Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems

Author(s): Brian Walker, C. S. Holling, Stephen R. Carpenter and Ann Kinzig

Source: Ecology and Society , Dec 2004, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Dec 2004)
Published by: Resilience Alliance Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267673

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267673?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology and Society

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Copyright © 2004 by the author(s). Published here under licence by The Resilience Alliance.
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

Perspective
Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–
ecological Systems
Brian Walker1, C. S. Holling, Stephen R. Carpenter2, and Ann Kinzig3

ABSTRACT. The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different
interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be
considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social–
ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability.
Resilience (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) has four components—latitude, resistance,
precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is
the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four
general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the
capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing
system untenable.

The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from
seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience
analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance.

INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these

concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather
We need a better scientific basis for sustainable imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as
development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be
“sustainability science”). The “Consortium for counterproductive to seek definitions that are too
Sustainable Development” (of the International Council narrow. Because different groups adopt different
for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose,
Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion
Science), the US National Research Council (1999, then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling
2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to
(2003), have all focused increasing attention on such the goals of sustainable development. In what follows,
notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is we provide an interpretation and an explanation of
good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles
social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine of complex, multi-scalar SESs.
their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In
particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper.
humans and nature emerge from three complementary What is new is that it uses established theory of non-
attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. linear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001,
The purpose of this paper is to examine these three Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to
attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of
implications for our future well-being. regional development, regional poverty, and regional

1
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; 2University of Wisconsin-Madison; 3Arizona State University

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

sustainability. These include, among others, the phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of
Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and
Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an during which, innovation and new opportunities are
agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an
semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a
Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r
and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These phase or be significantly different.
regions provide examples of both successes and
failures of development. Some from rich countries This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on
have generated several pulses of solutions over a span observed system changes, and does not imply fixed,
of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of regular cycling. Systems can move back from K
recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to
have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a
cases, have been dragged back by higher-level number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”—
autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as local- adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales.
scale solutions and then developed as transformations These cross-scale effects are of great significance in
across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and the dynamics of SESs.
northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes
were determined by the interplay of their resilience, Resilience
adaptability, and transformability.
Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb
There is a major distinction between resilience and disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change
adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on so as to still retain essentially the same function,
the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with structure, identity, and feedbacks. As amplified below,
the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely the focus is on the dynamics of the system when it is
related set of systems. Transformability refers to disturbed far from its modal state. The notion of speed
fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with of return to equilibrium (Pimm 1991) leads to what has
many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing been termed “engineering resilience” (Holling 1996)
line between “closely related” and “fundamentally and, although related to one aspect of “ecological
altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So resilience,” cannot be considered as the measure of
we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative resilience. Because of the possibility of multiple stable
set of definitions, without reference to conceptual states, when considering the extent to which a system
frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. can be changed, return time doesn’t measure all of the
We then use some examples and the literature on ways in which a system may fail—permanently or
“basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to temporarily—to retain essential functions. It is also
further refine our definitions. Before giving the important to bear in mind that “systems” consist of
definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the nested dynamics operating at particular organizational
concept of adaptive cycles. scales—“sub-systems,” as it were, of households to
villages to nations, trees to patches to landscapes.
Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects
There are four crucial aspects of resilience. The first
The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and three can apply both to a whole system or the sub-
analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive systems that make it up.
cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them—
a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a 1. Latitude: the maximum amount a system can
conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative be changed before losing its ability to recover
forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics (before crossing a threshold which, if
of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K breached, makes recovery difficult or
phase continues, resources become increasingly locked impossible).
up and the system becomes progressively less flexible 2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing
and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, the system; how “resistant” it is to being
inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release changed.

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

3. Precariousness: how close the current state of EXPLANATION

the system is to a limit or “threshold.”
4. Panarchy: because of cross-scale interactions, Resilience: States, Attractors, and Stability
the resilience of a system at a particular focal Landscapes
scale will depend on the influences from states
and dynamics at scales above and below. For The “state space” of a system is defined by the (state)
example, external oppressive politics, variables that constitute the system. If, for example,
invasions, market shifts, or global climate we define a rangeland system by the amount of grass,
change can trigger local surprises and regime shrubs,and livestock, then the state space is the three-
shifts. dimensional space of all possible combinations of the
amounts of these three variables. The state of the
Adaptability system at any time is defined by their current values.

Adaptability is the capacity of actors in a system to A “basin of attraction” is a region in state space in
influence resilience. In a SES, this amounts to the which the system tends to remain. For systems that
capacity of humans to manage resilience. A tend toward an equilibrium, the equilibrium state is
characteristic feature of complex adaptive systems is defined as an “attractor,” and the basin of attraction
self-organization without intent (Levin 1998), and constitutes all initial conditions that will tend toward
although the dynamics of SESs are dominated by that equilibrium state. All real-world SESs are,
individual human actors who do exhibit intent, the however, continuously buffeted by disturbances,
system as a whole does not (as in the case of a stochasticity, and decisions of actors that tend to move
market). Nevertheless, because human actions the system off the attractor. Therefore, we think of
dominate in SESs, adaptability of the system is mainly SESs as moving about within a particular basin of
a function of the social component—the individuals attraction, rather than tending directly toward an
and groups acting to manage the system. Their actions attractor. There may be more than one such basin of
influence resilience, either intentionally or attraction for any given system (for example, two or
unintentionally. Their collective capacity to manage more combinations of amounts of grass, shrubs, and
resilience, intentionally, determines whether they can livestock toward which a rangeland might tend,
successfully avoid crossing into an undesirable system depending on the starting point). The various basins
regime, or succeed in crossing back into a desirable that a system may occupy, and the boundaries that
one. There are four ways to do this, corresponding to separate them, are known as a “stability landscape.”
the four aspects of resilience. Actors can move Fig. 1a depicts the first three components of resilience
thresholds away from or closer to the current state of for a basin in a stability landscape of two state
the system (by altering (1) above), move the current variables. A good review and summary of stability
state of the system away from or closer to the landscape dynamics in ecology is given in Beisner et
threshold (altering 3), or make the threshold more al. (2003).
difficult or easier to reach (altering 2). In addition,
actors can manage cross-scale interactions to avoid or Both exogenous drivers (rainfall, exchange rates) and
generate loss of resilience at the largest and most endogenous processes (plant succession, predator–prey
socially catastrophic scales (altering 4). cycles, management practices) can lead to changes in
the stability landscape, such as: changes in the number
Transformability of basins of attraction, changes in the positions of the
basins within the state space, changes in the positions
The capacity to create a fundamentally new system of the thresholds (edges) between basins (latitude—L
when ecological, economic, or social (including in Fig. 1a), or changes in the “depths” of basins, a
political) conditions make the existing system measure of how difficult it is to move the system
untenable. around within the basin—steep sides imply greater
perturbations or management efforts are needed to
change the state of the system, i.e., its position within
the basin (resistance—R in Fig. 1a). Moving the
system around changes its position within a basin
relative to the edge (precariousness—Pr in Fig. 1a), or

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

moves it into a new basin (e.g., Fig. 1b, where, without In evolved systems that have been subjected to strong
the state of the system itself changing, the system finds selection pressures, the three aspects of resilience have
itself in a new basin of attraction, owing to changes in co-developed and are often strongly inter-related. For
the stability landscape). The people in this system example, one dimension (axis) of the stability
might consider some basins to be desirable (lots of landscape for individual human health is temperature.
grass, few shrubs, plentiful livestock) and the objective (One could imagine three basins of attraction in this
might be to prevent the system from moving into an landscape—healthy, sick, or dead). For good
alternate, undesirable basin (little grass, many shrubs, physiological reasons, the optimal temperature for the
few livestock) from which it may be difficult or body is very close to the threshold between life and
impossible to recover. death (very precarious). A hundred million years of
homeotherm natural selection has ensured that there
are strong negative feedbacks—temperature regulation
mechanisms—making it very unlikely and difficult for
Fig. 1a. Three-dimensional stability landscape with two the body to move across the critical temperature
basins of attraction showing, in one basin, the current threshold. In other words, being precariously close to
position of the system and three aspects of resilience, L = such a threshold has meant the evolution of strong
latitude, R = resistance, Pr = precariousness. resistance. Evolving toward the edge of chaos
(corresponding, in this case, to the edge of a basin of
attraction) is a seemingly common consequence of
selection (Kaufmann 2000) for maximum efficiency.
Recently developed SESs (managed fisheries and
virtually all agro-ecosystems, for example) have short
co-evolutionary histories. Therefore, we cannot rely on
such selected relationships with appropriate feedback
controls, and the likelihood of crossing thresholds is
much higher (as evidenced by the many examples of
collapsed fisheries and salinized or otherwise degraded
agricultural regions).

No SES can be understood by examining it at only one

scale. The social component of a SES consists of
groups of people organized at multiple levels with
Fig. 1b. Changes in the stability landscape have resulted in differing views as to whether some basins are
a contraction of the basin the system was in and an desirable and others undesirable. At any particular
expansion of the alternate basin. Without itself changing, scale, the system is actually a sub-system of the whole
the system has changed basins.
panarchy, and the first three aspects of resilience are
influenced by what is happening in the panarchy at
scales above and below the scale of interest. Panarchy,
the cross-scale effects, is the fourth aspect of resilience
that needs to be considered (Pa in Fig. 2). For
example, many lakes occupy a stability landscape with
essentially two basins of attraction: one that is initially
wide and cavernous, characterized by clear water, and
a smaller one characterized by turbid water (Carpenter
2003). Agricultural practices within the larger SES,
through application of fertilizers and manure, have
gradually increased the phosphorus content of soils in
some watersheds. This cross-scale effect has changed
the stability landscapes of the lakes in several ways.
As lake basins fill with sediment, a third basin of
attraction has appeared, one in which the lake is
dominated by rooted vegetation. The first basin—clear

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

water and sparse vegetation—shrinks and nearly (see Berkes et al. 2003, for a good account). The
disappears from the stability landscape. The second ability to either control the trajectory of the system
basin—turbid water and frequent blooms of toxic (change precariousness), change the topology of the
algae—moves from being small to being wider and stability landscape (latitude and resistance), or change
more cavernous. the processes in response to dynamics at other scales
(panarchy response), is a measure of adaptability.
Consider both strategies in the case of the lake that has
fallen into a turbid basin. Managers could attempt to
Fig. 2. The fourth aspect of resilience in relation to a move the ecosystem to another basin without changing
stability landscape—Panarchy (Pa); the influence of the the stability landscape by chemically immobilizing the
states of the system (including where they are in their phosphate in the lake. If the land-use practices of the
adaptive cycles) at scales above and below the focal scale, SES change in ways that reduce phosphorus levels in
which affects the other three aspects (Fig. 1) by impacting
soils, in contrast, the stability landscape changes, the
the system directly (from the finer scale) or changing the
stability landscape (from the coarser scale). turbid basin shrinks, and the clear water basin
expands. Both purposeful movements between basins,
and purposeful reshaping of the stability landscape,
demonstrate adaptability. SESs can move from one
basin of attraction to another either by the system
crossing a threshold, or by a threshold moving across
the system.

Transformability

At times societies or groups may find themselves

trapped in an undesirable basin that is becoming so
wide, and so deep, that movement to a new basin or
sufficient reconfiguration of the existing basin
becomes extremely difficult. At some point, it may
prove necessary to configure an entirely new stability
landscape—one defined by new state variables, or the
Some loss of resilience, at some scales, is an inevitable old state variables supplemented by new ones. For
feature of the cross-scale dynamics in complex instance, in the rangeland case—defined originally by
adaptive systems. Losses, however, can be managed so the amount of grass, shrubs, and cattle—a new
as to be confined to smaller organizational scales, with stability landscape could be created by introducing
less consequent social and environmental dislocation. new ways for earning a living, such as ecotourism,
All else being equal, a system that loses resilience at based on wildlife and rivers. This is what occurred in
small, and more societally manageable, scales of southeastern Zimbabwe (Cumming 1999) where, after
organization (e.g., patches) will be more resilient than many decades of cattle ranching, the rangeland
one where these losses occur at larger scales (e.g., ecosystem had changed undesirably for livestock and
landscapes). Note, however, that resilience is not terms of trade had declined. A severe drought in the
always a good thing. Sometimes change is desirable, early 1980s triggered a transformation from many
generally at larger scales, and then effective individual cattle ranches to a few wildlife
management requires overcoming the resilience in the “conservancies” with all livestock and fences removed
system to precipitate changes at these scales. and managed collectively for tourism and hunting. The
capacity to create such a new stability landscape is
Components of Adaptability known as transformability—the capacity to create
untried beginnings from which to evolve a new way of
As explained in the initial definition, because the living when existing ecological, economic, or social
dynamics and direction of change in a SES are structures become untenable. New variables are
dominated by human actions, we consider adaptability introduced or allowed to emerge. The changes cascade
to be mainly a function of the social component—the through and may transform the whole panarchy with
individuals and groups acting to manage the system all its constituent adaptive cycles. There are many

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

examples of SESs becoming locked in and unable to (and some unknown) shocks, and simultaneously
transform until it is too late (salinized agricultural building a capacity for transformability, should it be
systems; dams, floodplains and flood control; forest needed. How can we foster or maintain the flexibility
fire suppression at ever larger scales). How can society that will be required to cope with unforeseen
develop transformability and avoid such lock-ins? challenges? It is nevertheless likely that there is
overlap in the attributes that promote adaptability and
Examples of globally new phenomena at large transformability. In addition to such common
time/space scales are the dramatic jump that saw the attributes (e.g., diverse and high levels of natural and
replacement of dominance by reptiles with dominance built capital), we speculate that attributes required for
by mammals (the transformational success of transformability will emphasize novelty, diversity, and
homeothermy in the course of biological evolution), organization in human capital—diversity of functional
and, at scales in the course of human civilization, the types (kinds of education, expertise, and occupations);
agrarian revolution, the emergence of cities, and the trust, strengths, and variety in institutions; speeds and
industrial revolution, all examples of transformative kinds of cross-scale communication, both within the
changes. But consider more local or regional panarchy and between other systems elsewhere. Such
situations, as in the following example. attributes are implicit (although not specifically
identified) in Stiglitz”s (2002) comparison of “good”
Scenario planning is a process of envisioning plausible and “bad” outcomes of socio-economic
transformations and bringing them into social decision transformations following the fall of communism in
processes (Peterson et al. 2003). As part of a project Russia and the Southeast Asian economic crisis. He
on resilience analysis and governance in the Northern highlights the role played by sequencing of
Highlands of Wisconsin, USA, a diverse group of institutional development and economic rules—
local people and scientists evaluated possible futures attributes that fall within the crucial area (for
of the region and envisioned four plausible resilience) of adaptive governance, a good account of
transformations (http://lakefutures.wisc.edu): a which is given in Dietz et al. (2003). We return to it
tourism-based theme park region (“Annaheim North”); later.
a region with an environmentally induced drop in
population followed by gradual reorganization around A RETURN TO THE DEFINITIONS
tribal initiatives (“Walleye Commons”); an expanded
and diversified population leading to resource conflicts Using the concepts of basins of attraction and stability
being resolved by allocating recreational lands and landscapes, we can now offer more precise definitions
lakes for certain specified uses (“Northwoods Quilts”); of resilience, adaptability, and transformability:
and a region in which terrorism in Chicago leads to
population growth, as well as more governmental Resilience
control of resource use (“Refugee Revolution”). The
scenarios, widely covered in local media, evoked Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb
spirited debate about change in the region, and disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change
whether and how the local people can or should so as to still retain essentially the same function,
manipulate change. They helped overcome a structure, identity, and feedbacks—in other words,
fundamental problem in thinking about transformation stay in the same basin of attraction. Resilience has
in a coherent way. With so many changes happening multiple attributes, but four aspects are critical for
simultaneously, the very complexity of the situation these definitions:
became a barrier to understanding and action. The
scenarios organized information about transformation • Latitude: the maximum amount the system can
in a comprehensible way that facilitated discussion and be changed before losing its ability to recover;
action. Knowing if, when, and how to initiate basically the width of the basin of attraction.
transformative change, before it is too late to escape a Wide basins mean a greater number of system
seriously undesirable and deepening basin of states can be experienced without crossing a
attraction, is at the heart of SES transformability. threshold (L, Fig. 1).
• Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing
A tension will exist between maintaining the resilience the system; related to the topology of the
of a desired current configuration in the face of known basin—deep basins of attraction (R, or more

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

accurately, higher ratios of R:L) indicate that the SES. Putting this definition in the context of
greater forces or perturbations are required to stability landscapes, adaptability can take many forms,
change the current state of the system away including: (i) making desirable basins of attraction
from the attractor. wider and/or deeper, and shrinking undesirable basins;
• Precariousness: the current trajectory of the (ii) creating new desirable basins, or eliminating
system, and how close it currently is to a limit undesirable ones; and (iii) changing the current state of
or “threshold” which, if breached, makes the system so as to move either deeper into a desirable
recovery difficult or impossible (Pr). basin, or closer to the edge of an undesirable one.
• Panarchy: how the above three attributes are
influenced by the states and dynamics of the Transformability
(sub)systems at scales above and below the
scale of interest (Pa). The capacity to create a fundamentally new system
when ecological, economic, or social (including
Throughout this paper, we use stability landscapes as a political) conditions make the existing system
metaphor for our measures of resilience—latitude, untenable. Transformability means defining and
resistance, and precariousness. But not all systems can creating new stability landscapes by introducing new
be adequately described by a stability landscape, components and ways of making a living, thereby
particularly when one must grapple with both social changing the state variables, and often the scale, that
and ecological components playing out over several define the system.
scales of space, time, and organization. Even fewer
lend themselves to the formal representation of such CLOSING COMMENTS
landscapes required to accurately measure P, L, and R.
In some cases, the change in regime is not from one Strategies for sustainability must take many forms.
point attractor to another. Stable limit cycles might There is no “one size fits all” approach to the future.
represent very similar management challenges as do Sometimes SESs are already in desirable basins of
thresholds between basins (managers would try to attraction, and the challenge is to ensure that the basin
maximize the time spent in the desirable portion of the does not get smaller, or the system doesn’t move too
limit cycle and minimize the time spent in the close to a threshold. At other times, they are in
undesirable part). Nonetheless, the general concepts undesirable basins and the challenge is to reduce their
would still apply. Social–ecological systems can be resilience and to move toward or enlarge more
close to, or far away from, important thresholds (Pr). desirable basins. (Note, from the earlier discussion on
They can be easy or hard to change (R). The range of regime shifts other than between basins of attraction,
dynamics that can be accommodated while still whatever metaphor is used, the notion of resilience
retaining basically the same system can be large, or holds.) Strategies will be context dependent, and will
small (L). Different management interventions would themselves have to change over time because of the
be required to enhance resilience for each of these. inevitable changes inherent in complex, coupled SESs.
Although we do not believe in or advocate their
separate measurement (especially because of their
The need to know the details of the local and regional
inter-dependencies), we do believe that substantive
context—the particular attributes of the systems that
qualitative assessments can be made of each of these
determine the four aspects of resilience and
components of resilience. And considering these
adaptability—means a different approach to resource
assessments collectively enables a more complete and
governance than currently applied will be required for
better focused assessment of resilience, and what to do
a sustainable future. It changes the focus from seeking
about it, than would be achieved without them.
desirable states and the determinants of maximum
sustainable yield, in its many guises (the MSY
Adaptability paradigm), to resilience analysis, with a simultaneous
focus on adaptive resource management and adaptive
In a SES, adaptability is the collective capacity of the governance. Adaptive governance is a process of
human actors in the system to manage resilience. creating adaptability and transformability in SESs.
Although the system as a whole self-organizes without Adaptive management (Walters 1986), widely and
intent, the capacities and intent of the human actors deservedly promoted as a necessary basis for
strongly influence the resilience and the trajectory of sustainable development, has frequently failed

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

(Walters 1997) because the existing governance to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912.
structures have not allowed it to function effectively.
Because the stability landscape is constantly changing, Gunderson, L. H., and C. S.Holling, editors. 2002.
the “adaptive” part of both governance and Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and
management is required in all phases of the adaptive natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA
cycle. But, because it has received the least attention,
we emphasize especially the importance of the back Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
loop, and in particular the flexible management needed systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 4:1–23.
to retain critical ecological resources (adaptive
management), and the evolution of rules that influence Holling, C. S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus
resilience during self-organization (adaptive ecological resilience. In P. C. Schulze, editor. Engineering
governance). within ecological constraints. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Responses to this article can be read online at: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/responses/index.html Kaufmann, S. 2000. Investigations. Oxford University
Press, New York, New York, USA.

Levin, S. A. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as

Acknowledgments: complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1:431–436.

This paper results from many discussions in meetings of the Levin, S. A. 1999. Fragile dominion. Perseus Books Group,
Resilience Alliance. We acknowledge all our colleagues Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA.
who have contributed to the development of these concepts.
We thank Don Ludwig and Elinor Ostrom for helpful Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and
comments on an early draft, Art Langston for the human well-being. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
construction of Fig. 1, and the comments of an unknown
referee. The work leading to the paper has been supported National Research Council. 1999. Our common journey.
by a grant to two of us (BW and SC) by the James S. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
MacDonnell Foundation.
National Research Council. 2002. The drama of the
commons. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
LITERATURE CITED
Peterson, G. D., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998.
Beisner, B. E., D. T. Haydon, and K. Cuddington. 2003. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems
Alternative stable states in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology 1:6–18.
and the Environment 1:376–82.
Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. 2003. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an
Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17:358–366.
for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. Pimm, S. L. 1991. The balance of nature? University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Carpenter, S. R. 2003. Regime shifts in lake ecosystems.
Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and
B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature
Cumming, D. H. M. 1999. Living off “biodiversity”: 413:591–596.
whose land, whose resources and where? Environment and
Development Economics 4:220–226. Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and its discontents. W. W.
Norton and Company, New York, New York, USA.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C.Stern. 2003. The struggle

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecology and Society 9(2): 5.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable

resources. Collier Macmillan, New York, New York, USA.

Walters, C. J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of

riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology
1(2):1. (Online.) URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1.

This content downloaded from

201.246.171.10 on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 16:24:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms