Stojanovic Socialaspectsocialecological 2016

The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique of analytical frameworks and
findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability

Author(s): Tim Stojanovic, Hilda M. McNae, Paul Tett, Tavis W. Potts, J Reis, Hance D.
Smith and Iain Dillingham
Source: Ecology and Society , Sep 2016, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep 2016)
Published by: Resilience Alliance Inc.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269959
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269959?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

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Copyright © 2016 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Stojanovic, T., H. McNae, P. Tett, T. W. Potts, J. Reis, H. D. Smith, and I. Dillingham. 2016. The “social” aspect of social-ecological
systems: a critique of analytical frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecology and Society 21
(3):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08633-210315
Research
The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique of analytical

frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability
Tim Stojanovic 1, Hilda M. McNae 1, Paul Tett 2, Tavis W. Potts 3, J Reis 4, Hance D. Smith 4 and Iain Dillingham 1
ABSTRACT. We evaluate whether society can adequately be conceptualized as a component of social-ecological systems, given social
theory and the current outputs of systems-based research. A mounting critique from the social sciences posits that resilience theory
has undertheorized social entities with the concept of social-ecological systems. We trace the way that use of the term has evolved,
relating to social science theory. Scientometic and network analysis provide a wide range of empirical data about the origin, growth,
and use of this term in academic literature. A content analysis of papers in Ecology and Society demonstrates a marked emphasis in
research on institutions, economic incentives, land use, population, social networks, and social learning. These findings are supported
by a review of systems science in 18 coastal assessments. This reveals that a systems-based conceptualization tends to limit the kinds
of social science research favoring quantitative couplings of social and ecological components and downplaying interpretive traditions
of social research. However, the concept of social-ecological systems remains relevant because of the central insights concerning the
dynamic coupling between humans and the environment, and its salient critique about the need for multidisciplinary approaches to
solve real world problems, drawing on heuristic devices. The findings of this study should lead to more circumspection about whether
a systems approach warrants such claims to comprehensiveness. Further methodological advances are required for interdisciplinarity.
Yet there is evidence that systems approaches remain highly productive and useful for considering certain social components such as
land use and hybrid ecological networks. We clarify advantages and restrictions of utilizing such a concept, and propose a reformulation
that supports engagement with wider traditions of research in the social sciences.
Key Words: coastal; scientometric analysis; social-ecological; social-ecological systems; social science; socio-ecological
INTRODUCTION finally, and not least, the cognitive challenge of capturing breadth
Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches are increasingly without sacrificing depth of knowledge.
demanded in research to examine the interactions between
We analyze how the term “social-ecological systems” [SES] has
humans and the natural world. We explore the challenges of
evolved within intellectual traditions, and review the outputs of
research that seeks to undertake an interdisciplinary approach.
SES research within the wider literature, and within a large-scale
This is a theoretical and methodological challenge to the practice
interdisciplinary project on the sustainability of coastal zones.
of science.
The term “social-ecological systems” evolved when an ecology-
Although the development of scientific methodology has relied dominated community used this term to differentiate themselves
upon reductionist approaches to isolate phenomena for from those colleagues who disregard the human footprint in
investigation, many sustainability issues faced by society involve ecosystems. Now the term has become used in a broader setting,
complex chains of interaction, involving a broad range of it is apt to review the way that the term relates to conventional
environmental and human factors, spanning global to local scales. social science perspectives. In a recent review of 10 major
This has led to a call for more multidisciplinary and conceptual frameworks, Binder et al. (2013) characterize SES as
interdisciplinary approaches to scientific investigation focused the most comprehensive concept for structuring a research
around real world problems and the emergence of the field of framework, because it allows analysis of two-way dynamics
sustainability science (Kates et al. 2001, Turner et al. 2003). To between social and ecological systems. We review whether the
develop effective methodologies for these interdisciplinary hopes raised by this claim of comprehensiveness are warranted.
approaches, a number of challenges must be overcome (Dronkers (The focus is on the SES concept, though we accept broader
and De Vries 1999, Köhn and Gowdy 1999, Pennington 2008, frameworks for human-nature interactions may be considered
Wesselink 2009, Stock and Burton 2011, Haapasaari et al. 2012, [Flint et al. 2013])
Kueffer et al. 2012, Beichler et al. 2014), including the following:
differing and sometimes philosophically conflicting methodological SOCIAL ENTITIES AND SYSTEMS
approaches; addressing the contrasting terminologies used by a Origins of a systems approach
broad range of academic and professional disciplines; taking Systems approaches are descended from general systems theory,
account of uncertainties within existing fields of knowledge; epitomized in the work of L. Von Bertalanffy, K. E. Boulding,
positioning of research within the social and political context; and J. W. Forrester among others. Key concepts include:
and cultural challenges in the process of interdisciplinary relationships between interacting parts, feedbacks, boundaries,
scientific knowledge production, such as the disciplinary turf emergent properties, self-organization, and hierarchies. Many of
wars, current academic “rewards” systems that inhibit these concepts are reflected in other fields that have developed
interdisciplinary work, and potential for openness and trust, and
1
University of St Andrews, 2Scottish Association for Marine Science, 3University of Aberdeen, School of Geosciences, 4Cardiff University

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Ecology and Society 21(3): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss3/art15/
from these tenets, areas of complexity science such as complex metaphysical domain an object of scientific study (Habermas
adaptive systems theory; actor-network theory; and agent-based 1987). Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of his synthesis
modeling. The founders of systems theory envisaged a conceptual of system and action in his later writings.
framework that would encourage interdisciplinary research and
Systems approaches are not currently dominant in the social
could span all disciplines. However, defining social aspects in
sciences[2]. J. Habermas makes an extensive review of Parsons’s
systemic ways has proven challenging. In particular, it is
theory in The Theory of Communicative Action Vols1 and 2 (1984,
challenging to define functions in the social domain. For example,
1987). Two key insights may be drawn from Habermas’s critique.
if society and its components do form a “system,” what are the
First, certain components of society are particularly amenable to
functional goals (telos) of that system: Adaptation? Goal
systems analysis, e.g., economy, polity, certain dynamics of
Attainment? Maintenance of a Culture? Integration? Evolution?
human interaction, or collective action. Second, systems
Careful consideration in formulating a social system will reveal a
approaches provide key insights, but on their own are insufficient
paradox in defining the goal of its development. This paradox
for theorizing society in its totality. This is because systems
has been central to the debate in the social sciences and humanities
approaches provide partial and inadequate theorization of social
to characterize, understand, and explain the human condition.[1]
entities[3]. They fail to recognize that an effective cause from the
Roots of systems approaches for social science point of view of culture is also a rationally compelling cause from
Nevertheless, systems approaches have been employed in the the point of view of an agent’s action. Further, this perspective
social sciences for a number of decades. Key theorists include N. tends to introduce an institutional bias in analyses of causality
Luhmann (Luhmann 1995) and T. Parsons (Parsons 1971). More over and above considerations of culture and personality
recently, systems approaches have also been applied in the social formation (because a systems approach renders the latter less
and technical sciences through soft systems methodology susceptible to empirical investigation). In response, Habermas
(Checkland and Scholes 1999). proposes a two-component model of society as “lifeworld plus
system,” which draws on both analytical and hermeneutical
In soft systems methodology, a problem situation is methodologies to characterize social structures and social change.
conceptualized as a human activity system to understand the
actions or interventions that might be required to improve a real LITERATURE REVIEW: CRITIQUING SOCIAL-
world situation to which the system approximates. The ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
methodology emphasizes social learning, and works by exploring A mounting critique from the social sciences, including diverse
perspectives and perceptions of systems dynamics. It has been fields such as geography, political and human ecology,
applied to the social dimensions of sustainability issues (Potts et anthropology, sociology, planning, and conservation science
al. 2015). The approach is commonly applied at the level of posits that social-ecological systems inadequately theorize and
institutions or organizations. The paradoxical problem of operationalize “the social.” It is beyond the scope of this paper
defining system goals can be circumvented by qualitatively to elucidate whether these critiques have properly understood SES
modeling idealized system outputs, e.g., goals of an education theory. Nevertheless it is interesting to consider the broad themes
system or goals of a healthcare system. of critique. The critiques are often part of a broader critique of
Luhmann’s theory of systems functionalism is based on a three- resilience theory, however it is important to recognize that the
level model of interactions between individuals, organizations, SES concept is deployed in many ways and need not necessarily
and society in social space and historical time. Luhmann’s theory be framed by resilience theory (for an introduction to resilience
aims to explain the functioning of society as a whole (Luhmann theory, see Walker and Salt 2006). Furthermore, some critiques
1995). In particular, it renders human existence as systemic in remain sympathetic to the term SES and seek to refine the term.
bodily, mental, and linguistic ways. For example, the human mind Four broad themes can be categorized from the critiques.
provides the “substrate” for institutions and subsystems that make Critical theory
up society. Communication takes on an important role in this A first critique comes from researchers with a background in
theory as the means by which sense is made of a social system. critical theory[4]. The core of this critique is that systems
Parson’s theory is sometimes termed structural functionalism. approaches depoliticize the situation being represented (Welsh
This theory developed in a number of phases in an attempt to 2014). “Political foreclosure occurs because SES frame the
render the relationship between structure and action. In Parson’s governance choices that are available, often in feedback
theory the key subsystems of society include the cultural, social, mechanisms that are seemingly neutral” (Evans 2011:232). Using
personality, and behavioral systems (Parsons 1971). Each of these a systems metaphor leads to existing social relations being taken
subsystems coordinate the consequences of actions to make up a for granted as “natural” (MacKinnon and Derickson 2013). For
functional whole from the perspective of an actor. Subsystems example, an SES approach might model how flows of capital
are significant according to their contribution to boundary- reduce forest cover, which has a knock on effect on agricultural
maintenance or evolution of the total system. Parsons later practices, which change the culture of subsistence cattle farmers,
proposed a “telic system” (Parsons 1978), a metaphysical but throughout this case globalization (or the nature of capital
component of the system that proffered end goals for the social flows) is seen as an inevitable process. An inherent conservatism
system, based in religious, spiritual, cultural worldviews that make is suspected. In this criticism, commentators align with the
sense of the function of society in different ways, and that are Habermas analysis that a “systems approach alone is insensitive
influential for a large proportion of the world’s population. to social pathologies, because lifeworld is merely assimilated to
However, he was criticized for being unscientific in doing so, in disequilibria in exchange relations” (Habermas 1987:376). Thus
terms of lacking a suitable analytical approach and making the a systems approach is able to elucidate governance pathologies,

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Fig. 1. Parsons’s systems framework: structural-functionalism.
for example, how lack of adaptive learning mechanisms in Adequacy of depth of conceptualization
command and control structures prevent knowledge of dynamic A third critique is that systems approaches inadequately
change in ecosystems (McLaughlin and Krantzberg 2012), but is conceptualize social-ecological complexes. This is implicit in the
blind to pathologies of society caused by interactions of social, two critiques above. A systemic approach has particular
cultural, and economic realms such as the breakdown of bonds weaknesses in capturing certain realms of social reality, and
between the individual and community. Critics add that this consequently fails to employ related methodological strategies
misses the question of what analysis aims for (Smith and Stirling such as the double hermeneutic. In the case of power dynamics
2010, Fabinyi et al. 2014) because sustainable futures almost and normative questions, SES approaches fail to “address
always involve questions of politics and power. normative questions and to capture how power and competing
value systems are not external to, but rather integral to the
Antinaturalism development and functioning of SES” (Cote and Nightingale
A second critique comes from a broadly antinaturalist position 2012:475). As a consequence, impacts of material change on
[5]
. Here the main critique is that applying a systems approach is certain cultural groups are not well investigated (Crane 2010) nor
a kind of methodological determinism: choosing an approach is the mortality of individuals commonly considered. Of
that fits the requirements of systems modeling rather than an particular interest is the consideration of social dynamics. The
accurate representation of social entities. A naturalistic concept decision to systematize social dynamics rather than rendering “the
is being imported into the social science domain. Systems social” in other comprehensive ways, obscures certain social issues
approaches “fail to recognize that essential differences in such as inequity or economic marginalization which only become
behavior, processes, and structures exist between social systems apparent at certain scales of investigation (Glaser and Glaeser
and ecological systems” (Armitage et al. 2012). Chief among these 2011). Similarly, it is argued that SES approaches do not
differences are the notions of volition or agency, human capacities sufficiently problematize the choice of social variables under
to self-reflect, consciously act, and learn from one another. consideration (Turner 2014). For example, resource extraction,
However, agency is veiled in a systems approach (Coulthard 2012), population, and material benefits receive greater consideration
where the focus is more on rules, material causes, and influence than values, equity, nonmaterial and psychological aspects of
in collective situations, rather than reconstructing intention from well-being.
a subjective point of view. It is argued that this restricts models
of social-ecological evolution, for example, failing to capture the At the same time, leading SES researchers have themselves
potential role of creativity and imagination in dealing with highlighted vagueness or inconsistency in the practice of defining
sustainability issues (Davidson 2010). social components, and setting spatial and functional boundaries
of SES (Walker et al. 2012). Thus, there is a debate whether the

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
challenge of applying the approach is merely practical or actually consider the limitations or potential improvements to an SES
conceptual. Critics of SES point to problems that are inherent in approach, both analytically and as a foundation for real world
the way SES are conceptualized, and make a distinction between action. In the brief decades since the development of approaches
the principles of systems modeling, which simplifies to explain that operationalize SES, there has been considerable
key drivers, versus social analysis, which aims to deepen methodological and theoretical evolution to respond to a number
understanding to explicate the human significance of change in of gaps recognized within the literature. It is recognized that
a given place. continued development is needed to adequately conceptualize the
interactions between societies and ecosystems (Haberl et al. 2006).
Adequacy of explanatory power and scope In the spirit of constructive dialogue, we explore how these
A fourth and final critique concerns a lack of explanatory power, critiques might be used to further reformulate the SES concept.
and bias in explanations, generated by the preceding assumptions. To empirically investigate the critiques, we review three linked sets
If certain aspects of social reality are not well captured by SES, of analysis: scientometric analysis of the literature, content
as argued above, it follows that these are not translated into the analysis of a journal, and case study analysis of how SES are
ways in which the social-ecological is problematized. Certain operationalized in 18 coastal zones.
categories of explanation are bypassed because the focus on an
external web of interactions is offset by a lack of consideration METHODOLOGY
of internal, socially constructed meanings and normative values Three sets of analysis are provided. Scientometric analysis at the
that may influence material behaviors and environmental level of a corpus of literature reveals general trends in the use of
outcomes (Crane 2010). Top-down functional analysis and a terms. Content analysis of papers (n = 260) at the level of a key
concern with the persistence of system structure, rather than the journal reveals how a systems approach is utilized in the practice
way in which subcomponents of the system differ, leads to of research. Case study analysis at the level of a large-scale
theorization of self-organization or concern with institutions and research project reveals the methodological implications of a
governance, rather than political action or deliberation to systems approach. For the case studies, a questionnaire survey
influence the direction of cultural change. Further, the and focus group workshops were utilized to understand how
explanatory potential of certain modes of analysis are avoided. researchers deployed systems approaches in concrete research
A systems ontology may steer analytical preferences toward situations. Together these analyses allow a broad and deep
collaboration with disciplines that have quantifiable dynamics; exploration of how the term social-ecological systems is deployed
theories of society that avoid questions of power; and highly to structure interdisciplinary research.
aggregated data with little insight into the realm of the subjective
(Glaser and Glaeser 2011). Scientometrics of social-ecological systems
Scientometrics particularly focuses on the evolution of academic
A riposte or receptivity? disciplines and how theoretical concepts are operationalized. To
The above literature review summarizes why many scholars in the identify trends in the use of the terms “social-ecological” and
human sciences have been critical of the notion of SES. A key “socio-ecological,” two global databases were investigated:
riposte to these critiques is that they simply amount to a call for Elsevier’s Scopus, and Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science Core
“doing their kind of research.” Further, one might argue that Collection. The results of the analyses revealed similar trends
certitude about approaches in the social domain is problematic between the databases (Fig. 2). The data reported in this paper is
because there are a great heterogeneity of approaches to research mainly from Web of Science because both the science and social
in social sciences and lack of agreement on key terms such as citation indexes provide coverage from 1900 onward, whereas
equity, well-being, or justice. Proponents of systems approaches complete records are only included in Scopus post 1995[6].
point to the fact that the “social” is well represented within studies However, this is a robust dataset for showing change over time
of SES and that issues of equity, power dynamics, and questions and trends are supported by our initial analysis in Scopus as well.
of agency receive attention. Researchers have begun to respond Two key methods were employed for analysis. First, the corpus
to the above critiques. For example, with respect to power of academic literature was reviewed (Bettencourt and Kaur 2011).
dynamics, there are analyses of the role of political systems in In this case, key terms within papers were the basic units of
predefining desired ecosystem states and trade-offs: these often analysis. The research reviewed change in the use of terms over
favor short-term benefits for those with power (Robards et al. time, across disciplines, and across journals. We also conducted
2011). With respect to agency, there is research by Olsson et al. cited reference analysis of the term “social-ecological systems.”
(2004), Westley et al. (2013), and Moore et al. (2014) that In this case, publications and related academic networks were key
characterizes the use of experimental and innovative strategies by units of analysis. A number of search and analytical strategies
shadow networks and leaders to transform SES. With respect to were adopted (see Appendix A1.1).
equity, Bacon et al. (2012) provides evidence of reduction in
socioeconomic inequities in certain agroecosystems. Altogether, Second, network analysis was conducted to produce visualization
a wide range of social entities are considered within SES of knowledge domains using Citespace Visualization Software
conceptualizations, although these tend to focus on institutional (Chen 2006). This utilizes a smart, local, moving algorithm to
aspects with broader consideration of society, political systems, identify clusters (Waltman and Van Eck 2013). It is possible to
and economy (Anderies et al. 2004). conduct the analysis according to authors, documents (references
cited between them, i.e., cocitation), or journals. In our analysis
However, if founded, the critiques summarized in the literature we consider authors and cocitation between documents. Papers
review above have significant implications for the way in which with the key term social-ecological systems were uploaded to the
SES approaches are applied. A second potential response is to software from Web of Science. For the author network, we used

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
the structural metric Betweeness Centrality, ranging from 0 to 1,

to identify influential nodes (Baggio et al. 2015). For the document Fig. 3. Network visualization of document clusters.
cocitation, we used progressive network analysis, which produced
a visualization formed of 14 clusters. The metric Modularity Q,
ranging from 0 to 1, provides some indication of the distinctiveness
and homogeneity of the overall network.
Fig. 2. Number of articles published using the terms “social-

ecological” or “socio-ecological” 1928-2013, from Elsevier’s
Scopus, and Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science Core Collection.
For the visualization graphic (Fig. 3), visual distance and overlap
provide some indication of the connectedness of clusters. A number
of metrics were available to analyze the significance of patterns.
“Silhouette” provides a measure of the level of homogeneity of the
clusters. Three metrics, Term Frequency Inverse Document
Frequency (TFIDF), Log Likelihood Radio (LLR), and Mutual
Interactions (MI) can be used to characterize the clusters. These
metrics draw on cited article’s titles, keywords, and abstracts to form Analysis of SPICOSA case studies
a corpus of words, from which a characteristic label can be A review of social components of a systems approach was
identified. In the analysis provided below only LLR is used (Table provided at the level of a research project, based on 18
1), to avoid information overload. It is argued that LLR provides interdisciplinary coastal assessments, conducted as part of the
a superior result in terms of uniqueness and coverage (Chen et al. Science Policy Integration for Coastal Systems Assessment
2010). Further details of the methodological steps taken for (SPICOSA) EU Framework 6 research project. The SPIOCSA
visualization and cluster labelling are provided in Appendix 1. project demonstrated a number of properties that can be
Content analysis considered characteristic of the use of the SES concept, including
A content analysis of journal articles for Ecology and Society was a commitment to interdisciplinarity, dynamic exploration of
conducted for the period 1997–2013. This time period was chosen linked socioeconomic and ecological phenomena, and
in line with foundational texts identified for social-ecological identification of feedbacks and emergence. SES terminology is
systems research and the “inception phase” shown from trends in prominent in the synthesis of findings from the research project
the literature. Those articles from Ecology and Society that used the (Hopkins et al. 2011, Tett et al. 2011).
term social-ecological in abstract, title, or keywords were exported We evaluated the types of data and information utilized in this
into the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo 10 (n = 260). The systems based research, and the extent to which the social
creation of a word tree enabled analysis of the range and frequency component of the sustainability issue in the coastal zone was
of coterms used with social-ecological. Coding of documents at addressed. The data collection is described in Reis et al. (2014)
nodes where key terms were used allowed for exploration of their based on a questionnaire survey (n = 14) followed by focus groups
context, and interpretation based on a review of 2569 uses of the to validate findings. In addition, internal project reports (L.
term social ecological system. Axial coding (Strauss and Corbin McFadden, S. Priest, A. Sandberg, D. Bailly, and J.
1998) developed broader themes such as subjects covered, methods D’Hernoncourt 2009, unpublished manuscript) provided a basis
deployed, and aspects of social systems considered. Thematic for comparison of the systems modeling conducted by different
analysis was also conducted using Becker’s (2012) three-way teams in the research project. This analysis allowed investigation
classification of the SES concept in practice, to identify whether of an integrated project seeking to operationalize a systems
the term was being used as a “boundary object,” “epistemic object,” approach across a range of case study contexts (Tett et al. 2011).
or “defined relative to biogeophysical unit.” This adds significantly to the analyses above because it allows an

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Table 1. Network analysis visualization of social-ecological systems clusters.
ClusterID Size Silhouette mean(Year) Label (LLR)

0 65 0.458 2004 adaptive capacity (68.49, 1.0E-4); multilevel connection (29.47, 1.0E-4); research
framework (25.92, 1.0E-4);
1 49 0.458 2000 catastrophic threshold (35.2, 1.0E-4); concept (38.73, 1.0E-4); multiuse boreal forest
(21.1, 1.0E-4);
2 43 0.803 1997 precontact Pacific (59.41, 1.0E-4); social-ecological system (59.41, 1.0E-4); history
(24.68, 1.0E-4);
3 41 0.942 1996 Pacific island countries (186.26, 1.0E-4); uncertainty (186.26, 1.0E-4); problem (177.19,
1.0E-4);
4 34 0.841 1993 resilience management (39.41, 1.0E-4); working hypothesis (39.41, 1.0E-4);
participatory approach (39.41, 1.0E-4);
5 28 0.762 2003 social-ecological analysis (33.21, 1.0E-4); biodiversity (26.09, 1.0E-4); multilevel water
(26.09, 1.0E-4);
6 17 0.967 1994 Canadian Western Arctic community (135.77, 1.0E-4); social-ecological resilience
(72.77, 1.0E-4); migration (14.96, 0.001);
7 15 0.92 1992 local ecological knowledge (65.86, 1.0E-4); Racken Watershed (70.19, 1.0E-4); lake
(65.86, 1.0E-4);
8 9 1 2001 violence (95.69, 1.0E-4); youth (95.69, 1.0E-4); building community connection (95.69,
1.0E-4);
9 5 0.938 2001 adaptive marine governance (9.35, 0.005); patron-client relation (9.35, 0.005); southern
Kenya (9.35, 0.005);
10 4 0.979 1997 sustainable development (42.67, 1.0E-4); world (42.67, 1.0E-4); transformation (21.22,
1.0E-4);
11 3 1 1999 action research (36.43, 1.0E-4); support (36.43, 1.0E-4); theoretical framework (36.43,
1.0E-4);
12 3 0.996 1998 Swedish water management (34.92, 1.0E-4); strategic adaptation (34.92, 1.0E-4); social
conflict (34.92, 1.0E-4);
13 2 1 1999 marine social-ecological system (13.1, 0.001); introduction (13.1, 0.001); lagoon (10.33,
0.005);
investigation of how SES frames the practice of research, literature (Fig. 2). From the period of the late 1990s, the use of
including choice of variables, choice of analytical strategies, and these terms expanded rapidly. For example, between 1974-1999
how this influences the way in which social things are considered. there were 62 uses of socio-ecological, and between 1999-2013
there were 1787 uses. This increase in the use of terms is consistent
RESULTS (1): SCIENTOMETIC ANALYSIS- with the exponential rise in the number of journal articles being
INTELLECTUAL PROVENANCE OF THE TERM published. From 2004 onward, social-ecological became the
SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS dominant term, and from 2006 onward, social-ecological saw a
Uses of the term social-ecological much sharper increase than socio-ecological (Fig. 2).
Conceptualizing the interactions between humanity and nature Bibliographic databases produce different tallies because of the
as “social-ecological systems” is an important organizing concept variation in journals that they index, but as of end 2013 there were
within the emerging approach of sustainability science. The term 2381 articles using the term social-ecological and 1404 articles
social-ecological is closely related to the term socio-ecological. using the term socio-ecological (Table 2).
(Furthermore, there are permutations in the use of a hyphen). As Origins and disciplinary norms in the use of terms
with many abstract concepts, the use of these terms has evolved The above analysis provides some indication of the popularity of
in academic literature. The term has been employed in diverse the term. Academic knowledge can be organized according to
fields (see Appendix A1.2), including: (1) public health; (2) fields of literature, and bibliographic databases permit the
ecology, on species-environment interactions; and (3) within a grouping of journals into subject categories, which reveal patterns
constellation of fields such as human/social ecology, systems in the use of the two terms.
theory, and resilience theory, where the term social-ecological has
been coupled with the notion of system to conceptualize the In the Oxford English Dictionary the earliest occurrences of the
relations between society and nature (Walker et al. 2006). It is this forms socioecologic, socioecological, and socioecology are 1970,
third use of the term that is of key interest in this paper, but the 1936, 1952. Literature searches concentrated only on title,
contrasting uses of the term are important to consider as a abstract, and keyword search and show that the phrase social-
preliminary to conducting scientometric analysis. ecological first became dominant in the field of public health and
psychology. Analysis of the period prior to 1990 showed that 86%
Development of the term social-ecological within academic of articles using social-ecological were in psychology or health-
literature related journals and it was only after 1990 that it showed
Before the 1970s there was only single figure use per annum of significant use in the area of environmental sciences. This use of
the keyword social-ecological and its coterms within academic the term within psychology and psychiatry continues, with 13.5%

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Table 2. Use of terms by disciplines.
Records Records
Social-ecological pre-1990 Social-ecological post-1990
Web of Science Categories Web of Science Categories
PSYCHIATRY 19 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 745
SOCIOLOGY 14 ECOLOGY 538
PSYCHOLOGY EDUCATIONAL 11 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 447
PSYCHOLOGY 9 PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL 251
HEALTH
PSYCHIATRY SSCI 6 GEOGRAPHY 135
PSYCHOLOGY CLINICAL 5 SOCIOLOGY 99
PSYCHOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL 5 PSYCHOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY 85
PSYCHOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY 5 WATER RESOURCES 74
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 4 ECONOMICS 69
PSYCHIATRY SCI 4 SOCIAL WORK 66
OTHERS <4 OTHERS < 65
Socio-ecological pre-1990 Socio-ecological post-1990

Web of Science Categories Web of Science Categories
ZOOLOGY 11 ZOOLOGY 241
ECOLOGY 7 ECOLOGY 229
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 226
INFECTIOUS DISEASES 4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 206
PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL 4 PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL 111
HEALTH HEALTH
SOCIOLOGY 4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 103
MEDICINE GENERAL INTERNAL 3 ANTHROPOLOGY 89
PHILOSOPHY 3 GEOGRAPHY 82
ANTHROPOLOGY 2 SOCIOLOGY 55
BIOLOGY 2 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 49
OTHERS <2 OTHERS/ esp. ECONOMICS < 47
of uses of term in the literature in 2013. At the present juncture,

the dominant use of the term social-ecological is in the fields of Table 3. Use of terms by journals.
environmental science, environmental studies, and ecology (Table
2). Of all articles classified, 30% were in the subject category of
% of
environmental studies. This classification includes a number of Records total
journals that have an interdisciplinary perspective including records
Ecology and Society. In contrast, the term socio-ecological
remains most frequently used within the subject categories Source Titles Social-Ecological Keyword
zoology, ecology, and environmental sciences (Table 2). Ecology and Society 314 13.08
Global Environmental Change Human and Policy 62 2.58
The patterns within the corpus of academic literature can be Dimensions
analyzed at a finer scale of academic production. At the level of Ecological Economics 37 1.54
journals, Ecology and Society has the most common use of the Marine Policy 32 1.33
term social-ecological (Table 3). In contrast, in Ecological Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 28 1.17
the United States of America
Economics use of the term socio-ecological dominates (Table 3).
American Journal of Community Psychology 26 1.08
In some cases, it is unclear whether there is a semantic variation Environmental Management 25 1.04
in the use of these terms, or whether terms are being used Journal of Environmental Management 23 0.96
interchangeably because of the lack of a formal, contrasting Environmental Science Policy 20 0.83
definition in common practice. It may be that in the fields of Human Ecology 20 0.83
environmental and ecological economics a tradition persists in
Source Titles Socio-Ecological Keyword
using the term socio-ecological. Arguably, social-ecological can International Journal of Primatology 49 3.47
be considered in contradistinction to the term socio-ecological Ecological Economics 31 2.20
because the syntax of the latter term tends to reduce the social to American Journal of Primatology 28 1.98
a component of the ecological. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27 1.91
Animal Behaviour 26 1.84
The term social-ecological is used in 314 articles in Ecology and Primates 23 1.63
Society with an increase from 6 articles per annum in 2004 to 80 PLoS ONE 18 1.28
in 2013. Comparing this trajectory with the growth of the total Behaviour 17 1.21
Human Ecology 17 1.21
number of publications in Ecology and Society within the same
Global Environmental Change Human and Policy 15 1.06
time period, both increased at a similar rate until 2011 when there Dimensions
was a more sudden increase in the number of articles using the

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
term social-ecological than there was the total number of articles node) corroborating some evidence from the cited reference
published, indicating a “take-off ” period in the use of the term. analysis above about authors bridging between different
disciplines. The network analysis of document cocitations
Foundational texts and deployment of the term social-ecological produces a visualization formed of 14 clusters. The clusters are
The monographs edited by Berkes and Folke (1998) and Berkes formed from papers (nodes) and the links between them from
et al. (2003) are often referenced as key publications in the modern cited references (edges). The overall network has a modularity Q
development of the concept. These contain early formulations of of 0.6594 and a mean silhouette of 0.8378, indicating a relatively
the linkages between social systems and natural systems. Analysis distinct and relatively homogenous set of clusters (Fig 3 and Table
of the cited articles in the papers using the term social-ecological 1). Labels provide an indication of some of the key themes such
supports this claim, with both monographs appearing in the top as adaptive capacity, resilience, and adaptive governance. Some
10 most frequently cited references. The data shown in Table 4 is of the clusters, such as 8 Violence and 11 Action Research appear
all the more significant, when it is understood that monographs only loosely connected with the core SES literature.
are not well recorded for cocitation. Along with 8+ other
publications they constitute an intellectual base within the In conclusion, the scientometric data shows how the term social-
knowledge domain. ecological has grown and evolved. It is used across a wide variety
of disciplines. There are family resemblances between uses of this
term. But more recently the term social-ecological systems has
Table 4. Publications most frequently cited in social-ecological
taken off and provided a framework for exploring key theories
articles.
such as resilience, adaptation, and adaptive governance within a
range of environment related disciplines. However, the
Cited Reference Frequency scientometric analysis is not really able to get at the intentions
(2013)
behind the use of the term. For a more detailed examination, we
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. 325 turn to interpretation and use of language in practice, with a
Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
review of a major subset of the literature within one journal,
30:441-473. Ecology and Society.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a 298
perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. RESULTS (2): BECKER’S CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIAL-
Global Environmental Change 16(3):253-267. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS APPLIED TO ECOLOGY AND
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: 288 SOCIETY FINDINGS.
understanding transformations in human and natural Becker (2012:44) defines SES as a concept that allows “an
systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. examination of the system interdependencies between natural and
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter. and A. 255
Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
social processes occurring at different temporal and spatial
transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology scales.” Becker further distinguishes between three ways the SES
and Society 9(2):5. concept is applied in practice: (1) as a boundary object (Leigh
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating 219 Star 2010), which allows a common frame of reference between
social-ecological systems: building resilience for natural science and social science disciplines; (2) as an epistemic
complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, object, a device to structure research investigations through
Cambridge, UK.
investigation of systemic qualities, where “system” goes beyond
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of 208
ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems a metaphor for “a compound of things”; and (3) as a defined
4:1-23. biogeophysical unit relative to an ecosystem. Becker suggests that
Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and 200 the final definition is insufficient for providing system boundaries
ecological systems: management practices and social because other units such as resource systems are relevant for the
mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge social component. But perhaps it is implicit that these can be
University Press, Cambridge, UK. defined relative to a biogeophysical unit.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution 195
of institutions for collective action. Cambridge In the journal Ecology and Society, identified earlier as the leading
University Press, Cambridge, UK. journal using the term, 260 articles utilize the term social-
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive 175
ecological system as a keyword or within the title or abstract.
comanagement for building resilience in social-
ecological systems. Environmental Management 34
These 260 articles make 5236 uses of the term social-ecological
(1):75-90. overall. Over 125 different terms are combined with social-
Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 171 ecological, i.e., social-ecological resilience, social-ecological
2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of dynamics, etc. Table 5 shows the top 10 coterms. In practice, some
what to what? Ecosystems 4(8):765-781. scholars use terms other than system such as assemblages, entities,
mosaics, networks, inter-relationships, or units. For example,
Apostolopoulou and Paloniemi (2012) write of social-ecological
Cluster analysis entities in biodiversity conservation and Michon (2011) writes of
Network analysis and visualization provide a complementary social-ecological units in forestry. Indeed there may be enough
characterization of the literature. From the author network latitude in the common use of the term social-ecological system
analysis, Carpenter, S. emerges as having the maximum that it does not have systemic connotations.
“betweeness centrality” (0.29; a measure of the importance of a

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
level of definition. This is more than a simple invocation of a

Table 5. Keyword in context analysis of the term social-ecological. place-name or a case study. Some evidence of configuration in
systems terms is required to qualify. For example, Atwell et al.
Rank Root Term With References (2008) conceptualize a U.S. Corn Belt agro-ecosystem through
1 Social-Ecological Systems 2569 (in 260 sources) hierarchical systems of regional regulation, social networks, and
2 Social-Ecological System 738 (in 180 sources) farming practice within a county of the state of Iowa, relative to
3 Social-Ecological Resilience 333 (in 94 sources) three watersheds.
4 Social-Ecological Research 119 (in 22 sources)
5 Social-Ecological Change 67 (in 33 sources) Social components: patterns in the literature
6 Social-Ecological Interactions 42 (in 20 sources) Considering this literature overall, there is a marked emphasis on
7 Social-Ecological Processes 38 (in 24 sources) certain themes. Certain social components are commonly
8 Social-Ecological Factors 34 (in 11 sources) considered within these operationalizations of SES:
9 Social-Ecological Dynamics 33 (in 45 sources)
10 Social-Ecological Networks 22 (in 6 sources) 1. Focus on institutions, i.e., institutional-ecological systems
- Acronym SES (in 75 sources); such as resource systems or governance systems. Focus on
governance, property, and access elements of social systems,
including rules that resource harvesters use in practice.
Boundary object use 2. Focus on economic incentives in ecosystems, e.g., payment

First, drawing on Becker’s classificatory system (Becker 2012), for ecosystem services.
our content analysis revealed that the majority of uses of the term 3. Focus on social interactions in social networks, at a scale
SES are as a boundary object (> 60%; Table 6). In these cases, the below national societies, drawing on agent-based and
term is being used to indicate a concomitant interest in analyzing systems dynamic modeling.
both natural and social components of life on earth. Walker et
al. (2012) highlight uses of the term SES that fail to articulate the 4. Focus on population or on landscape/land use as the
concept of a system, neither identifying which components are biophysical infrastructure of society, and the role that
included, nor where the boundary is drawn. However, this humans play as living beings who remake the natural world.
criticism can by no means be applied to all uses of a SES as a 5. Focus on hybrid ecological networks, e.g., irrigation systems
boundary object. For example, the treatment of the term may be or industrial agriculture.
less detailed simply because the goal of a study is to compare SES
with some other concept or framework for explaining 6. Exploration of complex adaptive systems through Bayesian
interactions, for example Gotts (2007) on world system theory, or models, agent-based simulation, neural networks, fractal
Stokols et al. (2013) on social ecology. analysis, cellular automata, chaos theory, and fuzzy logic.
7. Focus on social learning, including learning as an emergent
Table 6. Content analysis of use of SES term in Ecology and property, with some related work on the role of scenarios in
Society articles. social learning. (Arguably, this final aspect is an example of
social-ecological systems drawing on social theory).
Classification (Becker Source Articles (n = Proportion of Source The patterns shown above align with the insights raised in the
2012) 260) Articles (%) introduction and literature review. SES is strongest where (1)
Boundary object 159 61.2 institutional/political administrative subsystem, or (2) economic
Epistemic object 61 23.5 subsystems or (3) social networks are the coupled social
Defined 27 10.4
component under consideration. In addition, where the
biogeographical unit
“material” component of society is under consideration, such as
Note: not mutually exclusive because one article may use the term in a
with (4) land use or (5) hybrid ecological networks. Thus in
variety of ways
synthesis studies or when there is an attempt to explicitly look at
the dynamics of coupled SES, a systems ontology seems to affect
Epistemic object use which components of society are under consideration.
Second, there are uses of the term that make a more formal In contrast, there seems to be little evidence to support
definition of system. One indication of this, is the extent to which comprehensive representation of emergent features of culture and
they employ systems terms. Some conceptual distinctions may be society. Thus, although such issues as trust, power, or deliberation
made about terms, with possible consideration of the can be considered within a systems dynamic framework (Janssen
methodological implications that arise (Becker 2012). For et al. 2012), behavioral experiments by definition bracket culture
example, Anderies et al. (2004) delineate agents, interactions, and and society rather than make a deep exploration that would reveal
physical substance components of SES. emergent influences (Trosper 2005). Although there are many
Defined system use analyses that include culture, more often this is undertaken in a
Third, there are uses of the term where it is applied to a social-ecological perspective that departs from a systems
biogeophysical unit with associated social components. This is ontology.
challenging to confidently interpret from a journal manuscript These apparent patterns within a corpus of literature are reviewed
alone, but a generous estimate is that ~10% of cases provided this in the following results section at the level of a large-scale

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
interdisciplinary research project. Analysis of an individual Within SPICOSA, social components were included either within
research project allows exploration of the implications of taking a single model, or as a separate subcomponent, integrated within
a systems approach for the practice of science. This is important a wider modeling structure. The identification of a key policy
for understanding not just which social themes dominate in SES issue by scientists and stakeholders (see second column of Table
research, but why and how they have become dominant. 7) enabled the research to focus which components of the system
were under consideration.
RESULTS (3): META-ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS
APPROACHES IN A LARGE SCALE RESEARCH Conceptualizing the social
PROJECT ON COASTAL ZONES. In practice, most of the social components included were either
The EU FP6 SPICOSA research project applied a systems economic or easily quantifiable, such as employment, visitor
approach (Tett et al. 2011) to 18 case study coastal zones of numbers, or other measures of human activity (see third column
Europe. These case study zones were selected for of Table 7). An important influence was the need to link model
representativeness of major coastal regions of Europe: Baltic, components. For example, well-being was commonly expressed
North Sea, Atlantic coast, Mediterranean Sea, and Black Sea in economic terms, primarily because monetary units are
(Fig. 4). Two additional criteria were significant. Each case study compatible with numerical modeling. Thus a systems approach
area faced future scenarios with policy implications for encouraged particular types of social investigation. Other reasons
sustainability (e.g., projected 50% expansion in recreational for the choice of social variables were influential, such as the level
activity, Case Study #2), and it was a proviso of the research of involvement of stakeholders; the current expertise of scientists
program that studies should consider economic, social, and involved; and political setting of the research project (Tett et al.
environmental components of the coastal zone system. Findings 2013). But although these influences could conceivably have
are reported in special issues of Ecology and Society and Marine pushed the research in the direction of considering more
Policy (see Table 7). We focus on reviewing how “the social” was quantitative or qualitative social variables, none of these
considered as part of an interdisciplinary research project, based influences appear to overcome the challenge to dynamically link
on a systems approach. social and ecological components.
Therefore, the need to link ecological and social subsystems may
Fig. 4. Science Policy Integration for Coastal Systems tend to rule out those variables that are not easily quantified. In
Assessment (SPICOSA) case study sites. consequence, variables such as power, influence, rationality, and
happiness are not commonly used. However, there are some
notable exceptions within the case studies, and the approach
captured more social variety than the critique outlined in the
earlier literature review would allow. First, subjective perceptions
of the environment, in terms of aesthetic benefits arising from
outputs of ecological subsystems were considered in case studies
#4 and #15. Second, levels of social conflict arising from different
relative uses of ecological resources were considered in case
studies #1 and #17. For example, case study #15 considered the
recreational appeal of beaches, and case study #17 reviewed the
interpretations of management solutions by fishers and farmers.
Yet, in the cases where this did happen, validating the social
variables involved recourse to research that was “interpretive” or
“critical” rather than systems based. Such research involved (1)
exploring the fundamental categorizations used, instead of
testing for causal explanations; or (2) testing the plausibility or
social significance of historical narratives or future scenarios,
instead of validating differential equations that infer a rate of
change. These findings reinforce aspects of the critique considered
in the literature review.
Understanding social change
The modeling approach did encourage an understanding of the
direction of social change in a number of cases, reinforcing the
value of a dynamic approach (see fourth column, Table 7).
Arguably, the most convincing explanations of the social
component went beyond measures of human activity, to consider
social drivers such as cultural identity. For example, case study
#12 explored phenomena such as social deprivation and illegal
fishing, whereas case study #4 explored the phenomena of second
home ownership. In order for these cases to consider such social
phenomena in a dynamic manner, this required a loosely coupled
approach. This commonly entailed stakeholders discussing the

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Table 7. Social components in a systems approach (SPICOSA).
Case Study Site Policy Issue Social Variables Social Dynamics Journal Article
(economic variables not shown)
1. Cork Harbour Marinas and N- Physical infrastructure (marina) S→E→S Recreational opportunity -
loading Access to harbour or coast. driving infrastructure development
Level of conflict between harbor causing water quality issues raising user
users conflicts
2. Clyde Firth/ Aquaculture and Boating (moorings and visiting S→E Recreational boating pressure on Tett et al. 2012
Loch Fyne marinas vessels) nutrient loads
Employment
Tourism visits
Land use
3. Limfjord Mussels and N- Fisher behavior E→S Impacts of reduced nutrients on Dinesen et al. 2011
loading Fishing effort mussel competition and related human
Mussel farming effort activities
4. Risor Fjord/ Cod and Tourist visitors by type S→E Second homes giving rise to Moksness et al. 2011
Søndeledfjorden recreational fishing Boat Visitors increased angling activity exacerbating
Fishing effort fishing pressure on stocks, plus conflict.
Angling effort
Second home development
Landscape quality
5. Himmerfjarden Water quality and Local population S→E Impacts of sewage treatment and Franzén et al. 2011
sewage Levels of participation and wetland creation on nitrogen loads.
collaboration with policy measures
6. Gulf of Riga Fishing Fishing effort E→S Impact of reduced fish stocks on -
Recreational opportunities recreational fishing activity
Cultural heritage and identity
7. Gulf of Gdansk/Vistula Water quality and Tourism visits E→S Impacts of nutrient and pollutant -
Lagoon tourism Tourism employment loads on beach user preference
Beach user preferences
8. Oder-Szczecin Aquaculture and N- Mussel farming activity S→E Impacts of mussel farming activity Schernewski et al. 2012
Loading Tourist numbers on nutrient loads and potential for
tourism subsidy
9. Izmit Bay Water quality and People’s preference and satisfaction S→E Impacts of urbanization and Gamze Tolun et al. 2012
real estate with water quality industrialization on water quality
10. Varna Bay/ Danube Water quality and Tourist visits (overnight stays) S→E Impacts of tourism development on Moncheva et al. 2012
Delta tourism Tourist perception of water quality water quality
Tourism employment
11. Thermaikos Gulf Mussels and fishery Perceptions of aquaculture products S→E→S Impacts of mussel farming Konstantinou et al. 2012
Mussel production techniques on environmental quality and
Local employment resultant mix of activities contribution to
Access rights regional welfare
12. Taranto Mar Piccolo Mussels and waste Illegal fishing activity S→E→S Social deprivation driving illegal Caroppo et al. 2012
discharge Public perceptions of mussel quality mussel farming reducing mussel quality.
Aquaculture employment Farming driving demand for mussels and
impacting mussel farms..
13. Venice Lagoon Clams and fishery Employment S→E→S Sustainability of clam fishing in Melaku Canu and
Fishing effort (clams per day, area the face of natural cycles and competing Solidoro 2014
zoned for aquaculture) uses
14. Thau Lagoon Seafood and Land use E→S Impacts of microbial Mongruel et al. 2013
pathogens Population contamination on fish farms and tourism
Tourism activity
Shellfish farm activity
15. Barcelona Coast Discharges and Beach occupancy E→S Stormflow delivery of waste and Tomlinson et al. 2011
beach quality Recreational appeal of beaches litter to beach affecting tourist aesthetics
Beach visitors aesthetic perceptions
16. Guadiana/Ria Formosa E. coli and bathing Tourism employment E→S Impacts of extraction and sewage Guimarães et al. 2012
Population discharge on water quality, beach users,
Social benefits (Blue Flag Status) and beach awards
Beach demand (number of visitors)
Fish Landings
17. Pertuis Charentais Freshwater and Agricultural activity S→S→E Competition between human Mongruel et al. 2011
agriculture Angling activity activities and land use, for space and
Water extraction (consumption and freshwater extraction causing crisis events
agricultural irrigation) for water supply
Well-being
Intergroup conflict
18. Scheldt Agriculture and N- Farming activity (area, numbers) S→E Agricultural pressure on nutrient Vermaat et al. 2012
Loading Willingness to participate in loads
environmental measures

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
implications for social entities of the outcomes of dynamic It provides a framework for interdisciplinary research and
models, rather than the social components being included within heuristic devices for social learning. Furthermore, a number of
the systems analytical framework itself (Tett et al. 2013). components of society are particularly amenable to
conceptualization as system, including economic systems, and
Patterns at the level of a systems-based research project functional subsystems such as institutions for administration and
Conclusions at the level of a research project show the policy making. The potential for systems conceptualization of
methodological implications of taking a systems perspective. hybrid nature-culture spaces seems particularly promising, such
Although from the scientometric and content analysis of the as land use, land tenure, and ecological infrastructure. Here, SES
literature, patterns emerge that show an emphasis on key topics as presently conceived, remains highly relevant and useful.
or certain social subsystems, at the level of an integrated research
project it becomes methodologically apparent why certain social On the problematic side, the social-ecological systems concept
themes are dominant. These implications arise from the challenge neglects critique in the social sciences that certain elements of
of operationalizing SES in ways that can meaningfully represent society are less amenable to conceptualization as systems, and
systems dynamics. The consequence is similar in both cases: therefore undertheorizes social entities and processes. People’s
preference for certain social variables and undertheorization of intentions, as reflected by their interpretation of worldviews and
the social. However, the inclusion of variables such as social traditions, cultural norms and relations, power dynamics within
perception of aesthetics hints at some ways in which these civil and political spheres, role formation, and personality, have
neglected social components might be loosely coupled with a a strong bearing on the development of society and its
systems approach. components, i.e., the reasons why humans pursue life in a
collective. The implications of neglecting their analysis will be
CONCLUSION most seriously felt in the transition from research and theory to
This paper provides evidence that, from its growth in the 1970s, action, when particular solutions become privileged. Although
the term social-ecological and its coterms have become a the presentation of dynamic modeling in participatory context
dominant way of conceptualizing nature-society interactions. (Lynam et al. 2002, Jones et al. 2009) might go some way toward
Scientometric and network analysis shows that the term social- ameliorating these issues, it evades major traditions in social
ecological systems has relatively homogenous corpus of literature research that might contribute to this understanding.
in a broad set of disciplines. Different terms are common in
different disciplines. Ecology and Society is a leading journal. SES DISCUSSION AND GROUNDED SPECULATION
has some foundational texts from the late 1990s. A “take-off ” We conclude with some alternative options for future research
period occurred late in the first decade of the 21st century. directions:
Meanwhile the content analysis delineates different uses of the . Let SES function as a productive boundary object (or simple
term SES in practice. It provides evidence for wide use of the term heuristic). In line with the claim of Binder et al. (2013) at
as a boundary object, but less evidence of the term applied to a the beginning of this paper, social-ecological systems may
biogeophysical unit with associated social components. Key issues well be considered the most useful term for sustainability
are being explored such as adaptive capacity, resilience, and research that recognizes dynamic linkages. This allows for
adaptive governance. SES is proving a highly productive term to systems to function as a loose metaphor, without worrying
consider certain social components such as institutions, economic about precise definitions, but ignores the critique above.
systems, social networks, land use, hybrid ecological networks,
and social learning. Other social components are somewhat . Be explicit about SES linking to certain social domains. This
neglected within synthesis studies. This affirms the critique in the would clarify the core social subcomponents under
literature about adequacy of explanatory power and adequacy of consideration, and might entail more precise use of
scope of conceptualization of SES. On the other hand, findings terminology, e.g., institutional-ecological systems.
from the content analysis and the review of case studies show that . Reformulate SES as S2ES, depending on the goals and
conceptualizations of SES do have a broader methodological base context of the research. Here S2 refers to both systems-based
than most critiques allow. Analysis of 18 systems-based approaches, and social research that departs from a systems
assessments from a multisite study of coastal sustainability shows ontology but can be integrated into interdisciplinary
some limitations in social investigation, but demonstrates the understandings. This would highlight the benefits of
benefits of a dynamic approach and hints at possibilities of loose- combining both systems and critical approaches in the social
coupling. domain. It could draw on the variety of frameworks that
Now, to address the core question raised at the start. Walker et human sciences have used, without adherence to a systems-
al. (2006) make the summary proposition that “The ecological based perspective, to explore the relationships between
and social domains of social-ecological systems can be addressed human societies and the biophysical environment. Such
in a common conceptual, theoretical, and modeling framework.” methodological variety is already commonplace within
From the perspective of this research paper, it might be better to journals such as Ecology and Society. However, its synthesis
ask whether all components of the social domain can be addressed is not a trivial matter. It would entail using a variety of
within a general systems framework. The findings of this research diagnostic approaches that draw on both social theory and
are mixed in this regard. dynamic ecological theory, and coupling of approaches that
have different foundational assumptions. Evidence from the
On the constructive side, conceiving of society and its components content analysis in this paper shows that the nature of these
as a system enables a holistic approach that embraces complexity. loose couplings remains a major question for
interdisciplinary research.

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
__________ Apostolopoulou, E., and R. Paloniemi. 2012. Frames of scale

[1] challenges in Finnish and Greek biodiversity conservation.
Although social systems remain subject to the same
Ecology and Society 17(4):9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05181-170409
thermodynamics and most of the ecological principles that govern
ecosystems, not least because they involve human bodies, it would Armitage, D., C. Béné, A. T. Charles, D. Johnson, and E. H.
be a philosophical assumption to state that social processes are Allison. 2012. The interplay of well-being and resilience in
structured by bottom-up rather than top-down mechanisms. applying a social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society 17
Bottom-up assumptions tend to render social processes as (4):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04940-170415
primarily subject to the fluctuations of physical and biological
Atwell, R. C., L. A. Schulte, and L. M. Westphal. 2008. Linking
processes.
[2] resilience theory and diffusion of innovations theory to
Methodologically there is currently an emphasis in social
understand the potential for perennials in the U.S. corn belt.
science on measuring values, motives, and opinions of individuals
Ecology and Society 14(1):30. [online] URL: http://www.
and groups, at basic levels of social interaction (Bauman 2004).
[3] ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art30/
Other core insights from the philosophy of social science include
the relatively enduring nature of social phenomena in time and Bacon, C. M., C. Getz, S. Kraus, M. Montenegro, and K. Holland.
space, which become sealed in history and gain a certain form of 2012. The social dimensions of sustainability and change in
intransivity (Bhaskar 1978); the dependence of social interactions diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society 17(4):41. http://
on media such as money, cultural values, or social influence rather dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05226-170441
than simply throughputs such as energy or material (Habermas
Baggio, J. A., K. Brown, and D. Hellebrandt. 2015. Boundary
1984); and the self-reflexivity of the human species whereby actors
object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of
interpret their actions according to the meanings that they
resilience. Ecology and Society 20(2):2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
subscribe to them, and the motivations that attend their actions
ES-07484-200202
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, Giddens 1993).
[4]
Critical theory is used here to describe a range of approaches Bauman, Z. 2004. Sociology. Pages 819-829 in A. Kuper and J.
to scholarship, where social theory is used to study aspects of Kuper, editors. The social science encyclopedia. Routledge,
society, whereby these are studied along with critical theories that Abingdon, UK.
are used as a way of making value judgements on cultural
Becker, E. 2012. Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects.
phenomenon themselves. Examples of critical theories might
Pages 37-59 in M. Glaser, M. Crause, B. M. W. Ratter, and M.
include Marxism, feminism, or poststructuralism. These
Welp, editors. Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene:
approaches are common in subdisciplines such as political
potentials of social-ecological systems analysis. Routledge, New
ecology or cultural geography.
[5] York, New York, USA.
Naturalism is used here to describe a position in the philosophy
of science that sees a fundamental unity in the principles of Beichler, S. A., S. Hasibovic, B. J. Davidse, and S. Deppisch. 2014.
natural and social sciences. In contradistinction, antinaturalism The role played by social-ecological resilience as a method of
posits fundamental differences between natural and social integration in interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 19
sciences based on the differentiation of their subject matters. (3):4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06583-190304
[6]
Web of Science has a preponderance of journal publications
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-
and therefore favors the sciences over the social sciences/arts and
ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change.
humanities. But Web of Science has very good coverage of English
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.
language journals and international publications over a long time
org/10.1017/cbo9780511541957
period, and so is suitable for our analysis.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking ecological and social
systems: management practices and social mechanisms for
Responses to this article can be read online at: building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. UK.
php/8633
Bettencourt, L. M. A., and J. Kaur. 2011. Evolution and structure
of sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 108(49):19540-19545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108
Acknowledgments: Bhaskar, R. 1978. A realist theory of science. Harvester, Brighton,
The work described here was partly funded by the European UK.
Commission’s FP6 contract 036992. Authors also wish to thank Binder, C. R., J. Hinkel, P. W. G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013.
cartographer G.Sandeman for assistance with certain diagrams. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 18(4):26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
LITERATURE CITED ES-05551-180426
Anderies, J., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework Bourdieu, P., and L. J. C. Waquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive
to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1):18. [online]
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/ Caroppo, C., L. Giordano, N. Palmieri, G. Bellio, A. Paride Bisci,
G. Portacci, P. Sclafani, and T. Sawyer Hopkins. 2012. Progress

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
toward sustainable mussel aquaculture in Mar Piccolo, Italy. Franzén, F., G. Kinell, J. Walve, R. Elmgren, and T. Söderqvist.
Ecology and Society 17(3):10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ 2011. Participatory social-ecological modeling in eutrophication
ES-04950-170310 management: the case of Himmerfjärden, Sweden. Ecology and
Society 16(4):27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04394-160427
Checkland, P., and J. Scholes. 1999. Soft systems methodology in
action. A 30-year retrospective. John Wiley, Chichester, UK. Gamze Tolun, L., S. Ergenekon, S. Murat Hocaoglu, A. Suha
Donertas, T. Cokaca, S. Husrevoglu, C. Polat Beken, and A.
Chen, C. 2006. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging
Baban. 2012. Socioeconomic response to water quality: a first
trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the
experience in science and policy integration for the Izmit Bay
American Society for Information Science and Technology 57
coastal system. Ecology and Society 17(3):40. http://dx.doi.
(3):359-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317 http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04984-170340
org/10.1002/asi.20317
Giddens, A. 1993. New rules of sociological method: a positive
Chen, C., F. Ibekwe-Sanjuan, and J. Hou. 2010. The structure
critique of interpretive sociology. Second edition. Polity,
and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple-perspective
Cambridge, UK.
cocitation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information
Science & Technology 2010(67):7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ Glaser, M., and B. Glaeser. 2011. The social dimension of social-
asi.21309 ecological management. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science
11:5-30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-374711-2.01103-7
Cote, M., and A. J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience thinking meets
social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems Gotts, N. M. 2007. Resilience, panarchy, and world-systems
(SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475-489. analysis. Ecology and Society 12(1):24. [online] URL: http://www.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708 ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art24/
Coulthard, S. 2012. Can we be both resilient and well, and what Guimarães, M. E., A. Mascarenhas, C. Sousa, T. Boski, and T. P.
choices do people have? Incorporating agency into the resilience Dentinho. 2012. The impact of water quality changes on the socio-
debate from a fisheries perspective. Ecology and Society 17(1):4. economic system of the Guadiana Estuary: an assessment of
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04483-170104 management options. Ecology and Society 17(3):38. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05318-170338
Crane, T. A. 2010. Of models and meanings: cultural resilience
in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 15(4):19. [online] Haapasaari, P., S. Kulmala, and S. Kuikka. 2012. Growing into
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art19/ interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and
social science in fisheries research? Ecology and Society 17(1):6.
Davidson, D. J. 2010. The applicability of the concept of resilience
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106
to social systems: some sources of optimism and nagging doubts.
Society & Natural Resources 23(12):1135-1149. http://dx.doi. Haberl, H., V. Winiwarter, K. Andersson, R. U. Ayres, C. Boone,
org/10.1080/08941921003652940 A. Castillo, G. Cunfer, M. Fischer-Kowalski, W. R. Freudenburg,
E. Furman, R. Kaufmann, F. Krausmann, E. Langthaler, H.
Dinesen, G. E., K. Timmermann, E. Roth, S. Markager, L. Ravn-
Lotze-Campen, M. Mirtl, C. L. Redman, A. Reenberg, A.
Jonsen, M. Hjorth, M. Holmer, and J. G. Støttrup. 2011. Mussel
Wardell, B. Warr, and H. Zechmeister. 2006. From LTER to
production and water framework directive targets in the Limfjord,
LTSER: conceptualizing the socioeconomic dimension of long-
Denmark: an integrated assessment for use in system-based
term socioecological research. Ecology and Society 11(2):13.
management. Ecology and Society 16(4):26. http://dx.doi.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/
org/10.5751/ES-04259-160426
art13/
Dronkers, J., and I. de Vries. 1999. Integrated coastal
Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of communicative action Volume One:
management: the challenge of transdisciplinarity. Journal of
reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by T.
Coastal Conservation 5(2):97-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
McCarthy. Beacon, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
bf02802745
Habermas, J. 1987. Theory of communicative action Volume Two:
Evans, J. P. 2011. Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the
lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason. Translated
experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British
by T. McCarthy. Beacon, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Geographers 36(2):223-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1475-5661.2010.00420.x Hopkins, T. S., D. Bailly, and J. G. Støttrup. 2011. A systems
approach framework for coastal zones. Ecology and Society 16
Fabinyi, M., L. Evans, and S. J. Foale. 2014. Social-ecological
(4):25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04553-160425
systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology
and political ecology. Ecology and Society 19(4):28. http://dx.doi. Janssen, M. A., F. Bousquet, J.-C. Cardenas, D. Castillo, and K.
org/10.5751/ES-07029-190428 Worrapimphong. 2012. Field experiments on irrigation dilemmas.
Agricultural Systems 109:65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Flint, C. G., I. Kunze, A. Muhar, Y. Yoshida, and M. Penker.
agsy.2012.03.004
2013. Exploring empirical typologies of human-nature
relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Jones, N. A., P. Perez, T. G. Measham, G. J. Kelly, P. d’Aquino,
Landscape and Urban Planning 120:208-217. http://dx.doi. K. A. Daniell, A. Dray, and N. Ferrand. 2009. Evaluating
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ participatory modeling: developing a framework for cross-case
j.landurbplan.2013.09.002 analysis. Environmental Management 44(6):1180-1195. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9391-8

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Kates, R. W., W. C. Clark, R. Corell, J. M. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Moncheva, S., E. Racheva, L. Kamburska, and J.
Lowe, J. J. Mccarthy, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N. M. Dickson, D’Hernoncourt. 2012. Environmental and management
S. Faucheux, G. C. Gallopin, A. Grübler, B. Huntley, J. Jäger, N. constraints on tourism in Varna Bay, Bulgarian Black Sea coast.
S. Jodha, R. E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, Ecology and Society 17(3):35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
B. Moore, T. O’Riordan, and U. Svedin. 2001. Environment and ES-05107-170335
development - sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641-642.
Mongruel, R., J. Prou, J. Ballé-Béganton, M. Lample, A.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386
Vanhoutte-Brunier, H. Réthoret, J. Pérez Agúndez, F. Vernier, P.
Köhn, J., and J. Gowdy. 1999. Coping with complex and dynamic Bordenave, and C. Bacher. 2011. Modeling soft institutional
systems. An approach to a transdiscipliary understanding of change and the improvement of freshwater governance in the
coastal zone developments. Journal of Coastal Conservation coastal zone. Ecology and Society 16(4):15. http://dx.doi.
5:163-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02802754 org/10.5751/ES-04294-160415
Konstantinou, Z. I., Y. N. Krestenitis, D. Latinopoulos, K. Pagou, Mongruel, R., A. Vanhoutte-Brunier, A. Fiandrino, F. Valette, J.
S. Galinou-Mitsoudi, and Y. Savvidis. 2012. Aspects of mussel- Ballé-Béganton, J. A. Pérez Agúndez, N. Gallai, V. Derolez, S.
farming activity in Chalastra, Thermaikos Gulf, Greece: an effort Roussel, M. Lample, and T. Laugier. 2013. Why, how, and how
to untie a management Gordian Knot. Ecology and Society 17 far should microbiological contamination in a coastal zone be
(1):1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04455-170101 mitigated? An application of the systems approach to the Thau
lagoon (France). Journal of Environmental Management
Kueffer, C., E. Underwood, G. H. Hadorn, R. Holderegger, M.
118:55-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.038
Lehning, C. Pohl, M. Schirmer, R. Schwarzenbach, M.
Stauffacher, G. Wuelser, and P. Edwards. 2012. Enabling effective Moore, M.-L., O. Tjornbo, E. Enfors, C. Knapp, J. Hodbod, J.
problem-oriented research for sustainable development. Ecology A. Baggio, A. Norström, P. Olsson, and D. Biggs. 2014. Studying
and Society 17(4):8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05045-170408 the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for
understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations.
Leigh Star, S. 2010. This is not a boundary object: reflections on
Ecology and Society 19(4):54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35
ES-06966-190454
(5):601-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624 Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological
transformation for ecosystem management: the development of
Luhmann, N. 1995. Social systems. Stanford University Press,
adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern
Redwood City, California, USA.
Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4):2. [online] URL: http://www.
Lynam, T., F. Bousquet, C. Le Page, P. d’Aquino, O. Barreteau, ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/
F. Chinembiri, and B. Mombeshora. 2002. Adapting science to
Parsons, T. 1971. The system of modern societies. Prentice-Hall,
adaptive managers: spidergrams, belief models, and multi-agent
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
systems modeling. Ecology and Society 5(2):24. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art24/ Parsons, T. 1978. Action theory and the human condition. Free
Press, New York, New York, USA.
MacKinnon, D., and K. D. Derickson. 2013. From resilience to
resourcefulness: a critique of resilience policy and activism. Pennington, D. D. 2008. Cross-disciplinary collaboration and
Progress in Human Geography 37(2):253-270. http://dx.doi. learning. Ecology and Society 13(2):8. [online] URL: http://www.
org/10.1177/0309132512454775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309 ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art8/
132512454775
Potts, T., T. O’Oggins, R. Brennan, S. Cinnirella, U. Steiner
McLaughlin, C., and G. Krantzberg. 2012. An appraisal of Brandt, J. De Vivero, J. Beusekom, T. A. Troost, L. Paltriguera,
management pathologies in the Great Lakes. Science of the Total and A. Hosgor. 2015. Detecting critical choke points for achieving
Environment 416:40-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.12.015 good environmental status in European seas. Ecology and Society
20(1):29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07280-200129
Melaku Canu, D., and C. Solidoro. 2014. Socio-economic analysis
and stakeholder involvement: mussel-farming in the Gulf of Reis, J., T. Stojanovic, and H. Smith. 2014. Relevance of systems
Trieste. Marine Policy 43:55-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. approaches for implementing Integrated Coastal Zone
marpol.2013.03.022 Management principles in Europe. Marine Policy (43):3-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.013
Michon, G. 2011. Revisiting the resilience of chestnut forests in
Corsica: from social-ecological systems theory to political Robards, M. D., M. L. Schoon, C. L. Meek, and N. L. Engle.
ecology. Ecology and Society 16(2):5. [online] URL: http://www. 2011. The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision
ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art5/ of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 21
(2):522-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.004
Moksness, E., J. Gjøsæter, G. Lagaillarde, E. Mikkelsen, E.
Moland Olsen, H. T. Sandersen, and J. Helge Vølstad. 2011. Schernewski, G., N. Stybel, and T. Neumann. 2012. Zebra mussel
Effects of fishing tourism in a coastal municipality: a case study farming in the Szczecin (Oder) Lagoon: water-quality objectives
from Risør, Norway. Ecology and Society 16(3):11. http://dx.doi. and cost-effectiveness. Ecology and Society 17(2):4. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04290-160311 org/10.5751/ES-04644-170204

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Smith, A., and A. Stirling. 2010. The politics of social-ecological Walker, B. H., S. R. Carpenter, J. Rockström, A.-S. Crépin, and
resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and G. D. Peterson. 2012. Drivers, “slow“ variables, “fast” variables,
Society 15(1):11. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety. shocks, and resilience. Ecology and Society 17(3):30. http://dx.doi.
org/vol15/iss1/art11/ org/10.5751/ES-05063-170330 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05063-170330
Stock, P., and R. J. F. Burton. 2011. Defining terms for integrated Walker, B. H., L. H. Gunderson, A. P. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. R.
(multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A handful of heuristics and some
3(8):1090-1113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su3081090 http://dx. propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological
doi.org/10.3390/su3081090 systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):13. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/
Stokols, D., R. Perez Lejano, and J. Hipp. 2013. Enhancing the
resilience of human-environment systems: a social-ecological Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining
perspective. Ecology and Society 18(1):7. http://dx.doi. ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press,
org/10.5751/ES-05301-180107 Washington, D.C., USA.
Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative Waltman, L., and N. J. van Eck. 2013. A smart local moving
research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Second algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection.
Edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. European Physical Journal B 86(11):471. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1140/epjb/e2013-40829-0
Tett, P., A. Sandberg, and A. Mette. 2011. Sustaining coastal zone
systems. Dunedin Academic Press, Edinburgh, UK. Welsh, M. 2014. Resilience and responsibility: governing
uncertainty in a complex world. Geographical Journal 180
Tett, P., A. Sandberg, A. Mette, D. Bailly, M. Estrada, T. S.
(1):15-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12012
Hopkins, M. R. d’Alcalà, and L. McFadden. 2013. Perspectives
of social and ecological systems. Pages 229-243 in E. Mokness, Wesselink, A. 2009. The emergence of interdisciplinary
E. Dahl, and J. G. Støttrup, editors. Global challenges in integrated knowledge in problem-focused research. Area 41(4):404-413.
coastal zone management. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00882.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118496480.ch18
Westley, F. R., O. Tjornbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B.
Tett, P., B. Valcic, T. Potts, C. Whyte, F. Culhane, and T. Fernandes Crona, and Ö. Bodin. 2013. A theory of transformative agency
2012. Mussels and yachts in Loch Fyne, Scotland: a case study in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(3):27.
of the science-policy interface. Ecology and Society 17(3):16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04995-170316
Tomlinson, B., S. Sastre, D. Blasco, and J. Guillén. 2011. The
systems approach framework as a complementary methodology
of adaptive management: a case study in the urban beaches of
Barcelona. Ecology and Society 16(4):28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04484-160428
Trosper, R. L. 2005. Emergence unites ecology and society.
Ecology and Society 10(1):14. [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art14/
Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. Mccarthy, R.
W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers,
M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. A
framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 100(14):8074-8079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1231335100
Turner, M. D. 2014. Political ecology I: an alliance with resilience?
Progress in Human Geography 38(4):616-623. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0309132513502770
Vermaat, J. E., S. Broekx, B. Van Eck, G. Engelen, F. Hellmann,
J. L. De Kok, H. Van der Kwast, J. Maes, W. Salomons, and W.
Van Deursen. 2012. Nitrogen source apportionment for the
catchment, estuary, and adjacent coastal waters of the River
Scheldt. Ecology and Society 17(2):30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-04889-170230

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Appendix 1. Visualization: detailed methodologies.
What is the goal of the visualization and analysis?

 The visualization and accompanying metrics allow an overview of the major areas of
research of those articles classified with the term ‘social-ecological systems.’ The
input dataset was sourced from Web of Science. For the author-network, the metric
‘betweeness centrality’ gives an indication of the importance of key nodes. For the
cited reference network, ‘modularity Q’ and ‘mean silhouette’ metrics provide an
indication of the overall structural properties of the network.
How was the visualization conducted?
 The analysis and visualization were conducted using the software Citespace, version
3.8R1 (Dated 6 January 2014).
Which assumptions and methods have been used in generating the visualization?
 Clustering- identification of prominent groupings- is performed using a smart local
moving algorithm (Waltman & Van Eck 2013).
 The clusters allow the identification of core themes within the literature. Time
slicing was set at one year intervals.
 Labels for the clusters were based on ‘noun-phrases’ taken from the titles of co-cited
papers.
How were the metrics selected and can they be justified?
 Table A1.3 below shows the outputs of three approaches to automatically
generating labels for the clusters, drawing on terms found the titles of all the co-
cited papers in each cluster. Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TFIDF),
Log Likelihood Ratio (LLR) and Mutual Interactions (MI).
 In our judgement the labels do not show strong dissimilarities, and Log Likelihood
Ratio provides the best combination of unique aspects related to each cluster, whilst
also providing a breadth of indication of topics within the theme. Hence our choice
to include LLR in Figure 3.

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Table A1.1 Analytical strategies for scientometric analysis
Issue Strategy
Hyphenated words: Both databases treat searches for hyphenated words similarly: social-
ecological will find both social-ecological and social ecological
Boolean searching Terms were combined with the OR operator to ensure all forms of
the word were accounted for e.g. socialecological OR social-
ecological
Variant endings Truncation was used to find variant endings e.g. ecolog
Publication types: Search was refined in both databases to only include the document
type (journal) ‘articles’
Phrase Searching Used for “Social-ecological systems”
Fields Searched Topic search in Web of Science which equates to the Title, Abstract
and Keyword search available in Scopus
Time period From the earliest record in the index to end of 2013
Analysis options By publication year, by source (journal title) by subject category

(discipline of journal)
Table A1.2 Broad categories of the use of the terms socioecological and socialecological
Fields Meaning
Public health and psychology Health of individuals within wider contexts
Ecology Interactions of species within their environment
Human Ecology/ Resilience With ‘-system’ to conceptualise an entity made up of

Theory/ Complex Adaptive interacting biogeographical and social components
Systems

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
Table A1.3 Comparison of output metrics for Labelling Clusters: Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TFIDF), Log Likelihood Radio (LLR)
and Mutual Interactions (MI)
ClusterID Size Silhouette mean(Year) Label (TFIDF) Label (LLR) Label (MI)
0 65 0.458 2004 (12.68) multi-level connection; (10.72) adaptive capacity (68.49, 1.0E-4); complex adaptive
collaborative design; (10.72) management multi-level connection (29.47, 1.0E- network
system; (10.72) rhine basin; (10.72) informal 4); research framework (25.92, 1.0E-
participatory platform 4);
1 49 0.458 2000 (9.48) catastrophic threshold; (8.11) synthesis; catastrophic threshold (35.2, 1.0E- british columbia
(8.04) forest; (8.02) multi-use boreal forest; 4); concept (38.73, 1.0E-4); multi-use
(8.02) interlocking panarchies boreal forest (21.1, 1.0E-4);
2 43 0.803 1997 (12.68) pre-contact pacific; (9.5) history; (9.5) pre-contact pacific (59.41, 1.0E-4); building resilient
urban cultural landscape; (9.5) biodiversity-rich; social ecological system (59.41, 1.0E- social-ecological
(8.68) rural people 4); history (24.68, 1.0E-4); system
3 41 0.942 1996 (12.68) atoll countries; (7.21) pacific island pacific island countries (186.26, urban delta
countries; (7.21) uncertainty; (6.52) countries; 1.0E-4); uncertainty (186.26, 1.0E-4);
(3.69) problem problem (177.19, 1.0E-4);
4 34 0.841 1993 (10.72) resilience management; (10.72) working resilience management (39.41, 1.0E- building resilient
hypothesis; (10.72) participatory approach; 4); working hypothesis (39.41, 1.0E- social-ecological
(7.64) understanding complex eco-social 4); participatory approach (39.41, system
interaction; (7.64) diagrammatic approach 1.0E-4);
5 28 0.762 2003 (8.68) global collaboration; (8.68) open source; social-ecological analysis (33.21, collaborative
(8.68) social-ecological research; (8.68) open 1.0E-4); biodiversity (26.09, 1.0E-4); focus
content; (7.03) interplay multilevel water (26.09, 1.0E-4);
6 17 0.967 1994 (10.45) canadian western arctic community; canadian western arctic community resilience
(4.12) social-ecological resilience; (2.87) (135.77, 1.0E-4); social-ecological
migration; resilience (72.77, 1.0E-4); migration
(14.96, 0.001);

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00
7 15 0.92 1992 (4.2) local ecological knowledge; (4.2) dynamic; local ecological knowledge (65.86, racken watershed
(4.2) sweden; (4.2) racken watershed; (4.2) 1.0E-4); racken watershed (70.19,
ecosystem 1.0E-4); lake (65.86, 1.0E-4);
8 9 1 2001 (11.63) violence; (11.63) youth; (11.63) building violence (95.69, 1.0E-4); youth ...
community connection; (1.9) building; (95.69, 1.0E-4); building community
connection (95.69, 1.0E-4);
9 5 0.938 2001 (4.04) marine governance; (3.41) planning; (3.35) adaptive marine governance (9.35, resilience
fisher; (2.38) communities; (2.38) fisheries 0.005); patron-client relation (9.35,
0.005); southern kenya (9.35, 0.005);
10 4 0.979 1997 (8.68) sustainable development; (4.04) sustainable development (42.67, resilience
transformation; (3.35) development; (3.35) 1.0E-4); world (42.67, 1.0E-4);
world; (2.7) adaptive capacity transformation (21.22, 1.0E-4);
11 3 1 1999 (7.64) support; (7.64) theoretical framework; action research (36.43, 1.0E-4); ...
(7.64) school; (4.22) action research; (2.95) support (36.43, 1.0E-4); theoretical
framework framework (36.43, 1.0E-4);
12 3 0.996 1998 (7.64) strategic adaptation; (7.64) social conflict; swedish water management (34.92, social-ecological
(7.64) swedish water management; (2.95) 1.0E-4);strategic adaptation (34.92, resilience
conflict; (2.38) social-ecological resilience 1.0E-4); social conflict (34.92, 1.0E-
4);
13 2 1 1999 (2.38) social-ecological system; (1.01) system; marine social-ecological system social-ecological
(13.1, 0.001); introduction (13.1, system
0.001); lagoon (10.33, 0.005);

49.43.203.206 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:15:15 +00:00

Stojanovic Socialaspectsocialecological 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stojanovic Socialaspectsocialecological 2016

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

Stojanovic Socialaspectsocialecological 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique of analytical frameworks and

findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269959

This content downloaded from

The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique of analytical

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Fig. 1. Parsons’s systems framework: structural-functionalism.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

the structural metric Betweeness Centrality, ranging from 0 to 1,

Fig. 2. Number of articles published using the terms “social-

This content downloaded from

Table 1. Network analysis visualization of social-ecological systems clusters.

ClusterID Size Silhouette mean(Year) Label (LLR)

This content downloaded from

Table 2. Use of terms by disciplines.

Socio-ecological pre-1990 Socio-ecological post-1990

of uses of term in the literature in 2013. At the present juncture,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

level of definition. This is more than a simple invocation of a

Boundary object use 2. Focus on economic incentives in ecosystems, e.g., payment

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 7. Social components in a systems approach (SPICOSA).

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

__________ Apostolopoulou, E., and R. Paloniemi. 2012. Frames of scale

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

What is the goal of the visualization and analysis?

This content downloaded from

Phrase Searching Used for “Social-ecological systems”

Analysis options By publication year, by source (journal title) by subject category

Public health and psychology Health of individuals within wider contexts

Ecology Interactions of species within their environment

Human Ecology/ Resilience With ‘-system’ to conceptualise an entity made up of

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

You might also like