Social-Ecological Systems and Monitoring

Berkes & Folke (1998) define social-ecological systems (Hereafter referred

to as SESs) as, nested, multilevel systems that provide essential services
to society such as the supply of food, fibre, energy, and drinking water.
Furthermore, SESs are defined by Andries et al. (2004) as social systems
in which some of the independent relationships among humans are
mediated through interactions with the biophysical and non-human
biological units. Social-ecological systems have inherent complexity in
terms of their ecosystem structures and processes which are linked across
spatial and temporal scales (Olsson, 2003). Ecosystems are also organised
in a hierarchical manner and are described by Olsson (2003) as systems
which inherit the idea of Panarchy. This description duly highlights the
complexity of social-ecological systems.

The vast changes in major human and biophysical processes bring much
concern to the sustainability of present day social-ecological systems and
provide obstacles to monitoring processes (Ostrom, 2007). Furthermore,
the monitoring of social-ecological systems is highly data-intensive but is
important in understanding the influences between man and the
environment which cause many impacts to our planet (Sanga, 2011).
Therefore, there is a newfound pressure for reliable statistics and it is vital
that we support the development of methods which act as solutions to the
challenges of analysing and collecting data from many diverse processes,
for the effective monitoring of social-ecological systems (Ostrom, 2007).

Challenges in Collecting and Analysing Data and Possible

Solutions
There is an abundance of difficulties which researchers, managers and
institutions face when collecting and analysing data for the monitoring of
social-ecological systems. Ostrom (2007) highlights one major problem
1

which is the use of blueprint solutions instead of searching for specific

fixes for different situations. This is further supported by Meinzen-Dick
(2007) where it was put forward that the belief that there is only one
avenue of solutions is detrimental to the monitoring of social-ecological
systems.

According to Allen and Hoekstra (1992) and Koestler (1973), major

progress in monitoring social-ecological systems has been a result of
individuals recognising that complex systems are decomposable in their
structure. Therefore, in order to monitor social-ecological systems
effectively, it is vital to understand the nature of each SES in order to
identify optimal and efficient solutions (Holling et al., 1998). Each system
is made up of different tiers or levels which represent various elements or
variables of the system (Simon, 2000), and in order to improve our efforts
in collecting and analysing data for SES, we must acknowledge the three
aspects of decomposability. The first is the conceptual organisation of the
variables into classes and subclasses which counters scientific uncertainty.
The second is the presence of subsystems which function independently
from each other but have reciprocal influences. Lastly, it is important to
understand that whole systems are greater than the sum of their parts
(Simon, 2000).

Another major obstacle in monitoring of social-ecological systems is

defining variables so as to make the conceptual logic of linking variables
more relevant to the general concepts of social-ecological systems
(Ostrom, 2007). An example using the present world models of socialecological systems (where interactions affect variables at multiple levels)
would be a variable such as the storage availability of a system being
seemingly different by resource unit, which entails that individuals must
study the other levels and variables to gain a better understanding of the
storage availability variable. Therefore, in order for analysing data to be
effective, both the vertical and horizontal relationships aswell as the
temporal and spatial dimensions of social-ecological systems need to be
addressed sufficiently (Ostrom, 2007).
2

Monitoring

social-ecological

systems

mirrors

the

challenges

that

organisations face in monitoring the Millenium Development Goals

(Hereafter referred to as MDGs). The paper by Sanga (2011) highlights
some of the difficulties faced in the monitoring process both at national
and international level. Comparable to the international initiative to collect
data to monitor the MDGs; social ecological systems and their successful
monitoring depend on the co-operation between stakeholders at regional,
national and international levels. Some of the challenges faced in
monitoring these social-ecological systems involve the lack of data on
indicators, inconsistent data between national and international sources,
issues with collection and analysing methods, problems in building
adequate capacity, co-ordination of the statistics within each National
Statistical System (NSS) and finally, co-operation issues between the NSSs
and the International organisations. Sanga (2011) also identifies the
challenges that African countries face in reaching the MDGs by 2015, and
this sheds light on possible challenges to monitoring social-ecological
systems. These include gaps in the data, the inadequate use of official
data, the use of adjusted figures in some countries and inconguencies in
the values for indicators at national and international level. In order to
clarify the source of these problems, there was an assessment of
monitoring and reporting which took place across six countries in Africa.
The summary of this assessment was included in a report which identified
data gaps and differences in data being collected as two major recurring
issues (Sanga, 2011).

The differences in data collected are caused by definitional problems,

alteration of methods, lack of co-ordination at national and international
levels,

inadequate

population

estimates,

no

transparency

in

the

estimation or modelling procedures by international organisations and the

incessant delay in publishing results by National Statistic Organisations
(Sanga, 2011). Data availability also becomes an issue as data collected
at national levels is not always being utilised by international agencies
and both parties (national and international statistic organisations) fail to
make proper use of existing data (Sanga, 2011). Another major cause of
3

these challenges is the random conduction of surveys and censuses in

countries, where the lack of consistency of these surveys contributes to
the large amount of data gaps at national and international levels.
Furthermore, surveys and censuses are costly and hinder the efficient
collection of data which is vital to monitoring. Often, donors donate money
for a survey to be carried out and this means that the survey may only
address the donors interests rather than national concerns (Sanga, 2011).
A vast lack of communication and co-ordination both within the NSS and
between the NSS and international statistics organisations hinders the
collection process and the international organisations ability to analyse
the data from the NSS sufficiently, due to their own poor data collection
systems. This entails that different data collectors are not recognised and
there is insufficient use of possibly helpful data (Sanga, 2011).

Another issue includes the difference in indicators and indicator values

between countries and the fact that some indicators may not necessarily
be relevant, as the choice of indicators depend on the specific situation or
challenges faced in different countries. Possible causes of these above
issues include international organisations failing to consider national data
as the data or collection methods do not to comply with international
standards (Sanga, 2011). Furthermore, the adjustment of data figures
during the analysis process to make data comparable presents many
problems as it hinders the monitoring of social-ecological systems. Lastly,
population estimates may undermine existing data due to the different
methods used by NSSs and international organisations (Sanga, 2011).

Possible solutions to these issues include the co-ordination between the

NSS and international organisations through the establishment of fixed
and consistent indicators across all countries (Sanga, 2011). Technical and
financial partners should assist countries by using international methods
of data collection and analysis; but these methods must coincide with
national priorities and aim to strengthen co-ordination (Sanga, 2011).
Transparency should be improved through the increased accessibility of
information, collection methods and data. Regional and international
4

organisations must work together with national governments and improve

the registration of citizens and the statistics system in order to amend
discrepancies in population data (Sanga, 2011).

Obstacles to Monitoring Social-Ecological Systems

The process of monitoring social-ecological systems involves an important
understanding of the adaptive capacity of each system (Olsson, 2003).
Therefore the monitoring process involves an assessment of the resilience
of these systems due to their dynamic nature. There are, however, a
number of obstacles in determining and ensuring ecosystem resilience, so
as to maintain the stability of social mechanisms which play a role in
changing key ecological structures and variables used in the monitoring
process (Berkes et al, 1998). Co-adaptive monitoring is vital in gaining
knowledge about ecosystems which then allows us to alter our behaviour
to match the change and uncertainty of the specific social-ecological
system (Holling, 1978). Olsson (2003) recognises a few of the major
challenges associated with adaptive monitoring such as increasing the
understanding of social structures and processes, and answering the
question of how to adequately co-ordinate knowledge which is found at
different social and ecological levels in order to respond to socialecological change.

A paper by Biber (2013) elaborates on how effective monitoring can be

constrained by a institutions, politics and legal requirements.

Basic conditions for Monitoring Programmes

Biber (2013) states that monitoring efforts need to be continuous, long

lived and relevant to the resources in question. However, a number of
factors make achieving these goals difficult, such as political pressure,
myopia, conflict of interests, the need for institutional autonomy and the
counter arguments against monitoring. Monitoring processes must also
measure variables over extended periods of time in order to prevent the
5

possibility of gaps in data which have an adverse effect on monitoring the

variability in social-ecological systems (Franklin, 1990). A problem
associated with missing data is that it can be used by critics to challenge
the effectiveness of monitoring programmes. Furthermore, the continuity
and longevity of monitoring programmes will also counter political
arguments which state that data collection and analysis do not show
significant events in social-ecological systems. Biber (2013) states that
the prolonged time taken to collect sufficient data and the longevity of a
monitoring programme acts as a solution to this challenge. Other
challenges are associated with scale, as the correct scale is difficult to
ascertain; aswell as determining the correct amount to monitor, as
managers and agencies lack vital knowledge regarding all the variables
and resources in social ecological systems.

Political and Legal Obstacles

Effective data which is collected is not always used to make decisions due
to residual uncertainty (Biber, 2013). Problems arise when agency
jurisdictional borders are not geographic but rather substantive. For
example, if we are monitoring one resource such as water, we may be
required to monitor a relatable resource. But the manager which must
monitor the water resource also has the authority to monitor the relatable
resource, and the benefits which arise from monitoring this relatable
resource will be conducive to another separate decision maker. In order to
prevent

this,

the

manager

may

monitor

the

relatable

resource

insufficiently and with less emphasis, compared to the monitoring of the

water resource (Sachirico et al., in press). Budgets place many constraints
on data collection (Spellerberg, 2005) as monitoring programmes are seen
from a political point of view as unnecessary, and it is also challenging for
non-experts to identify whether their monitoring programme is effective
without the ongoing supervision of outside agencies and parties (Biber,
2013). However, this is made even more difficult due to the legal and
political burden of ongoing regulation of monitoring programmes. Besides
limiting data collection, political pressure also prevents agencies from
6

using monitoring data to make decisions as these decisions make threaten

high ranking interest groups (Biber, 2013).

Lastly, Biber (2013) provides an array of solutions to these abovementioned problems in order to ensure effective data collection, analysis
and monitoring. A possible solution would be to establish leadership
agencies which oversee these issues as well as increasing funding which
would help overcome the resistance from political powers. The effective
collaboration among managers and organisations will also lead to more
efficient use of information and assist in collecting data at larger or
smaller scales (Biber, 2013). Held further, that by placing responsibilities
on citizens to provide monitoring data through the use of inexpensive
technology, we could cut down on costs of monitoring. Another solution
would be to use dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve any conflicts
before the monitoring programme is put in place (Biber, 2013). Adaptive
management and collaborative processes could help in reducing tension
between agencies and political powers which would improve decision
making. Lastly, a change in the structure and focus of monitoring
organisations will increase the incentives for these organisations to use
effective monitoring techniques (Biber, 2013).

Choosing the Correct Framework

A paper by Binder et al. (2013) identifies possible frameworks used to
monitor socio-ecological systems. Difficulties in choosing the correct
framework to sufficiently collect and analyse data rely upon whether the
framework conceptualises the relationship between social and ecological
systems

as

being

unidirectional

or

multidirectional,

whether

the

framework views the ecological system from an anthropogenic or

ecocentric perspective, and lastly whether the framework is action or
analysis orientated. Therefore choosing the incorrect framework can bring
about many difficulties to the monitoring of social-ecological systems
(Binder et al., 2013).

The frameworks aimed at achieving this often have different goals and
apply differently in terms of their applicability, temporal, social and spatial
scale. This reflects the high diversity of data collected at different scales
which impedes the successful evaluation, analysis and comparison of
data. Therefore, Binder et al., (2013) concludes that there needs to be an
interdisciplinary investigation and modelling of social ecological systems
in order to provide effective monitoring (Binder 2007).

The Panacea Problem

The panacea problem is defined as a presumed solution to a whole range

of issues but fails in that it is too precise and inherits the blueprint
approach to governance of these social-ecological systems, resulting in a
mismatch between monitoring programmes and their social-ecological
goals (Ostrom & Cox, 2010).

Ostrom and Cox (2010) provided a more detailed view of the panacea
problem by contrasting this simple prescription against the institutional
analysis and development (IAD) framework aswell as the SES framework.
The IAD framework has provided researchers with opportunities to
develop a common language complimentary to both social and ecological
fields in order to assist managers and organisations in analysing the
complexity of variables and outcomes in social-ecological systems
(Ostrom & Cox, 2010). The SES framework allows for more conducive
analysis of socio-ecological systems. The framework allows for managers
and researches to focus on the ability of systems to respond to
disturbances and exercise concepts such as adaptive capacity, resilience,
robustness, stability and transformability (Ostrom & Cox, 2010).

One such difficulty associated with the panacea approach is finding

suitable ways to control and manage socio-ecological systems due to their
interrelatedness, as a result of increasing human populations and
economic development. Furthermore, whilst too precise at times, this
theory is also extremely vague in some aspects and causes difficulty in
8

reaching monitoring goals (Ostrom & Cox, 2010). Using the panacea
theory to collect and analyse data for monitoring leads to many costs due
to the difficulty in obtaining relevant data and the failure to apply the data
with socio-ecological models (Cox, 2008). There are many challenges for
moving past the simplistic panacea model of socio-ecological systems,
such as developing new perspectives from other scientific disciplines,
integrating methodologies to analyse social and environmental processes
and the degree of time and effort needed to for successful monitoring.
Furthermore, the panacea theory provides difficulties in understanding the
dynamics of differently structured SESs and the array of factors that
influence these systems (Ostrom & Cox, 2010).

In order to counter the panacea problems, researchers, managers and

organisations must develop new methods of collection and analysis and
exercise innovation in terms of concepts and methods to achieve the goal
of an effective monitoring programme for complex social-ecological
systems (Ostrom & Cox, 2010).

Moving Forward
In conclusion, it is evident that socio-ecological systems are highly
complex and dynamic in their nature. It is therefore not possible to find
solutions to the many difficulties associated with monitoring socialecological systems through the use of blueprint solutions. Managers,
researchers and organisations need to identify the specific issues which
affect each socio-ecological system and clearly set out their monitoring
goals and methods of data collection and analysis. In order to move
forward, these parties must adopt a new innovative approach which
addresses the problems of using blueprint solutions to solve monitoring
challenges. Ultimately, the only way to move forward and advance the
techniques of monitoring socio-ecological systems will be to utilise new
methods and innovative ideas aswell as ensuring co-operation and coordination between regional, national and international organisations.

Reference List
Allen, T. F. H. & Hoekstra, T. W. 1992. Toward a Unified Ecology. New York,
Columbia University Press.

Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M. & Ostrom, E. 2004. A framework to analyze the

robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective.
Ecology and Society. 9(1), pp. 18-46.

Berkes, F. & Folke, C. eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems:
management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Biber, E. 2011. The problem of environmental monitoring. University of

Colorado Law Review. 83, pp. 1-82.

Biber, E. 2013. The challenge of collecting and using environmental

monitoring data. Ecology and Society. 18(4), pp. 68 -82.

Binder, C. R. 2007. From material flow analysis to material flow

management Part I: social science modeling approaches coupled to MFA.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 15, pp. 1596-1604.

10

Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G. & Pahl-Wostl, C. 2013. Comparison of
frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society.
18(4), pp. 26-45.

Cox, M. 2008. Balancing Accuracy and Meaning in Common-Pool Resource

Theory. Ecology and Society. 13(2), pp. 44-54.

Folke, C., Berkes, F. & Colding, J. 1998. Ecological practices and social
mechanisms for building resilience and sustainability. In: Berkes, F., Folke,
C. eds. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and
Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Holling, C.S. ed. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and

Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Holling, C. S., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. 1998. Science, Sustainability, and

Resource Management. In: Berkes, F. & Folke, C. eds. Linking Social and
Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for
Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Koestler, A. 1973. The Tree and the Candle. In Unity through Diversity. In:
Gray, W & Nicholas, R.D. eds. Unity Through Diversity: A Festschrift for
Ludwig von Bertalanffy. 314. New York: Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers.

Meinzen-Dick, R. 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions.

Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Olsson, P. 2003. Building Capacity for Resilience in Social-Ecological

Systems. Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm University.

11

Ostrom, E. 2007. Sustainable Social-Ecological Systems: An Impossibility?

Annual Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. 1519 February. San Francisco.

Ostrom, E. & Cox, M. 2010. Moving Beyond Panaceas: A Multi-tiered

Diagnostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis. Environmental
Conservation. 37(4), pp. 451-463.

Sanchirico, J. N., Springborn, M.R., Schwartz, M.W. & Doerr, N.A. In press.
Investment and the policy process in conservation monitoring.
Conservation Biology.

Sanga, D. 2011. The Challenges of Monitoring and Reporting on the

Millennium Development Goals in Africa by 2015 and Beyond. African
Statistical Journal. 12(105), pp. 104-118.

Simon, H. 2000. Public Administration in Todays World of Organizations

and Markets. PS: Political Science and Politics. 33(4), pp. 749756.

Spellerberg, I. F. 2005. Monitoring ecological change. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

12