Testing the Theory (or Testing Panarchy)

The third paper was Holling, C.S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs. 62(4):447-502. That paper was inspired by the paper just reviewed above. I designed it to be a test of the basic structure proposed. That is, that there are fast/slow dynamics and cross scale interactions occurring in a dynamic hierarchy. If so, then all ecosystems should be dominated by variables that cluster or lump around a small number of scales and frequencies. The original argument was that measurements of sets of any kind of data from an ecosystem would cluster into a small number of "lumps". The lumps would be shaped by breaks in the speeds and spatial scales of organizing variables across the Panarchy, and by the discontinuities inherent in the non-linear adaptive cycle.

The paper examines the most easily collected data I could think of - that is of the body mass weights of mammals and birds in different boreal latitude biomes- forest, prairie and marine. The test exceeded the capacity of any traditional statistical technique but the data did show clear indications of lumpiness. Moreover the lumpiness, at some scales, was unique to the ecosystem being sampled. Although the initial hypothesis was essentially that a landscape structure created the lumps, other hypotheses (e.g. founder effect, phylogeny, trophic size concentration) were proposed and tested. Only the landscape argument, or more accurately, the hierarchical/panarchical hypothesis, held up. The rest failed.

Fascinating relationships occurred when mammal body mass lumps were compared to those of birds, suggesting very different numbers of dimensions to their search- mammals as one dimensional searchers (they search a path!), birds as three (they search a volume!). A lot more testing is needed but the speculation is fascinating and fun. The causes of size dependent home range data of herbivores and carnivores suddenly became clear and coherent. The lump categories or lump patterns emerged as a signature of the structure of each ecosystem. I tend to see these as an analogue to spectral images characterizing chemical systems.

Later work by colleagues studying other ecosystems confirmed and extended the basic idea. Craig Allen has a big set of data from ecosystems around the world, all of which show the lumpy structure (Allen and Holling 2002). And his demonstration of body mass lumps in mammals, birds and reptiles of the Everglades also shows that the structure is very robust. That is, extinct species of one size are replaced by new species of similar sizes. Complex systems (as in the tropics) result in complex lump patterns (Carla Restrepo, in press), lumps suddenly add a cross scale dimension to the role of biodiversity (Peterson et al. 1998), the extinction of large mammals 11,000 years ago in the new world, was actually an extinction of lumps associated with transformation of coarse scale landscape (Lambert and Holling 1998). Havlicek and Carpenter (2001) examined their marvelous data from years of data collection in their experimental lakes areas in Wisconsin, and see the same lumpy structure and demonstrate that the structure is strongly conserved. Raffaelli (Raffaelli et al. 2000) shows littoral organisms are organized in body mass lumps in an experimental set up whose manipulations show strong persistence of the lump structure.

Craig Allen has become a leader in the field, and shows that there is an amazing correlation of separately measured attributes of species in ecosystems with the lump structure. Basically he demonstrates that invasive species, endangered species, migratory and nomadic ones strongly correlate with the edge of body mass clumps as separately measured. More broadly, he also demonstrates that population variability in both space and time is highest at these gaps (Allen et al. 1999 and Allen 2006). This high correlation consistently emerges from data obtained in different ecosystems from around the world.

Finally, the same lumpy structures are seen in social and economic data concerning city size and firm size (Bessey 2006, Garmestani et al 2005, 2006 ) and international gross domestic product (Rusty Pritchard, unpublished). Buz (W.A.) Brock, a well known economist who identifies non-linear attributes as central to economic behavior, hypothesizes that some aspects of economic growth theory suggest causes similar to those I have suggested for ecosystems. I suspect the same is true of the size of organizations. It will be interesting to test whether cities, organizations and economies on the edge of lumps, have the same features of living on the edge of crisis and opportunity as do organisms. If so, that would be extraordinarily significant for policies of development, whether for expansion of local business, regional settlement, or poverty alleviation.

It now seems that these intriguing discoveries have potentially big consequence for questions of change and transformation in any social or biological system. The breaks across scales create the conditions for endangerment, invasiveness and the other attributes mentioned above. In effect, such places are where novelty emerges in an interaction between crisis and opportunity. It is where novel changes can occur as an adaptive cycle starts to renew after a "creative destruction".

I argue that those body mass breaks are caused by the scale breaks in a Panarchy, as adaptive cycles move from operating at one scale range to another. That is where resource variability and unpredictability is greatest. In a boreal forest, for example, the scales dominated by distinct processes range at least from centimeters and days at the scale of needles and their defoliators, through meters and decades at the scale of whole trees and patches, to 100's of meters and several decades for stands of even age trees, to, eventually, hundreds of kilometers and millennia for forest biomes. At each of those scale ranges, different processes dominate.

This generation of and entrainment of novelty creates options for systems, maintains the adaptive capacity of a system, and serves as a reservoir of potential functions that may be required following transformations or as normal system dynamics evolve. Such novelty is at the heart of resilience.

But there is skepticism, about lumps, at least. Manly (1996) showed that traditional conservative statistical techniques only identify at most two "lumps" in Holling's data, where I identified 8 or more. Siemann and Brown say there are no lumps at all, although like Sousa and Connell earlier, they asked and tested entirely the wrong question. And so it goes-----

The fine physicist from the Santa Fe Institute, Murray Gell-Mann, suggested to me that I organize a meeting with supporters, skeptics and other experts, in order to review the whole argument and data. It is an example of the role such an integrative center like SFI can provide, and Craig Allen and I organized the session. The basic conclusion of most participants at the end of the meeting, was that the lumps were real, their number was certainly similar to the numbers I identified, their cause could be the one that I could not disprove, but that other causes might be involved as well. The participants, skeptics and supporters, agreed to test the idea further with entirely new data from new systems. Those new studies each confirmed and extended the discoveries and we have organized all of them in a new book manuscript. It is now in press (Allen and Holling 2007).

I liked the whole process and argument because it is the first time I could predict anything very rigorously- that is, "what are the likely endangered, invasive, nomadic species?"! According to Craig's analysis, the only variables that correlate with endangerment and invasiveness are time of introduction and closeness of size to the body mass lump edge (Allen et al. 1999). All the other suggestions in the literature- such as size and trophic status, do not hold up as consistent predictors. I hope that work will continue and become generalized to other systems and to inexpensive ways to monitor existing systems.

But, if so, it will take years! The results of the work seem too different from our traditions in science and statistics, where uni-modal distributions, continuity and Type I error statistics have been the standards for simplification. None of those are appropriate for tests of lumpy, discontinuous or multi-modal distributions. The necessary art of simplification has a different foundation for this work than traditional ones. But it does open a terrific new landscape of thought for further discovery.

The start of that process began 18 years ago, and led to the paper that presents the test of the reality of the Panarchy/hierarchy conclusions (Holling 1992). Now it is clear that discontinuities in patterns and processes exist and they disrupt our ability to apply popular scaling models and approaches. Such scaling methods are powerful, and have shown that there is a template that organizes eco-physiological variables of organisms. But they are a first order result. The famous graph showing metabolism vs. size of mammals from bacteria to whales is a classic example. More recent work by West et al. (1999) has discovered the physical, fractal mechanisms that define the parameters of the relationship. Tasty, indeed!

But that is an explanation that focuses on the universal property of physical conditions that set the template. Biological and societal processes create the concentrations of opportunity along that template. That leads to the "lumpy" world representation that now has led to the new book demonstrating the existence of lumpy organization in a variety of ecosystems, in animal geographic ranges, in city sizes, migrating species, economic activities and firm sizes (Allen and Holling 2007). Note that although the evidence continues to grow, only a subset of ecosystem scale ecologists, social scientists and economists have accepted the theory and examples in a way to further test and expand theories of change. Lots of traditional ecologists are critical and do not understand the essential foundations in theory, empirical examples and societal examples.

That is because, historically, most natural scientists study systems that are manipulateable- that is, below the size of a quadrat in nature or a bench in the lab. That is how my own research started 50 years ago. That has exercised the traditional experimental scientific method with its testing of alternative hypotheses. But it does not sit comfortably with the uncertain reality of large-scale (regional to global) social/environmental systems where experiment comes only through adaptive experiments in combination with appropriately scaled policies and with alternate models of the system. That requires different, broader approaches and methods.

Diversity and Resilience

The three synthesis papers all converged on some observations and conclusions concerning how resilience, really robust resilience, arises from diversity. I had long shared most biologists' faith that the two were linked. But then, in contrast, I had also become convinced that the structure of ecosystems emerges from the effect of a handful of key processes and their few associated species. They create a self-organized entity. Were these few species not the central species whose function had to be preserved? Were not the rest simply those that existed in response to the basic structure provided by the key processes and species? Was the faith in the value of many species exclusively an, essential, but still purely aesthetic value? Another nice puzzle!

But the two values- one of aesthetics and one of structure and function- came together for me from discoveries presented in three additional papers. One was Holling, 1988. That work examined the impacts of the 35 species of insectivorous birds that set the essential 40-50 year boom and bust cycle of the spruce budworm and forest in New Brunswick. I used our budworm/forest simulation model to explore the significance over the full range of potential predation from nothing to maximal. Three distinct cycles appear - one around 15 years in length, one around 50 and one around 100 plus years. The first is set by foliage dynamics, the second by avian predation and the third by tree generation time. But I was surprised to discover that the 40-50 year cycle was maintained over a very large range of predator densities. The 35 species add robustness to that effect, operating consistently until the densities are lowered by more than 70%. Then the system flips into one or other of the other cycles. That is a demonstration of response diversity, something that Brian Walker also showed for plant functional types (Walker et al 1999). In both cases there is a lumpy structure - of mass for the birds and of biophysical measures of function for the plants. That is, plants and animals echo the same structure.

That is all brought together in a synthesis by Peterson et al. (1998) of alternative models for diversity and ecosystem behavior. It exposes, for the first time, the existence of two scales for diversity processes: diversity that affects resilience within a scale and diversity that affects resilience across scales. It is based on the recognition of lumpy attributes of ecosystem properties. In that paper, we show show the mechanism by which astonishing robustness occurs across scales because multiple species in a functional group (e.g. avian predators of spruce budworm) can substitute for one another in different climatic conditions and can spread their influence across scales in space because their differences in size are associated with different scales of movement. Hence there are two aspects of response diversity responses- within a scale and between scales.

What I learned of Organizations

I have been lucky enough, or inspired enough, or periodically unsettled enough to have worked in five organizations during their times of innovative inspiration, and two organizations as they wound down or consolidated. As much as any research, those experiences shaped my thoughts and sometimes actions about the inevitability of growth, collapse, novelty and renewal.

I learned an important organizational need during this time. Specifically, the more integrative demand required by studies of ecosystems, economies and societies needs integrative support that sees fundamentals in both theory and application. Early on that came from grants and enthusiasm provided by Evan Armstrong, an insightful leader in Canada's Dept of the Environment- a guy who was not a scientist at all, but was a manager and was, of all things, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance. Integrative organizations then became the supporters of such work, as they began to emerge as a consequence of integrative methods begun during WW II. For me, the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis provided an astonishing place, in its early years around 1972, to work with some of the best in different fields- George Dantzig in optimization, Howard Raiffa in decision theory, Tchalling Koopmans in economics, Mike Fiering in water/stochastic modeling, and Alex Basykin in mathematics. We all learned from each other as we tested the usefulness of novel methods for novel systems. Bill Clark and Dixon Jones were my partners in this and each has made huge contributions to related fields.

That experience became the opportunity for us to identify and then test the value of methods developed in other fields- particularly economics, operation research and decision theory. Our conclusions were presented in Clark et al. (1979). It was a huge step in understanding the strengths and limitations of familiar methods and of new methods from other fields. That effort and the experience at IIASA shaped our research and education activities for the next decade at least.

Later, the Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics became the center of integrative work that much influenced me. Carl Folke and Karl-Goran Maler were the brilliant minds and designers of this remarkable institute. It became a truly integrative center for studies of excellence. And the Santa Fe Institute has had the same innovative, integrative role in the development of Complexity Theory.

That leads me to jump a bit to the future. The large influences of wonderful, integrative organizations like IIASA, Beijer and SFI, can come and go. They often become burdened by their success and rarely are able to maintain the same liveliness and novelty needed over time. Instead, the novelty develops in one place and then typically shifts elsewhere, expanding, extending, testing and deepening the work as it moves. The intellectual area or topic becomes the evolving entity, but often not the founding organization itself.

Still, IIASA, Beijer and SFI live on, and with the natural process of acquiring new leadership, they each can move to new phases of innovation. That is more likely if the design of the organization has a modest capital of structures bound up in it. If that is true, then the Beijer Institute, the least encumbered of these centers, promises a new phase of novel work. All the more so since I have just learned that the new Director chosen by a committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is Carl Folke, a singular and wise man of great accomplishments!

For the same reason, the Internet perhaps also provides an alternative means to develop integrative and adaptive organizations at low cost. They could, perhaps, offer a more sustainable organizational partner to encourage novel, integrative research among groups. That is what led us to form the Resilience Alliance www.resalliance.org and the Internet journal Ecology and Society. The Alliance is formed by about 15 groups from around the world, people who all share the same enthusiasms and flexible desires for novel and relevant work. They each provide a modest annual membership fee to publish the journal and maintain the organization. Committed people, and grants do the rest. Integrative workshops interspersed with integrative research, integrative educational material and programs and novel modes of communication provide a foundation for both fundamental integrative science and policy research.

The Resilience Alliance has a very simple structure. It is our entry to the set of experiments needed to sustain innovation and excellence in a troubled world. There has been one very successful change in leadership when Brian Walker of Australia took over from me. He designed an essential and very significant phase of grounded testing of theory, and added new organizations and people. In the next couple of years he hopes for another shift in leadership and direction. Will the very busy folks involved find one person, or two, who can commit to that? We will see; I sure hope so.

What is this Panarchy Thing?

"Panarchy". That is an odd name, but one that is meant to capture the way living systems both persist and yet innovate. It shows how fast and slow, small and big events and processes can transform ecosystems and organisms through evolution, or can transform humans and their societies through learning, or the chance for learning. The central question is what allows rare transformation, not simply change.

I have discovered people have two distinct ways of perceiving change. Some see the world evolving in a regular, continuous way. Others, like me, see the world evolving in a spasmodic way- sudden change and slow, sometimes erratic responses after such changes. Both viewpoints are, in some sense true. They each give a different perception of changes and its causes. But their differences generate arguments. The same arguments are seen in other issues. For example, some argue that biological evolutionary change is not gradual but is "punctuated". There is lots of evidence supporting that view, but because the fossil record is incomplete, the evidence is incomplete. As a consequence, one's philosophy dictates belief, so there is not a lot of consensus. There is a similar argument about the evolution of scientific knowledge between the gradualists like Popper, and the revolutionists like Thomas Kuhn. We saw the same difference in view among our good archaeologist friends.

Terrific to have these different views appearing in a way that permits some considered conversation. Now is the time!!!

The aspect of Panarchy that is most novel and significant concerns the phase when resisting institutions start to break down or transform, releasing the chance for a renewed system to emerge. At that moment, novelty that had been simmering in the background can emerge and be debated. And new associations begin to develop among previously separate innovations. The big influence comes from discoveries that, at that time, emerge from people's local experiments at small scales, discoveries that can emerge at times of big change, to trigger bigger changes at large scales. That process highlights the keys for the future.

One key is maybe best captured by the word "hope". I see hope might be emerging in the US from the results of the recent mid-term election in 2006. Certainly the results of that election have triggered a sudden storm of new and intelligent, but confused discussion. That is just what Panarchy predicts, and it certainly makes me suddenly a little more hopeful about our mid-term future.

The second key has to recognize that the small, that is the individual human, can at times transform the big, that is the politics and institutions of governance. But there are traps, and their potential needs some discussion.

The multi-authored book describing the integrative nature of Panarchy (Gunderson and Holling 2001) is partly a culmination of 50 years of my own research work, together with that of a fine group of friends and colleagues in the Resilience Project. During that project, my ideas expanded and grew as they interacted with the ideas of others- other ecologists, economists, social scientists and mathematicians- all co-authors of Panarchy. Some of those were senior and well established colleagues. Others were younger colleagues who became both the nurturers and nurtured in the work. It was a process of mutual, creative discovery that then turned personal for each of us.

For me, over those 50 years the old notion of stable ecological systems embedded in the equilibrium images of Lotka-Volterra equations, moved to that of resilience and multi-stable states (Holling 1973, Carpenter 2000), then to cycles of adaptive change where persistence and novelty entwined (Holling 1986), then to nested sets of such cycles in hierarchies of diversity covering centimeters to hundreds of kilometers, days to millennia (Holling 1992) and then to the transformations that can cascade up the scales with small fast events affecting big slow ones (Holling et al 2002) as acts of "revolution".

Jargon, yeah. So, Lance Gunderson, Garry Peterson and I said, why not go "whole hog" and invent the term "Panarchy" for the ideas, by drawing on the mischievous Greek God Pan, the paradoxical Spirit of Nature. Join Pan, then, to the dynamic reality of hierarchies across scales, where nature self-organizes lumps of living stuff on a more continuous physical template described by power laws. Physics defines the attributes of the power law. Biology self-organizes concentrations of opportunity and of species along the power law relation. Social dynamics does the same for social structures and organizations.

Part of that organization is maintained by diversity within a scale and across scales (Peterson et al 1998 and Walker et al 1999), a uniquely panarchical representation of the role of diversity in maintaining a sustainable system. For ecosystems and landscapes, all this is arranged over an interactive scale from centimeters and days to hundreds of kilometers and millennia. Nothing static- all components flipping from quiet to noise, from collapse to renewal. Transformation is not easy and gradual. It is tough and abrupt.

It seemed to become clear why and how persistence and extinction, growth and constancy, evolution and collapse entwined to form a panarchy of adaptive cycles across scales. Hierarchy and adaptive cycles can combine to make healthy systems over scales from the individual to the planet. Over days to centuries. The panarchy shows that we benefit from local inventions that create larger opportunity while being kept safe from those that destabilize because of their nature or excessive exuberance. When innovation occurs we can sense its fate. When collapse looms we can judge its likelihood. And the timing and kind of responses to this swinging, turbulent process can be designed as an act of strategic decision. Sustainability both conserves and creates. So does biological evolution.

But it can also build dependencies, some of which become pathological blocks to constructive change. They create traps, and those require the most searching investigation now.

Where Ideas Originate; What makes some useful?

I have been asked why I have so many novel, yet useful ideas, ones that eventually move to some kind of fruition, testing and, usually, after a very long time, acceptance. I do not really know, so what I write here is a guess.

I am prodigiously curious about nature, and that triggers initial ideas. I am also terribly persistent and stubborn about developing and testing an idea that grabs me; at those times I am totally and narrowly focused, driven by the potential. That is what eventually makes an idea useful. So I conclude that nature creates the idea; stubbornness makes it useful! But I have had to learn how to see nature. It is curiosity, anecdote, funny correlations, jokes and metaphors that have done that.

I enjoy communicating the excitement and the evolving stages of these ideas to others. And I like to discuss all this in classes with students, involving them directly in whatever research is most topical. That leads me to careful mentoring of some younger colleagues whose talents stand out. Earlier I mentioned a number of them.

I am delighted if others become interested and propose extensions or alternative explanations. I get profoundly upset if, at such times, someone says these suites of nascent ideas, or any one idea is wrong and that projects based on them should stop. I have got into big arguments with distinguished scholars over that one! In contrast, I see them as rich ways to explore the unknown; I see them as rich ways to develop friendships that endure.

Frances Westley once pointed out to me the three principal types of scientist she sees. Those are consolidators, technical talents, and artists. Consolidators accumulate and solidify advances and are deeply skeptical of ill formed and initial, hesitant steps. That can have great value at stages in a scientific cycle when rigorous efforts to establish the strength and value of an idea is central.

In contrast, I love those initial hesitant steps and like to see clusters of them. That is the kind of thing needed at the beginning of a cycle of scientific enquiry or even just before that. Such nascent, partially stumbling ideas, are the largely hidden source for the engine that eventually generates change in science. So I am not a particularly good consolidator.

I also am not a preeminently good technical person, though I do have sufficient technical experience to have developed considerable, well-grounded skepticism of the biases existing in traditional methods. I know some statistics, something about modeling, something about mathematics and a lot about biology. I enjoy integrating across all those talents.

But I love the nascent ideas, the sudden explosion of a new idea, the connections of the new idea with others. And I love the development and testing of the idea till it gets to the point it is convincing. That needs persistence to the level of stubbornness and I happily invest in that persistence. I guess I fit somewhat into the artist type, less the technical type and still less into an efficient consolidator.

As part of that kind of scientist, I have tried to develop senses that help me listen to intriguing voices that are hidden amongst the noise. Owlish ways to hear the rustle of the mouse. The simplest example of what I mean is in sculpting, another pleasure I have. I start with a number of hazy ideas, and then I discover the image caught and hidden in the swirls of the wood's grain. I listen to the voice of the wood.

My research has always been like that. In the early days of investigating predator/prey functional responses, the device that helped retain generalization was components analysis. It was a way to engage levels of complexity and maintain generality. It required a beast-for-the-moment design- the beast most appropriate for the step in hand. The result was many voices, each playing facets of one song. Praying mantis, insect parasitoids, deer mice and shrews, barracuda and iao, salmon, the suite of insectivorous birds in the boreal forest. Lions and gazelles. It was a way to listen to the hidden voice of nature. Those voices led to the discovery of resilience. Not a song but a symphony!

More recently, at last I heard the "world is lumpy" music that emerges from patterns in ecosystems at scales from centimeters to hundreds of kilometers, from days to millennia. And the approach used to examine the subtleties is a bit of strong inference, but more of adaptive inference and multiple lines of evidence- from every major biome in the world, from endangered and invasive species, from nomadic and sedentary organisms (Holling and Allen 2002). And beyond that, similar rhythms, once heard, seem to be in economic systems, social and behavioral.

Adaptive ecosystem management has been the same process. The workshops evolved to let human voices speak- scientist, scholar, and practitioner. I learned who they were, in heart and spirit, and each had a different contribution. The Peerless Leader learned the guiding melody. The Blunt Scot was on percussion. The Snively Whiplash provided the creative dissonance. The Utopian dreamed the impossible dreams. And the Compleat Amanuensis recorded it all. The Benevolent Despot hummed a lot. All these folks and the revealing workshop process and models are described in Holling and Chambers, 1973.

At this point, I am delighted with the results of some of my more recent inventions, which have been made with great help from colleagues of the international Resilience Alliance and the Internet journal Ecology and Society. I really do not know what the Alliance and its journal will become as they evolve. But basically right now they provide a foundation to develop devices to listen to the quiet voices of people- scientists and scholars of many stripes, practitioners, and for them to listen to each other. In universities, government, the public and the private sector. I wish in business as well. For the moment, it is people in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, in Spain and Malaysia, South America and Madagascar, Canada and Australia. In Africa. And not just in the US. We identify voices that have been masked by the noise, ones where novelty and experience combine. We are finding ways to have deliberative conversations among listeners.

Where to go Now?

I was surprised and delighted to learn during this year, 2006, that several organizations have recently been established with resilience as one of their primary themes. The most recent is a new Center on Resilience and Sustainability for Social/Ecological Systems in Sweden. It has just been formed by Stockholm University, the Beijer Institute and the Stockholm Environment Institute. It joins three other centers that have been recently established with resilience as their focus- for International Coral Reefs in Australia, for Climate Change at the University of Norwich, UK and, more loosely, for Parks, ecosystems and people in South Africa.

All have indicated programs for collaboration among the groups, and other members of the Resilience Alliance itself. That is all a very new acceleration of work on both the theories and practices of resilience. They are extraordinarily appropriate places for launching novel experiments, novel knowledge and novel actions at this time of international turmoil. They provide places that beautifully stimulate novelty and excellence across disciplines in a flexible atmosphere where discussion and debate periodically pace deep deliberative enquiry. The Internet can play a big role that creates an international place for such enquiries and debates. They are outstanding examples of the creation of integrative support for fundamental interdisciplinary study.

I started this paper with a good news report and a bad news one about events I now see locally, nationally and internationally.

Essentially I have learned that at such times I certainly do not try to solve the problems of the rigid or the collapsing system. Instead, I initiate a variety of experiments, mobilize my understanding, develop experiments, models and tests, and wait for an opportunity to emerge that might use the results. In our variety of regional studies that always happened. At that time a menu of possibilities then exist for renewing the system. And we hope that happens globally as well.

No one at this time of deep change should define the profile for the research that will grab the emerging systems in the world. Instead, it is precisely the time to ask what interests you? It is the time where individuals can have the greatest effect.

So, in closing, here is what interests me, one individual, now.

Social Traps: I'd sure like to learn more about different societal traps and why some are irreversible. We guessed at two in the Panarchy book's third chapter. One was a "poverty trap" where a society flips out of an adaptive cycle at a large political scale in a way that progressively triggers similar collapses at ever-smaller scales. Structure (organizations and institutions) is destroyed in the process, leaving the society finally as independent families separately struggling for survival, having lost their portion of the society's capital. Learning and self-help is minimal. We also posited a "rigidity trap", where wealth was great, resilience high and internal connectedness strong. That is the kind of hierarchist trap that freezes the adaptive cycle by ejecting dissidents and minimizing learning. I think of the fundamentalist religions as examples- dangerous examples. I know the healthy state for a society is one where there is a nested set of adaptive cycles; continually testing changed circumstances and adapting to them. But they can slip out of that sustaining state, into traps. Some of those traps are essentially irreversible. We need to learn more about them. We need more examples that demonstrate them. And we need to learn ways that can lead to ways out of them.

Social Adaptive Cycles: I'd also like to discover where and why some social systems- public organizations, private firms, regions, nations, international consortia- are much slower than ecosystems to break creatively and seem so much slower to transform into new structures with new opportunities. That often seemed to be the case for our case studies of regional public and political organizations, at least, where a market does not force change. And for national and international assemblages, think of the anthropological and modern examples- anarchy and the first World War, the Marshall Plan and its incredible success in facilitating recovery in Europe, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, which had mixed results we are still living with. Panarchy, resilience and the connections of memory and revolt between scales provide a new focus for this old question.

Living on the Edge: I am very interested to see tests that show whether cities, organizations and economies on the edge of social/economic/ecological lumps, have the same features of living on the edge of crisis and opportunity as do animals living on the edge of their body mass lumps. That is where the dynamic nature of panarchies starts to provide insights into constraints and opportunities for changes and transformations that can ride the natural forces.

A Panarchy Game: I would love to see collaboration between those who have developed panarchy thinking and those who are developing certain kinds of games. Will Wright, the 46-year-old creator of SimCity and the Sims, was an early one, and now has efforts that capture abilities to zoom in to the small and out to the large or into the fast and out to the slow. These are the games of the "Long Zoom and the Long Now" (Brand 1999) that are emerging independent of the kind or research that led to Panarchy. But it is driven by the same goals, the same fun, and the same intensity. The two need to be joined for a bump in innovation.

Globalizing Experiments: I'd also like to see more experiments on the Web and the internet, some in conjunction with occasional face to face meetings, some designing new ways to present educational programs, some using novel ways to display complex data or policies simply, some providing new ways to present and explore information, like Goggle's zooming earth data, some developing interactive games for regional and global social and ecosystemic designs, some presenting more Blogs, debates and discussions, some that use movies that express dynamic changes in an intelligible manner. We have done some of that- most notably by Garry Peterson for his Young Scholars Dialogues in Ecology and Society and his more recent Blogs in Ecology and Society and on the RA web page. We need more.

Self-organization Combining with Evolution: I'd like to support studies that explore how the link between self-organization of entities at different scales in the Panarchy link with natural selection to affect the speed and scale of evolutionary change. I believe that self-organization and natural selection jointly flourish and interact as a new way to view evolution, opening up another fruitful landscape for enquiry and theoretical development. In the sciences of biological evolution, that combination can often be viewed as either an obscure or an excessive representation! But it is suggestive and provocative, and that has particular value at times of deep change. It again opens a new landscape of thought for investigation and action from local, to regional to global scales. That is a big journey from its start, over 40 years ago, when I was immersed in lovely experiments of deep enquiry about praying mantids!

To conclude, I argue that we preeminently need novel integrative work. Specifically, novel work that integrates the economic and social with ecosystemically driven understanding. Multi-scale, searching for the relatively simple features of complex systems. Fundamentally non-linear. A testing of a range of methods and a disbelief in any of them. A wedding of theory, empirical examples and application. An emphasis on a search for generality, which needs cooperative works with others expert in other fields, but ones who share the curiosity and fun of mutual discovery. That is much more valuable, now, in this time of political turbulence and transformation in the world, than new policies and new planning exercises. They are too early, and too dangerous in their reliance on successes that worked for past problems. We now live in too new a world.

Acknowledgment

This is but a sketch of a life. A sketch of a professional life. Behind its journey has been a family who have embraced, opposed and shared the unrolling events. Without them, I would not have dared and would not have imagined the wonders I found. Quite simply, my wife Ilse, my two sons Chris and Jamie and my daughter Nancy are a treasured part of this journey. They deserve a companion essay to show how much they have made the professional journey one of great joy and a sharing of different oceans, different ponds and lakes, different forests and mountains and different skies.

References

Allen, C. R., E. A. Forys, and C. S. Holling. 1999. Body mass patterns predict invasions and extinctions in transforming landscapes. Ecosystems 2:114-121.

Allen, Craig R. and C.S, Holling, 2002. Cross-scale structure and scale breaks in ecosystems and other complex systems. Ecosystems 5: 315-318.

Allen, Craig R. and C.S. Holling,2007. Discontinuity Theory in Ecosystems and other Complex Systems. Columbia University Press, in press.

Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding and Carl Folke , 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F., C. Folke and M. Gadgil. 1995, Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustanability. In C, Perrings, K.-G. Maler, C. Folke C.S.Holling and B.-O Janssen (eds) Biodiversity Conservation. Kluwer Academic Publishers , Dordrecht.

Bessey, K. M. (2002) Structure and dynamics in an urban landscape: toward a multi-scale view. Ecosystems, 5, pp. 360-375.

Brand, Stuart, 1999, The Clock of the Long Now. Basic Books, New York.

Clark, William C., Dixon D. Jones and C.S. Holling 1979. Lessons for ecological policy design: A case study of ecosystems management. Ecological Modelling 7: 1 - 53.

Carpenter, Stephen R. 1996. Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77 (3) : 677-690.

Carpenter, S.R., Brock, W.A., Hanson, P.C., 1999. Ecological and social dynamics in simple models of ecosystem management. Conservation Ecology 3(2), 4. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art4

Carpenter, S.R. 2000. Alternate states of ecosystems. Evidence and its implications for environmental decisions. In, M.C.Press, N.Huntley and S. Levin. (eds). Ecology: Achievement and Challenge, Blackwell, London.

Carpenter, S.R. 2003. Regime Shifts in Lake Ecosystems: Pattern and Variation. Volume 15, Excellence in Ecology Series, Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe. Germany. Available on the Internet. URL: http://limnologu.wisc,edu/regime

Dasgupta, P. and K.-G. Maler (eds.). 2003. The economics of non-convex ecosystems. Environmental and Resource Economics 26(4), Special Issue, December. pp 499-685.

Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmquist, Lance Gunderson and C.S.Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in Ecosystem Management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 35: 557-582.

Garmestani, A.S., C.R. Allen, and K.M. Bessey. 2005. Time series analysis of clusters in city size distributions. Urban Studies 42: 1507-1515.

Garmestani, A. S., C. R. Allen, J. D. Mittelstaedt, C. A. Stow, and W. A. Ward. 2006. Firm size diversity, functional richness and resilience. Environment and Development Economics 11: 533-551.

Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (eds) 1995 Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Colombia University Press, New York.

Gunderson, L.H and C.S. Holling (eds) 2002 Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington and London.

Gunderson, Lance H. and Lowell Pritchard Jr. ( eds.) 2002.. Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Systems. Scope 60, Island Press, Washington.

Havlicek, T. D. and S. R. Carpenter. 2001. Pelagic species size distributions in lakes: are they discontinuous? Limnology and Oceanography 46:1021-1033.

Holling, C.S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385-398

Holling, C.S. 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can. 45: 1-60

Holling, C.S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can. 48: 1-86).

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. of Ecol. and Syst. 4: 1-23.

Holling, C.S. and A.D. Chambers. 1973. Resource science: the nurture of an infant. Bioscience 23(1): 13-20.

Holling, C.S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley and Sons, London. 377 pp.

Holling, C.S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems; local surprise and global change. In: W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn (eds.). Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Chap. 10: 292-317.

Holling, C.S. 1988. Temperate Forest Insect Outbreaks, Tropical Deforestation and Migratory Birds. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can. 146: 21-32.

Holling, C.S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs. 62(4):447-502.

Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, social and ecological systems. Ecosystems 4: 390-405.

Holling, C. S., Lance G. Gunderson and Garry D. Peterson. 2002. Sustainability and Panarchies. In. Gunderson, L.H and Holling, C.S (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington and London, Chapter 3,, 63-102.

Holling , C.S. and Craig Allen. 2002. Adaptive inference for distinguishing credible from incredible patterns in nature. Ecosystems 5: 319-328.

Holling, C. S. 2004. From complex regions to complex worlds. Ecology and Society 9(1): 11. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art11

Homer-Dixon, Thomas, 2006. The Upside of Down; Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization, Knopf Canada, 429 pages

Lambert, W. D. and C. S. Holling (1998). Causes of Ecosystem Transformation at the end of the Pleistocene: Evidence from mammal body mass distributions. Ecosystems 1: 157-175.

Ludwig, D., D.D. Jones and C.S. Holling. 1978. Qualitative analysis of insect outbreak systems: the spruce budworm and forest. J. Animal. Ecol. 44: 315-332.

Manly, B.F.J. 1996. Are there clumps in body-mass distributions? Ecology 77: 81-86

Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke and C. Holling 2006. Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11 (1): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/

Ostrom. E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , UK.

Peterson, G., C. R. Allen, C. S. Holling. (1998). Ecosystem Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems 1: 6-18.

Raffaelli, D., S.Hall, C. Emes and B. Manly. 2000. Constraints on body size distributions: an experimental approach using a small-scale system. Oecologia 122: 389-398.

Scheffer, M., S.H. Hopsper, M-L. Meijer, B.Moss and E. Jeppesen. 1993. Alternative Equilibria in shallow lakes. Tree 8 (8): 275- 279.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper Books, New York

Sinclair, A.R.E. , P.D. Olsen, and T.D. Redhead. Can predators regulate small mammal populations? Evidence from mouse outbreaks in Australia. Oikos 59: 382-392.

Sousa, W.P. and J.H. Connell. 1985. Further comments on the evidence for multiple stable points in natural communities. American Naturalist 125, 612-615.

Walker, B.H., Kinzig, A., and Langridge, J. 1999. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: The nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems. 2: 1-20.

Walker B, S. Carpenter, A. Anderies, N. Abel, C. Cumming, M. Janssen,L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G.D.Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14

Walker BH and Janssen MA. 2002. Rangelands, pastoralists and governments: interlinked systems of people and nature. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. B (2002) 357, 719-725.

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan, New York.

Walters, C.J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and costal systems. Conservation Ecology 1 (2): online at http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1.

Walters, C., and Martell, S. 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.

West, G.B., J.H.Brown and B.J. Enquist. 1999. The fourth dimension of life: Fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science 284:1677-1679.

Westley, F. 2002. The devil in the dynamics. Adaptive management on the front lines. In, Gunderson, L.H and Holling, C.S (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington and London, Chapter 13: 333-360.

Westley, F., Steven R, Carpenter, William A. Brock, C.S.Holling and Lance H. Gunderson. 2002.. In, Gunderson, L.H and Holling, C.S (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington and London, Chapter 4: 103-120.

Westley, Frances, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Quin Patton. 2006. Getting to Maybe. Random House Canada.