Analysis of social-ecological systems

Since the introduction of the concept of linked SESs during the 1990s, there has been a focus on the social mechanisms of institutions embedded within communities (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Folke et al., 2003). In fact, the following decade witnessed intensive research, which resulted in the introduction and modification of a standardized framework for analysing the 17

components of SESs, and for diagnosing problems in SESs for sustainability (Ostrom, 2005;

2007; 2009; McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014; Cumming et al., 2015). Designed to bring a human face into SESs and SER analyses, the framework identifies four major components of SESs.

These are resource units, resource systems, governance systems, and actors, which together constitute about 50 social-ecological variables that guide social-ecological analysis in relation to sustainability (Ostrom, 2007; Cumming et al., 2015). In presenting a human face, the framework focuses on the formal and informal institutions, rules, norms, traditions, regulations, and actions that influence the human–environment interactions involved in addressing the challenges of over-exploitation and the collapse of natural resources as a way to promote sustainability (Ostrom, 2005).

Because the SES perspective originated from ecological perspectives and thus placed much emphasis on ecological aspects (resource units and resource systems), the SES framework originated from economic and institutional perspectives to emphasize social aspects (governance systems and actors). While this remains an important step towards balancing social and ecological aspects in SESs analyses, concerns are increasingly emerging that the framework still focuses on resolving natural resource problems and achieving sustainability of ecological aspects. In so doing, it overlooks the importance of societal needs, and the contributions of social-science perspectives, including political-ecological perspectives, which are useful in analysing power imbalances among different actors across scales (Robbins, 2004; Beymer-Farris et al., 2012; Cumming et al., 2015). These concerns indicate that the process of bringing a human face to SESs frameworks is still ongoing and requires more of a commitment than simply focusing on institutional and governance roles and influences.

In particular, scholars argue increasingly for the need to combine SER perspectives and a SESs framework with other sociological perspectives to improve SESs analyses. Some emphasize the rights of people to access resources and participate in rule making and resource management decisions, and efforts to consider cross-scale linkages (Pinkerton, 2009; Jones et al., 2013; Cumming et al., 2015). Marschke and Berkes (2006) combine resilience and well-being thinking in their analysis of the livelihood challenges of Cambodian fishers. Meanwhile, Folke’s work (2006) discusses mainly the important potential for incorporating social processes such as social memory, social learning, and social networks, agents, and actor groups into the SESs framework. Furthermore, Schwarz et al. (2011) 18

combine resilience indicators in the Solomon Islands with a 360-degree integrated assessment map that has a sub-category of people and livelihoods. Other studies, like the one by Sutton and Tobin (2012), focus on social resilience. Their work examines the relationship between social resilience and fishers’ perceptions, and fishers’ adaptation to key policy changes in Australia. Although these studies address some social aspects of SESs by focusing mainly on the various social processes that shape human–environment relationships, they still place considerable emphasis on natural resources management and sustainability.

Recent SESs studies have identified a need to consider ecological, economic, and social dimensions of SER in some depth (Jones et al., 2013). The studies have also pointed to the need to introduce social well-being concepts into the resilience discourse to ensure that adaptation strategies do not jeopardize social well-being (Coulthard, 2012). In particular, efforts to investigate human agency and the individual’s role in employing various strategies in response to changes are evident (Brown, 2013). Other studies have pointed to the growing need for field-based research to enhance capacity to functionalize resilience concepts on the ground (Schwarz et al., 2011; Sutton and Tobin, 2012), and the need to combine political ecology and resilience approaches in order to understand unequal outcomes of social-ecological relations within imbalanced power relationships (Beymer-Farris et al., 2012;

Cumming et al., 2015).

In this regard, Cumming and colleagues (2015) have argued for the potential of unpacking the social aspects of governance to isolate simple variables that can affect the sustainability of SESs. They divide institutional organization into five levels and identify various social-ecological driving forces at each level. In so doing, they extend the SES framework to offer a new proposal for integrating social-ecological feedback and cross-scale effects in the context of SESs in marine protected areas. They emphasize the idea that analysis of the resilience of marine protected areas must recognize protected areas as multi-scale and multi-level SESs with multiple feedbacks. Thus it is argued in this thesis that actors in marine protected areas must also be recognized as operating on multiple scales and levels to shape social-ecological changes and response strategies that eventually enhance or erode SER.

To contribute to efforts to bring a human face both to SER perspectives and to the SES framework, this thesis further extends the SES framework. It does so by unpacking the social aspects of actors to reveal social processes and actions that can affect sustainability. The

19

thesis unpacks the actors in the SES framework in the context of marine protected areas to uncover the most overlooked aspects of the framework, such as the perceptions and needs of marginalized actors, and to identify categories in terms of interests, perceptions, and capacities of key actors to respond to social-ecological changes to shape SER. About five major types of multi-scale actors are recognised here as having varying degrees of influence on the shaping of SER. These include (i) local inhabitants in their role as small-scale users of natural resources for making a living, (ii) fish factory investors in their role as large-scale users of natural resources running profit-making businesses with local–global linkages, (iii) government officials in their role as conservationists and managers of natural resources, (iv) WWF officials in their role as representatives of an international environmental conservation organization, and (v) researchers in their role as producers and disseminators of knowledge about natural resources. The social processes and relationships among these actors with their very different roles eventually influence social-ecological outcomes and SER.

Although the multi-scale actors discussed above contribute to shaping SER, this thesis places more emphasis on the actors whose perceptions, interests and needs have received scant attention in the SESs framework. These are the marginalized local inhabitants living in local SESs in the least-developed nations, whose needs for livelihoods are yet to be fully attended to in SER perspectives and the SESs framework, in spite of being the main actors and deserving thorough attention (Tanner et al., 2015). It has also been argued that the SESs framework requires extension and adjustments to its scientific and technical focus in order to be meaningful to the daily lives and practices of the ordinary people that inhabit the natural systems (Cannon & Muller-Mahn, 2010; Tanner et al., 2015). Recognizing this need, this thesis contributes not only empirical evidence that brings a more human face to SER perspectives and the SESs framework, but also, more importantly, empirical evidence regarding ordinary people’s daily experiences in satisfying their immediate needs for money, food security, resilient livelihoods, and well-being, all of which are meaningful to the lives of ordinary people inhabiting the natural systems.

Acknowledging that the people inhabiting natural systems are heterogenic in terms of their interests and needs, this thesis recognizes various categories that exist under the ‘inhabitants’

umbrella in order to understand how inhabitants are affected by and respond to social-ecological changes. For example, the categories related to age are useful for comparing various aspects among past, present, and future resource users, whereas those related to

20

gender are useful for reflecting on gendered livelihood activities, effects, and response mechanisms. Meanwhile, categories related to wealth status are useful for understanding the varied effects and capacity of various inhabitants to respond to change. The role of relatively wealthier inhabitants such as local fish traders and fish-factory agents in shaping changes and response mechanisms is also considered.