Socio Ecological Systems (SES):
- 1. What are the existing frameworks for analyzing SES?
- 2. Which are relevant to SES in Singapore?
SES Framework
The classical approach to man’s development and the
environment viewed the two as separate, competing forces where natural
resources were assets for human consumption (Neuman, 2005) . What this approach lacked was the
ability to truly account for all externalities resulting from human interaction
with the environment.
As such, there was a shift in thinking during the
environmental movement in the 1960s & 1970s to systems thinking which
viewed the environment and humans as a whole system that has to be kept in
balance.
From there, increasingly complex environmental issues such
as loss of biodiversity, global warming and unsustainable population growth have
created a multi-disciplinary approach to investigation and modeling of the
interactions between the environment and the social system (Binder,
Hinkel, Bots, & Pahl-Wostl, 2013) . This has led to the
creation of numerous conceptual frameworks examining SESs some of which we will
examine below.
Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR)
The DPSIR is the framework used by the European Environment
Agency (EEA) in facilitating thinking about the interaction between the
environment and socio-economic activities. The framework is based upon the
pressures that social and economic developments exert on the environment
leading to environmental changes. This in turn affects human society which may
induce evoke a response to the original pressures, the effects on human
communities, the cause of these pressures or on the environment itself (Gabriel, 2007) .
Figure 1: Visualisation of the DPSIR Framwork (EEA)
Ecosystem Services Framework (ES)
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in 2006 promoted
the ES framework which introduced the concept of ecosystem services; benefits
provided by ecosystems (Milennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, 2005) . The MA grouped
these benefits in 4 services:
1.
Provisioning Services: The process of obtaining
the products of ecosystems such as food, fiber, fuel and genetic resources.
2.
Regulating Services: The benefits obtained from
regulating ecosystem processes affecting air quality, climates, water treatment
and pest regulation.
3.
Cultural Services: Non-tangible benefits people
obtain through recreation, spiritual enrichment, environmental knowledge and
culture.
4.
Supporting Services: Services that are necessary
for the provision of all the other services such as photosynthesis which creates
oxygen for living organisms. Supporting services often fit into one of the
other categories as well.
The framework focuses on examining these services and
determining if they exceed the limits of sustainable usage. One example being
capture fisheries which are often over-exploited.
Socio Ecological Systems Framework (SESF)
The SESF is a 10 factor framework designed to identify and
analyse relationships across different levels of complex socio-ecological
systems (SES) with reference to both temporal and spatial scales (Ostrom, 2009) . It seeks to present
a common approach using knowledge from multi disciplines to better understand
socio-ecological systems.
Figure 1 is a visual representation of the framework showing
the linkages between the “four first-level core subsystems of an SES that
affect each other” whilst taking into account the social, political and
economic context in which this SES exists.
Source 1: A General
Framework for Analysing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems
Each one of these core subsystems comprises of more than one
second level variables such as size, mobility, level of governance. These
second level variables can then be decomposed into even more deeper level
variables unique to the ecosystem.
Which framework to use?
The question then is which framework to use in the context
of Singapore. Singapore’s complex SES tend to be recreational nature parks with
some incorporating other functions such as water catchment and purification.
Considering the scope of this project focuses mainly of these localized SES, the
ES framework is unlikely to be as relevant as most of these SES fulfill narrow
roles in the provision of said ecological services. Most for example do not
produce much in the way of resources.
As our focus is on the governance of these complex SES, I feel
that SESF framework might be more adaptable as unlike the DPSIR has a clear
delineation between society and government responses to events occurring in the
sphere of the SES.
Bibliography
Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W., &
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of Frameworks for Analyzing
Social-ecologial systems. Ecology & Society.
Gabriel, A. (2007, 07 27). The DPSIR framework
used by the EEA. Retrieved from EEA Intergrated Assessment Portal:
http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182
Milennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. (2005). Ecosystems
and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC.: Island Press.
Neuman, M. (2005). The Compact City Fallacy. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 11-26.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analysing
Sustainability of Social Ecological Systems. Science, 419-422.
No comments:
Post a Comment