Content uploaded by Nick Abel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nick Abel on Jan 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability
strategies for a rapidly changing planet
F. Stuart Chapin III
1
, Stephen R. Carpenter
2
, Gary P. Kofinas
3
, Carl Folke
4,5
,
Nick Abel
6
, William C. Clark
7
, Per Olsson
4
, D. Mark Stafford Smith
6
, Brian Walker
6
,
Oran R. Young
8
, Fikret Berkes
9
, Reinette Biggs
4
, J. Morgan Grove
10
,
Rosamond L. Naylor
11
, Evelyn Pinkerton
12
, Will Steffen
13
and Frederick J. Swanson
14
1
Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
2
Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
3
Institute of Arctic Biology and School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
4
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
5
Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, PO Box 50005, SE 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
6
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, GPO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2602, Australia
7
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
8
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA
9
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
10
Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Burlington, VT 05403, USA
11
Woods Institute for the Environment and Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305, USA
12
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada
13
Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
14
Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
Ecosystem stewardship is an action-oriented framework
intended to foster the social–ecological sustainability of
a rapidly changing planet. Recent developments identify
three strategies that make optimal use of current un-
derstanding in an environment of inevitable uncertainty
and abrupt change: reducing the magnitude of, and
exposure and sensitivity to, known stresses; focusing
on proactive policies that shape change; and avoiding or
escaping unsustainable social–ecological traps. As we
discuss here, all social–ecological systems are vulner-
able to recent and projected changes but have sources of
adaptive capacity and resilience that can sustain ecosys-
tem services and human well-being through active eco-
system stewardship.
A call for ecosystem stewardship
Human actions are having large and accelerating effects on
the climate, environment and ecosystems of the Earth
[1,2], thereby degrading many ecosystem services (see
Glossary)[3] This unsustainable trajectory demands a
dramatic change in human relationships with the environ-
ment and life-support system of the planet [2,3]. Here, we
address recent developments in thinking about the sus-
tainable use of ecosystems and resources by society in the
context of rapid and frequently abrupt change (Box 1).
Western resource management paradigms have evolved
from exploitation, where sustainability is not an important
consideration, to steady-state resource management
aimed at maximum or optimum sustainable yield (MSY
or OSY, respectively) and efficient production of a single
resource, such as fish or trees, to ecosystem management to
sustain a broader suite of ecosystem services [4] (Figure 1).
Despite its sustainability goal, management for MSY or
OSY tends to overexploit targeted resources because of
Review
Glossary
Adaptive capacity: capacity of social–ecological systems, including both their
human and ecological components, to respond to, create and shape variability
and change in the state of the system.
Ecosystem services: the benefits that society derives from ecosystems.
Ecosystem stewardship: a strategy to respond to and shape social–ecological
systems under conditions of uncertainty and change to sustain the supply and
opportunities for use of ecosystem services to support human well-being.
Human well-being: quality of life in terms of material needs, freedom and
choice, good social relations and personal security.
Resilience: capacity of a social–ecological system to absorb a spectrum of
shocks or perturbations and to sustain and develop its fundamental function,
structure, identity and feedbacks as a result of recovery or reorganization in a
new context.
Sustainability: use of the environment and resources to meet the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs [74].
Transformation: fundamental change in a social–ecological system resulting in
different controls over system properties, new ways of making a living and
often changes in scales of crucial feedbacks. Transformations can be
purposefully navigated or unintended.
Vulnerability: degree to which a system is likely to experience harm owing to
exposure and sensitivity to a specified hazard or stress and its adaptive
capacity to respond to that stress.
Corresponding authors: Chapin, F.S. III (terry.chapin@alaska.edu);
Carpenter, S.R. (srcarpen@wisc.edu); Kofinas, G.P. (gpkofinas@alaska.edu);
Folke, C. (carl.folke@beijer.kva.se); Abel, N. (Nick.Abel@csiro.au); Clark,
W.C. (william_clark@harvard.edu); Olsson, P. (per.olsson@stockholmresilience.su.se);
Smith, D.M.S. (mark.staffordsmith@csiro.au); Walker, B. (brian.walker@csiro.au);
Berkes, F. (berkes@cc.umanitoba.ca); Biggs, R.
(oonsie.biggs@stockholmresilience.su.se); Grove, J.M. (mgrove@fs.fed.us); Naylor, R.L.
(roz@leland.stanford.edu); Pinkerton, E. (epinkert@sfu.ca); Steffen, W.
(will.steffen@anu.edu.au); Swanson, F.J. (fswanson@fs.fed.us).
0169-5347/$ –see front matter !2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008 Available online 16 November 2009 241
Author's personal copy
overly optimistic assumptions about the capacity to sus-
tain productivity, avoid disturbances, regulate harvesters’
behavior and anticipate extreme economic or environmen-
tal events [5]. Ecosystem management seeks to sustain
multiple ecosystem services [6] but often uses, as a refer-
ence point, historic conditions that are not achievable in a
rapidly changing world.
Given the challenges of the sustainable use of ecosys-
tems during rapid change, we advocate a shift to ecosystem
stewardship (Table 1)[7,8]. Its central goal is to sustain the
capacity to provide ecosystem services that support human
well-being under conditions of uncertainty and change.
Uncertainty has always characterized social–ecological
systems and should therefore not be an impediment to
action. Such a paradigm shift entails important tradeoffs,
particularly between efficiency and flexibility and between
immediate and long-term benefits [9,10].
Ecosystem stewardship integrates three broadly over-
lapping sustainability approaches [8,11,12] (Figure 2): (i)
reducing vulnerability to expected changes [11–13]; (ii)
fostering resilience to sustain desirable conditions in the
face of perturbations and uncertainty [14]; and (iii) trans-
forming from undesirable trajectories when opportunities
emerge [15,16]. Adaptive capacity contributes to all three
sustainability approaches [8,17]. By building on previous
research on vulnerability, adaptation, resilience and trans-
formation, ecosystem stewardship provides a perspective
that better equips society to manage a spectrum of chal-
lenges that vary in certainty and benefit or threat to
society. The need is to identify pragmatic strategies that
increase the likelihood of socially beneficial outcomes and
reduce the risk of bad outcomes. This approach is explicitly
focused on human norms, values and well-being and must
therefore continually be debated and reassessed by stake-
holders.
Assessing and reducing vulnerability to known stresses
Reducing exposure or sensitivity to currently recognized
stresses, such as drought, overgrazing and pest outbreaks,
is standard practice in sound resource management (Box
2). Local managers generally know the identity of histori-
cally important stresses and specific adaptation options
that successfully reduced system vulnerability in the past.
More comprehensive vulnerability analyses identify the
stresses that are most likely to cause harm and the seg-
ments of society that are particularly vulnerable [11]. By
monitoring trends in these stressors and their impacts,
resource users can gauge changes over time and act to
reduce stresses or exposure to stresses. For example, over-
grazing in drylands reduces the abundance of palatable
plants, indicating the need to reduce grazing pressure [18].
Box 1. Ecosystem or societal sustainability?
Broadly speaking, two threads of literature have contributed to
sustainability concepts. One comes from ecology and addresses
ecological sustainability as a basis for biodiversity conservation.
The other comes from geography and United Nations development
efforts and addresses the socio-economic sustainability of human
well-being [11,74]. Following the lead of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, we integrate these approaches to address social–
ecological sustainability, recognizing that people are integral
components of social–ecological systems and that people both
affect and respond to ecosystem processes [3,7,8].
Efforts that fail to address the synergies and tradeoffs between
ecological and societal well-being are unlikely to be successful.
Local inhabitants, for example, are unlikely to respect rules that
establish parks for species conservation but that exclude local
people and reduce their livelihood opportunities [9,40]. Conversely,
development projects that stimulate unintended ecosystem degra-
dation (e.g. illegal logging owing to improved access) are unlikely to
produce a sustainable trajectory of human well-being [3].
Figure 1. The evolution of resource-management regimes observed in many
western nations [11]. Arrows at the bottom show the management time course for
selected locations. Dashed arrows show opportunities for developing nations to
‘leap frog’ from current management directly to ecosystem stewardship. The red-
to-green gradient represents increased sustainability.
Table 1. Differences between steady-state resource management and ecosystem stewardship
Characteristic Steady-state resource management Ecosystem stewardship
Reference point Historic condition Trajectory of change
Central goal Ecological integrity Sustain social–ecological systems and delivery of ecosystem
services
Predominant approach Manage resource stocks and condition Manage stabilizing and amplifying feedbacks
Role of uncertainty Reduce uncertainty before taking action Embrace uncertainty: maximize flexibility to adapt to an
uncertain future
Role of research Researchers transfer findings to managers who
take action
Researchers and managers collaborate through adaptive
management to create continuous learning loops
Role of resource manager Decision-maker who sets course for sustainable
management
Facilitator who engages stakeholder groups to respond to,
and shape, social–ecological change and nurture resilience
Response to disturbance Minimize disturbance probability and impacts Disturbance cycles used to provide windows of opportunity
Resources of primary concern Species composition and ecosystem structure Biodiversity, well-being and adaptive capacity
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
242
Author's personal copy
Similarly, monitoring of snowpack provides a sound basis
for predicting water shortages and planning water allo-
cations for the following summer. Impacts are, however,
often masked by interactions and feedbacks, such as lake-
sediment sequestration of phosphorus that returns to the
water column after some threshold is exceeded [19] or
subsidies to fishing fleets to maintain catch levels and
incomes of fishermen despite stock declines [20]. Impacts
can also be masked by high variability in system drivers,
such as variable rainfall in arid rangelands [21]. Detecting
social–ecological impacts therefore requires ecosystem and
social indicators that are sensitive to slowly changing
causes and initial phases of degradation [22].
Global-scale stresses, such as climate change, inter-
national fishing pressure and demand for biofuels, are
particularly challenging because local actions sometimes
reduce exposure to the stresses (e.g. sea walls that reduce
exposure to sea-level rises), but seldom reduce the magni-
tude of stress. Reducing global stresses requires concerted
global action, for which governance mechanisms are cur-
rently inadequate [23,24]. Although collaboration among a
few key nations can sometimes reduce global-scale stresses
(e.g. industrialized nations banning ozone-destroying
chlorofluorocarbons in the Montreal Protocol), incentives
that entrain most nations are more effective [25].
For stresses that persist, trajectories of expected
change are more appropriate management targets than
are historical states or ranges of variability [26]. New York
City, for example, is planning phased infrastructure repla-
cement to accommodate a 1.2-m sea-level rise (greater
than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
projections that ignore the potential melting of ice sheets)
rather than the historical sea level (http://www.nyc.gov/
html/planyc2030/).
Social–ecological vulnerability also depends on sensi-
tivity to known risks. Policies that constrain development
in risky places such as floodplains or fire-prone wildland–
urban interfaces, for example, reduce human vulnerability
to environmental disasters. Expected future changes in sea
level have led to ‘dynamic rezoning’ (strategic retreat) in
coastal Australia. Interventions targeting segments of
society that are most vulnerable to a given stress can reduce
net social impacts of shocks and stresses [11,27–29]. For
example, urban heat-wave warning systems that target the
elderly or poor people living in poorly ventilated housing are
most effective in minimizing heat-related mortality [30]. In
general, programs that build and sustain natural, human
and social capital, and broaden the range of livelihood
opportunities reduce the vulnerability of society to a broad
range of stresses [3,11] (Figure 2,Box 2).
Figure 2. Application of the ecosystem stewardship framework [8,11] to the impact and response of New Orleans to Hurricane Katrina [67]. A suite of external stresses (i.e.
land subsidence from wetland drainage and increased hurricane intensity associated with global warming) interact to create impacts (i.e. loss of life and property). Social
learning (i.e. learning, coping, innovating and adapting) in response to these impacts can alter social–ecological interactions and various forms of capital of the system
(New Orleans, the blue box), which in turn influence sensitivity to future events. Social learning also governs the relative likelihood of three potential outcomes: (i)
persistence of the existing system through resilience; (ii) actively navigated transformation to a new, potentially more beneficial trajectory through transformation; or (iii)
unintended degradation to a new state owing to vulnerability and failure to adapt or transform. Photographs reproduced with permission from: hurricane (http://
geology.com/news/labels/Hurricane-Katrina.html), New Orleans flood (http://mulattodiaries.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/four-years-ago/), New Orleans community meeting
(http://www.9thwardnena.org/home), wetlands (http://agreenliving.org/tag/united-states/) and levee rebuilding (http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/2009/05/large_
levee1.jpg).
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
243
Author's personal copy
Reasons for inaction to reduce known vulnerabilities
include institutional mismatch to the scale at which stres-
ses are generated, costs of reduction that are perceived to
exceed benefits, lack of resources and tradeoffs among
segments of society and across generations [3,11,31]. In
summary, although reducing vulnerability to known stres-
ses is not simple, the broad strategies described above for
assessing and reducing vulnerability to current and pro-
jected changes are well defined and tested: identify the
stresses and risks and their projected changes; reduce their
magnitude; and reduce social–ecological exposure and sen-
sitivity to those stresses.
Proactive strategies to shape uncertain change
Society is increasingly faced with changes that are unex-
pected or uncertain, often leading to a paralysis of indeci-
sion. Ecosystem stewardship shifts the resource-
management philosophy from reactions to observed
changes to proactive governance that shapes change for
sustainability, while preparing for the unexpected [8]. This
is analogous to a business strategy that shapes markets to
sustain or develop competitive advantage in a changing
and uncertain economic climate. We outline three suites of
strategies for responding to and shaping uncertain change.
These involve maintaining a diversity of options, enhan-
cing social learning to facilitate adaptation and adapting
governance to implement potential solutions (Box 3). Not
surprisingly, the ecosystem stewardship strategies for
addressing uncertain change are less proven than are
those that address vulnerability to known stresses.
Maintaining a diversity of options
Socio-economic and biological diversity enhance the num-
ber of options for responding to, and shaping, change.
Society often deliberately chooses low-diversity options,
such as single-species production forests or an economy
based largely on a single industry, because these can be
managed efficiently, as long as the conditions supporting
their productivity persist. A region whose economy
depends entirely on one extractive industry, however, is
poorly buffered against market fluctuations or technologi-
cal innovations that reduce the value of that product.
Policy incentives for innovation can generate economic
diversity that enhances adaptability. This broadens the
range of conditions for economic vitality and reduces the
likelihood of economic booms and busts. By contrast, policy
incentives that sustain uneconomical practices, such as
overfishing of otherwise uneconomic stocks, reduce adapta-
bility.
As with economic systems, an ecosystem whose species
have a narrow range of functional properties (e.g. only
palatable grasses) or a narrow range of environmental
responses (e.g. only high water- and nutrient-requiring
species) has a limited capacity to adjust to change
(response diversity) and to sustain ecosystem services
(functional diversity) compared with an ecosystem with
greater functional and response diversity [32,33]. For
example, other things being equal, a mixed cropping sys-
tem is less risky than is a monospecific crop, and a grass-
land with both cool-season and warm-season grasses
maintains productivity over a broader range of conditions
than does a grassland with one grass type, even though the
latter might be more productive under favorable con-
ditions. Farmers in developing nations that lack access
to predictable subsidies often prefer cropping strategies
that reduce risk of crop failure over those that optimize
production under good conditions [34]. When the func-
tional and response properties of most species are poorly
known, as in most ecosystems, protection of biodiversity in
general provides insurance that important ecosystem ser-
vices will be sustained in the face of uncertain changes [35].
The ecological value of functional and response diversity is
well documented in low-diversity ecosystems, where
species invasions or loss substantially alter ecosystem
services [36]. However, little is known about the relation-
ship between magnitude and types of diversity and
reductions in risk of functional changes in highly diverse
systems [36,37], where the greatest conservation concerns
are focused.
Sometimes, biodiversity reflects underlying topographic
or substrate variability and is likely to support future
diversity, even if species composition were to change radi-
cally. Geographic juxtaposition in these areas enables
species to adjust naturally to climatic change without
the need to address the controversial topic of assisted
migration [38]. Urban green spaces and mobile species
that link these habitats (e.g. pollinators and concerned
gardeners) sustain diversity in human-dominated land-
scapes where the connection of society to nature is most
tenuous [39]. Involvement of local residents in conserva-
tion efforts in ways that support their livelihoods increases
the likelihood that policies will be respected (Box 1)[40].
Maintaining biodiversity entails tradeoffs. Humans
deliberately reduce genetic, stand and landscape diversity
to enhance the productivity or harvest efficiency of a
particular ecosystem service, such as an agricultural or
forestry crop, under a narrow range of environmental and
economic conditions. These short-term benefits generate
Box 2. Examples of strategies to reduce vulnerability to
known stresses
Vulnerability theory has developed with a focus on practical
outcomes [11–13]. It has been the basis for assessing impacts and
planning adaptation actions to address climate change and other
known hazards and stresses [17,26,30]. B road strategies are
generally well proven, but implementation varies with local context.
Reduce exposure to hazards and stresses
!Minimize known stresses and avoid or minimize novel hazards
and stresses
!Develop new institutions that minimize global-scale stresses
!Manage in the context of projected changes rather than in the
historical range of variability
Reduc e social–ecological sensitivities and adapt to adverse
impacts
!Sustain the capacity of ecosystems to provide multiple ecosystem
services
!Sustain and enhance crucial components of well-being, particu-
larly of vulnerable segments of society
!Plan sustainable development to address the tradeoffs among
costs and benefits for ecosystems, multiple segments of today’s
society and future generations
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
244
Author's personal copy
longer term vulnerabilities when market, pest and
environmental conditions change more rapidly than does
the biotic composition, as might occur with long-lived forest
species or agricultural practices that are culturally
entrained. Tradeoffs evaluated only on economic terms
generally use discount rates that limit the planning
horizon to one to two decades and are blind to equity
concerns, thereby limiting their usefulness in assessing
social–ecological sustainability.
The past few centuries have seen a substantial
reduction in the cultural diversity of the Earth [41]. Colo-
nization forcibly removed indigenous people from their
homelands, so colonizers could claim the resources [42].
During the mid-20th century, cultural assimilation
further undermined cultural integrity through loss of
language, local institutions and cultural ties to the land
and sea. Cultural diversity, particularly as mediated by
language, provides multiple knowledge systems and
perspectives on ways to meet societal goals [43]. By con-
trast, cultural diversity in the short term can reduce civil
engagement (e.g. voting, volunteerism and neighborly
trust) [44]. Rural–urban migration or relocation of people
in response to wars or climate-related disasters can create
tensions to which these new mixes of cultures are poorly
adapted.
Enhance social learning to facilitate adaptation
Although diversity provides the raw materials for adap-
tation, social learning through experimentation, inno-
vation and knowledge sharing are the core processes
that build the human dimensions of adaptive capacity
and resilience of social–ecological systems [45,46]. This
is well recognized by business [47] and is particularly
important under conditions of non-linear, abrupt and irre-
versible social–ecological change. How can society shift
from a mindset of fearing change to assessing its value
in coping with, and realizing new opportunities in, a
rapidly changing world?
An obvious starting point is to broaden the framework of
problem definition by integrating a broad range of disci-
plines, knowledge systems, user groups and approaches.
Resource managers, for example, moved from the manage-
ment of single species, such as pine or tuna, to ecosystem
management by acknowledging the importance of a broader
range of ecosystem services and the key linkages between
biophysical and social processes [6]. This shift required a
broadening of institutional goals to recognize the legitimacy
of multiple user groups who value multiple ecosystem ser-
vices. By contrast, private landholders motivated primarily
by profit might choose to manage their lands for a single
ecosystem service (e.g. timber) unless incentive structures
are modified (e.g. tax benefits for conservation easements).
Knowledge of how to cope with historical conditions is
often insufficient in a rapidly changing world. Scenario
building is one way to explore future conditions that cannot
be readily predicted, envision potential futures and explore
alternative pathways to desired ends [48]. For example, by
exploring alternative future water policy scenarios, the
discourse about development in poor countries can be
expanded beyond short-term responses into measures that
increase land productivity, incomes and household food
security [49]. Comparisons of scenarios often highlight the
tradeoffs and synergies between present and future gener-
ations or among stakeholders that might be less evident
when a more limited suite of options is considered.
Much can be learned through comparative analysis of
institutions and management systems in different social–
ecological settings [3,9]; for example, through comparative
studies of common pool resources such as water, timber
and fish [29]. These comparative analyses enable one to
learn from past unplanned social–ecological experiments
and to define conditions that minimize risks of future
planned social–ecological experiments. Comparative stu-
dies and systematic observations require information sys-
tems at scales that are relevant for conducting
assessments, generating scenarios and informing decision
making. For example, GIS-based systems to monitor
multiple indicators in almost real-time enable cities to
develop dialogues with stakeholders, design effective tactics
and strategies, rapidly deploy resources and facilitate fol-
low-up (e.g. http://www.baltimorecity.gov/news/citistat/).
This enables managers and planners to assess outcomes
in a timely manner and to adjust conditions adaptively that
will influence further changes.
Deliberate management experiments that perturb the
current system provide learning opportunities that are
particularly valuable when future environmental and
Box 3. Examples of stewardship strategies to prepare for,
and shape, uncertain change
Resilience theory addresses the likelihood that systems will persist
in the face of uncertain shocks and perturbations [14–16]. Theore-
tical expectations of resilience theory are well developed and its
application to practical problems is currently being assessed
[7,8,36].
Maintain a diversity of options
!Subsidize innovations that foster socio-economic novelty and
diversity
!Renew the functional diversity of degraded systems
!Prioritize conservation of biodiversity hotspots and pathways that
enable species to adjust to rapid environmental change
!Sustain a diversity of cultures, languages and knowledge systems
that provide multiple approaches to meeting societal goals.
Enhance social learning to facilitate adaptation
!Broaden the problem definition and knowledge co-production by
engaging multiple disciplinary perspectives and knowledge
systems
!Use scenarios and simulations to explore consequences of
alternative policy options
!Develop transparent information systems and mapping tools that
contribute to developing trust among decision-makers and
stakeholders, and build support for action
!Test understanding through comparative analysis, experimenta-
tion and adaptive management
!Exercise extreme caution in experiments that perturb a system
larger than the jurisdiction of management
Adapt governance to implement potential solutions
!Provide an environment for leadership and respect to develop
!Foster social networking that builds trust and bridges commu-
nication and accountability among existing organizations
!Enable sufficient overlap in responsibility among organizations to
allow redundancy in policy implementation
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
245
Author's personal copy
economic conditions are uncertain. The Northwest Forest
Plan in the northwestern USA, for example, established a
suite of harvest strategies ranging from uncut forests to
intensive industrial-scale logging [50]. Even if a ‘best
policy’ could be identified for current conditions, other
policies might prove more favorable as an uncertain future
unfolds [51]. In other cases, such as marine fisheries,
policies often result more from political than from scientific
processes [20]. Managers are usually reticent to exper-
iment with ecosystems or livelihoods because they face
the blame for unfavorable outcomes. We can, however,
compare outcomes where local managers are empowered
to make different locally appropriate decisions in response
to regional variation in conditions or social values.
Management that enables or fosters disturbance is often
controversial [5]. Purchase of conservation easements that
prevent residential development in rural scenic areas can,
however, increase tolerance for wildfire as a natural eco-
logical process in forests. Allowing large corporations to fail
during economic crises provides space for innovation and
adjustment to shifting economic opportunities. Such man-
agement that fosters change at one scale might enhance
resilience at a broader scale, as in the two cases described
above.
Adaptive management views management actions as
experiments in which outcomes inform later policy choices.
However, experiments at large scales risk unanticipated
outcomes that are beyond the control of managers to
reverse. Current ‘experiments’ with global climate and
reductions in biological and cultural diversity are therefore
of grave concern and require learning approaches that go
beyond adaptive management.
Adapting governance to implement solutions
Flexibility in governance to deal with change is crucial for
long-term social–ecological resilience and sustainability
[52,53]. Distributing management powers and resources
among organizations that operate at different spatial
scales (i.e. polycentric governance) can enhance adapta-
bility by creating functional redundancy through overlap
in responsibilities [16]. State agencies, neighborhood
groups and national NGOs, for example, might all support
actions that protect a valued species or habitat. Under
static conditions, overlapping responsibilities create inef-
ficiencies, jurisdictional tensions (turf wars), and time
investments to negotiate shared responsibilities and create
mutual understanding. In times of change, however, if one
group ‘drops the ball’ because of budget shortfalls or shift-
ing priorities, the overlapping activities of other groups can
sustain actions. Individuals and organizations such as
NGOs or temporary public advocacy groups can provide
informal communication networks that enable dialogue
and negotiation to occur outside the rules and policies of
formal institutions [16]. Polycentric governance, however,
does not always work. Recent trends in decentralization of
forest management, for example, driven by both economic
shortfalls in central governments and well-intentioned
efforts by NGOs to engage stakeholders in the governance
process, have had mixed success, with outcomes often
dependent on local conditions and the governance tasks
that are decentralized (and to whom) [54,55].
Leadership is essential to effective governance, providing
vision, social cohesion and action [56,57]. This can occur by
re-conceptualizing issues, generating ideas and solutions,
communicating across sectors and levels of governance and
recognizing or creating windows of opportunity [58].
Transforming to potentially more favorable trajectories
In the context of ecosystem stewardship, transformations
involve forward-looking decisions to convert a system
trapped in an undesirable state to a fundamentally differ-
ent, potentially more beneficial system, whose properties
reflect different social–ecological controls [59] (Figure 2).
Social–ecological transformations are always risky
because, by definition, the changes are large, and the
outcomes are uncertain, including potential capture by
special interest groups. Transformational changes are
important, however, to escape from the persistent trajec-
tories of poverty, hunger, civil strife and social–ecological
mismanagement that characterize so many parts of the
world. The risks of unfavorable transformation outcomes
can be minimized through careful planning by multiple
user groups to assess the risks of good and bad outcomes;
transparent navigation of the transformation process; and
fostering resilience of those outcomes that meet broad
societal goals. We summarize hypotheses for guiding
transformation [60–63] but they are currently unproven.
Preparing for transformation
The first step in transformation is to identify plausible
alternative trajectories and assess their desirability. This
is challenging because most transformations create both
winners and losers, have uncertain costs and benefits and
Box 4. Strategies for transforming from traps to potentially
more favorable trajectories
Transformation is needed to address degradation in ecosystem
services and human well-being. Hypotheses have been advanced
regarding factors that facilitate or impede transformation, but the
underlying theory and empirical evidence are only now beginning to
be assembled [19,60–63,68].
Preparing for transformation
!Engage stakeholders to identify dysfunctional states and raise
awareness of problems
!Identify thresholds, plausible alternative states, pathways and
triggers
!Identify the barriers to change, potential change agents and
strategies to overcome barriers
Navigating the transition
!Identify potential crises and use them as opportunities to initiate
change
!Maintain flexible strategies and transparency
!Foster institutions that facilitate cross-scale and cross-organiza-
tional interactions and stakeholder participation
Building resilience of the new regime
!Create incentives and foster values for stewardship in the new
context
!Initiate and mobilize social networks of key individuals for
problem solving
!Foster interactions and support of decision makers at other levels
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
246
Author's personal copy
entail contentious decisions about allocation between pre-
sent and future generations (Box 4). Stakeholder groups
therefore often disagree about how serious the problems
are and whether or how to fix them. The next step is to
identify barriers to improvement (e.g. perverse incentives,
inappropriate property rights, or corruption) and seek a
collective vision for the future [60,61]. These are standard
approaches in policy analysis [64] and can be informed by
using scenarios and clearly defining the social–ecological
linkages [65].
Examples of successful transformations include a shift
away from Apartheid in South Africa and a shift from
production forestry to ecosystem management in the
northwestern USA [66]. Traps that still require transfor-
mational rather than incremental solutions include per-
sistent poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, failure to address
climate change and depletion of marine fish stocks [3].
Transformation to a potentially more beneficial state is the
explicit goal of sustainable development programs in
developing nations [63].
Navigating the transition
Transformational change is most likely to occur at times of
crisis, when enough stakeholders agree that the current
system is dysfunctional. Crises can lead to opportunities in
at least three ways: (i) active initiation of change, thus
managing crisis and consequences; (ii) local system col-
lapse, which raises broader awareness of the need for
change; (iii) and learning from crises occurring at other
times or places [62]. Despite inevitable power imbalances,
transformational processes should be as transparent and
open to all stakeholders as possible to counter attempts by
particular groups to co-opt the outcome [39]. As a crisis
deepens, stakeholders are more likely to negotiate a trans-
formation.
Identification of potential crises provides the opportu-
nity to plan for transformation opportunities. For example,
increasing recognition of potentially ‘dangerous climate
change’ is a current crisis that could generate global tech-
nological and governance solutions. Because such planning
and visioning seldom occur, the most common response to
crisis is to rebuild the pre-crisis system rather than to
attempt transformation (Figure 2)[67].
Informal networks of individuals operating outside con-
ventional institutions often have an important role in
seizing windows of opportunity to make use of abrupt
change [68,69]. They can discuss and experiment with
new approaches to uncertainty and change, unconstrained
by organizational mandates [16,68]. An important chal-
lenge is to provide space for these networks to form through
enabling legislation and financial, political and moral sup-
port. The low frequency with which successful transform-
ation occurs indicates that there is still much to learn about
preparing for, and navigating, transformations (Box 4).
Building resilience of the new governance system
We suggest that successful transformation toward sustain-
ability could be promoted by fostering innovation and
building adaptive capacity and resilience (Boxes 3 and
4). The resilience of the new system might initially be
fragile and can be strengthened by actions that foster
respect, identify common social values among players of
the new system and empower key stakeholders to partici-
pate in decisions that legitimize relationships and inter-
actions of the new regime. Building resilience under novel
conditions often requires trust building within newly
formed collaborations. New patterns of winners and losers
create tensions that are best resolved through transparent
negotiations aimed at meeting broad societal goals and
awareness of the agendas of competing interests. Trans-
formations often alter the nature of cross-level inter-
actions, providing both opportunities and challenges,
including potentially different patterns of governance at
other scales [49,70]. Shrinking arctic sea ice, for example,
has altered the strategic and economic importance of the
Arctic Ocean and, therefore, the potential roles of inter-
national treaties and organizations in addressing arctic
change [71]. Early attention to cross-level interactions that
ensure good information flow, systems of accountability
and sensitivity to differing perspectives reduces the like-
lihood of reversion to earlier or other unfavorable states
[72]. Continuous evaluation and open discussion of costs
and benefits of change provide opportunities to assess
relatively undefined structures and relationships that
arise in novel social–ecological situations.
In summary, there is a suite of approaches that
increases the likelihood of successful transformation in
governance of social–ecological systems [16,68] (Box 4),
but there is currently neither sufficient theory nor empiri-
cal evidence to identify their relative importance in the
complex dynamics that play out in specific situations.
Conclusions
The specific issues that challenge ecosystem stewardship
vary tremendously across the planet, so no single formula
or institutional arrangement is applicable to all situations
[24,29]. Nonetheless, several clear messages for research
and implementation emerge from an ecosystem steward-
ship framework:
!Ecosystem stewardship requires actions that recognize
social–ecological interdependencies of human activities
and ecosystem services.
!Every system exhibits crucial vulnerabilities that
become exacerbated as environmental and social
changes push the system beyond its limits of adapta-
bility. The nature of these vulnerabilities differs among
social–ecological systems, but general strategies for
reducing vulnerability are well established. The key
challenges are promoting innovation and defining and
negotiating the tradeoffs and synergies in specific
situations.
!Every system has sources of socio-economic, biological
and institutional diversity that provide building blocks
for adaptation to a rapidly changing but uncertain
future. Social learning, manageable experimentation
and flexibility in governance facilitate this adaptation.
General approaches to enhancing resilience are broadly
recognized but seldom implemented in a concerted
fashion.
!Every system has opportunities for transformation to
alternative, potentially more desirable trajectories of
social–ecological change. However, there is not yet a
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
247
Author's personal copy
cohesive body of theory for avoiding undesirable
thresholds and successfully navigating transformations
to more desirable trajectories of change. This is a crucial
research need in our rapidly changing planet.
The science of ecosystem stewardship is sufficiently
mature to make important contributions to all social–
ecological systems. There is no region so resilient that
policy makers and managers can ignore potential
threshold changes [73] or any region that is beyond hope
of substantial enhancement of well-being, adaptive
capacity and resilience. Sustaining ecosystem services
and livelihoods will, however, require reconnecting
people’s perceptions, values, institutions, actions and gov-
ernance systems to the dynamics of the biosphere through
active ecosystem stewardship.
Acknowledgments
We thank four anonymous reviewers for their constructively critical
comments and Melissa Chapin for designing and drafting Fig. 2. We also
thank the US National Science Foundation (grant 0640638), the
Resilience and Adaptation Program at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks, the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics and the
Stockholm Resilience Centre for supporting the Ecosystem Stewardship
Project and workshop that developed this synthesis.
References
1 Haberl, H. et al. (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human
appropriation of net primary production in Earth’s terrestrial
ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 12942–12945
2 Foley, J.A. et al. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309,
570–574
3 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human
Well-being: Current Status and Trends, Cambridge University Press
4 Burton, P.J. et al. (2003) The current state of boreal forestry and the
drive for change. In Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal
Forest (Burton, P.J. et al., eds), pp. 1–40, National Research Council of
Canada
5 Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K. (1996) Command and control and the
pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337
6 Christensen, N.L. et al. (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of
America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management.
Ecol. Appl. 6, 665–691
7 Berkes, F. et al., eds (2003) Navigating Social–Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, Cambridge
University Press
8 Chapin, F.S. III et al., eds (2009) Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship:
Resilience-based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World,
Springer
9 Liu, J. et al. (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems.
Science 317, 1513–1516
10 Kareiva, P. et al. (2008) Development and conservation goals in World
Bank projects. Science 321, 1638–1639
11 Turner, B.L., II (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in
sustainability science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 8074–8079
12 Smit, B. and Wandel, J. (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and
vulnerability. Global Environ. Change 16, 282–292
13 Adger, W.N. (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ. Change 16, 268–281
14 Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–
ecological systems analysis. Global Environ. Change 16, 253–267
15 Walker, B. et al. (2004) Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in
social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9, http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol9/iss2/art5
16 Folke, C. et al. (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resources 30, 441–473
17 Adger, W.N. et al., eds (2009) Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds,
Values, Governance, Cambridge University Press
18 Walker, B. et al. (1999) Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and
ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and
minor species. Ecosystems 2, 95–113
19 Carpenter, S.R. (2003) Regime Shifts in Lake Ecosystems: Pattern and
Variation, International Ecology Institute
20 Pauly, D. et al. (2005) Marine fisheries systems. In: Ecosystems and
Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, ed.), pp. 477–511, Island Press
21 Stafford Smith, D.M. et al. (2008) Learning from episodes of
degradation and recovery in variable Australian rangelands. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 20690–20695
22 Gibson, R.B. (2005) Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes,
Earthscan
23 Ostrom, E. (2008) The challenge of common-pool resources.
Environment 54, 10–20
24 Young, O.R. et al., eds (2008) Institutions and Environmental Change:
Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers, MIT Press
25 Parson, E.A. (2003) Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy,
Oxford University Press
26 IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press
27 Sachs, J.D. (2005) The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our
Time, Penguin
28 Pinkerton, E.W., ed (1989) Co–operative Management of Local
Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and
Community Development, University of British Columbia Press
29 Ostrom, E. (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 15181–15187
30 Ebi, K.L. et al. (2004) Heat watch/warning systems save lives:
estimated costs and benefits for Philadelphia 1995-1998. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 85, 1067–1073
31 Carpenter, S.R. et al. (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services:
beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A. 106, 1305–1312
32 Elmqvist, T. et al. (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and
resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 488–494
33 Suding, K.N. et al. (2008) Scaling environmental change through the
community level: a trait-based response- and-effect framework for
plants. Global Change Biol. 14, 1125–1140
34 Naylor, R.L. (2009) Managing food production systems for resilience. In
Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-based Natural
Resource Management in a Changing World (Chapin, F.S. III et al.,
eds), pp. 259–280, Springer
35 Chapin, F.S., III et al. (2000) Consequ ences of changing biotic diversity.
Nature 405, 234–242
36 Dı
´az, S. et al. (2007) Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in
ecosystem service assessments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104,
20684–20689
37 Folke, C. et al. (2004) Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in
ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 35, 557–581
38 McLachlan, J.S. et al. (2007) A framework for debate of assisted
migration in an era of climate change. Conserv. Biol. 21, 297–
302
39 Colding, J. et al. (2006) Locally managed green areas as part of urban
ecosystem management. Ambio 35, 237–244
40 Kristjanson, P. et al. (2009) Linking international agricultural research
knowledge with action for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 106, 5047–5052
41 Maffi, L. (2005) Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 29, 599–617
42 Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve
the Human Condition Have Failed, Yale University Press
43 Nettle, D. and Romaine, S. (2000) Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of
the World’s Languages, Oxford University Press
44 Putnam, R.D. (2007) E Pluribus Unam : diversity and community in the
twenty-first century. Scand. Polit. Stud. 30, 137–174
45 Armitage, D. et al., eds (2007) Adaptive Co-management:
Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Governance, University of
British Columbia Press
46 Social Learning Group (2001) Learning to Manage Global
Environmental Risks, MIT Press
47 Epstein, M.J. (2008) Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in
Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts, Greenleaf Publishing
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
248
Author's personal copy
48 Carpenter, S.R. et al. (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an
overview. Ecol. Soc. 11, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/
iss11/art29/
49 Postel, S.L. and Richter, B. (2003) Rivers for Life: Managing Water for
People and Nature, Island Press
50 Swanson, F.J. and Chapin, F.S., III (2009) Forest Systems: living with
long-term change. In Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-
based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World (Chapin,
F.S. III et al., eds), pp. 149–170, Springer
51 Bormann, B.T. and Kiester, A.R. (2004) Options forestry: acting on
uncertainty. J. For. 102, 22–27
52 Young, M. and McColl, J. (2008) A future-proofed basin: a new water
management regime for the Murray–Darling Basin. In Droplet 13,
http://www.myoung.net.au/water/droplets.php
53 Burton, I. et al. (1993) The Environment as Hazard, (2nd edn), Guilford
54 Andersson, K. et al. (2009) Local Governments and Rural Development:
Comparing Lessons from Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru, University of
Arizona Press
55 Agrawal, A. et al. (2008) Changing governance of the world’s forests.
Science 320, 1460–1462
56 Olsson, P. et al. (2004) Social–ecological transformation for ecosystem
management: the development of adaptive co-management of a
wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 9, http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/
57 Kaiser, R.B. et al. (2008) Leadership and the fate of organizations. Am.
Psychol. 63, 96–110
58 Olsson, P. et al. (2004) Social–ecological transformation for ecosystem
management: the development of adaptive co–management of a
wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 9, http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2
59 Westley, F. et al. (2002) Why systems of nature and people are not just
social and ecological systems. In Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Gunderson, L.H.
and Holling, C.S., eds), pp. 103–120, Island Press
60 Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2008) Adaptive capacity and traps.
Ecol. Soc. 13, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss42/art40/
61 Galaz, V. et al. (2008) The problem of fit among biophysical systems,
environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems:
insights and emerging challenges. In Institutions and Environmental
Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers
(Young, O.R., ed.), pp. 147–186, MIT Press
62 Olsson, P. et al. (2008) Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based
management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 105, 9489–9494
63 Loorbach, D. (2007) Transition Management: New Mode of Governance
for Sustainable Development, International Books
64 Bardach, E. (2008) A Practical Guide to Policy Analysis: The Eightfold
Path to More Effective Problem Solving, (3rd edn), CQ Press
65 Peterson, G.D. et al. (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in
an uncertain world. Conserv. Biol. 17, 358–366
66 Ginn, W.J. (2005) Investing in Nature: Case Studies of Land
Conservation in Collaboration with Business, Island Press
67 Kates, R.W. et al. (2006) Reconstruction of New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina: a research perspective. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S. A. 103, 14653–14660
68 Olsson, P. et al. (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to
adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11, http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art18/
69 Betsill, M.M. and Corell, E., eds (2007) NGO Diplomacy: The Influence
of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental
Negotiations, MIT Press
70 Young, O.R. (2002) The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental
Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale, MIT Press
71 Berkman, P.A. and Young, O.R. (2009) Governance and environmental
change in the Arctic Ocean. Science 324, 339–340
72 Cash, D.W. et al. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance
and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11 (http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/)
73 Rockstro
¨m, J. et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature
461, 472–475
74 World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our
Common Future, Oxford University Press
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.4
249
