CPWF Research into Use (RIU) inception / review workshop, Bangkok,, 25-28 Oct. 2011, presentation on resilience thinking by Andre van Rooyen

1. Resilience thinking: Towards new
conceptual models in
Agricultural/Rural/Basin
development….
and modeling
Andre F van Rooyen

2. Complex systems Ostrom 2007
Three aspects of decomposability of complex subsystems
are important:
1. conceptual partitioning of variables into classes and
subclasses.
2. is the existence of relatively separable subsystems
that are independent of each other in the
accomplishment of many functions and development
but eventually affect each other’s performance.
3. that complex systems are greater than the sum of
their parts.

4. What is resilience and why should we be
concerned?
The ability of a “system” (social-ecological or SES) to
recover from shock/perturbation;
3 defining characteristics:
1. The amount change a system can undergo and still
retain the same controls on function and structure;
2. The degree to which a system is capable of self-
organization and re-organization after shock/change
3. The degree to which the system can learn/share
knowledge and adapt.
Walker et al. 2002

5. Folke et al. (2003) defined four clusters of factors, that interact
across temporal and spatial scales which increase the resilience
of SES
• Learning to live with change and uncertainty
• Nurturing diversity in its various forms
• Combining different types of knowledge for learning
• Creating opportunity for self-organization and cross-scale
linkages

6. Back to Plant Ecology 101
• Sustainability
• Succession models – Linear models
• Equilibrium systems
• Disequilibrium
• Hollings and Walker

7. Cup and ball models…

8. Cup and ball models…

9. Cup and ball models…

10. Cup and ball models…

11. State-and-transition-models
Closed unpalatable woodland
Small shrubs
Bare soil
Mixed annual grass/shrubland
Annual grasses
Savanna

12. Transitions can be caused by:
• Grazing
– Inefficient grazing systems – lack of infrastructure
– Inappropriate water provision
– Policy – open access systems
• Fire
• Frost
Obviously the opposite of these will normally have positive
impact!

13. Stable degraded states
• Some transitions are irreversible!
• Caused by changes in soil, chemistry, structure
• Plant spp composition changes and seed
banks
• Long lived unpalatable spp.
Stable degraded states are often very resilient
I.e. its very difficult to get out of these states.

14. Now, apply the same thinking to the whole system
socio-ecological systems (SES)
• How do the GD interact within the SES in your basin?
• What are the specific barriers preventing regime changes?
• What are the facilitating environments/conditions which
could drive DES in you area forward?
Think in terms of:
• Technologies
• Policies
• Markets
• Incentives
• Environmental conditions/constraints/opportunities

15. Resilience management:
• To prevent the system from moving to
undesired system configuration when shocked
of challenged/disturbed
• To nurture and preserve the elements that
enable the system to renew and reorganize
itself following major chock or change

16. Fig. 1. A framework for the analysis of resilience in
social-ecological systems.
Description of System
Step 1 Key processes, ecosystem,
structures and actors
Exploring
Step 2 Plausible Exploring
external
policies visions
shocks
3-5 scenarios
Step 3 Resilience analysis
Better
Integrated
Theories
Step 4 Stakeholder evaluation
(processes and products)
Policy and
Management
Actions

17. Fig. 6. The current and possible future states in the western Australian wheatbelt and some of the key
thresholds.
Copyright © 2006 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Kinzig, A. P., P. Ryan, M. Etienne, H. Allison, T. Elmqvist, and B. H. Walker. 2006. Resilience and regime
shifts: assessing cascading effects. Ecology and Society 11(1): 20. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art20/

18. Copyright © 2006 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Kinzig, A. P., P. Ryan, M. Etienne, H. Allison, T. Elmqvist, and B. H. Walker. 2006. Resilience and regime
shifts: assessing cascading effects. Ecology and Society 11(1): 20. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art20/

19. Development trajectories and a conceptual
model of rural/agricultural development

20. • Berkes (2007 p.287) suggested: “the creation
of platforms for dialogue and innovation,
following a crisis, is key to the stimulation of
learning to deal with uncertainties. It helps
reorganize conceptual models and paradigms,
based on a revised understanding of the
conditions generating the crisis.”

21. Innovation systems/multi-stakeholder
platforms… blah blah blah…
(i) Learning to live with change and uncertainty: the IP evaluates
strategies to cope with changing environments and capitalize on
emerging opportunities;
(ii) Nurturing diversity: by including a diversity of players and partnerships,
the IP introduces diverse technologies to increase livelihood options;
(iii) Combining different types of knowledge for learning: cross-scale
dialogue between partners brings different types of knowledge and
viewpoints and stimulates learning through the iterative evaluation of
interventions;
(iv) Creating opportunity for self-organization: the functioning of the IP
promotes self-organization based on production or market interests.