TY - JOUR
T1 - Separating adaptive maintenance (Resilience) and transformative capacity of social-ecological systems
AU - Wilson, Samuel
AU - Pearson, Leonie J.
AU - Kashima, Yoshihisa
AU - Lusher, Dean
AU - Pearson, Craig
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Many rural communities are vulnerable social-ecological systems (SES) that must do more than become resilient to future environmental and social shocks: they must transform to achieve sustainability. We aimed first to conceptually explore the proposition that SES characteristics (identity, feedbacks, structure, and functions) necessary for transformation may be distinct from those necessary for adaptive maintenance or resilience, and second, to propose metrics that may be used to assess these two types of system changes. We did this by interrogating literature and by investigating two rural towns in Australia using a combination of quantitative methods and focus groups to interrogate community social networks, capitals (human, natural, built, and social) and future scenarios. Results indicated that (1) it is practicable to carry out a holistic assessment of SES characteristics (identity, feedbacks, structure, and functions), and (2) purposeful, positive transformation is supported by vision, identification with place, unhappiness (with the status quo), high personal contribution to social capital, open social networks, and latent capital(s). We conclude that rural communities possess capacities for adaptive maintenance (resilience) and for system-wide transformation, and that the metrics used to assess each are sometimes discrete, sometimes common.
AB - Many rural communities are vulnerable social-ecological systems (SES) that must do more than become resilient to future environmental and social shocks: they must transform to achieve sustainability. We aimed first to conceptually explore the proposition that SES characteristics (identity, feedbacks, structure, and functions) necessary for transformation may be distinct from those necessary for adaptive maintenance or resilience, and second, to propose metrics that may be used to assess these two types of system changes. We did this by interrogating literature and by investigating two rural towns in Australia using a combination of quantitative methods and focus groups to interrogate community social networks, capitals (human, natural, built, and social) and future scenarios. Results indicated that (1) it is practicable to carry out a holistic assessment of SES characteristics (identity, feedbacks, structure, and functions), and (2) purposeful, positive transformation is supported by vision, identification with place, unhappiness (with the status quo), high personal contribution to social capital, open social networks, and latent capital(s). We conclude that rural communities possess capacities for adaptive maintenance (resilience) and for system-wide transformation, and that the metrics used to assess each are sometimes discrete, sometimes common.
KW - Australia
KW - Feedbacks
KW - Functions
KW - Identity
KW - Structure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876766820&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5751/ES-05100-180122
DO - 10.5751/ES-05100-180122
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84876766820
SN - 1195-5449
VL - 18
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - Ecology and Society
JF - Ecology and Society
IS - 1
M1 - 22
ER -