Sustainability Definitions

  • What are Social-Ecological Systems?

    Monday, December 19, 2022 | By

    Blog Contributor: Lyndsay Bott

    Defining Social-Ecological Systems

    Social-ecological Systems (SES) can be described as a “system of people and nature”. While this may seem intuitive, the close connection between people and nature hasn’t always been central in environmental thinking.

    This term social-ecological system was originally coined in the 1970s and is now used within many disciplines, such as the environmental sciences, social sciences, economics, business, and medicine, among others. Other authors have described SES as a system that connects two subsystems of social (human) and ecological (biophysical). These two subsystems are inherently interdependent. A more complex definition of SES is an “Integrated system in which human society and its multiple cultural, political, social, economic, institutional, and technological expressions interact with ecosystems (p.1). tend to identify a close relationship between two systems: the social and the ecological. The social component of SES typically deals with politics, history, economics, and ethics, among other institutions. The ecological component of SES deals with the natural habitats, animals, aquatic health, and changes in climate.

    The Adaptive Capacity of Social-Ecological Systems

    A social-ecological systems perspective provides a framework for understanding the complex dynamics occurring between environmental and societal changes. It highlights the intense dependency that society has on the natural environment. From a social-ecological systems perspective, uncertainty is an inherent part of all systems. A systems’ adaptive capacity describes its ability to respond to potential damage, take advantage of opportunities, or respond to consequences. The adaptive dynamics of social-ecological systems allow for the creation and success of governance systems. Click here to learn more about governance. The marking of a sustainable and long-term SES is the ability to adapt to many variables that arise over periods of time.

    In 2009, Elinor Ostrom (winner of the Nobel prize) introduced the social-ecological systems framework. Based on decades of Ostrom’s empirical work on the commons, the framework provides guidance on how to assess the social and ecological dimensions that contribute to sustainable resource use and management across scales and contexts. SESs come in many different shapes and sizes, varying in scale and focus. According to the SES framework, the subsystems that make-up SESs can function independently, such as governance systems, users of a system, and the units produced by the system, but then join to produce complex social-ecological systems. When using fisheries as an example, the governance systems would be organizations that manage fishers, the users would be the fishermen, and the units would be the number of lobsters caught. All aspects of this social-ecological system example can act independently and have their own role to play, but then come together to produce a complex SES of fisheries. This example also illustrates the varying scale of SESs, as individually fishers and lobsters are small, but together form a large-scale system of fisheries. Therefore, all subsystems must collaborate and adapt to one another to effectively produce a sustainable SES. Understanding the complex nature of social-ecological systems can lead to ensuring their long-term resilience. To read more about the term resilience, click here.

    References

    Berkes, F. (2017). Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience, and Collaborative Learning. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 9(7), 1232–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071232

    Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinland, A., Raudseep-    Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward     Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

    Colding, J., & Barthel, S. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society, 24(1), 423–. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102

    Farhad, S., & Baird, J. (2021). Freshwater governance and resilience⁎. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819166-8.00109-2

    Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T., Folke,      C., Hill, R., Hughes, T. P., Luthe, T., Maass, M., Meacham, M., Norstrom, A. V., Peterson, G., Queiroz, C., Seppelt, R., Spierenburg, M., & Tenhunen, J. (2015). Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

    Categories: Blog, SSAS Student Contributor, Sustainability Definitions

  • Social-Ecological Resilience: What is it and why is it important?

    Friday, December 16, 2022 | By

    Blog Contributor: Madison Lepp

    Recent years have seen an explosion of research and policies using the term resilience. Yet, the word means many things to many people, and is used to evoke a variety of actions. As uses of the term resilience continue to grow, there is value in clarifying the meanings of resilience.

    The Rise of Social-Ecological Resilience Thinking 

    The notion of ‘social-ecological resilience’ has roots in the field of ecology and aims to describe the complex system dynamics in the context of social-ecological systems (Folke, 2006). From this perspective, humans and the environment are understood as inextricably linked (Walker et al., 2004). This linking of ecosystems and people is vital to the field of social-ecological resilience. In our globalised society, there are virtually no ecosystems that are not shaped by people and no people who do not rely on ecosystems and the services they provide.

    In 2005, the United Nations Millennium Ecosytsem Assessment providedthe first global assessment of the world’s ecosystems and introduced the notion of ecosystem services to the global community. Ecosystem services is a term that describes the benefits that humans derive from nature. The report showed that our consumption of  food, freshwater, timber, fibre, and fuel have changed the Earth’s ecosystems. In many cases, the demand for provisioning services such as freshwater, crops, or meat has undermined the delivery of other essential ecosystem services such as climate regulation or cultural heritage. Seven principles for building resilience have been proposed to enhance ecosystem services that support human social and economic well-being (Biggs et al., 2012; Biggs et al., 2015).

    Today, the Stockholm Resilience Centre defines social-ecological resilience as: “the capacity of a system, be it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop. It is about how humans and nature can use shocks and disturbances like a financial crisis or climate change to spur renewal and innovative thinking.”

    Applying Resilience Thinking

    The impacts of humankind on the world’s ecosystems have increased the likelihood of large, nonlinear, and irreversible changes (IPCC, 2021). Occurrences such as sea level rise, melting ice sheets, and flooding have devastating impacts on ecosystem services and human well-being. To minimize the negative impacts of climate change, many are calling for strategies to ensure a sufficient, dependable, and equitable flow of essential ecosystem services (IPCC, 2014). Resilience thinking is an important part of the solution, as it is an approach that strives to build flexibility and adaptive capacity rather than attempting to achieve stable optimal production and short-term economic gains.

    Resilience thinking aims to strengthen our capacity to deal with the stresses caused by climate change and other aspects of global change. It is about finding ways to deal with unexpected events and crises and identifying sustainable ways for humans to live within the Earth’s boundaries. The sixth IPCC Assessment Report also notes that the concept of resilience to climate change overlaps with concepts of vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and risk, while resilience as a strategy overlaps with risk management, adaptation, and transformation (IPCC, 2022). Notably, social-ecological system research emphasizes the significance of the social, institutional, and cultural contexts in social-ecological systems. This type of thinking represents a shift towards appreciating diverse values and the role of culture in guiding human actions (rather than instruments and incentives), closing the gap between science and society (Reyers et al., 2018).

    However, the term and theory are not without their critiques. Various scholars have cautioned that sometimes actions aimed to increase social-ecological resilience can fail to address issues of equity, justice, and power (Cote and Nightingale, 2012). Other critiques include the various misconceptions of the theory and the lack of agreement on applying resilience principles (Walker et al., 2020).

    Moving Forward

    Given the rapid rate of climate change, biodiversity loss, and rising social inequality there is a pressing need to operationalize in the context of social-ecological systems (Rocha et al. 2022). The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report highlights the need for “effective, feasible, and just means of reducing climate risk, increasing resilience, and pursuing other climate-related societal goals” (IPCC, 2022, p. 41, emphasis added). It is imperative that policies create space for flexible and innovative collaboration and highlight the interrelationships between the biosphere and society (Folke et al., 2021). So, while resilience may not be the only solution, resilience thinking offers a pathway to a building a more equitable and sustainable future.

    References

    Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Principles for building resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press.

    Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

    Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in human geography, 36(4), 475-489.

    Fitzgibbons, J., & Mitchell, C. L. (2019). Just urban futures? exploring equity in “100 resilient cities.” World Development, 122, 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.021

    Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267.

    Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Walker, B. (2021). Resilience: Now more than ever. Ambio, 50(10), 1774–1777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01487-6

    IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp

    IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.

    Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. In Press.

    IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

    Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2016). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geography, 00(00), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395

    Categories: Blog, Innovative Partnership, SSAS Student Contributor, Sustainability Definitions

  • Governance: what is it and why does it matter?

    Friday, December 16, 2022 | By

    Blog Contributor: Lyndsay Bott

    This blog is part of a series where we will focus on unpacking terminology commonly used by sustainability scientists. Today we begin with the term governance. Governance is a broad, all-encompassing term that is understood in a range of ways. We are pleased to provide our interpretation here.

    Background of Governance

    Governance is the coordination of groups or “actors” that use both formal and informal processes to work towards a shared goal. This concept includes both governments and non-governmental groups, such as non-governmental organizations, industry, and the public.

    Governance differs from ‘government’ in that it involves a shift from government-centered decision-making and direction setting approaches to those where power and engagement is more widely distributed; therefore, governance requires coordination between society and the government. Governance is essential to integrate the varying interests and knowledge of actors into decision-making, which is important for addressing contemporary environmental problems that are complex and interacting with other factors and issues at a range of scales (biophysical, jurisdictional, time) and levels (from local to global).

    Governance differs from management in that it is a broader range of activities and processes with direction-setting outcomes, where management is focused on analyzing, monitoring, and developing and implementing measures that have a direct impact on the system.

    Key Features of Good Governance

    Here we focus on ‘good governance’ approaches. Important conditions for good governance include:

    • Inclusiveness: providing equal opportunity for all relevant actors to engage in governance processes
    • Participation: engaging all relevant actors in decision-making
    • Transparency: clarity in how decisions are made
    • Accountability of all actors: all relevant actors
    • Polycentricity: Connectedness within and across levels that various actors work in
    • Collaboration: working together among relevant actors in governance processes

    Since governance of the environment involves many and complex interactions between natural and social systems (called a ‘social-ecological system’), there are additional considerations for good governance. Other key features of governance that support social-ecological systems are the consideration for the diverse needs of systems, fit between the scales of the problem and the actors that govern it, as well as remaining flexible, adaptive, and active to address the complexity and uncertainty inherent in these systems.

    Types of Governance for the Environment

    Various ways of thinking about governance have developed over time to address governance needs in specific contexts. Some examples of forms of governance related to our interest in the environment and social-ecological systems are environmental governance, adaptive governance, and water governance.

    Environmental governance focuses on governing environmental issues, including the physical ecosystems humans and other species rely on for survival and wellbeing. Environmental governance focuses on shared decision-making among the state (e.g., governments), community (e.g., non-governmental societal actors) and the market (e.g., industry) across scales. It emphasizes decentralization through new organizational entities (e.g., community-based groups) with authority and corresponding responsibility distributed more widely than in a government-centered approach. Within the realm of governance types, environmental governance is primarily aimed at influencing environmental actions and outcomes.

    Adaptive governance, a type of environmental governance, was developed to better manage the uncertainty and complex interactions in social-ecological systems. The focus of adapting is on managing, or coping with, change including known and unknown disturbances. Adapting, and adaptive governance, happens through a range of mechanisms, including monitoring, experimenting, and learning together with others who bring diverse knowledge and perspectives. Overall, adaptive governance is an approach that recognizes the need for flexibility and capacity for change in response to unpredictable change at levels from local to global.

    Finally, governance approaches for specific natural resources have also been developed. A good example of this is water governance – a range of systems that include social, economic, and administrative aspects to manage water resources at various levels of society. The importance of water governance has been emphasized due to climate change and its uneven impacts on water quality and availability, as well as extreme events including flooding and droughts. For more information regarding climate change impacts on water from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), click here.

    The study of governance approaches to environmental issues is a focus of the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre at Brock University, and through transdisciplinary partnerships such as the Partnership for Freshwater Resilience.

    Enacting Environmental Governance Through Innovative Partnerships at Brock University

    The Partnership for Freshwater Resilience between the Environmental Sustainability and Research Centre (ESRC) at Brock University and WWF-Canada works to advance the understanding and applications of freshwater resilience and stewardship. Beginning in 2019, this 5-year partnership works to understand how to build resilience in Canada, during times of climate change and increasing threats. Specifically, in the context of governance, this partnership looks to generate innovative and evidence-based approaches to freshwater governance and management within the Wolastoq/St. John River basin. Key outputs from this partnership so far include a ‘map’ of the governance network of flood planning in the basin, and assessments of the fit of flood governance to the scope of the issue. Overall, this partnership works to harness the shared expertise in research and practice between WWF-Canada and the ESRC for practical and policy impact.

    References

    Ansell, C. (2002). Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Edited by

    Jon Pierre. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 251p. The American Political Science Review, 96(3), 668–669. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540281036X

    Booth, J. (2021, April 5). The Brock-WWF Partnership for Freshwater Resilience. Brock

    University. Retrieved March 13, 2022, from https://brocku.ca/esrc/2021/04/05/the-brock-wwf-partnership-for-freshwater-resilience/

    Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance

    scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 56–. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356

    Chaffin, B. C., & Gunderson, L. H. (2016). Emergence, institutionalization and renewal:

    Rhythms of adaptive governance in complex social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 165, 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.003

    Farhad, S., & Baird, J. (2021). Freshwater governance and resilience⁎. Reference Module 

    in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819166-8.00109-2

    Garmestani, A.S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A Framework for Resilience-based Governance of    Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 05180-180109

    Hall, A. W., & Rogers, P. (2003). Effective Water Governance. In TEC Background Papers

    (Vol. 7, pp. 1–49). essay, Global Water Partnership.

    Hasselman, L. (2017). Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive 

    Categories: Blog, Innovative Partnership, SSAS Student Contributor, Sustainability Definitions