---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sharon Ede <sharonede.au(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:33 AM
Subject: Understanding Collapse
To: visioning(a)p2pfoundation.net
I can't access the paper, but this may be of interest to some of you:
http://stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2018-
02-20-understanding-collapse.html
Understanding collapse
Fear of collapse lurks behind many discussions about the future, but much
research on it is scattered and incoherent
Story highlights
- The study of system collapse can be used to complement the study of
system resilience, and yet it lags behind resilience research in terms of
quantity and rigour.
- A systematic process for identifying system collapse and a framework
linking collapses to system structure is proposed for future work on
collapse in social-ecological systems.
- A review of system collapse case studies is used to demonstrate what
we have learned so far and to motivate for the application of the framework
in future research of system collapse.
In October 2017 many were alarmed when researchers reported an apparent
collapse in insect populations in Germany. The researchers found that the
biomass of flying insects in protected areas had fallen a remarkable 77%
over the past nearly three decades. They warned of an ‘ecological
Armageddon’. “If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse,”
they said.
‘Collapse’ is an evocative word. It conjures dark images failure, disorder,
and loss, and it implies that something has fallen into disorder. The word
collapse is frequently used in discussions about sustainability, usually in
terms of risks of collapse and the need to avoid collapse. However,
developing an understanding of factors that actually cause or predict
collapse has been limited by inconsistent and unclear definitions of
collapse.
A review of social-ecological collapses by Graeme Cumming from Australia’s
James Cook University and centre researcher Garry Peterson
<http://stockholmresilience.org/contact-us/staff/2008-08-27-peterson.html>
uses ideas from resilience theory to clarify thinking about collapse.
Published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534717301623?_rdoc=1…>,
their paper reviews the study of collapse across economics, archeology, and
ecology and then suggests a new framework for studying collapse in
social-ecological systems.
Understanding collapse requires the comparing different cases of collapse,
however when collapse is defined inconsistently and unclearly, such
comparisons are impossible, and block the development and testing of
different theories of collapse.
Collapse is the shadow of resilience, consequently studying collapse is
indirectly the study of what makes a system resilient
Garry Peterson, co-author
A definite system
In their proposed definition of ‘collapse’, Cumming and Peterson argue it
is necessary to explicitly define what is collapsing. "Not doing this basic
thing leads to confused conflicts about collapse among researchers who are
focusing on different aspects of a place or system," Cumming explains.
Defining collapse, requires specifying the identity of the system being
studied, as this can be used determine its elements, characteristics and
thresholds of change. Once the system has been identified, the authors
argue that its collapse can be determined using four criteria:
The first criterion is that the identity of the system must be lost. This
can occur if important components of the system disappear.
The second criterion is that this loss should happen fast. The term ‘fast’
is relative to the system being considered, so it depends on the intrinsic
rates of the system’s identifying components and varies accordingly. A
gradual ‘degrading’ of the system would not qualify as system collapse
under the second criterion.
The third criterion is that the collapse involves substantial loss of
social-ecological capital. The key word here is ‘substantial’, which will
vary between systems. Using case studies, Cumming and Peterson have found
that quantitative thresholds are useful for focussing attention on the
trends in the system. For example, a 99% decline in the Newfoundland Cod
spawner biomass represented a substantial loss of social-ecological capital
and was a solid indicator of the system’s collapse.
The fourth criterion is that the consequence of the collapse must be
lasting. This criterion implies that short-term perturbations in system
dynamics, while interesting, do not represent system collapse. Cumming and
Peterson argue that if all four criteria for collapse are met, the system
will undergo dramatic change in structure, function or both. Using a
systematic approach to defining system collapse is the first step in
developing our understanding of it.
Many paths to collapse?
So how does the study of collapse help us? An agreed framework for
comparing collapse allows us to develop and test general theories about
mechanisms of collapse. In their paper, Cumming and Peterson propose a
framework that links the systematic definition of system identity and
collapse with an understanding of system structure and dynamics to allow us
to develop and test theories relating to the mechanisms of collapse.
In their review of system collapse case studies, the authors identified 14
potential mechanisms that may cause collapse in social-ecological systems.
They were also able to link specific collapse mechanisms with different
types of system structure. While there are disagreements about the exact
causes of collapse in some of the case studies, the review does demonstrate
the value of combining system identity with a clear definition of collapse
in future work.
As Peterson explains, “Collapse is the shadow of resilience, consequently
studying collapse is indirectly the study of what makes a system resilient.”
Trade-offs between the resilience of one part of a system and the fragility
of another may be unavoidable, but knowing how and where a system is
fragile gives people advanced warning as well as the capacity to work to
reduce the risk of failure in that part of the system. As the world changes
and new disruptions of current social-ecological systems occur, a science
of collapse is needed to create a resilient and sustainable future.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534717301623?_rdoc=1…>
An illustrative example linking system structure with the collapse
mechanisms which are likely to lead to system collapse. Detailed
explanations of the mechanisms are provided in the article. Click on
illustration to access the article.
Methodology
Cumming and Peterson use a review of 17 case studies of social-ecological
system collapse to propose a systematic approach to defining system
collapse. Further to this, the authors propose a framework for collapse
research that allows for comparison between case studies and the
development of a general theory of collapse and its mechanisms in
social-ecological systems. Drawing on previous work regarding system
structure by the first author, the framework is shown to be able to link
specific collapse mechanisms with the pre-collapse structure of the system.
The authors proceed to discuss the benefits of a systematic approach to
collapse research to the theory and practice of system management.
Link to publication
<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(17)30162-3>
Request publication <info(a)stockholmresilience.su.se>
--
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
