Fig 1 - uploaded by Garry D. Peterson
Content may be subject to copyright.
Diagram of a social– ecological system comprising an ecological subsystem (left) and a social subsystem (right), each with a spectrum of controls that operate across a range of temporal and spatial scales. Environmental impacts, ecosystem services, and social impacts govern the well-being of human actors, who affect ecological and social systems through a variety of institutions. Solid lines represent direct effects and dashed lines represent indirect effects.
Source publication
Human activities are altering many factors that determine the fundamental properties of ecological and social systems. Is sustainability a realistic goal in a world in which many key process controls are directionally changing? To address this issue, we integrate several disparate sources of theory to address sustainability in directionally changin...
Similar publications
The concepts of climate variability, due to natural processes, and of climate change, related to Man's activities, are illustrated. Different types of internal mechanisms, such as multiple equilibria and the integration of noise, are discussed. A systematic approach to discriminate between natural variability and anthropogenic change indicates that...
Citations
... They then present their diagram to the class in the same way that I did -defining variables, explaining their relationships, and then following a theoretical perturbation through the system to explore balancing and reinforcing feedback loops. While I have used dozens of diagrams over the years, some of my favorite diagrams come from articles about soil health (Chapin et al., 2006; Figure 3), ecotourism (Potschin-Young et al., 2011), lobster fisheries (Partelow & Boda, 2015) and pike management (Martin & Schlüter, 2015). (Chapin et al., 2006). ...
... While I have used dozens of diagrams over the years, some of my favorite diagrams come from articles about soil health (Chapin et al., 2006; Figure 3), ecotourism (Potschin-Young et al., 2011), lobster fisheries (Partelow & Boda, 2015) and pike management (Martin & Schlüter, 2015). (Chapin et al., 2006). ...
Continuing to build out the range of approaches to developing and assessing the key competencies in sustainability is an essential responsibility of higher education instructors, administrators, and researchers. In this example, I describe the implementation of a set of tools to both cultivate and capture students’ emerging competencies, as well as their motivations to apply learning as change agents in the pursuit of sustainable futures. These tools center around a design-based approach that leverages multifaceted formative assessment (among students, peers, and the instructor) to facilitate critical reflection and shared dialogue towards transformative learning outcomes. These different design elements were incorporated into a photovoice activity in which students analyzed causes, impacts, and potential solutions of the urban heat island effect. Ultimately, I aim to assert the capacity for critical reflection and shared dialogue to facilitate competency development and assessment. This process can manifest the interrelated nature of the key competencies in sustainability and contribute to reimagining how the integration of different perspectives can both appraise and advance sustainability teaching and learning in higher education.
... They then present their diagram to the class in the same way that I did -defining variables, explaining their relationships, and then following a theoretical perturbation through the system to explore balancing and reinforcing feedback loops. While I have used dozens of diagrams over the years, some of my favorite diagrams come from articles about soil health (Chapin et al., 2006; Figure 3), ecotourism (Potschin-Young et al., 2011), lobster fisheries (Partelow & Boda, 2015) and pike management (Martin & Schlüter, 2015). (Chapin et al., 2006). ...
... While I have used dozens of diagrams over the years, some of my favorite diagrams come from articles about soil health (Chapin et al., 2006; Figure 3), ecotourism (Potschin-Young et al., 2011), lobster fisheries (Partelow & Boda, 2015) and pike management (Martin & Schlüter, 2015). (Chapin et al., 2006). ...
Traditional grading systems can focus students on a grade rather than on mastery (Smeding et al, 2013). But sustainability competencies are not about a grade. For example, systems competence, transdisciplinary competence, interpersonal and communication competence, along with the others described by Evans (2019) are better supported by an innovative approach to grading called specifications grading. Specifications grading, developed by Nilson (2014), focuses on reaching a set level of mastery. Assignments are graded as complete/incomplete, with the possibility of revision. Grades are determined by set bundles or groups of assignments. Higher grades require that a student completes more bundles of work and/or more challenging work. Nilson argues that this approach has many benefits including increased rigor and greater transparency. In this chapter, I will look at the process of changing a sustainability course from traditional grading to specifications grading, discuss why specifications grading is more conducive to supporting students in developing sustainability competencies, and examine how this approach changes the experience of teaching and learning sustainability.
... implementing monitoring programs with clear goals; reducing cumulative impacts of increased human activity; and recognizing the limits of current protected species legislation (Laidre et al., 2015). These efforts allow for managing potentially impactful activities in ways that reduce changes in vulnerable ecosystems and maintaining mechanisms of resilience that give rise to healthy, dynamic landscapes (Chapin et al., 2006;Walker et al., 2004). ...
... Specifically, those who are racially minor and socioeconomically vulnerable, and thus prone to climate risks (due to their limited capability to withstand adverse disaster impacts), should be prioritized in the adaptation actions and processes. Prior studies on climate adaptation policymaking have mainly focused on the adaptive capacity of local natural and built environments to cope with climate-related consequences (Chapin et al., 2006;Melvin et al., 2017;Peng et al., 2021). The social characteristics of populations like races, however, can also result in differing levels of vulnerability in the face of climate disasters. ...
... The tension underlying these system dynamics between novel and continuous forms is often addressed in the language of "resilience". Resilience scholarship examines the maintenance and change of fundamental properties in systems facing perturbation [5][6][7][8]. Similar literatures that address social-environmental systems [9][10][11] have explored when fundamental reorganization within a system takes place. ...
... It is now accepted that the interactions between the human and the non-human are so tightly linked that the "coupled social-ecological system" can be addressed as an integrated unit of analysis [7,12]. An interdisciplinary literature examining the attributes of social-ecological systems (SESs) has developed that strives to understand the feedbacks between society and ecosystems in order to inform institutional arrangements and management practices [12][13][14] and what the management goals for such complex systems may be [5,15]. ...
Capturing the multidimensionality of a bounded social-environmental system (SES) presents a range of challenges to interdisciplinary researchers due to the need to integrate divergent scientific paradigms, scalar data, and social theories. Contemporary Arctic circumpolar SESs studied under conditions of rapid and unprecedented climatic, ecological, economic, and sociopolitical change, defy any singular established methodological approach that aims to schematize and interpret the system for decision-making purposes. As a small interdisciplinary team working within a large Arctic SES modeling effort, we have found that developing systems models to support resilience in the Arctic requires an understanding of system dynamics that is attentive to holistic indicators of change, measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. Using the Alaska North Slope Borough as a case study, we apply three convergent frameworks to capture significant dimensions of the system for improved problem definition in confronting the challenges of Arctic climate change. We describe contemporary “oil and gas” social-ecological system components and dynamics, the historical processes and transformations that fundamentally altered the system, and the scientific projections for the most likely catalysts of future change. This analysis results in a typology for defining subnational Arctic hydrocarbon SESs. We conclude that the future of oil and gas development as a policy pathway in different locations experiencing rapid climate change can be evaluated when difficult-to-quantify variables are included.
... There are papers showing that Novel Ecosystems are reservoirs for many varied ecosystem processes and functions [17,40,67,68]. The findings of a recent study suggest that the species composition of novel vegetation assemblages and resulting ecosystem processes can be crucial in climate change mitigation [69]. ...
Human activity is affecting and transforming the natural environment, changing the ecosystem mosaic and natural biogeochemical processes in urban-industrial landscapes. Among the anthropogenic ecosystems, there are many present features of Novel Ecosystems (NE), e.g., the de novo created habitats on post-mineral excavation sites. The biological nature of the functional mechanisms of Novel Ecosystems is mostly unknown. In natural and semi-natural ecosystems, biodiversity is considered as the primary element influencing ecosystem processes and functioning. The preliminary studies conducted on post-mineral excavation sites have shown that, in poor oligotrophic habitats, the species composition of the assembled vascular plants is non-analogous, distinctive, and not found in natural and semi-natural habitats. This paper aims to present the gaps between scientific identification of the biological mechanisms driving ecosystem processes and functioning (including the expanding areas of Novel Ecosystems created de novo). Among the identified gaps, the following issues should be listed. The detailed identification and understanding of the processes and biodiversity-dependent functioning of Novel Ecosystems is crucial for proper environmental management, particularly when facing the challenges of ecological constraints and of global change. The ecology of Novel Ecosystems is a social and economic issue because of the relationships with densely populated urban-industrial areas.
... Many authors suggest that an interdisciplinary approach is needed to study sustainability, resilience and innovation [13,14], with a multitude of stakeholders involved in the process [12]. For future research studies that aim to integrate these three concepts, it is therefore necessary to understand how they have been studied empirically and where gaps in the literature may occur. ...
... Chapin et al. ( [12], pp. 16,641) define resilience as the 'capacity of social-ecological system to absorb shocks or perturbations and still retain fundamental function, structure, identity and feedbacks due to changing conditions'. ...
... Transformation is required when the system is trapped in an undesired state. Resilience can be improved by addressing the negative feedback that prevents systems from changing, thus fostering ecological, cultural, institutional and economic diversity, as well as adaptability [12]. Innovation can help the system to stay in its current state or to transform it [6], and it can foster sustainable development and resilience [40]. ...
Rationale
Research has been using resilience, sustainability and innovation interchangeably, but there is a lack of research that would provide an insight into how they are related to each other. This systematic literature review thus investigates research on sustainability, innovation and resilience, how they are related to each other, and also identifies major, emerging themes and future research directions on these topics.
Procedure
We used Bibliometrix software to visually describe articles with the highest number of citations, to present the thematic evolution of the field and present a historical map. The triangulation and thematic groups were identified and compared by two independent researchers.
Results
Resilience is involved in processes, sustainability is concerned with the outcomes, while innovation represents a pathway to achieving both resilience and sustainability. Resilience can ensure the provision of the system functions in the face of shocks and stresses and sustainability can ensure the adequate performance of the system in general. Three major themes were identified, ‘socio-ecological systems’, ‘transformational innovation’ and ‘political governance’, as well as three emerging themes, ‘food security and agriculture’, ‘businesses and finance’ and ‘interconnected systems’. There is a need for longitudinal, multi-scale and interdisciplinary research that would explore various aspects of integrating these concepts.
Conclusion
There is a great overlap between the concepts of resilience, sustainability and innovation. Future research could study these concepts in relation to each other.
... Many authors suggest that an interdisciplinary approach is needed to study sustainability, resilience and innovation [13,14], with a multitude of stakeholders involved in the process [12]. For future research studies that aim to integrate these three concepts, it is therefore necessary to understand how they have been studied empirically and where gaps in the literature may occur. ...
... Chapin et al. ( [12], pp. 16,641) define resilience as the 'capacity of social-ecological system to absorb shocks or perturbations and still retain fundamental function, structure, identity and feedbacks due to changing conditions'. ...
... Transformation is required when the system is trapped in an undesired state. Resilience can be improved by addressing the negative feedback that prevents systems from changing, thus fostering ecological, cultural, institutional and economic diversity, as well as adaptability [12]. Innovation can help the system to stay in its current state or to transform it [6], and it can foster sustainable development and resilience [40]. ...
... The biological study of some of the Novel Ecosystems has revealed that these ecosystems can provide many services in the urban and industrialized landscape . Some environmentalists regard particular types of Novel Ecosystems as potential reservoirs for ecosystem services (Chapin et al. 2006;Perring et al. 2013). The drivers of novelty regard human activity, which causes the inevitable disturbances and close association of Novel Ecosystem components and adaptations with socio-ecological systems (Collier & Devitt 2016). ...
... Studies to improve the understanding of Novel Ecosystems functioning and the enhancement of their recognized natural values, should be intensified to compensate for environmentally harmful human activities and related environmental transformations (Chapin et al. 2006;Hobbs et al. 2013;Perring et al. 2013;Graham et al. 2014;Murcia et al. 2014;. ...
... Climate change adaptation encompasses a variety of strategies, actions, and behaviors that seek to make households, communities, and societies more resilient to climate change, and may target reducing exposure and sensitivity to climate change impacts, and/or focus on strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity. Adaptation is a priority for Arctic regions given the significant risks posed by current and projected future climate change (AMAP, 2017), although aside from a few studies in the 2000s (e.g., Chapin et al., 2006;Ford et al., 2007;Newton et al., 2005), adaptation has only recently emerged as a focus in Arctic research. Diverse opportunities for adaptation have been identified across sectors and regions (Table 3) (Canosa et al., 2020). ...
The Arctic is undergoing rapid climate change and is projected to experience the most warming this century of any world region. We review the societal aspects of these current and projected changes. Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge holders living in communities across the Arctic have detected unprecedented increases in temperature, altered precipitation regimes, and changing weather patterns, documenting impacts on terrestrial and marine environments. These local observations situate climate change as one of multiple interacting stressors. Arctic societies have exhibited resilience to climate change, but vulnerabilities are emerging at the nexus of changing environmental conditions and socioeconomic pressures. Infrastructure is highly susceptible to permafrost thaw, coastal erosion, and sea level rise, compounded by the age of infrastructure, maintenance challenges, and cost of adapting. Livelihoods and cultural activities linked to subsistence harvesting have been affected by changes to wildlife, with coping mechanisms undermined by long‐term processes of land dispossession and landscape fragmentation. Reduced sea ice coverage and changing ice dynamics are creating opportunities for enhanced shipping, oil and gas production, and deep‐water fisheries. Legal, infrastructural, economic, and climatic challenges are expected to constrain such developments, with concerns over the distribution of potential benefits. Adaptation is already taking place in some sectors and regions, with efforts directly targeting climate impacts and also addressing underlying determinants of vulnerability. Barriers and limits to adapting are evident. Research that develops projections of future climate impacts is advancing, but studies examining the implications of such changes for communities or economies remain in their infancy.
This article is categorized under: Trans‐Disciplinary Perspectives > Regional Reviews
