Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Are adaptations self-organized, autonomous, and harmonious? Assessing the social-ecological resilience literature
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre. Stockholm University, Stockholm Environment Institute.
Number of Authors: 2
2017 (English)In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 22, no 1, 12Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The paper analyzes how adaptability (adaptive capacity and adaptations) is constructed in the literature on resilience of social-ecological systems (SES). According to some critics, this literature views adaptability as the capacity of SES to self-organize in an autonomous harmonious consensus-building process, ignoring strategies, conflicting goals, and power issues. We assessed 183 papers, coding two dimensions of adaptability: autonomous vs. intentional and descriptive vs. normative. We found a plurality of framings, where 51% of the papers perceived adaptability as autonomous, but one-third constructed adaptability as intentional processes driven by stakeholders; where social learning and networking are often used as strategies for changing power structures and achieving sustainability transformations. For the other dimension, adaptability was used normatively in 59% of the assessed papers, but one-third used descriptive framings. We found no evidence that the SES literature in general assumes a priori that adaptations are harmonious consensus-building processes. It is, rather, conflicts that are assumed, not spelled out, and assertions of desirable that are often not clarified by reference to policy documents or explicit normative frameworks. We discuss alternative definitions of adaptability and transformability to clarify or avoid the notion of desirability. Complex adaptive systems framing often precludes analysis of agency, but lately self-organization and emergence have been used to study actors with intentions, strategies, and conflicting interests. Transformations and power structures are increasingly being addressed in the SES literature. We conclude that ontological clashes between social science and SES research have resulted in multiple constructive pathways.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 22, no 1, 12
Keyword [en]
adaptive comanagement, adaptive governance, ecosystems, neoliberalism, structured literature review, sustainable development goals, transformability
National Category
Biological Sciences Social and Economic Geography
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-143851DOI: 10.5751/ES-09026-220112ISI: 000399397700031OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-143851DiVA: diva2:1105748
Available from: 2017-06-05 Created: 2017-06-05 Last updated: 2017-06-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hahn, Thomas
By organisation
Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm Environment Institute
In the same journal
Ecology & society
Biological SciencesSocial and Economic Geography

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf