Steve Carpenter’s research while affiliated with University of Wisconsin–Madison and other places

Profound indirect ecosystem effects of over-fishing have been shown for coastal systems such as coral reefs and kelp forests. A new study from the ecosystem off the Canadian east coast now reveals that the elimination of large predatory fish can also cause marked cascading effects on the pelagic food web. Overall, the view emerges that, in a range of marine ecosystems, the effects of fisheries extend well beyond the collapse of fish exploited stocks.

Robust Design brings together 16 chapters by an eminent group of authors in a wide range of fields presenting aspects of robustness in biological, ecological, and computational systems. The volme is the first to address robustness in biological, ecological, and computational systems. It is an outgrowth of a new research program on robustness at the Sante Fe Institute founded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. For those interested in complexity or interdisciplinary science, robustness is seen as currently among the most intellectually active and promising research areas with important applications in all fields of science, business, and economics.

We review the evidence of regime shifts in terrestrial and aquatic environments in relation to resilience of complex adaptive ecosystems and the functional roles of biological diversity in this context. The evidence reveals that the likelihood of regime shifts may increase when humans reduce resilience by such actions as removing response diversity, removing whole functional groups of species, or removing whole trophic levels; impacting on ecosystems via emissions of waste and pollutants and climate change; and altering the magnitude, frequency, and duration of disturbance regimes. The combined and often synergistic effects of those pressures can make ecosystems more vulnerable to changes that previously could be absorbed. As a consequence, ecosystems may suddenly shift from desired to less desired states in their capacity to generate ecosystem services. Active adaptive management and governance of resilience will be required to sustain desired ecosystem states and transform degraded ecosystems into fundamentally new and more desirable configurations.

Emerging recognition of two fundamental errors underpinning past polices for natural resource issues heralds awareness of the need for a worldwide fundamental change in thinking and in practice of environmental management. The first error has been an implicit assumption that ecosystem responses to human use are linear, predictable and controllable. The second has been an assumption that human and natural systems can be treated independently. However, evidence that has been accumulating in diverse regions all over the world suggests that natural and social systems behave in nonlinear ways, exhibit marked thresholds in their dynamics, and that social-ecological systems act as strongly coupled, complex and evolving integrated systems. This article is a summary of a report prepared on behalf of the Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, as input to the process of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa in 26 August 4 September 2002. We use the concept of resilience--the capacity to buffer change, learn and develop--as a framework for understanding how to sustain and enhance adaptive capacity in a complex world of rapid transformations. Two useful tools for resilience-building in social-ecological systems are structured scenarios and active adaptive management. These tools require and facilitate a social context with flexible and open institutions and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning and increase adaptive capacity without foreclosing future development options.

Resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be tolerated before a socioecological system (SES) moves to a different region of state space controlled by a different set of processes. Resilience has multiple levels of meaning: as a metaphor related to sustainability, as a property of dynamic models, and as a measurable quantity that can be assessed in field studies of SES. The operational indicators of resilience have, however, received little attention in the literature. To assess a system's resilience, one must specify which system configuration and which disturbances are of interest. This paper compares resilience properties in two contrasting SES, lake districts and rangelands, with respect to the following three general features: (a) The ability of an SES to stay in the domain of attraction is related to slowly changing variables, or slowly changing disturbance regimes, which control the boundaries of the domain of attraction or the frequency of events that could push the system across the boundaries. Examples are soil phosphorus content in lake districts woody vegetation cover in rangelands, and property rights systems that affect land use in both lake districts and rangelands. (b) The ability of an SES to self-organize is related to the extent to which reorganization is endogenous rather than forced by external drivers. Self-organization is enhanced by coevolved ecosystem components and the presence of social networks that facilitate innovative problem solving. (c) The adaptive capacity of an SES is related to the existence of mechanisms for the evolution of novelty or learning. Examples include biodiversity at multiple scales and the existence of institutions that facilitate experimentation, discovery, and innovation.

All ecosystems are exposed to gradual changes in climate, nutrient loading, habitat fragmentation or biotic exploitation. Nature is usually assumed to respond to gradual change in a smooth way. However, studies on lakes, coral reefs, oceans, forests and arid lands have shown that smooth change can be interrupted by sudden drastic switches to a contrasting state. Although diverse events can trigger such shifts, recent studies show that a loss of resilience usually paves the way for a switch to an alternative state. This suggests that strategies for sustainable management of such ecosystems should focus on maintaining resilience.

The case studies of Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden; the Northern Highlands Lake District and the Everglades in the USA; the Mae Nam Ping Basin, Thailand; and the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia, were compared to assess the outcome of different actions for transforming social-ecological systems (SESs). The transformations consisted of two phases, a preparation phase and a transition phase, linked by a window of opportunity. Key leaders and shadow networks can prepare a system for change by exploring alternative system configurations and developing strategies for choosing from among possible futures. Key leaders can recognize and use or create windows of opportunity and navigate transitions toward adaptive governance. Leadership functions include the ability to span scales of governance, orchestrate networks, integrate and communicate understanding, and reconcile different problem domains. Successful transformations rely on epistemic and shadow networks to provide novel ideas and ways of governing SESs. We conclude by listing some rules of thumb" that can help build leadership and networks for successful transformations toward adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.