they help transform management organizations
toward a learning environment. Adaptive governance systems often self-organize as
social networks with teams and actor groups that draw on various knowledge systems
and experiences for the development of a common understanding and policies. The
emergence of “bridging organizations” seem to lower the costs of collaboration and
conflict resolution, and enabling legislation and governmental policies can support
self-organization while framing creativity for adaptive comanagement efforts. A re-
silient social-ecological system may make use of crisis as an opportunity to transform
into a more desired state.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
SOCIAL CAPACITY FOR RESPONDING TO AND SHAPING
ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Knowledge, Learning, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Adaptive Management and Organizational Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Governance and Adaptive Comanagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
Adaptive Governance and Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
SOCIAL SOURCES OF RESILIENCE FOR ADAPTABILITY AND
TRANSFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Social Memory, Teams, and Actor Groups as Sources of Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Transforming Governance for Social-Ecological Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
1543-5938/05/1121-0441$20.00 441
26 Sep 2005 15:56 AR ANRV256-EG30-13.tex XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24) P1: KUV
442 FOLKE ET AL.
ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE IN RELATION TO THE BROADER

ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
INTRODUCTION
The history of human use and abuse of ecosystems tells the story of adaptation to
the changing conditions that we create. Often, the response has been to increase
control over resources through domestication and simplification of landscapes and
seascapes to increase production, avoid fluctuations, and reduce uncertainty (1, 2).
This behavior has decreased temporal variability at the expense of increased spatial
dependence on other areas on Earth. Human activities have become globally inter-
connected and intensified through new technology, capital markets, and systems of
governance, with decisions in one place influencing people elsewhere. At the same
time, the capacity of the environment, from local ecosystems to the biosphere, to
sustain societal development seems to have been reduced over historical time (3,
4) and at increasing pace during the past century (5). This has lead to vulnerability
in many places and regions with constrained options for human livelihoods and
progress (6, 7). But has humanity adapted its capacity for learning and foresight
to deal with this new and challenging situation?
Sometimes change in ecosystems and society is gradual or incremental. During
periods of steady progress, things move forward in roughly continuous and pre-
dictable ways. At other times, change is abrupt, disorganizing, or turbulent. During
such periods, experience tends to be incomplete for understanding, consequences
of actions are ambiguous, and the future of system dynamics is often unclear and
uncertain (8). Evidence points to a situation where periods of abrupt change are ex-
pected to increase in frequency, duration, and magnitude (9). At the same time, the
capacity of ecosystems to remain within desired states in the face of abrupt change
seems to have been reduced as a consequence of human actions (10). Vulnerable
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems may easily shift into undesired states in the sense
of providing ecosystem services to society. The existence of such alternate regimes
poses new fundamental challenges to environment and resource management (11).
Theories and approaches to environment and resource management have to a
large extent focused on single issues or resources and been based on a steady-state
view, interpreting change as gradual and incremental and disregarding interac-
tions across scales. Such partial approaches are less useful in the current situation
wherein the capacity of many ecosystems to generate resources and ecosystem ser-
vices for societal development has become vulnerable to change and no longer can
be taken for granted. Furthermore, it is now clear that patterns of production, con-
sumption, and well-being arise not only from economic and social relations within
regions but also depend on the capacity of other regions’ ecosystems to sustain
them (12, 13). A major challenge is to assure this capacity in the face of change (14).
Emerging theories and approaches point to the importance of assessing and ac-
tively managing resilience, i.e., the extent to which a system can absorb
ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 443
recurrent natural and human perturbations and continue to regenerate without

slowly degrading or even unexpectedly flipping into less desirable states (10, 15–
17). Resilience in this context is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb
disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially
the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (18). Science and policy for
sustainability need to address the interplay between periods of gradual and abrupt
change and their relations to resilience. There is also need to account for inter-
actions across spatial and temporal scales to secure the capacity to reorganize in
the face of change. It will require new forms of human behavior with a shift in
perspective from the aspiration to control change in systems, assumed to be stable,
to sustain and generate desirable pathways for societal development in the face of
increased frequency of abrupt change (19).
The ecological basis for such an approach is developing and includes recog-
nition of ecosystems as complex adaptive systems and the necessity to address

uncertainty and surprise (20–22). It is moving from the conventional approach
based on assessment of the maximum sustainable yield of individual species at a
single broad scale to a more general focus on managing essential ecological pro-
cesses that sustain the delivery of harvestable resources and ecosystem services at
multiple scales (23–25). Significant roles of biological diversity in the dynamics
and resilience of complex adaptive systems faced with change become part of the
process (26–28) of such an ecosystem-based management approach (29).
Furthermore, the ecosystem-based approach recognizes the role of the human
dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics (30, 31). Also, the hu-
man dimension reflects properties of complex adaptive systems, such as a diverse
set of institutions and behaviors, local interactions between actors, and selective
processes, that shape future social structures and dynamics (32–35).
Scholars have used concepts like coupled human-environment systems (36),
ecosocial systems (37) and socioecological systems (38, 39) to illustrate the inter-
play between social and ecological systems, but treating the social or ecological
dimension as a prefix may give it less weight during the analysis. Consequently,
Berkes & Folke (40) started to use the term “social-ecological” system to empha-
size the integrated concept of humans in nature and to stress that the delineation
between social and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary. Research sug-
gests that social-ecological systems have powerful reciprocal feedbacks and act as
complex adaptive systems (8, 31, 41–43).
It is important to clarify that implications of analyses of social-ecological sys-
tems generally differ from analyses of social or ecological systems alone (44, 45).
Addressing only the social dimension of resource management without an under-
standing of resource and ecosystem dynamics will not be sufficient to guide society
toward sustainable outcomes. For example, the mobilization of Belizian coastal
fishermen into cooperatives, which was socially desirable and economically suc-
cessful, led ultimately to excessive harvesting of stocks of lobster and conch (46).
Similarly, focusing only on the ecological side as a basis for decision making for
sustainability may lead to too narrow conclusions. For example, an observed shift
in a lake from a desired to a less desired state may indicate that the lake has lost
444 FOLKE ET AL.
resilience, but if there is capacity in the social system to respond to change and
restore the lake the social-ecological system is still resilient (47, 48).
The capacity to adapt to and shape change is an important component of re-
silience in a social-ecological system (42). In a social-ecological system with high
adaptability, the actors have the capacity to reorganize the system within desired
states in response to changing conditions and disturbance events (18). Adaptive
management (49) is often put forward as a more realistic and promising approach
to deal with ecosystem complexity (50) than management for optimal use and
control of resources (1, 44). Dietz et al. (51) used the concept of adaptive gover-
nance to expand the focus from adaptive management of ecosystems to address the
broader social contexts that enable ecosystem-based management. By governance,

we mean creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action (52) or in-
stitutions of social coordination (53). Governance is the structures and processes
by which people in societies make decisions and share power (54). Advocating an
adaptive ecosystem approach, Boyle et al. (55) suggest a triad of activities, wherein
governance is the process of resolving trade-offs and of providing a vision and di-
rection for sustainability, management is the operationalization of this vision, and
monitoring provides feedback and synthesizes the observations to a narrative of
how the situation has emerged and might unfold in the future.
There has been substantial progress in understanding the social dimension of
ecosystem management, including organizational and institutional flexibility for
dealing with uncertainty and change (8, 40, 42, 51, 56–61) and social capital (62–
64). Challenges for the social sciences have been raised in this context (65, 66). So-
cial sources of resilience, such as social capital (including trust and social networks)
and social memory (including experience for dealing with change) (67), are essen-
tial for the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt to and shape change (68).
Here, we extend the framework of ecosystem-based management, as currently
applied, to explore the social dimension in what we refer to as adaptive governance
of social-ecological systems. We concentrate our review on experiences of gover-
nance in relation to complex adaptive ecosystems and in particular during periods
when change is abrupt, disorganizing, or turbulent. This is the time when existing
structures are most challenged, and the risk for a shift into undesired regimes is the
highest. We are particularly interested in social sources that seem to be of signifi-
cance in responding to and shaping change as well as building resilience for reor-
ganization in social-ecological systems, both internally and in relation to external
drivers. The focus is on local and regional governance of landscapes and seascapes.
In the first part of the review, we address the social responsiveness to ecosystem
dynamics, in particular learning from the level of individuals through management
practice and social networks to organizations. It is argued that adaptive gover-
nance is operationalized through adaptive comanagement systems and that the
roles of social capital, focusing on networks, leadership, and trust, are emphasized
in this context. The second section strives toward understanding social sources
of resilience, in particular the interplay between crisis and mobilization of so-
cial memory for reorganization. The issues of transformation of social-ecological
systems toward adaptive governance as well as ecosystem and landscape manage-

ment are investigated. The third section addresses the capacity of adaptive gover-
nance systems to cope with and make use of external perturbations and challenges
in the broader social-ecological environment. We emphasize the role of bridging
organizations that have the ability to strengthen social capital and the capacity for
effective governance of multilevel organizations involved with ecosystem manage-
ment. We conclude by presenting four essential features of adaptive governance
of social-ecological systems.
SOCIAL CAPACITY FOR RESPONDING TO

AND SHAPING ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS
Management is about bringing together old knowledge, from diverse sources, into
new perspectives for practice (58). Management of ecosystem resilience to sus-
tain resources and ecosystem services requires the ability to observe and interpret
essential processes and variables in ecosystem dynamics to develop the social ca-
pacity to respond to environmental feedback and change (23, 40, 69). Processes
that generate learning, meaning, knowledge, and experience of ecosystem dynam-
ics expressed in management practice are part of the social capacity of responding
to environmental change.
Knowledge, Learning, and Practice

Much of contemporary science of natural resource management is focused on de-
tailed single-species models, and policy recommendations are based on optimal
sustainable use of these species without accounting for the role of ecosystem dy-
namics and regional patterns and processes (21). Managing for control and stability
sets the system on a path to turbulent change (70). Therefore, the goal should be
to seek not detailed knowledge of parts of the system but improved understanding
of the dynamics of the whole system. Knowledge generation for understanding
and managing periods of rapid change, the social sources of resilience required
for reorganization following change, as well as strategies for dealing with true
uncertainty and surprise in this context are still in their infancy (8, 71, 72).
Facing complex adaptive systems and periods of rapid change gives the scientist
a new role in decision making from being an objective and detached specialist ex-
pected to deliver knowledge to managers to becoming one of several actors in the
learning and knowledge generation process (31, 73, 74). Other actors include local
groups with experience in resource and ecosystem management (75, 76). Efforts
are taking place to mobilize, make use of, and combine different knowledge sys-
tems and learning environments to enhance the capacity for dealing with complex
adaptive systems and uncertainty (44). It comes as no surprise that knowledge of
ecosystem dynamics and associated management practices exists among people
of communities that, on a daily basis and over long periods of time, interact for
446 FOLKE ET AL.
their benefit and livelihood with ecosystems (77, 78). The way such knowledge is
being organized and culturally embedded, its relationship to institutionalized, pro-
fessional science, and its role in catalyzing new ways of managing environmental
resources have all become important subjects (79–85).
There is a growing literature on the potential in combining local knowledge
systems with scientific knowledge to cope with change in resource and ecosystem
management, including understanding climate change (86) and managing fish-
eries, biodiversity, and landscape dynamics (87–90). For example, in the Solomon
Islands, indigenous knowledge, practice, and sea tenure systems were used in
combination with scientific knowledge to establish marine protected areas for
bumphead parrotfish conservation (91). A self-governing community in Ecuador

changed their unsustainable forest management practice by incorporating scien-
tific knowledge about the interplay between freshwater and forest dynamics into
their traditional knowledge system and thereby curtailed destruction of their moist
forest commons (92). It has been argued that such self-organized local responses
for active adaptation to environmental change have emerged among communities
and societies that have survived over long periods of time (75).
Berkes & Folke (93) identify management practices that cope with periods of
rapid environmental change in what has been referred to as the “back-loop” of
social-ecological system development (8, 42). They divide them into practices
that evoke change, that survive change, and that nurture sources for reorgani-
zation following change (93). McCay (94) refers to the economics of flexibility
where diversification is the primary strategy. Robust, adaptive strategies of social-
ecological systems accept uncertainty and change (22). They take advantage of
rapid change and surprise and turn them into opportunities for development. Many
local communities have long recognized the necessity of coexisting with gradual
and rapid change. There are groups with associated institutions that have accumu-
lated a knowledge base of how to relate to and respond to environmental feedback,
which allows the disturbance to enter at smaller scales instead of accumulating to
larger scales, thereby precluding large-scale collapse (95, 96). Such management
practices seem to have developed as a result of experience with change and crisis,
realizing that not all possible outcomes can be anticipated, planned, or predicted
(40).
Crisis, perceived or real, seems to trigger learning and knowledge generation
(58) and opens up space for new management trajectories of resources and ecosys-
tems. For example, Olsson & Folke (97) described how threats of acidification,
overfishing, and disease successively initiated learning and generated ecological
knowledge among local groups in the Lake Racken catchment in western Swe-
den. The ecological knowledge system covers scales from physiology of the re-
source to integrative knowledge of catchment processes. Knowledge acquisition
of complex adaptive ecosystems is an ongoing, dynamic learning process, and
such knowledge often emerges over decades with peoples’ institutions and orga-
nizations, as illustrated for frontier colonist farmers in the Brazilian Amazon (98).
The ecosystem-based management of the Lake Racken catchment, in which the
ecological knowledge system is embedded, emerged in about a decade, and people

now interact through social networks across local to national organizational and
institutional levels.
Adaptive Management and Organizational Learning

Because the self-organizing properties of complex ecosystems and associated
management systems seem to cause uncertainty to grow over time, understand-
ing should be continuously updated and adjusted, and each management action
viewed as an opportunity to further learn how to adapt to changing circumstances
(22). This is the foundation for active adaptive management wherein policies be-
come hypotheses, and management actions become the experiments to test those
hypotheses (99). Walters (100) in his review of adaptive management of ripar-
ian ecosystems argues that a reason for failure lies in management stakeholders
showing deplorable self-interest, seeing adaptive-policy development as a threat to
existing research programs and management regimes, rather than as an opportunity
for improvement. This is why it is important to address the social dimension and
contexts for adaptive governance in relation to ecosystem management, including
processes of participation, collective action, and learning.
Developing the capacity of individuals to learn effectively from their experi-
ences is an important part of building knowledge and skills into organizations and
institutions to permit good adaptive management (101). Learning that helps de-
velop adaptive expertise (an individual’s ability to deal flexibly with new situations)
and processes of sense making (102) are essential features in governance of com-
plex social-ecological systems, and these skills prepare managers for uncertainty
and surprise. Sense making implies taking interpretations seriously, inventing and
reinventing a meaningful order and then acting upon it (45). Learning for ecosys-
tem management is often considered to be a social process referred to as “social
learning” (56, 103). Authors have also used the concept “institutional learning.”
For example, Ostrom (61) stresses that although theory and evidence play a key role
in increasing the probability of selecting rules for resource management, leading
to better as contrasted to worse outcomes, they cannot eliminate the need to view
all policies as ongoing learning experiments that need to be monitored, evaluated,
and adapted over time.
The social context of learning is further stressed in the literature on organi-
zational learning (e.g., Reference 58). The confrontation of underlying assump-
tions, norms, and objectives and the changes in mental models and meaning were
referred to as double-loop learning by Argyris (104) and applied in relation to
ecosystem management by, e.g., Blann et al. (105). In recent organizational liter-
ature, resilience (interpreted as the capacity for innovation and renewal) has been
proposed as a key feature that allows industries to survive turbulent times and
reorganize (106). Whiteman et al. (107) argue that business theory and practice
need to move beyond organizational resilience and embrace ecosystem resilience
in management goals.
448 FOLKE ET AL.
Organizational learning is not limited to formal organizations but also takes

place in loosely defined organizations (108). For example, Fazey et al. (101) de-
scribe how managers of marsh areas in Australia combined their external expe-
riences for a collective interpretation of ecosystem dynamics, and Olsson et al.
(109) illustrate how knowledge for ecosystem management in southern Sweden,
generated through local innovation, learning, and practice, as well as through ex-
ternal experiences and contacts, is collectively mobilized in overlapping subsets of
the social network and applied in landscape management. Hence, social systems
are structured not only by rules, positions, and resources but also by meaning and
by the entire network of communicating individuals and organizations at differ-
ent levels of interaction, representing the social system involved in governance of

ecosystems (58, 110). A clear and convincing vision, comprehensive stories and
meaning, and good social links and trust with fellow stakeholders may mobilize
several interest groups at several levels and start a self-organizing process of learn-
ing and social capital generation for management of complex adaptive ecosystems
(111).
Governance and Adaptive Comanagement

The self-organizing process may emerge into systems of adaptive comanagement
(109, 112). “Adaptive comanagement” systems are flexible community-based sys-
tems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations, and they are
supported by and work with various organizations at different levels. The flexible
structure allows for learning and ways to respond to and shape change. Folke et al.
(113) define adaptive comanagement as a process by which institutional arrange-
ments and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing,
self-organized process of learning by doing. Adaptive comanagement combines
the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive management (e.g., Reference 49)
with the linkage characteristic of cooperative management (e.g., References 114
and 115) and also with collaborative management (e.g., Reference 116). Coman-
agement is concerned with the problem-solving process involved in sharing of
management power across organizational levels (117). Authors have identified so-
cial conditions that need to be fulfilled in comanagement systems (e.g., References
118 and 119).
Adaptive comanagement relies on the collaboration of a diverse set of stake-
holders, operating at different levels, often through networks from local users
to municipalities, to regional and national organizations, and also to international
bodies. The sharing of management power and responsibility may involve multiple
institutional linkages among user groups or communities, government agencies,
and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In addition, adaptive comanagement
extends adaptive management into the social domain and is a way to operationalize
adaptive governance. Although adaptive management focuses on understanding
ecosystem dynamics and feeding ecological knowledge into management orga-
nizations, adaptive governance conveys multi-objective reality when handling
conflicts among diverse stakeholders and, at the same time, adapts this social
problem to resolve issues concerning dynamic ecosystems (51). The term “gover-
nance” has recently become a catchword for various alternatives to conventional
top-down government control, including collaboration, partnerships, and networks
(120). Issues of legitimacy and accountability are often stressed in the literature
on governance (121, 122), and good governance of ecosystems has been inter-
preted as solving the trilemma characterized by tensions between effectiveness,
participation, and legitimacy (123).
Governance emerges from many actors in the state-society complex and can
be institutionalized or expressed through subtle norms of interactions or even
more indirectly through influencing agendas and shaping contexts in which actors
contest decisions and access resources (54). In a review of the recent governance
literature (L. Martin, unpublished paper), Martin found a new appreciation of
loosely structured governance entities that spontaneously emerge or self-organize,

often in response to rigid governmental structures. Lee (53) refers to such adaptive
systems of governance as the new governance and defines it as a polycentric form
of social coordination in which actions are coordinated voluntarily by individuals
and organizations with self-organizing and self-enforcing capabilities.
Adaptive governance of ecosystems generally involves polycentric institutional
arrangements, which are nested quasi-autonomous decision-making units operat-
ing at multiple scales (124, 125). They involve local, as well as higher, organiza-
tional levels and aim at finding a balance between decentralized and centralized
control (126). The vertical links of such arrangements may boost adaptive gov-
ernance, for instance when local and national institutions gain strength from be-
ing nested in regional and global institutions. Such links can also stifle adaptive
governance, as in cases where national land-use regulations contradict or under-
mine informal local systems of land tenure (127) and limit practitioners’ abilities
to exploit an interorganizational network’s collaborative capacity (128). Institu-
tional interaction across organizational levels can increase the diversity of response
options and can deal more appropriately with uncertainty and change (61). Fur-
thermore, such polycentric arrangements may be of significance in responding to
ecosystem dynamics at different scales. The ability to use institutions effectively,
at organizational levels appropriate to the ecological scale, has been referred to as
scale-matching (56) or institutional fit (84, 129).
Adaptive Governance and Social Capital

Adaptive governance involves devolution of management rights and power sharing
that promotes participation. However, devolution of management rights does not
automatically result in adaptive comanagement. Adaptive comanagement requires
social networks (in the sense of Reference 130). For example, the devolution of
management rights in1994 in Sweden to a fishing association resulted in increased
local control over the management of fish and crayfish in inland freshwater lakes
and streams (97). It did not initially involve efforts to develop partnerships among
450 FOLKE ET AL.
actors at local to state levels. However, in 1998 the Swedish Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the National Board of Fisheries initiated a joint project between
Norway and Sweden to implement an action program for conserving the noble
crayfish (131). It involves collaboration between county administration boards,
municipalities, rural economic and agricultural associations, local fishing associ-
ations, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Board of
Fisheries of both countries. It is funded by the European Commissions Interreg
program, three Norwegian and two Swedish county administrations boards, and
several Norwegian municipalities. The action program for the noble crayfish illus-
trates an alternative governance form within a polycentric institutional structure,
which assumed a new role for government and governmental agencies and stimu-
lated the emergence of adaptive governance. External resources and actors can play
an important role, interacting with internal and local ones, in creating civic arenas
or forums as well as social and political spaces for deliberation (94). Schneider
et al. (132) state that formal lines of authority are blurred in these self-organized
network-based governance systems in which diverse policy actors are knitted to-
gether to focus on common problems, but these multilevel networks can stimulate
collaboration, build trust, provide information, and encourage the development
of common perspectives on policy issues. Such networks represent informal gov-
ernance systems across organizational levels with an interest in influencing and
implementing policies in a given resource area. They have been referred to as
policy communities (133) or epistemic communities (134).
In times of rapid change informal social networks can provide arenas for novelty
and innovation and enhance flexibility, all of which tend to be stifled in bureau-
cracies (99). However, these network structures do not replace the accountability
of existing hierarchical bureaucracies but operate within and complement them
(135). As observed by Steel & Weber (136), too much decentralization may coun-
teract its purpose and miss the opportunity of collective action that involves several
organizational levels.
Networks of collaboration may emerge from different actors and levels, in-
cluding local as well as governmental initiatives. Schusler et al. (137) describe
a successful attempt by a New York State agency to encourage comanagement
through a deliberative process. Aided by researchers, the agency initiated collabo-
ration and catalyzed social learning. The stakeholders were invited to a conference
and learned about system dynamics of the basin, about the concerns of other par-
ticipants, and as much as half of them experienced value formation and altered
their own concerns related to natural resource management in the area. Formal col-
laboration initiated by authorities can be supported by legislation and institutional
interaction, as the polycentric fishing institutions in Sweden, or be nonstatutory
arrangements with the purpose of collaborative learning and conflict resolution,
as the example by Schusler illustrates. Berkes (138) distinguishes between real
comanagement, with shared management authority, and multistakeholder bodies
that are often used by government agencies to increase legitimacy and manage
conflicts without devolution of power.
Governing complex adaptive ecosystems requires adaptive managers supported

by flexible organizations (58); problem-oriented organization or adhocracy orga-
nizations (139) have been suggested by Danter et al. (59) and observed by Imperial
(128) as significant in this context. In Kristianstad, Sweden, the loosely connected
horizontal and vertical networks are based on voluntary participation, and key per-
sons are mobilized to form ad hoc project organizations when pressing issues arise
(140). These collaboration networks can provide an arena where social capital is
enhanced and where concerns are reformulated to generate innovation and nurture
renewal in times of reorganization. Informal collaboration dominates at the local
level but may also span the regional and global levels. For instance, UNESCO
Man and Biosphere reserves are often governed by an informal ad hoc assembly
of concerned individuals and NGOs with no legal power but ability to influence
the policy-making process (55).
Collaboration in governance networks requires leadership. Here we focus on

leadership in the direction of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Crises open up arenas for new leadership with various objectives (99). In a review of
the empirical literature on watershed partnership by Leach & Pelkey (141), effec-
tive leadership and management was the second most frequent factor for successful
partnership after adequate funding. Leadership is essential in shaping change and
reorganization by providing innovation in order to achieve the flexibility needed to
deal with ecosystem dynamics. This is addressed by Shannon (142) in her work on
the role of policy entrepreneurs in forest management and by Kuhnert (143) and
Ostrom (144) on public entrepreneurs in relation to irrigation- and groundwater
basin management. Furthermore, entrepreneurial leaders have proven their signif-
icance in the development of international institutions by functioning as agenda
setters, popularizing issues at stake, devising policy options to overcome bargain-
ing impediments, brokering deals, and lining up support for salient options (145).
Leaders can provide key functions for adaptive governance, such as building trust,
making sense, managing conflict, linking actors, initiating partnership among ac-
tor groups, compiling and generating knowledge, and mobilizing broad support
for change. Key individuals also develop and communicate visions of ecosystem
management that frame self-organizing processes (58). These individuals often
have the ability to manage existing knowledge within social networks for ecosys-
tem management and further develop those networks. Lack of leaders can lead to
inertia in social-ecological systems (111).
Trust makes social life predictable, it creates a sense of community, and it makes
it easier for people to work together (146). Trust can be said to be the basis of all
social institutions and is also integral to the idea of social influence, as it is easier
to influence or persuade someone who is trusting (147, 148). Building trust and the
growth of social network are closely related to investments in social capital. Pretty
& Ward (149) refer to social capital as relations of trust, reciprocity, common
rules, norms, sanctions, and connectedness in institutions. Several authors have
regarded social capital as the glue for adaptive capacity and collaboration (63,
109, 149–151), whereas others have contested its empirically explanatory power
452 FOLKE ET AL.
(152, 153). Social capital is built by investing in social relationships, and the
networks that emerge can either focus on horizontal or vertical collaboration (111).
Both dimensions seem to be necessary for transforming ecosystem management
to more adaptive governance (58). Wondolleck & Yaffee (118) provide several
examples of how public managers have invested in building trust and collaboration
to meet their objectives in natural resource management. Stakeholder networks
have emerged in some of the U.S. National Estuary Program areas (154). These
areas have been found to span more levels of government, integrate more experts
into policy discussions, build trust, reduce the level of conflict among key persons
from different stakeholder groups, and as a result, increase the legitimacy of the
program (132).
We emphasize that, to emerge and be effective, self-organized governance sys-
tems for ecosystem management require a civic society with a certain level of social
capital (53, 149), and the governance system must continuously learn and generate
experience about ecosystem dynamics. Social capital increases the flexibility of
management organizations and institutions, but the social features and processes
underlying reorganization after disturbance are not well understood. In the next
section, we focus on social sources of resilience that make adaptive governance of
social-ecological systems possible. We are particularly interested in social sources
of resilience that can be mobilized to adapt to and shape periods of rapid and
turbulent change as well as contribute to the reorganization of social-ecological
systems into desired states.
SOCIAL SOURCES OF RESILIENCE FOR

ADAPTABILITY AND TRANSFORMATION
Systems with high adaptive capacity are able to reconfigure themselves when
subject to change without significant declines in crucial functions of the social-
ecological system. Gunderson & Holling (8) argue that addressing how people
respond to periods of change and how society reorganizes following change are
the most neglected and the least understood aspects in resource management and
science. Synthesizing several case studies, Folke et al. (68) identified and expanded
on the following four critical factors that interact across temporal and spatial scales
and that seem to be required for dealing with social-ecological dynamics during
periods of rapid change and reorganization:
Learning to live with change and uncertainty
Combining different types of knowledge for learning
Creating opportunity for self-organization toward social-ecological resilience
Nurturing sources of resilience for renewal and reorganization
The first three factors have been dealt with above. Here, we focus on nurturing
sources of resilience. The functional role of biological diversity as a source of
resilience in ecosystem renewal and reorganization is a growing area of research

reviewed elsewhere (e.g., References 10 and 28). Here, we are concerned with the
social sources in adaptive governance of social-ecological systems that help cope
with and adapt to change and facilitate reorganization and innovation following
disturbance and crisis.
Social Memory, Teams, and Actor Groups

as Sources of Resilience
Resilience of social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty and surprise is
about promoting the capacity to expect the unexpected and absorb it (72). As
suggested by Low et al. (155) diversity and redundancy of institutions and their
overlapping functions across organizational levels may play a central role in ab-
sorbing disturbance and in spreading risks. Hence, it is an important challenge

to overcome common perceptions of inefficiencies associated with redundancy,
namely fragmentation and duplication of authority, policy inconsistencies, and
high transaction costs (126). Accumulating experience through collective learn-
ing, mobilized during periods of rapid change as discussed above, is important
in this context (56, 93). A collective memory of experiences with resource and
ecosystem management provides context for social responses and helps the social-
ecological system prepare for change. If experience embedded in institutions and
organizations provides a context for the modification of management policy and
rules, people can act adaptively in the face of surprise. They can navigate the
turbulent phase and perform through diversification and redundancy rather than
simplification (61, 155).
A crucial challenge for adaptive governance during periods of rapid change
seems to be the mobilization of social memory. “Social memory” has been defined
as the arena in which captured experience with change and successful adaptations,
embedded in a deeper level of values, is actualized through community debate and
decision-making processes into appropriate strategies for dealing with ongoing
change (67). Social memory is important for linking past experiences with present
and future policies. It is a part of the cultural capital of human society (156). A sub-
set of social memory is the accumulation of a diversity of experiences concerning
management practices and rules in use at the collective level. It draws on experience
but allows for novelty, innovation, and experimentation within the framework of
accumulated experience (e.g., Reference 140), referred to as framed creativity (68).
Social memory seems to play an important role in the adaptive comanagement
process when key persons draw on social memory of several scales in reorgani-
zation following change. Social networks can be key mechanisms for drawing on
social memory at critical times and enhance information flow and collaboration
across scales. The social memory of past changes in ecosystems, and responses to
these, can be mobilized and fed into processes whereby structures of governance of
ecosystem are decided, management practices worked out, and conflicts resolved.
This requires leadership at various organizational levels (110, 157).
454 FOLKE ET AL.
Different agents/actors or team/actor groups seem to play significant roles, as

part of social memory, in mobilizing the social network to deal with change and
unexpected events and to reorganize accordingly. Guimerà et al. (158) find that
team self-assembly mechanisms determine the structure of collaboration networks
and team performance. They suggest that team size, the fraction of newcomers, and
the tendency of incumbents to repeat previous collaboration are of significance.
Holling & Chambers (159) identified in their workshops on adaptive management
a set of characters that emerges in the process and that take on different roles
from leadership to those who oppose and criticize. Gladwell (160) in his book on
tipping points stresses the social roles of mavens (altruistic individuals, with social
skills, who serve as information brokers, sharing and trading what they know) and
connectors (individuals who know lots of people not only by numbers but the kind
of people they know and in particular the diversity of acquaintances). They are the
strength of the weak ties and enhance the information base of their social network.
Mavens are data banks and provide the message. Connectors are social glue and
spread the message, and then there are salesmen, individuals with the social skills
to persuade people unconvinced of what they are hearing. All interact to create
rapid and large change (160).
Many patterns of adaptive comanagement can be understood by personal traits,
and these traits combined with the roles of teams or actor groups are important
factors for building adaptive capacity and provide a source of social resilience in
social-ecological systems. Bebbington (161) identified brokers with different back-
grounds, including a priest, university professor, European volunteers, and funding
agencies that came from outside and played key roles in sustainable agriculture
intensification in the Andes. They brought in new ideas, but more importantly they
brought in networks of contacts that helped the members of the local communi-
ties gain access to nonlocal institutions and resources, including access to NGOs
with technical assistance and financial resources, sources of technology, donors,
and alternative trading networks. Tompkins et al. (162) show how expanding and
linking networks of dependence and exchange helps facilitate integrated and in-
clusive coastal management in Trinidad and Tobago. Such networks spread across
national and international boundaries in ways that would have been hard for the
locals to do on their own.
Other social roles of key individuals operating in teams or actor groups in
adaptive comanagement systems include knowledge carriers, knowledge gener-
ators, stewards, leaders, and people who make sense of available information
(109). Folke et al. (68), using several case studies, also identified the following
actor groups: knowledge retainers, interpreters, facilitators, visionaries, inspirers,
innovators, experimenters, followers, and reinforcers. Social capital focuses on
relationships among such groups, i.e., the bridging and bonding links between
people in social networks (163, 164). Applied to adaptive governance, these re-
lationships must be fed with relevant knowledge on ecosystem dynamics. This is
related to the capacity of teams to process information, to make sense of scien-
tific data and connect it to an empirical context, to mobilize the social memory of
experiences from past changes and responses, and to facilitate adaptive and inno-
vative responses.
Social roles of actor groups are all important components of social networks
and essential for creating the conditions that we argue are necessary for adaptive
governance of ecosystem dynamics during periods of rapid change and reorga-
nization. Linking different actors groups in networks and creating opportunities
for new interactions are important for dealing with uncertainty and change and
critical factors for learning and nurturing integrated adaptive responses to change
(165). We hypothesize that the combination of social roles of agent/actor and
team/actor groups as part of social memory as well as their diversity, overlapping
functions, and redundancy provide resilience for reorganization, allow for nov-
elty, and thereby enhance adaptive capacity in the face of disturbance and crisis
(68). But their combination may also cause barriers, collision, and erosion of so-
cial capital and social memory, as may be the case when different cultural value
systems, worldviews, and discrepancies in conceptualization are brought together
and interact (e.g., Reference 166) or when the cultural dynamics created by the
policies of those in power during earlier periods may inhibit development of the
ability to respond to disturbance and surprise (99). In this sense, the underlying
worldview of resource management (167) may impose a grid on social memory
for managing ecosystem dynamics (1), and opinion shifts may be inhibited by
credible authorities, who neglect the problem, or by competition for attention to
other issues and problems that take place simultaneously (111).
However, key individuals with strong leadership may catalyze opinion shifts
(111, 160), and creative teams and actor groups may emerge into a large connected
community of practitioners who prepare a social-ecological system for change
(105, 158) and transform it into a new state as discussed below. Such fundamental
change in social-ecological systems can occur rapidly (111).
Transforming Governance for Social-Ecological

Sustainability
Surprise and crisis seem to create space for reorganization, renewal, and nov-
elty as well as provide opportunities for new ways of social self-organization for
resilience (8). The crises may be caused by, for example, external markets and
tourism pressure, floods and flood management, shifts in property rights, threats
of acidification, resource failures, rigid paradigms of resource management, and
new legislation or governmental policies that do not take into account local con-
texts (42). A social-ecological system with low levels of social memory and social
capital is vulnerable to such changes and may as a consequence deteriorate into
undesired states.
In contrast, crisis may trigger mobilization of social capital and social memory
and may result in new forms of governance systems with the ability to manage
dynamic ecosystems and landscapes. This has been referred to as building social
capacity for resilience in social-ecological systems (68), and it requires inducing
456 FOLKE ET AL.

Figure 1 The role of leadership in transforming an organization toward ecosystem

management and sustaining it [modified from Danter et al. (59)].
change in social structures (58). For instance, in a study of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Danter et al. (59) highlight the need for organizational change
as a component of ecosystem management and put forward the role of leadership
in actively initiating change within organizations (Figure 1). Visionary leaders
fabricate new and vital meanings, overcome contradictions, create new synthesis,
and forge new alliances between knowledge and action (58). Leadership that can
engage and change the opinions and values of a critical mass of people to create
an epidemic movement toward an idea has been investigated by Scheffer et al.
(111) and is referred to as tipping-point leadership (168). Kingdon (169) stresses
the importance of timing for initiating change and suggests that policy windows
open either when decision makers perceive a problem as pressing and seek a policy
(problem-driven window) or when they adopt a theme for their administration and
look for problems that may justify change and proposals that are along the theme
(politically driven window). A policy entrepreneur in this context is a person who
connects political momentum to problem perception and a policy proposal. Grindle
& Thomas (170) have also studied the role of such key individuals in shaping and
influencing policy and institutional change with a focus on developing countries.
Key individuals assess and identify a range of opportunities for change, a process
referred to as creating policy space. Single individuals have also been found to play
key functions in managing boundaries between different organizations involved in
science and policy and also in the context of learning, knowledge generation, and
social responses for dealing with global environmental risks (103, 171), including
the social amplification of risk (172).
In the literature on resilience, adaptability is the capacity of actors in a social-
ecological system to manage resilience in the face of uncertainty and surprise.
It implies remaining and developing within the current attractor of the social-
ecological system. In contrast, transformability is the capacity to create a funda-
mentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political)
conditions make the existing system untenable. Transformability means creating
and defining a new attractor that directs the development of the social-ecological
system by introducing new components and ways of making a living, thereby

changing the state variables, and often the scales of key cycles, that define the
system (18).
Transformations toward alternative forms of governance have been addressed by

Kettl (135), Kuks & Bressers (173) and Agrawal (174). In a recent paper (109), we
analyzed the emergence of a governance system for adaptive comanagement of the
wetland landscape of Kristianstad in southern Sweden, a process whereby uncon-
nected management by several actors in the landscape was mobilized, renewed, and
moved into a new configuration of ecosystem management within about a decade.
The self-organizing process was triggered by the perceived threats to the area’s
cultural and ecological values among people of various local steward associations
and local government. A key individual provided visionary leadership in directing
change and transforming governance. The transformation involved four phases: (a)
preparing the system for change, (b) the opening of an opportunity, (c) navigating
the transition, and (d ) charting a new direction for management while building
resilience of the new governance regime (Figure 2). Trust-building dialogues, mo-
bilization of social networks with actors and teams across scales, coordination
of ongoing activities, sense making, collaborative learning, and creating public
awareness were part of the process. A comprehensive framework with a shared
vision and goals that presented conservation as development and turned problems
into opportunities was developed and contributed to a shift in values and mean-
ing of the wetland landscape among key actors. The shift was facilitated through
broader scale crises, such as seal deaths and toxic algal blooms in the North Sea,
which caused environmental issues to become top priority on the national political
level, at the time of a search for a new identity at the municipality level. Hence, a
window of opportunity at the political level opened, which made it possible to tip
and transform the governance system into a trajectory of adaptive comanagement
of the landscape with extensive social networks of practitioners engaged in mul-
tilevel governance. The transformation took place within the existing institutional
framework (140). As observed by McCay (94), changing perceptions of the envi-
ronment can change human behavior on a fairly large scale without involving the
social dynamics and political behavior involved in making and changing rules.
Transformational leadership includes recognizing opportunities, identifying
and transforming constraints and barriers, such as conflicts of interests, values,
458
26 Sep 2005 15:56
AR
FOLKE ET AL.
ANRV256-EG30-13.tex
XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24)
Figure 2 Transformation toward adaptive comanagement of the wetland landscape in southern Sweden. The transformation was orchestrated
P1: KUV
by leaders providing vision and meaning, learning and knowledge generation, and gluing and expanding social networks, thereby preparing
the social-ecological system for change when the opportunity opened [reprinted with permission from Olsson et al. (109)].
and opinions (175). This is critical for reducing the resilience of undesired trajec-
tories and building up a momentum for moving into new trajectories (58). Currently
efforts in the wetland landscape of Kristianstad are directed toward strengthening
the resilience of the new governance system in the performance of ecosystem man-
agement. Olsson et al. (109) identified 30 different strategies for increasing the
capacity for dealing with uncertainty and change and divided these strategies into
developing motivation and values for ecosystem management, directing the local
context through adaptive comanagement, and navigating the larger environment.
The new governance system strives to combine vision, direction, learning, and
management and has been instrumental in orchestrating the area to become the
first Man and the Biosphere Reserve in Sweden.

Successful social transformations toward adaptive governance for ecosystem
management seem to be preceded by the emergence of informal networks, orches-
trated by key individuals, that help facilitate information flows, identify knowledge
gaps, and create nodes of expertise of significance for ecosystem management that
can be drawn upon at critical times. These networks place emphasis on political
independence, out of the fray of regulation and implementation, places where for-
mal networks and many planning processes fail (50). Gunderson et al. (99) have
emphasized the role of such shadow networks as incubators of new approaches
for governing social-ecological systems. Because members of these networks are
not always under scrutiny or obligations of their agencies or constituencies, most
likely they are freer to develop alternative policies, dare to learn from each other,
and think creatively about the resolution of resource problems. But, even if the new
adaptive governance system is performing in a resilient manner through adaptive
comanagement of ecosystems and landscapes it may be challenged and fragile
during changes in external drivers.
ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE IN RELATION

TO THE BROADER ENVIRONMENT
Lots of efforts may go in to supporting the emergence of adaptive governance
for management of ecosystems, and such governance may perform quite success-
fully during periods of gradual change. But rapid change may challenge the whole
governance system. In the Kristianstad example, a change in European Union agri-
cultural subsidies of cattle grazing or a rapid increase in climate-induced flooding
may perturb the system and cause irreversible change. Therefore, key stewards
actively develop strategies that prepare for uncertainty and surprise. They navi-
gate the larger environment of social, economic, and ecological drivers to reduce
vulnerability and thereby enhance their ability to cope with change as resource
development continues along desired trajectories.
Vulnerability research emphasizes the importance of addressing both the role
of external forces and rapid change in reshaping social-ecological systems as well
as the different capacities of agents/actors in the system to respond to change on
the basis of their access to social and biophysical capital (36). In their review on
460 FOLKE ET AL.
causes behind land-use change, Lambin et al. (176) argue that land-use change can
be understood using the concepts of complex adaptive systems and transitions.
They illustrate that synergies between resource scarcity leading to an increase
in the pressure of production on resources, changing opportunities created by
markets, outside policy intervention, loss of adaptive capacity, and changes in
social organization and attitudes are essential drivers that challenge governance
systems in tropical regions. The strength of marine tenure institutions in Papua
New Guinea and Indonesia seems to be undermined by connectivity to larger
markets. Immigration, dependence on fishing, and conflicts also impact marine
tenure systems (177). Differences in land tenure, agricultural policy, and market
conditions are more significant drivers of long-term changes in semiarid African

savannas than are agro-pastoral population growth, cattle numbers, or small-holder
land use (178). Increasing vulnerability places a region on a trajectory of greater
risk to the panoply of stresses and shocks that occur over time. Catastrophes, i.e.,
undesirable sudden changes in social-ecological systems, are due to a combination
of the magnitude of external forces and the internal resilience of the system.
As resilience declines, it takes a progressively smaller external event to cause
a catastrophe. The process is a cumulative one in which sequences of shocks and
stresses punctuate the trends, and the inability to replenish coping resources propels
a region and its people to increasing criticality (6, 7, 179).
Hence, adaptive governance of social-ecological resilience also requires ca-
pacity to deal with the broader environment and preparation for uncertainty and
surprise (180). A growing literature on polycentric institutions (124, 125, 181)
demonstrates that flexible coping with external drivers and rapid change is en-
hanced by systems of governance that exist at multiple levels with some degree of
autonomy, complemented by modest overlaps in authority and capability (155).
Such flexible institutional arrangements have been judged as inefficient because
they look messy and are nonhierarchical in structure, but they help provide a reper-
toire of general design principles that can be drawn on by resource users at multiple
levels to aid in the crafting of new institutions that cope with changing situations
(182, 183).
A lot of attention is given to multilevel governance and cross-scale interactions
in relation to social-ecological systems and adaptive comanagement (e.g., Refer-
ences 41, 127, 129, 138, 184–186). The real challenge is dealing with systems
that are not only cross-scale but also dynamic, whereby the nature of cross-scale
influences in the linked social-ecological system changes over time, creating fun-
damental problems for division of responsibility between centralized and decen-
tralized agents (187). Gunderson & Holling (8) use the concept “panarchy” as a
heuristic model to conceptualize complex interactions, emphasizing the interplay
between periods of gradual and rapid change within and between scales and be-
tween novelty and memory, and scholars have used such aspects to address change
in complex adaptive social-ecological systems (e.g., References 188 and 189).
An important factor in this context is organizations in adaptive comanage-
ment that emerge to bridge local actors and communities with other scales of
organizations. Such bridging organizations can serve as filters for external drivers
(190) and also provide opportunities by bringing in resources, knowledge, and other
incentives for ecosystem management. Westley (58) used the term “bridging” for
interorganizational collaboration. In Kristianstad, southern Sweden, a bridging or-
ganization, the Ecomuseum Kristianstad Vattenrike, emerged as a local response
to the perceived crisis in wetland landscape management. The Ecomuseum pro-
vides an arena for building trust, sense making, learning, vertical and/or horizontal
collaboration, and conflict resolution. The bridging organization encompasses the
function of a boundary organization (171, 191) by communicating, translating,
and mediating scientific knowledge to make it relevant to policy and action. The
organization also uses its network of stakeholders to mobilize knowledge and so-
cial memory in turbulent times, which in turn help deal with uncertainty and shape
change (68).
NGOs may act as bridging organizations in, for example, community-based

ecosystem management in tropical regions, and scientists may serve as visionary
leaders in the process (e.g., Reference 81). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(http://www.maweb.org) provides several local examples of how bridging organi-
zations perform essential functions in crafting effective responses, often without
changing formal institutions (192). These include the bottom-up initiative in Swe-
den, a top-down initiative in the Philippines, and external initiatives in Indonesia
and Chile. About 12 million people live around the Laguna Lake in the Philippines.
The governance was compartmentalized and nonparticipatory before the author-
ities formed 33 River Rehabilitation Councils (RRCs), which included several
stakeholders. The RRCs can be regarded as bridging organizations that are able to
address social as well as ecological drivers and make comprehensive and effective
responses to declining trends. The scientific community played an important role in
the formation of RRCs (193). Development agencies and research institutes, such
as the Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) program of International Centre for
Research in Agroforestry, can also act as catalyzer and perform functions similar to
bridging organizations. In Indonesia, the ASB facilitated a tenure reform by invest-
ing several years in dialogue and consensus building with NGOs, local government
offices, and the Krui community. Eventually the ASB managed to convince the au-
thorities of the high social benefits from community agroforestry (194). In northern
Chile, a small research center without formal political or economic power man-
aged to provide an arena with an advisory committee, for indigenous communities,
large mining companies, tourist operators, and local government officials. Access
to information and the unique opportunity to interact because of a complex and
pressing issue attracted these participants. A history of distrust was broken when,
for the first time, they sat down together to discuss ecosystem management and
local development. Capacity building was reinforced through scenario workshops
undertaken in late 2004, as part of The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (195).
Bridging organizations thrive under open institutions (196), which provide flex-
ibility and space for dealing with the ambiguity of multiple objectives. These are
important in strengthening the adaptive capacity of local actors. By reducing the
462 FOLKE ET AL.
(nonmonetary) transaction costs of collaboration, bridging organizations can be

described as providing social incentives to stakeholders to invest in building trust,
identification of common interests, and resolving conflict (140). The facilitation,
leadership, and social incentives for collaboration provided by bridging organi-
zations or key persons in the community appear to be essential for building the
capacity to adapt to change (118).
In a similar vein, McCay (94) states that emergence of viable governance in-
stitutions may depend on the creation of large multistakeholder organizations or
encompassing organizations. She refers to a coordinating unit that was created in
Ecuador (using a model tried out in Mexico) and that represented local communi-
ties, timber companies, government agencies, environmental NGOs, and foreign

assistance groups. It became a forum for discussion and debate on sustainable
forestry issues, and a civic arena for bargaining and making compromises and
trade-offs, as well as communication. The local communities were able to im-

prove the terms of trade with the timber companies because they could exchange
information on deals offered and cooperate in demanding better prices. The timber
companies also benefited by getting the communities to agree on a workable policy
for sales of timber land.
CONCLUSION
In recent years cooperative and collaborative efforts and participatory approaches
have become increasingly popular in ecosystem management and governmental
policy. Stakeholder meetings, engaging different actors in workshop settings, have
been part of the process. There has been a tendency, however, for the natural sci-
entists to do the science first or governmental agencies to develop the agenda first,
present it to the different groups, and incorporate these groups in already estab-
lished frameworks. Complex social dynamics, such as trust building and power
relations, have often been underestimated and the view of social relationships
simplified. Once a problem needing collaboration moves into the public arena,
stakeholders tend to become frozen in polarized positions, and any real negotiation
becomes difficult (58). Consequently, many attempts for ecosystem stewardship
have failed.
In this review, we have explored the social dimension of adaptive comanage-
ment of ecosystems and landscapes, referred to as systems of adaptive governance.
The focus has been on social features and sources that seem to be of significance in
responding to crisis, shaping change and building resilience for reorganization and
renewal of social-ecological systems, both internally and in relation to external per-
turbations. This challenge involves linking a broad range of actors at multiple scales
to deal with the interrelated dynamics of resources and ecosystems, management
systems and social systems, as well as uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise.
Adaptive governance focuses on experimentation and learning, and it brings
together research on institutions and organizations for collaboration, collective
action, and conflict resolution in relation to natural resource and ecosystem man-
agement. The essential role of individuals needs to be recognized in this context
(e.g., leadership, trust building, vision, and meaning); their social relations (e.g.,
actor groups, knowledge systems, social memory) and social networks serve as
the web that tie together the adaptive governance system. It has cross-level and
cross-scale activities and includes governmental policies that frame creativity. The
notion of adaptation implies capacity to respond to change and even transform
social-ecological systems into improved states.
Research on adaptive governance of social-ecological systems illustrate that
the management of ecosystem and landscapes is complex to apprehend and imple-
ment and, therefore, cannot easily be subject to planning and control by a central
organization, such as a national government. However, the conditions creating the
opportunities for adaptive comanagement to self-organize, such as enabling leg-
islation, flexible institutions, and recognition of bridging organization, are good

candidates for governmental actions, which can be carefully tested and evaluated.
The review highlights the following four interacting aspects of importance in
adaptive governance of complex social-ecological systems:
Build knowledge and understanding of resource and ecosystem dynamics;
detecting and responding to environmental feedback in a fashion that con-
tributes to resilience require ecological knowledge and understanding of
ecosystem processes and functions. All sources of understanding need to
be mobilized, and management of complex adaptive systems may benefit
from the combination of different knowledge systems. Social incentives for
ecological knowledge generation need to be in place as well as the capacity
to monitor and translate signals (feedback) from ecosystem dynamics into
knowledge that can be used in the social system.
Feed ecological knowledge into adaptive management practices; successful
management is characterized by continuous testing, monitoring, and reevalu-
ation to enhance adaptive responses, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty
in complex systems. It is increasingly proposed that knowledge generation
of ecosystem dynamics should be explicitly integrated with adaptive man-
agement practices rather than striving for optimization based on past records.
This aspect emphasizes a learning environment that requires leadership and
changes of social norms within management organizations.
Support flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems; the adap-
tive governance framework is operationalized through adaptive comanage-
ment whereby the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive management
is combined with the multilevel linkage characteristic of comanagement.
The sharing of management power and responsibility may involve multiple
and often polycentric institutional and organizational linkages among user
groups or communities, government agencies, and nongovernmental organi-
zations, i.e., neither centralization nor decentralization but cross-level inter-
actions. Adaptive comanagement relies on the collaboration of a diverse set of
464 FOLKE ET AL.
stakeholders, operating at different levels through social networks. This as-

pect emphasizes the role of multilevel social networks to generate and transfer
knowledge and develop social capital as well as legal, political, and financial
support to ecosystem management initiatives.
Deal with external perturbations, uncertainty and surprise; it is not sufficient
for a well-functioning multilevel governance system to be in tune with the
dynamics of the ecosystems under management. It also needs to develop
capacity for dealing with changes in climate, disease outbreaks, hurricanes,
global market demands, subsidies, and governmental policies. The chal-
lenge for the social-ecological system is to accept uncertainty, be prepared
for change and surprise, and enhance the adaptive capacity to deal with dis-
turbance. Nonresilient social-ecological systems are vulnerable to external
change, whereas a resilient system may even make use of disturbances as
opportunities to transform into more desired states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank friends and colleagues of the Resilience Alliance, Stock-
holm University, and the Beijer Institute for constructive discussions. FORMAS,
the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial
Planning, has supported our work.
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online at

http://environ.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
1. Holling CS, Meffe GK. 1996. Command Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Re-
and control and the pathology of natu- sour. Inst.
ral resource management. Conserv. Biol. 6. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner BL,
10:328–37 eds. 1995. Regions at Risk: Compar-
2. Redman C. 1999. Human Impact on An- isons of Threatened Environments. Tokyo:
cient Environments. Tucson, AZ: Univ. United Nations Univ. Press
Ariz. Press 7. Allison HE, Hobbs RJ. 2004. Resilience,
3. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap”
Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, et al. 2001. of the western Australian agricultural re-
Historical overfishing and the recent col- gion. Ecol. Soc. 9(1):3. http://www.eco
lapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: logyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3/
629–37 8. Gunderson L, Holling CS, eds. 2002. Pa-
4. Diamond J. 2005. Collapse: How Soci- narchy: Understanding Transformations
eties Choose to Fail or Survive. London: in Human and Natural Systems. Washing-
Lane ton, DC: Island
5. Millenn. Ecosyst. Assess. 2005. Ecosys- 9. Steffen W, Sanderson A, Tyson PD, Jager
tems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity J, Matson PM, et al. 2004. Global Change
and the Earth System: A Planet Under ing with collapse: ecological and social
Pressure. New York: Springer-Verlag dynamics in ecosystem management. Bio-
10. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer Science 6:451–57
M, Elmqvist T, et al. 2004. Regime shifts, 23. Carpenter SR, Walker B, Anderies JM,
resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem Abel N. 2001. From metaphor to measure-
management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. ment: resilience of what to what? Ecosys-
35:557–81 tems 4:765–81
11. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley J, Folke 24. Gunderson L, Pritchard L, eds. 2002. Re-
C, Walker B. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in silience and the Behavior of Large Scale
ecosystems. Nature 413:591–696 Systems. Washington, DC: Island
12. Odum EP. 1989. Ecology and Our Endan- 25. Hughes T, Bellwood D, Folke C, Steneck
gered Life-Support System. Sunderland, R, Wilson J. 2005. New paradigms for

MA: Sinauer supporting resilience of marine ecosys-
13. Folke C, Jansson Å, Larsson J, Costanza tems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:380–86
R. 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by 26. Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS. 1998.
cities. Ambio 26:167–72 Ecological resilience, biodiversity and
14. Natl. Res. Counc. 1999. Our Common scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18
Journey: A Transition Toward Sustain- 27. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peter-
ability. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. son G, Bengtsson J, et al. 2003. Response
15. Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stabil- diversity and ecosystem resilience. Front.
ity of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Ecol. Environ. 1:488–94
Syst. 4:1–23 28. Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hec-
16. Holling CS. 1986. The resilience of terres- tor A, Inchausti P, et al. 2005. Eeffects
trial ecosystems: local surprise and global of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning:
change. In Sustainable Development of a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol.
the Biosphere, ed. WC Clark, RE Munn, Monogr. 75:3–36
pp. 292–317. London: Cambridge Univ. 29. Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown
Press JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, et al. 1996.
17. Holling CS. 2001. Understanding the The report of the Ecological Society of
complexity of economic, ecological, and America Committee on the scientific basis
social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405 for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl.
18. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, 6:665–91
Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability 30. Dale VH, Brown S, Haeuber RA, Hobbs
and transformability in social-ecological NT, Huntly N, et al. 2000. Ecological prin-
systems. Ecol. Soc. 9(2):5. http://www. ciples and guidelines for managing the use
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ of land. Ecol. Appl. 107:639–70
19. van der Leeuw SE. 2000. Land degrada- 31. Waltner-Toews D, Kay J. 2005. The evo-
tion as a socionatural process. See Ref. lution of an ecosystem approach: the dia-
197, pp. 190–210 mond schematic and an adaptive method-
20. Costanza R, Waigner L, Folke C, Mäler ology for ecosystem sustainability and
K-G. 1993. Modeling complex ecological health. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):38. http://www.
economic systems: towards an evolution- ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art38/
ary dynamic understanding of people and 32. Holland JH, Holyoak KJ, Nisbett RE,
nature. BioScience 43:545–55 Thagard PR. 1986. Induction: Processes
21. Levin S. 1999. Fragile Dominion: Com- of Inference, Learning, and Discovery.
plexity and the Commons. Reading, MA: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Perseus 33. Arthur WB. 1999. Complexity and the
22. Carpenter SR, Gunderson LH. 2001. Cop- economy. Science 284:107–9
466 FOLKE ET AL.
34. Janssen MA, Jager W. 2001. Fash- 45. Westley F, Carpenter SR, Brock WA,
ions, habits and changing preferences: Holling CS, Gunderson LH. 2002. Why
simulation of psychological factors affect- systems of people and nature are not just
ing market dynamics. J. Econ. Psychol. social and ecological systems. See Ref. 8,
22:745–72 pp. 103–19
35. Lansing JS. 2003. Complex adaptive sys- 46. Huitric M. 2005. Lobster and conch
tems. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 32:183–204 fisheries of Belize: a history of sequential
36. Turner BL II, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, exploitation. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):21. http://
Corell RW, Christensen L, et al. 2003. Sci- www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/
ence and technology for sustainable de- art21/
velopment special feature: illustrating the 47. Bodin Ö, Norberg J. 2005. Information
coupled human-environment system for network topologies for enhanced local

vulnerability analysis. Three case stud- adaptive management. Environ. Manag.
ies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:8080– 35(2):175–93
85 48. Carpenter SR, Brock WA. 2004. Spa-

37. Waltner-Toews D, Kay JJ, Neudoerffer C, tial complexity, resilience and policy di-
Gitau T. 2003. Perspective changes ev- versity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes.
erything: managing ecosystems from the Ecol. Soc. 9(1):8. http://www.ecology
inside out. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1:23– andsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art8/
30 49. Holling CS. 1978. Adaptive Environmen-
38. Gallopin GC, Funtowicz S, O’Connor M, tal Assessment and Management. Lon-
Ravetz J. 2001. Science for the twenty- don: Wiley
first century: from social contract to the 50. Gunderson L. 1999. Resilience, flexib-
scientific core. Int. J. Soc. Sci. 168:219– ility and adaptive management: antidotes
29 for spurious certitude? Conserv. Ecol. 3:
39. Holmes CM. 2001. Navigating the so- 7. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art
cioecological landscape. Conserv. Biol. 7
15:1466–67 51. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. 2003. The
40. Berkes F, Folke C, eds. 1998. Linking struggle to govern the commons. Science
Social and Ecological Systems: Manage- 302:1902–12
ment Practices and Social Mechanisms 52. Stoker G. 1998. Governance as the-
for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: ory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J.
Cambridge Univ. Press 50(155):17–28
41. Costanza R, Low BS, Ostrom E, Wilson 53. Lee M. 2003. Conceptualizing the new
J. 2001. Institutions, Ecosystems, and Sus- governance: a new institution of social
tainability. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis coordination. Presented at the Inst. Anal.
42. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, eds. Dev. Mini-Conf., May 3–5, Workshop
2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Sys- Polit. Theory Policy Anal., Indiana Univ.,
tems: Building Resilience for Complexity Bloomington
and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 54. Lebel L, Anderies JM, Cambell B,
Univ. Press Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, et al. 2005.
43. Janssen MA, Anderies JM, Walker BH. Governance and the capacity to manage
2004. Robust strategies for managing resilience in regional social-ecological
rangelands with multiple stable attractors. systems. Ecol. Soc. In press
J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47:140–62 55. Boyle M, Kay J, Pond B. 2001. Mon-
44. Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B. 2001. itoring in support of policy: an adap-
Ecology, conservation, and public policy. tive ecosystem approach. In Encyclope-
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:481–517 dia of Global Environmental Change,
Vol. 4, ed. T Munn, pp. 116–37. New portance of institutional diversity. Annu.
York: Wiley Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:113–33
56. Lee KN. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: 70. Peterson GD, Carpenter SR, Brock WA.
Integrating Science and Politics for the 2003. Uncertainty and the management of
Environment. Washington, DC: Island multistate ecosystems: an apparently ra-
57. Grumbine RE. 1994. What is ecosystem tional route to collapse. Ecology 84:1403–
management? Conserv. Biol. 8:27–38 11
58. Westley F. 1995. Governing design: 71. Costanza R, Cornwell L. 1992. The 4p
the management of social systems and approach to dealing with scientific uncer-
ecosystems management. See Ref. 99, pp. tainty. Environment 34(9):12–20, 42
391–427 72. Kates RW, Clark WC. 1996. Expecting
59. Danter KJ, Griest DL, Mullins GW, Nor- the unexpected. Environment 38(2):6–11,
land E. 2000. Organizational change as 28–34
a component of ecosystem management. 73. Chambers R. 1994. Beyond Farmers First.
Soc. Nat. Resour. 13:537–47 London: IT Publ.

60. Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E. 74. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM,
2004. A framework to analyze the ro- Jaeger CC, et al. 2001. Environment and
bustness of social-ecological systems development: sustainability science. Sci-
from an institutional perspective. Ecol. ence 292(5517):641–42
Soc. 9(1):18. http://www.ecologyandsoc 75. Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C. 1993. In-
iety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/ digenous knowledge for biodiversity con-
61. Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding Institu- servation. Ambio 22:151–56
tional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 76. Nabhan GP. 1997. Cultures of Habitat:
Univ. Press On Nature, Culture, and Story. Washing-
62. Ostrom E, Ahn TK. 2003. Foundations of ton, DC: Counterpoint
Social Capital. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar 77. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Re-
63. Adger WN. 2003. Social capital, col- discovery of traditional ecological knowl-
lective action and adaptation to climate edge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl.
change. Econ. Geogr. 79:387–404 10:1251–62
64. Pretty J. 2003. Social capital and the col- 78. Fabricius C, Koch E, eds. 2004. Rights,
lective management of resources. Science Resources and Rural Development: Com-
302:1912–14 munity-Based Natural Resource Manage-
65. Scoones I. 1999. New ecology and the so- ment in Southern Africa. London: Earth-
cial sciences: what prospects for a fruitful scan
engagement? Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28: 79. McLain R, Lee R. 1996. Adaptive man-
479–507 agement: promises and pitfalls. J. Envi-
66. Abel T, Stepp JR. 2003. A new ecosys- ron. Manag. 20:437–48
tems ecology for anthropology. Conserv. 80. Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Licht-
Ecol. 7(3):12. http://www.consecol.org/ enfeld LL. 2000. Community natural re-
vol7/iss3/art12/ source management: promise, rhetoric,
67. McIntosh RJ. 2000. Social memory in and reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13:705–15
Mande. See Ref. 197, pp. 141–80 81. Gadgil M, Seshagiri Rao PR, Utkarsh G,
68. Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F. 2003. Syn- Pramod P, Chatre A. 2000. New mean-
thesis: building resilience and adaptive ca- ings for old knowledge: the people’s bio-
pacity in social-ecological systems. See diversity registers programme. Ecol. Appl.
Ref. 42, pp. 352–87 10:1307–17
69. Becker CD, Ostrom E. 1995. Human ecol- 82. Colding J, Folke C. 2001. Social taboos:
ogy and resource sustainability: the im- “invisible” systems of local resource
468 FOLKE ET AL.
management and biological conservation. preservation in Ecuador. Conserv. Ecol.

Ecol. Appl. 11:584–600 8(1):1. http://www.consecol.org/vol8/is
83. Armitage DR. 2003. Traditional agroe- s1/art1/
cological knowledge, adaptive manage- 93. Berkes F, Folke C. 2002. Back to the
ment and the socio-politics of conserva- future: ecosystem dynamics and local
tion in central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Envi- knowledge. See Ref. 8, pp. 121–46
ron. Conserv. 302:79–90 94. McCay BJ. 2002. Emergence of institu-
84. Brown K. 2003. Integrating conservation tions for the commons: contexts, situa-
and development: a case of institutional tions, and events. See Ref. 182, pp. 361–
misfit. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1(9):479–87 402
85. Davis A, Wagner JR. 2003. Who knows? 95. Holling CS, Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Sci-
On the importance of identifying experts ence, sustainability, and resource manage-

when researching local ecological knowl- ment. See Ref. 40, pp. 342–62
edge. Hum. Ecol. 31:463–89 96. Trosper RL. 2003. Resilience in pre-
86. Riedlinger D, Berkes F. 2001. Contribu- contact Pacific Northwest social ecologi-
tions of traditional knowledge to under- cal systems. Conserv. Ecol. 7(3):6. http://
standing climate change in the Canadian www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art6/
Artic. Polar Rec. 37:315–28 97. Olsson P, Folke C. 2001. Local knowl-
87. Mackinson S, Nottestad L. 1998. Combin- edge and institutional dynamics for
ing local and scientific knowledge. Rev. ecosystem management: a study of Lake
Fish Biol. Fish. 8:481–90 Racken watershed. Ecosystems 4:85–104
88. Gadgil M, Olsson P, Berkes F, Folke C. 98. Muchagata M, Brown K. 2000. Colonist
2003. Exploring the role of local ecolog- farmers’ perceptions of fertility and the
ical knowledge for ecosystem manage- frontier environment in eastern Amazo-
ment: three case studies. See Ref. 42, pp. nia. Agric. Hum. Values 17(4):371–84
189–209 99. Gunderson L, Holling CS, Light S, eds.
89. Tengö M, Belfrage K. 2004. Local man- 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Re-
agement practices for dealing with change newal of Ecosystems and Institutions.
and uncertainty: a cross-scale compari- New York: Columbia Univ. Press
son of cases in Sweden and Tanzania. 100. Walters C. 1997. Challenges in adap-
Ecol. Soc. 9(3):4. http://www.ecologyand tive management of riparian and coastal
society.org/vol9/iss3/art4/ ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 1(2):1. http://
90. Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO, Kislali- www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/
oglu M. 2004. Combining science and 101. Fazey I, Fazey JA, Fazey DMA. 2005.
traditional ecological knowledge: mon- Learning more effectively from experi-
itoring populations for co-management. ence. Ecol. Soc. 10(2):4. [online] URL:
Ecol. Soc. 9(3):2. http://www.ecologyand http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/
society.org/vol9/iss3/art2/ iss2/art4/
91. Aswani S, Hamilton R. 2004. Integrat- 102. Weick K. 1995. Sensemaking in Organi-
ing indigenous ecological knowledge and sations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
customary sea tenure with marine and so- 103. Clark W, Jäger J, van Eijndhoven J,
cial science for conservation of bumphead Dickson N. 2001. Learning to Manage
parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in Global Environmental Risks: A Compar-
the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. ative History of Social Responses to Cli-
Environ. Conserv. 31:69–83 mate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid
92. Becker CD, Ghimire K. 2003. Synergy Rain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
between traditional ecological knowledge 104. Argyris C. 1977. Double-loop learning in
and conservation science supports forest organizations. Harv. Bus. Rev. 55:115–25
105. Blann K, Light S, Musumeci JA. 2003. laborative Management. New York: CRC
Facing the adaptive challenge: practition- Press
ers’ insights from negotiating resource 117. Carlsson L, Berkes F. 2005. Co-
crisis in Minnesota. See Ref. 42, pp. 210– management: concepts and methodolog-
40 ical implications. J. Environ. Manag. 75:
106. Hamel G, Välikangas. 2003. The quest for 65–76
resilience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81(9):52–63 118. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL. 2000. Making
107. Whiteman G, Forbes G, Niemelä J, Collaboration Work: Lessons from Inno-
Chapin S. 2004. Ambio 33:371–76 vation in Natural Resource Management.
108. Araujo L. 1998. Knowing and learning as Washington, DC: Island
networking. Manag. Learn. 29:317–36 119. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Far-
109. Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T. 2004. Social- var MT, Kothari A, Renard Y. 2004.
ecological transformation for ecosystem Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in
management: the development of adap- Co-management of Natural Resources
tive co-management of a wetland land- Throughout the World. Tehran, Iran: Int.
scape in southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc. Inst.Environ. Dev./World Conserv.Union/
9(4):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety. Comm. Environ. Econ. Policy/Collab.
org/vol9/iss4/art2/ Manag. Work. Group/Cent. Sust. Dev.
110. Westley F. 2002. The devil in the dy- 120. Eckerberg K, Joas M. 2004. Multi-level
namics: adaptive management on the front environmental governance: a concept un-
lines. See Ref. 8, pp. 333–60 der stress? Local Environ. 9(5):405–12
111. Scheffer M, Westley F, Brock W. 2003. 121. Fung A. 2003. Recipes for public spheres:
Slow response of societies to new prob- eight institutional design choices and their
lems: causes and costs. Ecosystems 6: consequences. J. Polit. Philos. 11(3):338–
493–502 67
112. Ruitenbeek J, Cartier C. 2001. The in- 122. Gulbrandsen LH. 2004. Overlapping pub-
visible wand: adaptive co-management lic and private governance: Can forest cer-
as an emergent strategy in complex bio- tification fill the gaps in the global forest
economic systems. Occas. Pap. 34. Cent. regime? Global Environ. Polit. 4(2):75–
Int. For. Res., Bogor, Indonesia 99
113. Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gun- 123. Lundqvist L. 2004. Integrating Swedish
derson L, Holling CS, et al. 2002. Re- water resource management: a multi-
silience and sustainable development: level governance trilemma. Local Envi-
building adaptive capacity in a world ron. 9(5):413–24
of transformations. Rep. Swed. Environ. 124. Ostrom E. 1996. Crossing the great di-
Advis. Counc. 2002:1. Minist. Environ., vide: coproduction, synergy, and develop-
Stockholm, Swed. ment. World Dev. 24(6):1073–87
114. Pinkerton E. 1989. Co-operative Manage- 125. McGinnis M. 2000. Polycentric Gover-
ment of Local Fisheries: New Directions nance and Development. Ann Arbor, MI:
for Improved Management and Commu- Univ. Michigan Press
nity Development. Vancouver, Can.: Univ. 126. Imperial MT. 1999. Institutional anal-
British Columbia Press ysis and ecosystem-based management:
115. Jentoft S. 2000. Co-managing the coastal the institutional analysis and development
zone: is the task too complex? Ocean framework. Environ. Manag. 24:449–65
Coast. Manag. 43:527–35 127. Young O. 2002. The Institutional Dimen-
116. Buck LE, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, Wollen- sions of Environmental Change: Fit, In-
berg E. 2001. Biological Diversity: Bal- terplay and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT
ancing Interests Through Adaptive Col- Press
470 FOLKE ET AL.
128. Imperial MT. 2001. Collaboration as an ganizations: A Synthesis of the Research.

implementation strategy: an assessment Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
of six watershed management programs. 140. Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K.
PhD thesis, Indiana Univ., Bloomington, 2006. Trust-building, knowledge genera-
IN tion and organizational innovations: the
129. Folke C, Pritchard L Jr, Berkes F, Colding role of a bridging organization for adap-
J, Svedin U. 1998. The problem of fit be- tive co-management of a wetland land-
tween ecosystems and institutions. IHDP scape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum.
Work. Pap. 2, Int. Hum. Dimens. Program Ecol. In press
Global Environ. Change, Washington, 141. Leach WD, Pelkey NW. 2001. Making
DC watershed partnerships work: a review of
130. Wasserman S, Faust K. 1994. Social Net- the empirical literature. J. Water Resour.
work Analysis—Methods and Applica- Plan. Manag. 127:378–85
tions. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press 142. Shannon MA. 1991. Resource managers
131. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004. as policy entrepreneurs. J. For. 89:27–

Adaptive comanagement for building re- 30
silience in social-ecological systems. En- 143. Kuhnert S. 2001. An Evolutionary The-
viron. Manag. 34(1):75–90 ory of Collective Action: Schumpeterian
132. Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Min- Entrepreneurship for the Common Good.
druta D, Edwardsen M. 2003. Building Berlin: Springer Verlag
consensual institutions: networks and the 144. Ostrom E. 1965. Public entrepreneur-
national estuary program. Am. J. Polit. Sci. ship: a case study in ground water man-
47(1):143–58 agement. PhD thesis, Univ. Calif., Los
133. Shannon MA. 1998. Social organizations Angeles
and institutions. In River Ecology and 145. Young OR. 1991. Political leadership and
Management: Lessons from the Pacific regime formation: on the development of
Coastal Ecoregion, ed. RJ Naiman, RE institutions in international society. Int.
Bilby, pp. 529–52. New York: Springer- Organ. 45:281–308
Verlag 146. Shannon MA. 1990. Building trust: the
134. Haas PM. 1992. Epistemic communities formation of a social contract. In Com-
and international policy coordination. Int. munity and Forestry: Continuities in the
Organ. 46(1):1–35 Sociology of Natural Resources, ed. RG
135. Kettl DF. 2000. The transformation Lee, DR Field, WR Burch Jr, pp. 229–40.
of governance: globalization, devolution, Boulder, CO: Westview
and the role of government. Public Adm. 147. Cook K. 2003. Trust in Society. New York:
Rev. 60:488–97 Sage
136. Steel BS, Weber E. 2001. Ecosystem 148. Misztal BA. 1996. Trust in Modern Soci-
management, decentralization, and public eties. Cambridge, MA: Polity
opinion. Global Environ. Change 11:119– 149. Pretty J, Ward H. 2001. Social capital and
31 the environment. World Dev. 29:209–27
137. Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ. 150. Baland JM, Platteau JP. 1996. Halting
2003. Social learning for collaborative Degradation of Natural Resources: Is
natural resource management. Soc. Nat. There a Role for Rural Communities?
Resour. 15:309–26 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
138. Berkes F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional 151. Brown K. 2002. Innovations for conserva-
linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. tion and development. Geogr. J. 168(1):6–
See Ref. 182, pp. 293–322 16
139. Mintzberg H. 1979. The Structuring of Or- 152. Castle EN. 2002. Social capital: an
interdisciplinary concept. Rural Sociol. building: a response to Thompkins and

67:334–49 Adger. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):2. http://www.eco
153. Sobel J. 2002. Can we trust social capital? logyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/resp2/
J. Econ. Lit. 40:139–54 165. Stubbs M, Lemon M. 2001. Learning to
154. Imperial MT, Hennessey TM. 1996. network and network to learn: facilitat-
Ecosystem-based approach to managing ing the process of adaptive management
estuaries: an assessment of the national in a local response to the UK’s national air
estuary program. Coast. Manag. 24:115– quality strategy. Environ. Manag. 27:321–
39 34
155. Low B, Ostrom E, Simon C, Wilson J. 166. Kendrick A. 2003. Caribou co-manage-
2003. Redundancy and diversity: Do they ment in northern Canada: fostering mul-
influence optimal management? See Ref. tiple ways of knowing. See Ref. 42, pp.
42, pp. 83–114 241–68
156. Berkes F, Folke C. 1992. A systems per- 167. Adams WM, Brockington D, Dyson J,
spective on the interrelations between nat- Vira B. 2003. Managing tragedies: under-
ural, human-made and cultural capital. standing conflict over common pool re-
Ecol. Econ. 5:1–8 sources. Science 302:1915–16
157. Pinkerton E. 1998. Integrated manage- 168. Kim WC, Mauborgne R. 2003. Tipping
ment of a temperate montane forest point leadership. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81:60–
ecosystem through wholistic forestry: a 69
British Columbia example. See Ref. 40, 169. Kingdon JW. 1995. Agendas, Alterna-
pp. 363–89 tives, and Public Policies. New York:
158. Guimerà R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Nunes Ama- Harper Collins College
ral LA. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms 170. Grindle MS, Thomas JW. 1991. Pub-
determine collaboration network structure lic Choice and Policy Change. Balti-
and team performance. Science 308:697– more/London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
702 171. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson
159. Holling CS, Chambers AD. 1973. Re- NM, Eckley N, et al. 2003. Knowledge
source science: the nurture of an infant. systems for sustainable development.
BioScience 23(1):13–20 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:8086–
160. Gladwell M. 2000. The Tipping Point— 91
How Little Things Can Make a Big Dif- 172. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE. 2005. The
ference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown Social Contours of Risk: Publics, Risk
161. Bebbington A. 1997. Social capital and Communication and the Social Amplifi-
rural intensification: local organizations cation of Risk. London: Earthscan
and islands of sustainability in the rural 173. Kuks S, Bressers H, eds. 2004. Integrated
Andes. Geogr. J. 163:189–197 Governance and Water Basin Manage-
162. Tompkins E, Adger WN, Brown K. ment: Conditions for Regime Change and
2002. Institutional networks for inclusive Sustainability. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
coastal zone management in Trinidad and Acad.
Tobago. Environ. Plan. 34:1095–111 174. Agrawal A. 2005. Environmentality Tech-
163. Tompkins EL, Adger WN. 2004. Does nologies of Government and the Mak-
adaptive management of natural resources ing of Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
enhance resilience to climate change? Press
Ecol. Soc. 9(2):10. http://www.ecology 175. Bass BM. 1990. From transactional to
andsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/ transformational leadership: learning to
164. Newman L, Dale A. 2005. Network struc- share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 18:19–31
ture, diversity, and proactive resilience 176. Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E. 2003.
472 FOLKE ET AL.
Dynamics of land-use and land-cover 186. Dolsak N, Ostrom E. 2003. The Com-
change in tropical regions. Annu. Rev. En- mons in the New Millennium: Challenges
viron. Resour. 28:205–41 and Adaptations. Cambridge, MA: MIT
177. Cinner J. 2005. Socioeconomic factors Press
affecting customary marine tenure in the 187. Pritchard L, Sanderson SE. 2002. The dy-
Indo-Pacific. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):36. http:// namics of political discourse in seeking
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/ sustainability. See Ref. 8, pp. 147–69
art36/ 188. Fraser EDG. 2003. Social vulnerabil-
178. Homewood K, Lambin EF, Coast E, Kar- ity and ecological fragility: building
iuki A, Kikula I, et al. 2001. Long- bridges between social and natural sci-
term changes in Serengeti-Mara wilde- ences using the Irish potato famine as a
beest and land cover: pastoralism, popu- case study. Conserv. Ecol. 7(2):9. http://
lation, or policies? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art9/
USA 98:12544–49 189. Redman C. 2005. Resilience theory in ar-
179. Rockström J, Tilander Y. 1998. Options chaeology. Am. Anthropol. 107(1):70–77

for sustainable agriculture in the Sa- 190. Alcorn J, Bamba J, Masiun S, Natalia
hel: landscape potential, human manipu- I, Royo A. 2003. Keeping ecological re-
lations and livelihood security. In Twice silience afloat in cross-scale turbulence:
Humanity—Implications for Local and an indigenous social movement navigates
Global Resource Use. Uppsala, Swed.: change in Indonesia. See Ref. 42, pp. 299–
Nordic Afr. Inst. Forum Dev. Stud. 327
180. Wilson J. 2002. Scientific uncertainty, 191. Cash DW, Moser SC. 2000. Linking
complex systems, and the design of global and local scales: designing dy-
common-pool institutions. See Ref. 182, namic assessment and management pro-
pp. 327–60 cesses. Global Environ. Change 10:109–
181. McGinnis MV, Wolley J, Gamman J. 20
1999. Bioregional conflict resolution: re- 192. Malayang BS III, Hahn T, Kumar P.
building community in watershed plan- 2005. Responses to ecosystem change
ning and organizing. Environ. Manag. and to their impacts on human well-
24(1):1–12 being. In Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
182. Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern P, ment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Stonich S, Weber EU, eds. 2002. The Multiscale Assessments, Vol. 4. Findings
Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC: of the Sub-Global Assessments Working
Natl. Acad. Group, pp. 203–26. Washington, DC:
183. Burger J, Ostrom E, Norgaard RB, Poli- Island
cansky D, Goldstein BD. 2001. Protecting 193. Laguna Lake Dev. Auth. 2005. Review of
the Commons. A Framework for Resource the performance of river basin councils
Management in the Americas. Washing- in Laguna de Bay, the Philippines. http://
ton, DC: Island www.llda.gov.ph/river rehabilitation.htm
184. Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E. 194. Tomich TP, Lewis J. 2001. Putting
2001. People and Forests. Communi- community-based forest management on
ties, Institutions, and Governance. Cam- the map. ASB policy brief 2, Altern.
bridge, MA: MIT Press Slash-and-Burn Program., Nairobi. http://
185. Svedin U, Riordan TO, Jordan A. 2001. www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/Policy
Multilevel governance for the sustainabil- Brief2.pdf
ity transition. In Globalism, Localism and 195. Recur. Investig. Desarro. Sustentable
Identity, ed. TO Riordan, pp. 43–60. Lon- (RIDES). 2005. Bienestar humano y
don: Earthscan manejo sustentable en San Pedro de
Atacama-Resumen Ejecutivo (Human Forestry for the 21st Century: The Sci-
well-being and sustainable management ence of Ecosystem Management, ed. KA
in San Pedro de Atacama, Exec. Summ.). Kohm, JF Franklin, pp. 437–45. Wash-
http://www.rides.cl/versioningles/projects/ ington, DC: Island
salardeatacama/salar central.htm 197. McIntosh RJ, Tainter JA, McIntosh SK,
196. Shannon MA, Antypas AR. 1997. Open eds. 2000. The Way the Wind Blows: Cli-
institutions: uncertainty and ambiguity mate, History, and Human Action. New
in 21st-century forestry. In Creating a York: Columbia Univ. Press
P1: JRX
September 27, 2005 15:29 Annual Reviews AR256-FM
Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 30, 2005
CONTENTS
I. EARTH’S LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Regional Atmospheric Pollution and Transboundary Air Quality

Management, Michelle S. Bergin, J. Jason West, Terry J. Keating,
and Armistead G. Russell 1
Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability,

Joy B. Zedler and Suzanne Kercher 39
Feedback in the Plant-Soil System, Joan G. Ehrenfeld, Beth Ravit,
and Kenneth Elgersma 75
II. HUMAN USE OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES
Productive Uses of Energy for Rural Development,
R. Anil Cabraal, Douglas F. Barnes, and Sachin G. Agarwal 117
Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector,
Jennifer Davis 145
Aquaculture and Ocean Resources: Raising Tigers of the Sea,
Rosamond Naylor and Marshall Burke 185
The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining
Local Livelihoods, Lisa Naughton-Treves, Margaret Buck Holland,
and Katrina Brandon 219
III. MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS
Economics of Pollution Trading for SO2 and NOx , Dallas Burtraw,
David A. Evans, Alan Krupnick, Karen Palmer, and Russell Toth 253
How Environmental Health Risks Change with Development: The
Epidemiologic and Environmental Risk Transitions Revisited,
Kirk R. Smith and Majid Ezzati 291
Environmental Values, Thomas Dietz, Amy Fitzgerald, and Rachael Shwom 335
Righteous Oil? Human Rights, the Oil Complex, and Corporate Social
Responsibility, Michael J. Watts 373
Archaeology and Global Change: The Holocene Record,
Patrick V. Kirch 409
ix
P1: JRX
September 27, 2005 15:29 Annual Reviews AR256-FM
x CONTENTS
IV. EMERGING INTEGRATIVE THEMES

Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems,
Carl Folke, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg 441
INDEXES
Subject Index 475
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 21–30 499
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 21–30 503
ERRATA
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and
and Resources chapters may be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

A G S - E S: Daptive Overnance of Ocial Cological Ystems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A G S - E S: Daptive Overnance of Ocial Cological Ystems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A G S - E S: Daptive Overnance of Ocial Cological Ystems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

26 Sep 2005 15:56 AR ANRV256-EG30-13.

tex XMLPublishSM (2004/02/24) P1: KUV

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:441–73

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL

Key Words adaptive capacity, ecosystem management, leadership, resilience,

442 FOLKE ET AL.

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE IN RELATION TO THE BROADER

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 443

recurrent natural and human perturbations and continue to regenerate without

nition of ecosystems as complex adaptive systems and the necessity to address

444 FOLKE ET AL.

broader social contexts that enable ecosystem-based management. By governance,

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 445

systems toward adaptive governance as well as ecosystem and landscape manage-

SOCIAL CAPACITY FOR RESPONDING TO

Knowledge, Learning, and Practice

446 FOLKE ET AL.

bumphead parrotfish conservation (91). A self-governing community in Ecuador

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 447

ecological knowledge system is embedded, emerged in about a decade, and people

Adaptive Management and Organizational Learning

448 FOLKE ET AL.

Organizational learning is not limited to formal organizations but also takes

ent levels of interaction, representing the social system involved in governance of

Governance and Adaptive Comanagement

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 449

loosely structured governance entities that spontaneously emerge or self-organize,

Adaptive Governance and Social Capital

450 FOLKE ET AL.

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 451

Governing complex adaptive ecosystems requires adaptive managers supported

Collaboration in governance networks requires leadership. Here we focus on

452 FOLKE ET AL.

SOCIAL SOURCES OF RESILIENCE FOR

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 453

resilience in ecosystem renewal and reorganization is a growing area of research

Social Memory, Teams, and Actor Groups

sorbing disturbance and in spreading risks. Hence, it is an important challenge

454 FOLKE ET AL.

Different agents/actors or team/actor groups seem to play significant roles, as

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 455

Transforming Governance for Social-Ecological

456 FOLKE ET AL.

Figure 1 The role of leadership in transforming an organization toward ecosystem

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 457

system by introducing new components and ways of making a living, thereby

Transformations toward alternative forms of governance have been addressed by

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 459

first Man and the Biosphere Reserve in Sweden.

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE IN RELATION

460 FOLKE ET AL.

conditions are more significant drivers of long-term changes in semiarid African

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 461

NGOs may act as bridging organizations in, for example, community-based

462 FOLKE ET AL.

(nonmonetary) transaction costs of collaboration, bridging organizations can be

ties, timber companies, government agencies, environmental NGOs, and foreign

trade-offs, as well as communication. The local communities were able to im-

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE 463