Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
Growing symptoms of the mismanagement of socio‐ecological systems (SESs) show that the long‐term existence of these systems is threatened. SES management improvement is the aim of many policy measures. But how successful are these various simultaneous policy measures in achieving the sustainable management of SESs? A framework for analysing policy measures and the management actions of land users was developed by Leach et al. (2010): the authors postulate [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorDomptail, Stephanie
dc.contributor.authorEasdale, Marcos Horacio
dc.contributor.authorYuerlita
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-17T12:19:47Z
dc.date.available2019-04-17T12:19:47Z
dc.date.issued2013-02
dc.identifier.issn1756-932X
dc.identifier.issn1756-9338
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1604
dc.identifier.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.1604
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4927
dc.description.abstractGrowing symptoms of the mismanagement of socio‐ecological systems (SESs) show that the long‐term existence of these systems is threatened. SES management improvement is the aim of many policy measures. But how successful are these various simultaneous policy measures in achieving the sustainable management of SESs? A framework for analysing policy measures and the management actions of land users was developed by Leach et al. (2010): the authors postulate that the sustainability of an SES depends on four system properties – stability, resilience, durability and robustness – and that external shocks and stresses affect these properties differently. The aim of this contribution is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approach by applying it to three case studies, in Namibia, Argentina and Indonesia. We found that (1) more actions were directed towards resilience and robustness than towards command and control, (2) actions directed at stability and durability were generally undertaken at the national level and (3) the introduction of the concept of robustness to illustrate the property of adaptability enables the identification of trade‐offs among properties, but (4) issues of ecological degradation were difficult to address explicitly. We consider that the framework can make a useful contribution to policy making by framing the impact of a given intervention on SESs on the four key system properties. Yet, the framework provides a structure to make ex‐post assessment of SES management or to formulate assumptions about potential synergies/trade‐offs among impacts on system properties. However, we suggest using it as complementary to other policy impact assessment methodseng
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherWileyes_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceEnvironmental Policy and Governance 23 (1) : 30-45 (January-February 2013)es_AR
dc.subjectEcosistemaes_AR
dc.subjectEcosystemseng
dc.subjectSostenibilidades_AR
dc.subjectSustainabilityeng
dc.subjectResiliencia frente a Impactos y Crisises_AR
dc.subjectResilienceeng
dc.subjectIndicadores Socialeses_AR
dc.subjectSocial Indicatorseng
dc.subject.otherSustentabilidades_AR
dc.titleManaging Socio‐Ecological Systems to Achieve Sustainability: A Study of Resilience and Robustnesses_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenEEA Barilochees_AR
dc.description.filFil: Domptail, Stephanie. Justus Liebig University of Giessen. Institute for Agricultural Policy and Market Research; Alemaniaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Easdale, Marcos Horacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Yuerlita. Andalas University. kampus Unand Limau Manis; Indonesiaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record