Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness
- Autores
- Domptail, Stephanie; Easdale, Marcos Horacio; Yuerlita
- Año de publicación
- 2013
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Growing symptoms of the mismanagement of socio‐ecological systems (SESs) show that the long‐term existence of these systems is threatened. SES management improvement is the aim of many policy measures. But how successful are these various simultaneous policy measures in achieving the sustainable management of SESs? A framework for analysing policy measures and the management actions of land users was developed by Leach et al. (2010): the authors postulate that the sustainability of an SES depends on four system properties – stability, resilience, durability and robustness – and that external shocks and stresses affect these properties differently. The aim of this contribution is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approach by applying it to three case studies, in Namibia, Argentina and Indonesia. We found that (1) more actions were directed towards resilience and robustness than towards command and control, (2) actions directed at stability and durability were generally undertaken at the national level and (3) the introduction of the concept of robustness to illustrate the property of adaptability enables the identification of trade‐offs among properties, but (4) issues of ecological degradation were difficult to address explicitly. We consider that the framework can make a useful contribution to policy making by framing the impact of a given intervention on SESs on the four key system properties. Yet, the framework provides a structure to make ex‐post assessment of SES management or to formulate assumptions about potential synergies/trade‐offs among impacts on system properties. However, we suggest using it as complementary to other policy impact assessment methods
EEA Bariloche
Fil: Domptail, Stephanie. Justus Liebig University of Giessen. Institute for Agricultural Policy and Market Research; Alemania
Fil: Easdale, Marcos Horacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche; Argentina
Fil: Yuerlita. Andalas University. kampus Unand Limau Manis; Indonesia - Fuente
- Environmental Policy and Governance 23 (1) : 30-45 (January-February 2013)
- Materia
-
Ecosistema
Sostenibilidad
Resiliencia frente a Impactos y Crisis
Indicadores Sociales
Ecosystems
Sustainability
Resilience
Social Indicators
Sustentabilidad - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso restringido
- Condiciones de uso
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
- OAI Identificador
- oai:localhost:20.500.12123/4927
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
INTADig_01c57833d665dbf5ec27e5a8a3cb9d76 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/4927 |
network_acronym_str |
INTADig |
repository_id_str |
l |
network_name_str |
INTA Digital (INTA) |
spelling |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and RobustnessDomptail, StephanieEasdale, Marcos HoracioYuerlitaEcosistemaSostenibilidadResiliencia frente a Impactos y CrisisIndicadores SocialesEcosystemsSustainabilityResilienceSocial IndicatorsSustentabilidadGrowing symptoms of the mismanagement of socio‐ecological systems (SESs) show that the long‐term existence of these systems is threatened. SES management improvement is the aim of many policy measures. But how successful are these various simultaneous policy measures in achieving the sustainable management of SESs? A framework for analysing policy measures and the management actions of land users was developed by Leach et al. (2010): the authors postulate that the sustainability of an SES depends on four system properties – stability, resilience, durability and robustness – and that external shocks and stresses affect these properties differently. The aim of this contribution is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approach by applying it to three case studies, in Namibia, Argentina and Indonesia. We found that (1) more actions were directed towards resilience and robustness than towards command and control, (2) actions directed at stability and durability were generally undertaken at the national level and (3) the introduction of the concept of robustness to illustrate the property of adaptability enables the identification of trade‐offs among properties, but (4) issues of ecological degradation were difficult to address explicitly. We consider that the framework can make a useful contribution to policy making by framing the impact of a given intervention on SESs on the four key system properties. Yet, the framework provides a structure to make ex‐post assessment of SES management or to formulate assumptions about potential synergies/trade‐offs among impacts on system properties. However, we suggest using it as complementary to other policy impact assessment methodsEEA BarilocheFil: Domptail, Stephanie. Justus Liebig University of Giessen. Institute for Agricultural Policy and Market Research; AlemaniaFil: Easdale, Marcos Horacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Yuerlita. Andalas University. kampus Unand Limau Manis; IndonesiaWiley2019-04-17T12:19:47Z2019-04-17T12:19:47Z2013-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.1604http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/49271756-932X1756-9338https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1604Environmental Policy and Governance 23 (1) : 30-45 (January-February 2013)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess2025-09-04T09:47:55Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/4927instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-09-04 09:47:56.607INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
title |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
spellingShingle |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness Domptail, Stephanie Ecosistema Sostenibilidad Resiliencia frente a Impactos y Crisis Indicadores Sociales Ecosystems Sustainability Resilience Social Indicators Sustentabilidad |
title_short |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
title_full |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
title_fullStr |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
title_full_unstemmed |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
title_sort |
Managing Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustness |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Domptail, Stephanie Easdale, Marcos Horacio Yuerlita |
author |
Domptail, Stephanie |
author_facet |
Domptail, Stephanie Easdale, Marcos Horacio Yuerlita |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Easdale, Marcos Horacio Yuerlita |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Ecosistema Sostenibilidad Resiliencia frente a Impactos y Crisis Indicadores Sociales Ecosystems Sustainability Resilience Social Indicators Sustentabilidad |
topic |
Ecosistema Sostenibilidad Resiliencia frente a Impactos y Crisis Indicadores Sociales Ecosystems Sustainability Resilience Social Indicators Sustentabilidad |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Growing symptoms of the mismanagement of socio‐ecological systems (SESs) show that the long‐term existence of these systems is threatened. SES management improvement is the aim of many policy measures. But how successful are these various simultaneous policy measures in achieving the sustainable management of SESs? A framework for analysing policy measures and the management actions of land users was developed by Leach et al. (2010): the authors postulate that the sustainability of an SES depends on four system properties – stability, resilience, durability and robustness – and that external shocks and stresses affect these properties differently. The aim of this contribution is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approach by applying it to three case studies, in Namibia, Argentina and Indonesia. We found that (1) more actions were directed towards resilience and robustness than towards command and control, (2) actions directed at stability and durability were generally undertaken at the national level and (3) the introduction of the concept of robustness to illustrate the property of adaptability enables the identification of trade‐offs among properties, but (4) issues of ecological degradation were difficult to address explicitly. We consider that the framework can make a useful contribution to policy making by framing the impact of a given intervention on SESs on the four key system properties. Yet, the framework provides a structure to make ex‐post assessment of SES management or to formulate assumptions about potential synergies/trade‐offs among impacts on system properties. However, we suggest using it as complementary to other policy impact assessment methods EEA Bariloche Fil: Domptail, Stephanie. Justus Liebig University of Giessen. Institute for Agricultural Policy and Market Research; Alemania Fil: Easdale, Marcos Horacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche; Argentina Fil: Yuerlita. Andalas University. kampus Unand Limau Manis; Indonesia |
description |
Growing symptoms of the mismanagement of socio‐ecological systems (SESs) show that the long‐term existence of these systems is threatened. SES management improvement is the aim of many policy measures. But how successful are these various simultaneous policy measures in achieving the sustainable management of SESs? A framework for analysing policy measures and the management actions of land users was developed by Leach et al. (2010): the authors postulate that the sustainability of an SES depends on four system properties – stability, resilience, durability and robustness – and that external shocks and stresses affect these properties differently. The aim of this contribution is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approach by applying it to three case studies, in Namibia, Argentina and Indonesia. We found that (1) more actions were directed towards resilience and robustness than towards command and control, (2) actions directed at stability and durability were generally undertaken at the national level and (3) the introduction of the concept of robustness to illustrate the property of adaptability enables the identification of trade‐offs among properties, but (4) issues of ecological degradation were difficult to address explicitly. We consider that the framework can make a useful contribution to policy making by framing the impact of a given intervention on SESs on the four key system properties. Yet, the framework provides a structure to make ex‐post assessment of SES management or to formulate assumptions about potential synergies/trade‐offs among impacts on system properties. However, we suggest using it as complementary to other policy impact assessment methods |
publishDate |
2013 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2013-02 2019-04-17T12:19:47Z 2019-04-17T12:19:47Z |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.1604 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4927 1756-932X 1756-9338 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1604 |
url |
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.1604 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4927 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1604 |
identifier_str_mv |
1756-932X 1756-9338 |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
restrictedAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Wiley |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Wiley |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Environmental Policy and Governance 23 (1) : 30-45 (January-February 2013) reponame:INTA Digital (INTA) instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
reponame_str |
INTA Digital (INTA) |
collection |
INTA Digital (INTA) |
instname_str |
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar |
_version_ |
1842341365377138688 |
score |
12.623145 |