Resilience thinking for protected areas: to enhance the capacity of social-ecological systems

1. Introduction

Private reserves, also known as protected areas are sought-after destinations in the tourism industry
and are a crucial instrument for conserving nature. There has been an increase in interest in
ecotourism and sustainable tourism over the last two decades, illustrating a rise in social concern for
the environment and the effect tourism has on the environment (Eagles et al., 2002). According to the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a protected area is a “clearly defined
geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means, to
achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values ”
(IUCN, 2008). Conducted research represents that tourism and visitation in protected areas create
negative and positive impacts; environmentally, socially and economically (Eagles et al., 2002;
Snyman, 2014; Spenceley & Snyman, 2017). These three key aspects are core themes in literature of
sustainable tourism in private areas, whilst literature on the resilience thinking approach for
developments of private areas is critically lacking. Resilience thinking is an approach through which
protected areas will meet development and conservation agendas from all angles whilst meeting the
sustainable development goals. In order to meet these sustainable goals, resilience thinking follows
seven main principles, which will be discussed after explaining what resilience thinking is.

2. Definition of resilience thinking

The Stockholm Resilience Centre (2014:1) defines resilience as “the capacity of a system, be it an
individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop”. “Resilience
thinking embraces learning, diversity and above all the belief that humans and nature are strongly
coupled to the point that they should be conceived as one social ecological system.” Resilience
thinking is a tool that should be implemented in all planning and management approaches as it deals
with the capacity to persist, adapt and/or transform towards new pathways of development in times of
dynamic changes. This form of thinking embraces complex adaptive systems which contributes to a
better understanding of changing systems and how to manage them. Resilience thinking is the way
forward, reconnecting with the biosphere is though linking people and ecosystems. Participating in
resilience thinking and approaches is a means of bracing against future shocks, uncertainties and
people’s limited understanding of the consequences of human-induced impacts and changes which
are making the planet more vulnerable. We are living in unpredictable times with an increasing
population, widespread development and facing environmental challenges daily. Thus, there is a need
for intervention which will effectively accelerate biodiversity conservation. One of the main suppliers of
innovative thinking is the private sector, seeking sustainable initiatives for conservation including the
needs and concerns of the environment and humans.

3. How to apply resilience thinking?

There are seven main principles that guide the application of resilience thinking, thus building
resilience in a social-ecological system (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2018). Each principle depends
on one another and interacts with each other. The seven main principles of applying resilience
thinking provide guidance on interacting with social-ecological system to help maintain resilience to
survive and to continue to provide ecosystem services to sustain the ever-growing population.

Principle 1: To maintain diversity and redundancy. The more diverse you make a system the more
resilient the system is. A system with more components allows space for compensation of failed or
loss components, this providing more insurance within a system. People interact with the biosphere
using the different services of the ecosystems, for example – the use of water to nurture crops to feed
ourselves. Endless human activities change the biosphere, agricultural activities and developments
being examples. The resilience of a social-ecological systems depends on the variation of
organisations providing different functions and responses to a situation of disturbance or change.
Such organisations include NGOs, private sector and government departments. Each organisation
has a variety of responses to change with different strengths and weaknesses that will overlap. This
principle can be integrated into management plans, by including actions that will address underlying
drivers of loss of biodiversity for example - policies for extraction of natural resources, pollution and
illegal wildlife trade.

Principle 2: Managing connectivity. The strength of the connectivity will relate to the relative
resilience of a social-ecological system. Connectivity is not always a good thing per se; a well-
connected system can recover from change or a disturbance quickly, for example if a forest is well
connected and a section is disturbed by removing the trees in the area, the area can be facilitated for
recovery with the help of planting new trees. If a system is overly connected, it can facilitate the
spread of the disturbance, for example; the rapid spread of a fire in a well-connected forest. Limiting
connectivity may improve the resilience of an ecosystem by creating a barrier of the spreading of a
disturbance, for example a fire break, preventing a forest fire from spreading. A good balance within a
system increases resilience, this includes intermediate connectivity with an internal well-connected
subsystem. Application of this principle includes actions that promote connectivity of ecosystem
conservation and to promote partnerships between different levels of government and organisations,
enhancing institutional connectivity.

Principe 3: Managing slow variables and feedbacks . Feedbacks are the connectors between
variables - they can either reinforce (positive feedback) or reduce change (negative feedback). The
well-being of a social-ecological system is to ensure the function and the provision of vital services.
Complex systems contain slow changing variables that have the potential to produce sudden changes
that are difficult to reverse known as regime shifts. Applying this principle is through managing slow
variables which will ensure sustainable provision of key ecosystem services, for instance, the nitrogen
cycle – by decreasing actions of pollution of agriculture activities, manages slow variables whilst
contributing to the provision of clean water. However, negative feedback helps us to respond to
change or disturbance so that the system recovers and continues to provide the same set of services
from the ecosystems.

Principle 4: Foster complex adaptive systems thinking. This principle is challenging as it not only
aims to change people’s point of reference by increasing knowledge but also aims to change their
mindset and behaviour. Complex adaptive systems are dynamic and promote innovation and
perspectives to solve problems and make decisions. This type of thinking goes hand in hand with
resilience thinking as it includes the probability of uncertainty and unpredictability. Complex adaptive
systems include spatial data, representing the interconnection of economic and social ecological
elements at different scales. This type of thinking processes systems as a whole and not in individual
sections. For example, it integrates management for an entire water catchment area and not just a
section of a river, creating cohesive conservation and development strategies.

Principle 5: Encouraging learning. This principle encourages generating knowledge and the sharing
of this knowledge. This is an important principle especially when resilience comprises of reacting to
change, adapting and transforming to the change and disturbance. Social-ecological systems are not
static and are always developing and being revised with new knowledge which enables adaption to
disturbances and change and creates new approaches to management. To cope with change,
constant learning and re-evaluation of existing knowledge is vital. Applying this principle is through
actions that create suitable conditions to share knowledge, have adequate resources to aid learning
processes, especially those that address development and conservation challenges. Learning to
adapt to new information is critical, thus one needs to be open to apply using innovative technologies
and data, formal learning structures, collective learning processes and even forms of social media.

Principle 6: Broadening participation. This principle allows for collective action. A well-functioning
participation group has potential to build trust and a shared understanding. Participation from a
diversity of people with different backgrounds opens opportunities to a variety of viewpoints. The link
between information collecting and decision-making is also strengthened through participation.
Nevertheless, participation has negative impacts such as influencing stakeholders at the cost of
others, which may cause competition and conflict. The underestimating of finances, time and human
resources are common pitfalls of not carrying out a successful participation session. Inadequate
communication training and facilitation skills also impact the process of participation, for example
including local communities in the planning and decision-making processes which has great potential
in aiding in conservation. Applying this principle includes actions of building capacity and having
essential resources to create effective participation in the implementation and design phase.

Principle 7: Promote polycentric governance. When multiple governing bodies interact together to
create and enforce rules within policies, polycentricity occurs. Collaboration between institutions
increase connectivity and learning. Well-connected governance structures deal effectively with
disturbances and change as then these situations are being dealt at the right time by the right
informed people. Thus, polycentric governance structures promote other resilience-enhancing
principles, especially connectivity, experimentation, learning, participation, diversity and redundancy.
Examples of applying this principle is through creating sub-national governance structures, as well as
acknowledging the governance of indigenous people and local communities. And by incorporating and
facilitating different types and levels of governance, there is greater potential in meeting both,
development and conservation concerns.
4. Conclusion

With the use of these seven principles, private areas can apply resilience thinking, giving them the
opportunity to improve their resilience according to specific forms of resilience for example – climate
change – which is increasing wildfires, the loss of coastal areas, coral bleaching and changes in
seasonal phenomena. Private areas are part of an ever-constantly changing environment, thus for a
private area to be well designed and managed, management decisions are best suited to a resilience
thinking approach. Planning for change builds a strong foundation for private areas and leads to
practical and actionable goals to manage change. These goals need to be specific, measurable,
achievable, relevant and have a time span to have an impact on the environment and the people
(Conservation Training, 2018). Sound management practices of private areas contribute towards the
standards of tourism, contributing to the quality of tourism and conservation. Thus, enhancing the
responsibilities, roles and benefits to local communities as well as the management and planning of
protected area tourism will processivity grow in the years to come.

References

Conservation Training, 2018: Introduction to resilience for development – Part 2: Applying resilience
thinking to national biodiversity plans, online course notes, www.conservationtraining.org.
Eagles, P.J., McCool, S., and Haynes, C.D., 2002: Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines
for planning and management, World Commission on Protected areas, Best Practice Protected Areas
Guidelines Series No. 8, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK: IUCN.
IUCN, 2008: What is a protected area? IUCN, www.iucn.org, Accessed on 16 January 2018.
McCool, S., 2009: Constructing partnerships for protected area tourism planning in an era of change
and messiness, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 133–148.
Snyman, S., 2014: Assessment of the main factors impacting community members’ attitudes towards
tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries, Koedoe. 56 (2), 21–32.
Spenceley, A., & Snyman, S., 2017: Protected area tourism: Progress, innovation and sustainability,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(1), 3–7.
The Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2014: What is resilience? An introduction to social-ecological
research, Stockholm University,
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.10119fc11455d3c557d6d21/1459560242299/
SU_SRC_whatisresilience_sidaApril2014.pdf, Accessed 25 October 2017.

The Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2018: Applying resilience thinking – Seven principles for building
resilience in social-ecological system, Stockholm University,
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.10119fc11455d3c557d6928/1459560241272/
SRC+Applying+Resilience+final.pdf, Accessed 8 February 2018.