Robustness or resilience? Managing the intersection of ecology and engineering in an urban Alaskan fishery

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Systems theories of robustness and resilience, which are derived from engineering and ecology, respectively, have been increasingly applied to social-ecological systems (SESs). Social-ecological robustness has been applied primarily to management of physical dimensions of SESs (e.g., water management) and resilience to management of ecological dimensions of SESs (e.g., rangelands). However, cases of highly engineered systems have yet to be adequately evaluated by either approach. We find the robustness framework serves to better explain management options of a highly engineered, ecologically-based SES, the lower Ship Creek fishery in Anchorage, Alaska, USA. Robustness applies well to this system because its dynamics are highly engineered through both structures and institutions. Even the salmon are products of a hatchery fishery that operates independently of many ecological variables and feedbacks within the system. However, robustness theory has yet to develop a prescriptive method for management that can assist practitioners. We conclude by applying Ostrom's design principles to the system dynamics to assess opportunities for increasing the robustness of this urban fishery.

Quantifying urban economic resilience through labour force interdependence

“…needed for resilience " (20). This perspective highlighting the positive impacts of higher connectedness comes largely from the engineering concepts of robustness and redundancy (Pavard et al, 2008;Krupa et al, 2014), and are frequently invoked when discussing designed networks or engineered systems (Sterbenz et al, 2014). From this perspective, if one node or set of nodes in a network fails, higher connectivity increases the likelihood that compensating pathways through the network will exist.…”

Robustness, resilience: typology of definitions through a multidisciplinary structured analysis of the literature

“…, Schlichtmann (2016), Weide-Zaage et al (2018), Fryer et al (1987), Zhu and Basar (2015), Lucas et al (2018), Okoh and Haugen (2015), Wybo (2008), Balzari and Balzari (2017), Huizar et al (2018), Corman et al (2018), Faber et al (2017), Dias (2015), Adenso-Díaz et al (2017), Spiegler et al (2012), Ivanov et al (2014), Mens et al (2015), Faber et al (2018), Wang et al (2014), Pien et al (2015), Jenelius and Cats (2015), Calvert and Snelder (2018), Wang et al (2017b), Feng et al (2017), Artsiomchyk and Zhivitskaya (2013), Sun et al (2017), Klibi et al (2010), Ivanov and Sokolov (2013), Huang et al (2017), Wang et al (2017a), Kim et al (2017), Barabadi and Ayele (2018) Abimbola and Topp (2018), Mumby et al (2014), Dragicevic (2016), Krupa et al (2014), Anderies et al (2013), Anderies and Hegmon (2011), Fleischman et al (2010), Domptail et al (2013, Witten (2014), Nair and Howlett (2016), …”

Ostrom’s Design Principles as Steering Principles for Contractual Governance in “Hotbeds”

“…The studies use design principles for a range of purposes such as evaluating rules (Al Mamun & Brook, 2015), (re)evaluating CPR institutions (Barnett & Anderies, 2014;Collen et al, 2016), providing historical analytical frameworks of CPR institutions (Blomkvist & Larsson, 2013) under different frameworks of study assessment like compliance (Scholtens, 2016;Deepananda et al, 2016), cooperation (Werthmann et al, 2010, Bardhan, 2000, institution legitimacy (Ratner et al, 2013), collective action (Aubriot, 2002;Gautam & Shivakoti, 2005), and sustainability of the institutions (Dolfing & Snellen, 1999). When analysing institutions, some studies do explicitly not mention the use of design principles (Hoole, 2010;Mwangi & Wardell, 2012;Hoshino et al, 2016); other studies only have a partial effect on robust institutions (Saunders, 2014;Scholtens, 2016); in some studies, the principles are intertwined with other social, economic, and political factors (Koch et al, 2008;Sarker et al, 2015;German, 2018); or they are intertwined with other theories like social and ecological systems (Barnett & Anderies, 2014;Krupa et al, 2014;Oberlack et al, 2015;London et al, 2017). It may not be always in an explicit way, but Ostrom's design principles are closely linked to social and ecological aspects, as shown in the definition of the principles above.…”