1

Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor

resilienceand sustainability
F I K R E T B E R K E S& C A R L F O L K E

Introduction
There is much evidenceof poor managementof ecosystems; the conven-
tional prescriptionsof resourcemanagementare in manycasesnot result-
ing in sustainability.In fact, someof the resourcecrashesof recentyears
are of greatermagnitudethan thoseobservedhistorically.Someauthors
attribute this fact to human 'shortsightedness and greed',and question
whetherresourcescould ever be managedsustainably(Ludwig, Hilborn
and Walters1993).Othersarguethat resourcemanagement sciencemay be
fundamentally flawed as a system of thought and practice in that its
premisesare basedon the laissez-faire ideologywhich still persistsin neo-
classicaleconomics(Daly and Cobb, 1989).Gadgiland Berkes(1991)and
McNeely (1991),among others,havepointed out that scientificresource
managementhas its roots in the utilitarian and exploitativeworldview
which assumesthat humanshavedominion over nature.In the historical
processof convertingthe world'slife-supportsystemsinto merecommod-
ities,resourcemanagement sciencewasgearedfor the efficientutilizationof
if
resourcesas they were limitless.Methods of resourcedevelopmentand
management,in both biological and economicareas,have treated the
environmentas discreteboxesof 'resources',the yieldsfrom which could
be individuallymaximized.The field hasreliedon the useof fixedrulesfor
achievingconstantyields,asin fixedcarryingcapacityof animalsand fixed
maximumsustainableyields(MSY) of fish and forestproducts.
Much of the developmentin resourcemanagementsciencesincearound
the 1970shas soughtto deal with the environmentaland socialproblems
createdby resourcemismanagementand depletion. Many of the new
approacheshavebeenreformistin nature,seekingto alleviatethe excesses
of classicalresourcemanagement.An examplewould be the creationof
multi-speciesmodels in fisheries,as opposedto the modelling of single
2 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke
speciespopulationsand calculatingfixedMSYs asif thesespecies werenot
affectedby changesin the populationsof their competitors,predators,prey,
and fluctuations of their physical environment(Larkin, 1977).Other
approacheshavebeenmore radical, rejectingresourcemanagementalto-
gether as a valid objective.One examplewould be deepecology,as the
preservationof ecosystems as a public good independentlyof their utility
as resources; an extremeexamplewould be the animalrightsmovement.
The basicassumptionbehindthe work that led to the presentvolumeis
that resourcemanagementis necessary but that it requiresfundamentally
differentapproaches, not meretinkeringwith currentmodelsand practices.
The volume seeksto integrate two streamsof resourcemanagement
thought that fundamentallydiffer from the classicutilitarian approach.
The first is the useof systemsapproachand adaptivemanagement,with
their emphasison linkagesand feedbackoontrols(Holling, 1978;Walters,
1986).The systemsapproachis replacingthe view that resourcescan be
treatedas discreteentitiesin isolationfrom the restof the ecosystemand
the social system.For example,the volume Investingin Natural Capital
(Janssonet al., 1994)exploredin somedetailthe necessity of a systems-ori-
ented,wide-scopeecologicaleconomicsapproachto sustainability.
The secondstream of thought is that improving the performanceof
naturalresourcesystemsrequiresan emphasison institutionsand property
rights. A people-orientedapproachwhich focuseson the resourceuser
rather than on the resourceitself is not a newidea;manyhavepointedout
that 'resourcemanagementis peoplemanagement'.However,tools and
approachesfor such peoplemanagementare poorly developed,and the
importanceof a socialscienceof resourcemanagementhasnot generally
beenrecognized. The presentvolumefollowsfrom and extendsthe findings
of a numberof books that havetried to fill this gap,includingClark and
Munn (1986)on the variousdimensionsof sustainability; Ostrom(1990)
on institutions and collective action; Bromley (1991), Hanna and
Munasinghe(1995)andHanna,FolkeandMaler(1996)on propertyrights;
McCayandAcheson(1987),Berkes(1989)andBalandandPlatteau(1996)
on community-based resource management; and Lee (1993) and
Gunderson,Holling and Light (1995) on institutional learning and
resourcemanagement.
Following the statementof objectives,this introductory chapter will
reviewsomedefinitionsthat will be widelyusedin the book, and will then
cover five conceptsor themeson which our argumentshinge: property
rights,the systemsapproach,adaptivemanagement,ecologicalresilience,
and traditional resourcemanagementsystems.Thesesectionsexplainthe
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability 3
basisfor the analyticalframeworkusedin the book, followedby a descrip-
tion of the framework itself.

Objectives
The generalobjectiveof the book is to investigatehow the management of
selectedecosystems can be improvedby learningfrom a variety of manage-
ment systemsand their dynamics.The essentialfeatureof this inquiry is to
mobilizea widerrangeof considerations and sourcesof informationthan
thoseusedin conventionalresourcemanagement. Many of the casesin the
book investigatea mix of systemsand their changeovertime,and someof
the casesfocuson traditional and newlyemergentlocal systems. All chap-
ters addressthe questionof sustainability,and seekprinciplesthat may
resourcemanagementor help restoredegradedecosys-
assistin successful
tems to generatea sustainableflow of services.To accomplishthis task,
socialand ecologicallinkagesin selectedecosystemtypesare investigated
usinga commonanalyticalframework.Specifically,
systematically, in each
of the casestudies,the authorsaddresstwo objectives:
. how the local socialsystemhasdevelopedmanagementpracticesbased
on ecologicalknowledgefor dealingwith the dynamicsof the ecosys-
tem(s)in which it is located;and
. socialmechanisms behindthesemanagementpractices.
The volume is organizedinto four parts.Part I includesthreechapters
that take very differentapproachesto deal with the questionof learning
from locally devisedsystems.One of theseis a 'traditional' systemfrom
India; the othertwo arefrom Europe,onehistoricaland onecontemporary.
Part II includes three chaptersfrom the Americas and one from Africa
dealingwith the emergenceof new adaptivesystems.Thesecasestudies
show how institutions can adapt to local ecosystemcharacteristicsand
providean understandingof someof the dynamicprocesses in social- eco-
logicalsystemsundergoingchange.Part III, alsowith four chapters,is con-
cernedwith regional experiencesas well as local experiences, and with
generalizationsthat emergefrom the accumulatedbody of literature from
four differentregionsof the world. Thesefour chaptershelpemphasize the
point that local socialsystemsare not isolatedbut are subjectto national
and regionalinfluences.The four chaptersin Part IV addressthe question
of designingnew approachesto management.Three of them explorethe
waysto combinelocal and scientificknowledge,or to combinetraditional
and conventionalresourcemanagementsystems.
4 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

Many previousstudieshaveanalysedthe impact of human activitieson

the ecosystem, but few havestudiedthe interdependence of socialsystems
and ecologicalsystems.Dependingon the disciplinebaseof the author(s),
either the social systemor the ecologicalsystemtends to be taken as a
'given'. In many volumes on resourcemanagementand environmental
studies,the humansystemhasbeentreatedasexternalto the ecosystem. By
contrast,studiesof institutionshavemainly investigated processeswithin
the socialsystem,treatingthe ecosystem largelyasa'black box'. Only a few
studies(includingsomeof thosecited in the previoussection)haveexplic-
itly analysedlinkagesbetweensocialsystemsand ecologicalsystems.The
presentvolumeaddresses this issueof linkagethroughits objectiveto relate
managementpracticesbasedon ecologicalunderstanding,to the social
mechanismsbehind thesepractices,in a variety of geographicalsettings,
cultures,and ecosystems.

Definitions
Somedefinitionsareneededto establisha commonvocabulary.Our objec-
tive is sustainability,definedby WCED (1987)as'developmentthat meets
the needsof the presentwithout compromisingthe ability of futuregenera-
tions to meettheir own needs'.Sustainability,asusedhere,is a processand
includesecological,socialand economicdimensions. We recognizethat the
questionof 'what is to be sustained?'has to be addressedon a caseby case
basis(Costanzaand Patten,1995).For our generalpu{poses,sustainabil-
ity impliesnot challengingecologicalthresholdson temporaland spatial
scalesthat will negatively affect ecological systemsand social systems.
Socialsystemsthat are of primary concernfor this volume dealwith prop-
erty rights, land and resourcetenure systems,systemsof knowledgeper-
tinent to environment and resources,and world views and ethics
concerningenvironmentand resources. The term ecologicalsystem(ecosys-
tem) is used in the conventionalecologicalsenseto refer to the natural
environment.Wehold the viewthat socialand ecologicalsystemsarein fact
linked, and that the delineationbetweensocialand natural systemsis arti-
ficial and arbitrary. Such views,however,are not yet acceptedin conven-
tional ecology and social science.When we wish to emphasizethe
integratedconceptof humans-in-nature, we usethe termssoctal- ecologi-
-
cal systemand social ecological linkages.
The term indigenousknowledge(IK) is used to mean local knowledge
held by indigenouspeoples,or local knowledgeunique to a givenculture
or society,consistentwith Warren,Slikkerveerand Brokensha,(1995).The
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability 5
term canbe usedinterchangeably with traditionalknowledge,but weprefer
to usetraditionalecologicalknowledge(TEK) more specificallyto refer to a
cumulativebody of knowledgeand beliefs,handeddown through genera-
tions by cultural transmission,about the relationshipof living beings
(includinghumans)with one anotherand with their environment(Berkes,
Folkeand Gadgil, 1995).The word traditionalis usedto referto historical
and cultural continuity,recognizingthat societiesareconstantlyredefining
what is considered'traditional'. Some chaptersrefer to neo-tradilional
resourcemanqgement system,tdefinedhereas local resourcemanagement
which doesnot havehistoricalcontinuity but which is basedon observa-
tions, experienceand local knowledgeof resourceusersthemselves(as
opposedto governmentscientistsand managers).It is used here inter-
changeablywith newlyemergentresourcemanagement systems.
Traditional and local managementis contrastedwith Westernresource
management science,definedasresourcemanagement basedon Newtonian
scienceand on the expertiseof governmentresourcemanagers. We usethe
term interchangeablywith scientificresourcemanqgementand conventional
resource management.We recognizethat all societieshavetheir own science,
but identify Westernscienceand scientificmethodto representa particular
brand of sciencewhich is usedas the basisof resourcemanagementby
centralizedbureaucracies in all parts of the world.
Institutionr are definedas 'humanly devisedconstraintsthat structure
human interaction.They are made up of formal constraints(rules,laws,
constitutions),informal constraints(normsof behavior,conventions and
self-imposedcodes of conduct), and their enforcementcharacteristics'
(North, 1993).Institutionsare'the setof rulesactuallyused(theworking
rulesor rules-in-use) by a setof individualsto organizerepetitiveactivities
that produceoutcomesaffectingthoseindividualsand potentiallyaffecting
others'(Ostrom, 1992).The emphasisin the book is on institutionsthat
dealwith propertyrights and commonpropertyresources. Herewe define
propertyas the rights and obligationsof individualsor groupsto usethe
resourcebase;a bundleof entitlementsdefiningowner'srights,duties,and
responsibilitiesfor the use of the resource,or 'a claim to a benefit(or
income)stream,and a property right is a claim to a benefitstreamthat
somehigher body - usually the state- will agreeto protect through the
assignmentof duty to otherswho may covet,or somehowinterferewith,
the benefit stream' (Bromley, 1992). Common-property(common-pool)
resources are definedas a classof resources for which exclusionis difficult
and joint use involvessubtractability(Berkes,1989;Feenyet al., 1990).
Institutionshaveto dealwith the two fundamentalmanagement problems
6 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

that arise from the two basiccharacteristicsof all such resources:how to

control accessto the resource(the exclusionproblem),and how to institute
rulesamongusersto solvethe potential divergencebetweenindividual and
collectiverationality (the subtractabilityproblem).
The term feedbackis usedin the conventionalsystemssenseto refer to
the result of any behaviour which may reinforce (positive feedback)or
modify (negativefeedback)subsequentbehaviour.More specifically,the
book is concernedwith the recognitionof environmentalfeedbacks(e.9.
depletion of particular resources,declineof catch per unit of effort) that
signal for changesin managementresponses,and the ability of resource
management institutions to receive and to respond to these signals.
Resilienceis the buffer capacity or the ability of a systemto absorb per-
turbations;the magnitudeof disturbancethat can be absorbedbeforea
systemchangesits structure by changingthe variablesand processes that
control behavior (Holling et al., 1995). Threshold is the point where a
systemflips from one equilibrium stateto another.Surprisedenotesthe
condition when perceivedreality departs qualitatively from expectation.
Surprisesoccur whencausesturn out to be sharplydifferentthan wascon-
ceived,when behavioursare profoundly unexpected,and when action pro-
ducesa resultoppositeto that intended(Holling, 1986).
Capital is a stock resourcewith valueembeddedin its ability to produce
a flow of benefits.We make a distinction amongthreekinds of capital: (a)
human-madecapital which is generatedthrough economicactivity through
humaningenuityand technologicalchange,the producedmeansof produc-
tion; (b) natural capital, which consists of non-renewableresources
extractedfrom ecosystems, renewableresourcesproducedby the processes
and functions of ecosystemsand environmentalservicessustainedby the
workings of ecosystems; and (c) culturalcapital,which refersto the factors
that providehuman societieswith the meansand adaptationsto dealwith
the naturalenvironmentand activelyto modify it (Berkesand Folke,1994).
Coleman(1990:300-21)usedsocralcapital to refer to featuresof social
organizationsuchas trust, norms and networks.Ostrom (1990:190,211)
usedsocialcapital to referto the richnessof socialorganization,and in,ttitu-
tional capitalto referto the supplyof organizationalability and socialstruc-
'capital'of institutionsthat a societyhasat its disposal.
tures,literally the

Property rights institutions

Recentadvancesin common-propertytheoryhaveshownwhy institutions
and property rights areimportant considerationsfor resourcemanagernent
 Linking sociqland ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability 7
(McCay, 1995).It usedto be popularly believedthat usersof common-
property resourceswere alwaystrappedin an inexorable'tragedyof the
commons'(Hardin,1968).However,manystudies,especially sincethemid-
1980s,haveshownHardin'sgeneralization doesnot hold. If the resourceis
freelyopento accessby any user,a tragedyof the commonsdoeseventu-
ally follow. However,many resourcesusedby rural communitiesare not
open-access but are usedunder communalpropertyrights arrangements.
That is, more often than not, rulesexistregardingaccessandjoint use,as
shownby many of the casestudiesin this book, as well as in the volumes
by McCayand Acheson(1987),Berkes(1989)and Bromley(1992).
Propertyrights arrangementsin a givenareamay be complexbecause
resourcetenure often involves'bundles of rights', including use rights,
rights to excludeothers,rights to manage,and the right to sell (Schlager
and Ostrom, t992).Determiningthe actualrightsis oftena challenge, asin
manymarineresources (Palsson,1991).Evenwithin an administrativearea
with commonlegaland fiscalinterventions,the actualstatusof localprop-
erty rightsto resources mayvary from villageto village(Jodha,1986).Also,
differentresources within a givenareamay be heldunderdifferentproperty
rights regimes.For example,in the caseof forestresourcemanagementin
mountainousareasin Asia,patchesof privatelyownedcroplandmayalter-
natewith state-controlled and managedforestland,common grazingland,
and common grassand bush land from which usersmay be obtaining a
diversityof products(Messerschmidt, 1993).
Generallyspeaking,local social systemsof rights and responsibilities
developfor any resourcedeemedimportant for a community.Evenunder
rapidly changingconditions,there are usually incipient property rights;
rulesariseand evolveaccordingto localneeds(Berkes,1986;1989).Ostrom
(1990)has reviewedsix commonscasesin depth,and a numberof others
in lessdetail, to formulateeight designprinciplesfor successful common-
property regimes.Most of thesedesignprinciplesfall into two clusters:
thosedealingwith access, group boundaryand resourceboundaryissues;
and thosedealingwith decision-makingfor joint use,includingissuesof
representation,monitoring, sanctions, conflict resolution and legal
recognition,consistentwith the definitionof commonpropertyresources.
Hardin'stragedyoften results,not from any inherentfailureof common
property,but from institutional failure to control accessto the resource,
and to makeand enforceinternaldecisionsfor collectiveuse.Institutional
failure could be due to internal reasons,as in the inability of the usersto
managethemselves, or it could be due to externalreasons,as in the incur-
sion of outsiders(Dove,1993).Failurecould alsooccuras a rgsultof such
8 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

factors as population growth and technologychange,especiallyif the

changesoccur too rapidly for the ability of the local socialsystemto absorb
them(Berkes,1989;Ostrom,1990).
The tikelihood of usersdesigningsuccessful commonproperty institu-
tions will be improvedif the group is relativelysmall and stable;if it is rel-
atively homogenous,with the membersusing similar technologiesand
havingsimilar valuesand discountrates;if thereis reciprocityand trust;
and if the transactioncostfor makingand enforcingrulesis low.Not all of
these conditions are necessaryfor success.For examplg much larger
numbersof userscan be accoflrmodatedif usersare organizedin nested
enterprisesor multiple layers,as in the huertairrigation systemsin Spain
(Ostrom,1990).
The analysisof institutionsalso needsto includequestionsof jurisdic-
tion and the respectiveroles of local groups and governmentagencies.
Often the usercommunity is dependenton the enforcementand protection
of local rights by higher levels of government.Even those indigenous
groupswith well-functioning local managementsystemsare dependenton
the central governmentfor the legal recognition of their rights and their
protectionagainstoutsiders.Many systemsof propertyrights showa mix
of localjurisdiction and governmentjurisdiction.The sharingof resource
managementresponsibility and authority betweenusersand government
agencies(co-managementor collaborativemanagement)hasbeenreceiving
increasedattention(Pinkerton,1989;Jentoftand McCay,1995;Chapter8).
Perhapsthe most striking finding of the cofilmonpropertyliteratureis the
rich diversityof common-propertyinstitutionsand propertyrights alrange-
ments,especially in theoldeEhistoricallyrootedresourcemanagement systems
(Feenyet a|.,1990).ExamplesincludeSwissalpinemeadows (Netting, l98l)'
and the reef and lagoontenuresystemsof Oceaniawith their diversearrayof
rulesfrom islandgroupto islandgroup(RuddleandJohannes, 1990;Freeman,
Matsudaand Ruddle,l99l). As comparedto the rather narrow setof manage-
ment prescriptionsbasedon scientificresourcemanagement,someof which
may inadvertentlyact to reduceecosystemresilience(Holling et al., 1995)'
traditional common-propertysystemstend to be locally diverseand operate
under systemsof knowledgewhich may differ substantiallyfrom Western
knowledgesystems(Banuriand Apffel Marglin, 1993).

Systemsapproachandsocial+cologicallinkages
The systemsapproachbroadly refersto a holistic view of the components
amongthe componentsof a system.The systems
and the interrelationships
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability 9
viewmostrelevantto our discussionis the ecosystem viewor the ecosystem
perspective(e.9.Odum, 1989).But unlike biologicalecology,which tends
to view humansasexternalto ecosystems (e.g.Pomeroyand Alberts, 1988;
Likens,1992),we usean ecosystem perspective that doesexplicitlyinclude
humansor, more specifically,the socialsystem.The analysisis consistent
with the classicalhuman ecologyliterature from Park (1936)onwards
whichemphasized the interactionsof population,technology,organization
and culture.Also, the analysisis consistentwith the way many traditional
societiesseetheir relationshipswith the environment.With a few excep-
tions,includingthe Westernindustrialsocietiesof the last 400yearsor so,
human societieshavegenerallyregardedthemselves aspart of natureand
not separatefrom it. Of particular interestare casesof traditional inte-
grated human-natureconceptsof the environment,such as the vanua
conceptin Fiji which regardsthe land, waterand humanenvironmentasa
unit, one and indivisible(Ruddle,Hviding and Johannes,1992).Several
such pre-scientificecosystemconceptsare known from Europe, North
Americaand Asia aswell asthroughoutOceaniawheretheyhavebeenwell
documented (Costa-Pierce, 1987;Gadgiland Berkes,l99l).
It is perhapssignificantthat scientificconceptsof ecosystem aredeflcient
in the descriptionand analysisof suchhuman-in-naturesystems. Thereis
no single,universallyacceptedway of formulating the linkage between
socialsystemsand natural systems.Findingsof the common-propertylit-
eraturein recentyearsstressthe importanceof social,political and eco-
nomic organization,with institutionsas the mediatingfactor that governs
the relationshipbetweena socialgroup and the life-supportecosystems on
whichit depends.In the ecologicaleconomicsliterature,the emphasisis on
the sustainableuseof naturalcapital(naturalresources and ecologicalser-
vicesgeneratedand sustainedby ecosystems and their biodiversity)by the
useof economicincentivesand other tools,and by the useof appropriate
economicinstitutions.To make the analysismore complete,Berkesand
Folke(1994)suggested that a third kind of capitalneedsto be considered,
culturalcapital,by which societiesconvertnaturalcapitalinto human-made
capitalor the producedmeansof production.In this volume,institutions
areconsideredto be a part of this cultural capital.
It is probably true that the unity of humans and nature is an easier
conceptto acceptin many non-Westernsocietiesthan in Westernones,
althougha shift in worldviewis well underway.However,it is alsotrue that
environmentaldegradationand resourcedepletion are an even larger
problemin many non-Westernsocietiesthan in Westernones,for various
reasons.In this volume,we approachthis dilemma by glorifying neither
10 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

Western-stylenor'traditional' non-Westernstyle resourcemanagement.

systemto respondtofeed-
Rather,we focuson the ability of themanogement
backsfro^ the environment.One scientific managementapproach that
explicitlyemphasizesfeedbacklearningis adaptivemanagement.

Adaptivemanagement
Resourcemanagement,as a branch of appliedecology,is a difficult field
in which to carry out scientificresearch.As Hilborn and Ludwig (1993)
'experimentstake longer,
put it, the difficulty is easyenoughto explain:
replication,control, and randomnessareharderto achieve,and ecological
systemshavethe nasty habit of changingover time.'The authorsdo not
think that the problem is the inherent complexity of the systemunder
study.Singlecellsare very complexsystemstoo, and yet researchprogress
in molecularbiology hasbeenspectacularin providingapplicationsbased
on predictivemodels.By comparison,predictivemodels in ecologyare
hard to comeby, and this is certainlytrue for the variousareasof resource
management.
Of the various areasof difficulty mentionedby Hilborn and Ludwig
(1993),recentconceptualwork has focusedon the propensityof ecosys-
tems to change over time in an unpredictablemanner. Further, stressed
ecosystems,as in resourceoverexploitation,tend to changenot gradually
but in lurches,through threshold effectsand in surprises,whereby out-
comesdiffer from predictive models not only quantitatively but qualita'
tively(Holling,1986;Gunderson et a\.,1995;Hollinget al., 1995).
Adaptive managementdealswith the unpredictableinteractionsbetween
people and ecosystemsas they evolve together.It takes the view that
'experiments'fromwhich
resourcemanagementpolicescan be treatedas
managerscan learn (Holling, 1978;Walters, 1986). Organizationsand
'learn'as individualsdo, and henceadaptivemanagement
institutionscan
is basedon socialand institutionallearning(Lee,1993).Adaptivemanage-
ment differs from the conventionalpractice of resourcemanagementby
emphasizingthe importanceof feedbacksfromthe environmentin shaping
policy,followedby further systematic(i.e.non-random)experimentation to
shapesubsequentpolicy,and so on. The processis iterative;it is feedback
and learning-based. It is co-evolutionary(Norgaard,1994)in the sensethat
it involvestwo-wayfeedbackbetweenmanagementpolicy and the stateof
the resource.Hence, adaptive managementis an inductive approach,
relying on comparativestudies that combine ecologicaltheories with
observation,and with activehuman interventionsin nature,basedon an
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainabilityll
understandingof human responseprocesses(Gundersonet al., 1995).
More recentwork in adaptivemanagementhasfocusedon the importance
of scalein time and space(seeChapterl3).
Adaptive managementis a relativelynew approachin resourcemanage-
mentscience, but its common-sense logicthat emphasizeslearningby doing
andits eliminationof the barrierbetweenresearchandmanagement resem-
ble traditional resourcemanagementsystems.Both rely on feedbackand
learning,and on the progressiveaccumulationof knowledge,often over
manygenerations in the caseof traditionalsystems.
Adaptivemanagement
hasthe advantageof systematicexperimentation and the incorporationof
scientificresearchinto the overallmanagementscheme.

Ecologicalresilience
Environmentalsurprises,suchas thosethat arisefrom the constructionof
largedams,havebeendiscussed for a long time but often anecdotally(e.g.
Farvar and Milton, 1972).The beginningsof a new 'scienceof surprise'
can be tracedto Holling (1986),who pointed out that therewasa general
pattern to unexpectedchangesand resourcecrises.Typically, there is a
sequence of eventswhich startswith efficientexploitationthat eventually
leads to inadvertent loss of ecosystemresilience.To supply markets,
resourcemanagementtries to control a targetresource(e.g.supplyof fish
or timber) by reducingthe variability of the target resource.This helps
meet production targets and economic objectives(e.g. revenueand
employment).The managementpolicy is successful in the short term, but
its very successcausesinadvertent changesin the functioning and
resilienceof the ecosystem. Over a period of time,managementemphasis
shifts to improving the efficiencyof the methodsof resourceutilization,
and the needfor other ecosystemsupport and services(e.g.waterregula-
tion capacityof a forest)and the lossof resilienceare not perceived.The
ecosystemand the target resourcehavebecomemore vulnerableto sur-
prise,while the resourcemanagementinstitution, devotedto production
efficiency,has becomemore rigid and less responsiveto environmental
feedbacks,thus setting the stage for a resource managementcrisis
(Holling,1986).
This generalpatternof unforeseen effectsand nastysurprisesis thought
to occur through a mechanisminvolving the loss of ecologicalresilience.
The very successof management,effectivein the short term, 'freezes'the
ecosystemat a certain stageof natural changeby activelyblocking out
environmentalvariability and feedbacksthat governchange.Insteadof
12 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

allowing smaller perturbations to act on the system,managementcauses

the accumulationof perturbations,inviting largerand lesspredictablefeed-
backs at a level and scalethat threatenthe functional performanceof the
whole ecosystem,and therebyalso the flow of resourcesand servicesthat
it generates.Holling (1936) used the examplesof budworm control in
Canadianforests(more and more control seemsto leadto largerand larger
infestationswhen they do finally occur) and forestfire suppression(follow'
ing a century of fire suppression,nearlyhalf of YellowstoneNational Park
in the USA burneddown in onemajor fire).
Holling's conceptof a four-stageecosystem renewalcycle,consistingof
exploitation-conservation-release-reorganization stages,is key to this
argument(Holling, 1986;Holling et a1.,1995). So the resilience
is concept.
Resiliencehas beendefinedin two very different waysin the ecologicallit-
erature(Holting et a\.,19.95).The first definition concentrates on stability
at a presumedsteady-statgand stressesresistance to a disturbanceand the
speedof return to the equilibriumpoint. This is the conventional, equilib-
rium-centred,linear, cause-and-effect view of a predictivescienceas used
by many in ecology, economicsand other disciplines.In resourcemanage-
ment science,this view leadsto the assumptionthat resourcesaremanage-
able and yields predictable. Discrete yield levels, such as maximum
sustainedyields of fish or timber, can be calculated,and perturbations
(such as fire and pest outbreaks)can be controlled and excludedfrom the
system.
By contrast, the seconddefinition of resilience,and the one usedin the
presentvolume,emphasizesconditionsin which disturbances(or perturba-
tions) can flip a systemfrom one equilibrium stateto another.In this case,
the important measureof resilienceis the magnitudeor scaleof disturbance
that can be absorbedbeforethe systemchangesin structureby the change
of variablesand processesthat control systembehaviour.This is a funda-
mentally different view of science,in which determiningcausaleffectsand
making predictionsare not simplemattersat all. Rather,systemsare seen
to be complex,non-linear,multi-equilibrium and self-organizing;they are
permeatedby uncertainty and discontinuities.Resiliencein this context is
a measureof robustnessand buffering capacityof the systemto changing
conditions(moredetail in Chapterl3).
The kind of scienceimplied by the seconddefinition of resiliencerepre-
sentsa move awayfrom the positivist emphasison objectivity and towards
a recognition that fundamental uncertainty is large,yields are unpredict-
able, certain processesare irreversible, and qualitative judgments do
'savage
matter. This kind of scienceis in many ways symphatetic to
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability13
thought'of Levi-Strauss(1962)and indigenoussystemsof environmental
knowledge.The parallelsbetweentraditional ecologicalwisdom and this
multi-equilibrium paradigm of ecological systemsshow promise for
further inquiry.

Local and traditional resourcemanagement

systems
The similaritiesbetweenthe ecosystem perspectiveand traditionalecosys-
tem-likeconcepts,and the similaritiesbetweenadaptivemanagementand
traditional managementcompelledus to ask the question:can resource
managementbe improvedby supplementingscientificdata with local and
traditional knowledge?Can information from resourceusersthemselves
broadenthe baseof knowledgenecessary for decisionmaking for sustain-
ableresourceuse?
Traditional resourcemanagementsystemsor other local-levelsystems,
which are basedon the knowledgeand experienceof the resourceusers
themselves, may havepotential that has hardly beentapped.We assume
thateverysocietyhasits own meansand adaptationsto dealwith its natural
environment,its own cultural capital (Berkesand Folke 1994).In some
cases,the capital of local knowledgemay be usedand organizedin sucha
way that it, in effect,amountsto a managementsystem.Suchis the case
with someshiftingcultivatingsystemsin the tropical forest(Alcorn, 1984;
Ramakrishnan,1992),islandecosystems (Costa-Pierce, 1987),inshorefish-
eriesof Pacificislands(Johannes,1978;Ruddleand Johannes,1990),and
grazingsystemsin semi-aridlands (Niamir, 1990).Given that Western
resourcemanagementhasnot beenall that successful in managingmanyof
theseenvironmentssustainably,perhapsthere are lessonsto be learned
from the cultural capital of the peoplewho are the local experts,a view
which gained legitimacy after it was expressedin Our CommonFuture
(WCED, 1987:l2).
The issuedoesnot only concerntraditionalpeoples;more generally,the
issueis the significanceand legitimacyof local expertise.Ancient cultures
and indigenouspeoplesoften havea longer-termrelationshipwith their
environmentthan do others,but theycertainlydo not havemonopolyover
local ecologicalwisdom.Thereare casesof local,newlyemergentor'neo-
traditional' resourcemanagementsystemswhich cannot claim historical
continuity over thousandsof years,but which are nevertheless basedon
local knowledgeand practice appropriatelyadapted to the ecological
systemsin which they occur (e.g.Smith and Berkes,1993).
Theseconsiderations suggestthat resourcemanagersneedto becautious
14 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke
'our'Westernsystemof acquiringscientificknowledge
aboutassumingthat
is a universalepistemology(FuntowiczandRavetz,1990).Somefield ecol-
'non-scientific'knowledge of
ogistshaveknown for a long time that the
local expertscan be both substantialand essentialfor management (e.g.
Johannes,l98l). Nevertheless,non-Westernknowledge systemshave
receivedrelativelylittle attention from a resourcemanagementpoint of
view.Feyerabend(1987)distinguishedtwo differenttraditionsof thought.
The first is the abstract tradition which correspondsto Westernscientific
epistemology.It allows the scientistto formulate scientificstatements,in
accordancewith the rules and conventionsof science,without necessarily
havingmet a singleone of the objectsdescribed.
The kind of knowledgepossessed by traditional or small-scale societies
is of a different kind, labelledby Feyerabendas the historical tradition.
Here,the knowledgeheldby the observeris basedon his/herpersonalexpe-
rience with the object; it is concreterather than abstract(Levi-Strauss,
1962).The knowledgeis often encodedin the cultural practicesof every-
day life. Culture and folk-scienceare not distinct, and religion often serves
to codelocal ecologicalknowledge(Rappaport,1971)'
For an observerschooledin the abstracttradition, local knowledgeis
easyto ignore,and local managementsystemsmay at first makelittle sense
'.
because . . folk beliefs area melangeof truth and inaccuracy.Much of
the world'sancientbelief systemsseemslike preposterous nonsenseto the
modern scientist'(Anderson,1996:101).It is a major task, therefore,to
seekout ecologicallysensiblepracticesand knowledgefrom the mixture of
superstition,beliefsand folk-science.Local resourcemanagementstrate-
giesposeproblemsbecausethey incorporate'multipleepistemologies, pos-
sessed by differentgroupsof people',asRedclift (1994) points out. It is not
possible,therefore,to make senseof local managementsysternswithout
understandingthe contextof local knowledgeand the mixture of episte-
mologies.
Thereis more than one possibleway to organizeenvironmentalknowl-
edge,and the diversityof systemsof knowledgeand environmentalworld
views deservesa re-examination.Cultural diversity may be relatedto bio-
diversity (Gadgit and Berkes, 1991),and both may be important for
improvingthe sustainabilityof the world'secologicalsystems,aswell asfor
their own sake.There is potential to involve local knowledgefor the
improvementof resourcemanagementin environmentssuch as northern
coastalecosystems, arid lands,mountain ecosysterns, tropical forests,and
subarcticecosystems. Traditional systemsin theseareasrepresentmany
millennia of human experiencewith environmentalmanagement,anci
 Linking social and ecological systemsfor resilience and sustainability 15

Patternsof
interactions

0utcomes

Sustainable
society

R e g i o n a ln, a t i o n a l ,g l o b a l i n f l u e n c e s

Figure l.l. A framework for analysingthe link betweensocial and ecological

systemsfor resilienceand sustainability.

providea reservoirof activeadaptationswhichmay be of universalimpor-

tance in designingfor sustainability(Gadgil, Berkesand Folke, 1993;
Berkes et a|.,1995).

The analyticalframework
'Conceptualframeworksareneither
modelsnor theories',Rapoport(1985:
256)wrote. 'Models describehow things work, whereastheoriesexplain
phenomena. Conceptualframeworksdo neither;ratherthey help to think
about phenomena,to order material, revealingpatterns- and pattern
recognitiontypicallyleadsto modelsand theories'(Rapoport, 1985).
The researchquestions posed by the present study explicitly link
ecology,economicsand socialscience.They requirean interdisciplinary,
international, case-studyapproach.To help keep focus, provide direc-
tion, and assistin the synthesis,
a commonframeworkis neededfor the
casestudies.The framework is designedto help identify the relevant
characteristics of the ecosystem,peopleand technology,local knowl-
edge,and property rights institutionsthat characterizethe casestudy.
Theframeworkin Figure 1.1is only oneway to representembeddedrela-
tionshipsdiagrammatically.It is a heuristicdeviceand not meant to
imply that the various elementsin the overall systemare discreteboxes.
The frameworkin Figure 1.1distinguishesfour setsof elementswhich
can be usedto describesocialand ecologicalsystemcharacteristics and
16 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

linkages:(1) ecosystem, (2) peopleand technology,(3) local knowledge,

and (4) property rights institutions.
The crucial part of the analysisis in the interactions(feedbacks)of the
four components.The frameworkis meantto help focuson keyinteractions
that result in sustainable outcomes. The schema borrows from the
Oakerson(1992)frameworkfor the analysisof commonpropertyresources
and from the framework for institutional analysisusedby Ostrom and col-
leagues(Ostrom,1990).The followingsectionsdescribeeachof the attrib-
utes, followed by sectionsdealing with interactionsand outcomes,with
referenceto chaptersin this volume.

TheecosYstem
Ecosystemsmay be charactetuedin a variety of ways'focusingon struc-
ture or function or both. In termsof physicalattributes,for example,sub-
arctic ecosystems can be characterizedby highly variabletemperaturesand
short growing seasons. In terms of biologicalcharacteristics,biodiversity
and ratesof nutrient cyclingarelow; storedenergy(andbiomass)in forests
and lakesis high relativeto ratesof biologicalproductivity(seeChapter5).
Not all characteristicsof ecosystemsare equally significant' Recent
researchhas madeit possibleto suggestthat the diversityand complexity
of ecosystemscan be traced to a relativelysmall number of biotic and
abiotic variablesand physicalprocesses(Holling, 1992;Holling et al"
1995).It seemsthat a relativelyfew species'or groupsof species, run these
processes,thereby contributing to the functional performance of the
Lcosystem.Remaining organismsoccupy nichesin the systemshapedby
theseprocesses. Theseorganismsmay seemto be redundant in the short
term, but they are crucial in maintaining systemresilience,and serveas a
system insurance for unpredictable events (Walker, 1992; Schulze and
Mooney, 1993;Solbrig, 1993;Barbier, Burgessand Folke, 1994;Folke,
Holling and Perrings,1996)Hence,biodiversityis important, and biodi-
versity-senserving local managementpracticesreceiveparticularattention
in this volume(e.g.Chapters2 and 9). Also singledout for specialattention
is the inherent unpredictability and non-linear nature of ecosystems
(Chapters13and 15).

Peopleand technologY
The levelof analysisis not the individual or the householdbut the social
group, which could be a small community (e.g. Chapter 5), a district
 Linkingsocialand ecologicalsystems
for resilience
andsustainability17
(Chapter4), a tribal group (Chapter7), or a regionalpopulation(Chapters
l0 and 11).The descriptionof the socialsystemstartswith the people
organizedas user communities,and the technologyemployedby them.
Evenwithin the smallel geographicallyboundedcasestudy areas,there
will beconsiderable complexityin the usercommunities,the resources they
pursueand the technologythey use,for example,the smaller-scale inshore
and the larger-scale offshorefisheriesof Iceland(Chapter3). The type of
technologyavailableto potential usersfor exploiting a resourcewill be
important;for example,the stationarygear and small boatsusedby the
small-scalefishersof Newfoundlandlimit their areasof use,whereasthe
trawlersof the offshorefleet are by necessitymore mobile and exploit a
largerarea(Chapter12),therebyimpactingon resources and ecosystems in
differentways.
Theuseor choiceof technologymayalsoprovidecluesto distinguishuser
communitiesand perhaps also the sustainability of their practices.
Examplesincludethe limitation of the clam harvestby the natureof the
technologyused(Chapter8), the differentusersof the BrazilianAmazon
Forest(Chapter6), Himalayanvillagersat differentlevelsof marketintegra-
tion (Chapterl1), and the variousgroupsof herdersof the African Sahel
(Chapterl0). Chapterl5 buildson an argumentfiorthe adaptivematchof
technology,social organization, and resource managementpractice
(throughqualitative,behaviouralcontrols)in traditional fishingsocieties.

Local knowledge
Any resourceuser will have a certain amount of local environmental
knowledgethat will allow him/her to carry out a particular activity.This
localknowledgemay be very substantial,especiallyif it includesculturally
transmittedknowledgeaccumulatedover generations.Many indigenous
groupsaswell as other historicallycontinuouscommunities,suchassome
North Atlantic fishers,will possesstraditional knowledge(Chapter3). In
somecases,local knowledgemay be organizedand usedin a waywhich,in
effect,amountsto a traditional managementsystem.Suchis the casewith
certain shifting cultivators (Chapter 9), Amerindian hunter-trappers
(Chapter 5), and tribal groups in Asia which maintain sacredgroves
(Chapter2). Especiallyimportant for the presentvolume is knowledge
relatedto the maintenanceof ecosystemresilience,as in traditional agri-
cultural and aquaculturalsystemsthat usea multiplicity of crop varieties
and species(Chapters9 and l1), as opposedto monoculturesthat tend to
predominateindustrial agriculturalsystems.
18 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

It is important to note that this volume is not dealing with isolated

groups and anthropologicalcuriosities.Many of the chaptersare about
groups that operatein the context of coriventionalresourcemanagement
science,and in integratedeconomicsystems.This is the casewith the Maine
clammersin Chapter 8, forest usersin Chapter14, and North Atlantic
fishersin Chapters3 and 12. Other chaptersdeal with non-Westernsoci-
eties,but eachof theseis alsoembeddedin a marketeconomy.The sacred
forestsin Chapter 2 becameprotectedareasin the modern conservation
idiom. The knowledgesystemsof the Ara (Chaptet7) and the JamesBay
Cree (Chapter 5), for example,bear the marks of mixing with Western
knowledgesystemsprior to the twentiethcentury.

Property rights institutions

Useful management lessons come from societies that have survived
resourcescarcities.Theseare societiesthat adapt to changesand learn to
interpret signalsfrom the resourcestock through a dynamic social--eco-
logical process,thus developingflexibleinstitutionsto deal with resource
managementcrises.Chaptersin this voiume show that theseinstitutions
involve a rangeof property rights regimes.But Westernresourcemanage-
ment scienceoften assumesa very limited set of property rights: state
property (regime based on government regulation), private property
'tragedyof the commons'.However,no
(market-basedregime),or elsea
fewerthan nine of the chaptersin this volume(Chapterc 2, 4-7 , 9, l0 , 14,
15) show that the real world also contains many working examplesof
common-property (or communal property) systemsin which an identifi-
able group of usersholds the rights and responsibilitiesfor the use of a
resource.This is not to say that pure common-property systemsare the
norm or that they ought to replacestate-propertyand private-property
regimes.The nine chapters mentioned above in fact encompassa great
diversity of institutional arrangements,many in combinationwith state-
property and private-propertyregimes,and includecasesin which govern-
ment interventionhascausedthe disruptionof local institutions(Chapter
4).
Of the remainingchapters,severaldiscussexplicitcombinationsof local
property rights and governmentmanagementregimes.Theseinclude the
'trawling rally', a weakco-management
Icelandcase(Chapter3) with the
system involving minimal local participation in manag€ment,and the
Maine case(Chapter8), a strongco-management systemwith a hierarchy
of institutionsinvolving local and statemanagement.Chapter6 explores
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability19
why somegroupsare more successfulthan othersin making themselves
heardby policy makers.
Severalchaptersdealwith the failureof management and the redesignof
institutions.TheseincludeChapter5, which analysesepisodesof resource
depletionin subarcticCanada,Chapter 14 which dealswith re-emergent
neo-traditionalinstitutions, and Chapter 12 which describesthe recent
spectacularcrashof a major resource(the Newfoundlandcod) which can
potentiallytrigger institutional redesign.Threeof the chapters(Chapters
9, l0 and I t) deal with meso-scaleor regional disruptions that create
complexproblemsin resourcemanagement.

Patternsof interaction
Patternsof interactionaddressthe questionof dynamicchangeand are
the key to the analysisof case studies.The essentialquestionsto be
addressed are thosethat arisefrom the objectivesof the volume:how the
local socialsystemhasdevelopedmanagementpracticesbasedon ecolog-
ical knowledgefor dealing with the dynamicsof the ecosystem(s) in
which it is located;and the socialmechanismsbehindthesemanagement
practices.
The analysisof patternsof interactionsrequiresan evolutionaryfocus,
asboth socialsystemsand natural systemshavean evolutionarycharacter
(Chapterl3) Thereare,however,no readyguidelinesfor the studyof inter-
actions,and eachcaseis different.Key factorsdriving patternsof interac-
tion may be externally imposedperturbationsin one case,population
growth in another, and market factors in yet another. We distinguish
betweenlocal-scaledisturbances,meso-scale(or regional and national-
scale)disturbances,and global-scaledisturbances.The box enclosing
Figure l.l is meantto depictthe embeddedness of local systemsin meso-
scaleand global-scaleinfluences.
The analysisof interactionsrequiresa focuson feedbackmechanisms.
Somesocietiesadapt to changingconditionsbetterthan others,and there
is verylittle agreementon what accountsfor suchvariability(Kuran, 1988).
The key factor in successfuladaptationmay be the presenceof appropriate
feedbackmechanismswhich enableconsequences of earlier decisionsto
influence the next set of decisionswhich make adaptation possible.
Conversely, factorsthat obliteratefeedbacksmay resultin lossof cultural
adaptations.For example,the developmentof market economyin a previ-
ously isolated area may 'free' local people from traditional ecological
constraints,triggeringa changein agriculturalpracticesin favour of cash
20 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke
crops(Chapter I l) and monocultures(Chapter9), or a changein the kinds
of resourcesusedin a tropical rain forest (Chapter 6). Thesechangesmay
be fine if such transitions improve the well-beingof the combinedsocial,
economic,and ecologicalsystem.However,the result is often the opposite
becauseof loss of cultural adaptations.
The analysis also requires a focus on social-ecologicallinkages.For
example,in the Delacarlia region of Sweden,the land use pattern was
conditionedby the rulesof partial inheritance(Chapter4),just asthe shift-
ing cultivation systemin tropical Mexico was conditioned by milpa as a
social system(Chapter9). The agroforestrysystemin Ara, Nigeria, shapes
the land tenuresystemof the Yoruba, and in turn is shapedby it (Chapter
7). The fishersof Newfoundlandcod wererespondingto market opportu-
nities and governmentincentives;the overfishingthat resultedaffectedthe
viability of fishing companiesand communities(Chapter 12).

Outcomes
Patterns of interaction produce certain outcomes. The biophysical
environment may or may not be used sustainably;the functional per-
formanceof the ecosystemmay or may not be damaged;and benefitsmay
or may not be sharedequitably or fairly. The questionof performanceof
natural resourcesystemsbegsthe questionof evaluativecriteria. Oakerson
(1992)suggestedtwo criteria, efficiency(definedasParetoOptimality) and
equity. Other criteria include empowermentand livelihood security,as
suggestedfor example by some development professionals(Pomeroy,
1994).
In seekinga criterion which is both human-centricand resource-centric,
and not exclusivelyone or the other,Feenyet al. (1990)suggested sustain-
ability (sensuWCED, 1987),and this is the criterion usedin this volume.
However,there are operationalproblemswith this concept(Costanzaand
Patten, 1995).Whereasthe criteria for ecologicalsustainabilityare rela-
tively well known, there are no agreed-uponcriteria for economic and
sociaVculturalsustainability.In this study,our working assumptionwill be
that social+cological systemswhich havesurvivedover extendedperiods
of time are sustainable. This assumptionis consistentwith Ostrom(1990),
and will facilitate the searchfor mechanisms fior the resilienceof the inte-
gratedsocial-ccologicalsystem.
The framework can be used as a guide for identifying social practices
based on local ecologicalknowledge,and the social mechanismsbehind
thesepractices.It can assistin identifying similarities,generalpatternsand
 Linking socialand ecologicalsystemsfor resilienceandsustainability2l
principlesthat can be drawnfrom the casestudies,and the lessonsthat can
be learnedto assistin the designingof more sustainable resourcemanage-
mentsystems. Thereareadditional possibilities
raisedby the analysisin this
volumetowardsa long-term researchprogramme.
The framework can be used as a policy guide for designingmore
sustainable systems.For example,dependingon the outcome,the interac-
tion of ecologicaland social systemsmay be modified. One mechanism
by which sucha modificationmay comeabout is co-evolution(Norgaard,
1994).Thereis someevidencein Chapters5, 7 and 14that societyand the
natural environmentmutually modified one another over a period of
time, and that local knowledgesystemsand property rights institutions
became attuned to the resourcesused. How can adaptivenessand
resiliencebe built into institutionsso that they are capableof responding
to the processesthat contribute to the resilienceof ecosystems?We
hypothesizethat maintainingrestliencemay be importantfor both resources
andsocial institutions- that the well-beingof socialand ecologicalsystems
is thuscloselylinked.
The interaction of social and ecologicalsystemsmay be modified
throughadaptationsfor maintainingresilience.Chapters2 and 15,among
others,makethis argument.The resourcemanagementsystemsof special
interestare thosethat allow lessintensiveuseand greaterbiologicaldiver-
sity,and thus help maintain resilience.Theseare systemsin which ecosys-
temprocesses (aswell aspopulationsof targetspecies) may bemaintained
and environmentalfeedbacksmanagedfor sustainability.It is possible
that traditional and neo-traditional knowledgeand resourcemanage-
ment systemsmay escapesomeof the limitations of conventionalscien-
tific resourcemanagementwith its assumptionsof controllablenature,
predictableyields, and exclusion of environmentalperturbations. We
hypothesizethat successfulknowledgeand resourcemanagementsystems
will allow disturbancesto enter on a scalewhichdoesnot disrupt the struc-
ture andfunctional performanceof the ecosystemsnd the servicesit pro-
vides.
Suchresourcemanagementsystemshaveto be ableto recognizethe feed-
backsthat signalthesedisturbances. Thus,it would seemthat they require
mechanisms by which information from the environmentmay be received,
processedand interpreted.If the resourcemanagementinstitution is a
governmentagency,the mechanismin questionwill involvescientific/man-
agerialbodies.However,if the resourcemanagementinstitution is a local
or traditionalbody,thenweexpectto find tangibleevidenceof socialmech-
anismsbehind social-+cological practicesthat dealwith disturbancesand
22 Fikret Berkes& Carl Folke

maintain system resilience. Thus, we hypothesize that there will be social

mechanisms behind managementpractices based on local ecological knowl'
edge,as evidenceof a co-evolutionary relationship between local institutions
and the ecosystemin which they are located.

References
Alcorn, J.B. 1984.Developmentpolicy, forestand peasantfarms: reflectionson
Huastec-managed forests'contributions to commercialproduction and
resourceconservation,EconomicBotany38: 389-406.
Anderson,E.N. 1996.Ecologiesof the Heart. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Baland, I.-M. and Platteau,J.-P.1996.Halting Degradationof Natural Resources:
Is Therea Rolefor Rural Communities? Oxford: FAO/ClarendonPress,'
Oxford.
Banuri, T. and Apffel Marglin, F., eds 1993.Who Will Savethe Forests?London:
The United Nations University/ZedBooks.
Barbier,E.B., Burgess,J. and Folke,C.1994.ParadiseLost?TheEcological
E conomics of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan.
Berkes,F. 1986.Local-levelmanagementand the commonsproblem:A
comparativestudy of Turkish coastalfisheries,Marine Policy 10:215-29.
Berkes,F., ed. 1989.CommonPropertyResources. Ecologyand Cornmunity'Based
SustainableDevelopmenr. London: BelhaVen.
Berkes,F. and Folke,C.lgg4.Investing in cultural capitalfor the sustainableuse
of natural capital. In Investingin Natural Capital: TheEcologicalEconomics
Approachto Sustainability,pp.12849,ed.A.M. Jansson,M. Hammer,C.
Folke,and R. Costanza.WashinglonDC: IslandPress.
Berkes,F., Folke,C. and Gadgil, M. 1995.Traditionalecologicalknowledge,
Policy
biodiversity,resilienceand sustainability.In BiodiversityConservation:
Issuesand Optionr,pp. 281-99,ed.C. Perrings,K.-G. Miiler, C. Folke,C.S.
Holling, and B.-O.Jansson,Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.
Bromley,D.W. 1991. Environmentand Economy:Property Rightsand Public
Policy.Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Bromley,D.W. 1992.The commons,property,and common-propertyregimes.In:
Making the CommonsWork: Theory,Practice,and Policy,pp. 3-15, ed. D.W.
Bromley.San Francisco:Institute for ContemporaryStudies.
Clark, W.C.and Munn, R.E., eds.1986.Sustainable Developmentof the
Biosphere.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Coleman,J.S.1990.Foundationsof Social Theory.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Costanza,R. and Patten,B.C. 1995.Definingand predictingsustainability.
EcologicalEconomicsI 5: 1934.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. 1987.Aquaculturein ancientHawaii.BioScience 37:32V31.
Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. 1989.For the CommonGood:Redirectingthe Economy
towardCommunity,the Environment,and a SustainableFuture,Boston:
BeaconPress.
Dove,M.R. 1993.A revisionistview of tropicaldeforestationand development,
EnvironmentalConservation 20: 17-24.
Farvat M.T. and Milton, eds.
J.P., 1972.CarelessTechnology:Ecologyand
InternationalDevelopment.Garden City, New York: Natural History
Press.
 Linking social and ecological systemsfor resilience and sustainability 23

Feeny,D., Berkes,F., McCay,B.J.and Acheson,J.M. 1990.The tragedyof the

cornmons:Twenty-twoyearslater. HumanEcology 18:l-19.
Feyerabend, P. 1987.Farewellto Reason.London: Verso.
Folke,C., Holling, C.S.and Perrings,C. 1996.Ecosystems, biologicaldiversity
and the human scale,EcologicalApplications6: l0l8-24.
Freeman,M.M.R., Matsuda,Y.and Ruddl€,K., eds.l99l . AdaptiveMarine
ResourceManagementSystemsin the Pactfic,SpecialIssueof Resource
Managementand Optimization,8, No. 3/4.
Funtowicz,S.O.and Ravetz,J.R. 1990.Uncertaintyand Qualityin Science for
Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.
Gadgil,M. and Berkes,F. 1991.Traditionalresourcemanagement systems.
ResourceManagementand Optimization8: I27 4I.
Gadgil,M., Berkes,F. and Folke,C. 1993.Indigenousknowledgefor biodiversity
conservation. Ambio22: 15l-6.
Gunderson,L., Holling, C.S.andLight, S.,eds.1995,BarriersandBridgesto the
Renewalof Ecosystems and Institutions.New York: Columbia University
Press.
Hanna,S.,Folke,C. and Miiler, K.-G., eds.1996.Rightsto Nature.Washington,
DC: IslandPress.
Hanna,S.and Munasinghe,M., eds.1995.PropertyRightsand theEnvironment.
Socialand EcologicalIssues.WashingtonDC: Beijer International Institute
of EcologicalEconomicsand the World Bank.
Hardin,G. 1968.The tragedyof the commons.Science162:1243-8.
Hilborn, R. and Ludwig, D. 1993.The limits of appliedecologicalresearch.
EcologicalApplications3: 550-2.
Holling,C.S.1978.AdaptiveEnvironmental Assessmentand Management.
London:Wiley.
Holling,C.S.1986.The resilienceof terrestrialecosystems: local surprise
and global change.ln SustainableDevelopmentof the Biosphere,
pp.292-317, ed.W.C.Clark and R.E. Munn. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Holling,C.S.1992.Cross-scale morphology,geometryand dynamicsof
ecosystem s, Ecological M onographs 62:447-502.
Holling,C.S.,Schindler,D.W.,Walker,B.W.and Roughgarden, J. 1995.
Biodiversityin the functioningof ecosystems: An ecologicalsynthesis. In
BiodiversityLoss:Economicand EcologicalIssues,pp.44-83,ed. C. Perrings,
K.-G. Miiler, C. Folke,C.S.Holling, and B.-O.Jansson,Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Jansson, A.M., Hammer,M., Folke,C. and Costanza,R., eds.1994.Investing in
Natural Capital: TheEcologicalEconomicsApproachto Sustainability.'
WashingtonDC: ISEE/IslandPress.
Jentoft,S.and McCay,B.J.1995.User participationin fisheries
management.Lessonsdrawn from internationalexperiences, Marine Policy
I9 :2 2 746.
Jodha,N.S. 1986.Commonpropertyresources and rural poor in dry regionsof
India, EconomicandPolitical Weekly21: 1169*81.
Johannes, R.E. 1978.Traditionalmarineconservationmethodsin Oceaniaand
their demise,AnnualReviewof EcologyandSystematics 9:349-64.
Johannes,R.E. 1981. Wordsof the Lagoon.Fishingand Marine Lore in the Paulau
District of Micronesra.Berkeley:University of California Press.
"'xt,f;3i,?;Ili,ll,l,x?:Hf;f;";:;,i1"tr';:;tffiX;:i;lt
24 Fikret Berkes & Carl Folke

Larkin, P.A.1977.An epitaphfor the conceptof maximumsustainedyield.

Transactionsof the AmericanFisheriesSociety106: l-ll.
Lee,K.N. 1993.Compassand Gyroscope:IntegratingScienceand Politicsfor the
Environmenr. WashingtonDC: IslandPress.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1962.La Pensee Sauvage.Paris:Librarie Plon.
Likeng G.E.1992. TheEcosystemApproach:Its Useand Abzse.Oldendorf/Luhe,
Germany:Excellencein Ecology,Ecology Institute.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters,C. 1993.Uncertainty,resourceexploitation,
and conservation:lessonsfrom history.Science260: 17,36.
McCay, B.J. 1995.Common and private concerns.Advancesin HumanEcology4:
89-l 16.
McCay, B.J.and Acheson,J.M. eds.1987.The Questionof the Commons.The
Cultureand Ecologyof CommunalResources. Tucson:University of Arizona
Press.
McNeely,J.A. 1991.Common property resourcemanagementor government
ownership:Improving the conservationof biological resources,International
RelationsI 99I : 2l l-25.
Messerschmidt, D.A., ed. i993. CommonResource Management. Annotated
Bibliographyof Asia, Africa and Intin America.Community ForestryNote
11.Rome:EAO.
Netting, R. 1981.Balancingon an Alp. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Niamir, M. 1990.Herder'sDecision-makingin Natural Resources Managementin
Arid and Semi-aridAfrica. Community ForestryNote No. 4. Rome:EAO.
Norgaard, R.B. 1994.DevelopmentBetrayed:TheEnd of Progressand a
CoevolutionaryRevisioningof the Future.Routledge,New York.
North, D.C., 1993.EconomicPerformancethroughTime.Les Prix Nobel. The
Nobel Prizes1993.Stockholm:The Nobel Foundationand the Royal
SwedishAcademy of Sciences.
Oakerson,R.J. 1992.Analyzing the commons:a framework.In Making the
CommonsWork: Theory,Practice,and Policy,pp.4l-59, ed. D.W. Bromley.
San Francisco:Institute for ContemporaryStudies.
Odum, E.P. 1989.Ecologyand Our EndangeredLife-SupportSystems.
Sunderland,Mass.:Sinuaer.
Ostrom, E. 1990.Governingthe Commons:TheEvolutionof Institutionsfor
CollectiveAction. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ostrom, 8.1992. Crafting Institutionsfor Self-Governinglrrigation Systems.San
Francisco:Institute for ContemporaryStudiesPress.
P6lsson,G. 1991. CoastalEconomies,Cultural Accounts.HumanEcologyand
IcelandicDiscourse.Manchesterand New York: ManchesterUniversity
Press.
Park, R.E. 1936.Human ecology.AmericanJournalof Sociology42: I-15.
Pinkerton, 8., ed. t989. Co-operativeManagementof Local Fisheries:New
D irect ionsfor improved M anagementand CommunityD evelopment.
Vancouver:University of British Columbia Press.
Pomeroy,L.R. and Alberts, J.J.1988.Conceptsof EcosystemEcology.New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Pomeroy,R.S., ed. 1994.CommunityManagementand CommonPropertyof
CoastalFisheriesin Asia and the Pacifc. Manila: ICLARM.
Ramakrishnan,P.S.1992.Shifting Agricultureand SustainableDevelopment. An
InterdisciplinaryStudyfrom North-EasternIndia. Paris:UnescolParthenon.
Rappaport,R.A. 1971.The sacredin humanevolution,AnnualReviewof Ecology
and Svstematics2; 23-44.
 Linking social and ecological systemsfor resilience and sustainability 25

Rapoport,A. 1985.Thinking about homeenvironments: A conceptual

framework.ln HomeEnvironments, pp.255-86,ed. I. Altman and
C.M.Werner.New York: PlenumPress.
Redclift.M. 1994.Reflectionson the'sustainabledevelopment'debate.
InternationalJournalof SustainableDevelopment and WorldEcologyI:3-21.
Ruddle,K., Hviding, E. and Johannes, R.E. 1992,Marine resources management
in the context of customarymarine tenure,Marine ResourceEconomics7:
249-73.
Ruddle,K. and Johannes, R.E., eds.1990.TraditionalMarine Resource
Management in thePacifc Basin:An Anthology.Jakarta:Unesco/ROSTSEA.
Schlager,E. and Ostrom,E. 1992.Property-rightsregimesand naturalresources:
a conceptualanalysis.Land Economics68:24942.
Schulze, E.-D. and Mooney,H.A. eds.1993.BiodiversityandEcosystem Function.
Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag.
Smith,A.H. and Berkes,F. 1993.Community-based useof mangroveresources in
St. Lucia, InternationalJournalof Environmental Studies43:123*32.
Solbrig,O.T. 1993.Plant traits and adaptivestrategies:
Their role in ecosystem
function.In Biodiversityand Eco-system Function,pp.97-116,eds.E.-D.
Schulzeand H.A. Mooney.Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag.
Walker,B.H. 1992.Biodiversityand ecologicalredundancy,Conservation Biology
6: 18-23.
Walters,C.J.1986.AdaptiveManagement of Renwable Resources. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Warren,D.M., SlikkerveelL.J.and Brokensha,D., eds.1995.TheCultural
Dimensionof Development. IndigenousKnowledgeSystems.London:
IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
wcED 1987.our CommonFuture.TheReportof the world commissionon
Environmentand Development.Oxford: Oxford University Press.