Introduction

In this chapter our intent is to present a method – response strategy assessment – for evaluating the resilience of social–ecological systems. We will describe how key features of social–ecological resilience can be used as a basis for a simple and generic analytical tool. This method uses empirical observations of stakeholder actions, qualitative or quantitative, as input data.

We begin with a review of recent thinking concerning resilience-orientated approaches to landscape management, making important distinctions among three responses to disturbance: coping, adapting and strategic transformation. We define and classify ecosystem services as they apply to landscapes, paying particular attention to how the ecological scales (where services are generated) may or may not coincide in space or time with the social scales where stakeholders receive benefits.

We combine all of these notions in the application of response strategy assessment in a cultural landscape in southern Sweden. We conclude that the method is a simple application of resilience concepts, with potential for use in a variety of cultural landscapes and management situations.

Resilience-orientated approaches to landscape management

Resilience-orientated approaches to landscape management are concerned with how systems respond to disturbance. A disturbance may come in different forms, such as stress driven by slow-changing variables or as shocks related to fast-changing variables.

Resilience is simultaneously dependent on the nature of the drivers that exert stress or shock and on the nature of the system under influence of this disturbance. A system with few properties that support resilience may be very persistent in a stable environment with few and mild disturbances. Likewise, a system with properties that contribute to robustness, sturdiness, etc. would not be resilient in an overly hostile environment. One needs to explore both the properties of disturbances as well as those of the system to estimate the resilience of a particular system.

Introduction

Disturbances such as fire, cyclones, and pest outbreaks create variation in natural systems and ecosystem renewal that may be important for the maintenance of biological diversity. Many natural disturbances are inherent in the internal dynamics of ecosystems, and often set the timing of ecosystem renewal processes fundamental for maintaining resilience in ecosystems (Holling et al., 1995).

By disturbance we mean ‘any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem community or population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment’ (White and Pickett, 1985: 7). We distinguish between abiotic and biotic disturbances. Abiotic disturbances are those where the direct cause of disturbance is generated by nonbiotic agents. Examples include fires, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, flooding, and drought. Examples of biotic disturbances include insect and pest attacks, predators, invasion of exotic species, and the grazing and browsing of herbivores.

Conventional resource management, based on economic production targets, commonly seeks to reduce natural variation in target resources, because fluctuations impose problems for the industry dependent on the resource (Holling and Meffe, 1996). Control of resource stock variability and flows can be achieved in a number of ways. For instance, by increasing financial investments in technologies for harvesting, a modern fishing industry can invest in larger fleets and more effective gear in order to maintain an even flow of production. Maintenance of high and even flows of monoculture crops in large-scale agriculture may be achieved by investing in various energy inputs, such as insecticides, pesticides, and irrigation.