View source for Resilience, Panarchy, and World-Systems Analysis


'''Article: Gotts, Nicholas M. 2007. "Resilience, Panarchy, and World-Systems Analysis." Ecology and Society 12(1).'''


Full text available as: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/3271

==Abstract==

"The paper compares two ambitious conceptual structures. The first is the understanding of social-ecological systems developed around the term resilience, and more recently the term panarchy, in the work of Holling, Gunderson, and others. The second is Wallersteins world-systems approach to analyzing hierarchical relationships between societies within global capitalism as developed and applied across a broader historical range by Chase-Dunn and others. The two structures have important common features, notably their multiscale explanatory framework, links with ideas concerning complex systems, and interest in cyclical phenomena. They also have important differences. It is argued that there are gaps in both sets of ideas that the other might remedy. Their greatest strengths lie at different spatiotemporal scales and in different disciplinary areas, but each also has weaknesses the other does not address, particularly with regard to the mechanisms underlying proposed cyclic patterns of events. The paper ends with a sketch for a research program within which panarchical and world-systems insights might be synthesised in the study of the Great European Land-Grab, i.e., the expansion of European capitalism and its distinctive social-ecological systems over the past five centuries."
(http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00004781/)


==Excerpts on [[Panarchy]]==

"“Panarchy” refers here to the framework for
conceptualizing the type of coupled human-environment
systems described in Gunderson and
Holling (2002) and more briefly, with some
changes, in Walker et al. (2006). This framework
may be divided into two parts, referred to here as
“the resilience conceptual framework” and “the
adaptive cycle metaphor.”

===The resilience conceptual framework===

Nicholas Gotts:

"Characteristics of the resilience conceptual
framework include:


'''1. multiple metastable regimes.''' 

Rather than a
single equilibrium point, such systems
generally have multiple metastable regimes.
Within each regime, change may occur, but
the set of dynamically important variables
and interactions remains fixed.


'''2. the importance of episodic change.''' 

Systems with multiple metastable regimes may switch
rapidly between them as critical thresholds
are passed. Furthermore, hysteresis is
common.


'''3. [[Resilience]].''' 

Holling and Gunderson (2002:28)
define ecosystem resilience as “ ... the
magnitude of disturbance that can be
absorbed before the system changes its
structure by changing the variables and
processes that control behavior.” Resilience
in this sense is central to the resilience
conceptual framework.


'''4. multiple distinctive scales with cross-scale interactions.''' 

Holling et al. (2002c:72) argue
that ecological and social-ecological systems
form a multilevel hierarchical structure, but
that the different levels are of distinct kinds,
i.e., the structure is not scale-free.

The resilience conceptual framework underlies a
broad body of work, including a considerable
number of detailed studies of regional socialecological
systems (see any issue of Ecology and
Society, and most of the chapters in Gunderson and
Holling 2002 and Berkes et al. 2003). This body of
work has now reached a state in which systematic
comparisons can be made, particularly with regard
to thresholds and regime shifts (Walker and Meyers
2004, Groffman et al. 2006). A significant subset of
recent work within the resilience conceptual
framework explores or makes use of the adaptive
cycle metaphor to varying degrees, and this paper
focuses primarily on these, but also draws on the
broader resilience literature."
(http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00004781/01/ES-2007-2017.pdf)

===The adaptive cycle metaphor===

Nicholas Gotts:

"The characteristics of the adaptive cycle metaphor
include:

'''1. a four-phase adaptive cycle.''' 

Holling and
Gunderson (2002:32) suggest that most,
although not all, such systems follow a fourphase
cycle of 

* (1) “exploitation” (r); 
* (2) “conservation” (K); 
* (3) “release” (W) or “creative destruction,” a term derived from Schumpeter (1943); and 
* (4) “reorganization” (a). 

The first two stem from standard
ecological theory, in which an ecosystem’s r
phase is dominated by colonizing species
tolerant of environmental variation and the K
phase, by species adapted to modulate such
variation. However, Holling and Gunderson
(2002) say that “ ...two additional functions
are needed.” The corresponding phases,
especially W, are typically much briefer: in a
forest, W might be a fire or insect outbreak
that frees nutrients from biomass, whereas the
a phase involves soil processes limiting
nutrient loss. The adaptive cycle involves
changes in three main variables: resilience;
potential in the form of accumulated
resources in biomass or in physical, human,
and social capital; and connectedness,
meaning the tightness of coupling among the
controlling variables that determine the
system’s ability to modulate external
variability. In the r phase, potential and
connectedness are low but resilience is high;
in K, resilience decreases while the other
values increase. Eventually, some internal or
external event triggers the W phase, in which
potential crashes; finally, in a, resilience and
potential grow, connectedness falls, unpredictability
peaks, and new system entrants can
establish themselves. Holling and Gunderson
(2002) stress that the adaptive cycle is a
metaphor that can be used to generate specific
hypotheses; exact interpretations of resilience,
potential, and connectedness are system
dependent.


'''2. [[Panarchy]].''' 

Ecological and social-ecological
systems form nested sets of adaptive cycles.
The larger, slower cycles generally constrain
the smaller, faster ones and maintain system
integrity, but, during the W and a phases,
critical cross-scale interactions can operate,
particularly “Revolt” connections, in which
an W phase collapse on one level triggers a
crisis one level up, and “Remember”
connections, in which the a phase of a cycle
is organized by a higher-level K phase. The
Revolt and Remember forms of cross-scale
interaction, and panarchy itself as described
in Holling et al. (2002c), assume that the
hierarchically related systems are following
adaptive cycles.


'''3. three distinct kinds of change.''' 

Holling et al.
(2002a) identify three types of change within
panarchies: incremental change in the r and
K phases, which are smooth and fairly
predictable; abrupt change in the transitions
from K through W and a; and
transformational learning, meaning change
involving several panarchical levels, and
interaction between different sets of labile
variables."
(http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00004781/01/ES-2007-2017.pdf)

[[Category:Articles]]

[[Category:Governance]]

[[Category:Ecology]]