Article Carl Folke, Steve Carpenter, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance Gunderson, CS Holling and Brian Walker

Resilience and Sustainable Development:

Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of
Transformations
The goal of sustainable development is to create and maintain
Emerging recognition of two fundamental errors under- prosperous social, economic, and ecological systems. These sys-
pinning past polices for natural resource issues heralds tems are intimately linked: humanity depends on services of eco-
awareness of the need for a worldwide fundamental systems for its wealth and security. Moreover, humans can trans-
change in thinking and in practice of environmental man- form ecosystems into more or less desirable conditions. Human-
agement. The first error has been an implicit assumption
ity receives many ecosystem services, such as clean water and
that ecosystem responses to human use are linear,
predictable and controllable. The second has been an air, food production, fuel, and others. Yet human action can
assumption that human and natural systems can be render ecosystems unable to provide these services, with con-
treated independently. However, evidence that has been sequences for human livelihoods, vulnerability, and security.
accumulating in diverse regions all over the world suggests Such negative shifts represent loss of resilience.
that natural and social systems behave in nonlinear ways, New insights have been gained during the last 10 years about
exhibit marked thresholds in their dynamics, and that the essential role of resilience for a prosperous development of
social-ecological systems act as strongly coupled, complex society (1). A growing number of case studies have revealed the
and evolving integrated systems. This article is a summary tight connection between resilience, diversity and sustainability
of a report prepared on behalf of the Environmental of social-ecological systems (2, 3). This article is a summary of
Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, as input to a major report prepared on behalf of the Environmental Advi-
the process of the World Summit on Sustainable Devel- sory Council to the Swedish Government, as input to the proc-
opment (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa in 26 ess of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
August 4 September 2002. We use the concept of resili- in Johannesburg, South Africa in August 2002 (4). In the report,
ence—the capacity to buffer change, learn and develop— we provide an up-to-date synthesis of case studies and recent
as a framework for understanding how to sustain and insights, in the context of emerging theories of complex systems
enhance adaptive capacity in a complex world of rapid characterized by uncertainty and surprise (5–7).
transformations. Two useful tools for resilience-building in
social-ecological systems are structured scenarios and
active adaptive management. These tools require and
facilitate a social context with flexible and open institutions
and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning
and increase adaptive capacity without foreclosing future Lakes can exist with clear water providing many
development options. ecosystem services, or turbid water with toxic algae
blooms. Either state can be resilient dependent upon
management. Photos: S. Carpenter.

Ambio Vol. 31 No. 5, August 2002 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002 437
http://www.ambio.kva.se
 Resilience, for social-ecological systems, is related to (i) the tem. It also conserves and nurtures the diverse elements that are
magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain within necessary to reorganize and adapt to novel, unexpected, and
a given state; (ii) the degree to which the system is capable of transformative circumstances. Thus, it increases the range of sur-
self-organization; and (iii) the degree to which the system can prises with which a socioeconomic system can cope (14–16).
build capacity for learning and adaptation. Management can de- Building social-ecological resilience requires understanding of
stroy or build resilience, depending on how the social-ecologi- ecosystems that incorporates the knowledge of local users (2,
cal system organizes itself in response to management actions 17). Thus, the ecological ignorance of some contemporary so-
(8, 9). cieties undermines resilience. The outdated perception of human-
More resilient social-ecological systems are able to absorb ity as decoupled from, and in control of, nature is an underly-
larger shocks without changing in fundamental ways. When mas- ing cause of society’s vulnerability (18). Technological devel-
sive transformation is inevitable, resilient systems contain the opments and economic activities based on this perception fur-
components needed for renewal and reorganization. In other
words, they can cope, adapt, or reorganize without sacrificing
the provision of ecosystem services. Resilience is often associ-
ated with diversity—of species, of human opportunity, and of Box 1.
economic options—that maintains and encourages both adapta-
tion and learning. In general, resilience derives from things that Policy in complex adaptive systems
can be restored only slowly, such as reservoirs of soil nutrients, The earlier world-view of nature and society as systems
heterogeneity of ecosystems on a landscape, or variety of geno- near equilibrium is being replaced by a dynamic view,
types and species. which emphasizes complex non-linear relations between
Social-ecological systems are constantly changing. Usually entities under continuous change and facing discontinuities
one assumes that ecosystems respond to gradual change in a and uncertainty from suites of synergistic stresses and
smooth way, but sometimes there are drastic shifts (photos). Re- shocks. Complex systems are self-organizing. Self-organi-
gime shifts are known for many ecosystems and these shifts can zation creates systems far-from-equilibrium, characterized
be difficult, expensive, or sometimes impossible to reverse (10) by multiple possible outcomes of management. The dy-
(Table 1). Although we understand ecological regime shifts ret- namic view of nature and society has major implications
rospectively, it is difficult to predict them in advance. Measure- for economic valuation and policy. Most approaches to
ments or predictions of thresholds typically have low precision, valuation attempt to capture the value of marginal change
and often ecological thresholds move over time. It is difficult under assumptions of stability near a local equilibrium.
to design assessment programs that learn as fast as thresholds They seldom take into account the inherent complexities
change. and resulting uncertainties associated with ecosystem man-
One approach to the ongoing change of social-ecological sys- agement and natural capital assets in general. They ignore
tems has been the attempt to control or canalize change. Para- the slowly-changing probability distributions of critical eco-
doxically, management that uses rigid control mechanisms to system thresholds. Sudden and abrupt change has major
harden the condition of social-ecological systems can erode re- implications for policies on production, consumption and
silience and promote collapse. There are many examples of man- international trade. It has also major implications for eco-
agement that suppressed natural disturbance regimes or altered nomic policy, like taxes on resource use or emissions. Be-
slowly-changing ecological variables, leading to disastrous cause of the complex dynamics, optimal management will
changes in soils, waters, landscape configurations or biodiversity be difficult if not impossible to implement. Focusing on
that did not appear until long after the ecosystems were first man- economic growth to eradicate poverty, disconnected or
aged (11). Similarly, governance can disrupt social memory or decoupled from the complex dynamics of the environmen-
remove mechanisms for creative, adaptive response by people, tal resource base on which growth depends, or focusing on
in ways that lead to breakdown of social-ecological systems (12, technical solutions with the purpose to make societal de-
13). velopment independent of nature will not lead to sustain-
In contrast, management that builds resilience can sustain so- able solutions. Instead efforts should be made to create
cial-ecological systems in the face of surprise, unpredictability, synergies between economic development, technological
and complexity. Resilience-building management is flexible and change and the dynamic capacity of the natural resource
open to learning. It attends to slowly-changing, fundamental vari- base to support social and economic development (4).
ables that create memory, legacy, diversity, and the capacity to
innovate in both social and ecological components of the sys-

Table 1. Examples of documented shifts in states in different kinds of ecosystems.

Ecosystem type Alternative state 1 Alternative state 2 References

Freshwater Clear water Turbid water Carpenter (22)

Systems Benthic vegetation Blue-green algae Scheffer et al. (10)
Oligotrophic macrophytes and algae Cattails and blue green algae Gunderson (16)
Game fish abundant Game fish absent Post et al. (23)

Marine Systems Hard coral Fleshy algae Nyström et al. (24)

Kelp forests Urchin dominance Estes and Duggins (25)
Seagrass beds Algae and muddy water Gunderson (16)
Fish stock abundant Fish stock depleted Walters and Kitchell (26),
Steele (27)
Rangelands Grass structure Shrub structure Walker (28)
Forests Pest outbreak No pest Holling (29)
Pine trees dominate Hardwood plants dominate Peterson (30)
Birch-spruce succession Pine dominance Danell et al. (31)

Arctic systems Grass dominated Moss dominated Zimov et al. (32)

438 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002 Ambio Vol. 31 No. 5, August 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se
ther contribute to the erosion of resilience (Box 1). It can be tended to take the support capacity of ecosystems for granted.
counteracted by understanding the complex connections between Erosion of nature’s support capacity leads to vulnerability. Policy
people and nature, which create opportunity for technological should strengthen the perception of humanity and nature as in-
innovations and economic policies aimed at building resilience. terdependent and interacting and stimulate development that en-
Two useful tools for resilience-building in social-ecological
systems are structured scenarios and active adaptive manage-
ment. People use scenarios to envision alternative futures and
the pathways by which they might be reached. By envisioning Box 2.
multiple alternative futures and actions that might attain or avoid Adaptive management in the
particular outcomes, we can identify and choose resilience-build-
ing policies (19). Active adaptive management views policy as Everglades and the Grand Canyon
a set of experiments designed to reveal processes that build or
The Everglades of Florida and the Grand Canyon ecosys-
sustain resilience. It requires, and facilitates, a social context with
tem are complex social-ecological systems, where un-
flexible and open institutions and multi-level governance sys-
wanted ecosystem state shifts (eutrophication, species en-
tems that allow for learning and increase adaptive capacity with-
dangerment, loss of habitat and biodiversity) have resulted
out foreclosing future development options (20, 21) (Box 2).
from large-scale water-management projects. In both cases,
At least three general policy recommendations can be drawn
the restoration of resilience has been a social objective, in-
from the synthesis of resilience in the context of sustainable de-
volving millions to billions of dollars. Uncertainty has been
velopment. The first level emphasizes the importance of policy
confronted in both areas through the articulation of a set
that highlights interrelationships between the biosphere and the
of competing hypotheses about what led to the loss of re-
prosperous development of society. The second stresses the ne-
silience, and what is needed to restore those lost ecosys-
cessity of policy to create space for flexible and innovative col-
tem functions and services. Those hypotheses are tested
laboration towards sustainability, and the third suggests a few
through a structured set of management actions designed
policy directions for how to operationalize sustainability in the
to sort among the alternative explanations and a compre-
context of social-ecological resilience.
hensive monitoring plan established through decades of
i) Although most people appreciate that development is ulti-
research. The slowly-changing variables—nutrients in
mately dependent on the processes of the biosphere, we have
sediments, and decadal hydrologic cycles—are the critical
objects of monitoring, as they are the key indicators of eco-
system resilience. In larger, more complex systems than the
Everglades and Grand Canyon, structured management ex-
periments may be impossible, yet it is still necessary for
people to assess the fundamental variables and branch
points that lead to alternative futures. In these situations,
scenario exercises are a useful mechanism for building un-
derstanding and flexibility toward adaptive change.
The Everglades and the Grand Canyon diverge with re-
spect to their ability to cultivate institutional learning. The
Everglades process has been trapped by special interest
groups (agriculture and environmentalists) who seek to
avoid learning, thus undermining the possibilities for en-
hancing resilience. The Grand Canyon group, on the other
hand, has developed an ‘Adaptive Management Work
Group’ which uses planned management actions and sub-
sequent monitoring data to test hypotheses, and build un-
derstanding of ecosystem dynamics. Such understanding is
one necessary ingredient of adaptive capacity. Working
with open institutions is essential for dealing with multi-
ple objectives, uncertainty and the possibility of surprising
outcomes. Such emergent governance that creates new in-
stitutional platforms for adaptive management is evolving
in many places. For example, adaptive co-management sys-
tems, i.e. flexible community-based systems of resource
management tailored to specific situations and supported
by and working in collaboration with concerned govern-
mental agencies, educational institutions and where appro-
priate NGOs, take place, for example, in the context of the
Biodiversity Register program in India and through the in-
volvement of several local steward associations in the man-
agement of semi-urban and urban landscapes in Sweden.
Adaptive co-management draws on accumulated social-
ecological experience and is informed by both practice and
theory. It relies on the participation of a diverse set of in-
terest groups operating at different scales, from local us-
ers, to municipalities, to regional and national organiza-
Mulga woodlands of Australia can exist in a grass-rich state that tions, and occasionally also international networks and bod-
supports sheep herding, or a shrub-dominated state oF no value for ies (16).
sheep grazing. Either state can be resilient dependent upon
management. Photos: D. Tongway.

Ambio Vol. 31 No. 5, August 2002 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002 439
http://www.ambio.kva.se
hances resilience in social-ecological systems, recognizing the hance resilience and adaptive capacity. For example, the devel-
existence of ecological thresholds, uncertainty and surprise. opment of monocultures should be avoided. Policy should pro-
ii) Policy should create arenas for flexible collaboration and vide incentives that encourage learning and build ecological
management of social-ecological systems, with open institutions knowledge into institutional structures in multi-level governance.
that allow for learning and build adaptive capacity. Policy frame- Policy should invite participation by resources users and other
works with clear directions for action towards building adaptive interest groups and their ecological knowledge. Structured sce-
capacity and thus social-ecological sustainability are required in narios and active adaptive management processes should be im-
this context (the EU watershed management directive is one ex- plemented.
ample). They create action platforms for adaptive management Managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustain-
processes and flexible multi-level governance that can learn, gen- ing development in a changing world where surprise is likely.
erate knowledge and cope with change. Such systems generate Resilience-building increases the capacity of a social-ecologi-
a diversity of management options for respond to uncertainty and cal system to cope with surprise. A changing, uncertain world
surprise. in transformation demands action to build the resilience of the
iii) Policy should develop indicators of gradual change and social-ecological systems which embrace all of humanity.
early warning signals of loss of ecosystem resilience and possi- The need to account for resilience in a world of transforma-
ble threshold effects. Policy should encourage monitoring of key tions is a perspective that should become embedded in strate-
ecosystem variables and aim to manage diversity for insurance gies and policy of the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-
to cope with uncertainty. Policy should stimulate ecosystem ment and recognized in the next phases for implementation of
friendly technology and the use of economic incentives to en- Agenda 21.

References and Notes

1. Gunderson. L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds) 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transfor- 29. Holling, C.S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global
mation in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC. change. In: Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Clark, W.C. and Munn, R.E.
2. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (eds) 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Manage- (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 292–317.
ment Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University 30. Peterson, G. Forest dynamics in the south-eastern United States: managing multiple
Press, Cambridge. stable states. Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Ecosystems. Gunderson, L.H.
3. Adger, W., Neil, P., Kelly, M. and Huu Ninh, N. 2001. Living with Environmental and Pritchard, L. (eds). Island Press, Washington, DC. (In press).
Change: Social Vulnerability, Adaption, and Resilience in Vietnam. Rutledge, London. 31. Danell, K., Bergström, R., Edenius, L. and Ericsson, G. Ungulates as drivers of tree
4. Foke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., population dynamics. Forest Ecol. Manage. (In press).
Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Moberg, F., Gordon, 32. Zimov, S.A., Chuprynin, V.I., Oreshko, A.P., Chapin, F.S., Reynolds, J.F. and Chapin,
L., Kaspersson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S.A., Mäler, K.-G., Ohlsson, L., M.C. 1995. Steppe-tundra transition: a herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the
Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockström, J., Savenije, H. and Svedin, U. 2002. Pleistocene. Am. Nat. 146, 765–794.
Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of trans- 33. We acknowledge support from the McDonnell Foundation to the Resilience Alliance
formations. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development No. 3. International and are grateful to Elena Bennett, Siv Näslund, Olof Olsson, Kristina Olsson, Thomas
Council for Scientific Unions, Paris or The Swedish Environmental Advisory Council Rosswall and colleagues of the Resilience Alliance for valuable comments on the manu-
2002:1. Ministry of the Environment, Stockholm, www.mvb.gov.se script and inspiration.
5. Costanza, R., Waigner, L. Folke, C. and Mäler, K.-G. 1993. Modeling complex eco-
logical economic systems: towards an evolutionary dynamic understanding of people
and nature. BioScience 43, 345–555.
6. Holland, J.H. 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaption Builds Complexity. Addison-Westley,
Reading, MA. Carl Folke is Director of the Interdisciplinary Center of
7. Levin, S. 1999. Fragile Dominions: Complexity and the Commons. Perseus Books,
Reading, MA. Natural Resources and Environmental Research, and
8. Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M. and Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to meas- professor at the Department of Systems Ecology,
urement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4, 765–781. Stockholm University, Sweden. He is also associated with
9. Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social
systems. Ecosystems 4, 390–405. the Beijer Institute. His address: Department of Systems
10. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., Foley, J., Folke, C. and Walker, B. 2001, Catastrophic Ecology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm,
shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413, 591–696. Sweden.
11. Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natu- E-mail: [email protected]
ral resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337.
12. McIntosh, R.J., Tainter, J.A. and McIntosh, S.K. (eds). 2000. The Way the Wind Blows:
Climate, History and Human Action. Columbia University Press, New York. Steve Carpenter is professor of limnology at the University
13. Redman, C.L. 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. The University of Ari- of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. His address: Center for
zona Press, Tucson, AZ. Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
14. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (eds). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Build-
ing Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. E-mail: [email protected]
(In press).
15. Carpenter, S.R. and Gunderson, L.H. 2001. Coping with collapse: ecological and so- Thomas Elmquist is professor in the Department of
cial dynamics in ecosystem management. BioScience 51, 451–457.
16. Gunderson, L.H. 2001. Managing surprising ecosystems in southern Florida. Ecol. Econ. Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Sweden. His
37, 371–378. address: Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm
17. Olsson, P. and Folke, C. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems
4, 85–104. E-mail: [email protected]
18. Kasperson, J.X. and Kasperson, R.E. (eds) 2001. Global Environmental Risk. United
Nations University Press/Earthscan, London. Lance Gunderson is Chair of the Department of
19. Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R. and Swart, Environmental Studies at Emory University, Atlanta,
R. 2002. Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm En-
vironment Institute, Stockholm. Georgia, USA. His address: Department of Environmental
20. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. and Light, S. (eds) 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Studies, Emory University, Atlanta GA, USA.
Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. E-mail [email protected]
21. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B. and Policansky, D. 1999. Revisit-
ing the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284, 278–282.
22. Carpenter, S.R. 2001. Alternate states of ecosystems: evidence and its implications. C.S. Holling is professor emeritus of the University of
In: Ecology: Achievement and Challenges. Press, M.C., Huntly, N. and Levin, S. (eds). Florida, and works as an independent scholar from his
Blackwell, London, pp. 357–383. home in Cedar Key, Florida, USA. His address: Cedar Key,
23. Post, R.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S., Lester, N.P., Walters, C.J., Parkinson, E.A., Paul,
A.J., Jackson, L. and Shuter, B.J. 2002. Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible Florida, USA.
collapse? Fisheries 27, 6–17. E-mail: [email protected]
24. Nyström, M., Folke, C. And Moberg, F. 2000. Coral-reef distrubance and resilience in
a human dominated environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 413–417.
25. Estes, J.A. and Duggins, D.O. 1995. Sea otters and kelp forests in Alaska: generality Brian Walker, is Program Director of the Resilience Alliance,
and variation in a community ecological paradigm. Ecol. Monogr. 65, 75–100. (www.resalliance.org) and is based at CSIRO Division of
26. Walters, C.J. and Kitchell, J.F. 2001. Cultivation/depensation effects on juvenile sur- Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia. His address:
vival and recruitment: implications for the theory of fishing. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
58, 1–12.
27. Steele, J.H. 1998. Regime shifts in marine ecosystems. Ecol. Applic. 8, S33–S36. E-mail: [email protected]
28. Walker, B.H. 1993. Rangeland ecology: understanding and managing change. Ambio
22, 80–87.

440 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002 Ambio Vol. 31 No. 5, August 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se