Resilience thinking: Towards new

conceptual models in

Agricultural/Rural/Basin

development….development….

and modeling

Andre F van Rooyen

Complex systems Ostrom 2007

Three aspects of decomposability of complex subsystems are important:

1. conceptual partitioning of variables into classes and subclasses. subclasses.

2. is the existence of relatively separable subsystems that are independent of each other in the accomplishment of many functions and development but eventually affect each other’s performance.

3. that complex systems are greater than the sum of their parts.

What is resilience and why should we be

concerned?

The ability of a “system” (social-ecological or SES) to recover from shock/perturbation;

3 defining characteristics:

1. The amount change a system can undergo and still 1. The amount change a system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure;

2. The degree to which a system is capable of self-organization and re-organization after shock/change

3. The degree to which the system can learn/share knowledge and adapt.

Walker et al. 2002

Folke et al. (2003) defined four clusters of factors, that interact

across temporal and spatial scales which increase the resilience

of SES

• Learning to live with change and uncertainty

• Nurturing diversity in its various forms

• Combining different types of knowledge for learning • Combining different types of knowledge for learning

• Creating opportunity for self-organization and cross-scale

linkages

Back to Plant Ecology 101

• Sustainability

• Succession models – Linear models

• Equilibrium systems

• Disequilibrium• Disequilibrium

• Hollings and Walker

Cup and ball models…

Cup and ball models…

Cup and ball models…

Cup and ball models…

State-and-transition-models

Bare soil

Small shrubs

Closed unpalatable woodland

Savanna

Annual grasses

Mixed annual grass/shrubland

Transitions can be caused by:

• Grazing

– Inefficient grazing systems – lack of infrastructure

– Inappropriate water provision

– Policy – open access systems

• Fire• Fire

• Frost

Obviously the opposite of these will normally have positive

impact!

Stable degraded states

• Some transitions are irreversible!

• Caused by changes in soil, chemistry, structure

• Plant spp composition changes and seed

banksbanks

• Long lived unpalatable spp.

Stable degraded states are often very resilient

I.e. its very difficult to get out of these states.

Now, apply the same thinking to the whole system

socio-ecological systems (SES)

• How do the GD interact within the SES in your basin?

• What are the specific barriers preventing regime changes?

• What are the facilitating environments/conditions which could drive DES in you area forward?

Think in terms of:Think in terms of:

• Technologies

• Policies

• Markets

• Incentives

• Environmental conditions/constraints/opportunities

Resilience management:

• To prevent the system from moving to

undesired system configuration when shocked

of challenged/disturbed

• To nurture and preserve the elements that • To nurture and preserve the elements that

enable the system to renew and reorganize

itself following major chock or change

Fig. 1. A framework for the analysis of resilience in

social-ecological systems.

Step 2

Step 1 Description of System

Key processes, ecosystem, structures and actors

Exploring external shocks

Plausible

policies

Exploring

visions

Step 4

Step 3 Resilience analysis

3-5 scenarios

Stakeholder evaluation (processes and products)

Better Integrated Theories

Policy and Management

Actions

Fig. 6. The current and possible future states in the western Australian wheatbelt and some of the keythresholds.

Copyright © 2006 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.Kinzig, A. P., P. Ryan, M. Etienne, H. Allison, T. Elmqvist, and B. H. Walker. 2006. Resilience and regimeshifts: assessing cascading effects. Ecology and Society 11(1): 20. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art20/

Copyright © 2006 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.Kinzig, A. P., P. Ryan, M. Etienne, H. Allison, T. Elmqvist, and B. H. Walker. 2006. Resilience and regimeshifts: assessing cascading effects. Ecology and Society 11(1): 20. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art20/

Development trajectories and a conceptual

model of rural/agricultural development

• Berkes (2007 p.287) suggested: “the creation

of platforms for dialogue and innovation,

following a crisis, is key to the stimulation of

learning to deal with uncertainties. It helps learning to deal with uncertainties. It helps

reorganize conceptual models and paradigms,

based on a revised understanding of the

conditions generating the crisis.”

Innovation systems/multi-stakeholder

platforms… blah blah blah…

(i) Learning to live with change and uncertainty: the IP evaluates

strategies to cope with changing environments and capitalize on

emerging opportunities;

(ii) Nurturing diversity: by including a diversity of players and partnerships,

the IP introduces diverse technologies to increase livelihood options;the IP introduces diverse technologies to increase livelihood options;

(iii) Combining different types of knowledge for learning: cross-scale

dialogue between partners brings different types of knowledge and

viewpoints and stimulates learning through the iterative evaluation of

interventions;

(iv) Creating opportunity for self-organization: the functioning of the IP

promotes self-organization based on production or market interests.