Personal tools
Home » Members » lcramer » Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems
Document Actions

Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems

2005 Comprehensive review
                                                                                      Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:441–73
                                                                                     doi: 10.1146/
                                                                               Copyright c 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
                                                                             First published online as a Review in Advance on July 25, 2005

                                               ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL
                                                 Carl Folke,1,2 Thomas Hahn,1 Per Olsson,1
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 and Jon Norberg2
                                                  Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research and 2 Department of Systems
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 Ecology, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden;

                                                 Key Words adaptive capacity, ecosystem management, leadership, resilience,
                                                  social capital, governance
                                                 ■ Abstract We explore the social dimension that enables adaptive ecosystem-based
                                                 management. The review concentrates on experiences of adaptive governance of social-
                                                 ecological systems during periods of abrupt change (crisis) and investigates social
                                                 sources of renewal and reorganization. Such governance connects individuals, organi-
                                                 zations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organizational levels. Key persons provide
                                                 leadership, trust, vision, meaning, and they help transform management organizations
                                                 toward a learning environment. Adaptive governance systems often self-organize as
                                                 social networks with teams and actor groups that draw on various knowledge systems
                                                 and experiences for the development of a common understanding and policies. The
                                                 emergence of “bridging organizations” seem to lower the costs of collaboration and
                                                 conflict resolution, and enabling legislation and governmental policies can support
                                                 self-organization while framing creativity for adaptive comanagement efforts. A re-
                                                 silient social-ecological system may make use of crisis as an opportunity to transform
                                                 into a more desired state.

                                                 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  442
                                                 SOCIAL CAPACITY FOR RESPONDING TO AND SHAPING
                                                  ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       445
                                                  Knowledge, Learning, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     445
                                                  Adaptive Management and Organizational Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           447
                                                  Governance and Adaptive Comanagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         448
                                                  Adaptive Governance and Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       449
                                                 SOCIAL SOURCES OF RESILIENCE FOR ADAPTABILITY AND
                                                  TRANSFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    452
                                                  Social Memory, Teams, and Actor Groups as Sources of Resilience . . . . . . . . . . .                453
                                                  Transforming Governance for Social-Ecological Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              455

                                               442    FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE IN RELATION TO THE BROADER
                                                  ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
                                                  CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462

                                                  The history of human use and abuse of ecosystems tells the story of adaptation to
                                                  the changing conditions that we create. Often, the response has been to increase
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  control over resources through domestication and simplification of landscapes and
                                                  seascapes to increase production, avoid fluctuations, and reduce uncertainty (1, 2).
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  This behavior has decreased temporal variability at the expense of increased spatial
                                                  dependence on other areas on Earth. Human activities have become globally inter-
                                                  connected and intensified through new technology, capital markets, and systems of
                                                  governance, with decisions in one place influencing people elsewhere. At the same
                                                  time, the capacity of the environment, from local ecosystems to the biosphere, to
                                                  sustain societal development seems to have been reduced over historical time (3,
                                                  4) and at increasing pace during the past century (5). This has lead to vulnerability
                                                  in many places and regions with constrained options for human livelihoods and
                                                  progress (6, 7). But has humanity adapted its capacity for learning and foresight
                                                  to deal with this new and challenging situation?
                                                   Sometimes change in ecosystems and society is gradual or incremental. During
                                                  periods of steady progress, things move forward in roughly continuous and pre-
                                                  dictable ways. At other times, change is abrupt, disorganizing, or turbulent. During
                                                  such periods, experience tends to be incomplete for understanding, consequences
                                                  of actions are ambiguous, and the future of system dynamics is often unclear and
                                                  uncertain (8). Evidence points to a situation where periods of abrupt change are ex-
                                                  pected to increase in frequency, duration, and magnitude (9). At the same time, the
                                                  capacity of ecosystems to remain within desired states in the face of abrupt change
                                                  seems to have been reduced as a consequence of human actions (10). Vulnerable
                                                  terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems may easily shift into undesired states in the sense
                                                  of providing ecosystem services to society. The existence of such alternate regimes
                                                  poses new fundamental challenges to environment and resource management (11).
                                                   Theories and approaches to environment and resource management have to a
                                                  large extent focused on single issues or resources and been based on a steady-state
                                                  view, interpreting change as gradual and incremental and disregarding interac-
                                                  tions across scales. Such partial approaches are less useful in the current situation
                                                  wherein the capacity of many ecosystems to generate resources and ecosystem ser-
                                                  vices for societal development has become vulnerable to change and no longer can
                                                  be taken for granted. Furthermore, it is now clear that patterns of production, con-
                                                  sumption, and well-being arise not only from economic and social relations within
                                                  regions but also depend on the capacity of other regions’ ecosystems to sustain
                                                  them (12, 13). A major challenge is to assure this capacity in the face of change (14).
                                                   Emerging theories and approaches point to the importance of assessing and ac-
                                                  tively managing resilience, i.e., the extent to which a system can absorb
                                                                      ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                               recurrent natural and human perturbations and continue to regenerate without
                                               slowly degrading or even unexpectedly flipping into less desirable states (10, 15–
                                               17). Resilience in this context is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb
                                               disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially
                                               the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (18). Science and policy for
                                               sustainability need to address the interplay between periods of gradual and abrupt
                                               change and their relations to resilience. There is also need to account for inter-
                                               actions across spatial and temporal scales to secure the capacity to reorganize in
                                               the face of change. It will require new forms of human behavior with a shift in
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               perspective from the aspiration to control change in systems, assumed to be stable,
                                               to sustain and generate desirable pathways for societal development in the face of
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                               increased frequency of abrupt change (19).
                                                 The ecological basis for such an approach is developing and includes recog-
                                               nition of ecosystems as complex adaptive systems and the necessity to address
                                               uncertainty and surprise (20–22). It is moving from the conventional approach
                                               based on assessment of the maximum sustainable yield of individual species at a
                                               single broad scale to a more general focus on managing essential ecological pro-
                                               cesses that sustain the delivery of harvestable resources and ecosystem services at
                                               multiple scales (23–25). Significant roles of biological diversity in the dynamics
                                               and resilience of complex adaptive systems faced with change become part of the
                                               process (26–28) of such an ecosystem-based management approach (29).
                                                 Furthermore, the ecosystem-based approach recognizes the role of the human
                                               dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics (30, 31). Also, the hu-
                                               man dimension reflects properties of complex adaptive systems, such as a diverse
                                               set of institutions and behaviors, local interactions between actors, and selective
                                               processes, that shape future social structures and dynamics (32–35).
                                                 Scholars have used concepts like coupled human-environment systems (36),
                                               ecosocial systems (37) and socioecological systems (38, 39) to illustrate the inter-
                                               play between social and ecological systems, but treating the social or ecological
                                               dimension as a prefix may give it less weight during the analysis. Consequently,
                                               Berkes & Folke (40) started to use the term “social-ecological” system to empha-
                                               size the integrated concept of humans in nature and to stress that the delineation
                                               between social and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary. Research sug-
                                               gests that social-ecological systems have powerful reciprocal feedbacks and act as
                                               complex adaptive systems (8, 31, 41–43).
                                                 It is important to clarify that implications of analyses of social-ecological sys-
                                               tems generally differ from analyses of social or ecological systems alone (44, 45).
                                               Addressing only the social dimension of resource management without an under-
                                               standing of resource and ecosystem dynamics will not be sufficient to guide society
                                               toward sustainable outcomes. For example, the mobilization of Belizian coastal
                                               fishermen into cooperatives, which was socially desirable and economically suc-
                                               cessful, led ultimately to excessive harvesting of stocks of lobster and conch (46).
                                               Similarly, focusing only on the ecological side as a basis for decision making for
                                               sustainability may lead to too narrow conclusions. For example, an observed shift
                                               in a lake from a desired to a less desired state may indicate that the lake has lost
                                               444   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  resilience, but if there is capacity in the social system to respond to change and
                                                  restore the lake the social-ecological system is still resilient (47, 48).
                                                    The capacity to adapt to and shape change is an important component of re-
                                                  silience in a social-ecological system (42). In a social-ecological system with high
                                                  adaptability, the actors have the capacity to reorganize the system within desired
                                                  states in response to changing conditions and disturbance events (18). Adaptive
                                                  management (49) is often put forward as a more realistic and promising approach
                                                  to deal with ecosystem complexity (50) than management for optimal use and
                                                  control of resources (1, 44). Dietz et al. (51) used the concept of adaptive gover-
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  nance to expand the focus from adaptive management of ecosystems to address the
                                                  broader social contexts that enable ecosystem-based management. By governance,
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  we mean creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action (52) or in-
                                                  stitutions of social coordination (53). Governance is the structures and processes
                                                  by which people in societies make decisions and share power (54). Advocating an
                                                  adaptive ecosystem approach, Boyle et al. (55) suggest a triad of activities, wherein
                                                  governance is the process of resolving trade-offs and of providing a vision and di-
                                                  rection for sustainability, management is the operationalization of this vision, and
                                                  monitoring provides feedback and synthesizes the observations to a narrative of
                                                  how the situation has emerged and might unfold in the future.
                                                    There has been substantial progress in understanding the social dimension of
                                                  ecosystem management, including organizational and institutional flexibility for
                                                  dealing with uncertainty and change (8, 40, 42, 51, 56–61) and social capital (62–
                                                  64). Challenges for the social sciences have been raised in this context (65, 66). So-
                                                  cial sources of resilience, such as social capital (including trust and social networks)
                                                  and social memory (including experience for dealing with change) (67), are essen-
                                                  tial for the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt to and shape change (68).
                                                    Here, we extend the framework of ecosystem-based management, as currently
                                                  applied, to explore the social dimension in what we refer to as adaptive governance
                                                  of social-ecological systems. We concentrate our review on experiences of gover-
                                                  nance in relation to complex adaptive ecosystems and in particular during periods
                                                  when change is abrupt, disorganizing, or turbulent. This is the time when existing
                                                  structures are most challenged, and the risk for a shift into undesired regimes is the
                                                  highest. We are particularly interested in social sources that seem to be of signifi-
                                                  cance in responding to and shaping change as well as building resilience for reor-
                                                  ganization in social-ecological systems, both internally and in relation to external
                                                  drivers. The focus is on local and regional governance of landscapes and seascapes.
                                                    In the first part of the review, we address the social responsiveness to ecosystem
                                                  dynamics, in particular learning from the level of individuals through management
                                                  practice and social networks to organizations. It is argued that adaptive gover-
                                                  nance is operationalized through adaptive comanagement systems and that the
                                                  roles of social capital, focusing on networks, leadership, and trust, are emphasized
                                                  in this context. The second section strives toward understanding social sources
                                                  of resilience, in particular the interplay between crisis and mobilization of so-
                                                  cial memory for reorganization. The issues of transformation of social-ecological
                                                                        ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 systems toward adaptive governance as well as ecosystem and landscape manage-
                                                 ment are investigated. The third section addresses the capacity of adaptive gover-
                                                 nance systems to cope with and make use of external perturbations and challenges
                                                 in the broader social-ecological environment. We emphasize the role of bridging
                                                 organizations that have the ability to strengthen social capital and the capacity for
                                                 effective governance of multilevel organizations involved with ecosystem manage-
                                                 ment. We conclude by presenting four essential features of adaptive governance
                                                 of social-ecological systems.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               SOCIAL CAPACITY FOR RESPONDING TO
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                               AND SHAPING ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS
                                                 Management is about bringing together old knowledge, from diverse sources, into
                                                 new perspectives for practice (58). Management of ecosystem resilience to sus-
                                                 tain resources and ecosystem services requires the ability to observe and interpret
                                                 essential processes and variables in ecosystem dynamics to develop the social ca-
                                                 pacity to respond to environmental feedback and change (23, 40, 69). Processes
                                                 that generate learning, meaning, knowledge, and experience of ecosystem dynam-
                                                 ics expressed in management practice are part of the social capacity of responding
                                                 to environmental change.

                                               Knowledge, Learning, and Practice
                                                 Much of contemporary science of natural resource management is focused on de-
                                                 tailed single-species models, and policy recommendations are based on optimal
                                                 sustainable use of these species without accounting for the role of ecosystem dy-
                                                 namics and regional patterns and processes (21). Managing for control and stability
                                                 sets the system on a path to turbulent change (70). Therefore, the goal should be
                                                 to seek not detailed knowledge of parts of the system but improved understanding
                                                 of the dynamics of the whole system. Knowledge generation for understanding
                                                 and managing periods of rapid change, the social sources of resilience required
                                                 for reorganization following change, as well as strategies for dealing with true
                                                 uncertainty and surprise in this context are still in their infancy (8, 71, 72).
                                                   Facing complex adaptive systems and periods of rapid change gives the scientist
                                                 a new role in decision making from being an objective and detached specialist ex-
                                                 pected to deliver knowledge to managers to becoming one of several actors in the
                                                 learning and knowledge generation process (31, 73, 74). Other actors include local
                                                 groups with experience in resource and ecosystem management (75, 76). Efforts
                                                 are taking place to mobilize, make use of, and combine different knowledge sys-
                                                 tems and learning environments to enhance the capacity for dealing with complex
                                                 adaptive systems and uncertainty (44). It comes as no surprise that knowledge of
                                                 ecosystem dynamics and associated management practices exists among people
                                                 of communities that, on a daily basis and over long periods of time, interact for
                                               446   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  their benefit and livelihood with ecosystems (77, 78). The way such knowledge is
                                                  being organized and culturally embedded, its relationship to institutionalized, pro-
                                                  fessional science, and its role in catalyzing new ways of managing environmental
                                                  resources have all become important subjects (79–85).
                                                   There is a growing literature on the potential in combining local knowledge
                                                  systems with scientific knowledge to cope with change in resource and ecosystem
                                                  management, including understanding climate change (86) and managing fish-
                                                  eries, biodiversity, and landscape dynamics (87–90). For example, in the Solomon
                                                  Islands, indigenous knowledge, practice, and sea tenure systems were used in
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  combination with scientific knowledge to establish marine protected areas for
                                                  bumphead parrotfish conservation (91). A self-governing community in Ecuador
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  changed their unsustainable forest management practice by incorporating scien-
                                                  tific knowledge about the interplay between freshwater and forest dynamics into
                                                  their traditional knowledge system and thereby curtailed destruction of their moist
                                                  forest commons (92). It has been argued that such self-organized local responses
                                                  for active adaptation to environmental change have emerged among communities
                                                  and societies that have survived over long periods of time (75).
                                                   Berkes & Folke (93) identify management practices that cope with periods of
                                                  rapid environmental change in what has been referred to as the “back-loop” of
                                                  social-ecological system development (8, 42). They divide them into practices
                                                  that evoke change, that survive change, and that nurture sources for reorgani-
                                                  zation following change (93). McCay (94) refers to the economics of flexibility
                                                  where diversification is the primary strategy. Robust, adaptive strategies of social-
                                                  ecological systems accept uncertainty and change (22). They take advantage of
                                                  rapid change and surprise and turn them into opportunities for development. Many
                                                  local communities have long recognized the necessity of coexisting with gradual
                                                  and rapid change. There are groups with associated institutions that have accumu-
                                                  lated a knowledge base of how to relate to and respond to environmental feedback,
                                                  which allows the disturbance to enter at smaller scales instead of accumulating to
                                                  larger scales, thereby precluding large-scale collapse (95, 96). Such management
                                                  practices seem to have developed as a result of experience with change and crisis,
                                                  realizing that not all possible outcomes can be anticipated, planned, or predicted
                                                   Crisis, perceived or real, seems to trigger learning and knowledge generation
                                                  (58) and opens up space for new management trajectories of resources and ecosys-
                                                  tems. For example, Olsson & Folke (97) described how threats of acidification,
                                                  overfishing, and disease successively initiated learning and generated ecological
                                                  knowledge among local groups in the Lake Racken catchment in western Swe-
                                                  den. The ecological knowledge system covers scales from physiology of the re-
                                                  source to integrative knowledge of catchment processes. Knowledge acquisition
                                                  of complex adaptive ecosystems is an ongoing, dynamic learning process, and
                                                  such knowledge often emerges over decades with peoples’ institutions and orga-
                                                  nizations, as illustrated for frontier colonist farmers in the Brazilian Amazon (98).
                                                  The ecosystem-based management of the Lake Racken catchment, in which the
                                                                        ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 ecological knowledge system is embedded, emerged in about a decade, and people
                                                 now interact through social networks across local to national organizational and
                                                 institutional levels.

                                               Adaptive Management and Organizational Learning
                                                 Because the self-organizing properties of complex ecosystems and associated
                                                 management systems seem to cause uncertainty to grow over time, understand-
                                                 ing should be continuously updated and adjusted, and each management action
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 viewed as an opportunity to further learn how to adapt to changing circumstances
                                                 (22). This is the foundation for active adaptive management wherein policies be-
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 come hypotheses, and management actions become the experiments to test those
                                                 hypotheses (99). Walters (100) in his review of adaptive management of ripar-
                                                 ian ecosystems argues that a reason for failure lies in management stakeholders
                                                 showing deplorable self-interest, seeing adaptive-policy development as a threat to
                                                 existing research programs and management regimes, rather than as an opportunity
                                                 for improvement. This is why it is important to address the social dimension and
                                                 contexts for adaptive governance in relation to ecosystem management, including
                                                 processes of participation, collective action, and learning.
                                                   Developing the capacity of individuals to learn effectively from their experi-
                                                 ences is an important part of building knowledge and skills into organizations and
                                                 institutions to permit good adaptive management (101). Learning that helps de-
                                                 velop adaptive expertise (an individual’s ability to deal flexibly with new situations)
                                                 and processes of sense making (102) are essential features in governance of com-
                                                 plex social-ecological systems, and these skills prepare managers for uncertainty
                                                 and surprise. Sense making implies taking interpretations seriously, inventing and
                                                 reinventing a meaningful order and then acting upon it (45). Learning for ecosys-
                                                 tem management is often considered to be a social process referred to as “social
                                                 learning” (56, 103). Authors have also used the concept “institutional learning.”
                                                 For example, Ostrom (61) stresses that although theory and evidence play a key role
                                                 in increasing the probability of selecting rules for resource management, leading
                                                 to better as contrasted to worse outcomes, they cannot eliminate the need to view
                                                 all policies as ongoing learning experiments that need to be monitored, evaluated,
                                                 and adapted over time.
                                                   The social context of learning is further stressed in the literature on organi-
                                                 zational learning (e.g., Reference 58). The confrontation of underlying assump-
                                                 tions, norms, and objectives and the changes in mental models and meaning were
                                                 referred to as double-loop learning by Argyris (104) and applied in relation to
                                                 ecosystem management by, e.g., Blann et al. (105). In recent organizational liter-
                                                 ature, resilience (interpreted as the capacity for innovation and renewal) has been
                                                 proposed as a key feature that allows industries to survive turbulent times and
                                                 reorganize (106). Whiteman et al. (107) argue that business theory and practice
                                                 need to move beyond organizational resilience and embrace ecosystem resilience
                                                 in management goals.
                                               448   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                   Organizational learning is not limited to formal organizations but also takes
                                                  place in loosely defined organizations (108). For example, Fazey et al. (101) de-
                                                  scribe how managers of marsh areas in Australia combined their external expe-
                                                  riences for a collective interpretation of ecosystem dynamics, and Olsson et al.
                                                  (109) illustrate how knowledge for ecosystem management in southern Sweden,
                                                  generated through local innovation, learning, and practice, as well as through ex-
                                                  ternal experiences and contacts, is collectively mobilized in overlapping subsets of
                                                  the social network and applied in landscape management. Hence, social systems
                                                  are structured not only by rules, positions, and resources but also by meaning and
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  by the entire network of communicating individuals and organizations at differ-
                                                  ent levels of interaction, representing the social system involved in governance of
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  ecosystems (58, 110). A clear and convincing vision, comprehensive stories and
                                                  meaning, and good social links and trust with fellow stakeholders may mobilize
                                                  several interest groups at several levels and start a self-organizing process of learn-
                                                  ing and social capital generation for management of complex adaptive ecosystems

                                               Governance and Adaptive Comanagement
                                                  The self-organizing process may emerge into systems of adaptive comanagement
                                                  (109, 112). “Adaptive comanagement” systems are flexible community-based sys-
                                                  tems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations, and they are
                                                  supported by and work with various organizations at different levels. The flexible
                                                  structure allows for learning and ways to respond to and shape change. Folke et al.
                                                  (113) define adaptive comanagement as a process by which institutional arrange-
                                                  ments and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing,
                                                  self-organized process of learning by doing. Adaptive comanagement combines
                                                  the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive management (e.g., Reference 49)
                                                  with the linkage characteristic of cooperative management (e.g., References 114
                                                  and 115) and also with collaborative management (e.g., Reference 116). Coman-
                                                  agement is concerned with the problem-solving process involved in sharing of
                                                  management power across organizational levels (117). Authors have identified so-
                                                  cial conditions that need to be fulfilled in comanagement systems (e.g., References
                                                  118 and 119).
                                                   Adaptive comanagement relies on the collaboration of a diverse set of stake-
                                                  holders, operating at different levels, often through networks from local users
                                                  to municipalities, to regional and national organizations, and also to international
                                                  bodies. The sharing of management power and responsibility may involve multiple
                                                  institutional linkages among user groups or communities, government agencies,
                                                  and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In addition, adaptive comanagement
                                                  extends adaptive management into the social domain and is a way to operationalize
                                                  adaptive governance. Although adaptive management focuses on understanding
                                                  ecosystem dynamics and feeding ecological knowledge into management orga-
                                                  nizations, adaptive governance conveys multi-objective reality when handling
                                                                        ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 conflicts among diverse stakeholders and, at the same time, adapts this social
                                                 problem to resolve issues concerning dynamic ecosystems (51). The term “gover-
                                                 nance” has recently become a catchword for various alternatives to conventional
                                                 top-down government control, including collaboration, partnerships, and networks
                                                 (120). Issues of legitimacy and accountability are often stressed in the literature
                                                 on governance (121, 122), and good governance of ecosystems has been inter-
                                                 preted as solving the trilemma characterized by tensions between effectiveness,
                                                 participation, and legitimacy (123).
                                                   Governance emerges from many actors in the state-society complex and can
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 be institutionalized or expressed through subtle norms of interactions or even
                                                 more indirectly through influencing agendas and shaping contexts in which actors
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 contest decisions and access resources (54). In a review of the recent governance
                                                 literature (L. Martin, unpublished paper), Martin found a new appreciation of
                                                 loosely structured governance entities that spontaneously emerge or self-organize,
                                                 often in response to rigid governmental structures. Lee (53) refers to such adaptive
                                                 systems of governance as the new governance and defines it as a polycentric form
                                                 of social coordination in which actions are coordinated voluntarily by individuals
                                                 and organizations with self-organizing and self-enforcing capabilities.
                                                   Adaptive governance of ecosystems generally involves polycentric institutional
                                                 arrangements, which are nested quasi-autonomous decision-making units operat-
                                                 ing at multiple scales (124, 125). They involve local, as well as higher, organiza-
                                                 tional levels and aim at finding a balance between decentralized and centralized
                                                 control (126). The vertical links of such arrangements may boost adaptive gov-
                                                 ernance, for instance when local and national institutions gain strength from be-
                                                 ing nested in regional and global institutions. Such links can also stifle adaptive
                                                 governance, as in cases where national land-use regulations contradict or under-
                                                 mine informal local systems of land tenure (127) and limit practitioners’ abilities
                                                 to exploit an interorganizational network’s collaborative capacity (128). Institu-
                                                 tional interaction across organizational levels can increase the diversity of response
                                                 options and can deal more appropriately with uncertainty and change (61). Fur-
                                                 thermore, such polycentric arrangements may be of significance in responding to
                                                 ecosystem dynamics at different scales. The ability to use institutions effectively,
                                                 at organizational levels appropriate to the ecological scale, has been referred to as
                                                 scale-matching (56) or institutional fit (84, 129).

                                               Adaptive Governance and Social Capital
                                                 Adaptive governance involves devolution of management rights and power sharing
                                                 that promotes participation. However, devolution of management rights does not
                                                 automatically result in adaptive comanagement. Adaptive comanagement requires
                                                 social networks (in the sense of Reference 130). For example, the devolution of
                                                 management rights in1994 in Sweden to a fishing association resulted in increased
                                                 local control over the management of fish and crayfish in inland freshwater lakes
                                                 and streams (97). It did not initially involve efforts to develop partnerships among
                                               450   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  actors at local to state levels. However, in 1998 the Swedish Environmental Protec-
                                                  tion Agency and the National Board of Fisheries initiated a joint project between
                                                  Norway and Sweden to implement an action program for conserving the noble
                                                  crayfish (131). It involves collaboration between county administration boards,
                                                  municipalities, rural economic and agricultural associations, local fishing associ-
                                                  ations, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Board of
                                                  Fisheries of both countries. It is funded by the European Commissions Interreg
                                                  program, three Norwegian and two Swedish county administrations boards, and
                                                  several Norwegian municipalities. The action program for the noble crayfish illus-
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  trates an alternative governance form within a polycentric institutional structure,
                                                  which assumed a new role for government and governmental agencies and stimu-
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  lated the emergence of adaptive governance. External resources and actors can play
                                                  an important role, interacting with internal and local ones, in creating civic arenas
                                                  or forums as well as social and political spaces for deliberation (94). Schneider
                                                  et al. (132) state that formal lines of authority are blurred in these self-organized
                                                  network-based governance systems in which diverse policy actors are knitted to-
                                                  gether to focus on common problems, but these multilevel networks can stimulate
                                                  collaboration, build trust, provide information, and encourage the development
                                                  of common perspectives on policy issues. Such networks represent informal gov-
                                                  ernance systems across organizational levels with an interest in influencing and
                                                  implementing policies in a given resource area. They have been referred to as
                                                  policy communities (133) or epistemic communities (134).
                                                    In times of rapid change informal social networks can provide arenas for novelty
                                                  and innovation and enhance flexibility, all of which tend to be stifled in bureau-
                                                  cracies (99). However, these network structures do not replace the accountability
                                                  of existing hierarchical bureaucracies but operate within and complement them
                                                  (135). As observed by Steel & Weber (136), too much decentralization may coun-
                                                  teract its purpose and miss the opportunity of collective action that involves several
                                                  organizational levels.
                                                    Networks of collaboration may emerge from different actors and levels, in-
                                                  cluding local as well as governmental initiatives. Schusler et al. (137) describe
                                                  a successful attempt by a New York State agency to encourage comanagement
                                                  through a deliberative process. Aided by researchers, the agency initiated collabo-
                                                  ration and catalyzed social learning. The stakeholders were invited to a conference
                                                  and learned about system dynamics of the basin, about the concerns of other par-
                                                  ticipants, and as much as half of them experienced value formation and altered
                                                  their own concerns related to natural resource management in the area. Formal col-
                                                  laboration initiated by authorities can be supported by legislation and institutional
                                                  interaction, as the polycentric fishing institutions in Sweden, or be nonstatutory
                                                  arrangements with the purpose of collaborative learning and conflict resolution,
                                                  as the example by Schusler illustrates. Berkes (138) distinguishes between real
                                                  comanagement, with shared management authority, and multistakeholder bodies
                                                  that are often used by government agencies to increase legitimacy and manage
                                                  conflicts without devolution of power.
                                                                       ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 Governing complex adaptive ecosystems requires adaptive managers supported
                                               by flexible organizations (58); problem-oriented organization or adhocracy orga-
                                               nizations (139) have been suggested by Danter et al. (59) and observed by Imperial
                                               (128) as significant in this context. In Kristianstad, Sweden, the loosely connected
                                               horizontal and vertical networks are based on voluntary participation, and key per-
                                               sons are mobilized to form ad hoc project organizations when pressing issues arise
                                               (140). These collaboration networks can provide an arena where social capital is
                                               enhanced and where concerns are reformulated to generate innovation and nurture
                                               renewal in times of reorganization. Informal collaboration dominates at the local
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               level but may also span the regional and global levels. For instance, UNESCO
                                               Man and Biosphere reserves are often governed by an informal ad hoc assembly
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                               of concerned individuals and NGOs with no legal power but ability to influence
                                               the policy-making process (55).
                                                 Collaboration in governance networks requires leadership. Here we focus on
                                               leadership in the direction of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
                                               Crises open up arenas for new leadership with various objectives (99). In a review of
                                               the empirical literature on watershed partnership by Leach & Pelkey (141), effec-
                                               tive leadership and management was the second most frequent factor for successful
                                               partnership after adequate funding. Leadership is essential in shaping change and
                                               reorganization by providing innovation in order to achieve the flexibility needed to
                                               deal with ecosystem dynamics. This is addressed by Shannon (142) in her work on
                                               the role of policy entrepreneurs in forest management and by Kuhnert (143) and
                                               Ostrom (144) on public entrepreneurs in relation to irrigation- and groundwater
                                               basin management. Furthermore, entrepreneurial leaders have proven their signif-
                                               icance in the development of international institutions by functioning as agenda
                                               setters, popularizing issues at stake, devising policy options to overcome bargain-
                                               ing impediments, brokering deals, and lining up support for salient options (145).
                                               Leaders can provide key functions for adaptive governance, such as building trust,
                                               making sense, managing conflict, linking actors, initiating partnership among ac-
                                               tor groups, compiling and generating knowledge, and mobilizing broad support
                                               for change. Key individuals also develop and communicate visions of ecosystem
                                               management that frame self-organizing processes (58). These individuals often
                                               have the ability to manage existing knowledge within social networks for ecosys-
                                               tem management and further develop those networks. Lack of leaders can lead to
                                               inertia in social-ecological systems (111).
                                                 Trust makes social life predictable, it creates a sense of community, and it makes
                                               it easier for people to work together (146). Trust can be said to be the basis of all
                                               social institutions and is also integral to the idea of social influence, as it is easier
                                               to influence or persuade someone who is trusting (147, 148). Building trust and the
                                               growth of social network are closely related to investments in social capital. Pretty
                                               & Ward (149) refer to social capital as relations of trust, reciprocity, common
                                               rules, norms, sanctions, and connectedness in institutions. Several authors have
                                               regarded social capital as the glue for adaptive capacity and collaboration (63,
                                               109, 149–151), whereas others have contested its empirically explanatory power
                                               452   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  (152, 153). Social capital is built by investing in social relationships, and the
                                                  networks that emerge can either focus on horizontal or vertical collaboration (111).
                                                  Both dimensions seem to be necessary for transforming ecosystem management
                                                  to more adaptive governance (58). Wondolleck & Yaffee (118) provide several
                                                  examples of how public managers have invested in building trust and collaboration
                                                  to meet their objectives in natural resource management. Stakeholder networks
                                                  have emerged in some of the U.S. National Estuary Program areas (154). These
                                                  areas have been found to span more levels of government, integrate more experts
                                                  into policy discussions, build trust, reduce the level of conflict among key persons
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  from different stakeholder groups, and as a result, increase the legitimacy of the
                                                  program (132).
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                   We emphasize that, to emerge and be effective, self-organized governance sys-
                                                  tems for ecosystem management require a civic society with a certain level of social
                                                  capital (53, 149), and the governance system must continuously learn and generate
                                                  experience about ecosystem dynamics. Social capital increases the flexibility of
                                                  management organizations and institutions, but the social features and processes
                                                  underlying reorganization after disturbance are not well understood. In the next
                                                  section, we focus on social sources of resilience that make adaptive governance of
                                                  social-ecological systems possible. We are particularly interested in social sources
                                                  of resilience that can be mobilized to adapt to and shape periods of rapid and
                                                  turbulent change as well as contribute to the reorganization of social-ecological
                                                  systems into desired states.

                                               SOCIAL SOURCES OF RESILIENCE FOR
                                               ADAPTABILITY AND TRANSFORMATION
                                                  Systems with high adaptive capacity are able to reconfigure themselves when
                                                  subject to change without significant declines in crucial functions of the social-
                                                  ecological system. Gunderson & Holling (8) argue that addressing how people
                                                  respond to periods of change and how society reorganizes following change are
                                                  the most neglected and the least understood aspects in resource management and
                                                  science. Synthesizing several case studies, Folke et al. (68) identified and expanded
                                                  on the following four critical factors that interact across temporal and spatial scales
                                                  and that seem to be required for dealing with social-ecological dynamics during
                                                  periods of rapid change and reorganization:
                                                     Learning to live with change and uncertainty
                                                     Combining different types of knowledge for learning
                                                     Creating opportunity for self-organization toward social-ecological resilience
                                                     Nurturing sources of resilience for renewal and reorganization
                                                   The first three factors have been dealt with above. Here, we focus on nurturing
                                                  sources of resilience. The functional role of biological diversity as a source of
                                                                         ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 resilience in ecosystem renewal and reorganization is a growing area of research
                                                 reviewed elsewhere (e.g., References 10 and 28). Here, we are concerned with the
                                                 social sources in adaptive governance of social-ecological systems that help cope
                                                 with and adapt to change and facilitate reorganization and innovation following
                                                 disturbance and crisis.

                                               Social Memory, Teams, and Actor Groups
                                               as Sources of Resilience
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 Resilience of social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty and surprise is
                                                 about promoting the capacity to expect the unexpected and absorb it (72). As
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 suggested by Low et al. (155) diversity and redundancy of institutions and their
                                                 overlapping functions across organizational levels may play a central role in ab-
                                                 sorbing disturbance and in spreading risks. Hence, it is an important challenge
                                                 to overcome common perceptions of inefficiencies associated with redundancy,
                                                 namely fragmentation and duplication of authority, policy inconsistencies, and
                                                 high transaction costs (126). Accumulating experience through collective learn-
                                                 ing, mobilized during periods of rapid change as discussed above, is important
                                                 in this context (56, 93). A collective memory of experiences with resource and
                                                 ecosystem management provides context for social responses and helps the social-
                                                 ecological system prepare for change. If experience embedded in institutions and
                                                 organizations provides a context for the modification of management policy and
                                                 rules, people can act adaptively in the face of surprise. They can navigate the
                                                 turbulent phase and perform through diversification and redundancy rather than
                                                 simplification (61, 155).
                                                   A crucial challenge for adaptive governance during periods of rapid change
                                                 seems to be the mobilization of social memory. “Social memory” has been defined
                                                 as the arena in which captured experience with change and successful adaptations,
                                                 embedded in a deeper level of values, is actualized through community debate and
                                                 decision-making processes into appropriate strategies for dealing with ongoing
                                                 change (67). Social memory is important for linking past experiences with present
                                                 and future policies. It is a part of the cultural capital of human society (156). A sub-
                                                 set of social memory is the accumulation of a diversity of experiences concerning
                                                 management practices and rules in use at the collective level. It draws on experience
                                                 but allows for novelty, innovation, and experimentation within the framework of
                                                 accumulated experience (e.g., Reference 140), referred to as framed creativity (68).
                                                   Social memory seems to play an important role in the adaptive comanagement
                                                 process when key persons draw on social memory of several scales in reorgani-
                                                 zation following change. Social networks can be key mechanisms for drawing on
                                                 social memory at critical times and enhance information flow and collaboration
                                                 across scales. The social memory of past changes in ecosystems, and responses to
                                                 these, can be mobilized and fed into processes whereby structures of governance of
                                                 ecosystem are decided, management practices worked out, and conflicts resolved.
                                                 This requires leadership at various organizational levels (110, 157).
                                               454   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                    Different agents/actors or team/actor groups seem to play significant roles, as
                                                  part of social memory, in mobilizing the social network to deal with change and
                                                  unexpected events and to reorganize accordingly. Guimer` et al. (158) find that
                                                  team self-assembly mechanisms determine the structure of collaboration networks
                                                  and team performance. They suggest that team size, the fraction of newcomers, and
                                                  the tendency of incumbents to repeat previous collaboration are of significance.
                                                  Holling & Chambers (159) identified in their workshops on adaptive management
                                                  a set of characters that emerges in the process and that take on different roles
                                                  from leadership to those who oppose and criticize. Gladwell (160) in his book on
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  tipping points stresses the social roles of mavens (altruistic individuals, with social
                                                  skills, who serve as information brokers, sharing and trading what they know) and
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  connectors (individuals who know lots of people not only by numbers but the kind
                                                  of people they know and in particular the diversity of acquaintances). They are the
                                                  strength of the weak ties and enhance the information base of their social network.
                                                  Mavens are data banks and provide the message. Connectors are social glue and
                                                  spread the message, and then there are salesmen, individuals with the social skills
                                                  to persuade people unconvinced of what they are hearing. All interact to create
                                                  rapid and large change (160).
                                                    Many patterns of adaptive comanagement can be understood by personal traits,
                                                  and these traits combined with the roles of teams or actor groups are important
                                                  factors for building adaptive capacity and provide a source of social resilience in
                                                  social-ecological systems. Bebbington (161) identified brokers with different back-
                                                  grounds, including a priest, university professor, European volunteers, and funding
                                                  agencies that came from outside and played key roles in sustainable agriculture
                                                  intensification in the Andes. They brought in new ideas, but more importantly they
                                                  brought in networks of contacts that helped the members of the local communi-
                                                  ties gain access to nonlocal institutions and resources, including access to NGOs
                                                  with technical assistance and financial resources, sources of technology, donors,
                                                  and alternative trading networks. Tompkins et al. (162) show how expanding and
                                                  linking networks of dependence and exchange helps facilitate integrated and in-
                                                  clusive coastal management in Trinidad and Tobago. Such networks spread across
                                                  national and international boundaries in ways that would have been hard for the
                                                  locals to do on their own.
                                                    Other social roles of key individuals operating in teams or actor groups in
                                                  adaptive comanagement systems include knowledge carriers, knowledge gener-
                                                  ators, stewards, leaders, and people who make sense of available information
                                                  (109). Folke et al. (68), using several case studies, also identified the following
                                                  actor groups: knowledge retainers, interpreters, facilitators, visionaries, inspirers,
                                                  innovators, experimenters, followers, and reinforcers. Social capital focuses on
                                                  relationships among such groups, i.e., the bridging and bonding links between
                                                  people in social networks (163, 164). Applied to adaptive governance, these re-
                                                  lationships must be fed with relevant knowledge on ecosystem dynamics. This is
                                                  related to the capacity of teams to process information, to make sense of scien-
                                                  tific data and connect it to an empirical context, to mobilize the social memory of
                                                                        ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 experiences from past changes and responses, and to facilitate adaptive and inno-
                                                 vative responses.
                                                   Social roles of actor groups are all important components of social networks
                                                 and essential for creating the conditions that we argue are necessary for adaptive
                                                 governance of ecosystem dynamics during periods of rapid change and reorga-
                                                 nization. Linking different actors groups in networks and creating opportunities
                                                 for new interactions are important for dealing with uncertainty and change and
                                                 critical factors for learning and nurturing integrated adaptive responses to change
                                                 (165). We hypothesize that the combination of social roles of agent/actor and
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 team/actor groups as part of social memory as well as their diversity, overlapping
                                                 functions, and redundancy provide resilience for reorganization, allow for nov-
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 elty, and thereby enhance adaptive capacity in the face of disturbance and crisis
                                                 (68). But their combination may also cause barriers, collision, and erosion of so-
                                                 cial capital and social memory, as may be the case when different cultural value
                                                 systems, worldviews, and discrepancies in conceptualization are brought together
                                                 and interact (e.g., Reference 166) or when the cultural dynamics created by the
                                                 policies of those in power during earlier periods may inhibit development of the
                                                 ability to respond to disturbance and surprise (99). In this sense, the underlying
                                                 worldview of resource management (167) may impose a grid on social memory
                                                 for managing ecosystem dynamics (1), and opinion shifts may be inhibited by
                                                 credible authorities, who neglect the problem, or by competition for attention to
                                                 other issues and problems that take place simultaneously (111).
                                                   However, key individuals with strong leadership may catalyze opinion shifts
                                                 (111, 160), and creative teams and actor groups may emerge into a large connected
                                                 community of practitioners who prepare a social-ecological system for change
                                                 (105, 158) and transform it into a new state as discussed below. Such fundamental
                                                 change in social-ecological systems can occur rapidly (111).

                                               Transforming Governance for Social-Ecological
                                                 Surprise and crisis seem to create space for reorganization, renewal, and nov-
                                                 elty as well as provide opportunities for new ways of social self-organization for
                                                 resilience (8). The crises may be caused by, for example, external markets and
                                                 tourism pressure, floods and flood management, shifts in property rights, threats
                                                 of acidification, resource failures, rigid paradigms of resource management, and
                                                 new legislation or governmental policies that do not take into account local con-
                                                 texts (42). A social-ecological system with low levels of social memory and social
                                                 capital is vulnerable to such changes and may as a consequence deteriorate into
                                                 undesired states.
                                                  In contrast, crisis may trigger mobilization of social capital and social memory
                                                 and may result in new forms of governance systems with the ability to manage
                                                 dynamic ecosystems and landscapes. This has been referred to as building social
                                                 capacity for resilience in social-ecological systems (68), and it requires inducing
                                               456   FOLKE ET AL.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  Figure 1 The role of leadership in transforming an organization toward ecosystem
                                                  management and sustaining it [modified from Danter et al. (59)].

                                                  change in social structures (58). For instance, in a study of the U.S. Fish and
                                                  Wildlife Service, Danter et al. (59) highlight the need for organizational change
                                                  as a component of ecosystem management and put forward the role of leadership
                                                  in actively initiating change within organizations (Figure 1). Visionary leaders
                                                  fabricate new and vital meanings, overcome contradictions, create new synthesis,
                                                  and forge new alliances between knowledge and action (58). Leadership that can
                                                  engage and change the opinions and values of a critical mass of people to create
                                                  an epidemic movement toward an idea has been investigated by Scheffer et al.
                                                  (111) and is referred to as tipping-point leadership (168). Kingdon (169) stresses
                                                  the importance of timing for initiating change and suggests that policy windows
                                                  open either when decision makers perceive a problem as pressing and seek a policy
                                                  (problem-driven window) or when they adopt a theme for their administration and
                                                  look for problems that may justify change and proposals that are along the theme
                                                  (politically driven window). A policy entrepreneur in this context is a person who
                                                  connects political momentum to problem perception and a policy proposal. Grindle
                                                  & Thomas (170) have also studied the role of such key individuals in shaping and
                                                  influencing policy and institutional change with a focus on developing countries.
                                                  Key individuals assess and identify a range of opportunities for change, a process
                                                  referred to as creating policy space. Single individuals have also been found to play
                                                  key functions in managing boundaries between different organizations involved in
                                                                       ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                               science and policy and also in the context of learning, knowledge generation, and
                                               social responses for dealing with global environmental risks (103, 171), including
                                               the social amplification of risk (172).
                                                 In the literature on resilience, adaptability is the capacity of actors in a social-
                                               ecological system to manage resilience in the face of uncertainty and surprise.
                                               It implies remaining and developing within the current attractor of the social-
                                               ecological system. In contrast, transformability is the capacity to create a funda-
                                               mentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political)
                                               conditions make the existing system untenable. Transformability means creating
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               and defining a new attractor that directs the development of the social-ecological
                                               system by introducing new components and ways of making a living, thereby
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                               changing the state variables, and often the scales of key cycles, that define the
                                               system (18).
                                                 Transformations toward alternative forms of governance have been addressed by
                                               Kettl (135), Kuks & Bressers (173) and Agrawal (174). In a recent paper (109), we
                                               analyzed the emergence of a governance system for adaptive comanagement of the
                                               wetland landscape of Kristianstad in southern Sweden, a process whereby uncon-
                                               nected management by several actors in the landscape was mobilized, renewed, and
                                               moved into a new configuration of ecosystem management within about a decade.
                                               The self-organizing process was triggered by the perceived threats to the area’s
                                               cultural and ecological values among people of various local steward associations
                                               and local government. A key individual provided visionary leadership in directing
                                               change and transforming governance. The transformation involved four phases: (a)
                                               preparing the system for change, (b) the opening of an opportunity, (c) navigating
                                               the transition, and (d ) charting a new direction for management while building
                                               resilience of the new governance regime (Figure 2). Trust-building dialogues, mo-
                                               bilization of social networks with actors and teams across scales, coordination
                                               of ongoing activities, sense making, collaborative learning, and creating public
                                               awareness were part of the process. A comprehensive framework with a shared
                                               vision and goals that presented conservation as development and turned problems
                                               into opportunities was developed and contributed to a shift in values and mean-
                                               ing of the wetland landscape among key actors. The shift was facilitated through
                                               broader scale crises, such as seal deaths and toxic algal blooms in the North Sea,
                                               which caused environmental issues to become top priority on the national political
                                               level, at the time of a search for a new identity at the municipality level. Hence, a
                                               window of opportunity at the political level opened, which made it possible to tip
                                               and transform the governance system into a trajectory of adaptive comanagement
                                               of the landscape with extensive social networks of practitioners engaged in mul-
                                               tilevel governance. The transformation took place within the existing institutional
                                               framework (140). As observed by McCay (94), changing perceptions of the envi-
                                               ronment can change human behavior on a fairly large scale without involving the
                                               social dynamics and political behavior involved in making and changing rules.
                                                 Transformational leadership includes recognizing opportunities, identifying
                                               and transforming constraints and barriers, such as conflicts of interests, values,
              Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from
                  by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                                     FOLKE ET AL.

Figure 2 Transformation toward adaptive comanagement of the wetland landscape in southern Sweden. The transformation was orchestrated
by leaders providing vision and meaning, learning and knowledge generation, and gluing and expanding social networks, thereby preparing
the social-ecological system for change when the opportunity opened [reprinted with permission from Olsson et al. (109)].
                                                                        ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                and opinions (175). This is critical for reducing the resilience of undesired trajec-
                                                tories and building up a momentum for moving into new trajectories (58). Currently
                                                efforts in the wetland landscape of Kristianstad are directed toward strengthening
                                                the resilience of the new governance system in the performance of ecosystem man-
                                                agement. Olsson et al. (109) identified 30 different strategies for increasing the
                                                capacity for dealing with uncertainty and change and divided these strategies into
                                                developing motivation and values for ecosystem management, directing the local
                                                context through adaptive comanagement, and navigating the larger environment.
                                                The new governance system strives to combine vision, direction, learning, and
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                management and has been instrumental in orchestrating the area to become the
                                                first Man and the Biosphere Reserve in Sweden.
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  Successful social transformations toward adaptive governance for ecosystem
                                                management seem to be preceded by the emergence of informal networks, orches-
                                                trated by key individuals, that help facilitate information flows, identify knowledge
                                                gaps, and create nodes of expertise of significance for ecosystem management that
                                                can be drawn upon at critical times. These networks place emphasis on political
                                                independence, out of the fray of regulation and implementation, places where for-
                                                mal networks and many planning processes fail (50). Gunderson et al. (99) have
                                                emphasized the role of such shadow networks as incubators of new approaches
                                                for governing social-ecological systems. Because members of these networks are
                                                not always under scrutiny or obligations of their agencies or constituencies, most
                                                likely they are freer to develop alternative policies, dare to learn from each other,
                                                and think creatively about the resolution of resource problems. But, even if the new
                                                adaptive governance system is performing in a resilient manner through adaptive
                                                comanagement of ecosystems and landscapes it may be challenged and fragile
                                                during changes in external drivers.

                                               ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE IN RELATION
                                               TO THE BROADER ENVIRONMENT
                                                Lots of efforts may go in to supporting the emergence of adaptive governance
                                                for management of ecosystems, and such governance may perform quite success-
                                                fully during periods of gradual change. But rapid change may challenge the whole
                                                governance system. In the Kristianstad example, a change in European Union agri-
                                                cultural subsidies of cattle grazing or a rapid increase in climate-induced flooding
                                                may perturb the system and cause irreversible change. Therefore, key stewards
                                                actively develop strategies that prepare for uncertainty and surprise. They navi-
                                                gate the larger environment of social, economic, and ecological drivers to reduce
                                                vulnerability and thereby enhance their ability to cope with change as resource
                                                development continues along desired trajectories.
                                                  Vulnerability research emphasizes the importance of addressing both the role
                                                of external forces and rapid change in reshaping social-ecological systems as well
                                                as the different capacities of agents/actors in the system to respond to change on
                                                the basis of their access to social and biophysical capital (36). In their review on
                                               460   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  causes behind land-use change, Lambin et al. (176) argue that land-use change can
                                                  be understood using the concepts of complex adaptive systems and transitions.
                                                  They illustrate that synergies between resource scarcity leading to an increase
                                                  in the pressure of production on resources, changing opportunities created by
                                                  markets, outside policy intervention, loss of adaptive capacity, and changes in
                                                  social organization and attitudes are essential drivers that challenge governance
                                                  systems in tropical regions. The strength of marine tenure institutions in Papua
                                                  New Guinea and Indonesia seems to be undermined by connectivity to larger
                                                  markets. Immigration, dependence on fishing, and conflicts also impact marine
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  tenure systems (177). Differences in land tenure, agricultural policy, and market
                                                  conditions are more significant drivers of long-term changes in semiarid African
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  savannas than are agro-pastoral population growth, cattle numbers, or small-holder
                                                  land use (178). Increasing vulnerability places a region on a trajectory of greater
                                                  risk to the panoply of stresses and shocks that occur over time. Catastrophes, i.e.,
                                                  undesirable sudden changes in social-ecological systems, are due to a combination
                                                  of the magnitude of external forces and the internal resilience of the system.
                                                  As resilience declines, it takes a progressively smaller external event to cause
                                                  a catastrophe. The process is a cumulative one in which sequences of shocks and
                                                  stresses punctuate the trends, and the inability to replenish coping resources propels
                                                  a region and its people to increasing criticality (6, 7, 179).
                                                    Hence, adaptive governance of social-ecological resilience also requires ca-
                                                  pacity to deal with the broader environment and preparation for uncertainty and
                                                  surprise (180). A growing literature on polycentric institutions (124, 125, 181)
                                                  demonstrates that flexible coping with external drivers and rapid change is en-
                                                  hanced by systems of governance that exist at multiple levels with some degree of
                                                  autonomy, complemented by modest overlaps in authority and capability (155).
                                                  Such flexible institutional arrangements have been judged as inefficient because
                                                  they look messy and are nonhierarchical in structure, but they help provide a reper-
                                                  toire of general design principles that can be drawn on by resource users at multiple
                                                  levels to aid in the crafting of new institutions that cope with changing situations
                                                  (182, 183).
                                                    A lot of attention is given to multilevel governance and cross-scale interactions
                                                  in relation to social-ecological systems and adaptive comanagement (e.g., Refer-
                                                  ences 41, 127, 129, 138, 184–186). The real challenge is dealing with systems
                                                  that are not only cross-scale but also dynamic, whereby the nature of cross-scale
                                                  influences in the linked social-ecological system changes over time, creating fun-
                                                  damental problems for division of responsibility between centralized and decen-
                                                  tralized agents (187). Gunderson & Holling (8) use the concept “panarchy” as a
                                                  heuristic model to conceptualize complex interactions, emphasizing the interplay
                                                  between periods of gradual and rapid change within and between scales and be-
                                                  tween novelty and memory, and scholars have used such aspects to address change
                                                  in complex adaptive social-ecological systems (e.g., References 188 and 189).
                                                    An important factor in this context is organizations in adaptive comanage-
                                                  ment that emerge to bridge local actors and communities with other scales of
                                                                      ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                               organizations. Such bridging organizations can serve as filters for external drivers
                                               (190) and also provide opportunities by bringing in resources, knowledge, and other
                                               incentives for ecosystem management. Westley (58) used the term “bridging” for
                                               interorganizational collaboration. In Kristianstad, southern Sweden, a bridging or-
                                               ganization, the Ecomuseum Kristianstad Vattenrike, emerged as a local response
                                               to the perceived crisis in wetland landscape management. The Ecomuseum pro-
                                               vides an arena for building trust, sense making, learning, vertical and/or horizontal
                                               collaboration, and conflict resolution. The bridging organization encompasses the
                                               function of a boundary organization (171, 191) by communicating, translating,
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               and mediating scientific knowledge to make it relevant to policy and action. The
                                               organization also uses its network of stakeholders to mobilize knowledge and so-
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                               cial memory in turbulent times, which in turn help deal with uncertainty and shape
                                               change (68).
                                                 NGOs may act as bridging organizations in, for example, community-based
                                               ecosystem management in tropical regions, and scientists may serve as visionary
                                               leaders in the process (e.g., Reference 81). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
                                               ( provides several local examples of how bridging organi-
                                               zations perform essential functions in crafting effective responses, often without
                                               changing formal institutions (192). These include the bottom-up initiative in Swe-
                                               den, a top-down initiative in the Philippines, and external initiatives in Indonesia
                                               and Chile. About 12 million people live around the Laguna Lake in the Philippines.
                                               The governance was compartmentalized and nonparticipatory before the author-
                                               ities formed 33 River Rehabilitation Councils (RRCs), which included several
                                               stakeholders. The RRCs can be regarded as bridging organizations that are able to
                                               address social as well as ecological drivers and make comprehensive and effective
                                               responses to declining trends. The scientific community played an important role in
                                               the formation of RRCs (193). Development agencies and research institutes, such
                                               as the Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) program of International Centre for
                                               Research in Agroforestry, can also act as catalyzer and perform functions similar to
                                               bridging organizations. In Indonesia, the ASB facilitated a tenure reform by invest-
                                               ing several years in dialogue and consensus building with NGOs, local government
                                               offices, and the Krui community. Eventually the ASB managed to convince the au-
                                               thorities of the high social benefits from community agroforestry (194). In northern
                                               Chile, a small research center without formal political or economic power man-
                                               aged to provide an arena with an advisory committee, for indigenous communities,
                                               large mining companies, tourist operators, and local government officials. Access
                                               to information and the unique opportunity to interact because of a complex and
                                               pressing issue attracted these participants. A history of distrust was broken when,
                                               for the first time, they sat down together to discuss ecosystem management and
                                               local development. Capacity building was reinforced through scenario workshops
                                               undertaken in late 2004, as part of The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (195).
                                                 Bridging organizations thrive under open institutions (196), which provide flex-
                                               ibility and space for dealing with the ambiguity of multiple objectives. These are
                                               important in strengthening the adaptive capacity of local actors. By reducing the
                                               462   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  (nonmonetary) transaction costs of collaboration, bridging organizations can be
                                                  described as providing social incentives to stakeholders to invest in building trust,
                                                  identification of common interests, and resolving conflict (140). The facilitation,
                                                  leadership, and social incentives for collaboration provided by bridging organi-
                                                  zations or key persons in the community appear to be essential for building the
                                                  capacity to adapt to change (118).
                                                    In a similar vein, McCay (94) states that emergence of viable governance in-
                                                  stitutions may depend on the creation of large multistakeholder organizations or
                                                  encompassing organizations. She refers to a coordinating unit that was created in
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  Ecuador (using a model tried out in Mexico) and that represented local communi-
                                                  ties, timber companies, government agencies, environmental NGOs, and foreign
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  assistance groups. It became a forum for discussion and debate on sustainable
                                                  forestry issues, and a civic arena for bargaining and making compromises and
                                                  trade-offs, as well as communication. The local communities were able to im-
                                                  prove the terms of trade with the timber companies because they could exchange
                                                  information on deals offered and cooperate in demanding better prices. The timber
                                                  companies also benefited by getting the communities to agree on a workable policy
                                                  for sales of timber land.

                                                  In recent years cooperative and collaborative efforts and participatory approaches
                                                  have become increasingly popular in ecosystem management and governmental
                                                  policy. Stakeholder meetings, engaging different actors in workshop settings, have
                                                  been part of the process. There has been a tendency, however, for the natural sci-
                                                  entists to do the science first or governmental agencies to develop the agenda first,
                                                  present it to the different groups, and incorporate these groups in already estab-
                                                  lished frameworks. Complex social dynamics, such as trust building and power
                                                  relations, have often been underestimated and the view of social relationships
                                                  simplified. Once a problem needing collaboration moves into the public arena,
                                                  stakeholders tend to become frozen in polarized positions, and any real negotiation
                                                  becomes difficult (58). Consequently, many attempts for ecosystem stewardship
                                                  have failed.
                                                    In this review, we have explored the social dimension of adaptive comanage-
                                                  ment of ecosystems and landscapes, referred to as systems of adaptive governance.
                                                  The focus has been on social features and sources that seem to be of significance in
                                                  responding to crisis, shaping change and building resilience for reorganization and
                                                  renewal of social-ecological systems, both internally and in relation to external per-
                                                  turbations. This challenge involves linking a broad range of actors at multiple scales
                                                  to deal with the interrelated dynamics of resources and ecosystems, management
                                                  systems and social systems, as well as uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise.
                                                    Adaptive governance focuses on experimentation and learning, and it brings
                                                  together research on institutions and organizations for collaboration, collective
                                                                       ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                               action, and conflict resolution in relation to natural resource and ecosystem man-
                                               agement. The essential role of individuals needs to be recognized in this context
                                               (e.g., leadership, trust building, vision, and meaning); their social relations (e.g.,
                                               actor groups, knowledge systems, social memory) and social networks serve as
                                               the web that tie together the adaptive governance system. It has cross-level and
                                               cross-scale activities and includes governmental policies that frame creativity. The
                                               notion of adaptation implies capacity to respond to change and even transform
                                               social-ecological systems into improved states.
                                                 Research on adaptive governance of social-ecological systems illustrate that
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               the management of ecosystem and landscapes is complex to apprehend and imple-
                                               ment and, therefore, cannot easily be subject to planning and control by a central
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                               organization, such as a national government. However, the conditions creating the
                                               opportunities for adaptive comanagement to self-organize, such as enabling leg-
                                               islation, flexible institutions, and recognition of bridging organization, are good
                                               candidates for governmental actions, which can be carefully tested and evaluated.
                                                 The review highlights the following four interacting aspects of importance in
                                               adaptive governance of complex social-ecological systems:
                                                  Build knowledge and understanding of resource and ecosystem dynamics;
                                                  detecting and responding to environmental feedback in a fashion that con-
                                                  tributes to resilience require ecological knowledge and understanding of
                                                  ecosystem processes and functions. All sources of understanding need to
                                                  be mobilized, and management of complex adaptive systems may benefit
                                                  from the combination of different knowledge systems. Social incentives for
                                                  ecological knowledge generation need to be in place as well as the capacity
                                                  to monitor and translate signals (feedback) from ecosystem dynamics into
                                                  knowledge that can be used in the social system.
                                                  Feed ecological knowledge into adaptive management practices; successful
                                                  management is characterized by continuous testing, monitoring, and reevalu-
                                                  ation to enhance adaptive responses, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty
                                                  in complex systems. It is increasingly proposed that knowledge generation
                                                  of ecosystem dynamics should be explicitly integrated with adaptive man-
                                                  agement practices rather than striving for optimization based on past records.
                                                  This aspect emphasizes a learning environment that requires leadership and
                                                  changes of social norms within management organizations.
                                                  Support flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems; the adap-
                                                  tive governance framework is operationalized through adaptive comanage-
                                                  ment whereby the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive management
                                                  is combined with the multilevel linkage characteristic of comanagement.
                                                  The sharing of management power and responsibility may involve multiple
                                                  and often polycentric institutional and organizational linkages among user
                                                  groups or communities, government agencies, and nongovernmental organi-
                                                  zations, i.e., neither centralization nor decentralization but cross-level inter-
                                                  actions. Adaptive comanagement relies on the collaboration of a diverse set of
                                               464   FOLKE ET AL.

                                                    stakeholders, operating at different levels through social networks. This as-
                                                    pect emphasizes the role of multilevel social networks to generate and transfer
                                                    knowledge and develop social capital as well as legal, political, and financial
                                                    support to ecosystem management initiatives.
                                                    Deal with external perturbations, uncertainty and surprise; it is not sufficient
                                                    for a well-functioning multilevel governance system to be in tune with the
                                                    dynamics of the ecosystems under management. It also needs to develop
                                                    capacity for dealing with changes in climate, disease outbreaks, hurricanes,
                                                    global market demands, subsidies, and governmental policies. The chal-
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                    lenge for the social-ecological system is to accept uncertainty, be prepared
                                                    for change and surprise, and enhance the adaptive capacity to deal with dis-
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                    turbance. Nonresilient social-ecological systems are vulnerable to external
                                                    change, whereas a resilient system may even make use of disturbances as
                                                    opportunities to transform into more desired states.

                                                  We would like to thank friends and colleagues of the Resilience Alliance, Stock-
                                                  holm University, and the Beijer Institute for constructive discussions. FORMAS,
                                                  the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial
                                                  Planning, has supported our work.

                                                     The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online at

                                               LITERATURE CITED
                                               1. Holling CS, Meffe GK. 1996. Command       Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Re-
                                                 and control and the pathology of natu-      sour. Inst.
                                                 ral resource management. Conserv. Biol.   6.  Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner BL,
                                                 10:328–37                    eds. 1995. Regions at Risk: Compar-
                                               2. Redman C. 1999. Human Impact on An-       isons of Threatened Environments. Tokyo:
                                                 cient Environments. Tucson, AZ: Univ.      United Nations Univ. Press
                                                 Ariz. Press                 7.  Allison HE, Hobbs RJ. 2004. Resilience,
                                               3. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH,        adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap”
                                                 Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, et al. 2001.      of the western Australian agricultural re-
                                                 Historical overfishing and the recent col-    gion. Ecol. Soc. 9(1):3.
                                                 lapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:
                                                 629–37                   8.  Gunderson L, Holling CS, eds. 2002. Pa-
                                               4. Diamond J. 2005. Collapse: How Soci-       narchy: Understanding Transformations
                                                 eties Choose to Fail or Survive. London:     in Human and Natural Systems. Washing-
                                                 Lane                       ton, DC: Island
                                               5. Millenn. Ecosyst. Assess. 2005. Ecosys-   9.  Steffen W, Sanderson A, Tyson PD, Jager
                                                 tems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity     J, Matson PM, et al. 2004. Global Change
                                                                            ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                  and the Earth System: A Planet Under        ing with collapse: ecological and social
                                                  Pressure. New York: Springer-Verlag         dynamics in ecosystem management. Bio-
                                               10.  Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer      Science 6:451–57
                                                  M, Elmqvist T, et al. 2004. Regime shifts,  23.  Carpenter SR, Walker B, Anderies JM,
                                                  resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem      Abel N. 2001. From metaphor to measure-
                                                  management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.      ment: resilience of what to what? Ecosys-
                                                  35:557–81                      tems 4:765–81
                                               11.  Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley J, Folke    24.  Gunderson L, Pritchard L, eds. 2002. Re-
                                                  C, Walker B. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in      silience and the Behavior of Large Scale
                                                  ecosystems. Nature 413:591–696           Systems. Washington, DC: Island
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               12.  Odum EP. 1989. Ecology and Our Endan-     25.  Hughes T, Bellwood D, Folke C, Steneck
                                                  gered Life-Support System. Sunderland,       R, Wilson J. 2005. New paradigms for
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  MA: Sinauer                     supporting resilience of marine ecosys-
                                               13.  Folke C, Jansson A, Larsson J, Costanza       tems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:380–86
                                                  R. 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by      26.  Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS. 1998.
                                                  cities. Ambio 26:167–72               Ecological resilience, biodiversity and
                                               14.  Natl. Res. Counc. 1999. Our Common         scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18
                                                  Journey: A Transition Toward Sustain-     27.  Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nystr¨ m M, Peter-
                                                  ability. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.        son G, Bengtsson J, et al. 2003. Response
                                               15.  Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stabil-      diversity and ecosystem resilience. Front.
                                                  ity of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol.     Ecol. Environ. 1:488–94
                                                  Syst. 4:1–23                 28.  Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hec-
                                               16.  Holling CS. 1986. The resilience of terres-     tor A, Inchausti P, et al. 2005. Eeffects
                                                  trial ecosystems: local surprise and global     of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning:
                                                  change. In Sustainable Development of        a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol.
                                                  the Biosphere, ed. WC Clark, RE Munn,        Monogr. 75:3–36
                                                  pp. 292–317. London: Cambridge Univ.     29.  Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown
                                                  Press                        JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, et al. 1996.
                                               17.  Holling CS. 2001. Understanding the         The report of the Ecological Society of
                                                  complexity of economic, ecological, and       America Committee on the scientific basis
                                                  social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405        for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl.
                                               18.  Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR,         6:665–91
                                                  Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability   30.  Dale VH, Brown S, Haeuber RA, Hobbs
                                                  and transformability in social-ecological      NT, Huntly N, et al. 2000. Ecological prin-
                                                  systems. Ecol. Soc. 9(2):5. http://www.       ciples and guidelines for managing the use
                                                of land. Ecol. Appl. 107:639–70
                                               19.  van der Leeuw SE. 2000. Land degrada-     31.  Waltner-Toews D, Kay J. 2005. The evo-
                                                  tion as a socionatural process. See Ref.      lution of an ecosystem approach: the dia-
                                                  197, pp. 190–210                  mond schematic and an adaptive method-
                                               20.  Costanza R, Waigner L, Folke C, M¨ ler a      ology for ecosystem sustainability and
                                                  K-G. 1993. Modeling complex ecological       health. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):38. http://www.
                                                  economic systems: towards an evolution-
                                                  ary dynamic understanding of people and    32.  Holland JH, Holyoak KJ, Nisbett RE,
                                                  nature. BioScience 43:545–55            Thagard PR. 1986. Induction: Processes
                                               21.  Levin S. 1999. Fragile Dominion: Com-        of Inference, Learning, and Discovery.
                                                  plexity and the Commons. Reading, MA:        Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
                                                  Perseus                    33.  Arthur WB. 1999. Complexity and the
                                               22.  Carpenter SR, Gunderson LH. 2001. Cop-       economy. Science 284:107–9
                                               466   FOLKE ET AL.

                                               34. Janssen MA, Jager W. 2001. Fash-       45. Westley F, Carpenter SR, Brock WA,
                                                 ions, habits and changing preferences:      Holling CS, Gunderson LH. 2002. Why
                                                 simulation of psychological factors affect-    systems of people and nature are not just
                                                 ing market dynamics. J. Econ. Psychol.      social and ecological systems. See Ref. 8,
                                                 22:745–72                     pp. 103–19
                                               35. Lansing JS. 2003. Complex adaptive sys-    46. Huitric M. 2005. Lobster and conch
                                                 tems. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 32:183–204      fisheries of Belize: a history of sequential
                                               36. Turner BL II, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ,       exploitation. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):21. http://
                                                 Corell RW, Christensen L, et al. 2003. Sci-
                                                 ence and technology for sustainable de-      art21/
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 velopment special feature: illustrating the  47. Bodin O, Norberg J. 2005. Information
                                                 coupled human-environment system for       network topologies for enhanced local
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 vulnerability analysis. Three case stud-     adaptive management. Environ. Manag.
                                                 ies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:8080–     35(2):175–93
                                                 85                      48. Carpenter SR, Brock WA. 2004. Spa-
                                               37. Waltner-Toews D, Kay JJ, Neudoerffer C,      tial complexity, resilience and policy di-
                                                 Gitau T. 2003. Perspective changes ev-      versity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes.
                                                 erything: managing ecosystems from the      Ecol. Soc. 9(1):8. http://www.ecology
                                                 inside out. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1:23–
                                                 30                      49. Holling CS. 1978. Adaptive Environmen-
                                               38. Gallopin GC, Funtowicz S, O’Connor M,       tal Assessment and Management. Lon-
                                                 Ravetz J. 2001. Science for the twenty-      don: Wiley
                                                 first century: from social contract to the   50. Gunderson L. 1999. Resilience, flexib-
                                                 scientific core. Int. J. Soc. Sci. 168:219–    ility and adaptive management: antidotes
                                                 29                        for spurious certitude? Conserv. Ecol. 3:
                                               39. Holmes CM. 2001. Navigating the so-        7.
                                                 cioecological landscape. Conserv. Biol.      7
                                                 15:1466–67                  51. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. 2003. The
                                               40. Berkes F, Folke C, eds. 1998. Linking       struggle to govern the commons. Science
                                                 Social and Ecological Systems: Manage-      302:1902–12
                                                 ment Practices and Social Mechanisms     52. Stoker G. 1998. Governance as the-
                                                 for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK:      ory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J.
                                                 Cambridge Univ. Press               50(155):17–28
                                               41. Costanza R, Low BS, Ostrom E, Wilson     53. Lee M. 2003. Conceptualizing the new
                                                 J. 2001. Institutions, Ecosystems, and Sus-    governance: a new institution of social
                                                 tainability. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis        coordination. Presented at the Inst. Anal.
                                               42. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, eds.        Dev. Mini-Conf., May 3–5, Workshop
                                                 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Sys-      Polit. Theory Policy Anal., Indiana Univ.,
                                                 tems: Building Resilience for Complexity     Bloomington
                                                 and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge     54. Lebel L, Anderies JM, Cambell B,
                                                 Univ. Press                    Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, et al. 2005.
                                               43. Janssen MA, Anderies JM, Walker BH.        Governance and the capacity to manage
                                                 2004. Robust strategies for managing       resilience in regional social-ecological
                                                 rangelands with multiple stable attractors.    systems. Ecol. Soc. In press
                                                 J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47:140–62      55. Boyle M, Kay J, Pond B. 2001. Mon-
                                               44. Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B. 2001.        itoring in support of policy: an adap-
                                                 Ecology, conservation, and public policy.     tive ecosystem approach. In Encyclope-
                                                 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:481–517         dia of Global Environmental Change,
                                                                             ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                  Vol. 4, ed. T Munn, pp. 116–37. New         portance of institutional diversity. Annu.
                                                  York: Wiley                     Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:113–33
                                               56.  Lee KN. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope:      70.  Peterson GD, Carpenter SR, Brock WA.
                                                  Integrating Science and Politics for the       2003. Uncertainty and the management of
                                                  Environment. Washington, DC: Island         multistate ecosystems: an apparently ra-
                                               57.  Grumbine RE. 1994. What is ecosystem         tional route to collapse. Ecology 84:1403–
                                                  management? Conserv. Biol. 8:27–38          11
                                               58.  Westley F. 1995. Governing design:       71.  Costanza R, Cornwell L. 1992. The 4p
                                                  the management of social systems and         approach to dealing with scientific uncer-
                                                  ecosystems management. See Ref. 99, pp.       tainty. Environment 34(9):12–20, 42
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  391–427                    72.  Kates RW, Clark WC. 1996. Expecting
                                               59.  Danter KJ, Griest DL, Mullins GW, Nor-        the unexpected. Environment 38(2):6–11,
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  land E. 2000. Organizational change as        28–34
                                                  a component of ecosystem management.      73.  Chambers R. 1994. Beyond Farmers First.
                                                  Soc. Nat. Resour. 13:537–47             London: IT Publ.
                                               60.  Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E.       74.  Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM,
                                                  2004. A framework to analyze the ro-         Jaeger CC, et al. 2001. Environment and
                                                  bustness of social-ecological systems        development: sustainability science. Sci-
                                                  from an institutional perspective. Ecol.       ence 292(5517):641–42
                                                  Soc. 9(1):18. http://www.ecologyandsoc     75.  Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C. 1993. In-
                                                      digenous knowledge for biodiversity con-
                                               61.  Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding Institu-        servation. Ambio 22:151–56
                                                  tional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton   76.  Nabhan GP. 1997. Cultures of Habitat:
                                                  Univ. Press                     On Nature, Culture, and Story. Washing-
                                               62.  Ostrom E, Ahn TK. 2003. Foundations of        ton, DC: Counterpoint
                                                  Social Capital. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar     77.  Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Re-
                                               63.  Adger WN. 2003. Social capital, col-         discovery of traditional ecological knowl-
                                                  lective action and adaptation to climate       edge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl.
                                                  change. Econ. Geogr. 79:387–404           10:1251–62
                                               64.  Pretty J. 2003. Social capital and the col-  78.  Fabricius C, Koch E, eds. 2004. Rights,
                                                  lective management of resources. Science       Resources and Rural Development: Com-
                                                  302:1912–14                     munity-Based Natural Resource Manage-
                                               65.  Scoones I. 1999. New ecology and the so-       ment in Southern Africa. London: Earth-
                                                  cial sciences: what prospects for a fruitful     scan
                                                  engagement? Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:     79.  McLain R, Lee R. 1996. Adaptive man-
                                                  479–507                       agement: promises and pitfalls. J. Envi-
                                               66.  Abel T, Stepp JR. 2003. A new ecosys-        ron. Manag. 20:437–48
                                                  tems ecology for anthropology. Conserv.    80.  Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Licht-
                                                  Ecol. 7(3):12.       enfeld LL. 2000. Community natural re-
                                                  vol7/iss3/art12/                   source management: promise, rhetoric,
                                               67.  McIntosh RJ. 2000. Social memory in         and reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13:705–15
                                                  Mande. See Ref. 197, pp. 141–80        81.  Gadgil M, Seshagiri Rao PR, Utkarsh G,
                                               68.  Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F. 2003. Syn-       Pramod P, Chatre A. 2000. New mean-
                                                  thesis: building resilience and adaptive ca-     ings for old knowledge: the people’s bio-
                                                  pacity in social-ecological systems. See       diversity registers programme. Ecol. Appl.
                                                  Ref. 42, pp. 352–87                 10:1307–17
                                               69.  Becker CD, Ostrom E. 1995. Human ecol-     82.  Colding J, Folke C. 2001. Social taboos:
                                                  ogy and resource sustainability: the im-       “invisible” systems of local resource
                                               468    FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  management and biological conservation.       preservation in Ecuador. Conserv. Ecol.
                                                  Ecol. Appl. 11:584–600               8(1):1.
                                               83.  Armitage DR. 2003. Traditional agroe-        s1/art1/
                                                  cological knowledge, adaptive manage-     93.  Berkes F, Folke C. 2002. Back to the
                                                  ment and the socio-politics of conserva-      future: ecosystem dynamics and local
                                                  tion in central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Envi-     knowledge. See Ref. 8, pp. 121–46
                                                  ron. Conserv. 302:79–90            94.  McCay BJ. 2002. Emergence of institu-
                                               84.  Brown K. 2003. Integrating conservation       tions for the commons: contexts, situa-
                                                  and development: a case of institutional      tions, and events. See Ref. 182, pp. 361–
                                                  misfit. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1(9):479–87      402
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               85.  Davis A, Wagner JR. 2003. Who knows?     95.  Holling CS, Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Sci-
                                                  On the importance of identifying experts      ence, sustainability, and resource manage-
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  when researching local ecological knowl-      ment. See Ref. 40, pp. 342–62
                                                  edge. Hum. Ecol. 31:463–89          96.  Trosper RL. 2003. Resilience in pre-
                                               86.  Riedlinger D, Berkes F. 2001. Contribu-       contact Pacific Northwest social ecologi-
                                                  tions of traditional knowledge to under-      cal systems. Conserv. Ecol. 7(3):6. http://
                                                  standing climate change in the Canadian
                                                  Artic. Polar Rec. 37:315–28          97.  Olsson P, Folke C. 2001. Local knowl-
                                               87.  Mackinson S, Nottestad L. 1998. Combin-       edge and institutional dynamics for
                                                  ing local and scientific knowledge. Rev.       ecosystem management: a study of Lake
                                                  Fish Biol. Fish. 8:481–90              Racken watershed. Ecosystems 4:85–104
                                               88.  Gadgil M, Olsson P, Berkes F, Folke C.    98.  Muchagata M, Brown K. 2000. Colonist
                                                  2003. Exploring the role of local ecolog-      farmers’ perceptions of fertility and the
                                                  ical knowledge for ecosystem manage-        frontier environment in eastern Amazo-
                                                  ment: three case studies. See Ref. 42, pp.     nia. Agric. Hum. Values 17(4):371–84
                                                  189–209                    99.  Gunderson L, Holling CS, Light S, eds.
                                               89.  Teng¨ M, Belfrage K. 2004. Local man-
                                                     o                       1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Re-
                                                  agement practices for dealing with change      newal of Ecosystems and Institutions.
                                                  and uncertainty: a cross-scale compari-       New York: Columbia Univ. Press
                                                  son of cases in Sweden and Tanzania.     100.  Walters C. 1997. Challenges in adap-
                                                  Ecol. Soc. 9(3):4. http://www.ecologyand      tive management of riparian and coastal
                                                     ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 1(2):1. http://
                                               90.  Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO, Kislali-
                                                  oglu M. 2004. Combining science and     101.  Fazey I, Fazey JA, Fazey DMA. 2005.
                                                  traditional ecological knowledge: mon-       Learning more effectively from experi-
                                                  itoring populations for co-management.       ence. Ecol. Soc. 10(2):4. [online] URL:
                                                  Ecol. Soc. 9(3):2. http://www.ecologyand
                                               91.  Aswani S, Hamilton R. 2004. Integrat-    102.  Weick K. 1995. Sensemaking in Organi-
                                                  ing indigenous ecological knowledge and       sations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
                                                  customary sea tenure with marine and so-   103.  Clark W, J¨ ger J, van Eijndhoven J,
                                                  cial science for conservation of bumphead      Dickson N. 2001. Learning to Manage
                                                  parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in        Global Environmental Risks: A Compar-
                                                  the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands.        ative History of Social Responses to Cli-
                                                  Environ. Conserv. 31:69–83             mate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid
                                               92.  Becker CD, Ghimire K. 2003. Synergy         Rain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
                                                  between traditional ecological knowledge   104.  Argyris C. 1977. Double-loop learning in
                                                  and conservation science supports forest      organizations. Harv. Bus. Rev. 55:115–25
                                                                            ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                               105. Blann K, Light S, Musumeci JA. 2003.        laborative Management. New York: CRC
                                                 Facing the adaptive challenge: practition-     Press
                                                 ers’ insights from negotiating resource   117.  Carlsson L, Berkes F. 2005. Co-
                                                 crisis in Minnesota. See Ref. 42, pp. 210–     management: concepts and methodolog-
                                                 40                         ical implications. J. Environ. Manag. 75:
                                               106. Hamel G, V¨ likangas. 2003. The quest for
                                                        a                   65–76
                                                 resilience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81(9):52–63   118.  Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL. 2000. Making
                                               107. Whiteman G, Forbes G, Niemel¨ J,   a       Collaboration Work: Lessons from Inno-
                                                 Chapin S. 2004. Ambio 33:371–76           vation in Natural Resource Management.
                                               108. Araujo L. 1998. Knowing and learning as       Washington, DC: Island
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 networking. Manag. Learn. 29:317–36     119.  Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Far-
                                               109. Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T. 2004. Social-      var MT, Kothari A, Renard Y. 2004.
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 ecological transformation for ecosystem       Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in
                                                 management: the development of adap-        Co-management of Natural Resources
                                                 tive co-management of a wetland land-        Throughout the World. Tehran, Iran: Int.
                                                 scape in southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc.        Inst.Environ. Dev./World Conserv.Union/
                                                 9(4):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.        Comm. Environ. Econ. Policy/Collab.
                                                 org/vol9/iss4/art2/                 Manag. Work. Group/Cent. Sust. Dev.
                                               110. Westley F. 2002. The devil in the dy-    120.  Eckerberg K, Joas M. 2004. Multi-level
                                                 namics: adaptive management on the front      environmental governance: a concept un-
                                                 lines. See Ref. 8, pp. 333–60            der stress? Local Environ. 9(5):405–12
                                               111. Scheffer M, Westley F, Brock W. 2003.    121.  Fung A. 2003. Recipes for public spheres:
                                                 Slow response of societies to new prob-       eight institutional design choices and their
                                                 lems: causes and costs. Ecosystems 6:        consequences. J. Polit. Philos. 11(3):338–
                                                 493–502                       67
                                               112. Ruitenbeek J, Cartier C. 2001. The in-    122.  Gulbrandsen LH. 2004. Overlapping pub-
                                                 visible wand: adaptive co-management        lic and private governance: Can forest cer-
                                                 as an emergent strategy in complex bio-       tification fill the gaps in the global forest
                                                 economic systems. Occas. Pap. 34. Cent.       regime? Global Environ. Polit. 4(2):75–
                                                 Int. For. Res., Bogor, Indonesia          99
                                               113. Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gun-    123.  Lundqvist L. 2004. Integrating Swedish
                                                 derson L, Holling CS, et al. 2002. Re-       water resource management: a multi-
                                                 silience and sustainable development:        level governance trilemma. Local Envi-
                                                 building adaptive capacity in a world        ron. 9(5):413–24
                                                 of transformations. Rep. Swed. Environ.   124.  Ostrom E. 1996. Crossing the great di-
                                                 Advis. Counc. 2002:1. Minist. Environ.,       vide: coproduction, synergy, and develop-
                                                 Stockholm, Swed.                  ment. World Dev. 24(6):1073–87
                                               114. Pinkerton E. 1989. Co-operative Manage-   125.  McGinnis M. 2000. Polycentric Gover-
                                                 ment of Local Fisheries: New Directions       nance and Development. Ann Arbor, MI:
                                                 for Improved Management and Commu-         Univ. Michigan Press
                                                 nity Development. Vancouver, Can.: Univ.   126.  Imperial MT. 1999. Institutional anal-
                                                 British Columbia Press               ysis and ecosystem-based management:
                                               115. Jentoft S. 2000. Co-managing the coastal      the institutional analysis and development
                                                 zone: is the task too complex? Ocean        framework. Environ. Manag. 24:449–65
                                                 Coast. Manag. 43:527–35           127.  Young O. 2002. The Institutional Dimen-
                                               116. Buck LE, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, Wollen-      sions of Environmental Change: Fit, In-
                                                 berg E. 2001. Biological Diversity: Bal-      terplay and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT
                                                 ancing Interests Through Adaptive Col-       Press
                                               470    FOLKE ET AL.

                                               128. Imperial MT. 2001. Collaboration as an        ganizations: A Synthesis of the Research.
                                                 implementation strategy: an assessment        Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
                                                 of six watershed management programs.     140.  Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K.
                                                 PhD thesis, Indiana Univ., Bloomington,        2006. Trust-building, knowledge genera-
                                                 IN                          tion and organizational innovations: the
                                               129. Folke C, Pritchard L Jr, Berkes F, Colding      role of a bridging organization for adap-
                                                 J, Svedin U. 1998. The problem of fit be-       tive co-management of a wetland land-
                                                 tween ecosystems and institutions. IHDP        scape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum.
                                                 Work. Pap. 2, Int. Hum. Dimens. Program        Ecol. In press
                                                 Global Environ. Change, Washington,      141.  Leach WD, Pelkey NW. 2001. Making
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 DC                          watershed partnerships work: a review of
                                               130. Wasserman S, Faust K. 1994. Social Net-        the empirical literature. J. Water Resour.
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 work Analysis—Methods and Applica-          Plan. Manag. 127:378–85
                                                 tions. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press     142.  Shannon MA. 1991. Resource managers
                                               131. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004.          as policy entrepreneurs. J. For. 89:27–
                                                 Adaptive comanagement for building re-        30
                                                 silience in social-ecological systems. En-   143.  Kuhnert S. 2001. An Evolutionary The-
                                                 viron. Manag. 34(1):75–90               ory of Collective Action: Schumpeterian
                                               132. Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Min-         Entrepreneurship for the Common Good.
                                                 druta D, Edwardsen M. 2003. Building         Berlin: Springer Verlag
                                                 consensual institutions: networks and the   144.  Ostrom E. 1965. Public entrepreneur-
                                                 national estuary program. Am. J. Polit. Sci.     ship: a case study in ground water man-
                                                 47(1):143–58                     agement. PhD thesis, Univ. Calif., Los
                                               133. Shannon MA. 1998. Social organizations        Angeles
                                                 and institutions. In River Ecology and     145.  Young OR. 1991. Political leadership and
                                                 Management: Lessons from the Pacific          regime formation: on the development of
                                                 Coastal Ecoregion, ed. RJ Naiman, RE         institutions in international society. Int.
                                                 Bilby, pp. 529–52. New York: Springer-        Organ. 45:281–308
                                                 Verlag                     146.  Shannon MA. 1990. Building trust: the
                                               134. Haas PM. 1992. Epistemic communities         formation of a social contract. In Com-
                                                 and international policy coordination. Int.      munity and Forestry: Continuities in the
                                                 Organ. 46(1):1–35                   Sociology of Natural Resources, ed. RG
                                               135. Kettl DF. 2000. The transformation          Lee, DR Field, WR Burch Jr, pp. 229–40.
                                                 of governance: globalization, devolution,       Boulder, CO: Westview
                                                 and the role of government. Public Adm.    147.  Cook K. 2003. Trust in Society. New York:
                                                 Rev. 60:488–97                    Sage
                                               136. Steel BS, Weber E. 2001. Ecosystem       148.  Misztal BA. 1996. Trust in Modern Soci-
                                                 management, decentralization, and public       eties. Cambridge, MA: Polity
                                                 opinion. Global Environ. Change 11:119–    149.  Pretty J, Ward H. 2001. Social capital and
                                                 31                          the environment. World Dev. 29:209–27
                                               137. Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ.      150.  Baland JM, Platteau JP. 1996. Halting
                                                 2003. Social learning for collaborative        Degradation of Natural Resources: Is
                                                 natural resource management. Soc. Nat.        There a Role for Rural Communities?
                                                 Resour. 15:309–26                   Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
                                               138. Berkes F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional   151.  Brown K. 2002. Innovations for conserva-
                                                 linkages: perspectives from the bottom up.      tion and development. Geogr. J. 168(1):6–
                                                 See Ref. 182, pp. 293–322               16
                                               139. Mintzberg H. 1979. The Structuring of Or-   152.  Castle EN. 2002. Social capital: an
                                                                             ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                  interdisciplinary concept. Rural Sociol.       building: a response to Thompkins and
                                                  67:334–49                      Adger. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):2.
                                               153.  Sobel J. 2002. Can we trust social capital?
                                                  J. Econ. Lit. 40:139–54            165.  Stubbs M, Lemon M. 2001. Learning to
                                               154.  Imperial MT, Hennessey TM. 1996.           network and network to learn: facilitat-
                                                  Ecosystem-based approach to managing         ing the process of adaptive management
                                                  estuaries: an assessment of the national       in a local response to the UK’s national air
                                                  estuary program. Coast. Manag. 24:115–        quality strategy. Environ. Manag. 27:321–
                                                  39                          34
                                               155.  Low B, Ostrom E, Simon C, Wilson J.      166.  Kendrick A. 2003. Caribou co-manage-
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  2003. Redundancy and diversity: Do they       ment in northern Canada: fostering mul-
                                                  influence optimal management? See Ref.        tiple ways of knowing. See Ref. 42, pp.
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  42, pp. 83–114                    241–68
                                               156.  Berkes F, Folke C. 1992. A systems per-    167.  Adams WM, Brockington D, Dyson J,
                                                  spective on the interrelations between nat-     Vira B. 2003. Managing tragedies: under-
                                                  ural, human-made and cultural capital.        standing conflict over common pool re-
                                                  Ecol. Econ. 5:1–8                  sources. Science 302:1915–16
                                               157.  Pinkerton E. 1998. Integrated manage-     168.  Kim WC, Mauborgne R. 2003. Tipping
                                                  ment of a temperate montane forest          point leadership. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81:60–
                                                  ecosystem through wholistic forestry: a       69
                                                  British Columbia example. See Ref. 40,    169.  Kingdon JW. 1995. Agendas, Alterna-
                                                  pp. 363–89                      tives, and Public Policies. New York:
                                               158.  Guimer` R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Nunes Ama-
                                                      a                      Harper Collins College
                                                  ral LA. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms    170.  Grindle MS, Thomas JW. 1991. Pub-
                                                  determine collaboration network structure      lic Choice and Policy Change. Balti-
                                                  and team performance. Science 308:697–        more/London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
                                                  702                      171.  Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson
                                               159.  Holling CS, Chambers AD. 1973. Re-          NM, Eckley N, et al. 2003. Knowledge
                                                  source science: the nurture of an infant.      systems for sustainable development.
                                                  BioScience 23(1):13–20                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:8086–
                                               160.  Gladwell M. 2000. The Tipping Point—         91
                                                  How Little Things Can Make a Big Dif-     172.  Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE. 2005. The
                                                  ference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown          Social Contours of Risk: Publics, Risk
                                               161.  Bebbington A. 1997. Social capital and        Communication and the Social Amplifi-
                                                  rural intensification: local organizations      cation of Risk. London: Earthscan
                                                  and islands of sustainability in the rural  173.  Kuks S, Bressers H, eds. 2004. Integrated
                                                  Andes. Geogr. J. 163:189–197             Governance and Water Basin Manage-
                                               162.  Tompkins E, Adger WN, Brown K.            ment: Conditions for Regime Change and
                                                  2002. Institutional networks for inclusive      Sustainability. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
                                                  coastal zone management in Trinidad and       Acad.
                                                  Tobago. Environ. Plan. 34:1095–111      174.  Agrawal A. 2005. Environmentality Tech-
                                               163.  Tompkins EL, Adger WN. 2004. Does          nologies of Government and the Mak-
                                                  adaptive management of natural resources       ing of Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
                                                  enhance resilience to climate change?        Press
                                                  Ecol. Soc. 9(2):10. http://www.ecology    175.  Bass BM. 1990. From transactional to
                                                   transformational leadership: learning to
                                               164.  Newman L, Dale A. 2005. Network struc-        share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 18:19–31
                                                  ture, diversity, and proactive resilience   176.  Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E. 2003.
                                               472    FOLKE ET AL.

                                                  Dynamics of land-use and land-cover      186. Dolsak N, Ostrom E. 2003. The Com-
                                                  change in tropical regions. Annu. Rev. En-     mons in the New Millennium: Challenges
                                                  viron. Resour. 28:205–41              and Adaptations. Cambridge, MA: MIT
                                               177.  Cinner J. 2005. Socioeconomic factors       Press
                                                  affecting customary marine tenure in the   187. Pritchard L, Sanderson SE. 2002. The dy-
                                                  Indo-Pacific. Ecol. Soc. 10(1):36. http://     namics of political discourse in seeking
                                               sustainability. See Ref. 8, pp. 147–69
                                                  art36/                    188. Fraser EDG. 2003. Social vulnerabil-
                                               178.  Homewood K, Lambin EF, Coast E, Kar-        ity and ecological fragility: building
                                                  iuki A, Kikula I, et al. 2001. Long-        bridges between social and natural sci-
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                  term changes in Serengeti-Mara wilde-       ences using the Irish potato famine as a
                                                  beest and land cover: pastoralism, popu-      case study. Conserv. Ecol. 7(2):9. http://
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                  lation, or policies? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
                                                  USA 98:12544–49                189. Redman C. 2005. Resilience theory in ar-
                                               179.  Rockstr¨ m J, Tilander Y. 1998. Options
                                                       o                     chaeology. Am. Anthropol. 107(1):70–77
                                                  for sustainable agriculture in the Sa-    190. Alcorn J, Bamba J, Masiun S, Natalia
                                                  hel: landscape potential, human manipu-      I, Royo A. 2003. Keeping ecological re-
                                                  lations and livelihood security. In Twice     silience afloat in cross-scale turbulence:
                                                  Humanity—Implications for Local and        an indigenous social movement navigates
                                                  Global Resource Use. Uppsala, Swed.:        change in Indonesia. See Ref. 42, pp. 299–
                                                  Nordic Afr. Inst. Forum Dev. Stud.         327
                                               180.  Wilson J. 2002. Scientific uncertainty,    191. Cash DW, Moser SC. 2000. Linking
                                                  complex systems, and the design of         global and local scales: designing dy-
                                                  common-pool institutions. See Ref. 182,      namic assessment and management pro-
                                                  pp. 327–60                     cesses. Global Environ. Change 10:109–
                                               181.  McGinnis MV, Wolley J, Gamman J.          20
                                                  1999. Bioregional conflict resolution: re-   192. Malayang BS III, Hahn T, Kumar P.
                                                  building community in watershed plan-       2005. Responses to ecosystem change
                                                  ning and organizing. Environ. Manag.        and to their impacts on human well-
                                                  24(1):1–12                     being. In Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
                                               182.  Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern P,       ment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
                                                  Stonich S, Weber EU, eds. 2002. The        Multiscale Assessments, Vol. 4. Findings
                                                  Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC:       of the Sub-Global Assessments Working
                                                  Natl. Acad.                    Group, pp. 203–26. Washington, DC:
                                               183.  Burger J, Ostrom E, Norgaard RB, Poli-       Island
                                                  cansky D, Goldstein BD. 2001. Protecting   193. Laguna Lake Dev. Auth. 2005. Review of
                                                  the Commons. A Framework for Resource       the performance of river basin councils
                                                  Management in the Americas. Washing-        in Laguna de Bay, the Philippines. http://
                                                  ton, DC: Island         rehabilitation.htm
                                               184.  Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E.        194. Tomich TP, Lewis J. 2001. Putting
                                                  2001. People and Forests. Communi-         community-based forest management on
                                                  ties, Institutions, and Governance. Cam-      the map. ASB policy brief 2, Altern.
                                                  bridge, MA: MIT Press               Slash-and-Burn Program., Nairobi. http://
                                               185.  Svedin U, Riordan TO, Jordan A. 2001.
                                                  Multilevel governance for the sustainabil-     Brief2.pdf
                                                  ity transition. In Globalism, Localism and  195. Recur. Investig. Desarro. Sustentable
                                                  Identity, ed. TO Riordan, pp. 43–60. Lon-     (RIDES). 2005. Bienestar humano y
                                                  don: Earthscan                   manejo sustentable en San Pedro de
                                                                          ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

                                                 Atacama-Resumen Ejecutivo (Human         Forestry for the 21st Century: The Sci-
                                                 well-being and sustainable management      ence of Ecosystem Management, ed. KA
                                                 in San Pedro de Atacama, Exec. Summ.).      Kohm, JF Franklin, pp. 437–45. Wash-
                                          ington, DC: Island
                                                 salardeatacama/salar central.htm      197. McIntosh RJ, Tainter JA, McIntosh SK,
                                               196. Shannon MA, Antypas AR. 1997. Open        eds. 2000. The Way the Wind Blows: Cli-
                                                 institutions: uncertainty and ambiguity     mate, History, and Human Action. New
                                                 in 21st-century forestry. In Creating a     York: Columbia Univ. Press
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.
                                                 Annual Review of Environment and Resources
                                               Volume 30, 2005

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                               I. EARTH’S LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
                                                Regional Atmospheric Pollution and Transboundary Air Quality
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 Management, Michelle S. Bergin, J. Jason West, Terry J. Keating,
                                                 and Armistead G. Russell                          1
                                                Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability,
                                                 Joy B. Zedler and Suzanne Kercher                     39
                                                Feedback in the Plant-Soil System, Joan G. Ehrenfeld, Beth Ravit,
                                                 and Kenneth Elgersma                            75
                                               II. HUMAN USE OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES
                                                Productive Uses of Energy for Rural Development,
                                                 R. Anil Cabraal, Douglas F. Barnes, and Sachin G. Agarwal         117
                                                Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector,
                                                 Jennifer Davis                              145
                                                Aquaculture and Ocean Resources: Raising Tigers of the Sea,
                                                 Rosamond Naylor and Marshall Burke                    185
                                                The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining
                                                 Local Livelihoods, Lisa Naughton-Treves, Margaret Buck Holland,
                                                 and Katrina Brandon                            219
                                               III. MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS
                                                Economics of Pollution Trading for SO2 and NOx , Dallas Burtraw,
                                                 David A. Evans, Alan Krupnick, Karen Palmer, and Russell Toth       253
                                                How Environmental Health Risks Change with Development: The
                                                 Epidemiologic and Environmental Risk Transitions Revisited,
                                                 Kirk R. Smith and Majid Ezzati                      291
                                                Environmental Values, Thomas Dietz, Amy Fitzgerald, and Rachael Shwom    335
                                                Righteous Oil? Human Rights, the Oil Complex, and Corporate Social
                                                 Responsibility, Michael J. Watts                     373
                                                Archaeology and Global Change: The Holocene Record,
                                                 Patrick V. Kirch                             409

                                               x    CONTENTS

                                               IV. EMERGING INTEGRATIVE THEMES
                                                 Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems,
                                                  Carl Folke, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg          441

                                                 Subject Index                               475
                                                 Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 21–30          499
                                                 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 21–30             503
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2005.30:441-473. Downloaded from

                                                 An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and
    by University of California - Santa Barabara on 01/25/07. For personal use only.

                                                 and Resources chapters may be found at
by Lori Cramer last modified 25-01-2007 14:41

Built with Plone