The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social–ecological systems

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Social networks are frequently cited as vital for facilitating successful adaptation and transformation in linked socialecological systems to overcome pressing resource management challenges. Yet confusion remains over the precise nature of adaptation vs. transformation and the specific social network structures that facilitate these processes. Here, we adopt a network perspective to theorize a continuum of structural capacities in social-ecological systems that set the stage for effective adaptation and transformation. We begin by drawing on the resilience literature and the multilayered action situation to link processes of change in social-ecological systems to decision making across multiple layers of rules underpinning societal organization. We then present a framework that hypothesizes seven specific social-ecological network configurations that lay the structural foundation necessary for facilitating adaptation and transformation, given the type and magnitude of human action required. A key contribution of the framework is explicit consideration of how social networks relate to ecological structures and the particular environmental problem at hand. Of the seven configurations identified, three are linked to capacities conducive to adaptation and three to transformation, and one is hypothesized to be important for facilitating both processes. We discuss how our theoretical framework can be applied in practice by highlighting existing empirical examples from related environmental governance contexts. Further extension of our hypotheses, particularly as more data become available, can ultimately help guide the design of institutional arrangements to be more effective at dealing with change.

Social-ecological network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic review and innovative research agenda for the future

“…These structural arrangements can be easily studied using multi-level system or landscape approaches. Network synthesis efforts, such as Barnes et al's (2017) work on adaptation and transformation, illustrate how analysis of network structures can inform human-environment theories. Similar synthesis work could help unpack big telecoupling questions such as why one place is able to exert influence over another or is vulnerable to spillovers (Liu et al 2013).…”

Information about landscape services affects social network interactions in collaborative landscape adaptation

“…To emphasize the spatial structure of the socio-ecological system, I will use the term socio-ecological network as a specific type of socio-ecological system (as proposed by Barnes et al 2017). Network refers to the spatial interactions and interdependencies between locations in the landscape, both in social-cultural and in ecological sense.…”

“…Such a decision can be taken in formal organizations (for example, government and nongovernment agencies), but also in informal organizations called social networks (Prell et al 2010, p. 3-4) which are particularly significant in collaborative land management. It is in these social networks that social capital is built up, information is disseminated and people learn to know and trust each other (Munoz-Erickson and Cutts 2016; Barnes et al 2017).The term social capital describes how individuals in a network use their relationships for their own interest and for the collective good. Social capital embraces relationships based on trust, respect, reciprocity and exchange, and common rules (Adger 2003;Raquez and Lambin 2006, p. 114).…”

“…Previously I used the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) for analysing responses by groups of students to different narratives about landscape services in creating future landscapes (Opdam et al 2015b). Also of interests is social network theory applied on resource governance (Bodin and Crona 2009;Bodin et al 2016;Barnes et al 2017) and collaborative rationality theory (Innes and Booher 2016).…”

“…In their review on the use of ecosystem services maps in decisionmaking, Hauck et al (Hauck et al 2013, p. 30) concluded that although many researchers claimed that their work would benefit decision-making, this claim was rarely based 1 3 on evidence gathered during the application of the mapping technique in practice. Research aiming at such evidence is complicated by confounding factors that influence the impact of information, such as values of recipients of the information (Bolderdijk et al 2013), power relations in the social network (Vink et al 2013) and network configuration (Barnes et al 2017).…”