See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272506157

Socio-ecological theories and empirical

research (SETER): learning from an interaction
process.

Conference Paper June 2010

CITATION READS

1 180

15 authors, including:

Franois Bousquet Martine Antona

Cirad - La recherche agronomique pour le d Cirad - La recherche agronomique pour le d
247 PUBLICATIONS 4,458 CITATIONS 82 PUBLICATIONS 635 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marco Janssen Michel Lecoq

Arizona State University Cirad - La recherche agronomique pour le d
273 PUBLICATIONS 11,273 CITATIONS 328 PUBLICATIONS 967 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Resilience 2014 conference outputs and outcomes View project

Desert locust ecology and control strategy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Lecoq on 24 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.



SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL THEORIES AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH (SETER):

LEARNING FROM AN INTERACTION PROCESS

Francois BOUSQUET, Martine ANTONA, Denis GAUTIER, Nancy PELUSO, Paul

ROBBINS, Tor BENJAMINSSEN, Tom BASSETT, Lance GUNDERSON, Allyson
QUINLAN, Colin POLSKY, Marco JANSSEN, Olivier BONATO, Jean-Michel
VASSAL, Michel LECOQ, Raphael MATHEVET, Monica CASTRO, Tim LYNAM,
Charles PERRINGS, Ann KINZIG

Abstract For the last twenty years, the research units based in Montpellier participating in the
SETER project have been developing research activities on socio-ecological systems aiming at
understanding relationships between agriculture and biodiversity, policies and landscapes dynamics,
watershed management, ecosystem management and health risk, etc. At the same time, diverse
schools of thought, especially in Europe, USA and Australia, have developed theories and frameworks
to analyse the dynamics and management of socio-ecological systems. The objective of the SETER
project is to assess the complementarities of these theoretical frameworks by applying and testing
them in the case of several empirical research case studies developed by the participating units based
in Montpellier for the last twenty years. The method is to host senior researchers for short periods
(from one to two months each) during which they interact with the participating units. The same case
studies were presented to all invited researchers. Thus the objectives and methods of the theoretical
frameworks proposed by the visiting fellows are concretely expressed and analysed. Each case study
is analysed from a different angle leading to progress in the understanding of the dynamics and
management of the socio-ecological system under study. In this paper we present four different
approaches and as a preliminary result, how the researchers using these approaches have analysed
one case study. Out of the four case studies we have selected one case study, the locust control in
Sahelian region. We present here the case study; and for each approach a brief presentation and then
the analysis of the case study. We conclude with some perspectives.

ISDA 2010, Montpellier, June 28-30, 2010

 Socio-ecological theories and empirical research (SETER): Learning from an interaction
process

Francois Bousquet, Martine Antona, Denis Gautier, Nancy Peluso, Paul Robbins, Tor
Benjaminssen, Tom Bassett, Lance Gunderson, Allyson Quinlan, Colin Polsky, Marco
Janssen, Olivier Bonato, Jean-Michel Vassal, Michel Lecoq, Raphael Mathevet, Monica
Castro, Tim Lynam, Charles Perrings, Ann Kinzig,

1. Introduction
For the last twenty years, the research units based in Montpellier participating in this project
have been developing research activities on socio-ecological systems 1 aiming at
understanding relationships between agriculture and biodiversity, policies and landscapes
dynamics, watershed management, ecosystem management and health risk, etc. At the same
time, diverse schools of thought, especially in Europe, USA and Australia, have developed
theories and frameworks to analyse the dynamics and management of socio-ecological
systems.
The objective of this project is to assess the complementarities of these theoretical
frameworks by applying and testing them in the case of several empirical research case
studies developed by the participating units based in Montpellier for the last twenty years. The
method is to host senior researchers for short periods (from one to two months each) during
which they interact with the participating units. The same case studies were presented to all
invited researchers. Thus the objectives and methods of the theoretical frameworks proposed
by the visiting fellows are concretely expressed and analysed. Each case study is analysed
from a different angle leading to progress in the understanding of the dynamics and
management of the socio-ecological system under study.
In this paper we present four different approaches and as a preliminary result, how the
researchers using these approaches have analysed one case study. Out of the four case studies
we have selected one case study, the locust control in Sahelian region. We present here the
case study; and for each approach a brief presentation and then the analysis of the case study.
We conclude with some perspectives.

2 The case study: Locust control in the Sahelian region

Since the distant past, for many of the poorest countries of Africa, Desert Locust has been one
of the most serious crop pest (Steedman 1990 2). People living in these countries have been
seriously hampered by damage caused by this insect. This is a very ancient and regularly
occurring phenomenon. The basic scientific locust control principles were first outlined by
Boris Uvarov as early as 1937 during an international conference on natural disasters (Uvarov,
1938 3). To mitigate the risk of crop losses, the requirements are a good understanding of the
species' ecology in order to be able to locate outbreak source areas and carry out preventive

1
In this project we use the concept of socio-ecological system (which is more precise than nature and society) defined as
co-evolving systems that include interdependent social and ecological sub-systems. The concept of socio-ecological system
incorporates an integrated focus on the various linkages between these two sides of human-nature interactions (figure 1).
2
Steedman A. (Ed) 1990 - Locust Handbook. Natural resources Institute, Chatham, United Kingdom.
3
Uvarov B.P., 1938. Locust as a world problem. In : Premire Confrence internationale pour la protection contre les
Calamits naturelles, Paris, 13-17 septembre 1937. Published by Commission franaise d'tudes des calamits with the
support of Union Internationale de Secours , 1938, pp. 376-382.
control, and also an excellent international cooperation, which is essential due to the high
migration potential of this locust.
Research efforts undertaken for a long time resulted in the set up of a preventive control
strategy (FAO 1972 4; Hafraoui & McCulloch 1993 5). During the first half of the 20th century,
there was a rapid increase in knowledge following Uvarov's discovery of the phase
polymorphism phenomenon. During the 1930s, the main outbreak areaswhich were still
unknownwere sought. Then in the late 1930s, the outbreak source areas were generally
outlined (for the desert locust and the other main locust species). From that time it was
possible to develop a preventive strategy for controlling populations in outbreak source areas.
Preventive control organizations were created in various countries. Then, the ecological
conditions that facilitate the transformation from the solitary phase to the gregarious phase
were slowly better understood. As a result of all this research, invasions are now rare and
brief. The control strategy implies monitoring ecological conditions and the locust in its
outbreak areas, and conducting preventive treatments against the first gregarious locusts.
Regularly applied and improved, this strategy made it possible to reduce the frequency and
the duration of the invasions since the 1960s (Lecoq 2001 6; Skaf et al. 1990 7).
However, these invasions persist. The most recent one occurred in 2003-2005 and the
previous one in 1987-98. Once more, although it was announced by the experts, it could not
be stopped on time. Why? And why some plagues cannot be avoided? Of course, the problem
can be solved, but only at the cost of heavy expenses, much energy, and the application of
large quantities of pesticides in the environment, all of which could have been avoided. Could
the problem be better controlled?
The latest plague indicates that it is now essential to radically change our way of thinking,
perceiving and dealing with this problem, and to introduce new and innovative approaches to
locust issues. Ecological research is no longer the key factor with respect to plague control.
The current limiting factors are mainly organizational in nature. The recent plagues were the
result of major malfunctions in the desert locust preventive control strategy, and it is clear that
current problems in the management of this natural risk are mainly organizational. These
organizational issues should be prioritized, otherwise research findings will be wasted. In
other words, every time there has been an outbreak over the last 50 years, the main root cause
of the problem involved the human organization, and rarely a lack of knowledge. This means
that ecological research must be supplemented with research in alternative and less traditional
fields.
Strengthening of national locust control units is still far from being sufficient. This is not the
real solution to the problem. We must deal with flexibility, a key to the sustainability of the
international control organization. For this, we need to consider the locust problem not solely
in terms of crop protection, but as a natural hazard with many impacts: agricultural, economic,
social, environmental, and political. To deal with this multidimensional problem, it is
necessary to build an effective locust risk management plan, developed at different levels -
international, regional and national - and include several warning levels, with a specific

4
FAO 1972. Projet relatif au Criquet plerin. Rapport complmentaire (juillet 1966-dcembre 1970). Report
n FAO/SF:34/DLC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
5
Hafraoui A., McCulloch L. 1993 - Present Practices of Controlling Desert Locust Outbreaks. In : Atelier international de la
FAO sur la recherche et la planification en matire de lutte contre le Criquet plerin tenu Marrakech (Maroc) du 24
au 28 mai 1993. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
6
Lecoq M. 2001 - Recent progress in Desert and Migratory Locust management in Africa. Are preventative actions possible
? Journal of Orthoptera Research, 10, 277-291.
7
Skaf R., Popov G.B., Roffey J. 1990 - The Desert Locust : an international challenge. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, B328, 525-538.
organization for each one, in order to stall crises before they worsen. This type of instrument
could provide a suitable extent of flexibility and reaction potential. But it will only work if
funding is readily available to deal with locust situations, and if the needs are clearly known
in advance. This would require the creation of an international reserve fund and mobilize
countries and donors on a long term basis (Lecoq 2003 8).
Focus should also be placed on another key point that was recently noticed: the numerous
stakeholders involved in desert locust control. The rationales and strategies of these diverse
stakeholders can differ markedly. They can be convergent or divergent, and enhance or
hamper efficient locust control. A lack of recognition and understanding concerning the many
different stakeholders involved in desert locust management - and their operational rationales
- is a critical shortcoming. This is a major cause of the malfunctioning of locust management
and is detrimental to control efficacy.
Nowadays, desert locust problems should clearly be seen as a risk management system for a
natural disaster, still considering standard biological and ecological mechanisms as in the past,
while also integrating studies on social, economic, organizational, and cultural mechanisms
that were generally overlooked in the past. This is one of the keys to ensuring the
sustainability of the locust management system. We have surely to turn towards a more
anthropological approach to locust issues and consider them as a component of dynamic
social-ecosystems. What are the most adapted theoretical frameworks in the field of complex
and dynamic SES, and their resilience, to be applied in the case of desert locust management
in the future?

3 The different approaches

3.1 Political ecology 9
Coming from a confluence between the ecologically rooted social science and the principles
of political economy (Peet and Watts, 1996) in the 70s to deal with the political
circumstances that forced people into activities which caused environmental changes and
struggles, the PE is nowadays a very broad and luxuriant approach of the social dynamics
about environmental resource access, uses and control. The four professors dealing with PE
who kindly answered to our invitation to participate to SETER adventure have not been
selected because they were supposed to represent a stream of thought within the PE approach.
All of them are able to think and to formulate questions on Nature-Society interactions issues
in any of the different streams of though existing in the PE approach (political economy,
chain of explanation, following the money, environmental narratives, etc).
Nancy Lee Peluso, Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Society &
Environment Chair,
Tom Bassett, Professor of geography and affiliate at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, Center for African Studies,

8
Lecoq M., 2003 - Desert Locust Threat to Agricultural Development and Food Security and FAO/ International Role in its
Control. Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 21, 188-193.
9
For a comprehensive understanding of the Political Ecology approach, its history and emergence over the last century, the
conceptual and methodological challenges facing political ecologists, the major questions and controversies that PE addresses
and the major challenges it aims to face, it is very helpful to refer to Pauls Robbins didactic book : Political Ecology (2004,
Blackwell). This volume, which may be considered as the textbook on PE, shows how burgeoning is the field of political
ecology.
 Tor Benjaminsen, Associate Professor at the Department of International
Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences,
Norway,
Paul Robbins, Professor and Department of Geography and Regional Development at
the University of Arizona, Tucson.
However, despite their broad view and practices of PE, we have asked them to present the PE
with a specific angle, even if their researches are not restricted to a specific approach.

3.1.1 A brief introduction to Politial ecology approach

In a first broad approach, Tor Benjaminsen gave us some few key words of introduction to PE.
PE can be loosely defined as: the study of power relations in land and environmental
management (unequal costs and benefits, winners and losers). The approach put an emphasis
on the power relations, thus on the conflicts (which is a main difference with the commons
approach). PE deals with struggles over meanings as well as over land and resources. In term
of methodology, PE focuses on empirical knowledge production, with an historical
perspective and a combination of various scales. At least, PE is explicitly normative and
political (in contrast to apolitical ecology), at the border between science and policy.
Three periods can be distinguished in the history of the PE, corresponding to three paradigms
which are still co-existing nowadays.
1970s -1985: neo-Marxism
1985 -1995: eclectic, structure & agency approach
1995 - present: poststructuralism

3.1.2 The theoretical roots of PE

It is useful at this point to precise that PE is not a theory but an approach. According to Nancy
Peluso, this approach examines:
The Society-nature dialectics
The Socio-spatial relations inflected with power, manifesting at and influencing
multiple scales
The Situated-ness: e.g., place-based and non-place based aspects of resource access
and control.
Before developing the theoretical roots of the PE approach, Nancy Peluso gave us a definition
of PE from Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) that is in line with what PE examines: Political
Ecology combines the concerns of ecology and a broadly defined political economy, with an
emphasis on: the constantly shifting dialectic between society and land-based resources,
andwithin society itself, and an emphasis on the politics of situated-ness in access to
resources/nature/environment. Nancy Peluso also precisely defined Society-Nature
dialectic as a key-concept to understand the theoretical roots of PE. The Society-Nature
dialectic is a socio-natural phenomena seen in relation to each other; it is constructed and
changing in relation to each other; it is constantly remaking each other through articulations.
This dialectic between Society and Nature may lead to consider socio-natures as central in
PE approaches. Society-Nature Dialectics may be understood through three lenses that
correspond to paradigms:
The Cultural Ecology and Environmental History, that is focused on the concept of
adaptation;
 The Political Economy with historical perspectives that is focused on the processes of
access/control and accumulation;
The Post-Structuralism, deconstruction, and science studies that are based on the
analysis of the discourses, knowledges, representations, with feminist perspectives
throughout. And all, through relationships: being situated
In details, the keys questions for each of these three paradigms help to precise the theoretical
roots of PE that is emerging from across these paradigms.
For the cultural ecology, the key questions are:
What are the patterns and practices of resource use of various users?
How are these use patterns affected by the ecological and biological characteristics of
the resources?
What are some basic institutions for use and management of the resources?
How do these patterns and practices of use represent adaptation to a changing social or
physical environment?
For the political economy, the key questions are:
What changes have taken place in the ways the resource is produced, extracted, used,
or managed? (practices)
How does accumulation take place?
How are access to and control of the resource regulated?
What kinds of marginalization or dispossession take place?
For the post-structural PE, the key questions are:
What are the claims and counterclaims around this conflict?
What are the larger discourses people draw on to legitimate their claims?
What are the brief histories or origins of these discourses?
What narratives do the various parties tell to justify their claims?
According to Nancy Peluso, the key questions in PE that are emerging from across these 3
paradigms are the following:
What difference does nature make?
What difference does access make?
What difference does difference make?

3.1.3 The philosophical lenses in PE

Complementary to the statement of the theoretical roots of PE approach by Nancy Peluso, Tor
Benjaminsen brings an enlighting on two possible philosophical postures that exist in PE.
He illustrates these two postures by the case of cotton and soil fertility in Mali.
The first posture is PE as epistemology. This posture emphasises the analysis of the nature
of knowledge and the production of knowledge, includes scepticism about different
knowledge claims, as well as reflectivity, open-ended (Blaikie and Brookfield (eds), 1987;
Leach and Mearns, 1996; Forsyth 2003). The typical issues that this PE lens is dealing with
are:
- What do we know about environmental change?
- How is this knowledge acquired?
The second posture is Political ecology as ontology, an ontological approach implying
knowledge and certainty about reality. In the lens, no fundamental questions asked about
environmental change. Research seems to be carried out to confirm a certain world view but
not to question the changes at run.
Two examples of this posture are:
- the evidence from the Sahel famine shows that ecological deterioration and food
shortages are not only linked with each other but also structurally related to a specific
form of production international capitalism and the many secondary effects it
produces in even the most marginal and faraway environments (Franke and Chasin,
1980: 5)
- Political ecologists must begin with an accurate understanding of capitalist dynamics
for the simple and profound reason that they lie at the roots of most problems with
which political ecology concerns itself (Watts and McCarthy, 1997: 85)

3.1.4 PE as a method, or something else

PE as method is dealing with techniques and modes of explanation. Among the techniques,
Paul Robbins quoted the most used in PE, that himself has applied on his study field of
Rajasthan: ethnography, field ecology, land cover analysis, environmental and oral history,
institutional analysis. Among the modes of explanation, Paul Robbins quoted: chain of
explanation, discursive analysis of accepted wisdom?, critical analysis of impacts. However,
Paul Robbins gave us an original way to understand what is PE by defining it has a Text.
Considering the fact that a Political Ecologist is writing to the heart of contradictions and that
she/he using objective as well as subjective elements: Tropes, Arguments, Moods, Ironies,
Moral Imperatives the political ecologist may be considered as an author as much as a
researcher.

3.1.5 PE as a critique of environmental orthodoxies

Considering that environment and ecology are generally the poor relation of PE, despite PE
has emerged in reaction to apolitical ecology, Tom Bassett gave us a talk on how to
integrate ecological data in political ecology approach. For Tom Bassett, Political ecologys
critique of environmental orthodoxies reveals the interplay of science and politics by showing
how knowledge is produced by boundary organizations (e.g. IPCC, IFCs) that allow certain
voices to speak and questions to be asked. In line with Forsyth definition of PE (2003) (i.e.
exploring the way in which science and politics are intertwined in the production of
scientific knowledge), the key questions that Tom Bassett is addressing are the following:
- How do we know that we have environmental problems?
- Who has the authority to make such assessments and declarations?
The natural world has an ontological basis and plays a dynamic role in environmental change,
but its agency is socially mediated. That is, how biophysical processes are represented or the
storylines that are told (e.g. forest succession) construct natures reality into discourses that
limit the types of statements that can be made about environmental change dynamics. At the
intersection of social and ecological processes, political ecology disrupts conventional views
of environmental problems with alternative explanations and perspectives on human-
environment relationships. This position of PE as a disruption makes PE a challenging
(holistic) analytical approach since it combines positivist and non-positivist epistemologies
and methodologies (Blaikie 1999). The process of integrating ecological data into PE analysis
begins with an examination of the assumptions and explanations of environmental
orthodoxies, or received wisdoms; followed by a reframing of the problem that makes the
co-production of science and policy transparent, and incorporates alternative voices, views
and data.

3.1.6. Political ecology and locust control

In general terms, political ecology approaches this problem from the following position:
The problem is rooted in:
Spatial/territorial mismatch of political territories and locust breeding sites
(micro) and invasion paths (international)
Significant impacts matched with massively mobilized capital resources
Diverse and divergent interests in control and impact
Politics of Knowledge
Development and legitimization of expertise and expert power
The vacuum of local knowledge
Problematization of locusts in colonial history and transformation of
governance in the modern era
This feeds different debates in the field
Globalization exacerbating international problems: trans-boundary problems
unsolved by trans-boundary organizations
Scale
Commons
Geopolitics
Dispersed governance of dispersed ecologies : How states respond and evolve
in response to new ecological challenges?
The crisis chain of assistance and response: Where does development capital
from locusts accumulate?
Several themes were identified
Theme 1: Herders & Agencies
Knowledge & Problem Definition
Problem/Concept: Herders are distributed across the landscape in areas of locust
outbreaks but information and coordination with these communities is poor
Theoretical lens:
local ecological knowledge (metis) versus state knowledge (techne)
Assembling networks of knowledge amongst diverse publics
Proximity of experience of local people and its conditioning
Goal: Understanding local actors, perspectives, and narratives
Theme 2: Situating the locust, An historical political ecology
Concept/Justification
Previous ordering of the locust problem and relationships between local people
and varying institutions are not the same as the ones that exist now.
Yet we know little about how problems were dealt with in previous periods,
how locusts and people were governed (and indeed current relations between
the actors have concretized over time.)
Two Key goals:
Can we learn from the past to cope in the present?
How did present dysfunctions come to be and how might they be
undone
 Theoretical lens
Colonialism and capitalism transformed the crisis owing to the larger
political economy
Modern expert power has come to crystallize in the institutional relations of
the present
Question: What happened during previous management regimes and what were the
socio-ecological effects?
Theme 3 Geopolitics of Insects
Observations:
Morocco (wealthy invasion state with agriculture) donates to Mauritania (poor
outbreak state) but Saudi Arabia (wealthy outbreak state without agriculture)
does not donate to Yemen (poor invasion state with agriculture).
Morocco and Mauritania are NOT historically friendly, but this provides an
entry point for relations
Question:
What geopolitical and agro-economic conditions prefigure cooperation or
cooperative failure?
To what degree does locust cooperation generate new openings for
cooperation?
Theme 4: Cycles of Remembering and Forgetting
Problem / Justification
Momentum and resources are mobilized during outbreaks and invasions, but
knowledge goes into remission
Hypothesis: invasion areas remember & outbreak areas forget?
Theoretical lens:
Institutions do the remembering and the forgetting.

Theme 5: Cycles of Resource Generation and Dissipation

Problem / Conception:
While locusts go through a cycle of outbreak and invasion, and the
international community goes through a cycle of motivation and oblivion
the donor and receiver countries and institutions go through a cycle of
resource generation and dissipation
Hypothesis: Crisis generates conditions for remembering locusts that are
mediated by increasingly available capital and institutional conduits
Method: Follow the money
Social Autopsy
Study the decision-making process within agencies: what other actors are at
work in the decisions and where are they located
Careful accounting of when funds flowed, what was bought, and where did the
materiel go?

3.2 Vulnerability
3.2.1 A brief introduction to vulnerability approach.
Colin Polsky is a geographer at Clark University specializing in the study of vulnerability of
coupled human-environment systems. This text below is a mix between a text given by C.
Polsky for the project and his oral presentation at Agropolis in June 2009.
Taking the example of Katrina hurricane the classical impact model would be based on the
following model.

hurricane levees individual
landfall break
citizens impact
decisions
The decision-based approach requires knowing the risk of the event, defined as the probability
of future loss multiplied by magnitude of loss. This corresponds to the rational actor paradigm,
based on the concept of invisible hand (Adam Smith) or the definition of John Stuart Mill of
Political Economy which presupposes an arbitrary definition of man, as a being who
invariably does that by which he may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences,
and luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labor, and who is capable of judging of the
comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end. There is enough evidence in the
history of floods to reject this model. Consequently another model was proposed by Turner et
al in 2003:

individual
citizens

hurricane levees decisions impacts and
landfall break AND responses
CONSTRAINT
S ON THOSE
DECISIONS

There were some antecedents in the literature: risk/hazards (eg, White, Kasperson), food
security/political ecology (eg, Downing, Watts), climate change impacts (eg, Kates,
Easterling), ecological resilience (eg, Holling, Berkes)
A graphical view of the proposed framework
 Worl
Dynamics System operates at multiple
cross-scale Regio
in place spatial, functional, and temporal scales
Plac
beyond place e
Human Influences outside the Place
Macro political economy, institutions,
global trends and transitions

Place-Based Human-Environment System

Variability & change Vulnerability
in human conditions Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive Capacity

Human Responses
conditions in place:
Responses
Interactions of stressors, Characteristics beyond
stresses & perturbations & components Responses in place:
of exposure place: impacts
Environmental adjustments
conditions & adaptations

Responses
Variability & change beyond place:
in environmental adjustments &
conditions adaptations

Environmental Influences outside the Place

State of Biosphere; State of Nature
Global Environmental Changes

Stresses, Stressors, Perturbations Consequences 10

Source: Turner et al., 2003

Vulnerability is the degree to which a system, subsystem, or system component is likely to

experience harm due to exposure to a hazard, either a perturbation or stress. There is a
growing interest in this approach as it is closely linked to research on major challenges such
as poverty eradication, mitigation of the effects of climate change, inequity and social
consequences of sharing rules applied to scarce resources, etc.
Vulnerability has emerged in recent years as one of the central organizing concepts for
research on global environmental change (cf. Downing, 2000 10; Schrter et al., 2005 11). This
concept is appealing because it is inclusive. From this perspective, humans and the natural
environment are not independent systems, homogeneous and unable to adapt to threats, be
they anticipated, realized, or perceived but not realized. Instead, human and natural systems
are viewed as intimately coupled, and differentially exposed, sensitive, and adaptable to
threats. This logic, followed to its natural conclusion, means that adopting a vulnerability
perspective demands a thorough investigation of biophysical, cognitive, and social
dimensions of humanenvironment interactions. Strictly speaking, therefore, to conduct
vulnerability assessment means that no element of the humanenvironment system may be
simplified away or considered a mere boundary condition. This conceptual inclusiveness
complicates the analytical task (compared to the simpler impacts-only approach), which
partially explains why there are few, if any, studies that deeply engage this vast set of
intellectual dimensions. This inclusiveness also raises important methodological questions.

10
Downing, T.E., 2000. Human dimensions research: toward a vulnerability science? International Human Dimensions
Program Update 00 (3), 1617.
11
Schroter, D., Polsky, C., Patt, A., 2005. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10 (4), 573595.
Schrter et al. (2005), propose that researchers will capture the vulnerability perspective if
they adopt an overarching approach comprising eight general steps (Fig. 2).
Geographers have pushed our understanding not only on places, as described above, but also
on this concept of vulnerability (e.g. Bohle et al., 1994 12; Turner et al., 2003 13). This concept
calls attention to not only the exposure of a place to a given set of stresses, but also to the
associated sensitivities and adaptive capacities. Thus a vulnerability perspective on inequality
would demand a high spatial-resolution understanding of, for a given place:
(a) the inequalities (i.e., exposures),
(b) the impacts and the factors that modulate the impacts of the inequalities (i.e., sensitivities),
and
(c) the ways in which local populations will respond or would like to respond but are unable
to to the impacts, in anticipatory or reactive modes, plus reasons for the (in)abilities to
respond (i.e., adaptive capacities). This perspective therefore highlights those sectoral and
geographic areas where the effects of inequalities may be expected to be relatively fleeting
(given robust adaptive capacities) versus those areas where the impacts may be lasting given
weak adaptive capacities.

Fig 2. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach. (Schrter et al. (2005)).
The Vulnerability scoping diagram (fig below) helps categorizing the dimensions of
vulnerability, the components of these dimensions, and the measures of the components.

12
Bohle, H.G., Downing, T.E., Watts, M., 1994. Climate Change and Social Vulnerability: toward a Sociology and
Geography of Food Insecurity. Global Environmental Change 4 (1), 3748.
13
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X.,
Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in
sustainability science. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences 100 (14), 80748079.
3.2.2 Vulnerability and Locust control
C. Polsky introduced the frame for analysis which was used during this project. 7 questions
are asked:
The overarching research question is: What explains the vulnerabilities of the [exposure unit]
associated with the [hazard]?
Exposure unit: For 2003-05, 10 Mauritanian herder groups, chosen because they (a)
occupy the outbreak zone, & (b) represent variation on a measure that may influence
vulnerability (e.g., average age of the group).
Hazards: the one or more stresses (Development of swarms; socio-economic
instability; climate change) threatening the socio-ecological system.

Exposure: description of the intersection of the hazard with the exposure unit
1. What was the climate during/preceding this period?
2. What was the vegetation during/preceding this period?
3. What was the livestock type/composition in the herder groups prior to the swarm?

Sensitivity: the short-term impacts/responses & conditions mediating the production of the
impacts following the exposure
1. How fast was the solitary / gregarious transition?
2. How was the vegetation managed before the swarm?
3. Were the herder groups, prior to the swarm high/low social status?
numerous/small? old/young?
4. What was the socio-political stability of the country prior to the swarm?
5. Were areas of instability co-incident with:
6. the herder group traditional areas?
7. the migration traditional areas?
8. How many livestock/people were lost/killed? Injured?
9. What short-term responses (eg, migrations) did herders implement?
10. Were there social conflicts following the swarm?
11. What short-term responses (eg, insecticide spraying, financial compensation, food
aid) were implemented by responsible institutions (eg, FAO, equipe de reponse
rapide)?

Adaptive capacity: current/future abilities & inabilities to implement effective, long-term

responses, determined in part by an understanding of previous impacts/responses
1. After the swarm ended, did the vegetation re-emerge? If so, after how long?
2. How extensive/heterogeneous/dense was the vegetation after the swarm?
3. What long-term social assistance programs were provided by:
a. the government?
b. another collective action institution (eg, FAO)?
c. were these macro-level social assistance programs effective?
4. What long-term responses did herders:
a. implement?
b. wish to implement but could not implement?
c. were these individual-level long-term responses effective?

3.3 Resilience
3.3.1 Brief story of the resilience concept.
Allyson Quinlan is in charge of the development of the Resilience workbook which aims at
giving a guideline for scientists and managers. Lance Gunderson is a systems ecologist who is
interested in how people assess, understand and manage large ecosystems. They work with
colleagues from around the world in the Resilience Alliance to understand the theory and
practice of managing surprising systems and how scientific understanding influences resource
policy and management.
The resilience perspective emerged from ecology in the 1960s and early 1970s through
studies of interacting populations like predators and prey and their functional responses in
relation to ecological stability theory. Ecologist C.S. Holling in his paper on resilience and
stability in ecological systems illustrated the existence of multiple stability domains or
multiple basins of attraction in natural systems and how they relate to ecological processes,
random events (e.g. disturbance) and heterogeneity of temporal and spatial scales (Holling,
1973 14). With this new conception research has to focus on transitions between the stability
domains. Attention is more on variability than sustainability. He introduced resilience as the
capacity to persist within such a domain in the face of change and proposed that resilience
determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of
these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still
persist (Holling, 1973, p. 17). Early applications of the findings were generated from the
resource ecology group at University of British Columbia, particularly in relation to the insect
spruce budworm and its role in boreal forest dynamics of North America (Holling, 1978 15;
followed by examples from the dynamics and management of rangelands, freshwater systems
and fisheries (Walters, 1986 16). Applied mathematics, modeling and applied resource ecology

14
Holling (1973). "Resilience and stability of ecological systems." Annual Review of
Ecological Systems 4: 1-23.
15
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London, John Wiley.

16Walters, C. J. (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York, McGraw Hill.
at the scale of ecosystems were combined with inductive science and experience from field
work and large scale management disturbances.
After several years of research and interactions with social scientists who work on governance
issues, new theoretical models were proposed (adaptive cycle, panarchy) and the definition of
resilience will be adapted. Following Carpenter et al. (2001) 17 socialecological resilience is
interpreted as (1) the amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still remain within the
same state or domain of attraction, (2) the degree to which the system is capable of self
organization (versus lack of organization, or organization forced by external factors), and (3)
the degree to which the system can build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation.
There is an increased emphasis on transformability into improved socialecological systems
as opposed to adaptation to the current situation. An emphasis on transformability implies
extending the focus in socialecological research to systems of adaptive governance (Dietz et
al., 2003) 18 in order to explore the broader social dimension that enables adaptive ecosystem-
based management. An adaptive governance framework relies critically on the collaboration
of a diverse set of stakeholders operating at different social and ecological scales in multi-
level institutions and organizations .
Since the seminal paper of Holling in 1973 different concepts were introduced. It is important
to differentiate:
Persistence: the persistence of relationships within a system
Adaptability: ability of systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving
variables and parameters, and still persist.
Transformability: the size of a stability domain or the amount of disturbance a system
could take before it shifted into alternative configuration
A lot of ideas came from modeling.
In semi arid rangelands, the combination of climate and grazing pressure drive the
system between two regimes, the shrubby regime and the grassy regime (Walker
(1981) 19).
In north American forest, the density of the budworm is dependent on the maturity of
the forest. The more mature the forest the more the insect can be protected , so growth
rate increases
After a decade of documenting regime shifts and multiple states
To understand system dynamics one has to differentiate the driving variables through their
pace (C.S. Holling. 1986 20). (

17
Carpenter,S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to
measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781
18
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P. Stern (2003). "The Struggle to Govern the Commons."
Science 302(5652): 1907 - 1912.
19
Walker, B. H., Ludwig, D., Holling, C.S. and Peterman, R. M. (1981), Stability of semi-arid savanna grazing
systems, Journal of Ecology, 69, 473-498
20
The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. Pages 292-320 in Sustainable
development of the biosphere: W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn (eds).
The Fast Intermediate Slow
Variables
System Variables Variables

Forest insect Insect Foliage Trees

outbreak

Forest fire Ignition Fuel Climate

Fishery Phytoplankton Zooplankton Fish

Savanna Grasses Shrubs Herbivores

Disease Disease Vector and Human

organism susceptible population

Several examples on coral reefs (Pandolfi 21 ), (Hughes, T.P. 1994 22) and marine ecosystems
presenting research on the shift between diffrenet regimes following the change of different
drivers. Carl Folke 23, presented a synthesis on this aspect showing that the combination of an
alteration (slow variable often) triggered by an event make the transition to another regime
(figure below)

21
Pandolfi , John M., Jackson, Jeremy B.C., Baron, N., Bradbury, Roger H., Guzman, Hector M., Hughes,
Terence P., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., Ogden, John C. , Possingham, H.P. and Sala, Enric. 2005. Are U.S. coral
reefs on the slippery slope to slime?. Science 307(5716): 1725-1726.
22
Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, Phase Shifts, and Large-Scale Degradation of a Caribbean Coral Reef.
Science, 265(5178): 1547-1551
23
, Steve Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance Gunderson, and C.S. Holling.
2004. Regime Shifts, Resilience, And Biodiversity In Ecosystem Management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.
35:55781
 Regime Alteration Trigger New Regime

The loss of ecological resilience is due to (L. H. Gunderson and L. Pritchard. 2002 24):
Decline in functional diversity trophic shifts (fishing, predator control) or removal
key biota (selective grazing)
Acceleration of slow variables such as Increase in nutrients/pollution
Alteration of disturbance regimes in magnitude, frequency, timing
Uniform spatial patterns for instance even aged stands of timber
. The adaptive cycle is the model of how a given system moves from one regime to another,
being in different phases. The exploitation phase between r and K regimes is driven by slow
variables which modify (alterate) the system, and the release phase is triggered by some
events. The reorganisation phase is also rapid leading to a new regime

24
L. H. Gunderson and L. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience and the Behavior of Large Scale Ecosystems . Island
Press: Washington DC
Briefly said, the panarchy model indicates that dynamics at one scale is influenced by what
happens at upper and lower scales

The management which comes with the resilience theory focus on thresholds and the way to
detect them and cross them (or not). If the regime shift is irreversible, then the objective will
be to adapt to the new state, fostering experiments for adaptation. Resilience is not always a
good thing, the system being trapped in an undesirable state.

3.3.2 Resilience and locust control

The presentation was divided in several parts, the outline is
Key variables By Scale and Sector
Panarchies
Regimes
Regime Management
Questions/Hypotheses
Next Steps

The following figure introduces the key variables by scale and sector
 Key variables by scale & sector

Patch Region International

Monitoring of Locust Population Cooperation

Control Program Coordination

Fiscal Capital
Transportation System- Move Pesticides/control resources

Solitary Phase

Habitat /Source areas

Swarm Phase

Vegetation Patch Dynamics

Rainfall, Temperature

The following figure illustrates how resilience would see the transition from a regime A to a
regime B for three different transitions
Applying the panarchy model one would see the top down (memory) composed of Fiscal
resources, Pesticides, Command/control management, Institutional arrangements while the
revolt from the bottom up would be Swarm/Outbreak, Information on density
The final questions are :
What are competing models that explain long term cycles of outbreaks?
What are alternative institutional settings for managing outbreaks?
Links between traditional knowledge and modern monitoring?
Functional role of Locusts in system ?
recycle nutrients?
How have land uses altered resilience?
Have grazing, farming enhanced outbreaks?
Long term effects of pesticides?

The following steps would be

Modeling effort outbreaks (10-15 year cycle)
Comparative institutional assessment:
International centers for disease control
US Interagency fire fighting
Proposal development for land use/resilience study

3.4 Institutional diversity & complexity

3.4.1 Presentation of the approach
Marco Janssen studies the interactions between institutions, cognitive processes and
ecological dynamics to understand the fit between institutions and ecological dynamics. His
research combines agent-based modelling, decision making experiments and analysis of case
studies. For the last couple of years ha has been working with E. Ostrom on institutional
diversity bringing his expertise on complexity approach. Recently they synthesized this work
in a book to be published in 2010, (Poteete, Janssen, Ostrom 2010 25).
The general frame is the common dilemma frame. There is a dilemma between individual and
group interests. The group interest would be to cooperate while individuals interest is to free
ride on effort of others. The well known metaphor was given by Hardin , the tragedy of the
commons. Rational selfish agents will overharvest common pool resources. They will not
invest in public good. People are trapped and cannot solve the collective action problem.
Therefore, the conventional theory says that we need to privatize the common property or
have the government control the commons. But, scholars from many disciplines reported
examples of long-lasting success cases of communities who solved collective action problems.
In 1985 a meeting was organized by the National Research Council to synthesize the
empirical evidence. Since then the study of the commons is an international collaborative
effort of different disciplines using different methods. Besides finding that self-governance
does happen, and often lead to better results than imposed regulations, scholars start to
develop a better understanding of the factors that contribute to success of collective action.
Although every case is unique, we need to have a framework that is general but recognize the
complexity. Among other papers, a set of papers in a recent issue of PNAS (Going beyond
panaceas) focused on the problem of fit between ecological dynamics and institutional
arrangements. The question is: how do appropriators craft institutions and what helps them to
fit it to the social-ecological context? Potete, Janssen et Ostrom produced a framework
25
Poteete, Janssen, Ostrom 2010 Multiple Methods in Practice: Collective Action and the Commons, Princeton
University Press
proposed different core relationships in social dilemma, which are presented in figure below.
In behavioral theory, cooperation in social dilemmas depends on individual differences and
context.

The set of micro-situational variables that affect trust and cooperation are represented in the
figure below.

Within this framework many methods should be combined

Case studies
Large N studies
Meta-analysis
Experiments (lab, field and role games)
Agent-based modeling
Based on comparative analysis of many case studies we can identify broad categories of
resource systems with mobile resources (fisheries, pastoralism) and resource systems with
build up infrastructure (irrigation systems). Many types of institutional arrangements
(transhuman, nomadic) who adapted to spatial variability of rainfall, varying from Swiss Alps
to Kenya and India. Current trend on privatization leads to mismatch of social and ecological
dynamics.
Concerning the adaptation to variability, there is high investment to coordinate activities of
extraction and concentration. Many social-ecological systems are adapted to particular
variability regimes. These systems are robust, yet fragile to a change in variability regimes,
such as effects of globalization. Comparative over-time analysis of forest management (more
than 40 forests are visited at least twice using the same methods of measurement and analysis)
Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) 26, show that all institutional arrangements have examples of
success and failure. The main red line in examples of success is the involvement of at least
one user group in regular monitoring of conformance to the rules related to entry and use
patterns is significant.
As for experiments, the main goal is to test hypotheses, and provide data to contrast different
behavioral theories. There are different types of experiments:
laboratory experiments (abstract with students),
artifactual field experiment (different types of participants),
framed field experiments (more context),
natural field experiments (participants not aware to be in an experiment)
Marco then presented some results about experiments on public goods and CPR. Public Good
is a provision problem. N players have X endowment and the decision how much to invest in
public good and how much to keep. The investments in public good is increased by
experimenter and shared among players. Common Pool Resource is an extraction problem. N
players have X endowment. The decision is how much to invest in CPR extraction and how
much to invest in risk free asset. High extraction by group lead to lower per unit benefit.
Usually in public good we observe initially around 50% investment, decreasing over time to
low investment level. In CPR experiments we observe initially overharvesting, evolving over
time to Nash equilibrium. The two research directions concentrated on cheap talk (without
the ability to enforce promises) and costly punishment. (to pay to reduce earnings of others)
Both are observed in field studies to be used to enforce regulations, but according to
conventional non-cooperative game theory it should not make a difference. In experiments
both proved to be effective.
Typically experiments are abstract. There are no dynamics, no space, round by round.
Consequently in an on-going project focus has been to test hypotheses on cooperation, not
crafting rules related to different resource dynamics. New generation of experiments include
more relevant ecological dynamics. The preliminary conclusions of these experiments show
that:
Without communication, costly punishment or elected rules have limited impact on
improving earnings.
Social capital and equity are important considerations affecting behavior of the
participants.
Resource specific knowledge has limited impact on behavior in experiments.
Disclaimer: Replications in other countries lead to slightly results, raising the
importance of understanding local institutional context.
Last part of Marcos presentation was dedicated to agent-based models. Agent-based
modeling is a way to study the interactions of large numbers of agents and the macro-level
consequences of these interactions. The components of an agent
Decisions (how to make a choice)
Knowledge and perception (what is known, or what does the agent think (s)he knows)
Topology of interactions (interactions with other agents and environment)

26
Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 103:1922419231
 Information exchange (what information is exchanged between agents)

There is a large literature on the quest how cooperation could evolve using ABM. Among
egoist (Axelrod), using indirect reciprocity (markers & symbols), in different spatial
configurations, and is applied to for example P2P systems. But the problem is not binary:
cooperate or defect. It is important is defining the rules of the games and enforcing them,
simulating the evolution of rule structures. Concerning the rules, they are defined as shared
understanding about enforced prescriptions, concerning what actions (or outcomes) are
required, prohibited, or permitted. She makes the difference between Rules in use vs rules on
paper and between formal rules vs informal rules (formal rules have explicit consequences
defined for when the rules are broken (sanctions) and can be enforced by a third party)
The dynamics is represented in the following figure

In conclusion,
Conventional theory of collective action is inadequate to explain empirical evidence of
case studies and experiments.
We need to develop frameworks that include more explicitly current understanding
human behavior, micro-situational variables and broader context.
Agent-based models can be an appropriate way to formalize the framework.
 3.4.2 Institutional diversity & complexity and locust control management
The questions identified were:
Why is the control of desert locust too little too late, even though scientists can now
provide accurate warnings ahead of time?
Public good provision problem at international scale. But with important asymmetries
of costs and benefits.
What are the consequences of climate change and land use/cover change?
Marco Janssen proposes an empirical analysis of incentive structure of different stakeholders
of the social-ecological system. This is linked to the question on who benefits (Locust
research, National governments and control centers, Pest control industry) and who loses
(Unorganized farmers). He also identifies the disturbances (Rainfall events,
Insecurity/conflict areas, Perverse incentives to report bands (no co-production), FAO report
too late (new reports), Rapid turnover in decision makers of those who make decisions on
money).
An important point is the institutional memory. What is causing the delay and loss of
institutional memory? There is possibly a perverse effect if policy is effective, leading to a
loss of memory and motivation. Two scales can be observed. Local outbreaks are tackled by
national centers. It is at regional level that we observe slow response.
In terms of research on management, one could use role games to train decision makers at
local and national level.
The locust problem is a transboundary problem, with asymmetry of costs and benefits. The
occurrence is uncertain and is dependent on changes of the environment. A model could be
developed. It would be a spatial explicit model with locust bands, rainfall events, and different
levels of local control. Countries would be human agents controlling desert locust. The
question is: what would be long term evolving strategies of agents to different types of
institutional arrangements and ecological dynamics?

4. Conclusion and perspectives

We presented here the analysis of different approaches for one case study. The same material
is available for three other case studies and two other approaches were also used: the
biodiversity & ecosystem services and the robustness approach. The next steps of the project
will be to work on thematic papers based on the four case studies and the different approaches.
We have chosen three thematic: the concept of crisis, the relation between knowledge &
action, and the role of institutions.

View publication stats