Research

INTRODUCTION

There is growing recognition that addressing the complex sustainability challenges of the Anthropocene demands new interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary forms of knowledge production that span the social and natural sciences, and academia, policy, and practice (Lang et al. 2012, Fischer et al. 2015, Tengö et al. 2017, Norström et al. 2020, Folke et al. 2021). The past few decades have seen the rise of a variety of interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and systems-oriented approaches that aim to better understand and support action in relation to the interlinked sustainability challenges and risks facing humanity and nature (Brandt et al. 2013, Fazey et al. 2020, Clark and Harley 2020). Some of these efforts are occurring within the confines of existing disciplines and research areas, but many of these efforts transcend the traditional academic domains of the university, and have had to forge their own interdisciplinary institutional homes. Many of these new research areas have collected under the banner of the emerging domain of “sustainability science” (Clark and Dickson 2003), which includes a variety of different frameworks and emerging research traditions, including coupled human and natural systems (CHANS), Earth system governance (ESG), socio-technical transitions, environmental justice, the conceptual framework developed by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), amongst others (Clark and Harley 2020).

This paper focuses on one prominent emerging field within the larger emerging domain of sustainability science, namely the field of social-ecological systems (SES). Although the SES field links to, overlaps, and interacts with a number of other fields within sustainability science and beyond, it has had a particular institutional trajectory and has become a relatively dominant research area (Colding and Barthel 2019, de Vos et al. 2019, Folke et al. 2021). An important feature of SES research is that it is based on a complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective that serves as a “conceptual point of departure” (Preiser et al. 2018). Social-ecological systems research further assumes that human–nature relations are integrated to the extent that the delineation between social systems and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary (Berkes et al. 2003, Biggs et al. 2015), and that understanding SES as CAS provides insights that can better contend with the challenges of the Anthropocene, including the intertwined nature of SES, cross-scale dynamics in SES, and the potential for systemic tipping points and transformational change (Reyers et al. 2018, Reyers and Selig 2020).

According to a recent review by Colding and Barthel (2019), the concept of SES was coined five decades ago. It was, however, first formalized just over two decades ago by Berkes and Folke (1998) in a framework that represented a shift in thinking about human–nature interactions, regarding them as integrated SES with CAS properties, rather than separate social and ecological systems with only weak connections. Since then, the concept has gained momentum, as evidenced by the rapid growth of publications using the term (Colding and Barthel 2019, de Vos et al. 2019), and there has been a proliferation in the theory and frameworks that inform research in this field (Biggs et al. 2021). Furthermore, in the last two decades, several networks and institutions have emerged that focus on SES research, such as the Resilience Alliance (RA), the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS), the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) at Stockholm University, and more recently the Social-Ecological Systems Institute at Leuphana University. These networks and institutions have supported the development of interdisciplinary journals, such as Ecology and Society and Ecosystems and People, to support the publication of SES research (de Vos et al. 2019), as well as conferences to allow for knowledge sharing and networking amongst SES scholars, including the RA (Parker and Hackett 2012) and the PECS conferences (Norström et al. 2022).

Although there has been a significant increase in the number of publications, conferences, and networks dedicated to SES research (Colding and Barthel 2019, de Vos et al. 2019, Preiser et al. 2018, Biggs et al. 2021), certain uncertainties persist. Reflecting critically on the development of SES research, some scholars suggest that the concept of SES lacks a concise agreed-upon definition (Herrero-Jáuregui et al. 2018, Colding and Barthel 2019). There exists diversity in perspectives within the SES research community concerning methodological approaches. Social-ecological systems researchers use both social and natural science research approaches (Biggs et al. 2021), and this results in a “lack of methodological identity” (Partelow 2018, de Vos et al. 2019). Furthermore, there is no general agreement on the status of SES research. Scholars refer to SES research as an emerging field of study (Preiser et al. 2018, de Vos et al. 2019), a boundary object (Hertz and Schlülter 2015), a discourse (Colding and Barthel 2019) and an epistemic object (Becker 2012). These varying perspectives are also reflected in discussions about the future of the field (Haider et al. 2018, Biggs et al. 2021). Social-ecological systems research is therefore conducted in a context of a variety of perspectives and some tensions at a conceptual, methodological, and institutional level, with implications for the questions and approaches scholars explore, as well as the institutional support they receive.

The aim of this study is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the field of SES research as a distinct field or research tradition within the wider domain of sustainability sciences and reflect on possible future directions. Our study is inspired by broader bodies of work that have sought to understand the history of science, focusing on the development of research agendas, concepts, and niche focus areas within new scientific domains. This study centers on a bibliometric analysis of SES research, using the Web of Science (WoS) database to explore the co-authorship and co-citation networks in the field to understand the nature of collaboration in the SES field. We also examine the specific research topics that have garnered attention within this scholarly community and contemplate potential future directions for the advancement of this field, including potential implications for institutional support. Before describing our study, we give a brief overview of the different frameworks for understanding the development of scientific fields, which we draw on in interpreting our analysis.

Understanding the development of scientific fields

A number of contending frameworks exist for understanding the emergence and development of scientific fields. An important theme in the history of science is the relative significance of intra- and extra-disciplinary influences in the emergence of new fields of enquiry. Influential early scholars, such as Thomas Kuhn (1970) and Robert Merton (1973), tended to emphasize factors considered internal to disciplines or in the wider relatively autonomous domain of “science,” such as new discoveries, new methods, and theoretical disputes. Within the very influential Kuhnian tradition, Nicholas Mullins’ (1962) pioneering work on the origins of molecular biology is instructive. Mullins explored the role of intellectual and social activities in the emergence of molecular biology. The intellectual activities that marked the development of the field included (i) paradigm shift/ development, (ii) problem success, and (iii) “puzzle solving.” This was accompanied by several social activities including (iv) communication, (v) co-authorship, (vi) colleagueship, and (vii) apprenticeship. Mullins (1962) asserted that scientists engage in these intellectual and social activities within a scientific community, and that the patterns associated with these activities during the growth of a speciality will indicate the stage to which an intellectual group or field has developed.

Thomas Kuhn’s widely celebrated and seminal account of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1970) provided a discontinuous image of scientific development that broke with the positivist image of science as a continuous and cumulative process. Instead, Kuhn framed scientific progress in terms of the alternation of periods of “normal science” and “revolutions.” A revolution produces a “paradigm shift,” which resolves previously intractable problems. Successful problem solving in this new perspective enables the establishment of a new “normal science,” which Kuhn describes in terms of a new “paradigm” that re-establishes the rules and standards for scientific practice (Kuhn 1962, 1970). Kuhn’s work is “disciplinary” to the extent that it is built on a physics-centered image of science as a relatively closed system. As Bourdieu (2004:15) notes, the “paradigm” (a term that had a prior history in linguistics) is “the equivalent of a language or a culture: it determines the questions that can be asked and those that are excluded.” The image of “revolutionary” change notwithstanding, Kuhn’s work assumes a significant level of scientific autonomy: problem solving is largely the work of scientific communities insulated from the external world.

In recent decades, many authors have criticized the depiction of how science is conducted as an autonomous enterprise. In this regard, we offer a brief overview of the concepts put forth by Robert Frodeman (2015), Jürgen Renn (2018), and Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz (2020), which provides alternative ideas on how scientific fields emerge. These authors engage in the philosophy, history, or sociology of science, exploring and analyzing the nature, methods, and development of scientific inquiry. Any overview of such literature will acknowledge that scientific autonomy has traditionally been institutionalized on two levels: the (departmental) discipline and the Humboldtian research university, built on the fundamental faculty-level division between “the natural” and “the social.” Frodeman (2015:5) describes the modern university as “a closed epistemological circle” where disciplines function as internal markets for the production and certification (through peer review) of knowledge. Frodeman argues that this view of disciplines applies to “the age of disciplinarity,” which he argues is now passing: “Knowledge circulated among disciplinary-based researchers, then to researchers in other disciplines and to students. It reached the larger world only through indirect means and as a finished product. The flow of information was patterned as a one-way process, from the disciplines outward and downward. The transmission of knowledge was understood as mainly automatic in nature and little theorized as a socio-political act. Communication with those outside one’s discipline, and especially with the public, was described in terms of “dissemination,” “outreach,” and “dumbing down”—hardly the language for groups viewed as equal partners in the production of knowledge” (Frodeman 2015:5).

In a similar vein, Jürgen Renn (2018), in his essay on “The Evolution of Knowledge: Rethinking Science in the Anthropocene,” and Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz (2020), in their essay on “Science for the Post-Normal Age,” criticize the classical image of scientific disciplines as relatively closed systems. Their work situates the development of scientific knowledge within the context of the Anthropocene and the sustainability challenges of the modern era. Against the grain of the classical assertion that science builds on precise and value-free facts, they stress the significance of values, stakes, and decisions. In “post-normal science,” it is recognized that other forms of knowledge play a crucial role, which they refer to as an “extended peer community” where non-specialists and non-scientists contribute their own knowledge, wisdom, experience, and skills and thereby complement those of accredited scientists within traditional “normal science” (Funtowicz and Ravetz 2020).

Whereas the Kuhnian understanding of science tends to foreground knowledge housed in specialized disciplines, compartmentalization, and knowledge dissemination through peer-reviewed publication (Kuhn 1970), post-normal science highlights the potential that new forms of digital communication present for the re-organization and evolution of scientific communities (Renn 2018). Renn (2018:17) argues that scientific knowledge emerges initially within “epistemic communities”—often within dedicated institutions—which may then expand into “epistemic networks.” Digital communication networks provide the context in which epistemic networks develop. The internet offers a knowledge-sharing context for ideas to be formulated, results to be compared, and replications and improvements to be made (Collins 2010). The various online platforms available to researchers offer the potential to enhance current knowledge systems through global co-production of knowledge and the development of new methods for organizing, learning, and implementing scientific knowledge. Renn (2018) alludes to a future “epistemic web” that would potentially allow for open access to traceable and reviewable knowledge. In post-normal science, the importance of communication via the internet cannot be overemphasized (Marinetto 2018, Renn 2018, Wenzel and Gill 2019). Marinetto (2018) asserts that without online visibility through accessible journals, academic fields and disciplines risk their scientific endeavors becoming obsolete. Furthermore, within this understanding, the role of conferences and informal conversations with colleagues is vital for scientific communication and the dissemination of ideas (Collins 2010, Wenzel and Gill 2019).

A commonality across all these different frameworks is that the level or nature of collaboration over time is central to understanding the development of a research field. An effective method for assessing patterns of collaboration can be done through bibliometric techniques such as co-authorship and co-citation analysis (de Solla Price 1963, Beaver and Rosen 1979). According to scholars of the history and philosophy of science (Crane 1972, Latour 1987, Kaiser 2005), new concepts or techniques would typically not only lead to a growth in the number of scientists and articles in an emerging field, but also to stronger and tighter collaboration, made possible by the shared language and concepts that develop. As fields or subject areas “nucleate” around shared concepts and techniques, collaboration may become more widespread (Bettencourt and Kaur 2011). The successful growth of a field is therefore evidenced by the growth from an initial small number of small clusters (connected components in a network) to a giant component (emergence of larger compact components linked together) (Bettencourt et al. 2009). Bettencourt et al. (2009) assert that, although the size of a field may vary, the structural transition from small-isolated components to a giant component in collaboration marks the success of a field. In addition, the use of temporal patterns of change in research areas or topics through citations helps to identify the dependencies and interdependencies among scholars in a field of study (Newman 2001, Barabási et al. 2002).

According to Crane (1972), collaborations involve not only senior researchers, also known as “the stars,” but also less established researchers who work closely with them to form ties. The most productive scientists establish informal connections with other groups, forming what Crane describes as an “invisible college.” This network allows highly productive scientists to stay informed about research developments, connect with other scholars, and keep up with new findings on the research front (Crane 1972:35).

We use these insights to analyze and interpret our data and link it to the different frameworks for understanding the evolution of scientific fields.

METHODS

Bibliometric analysis constitutes a combination of methods used to analyze a set of publications, characterized by variables such as authors, citations, associated subject keywords, and places of publication (Janssen et al. 2006, Hung 2012). In our application of the method, we employed the following steps (Fig. 1.):

Step 1: defining a search strategy and the selection of documents

Although numerous terms have been used to describe interlinked human and environment systems, this study focuses on research using the term “social-ecological systems,” which forms the lynchpin of the SES field. Our choice was further guided by initial scoping activities, during which we compiled a broader list of terms used in research focusing on the relationship between humans and nature. This list was drawn from various sources, with primary reference points being the recently published Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment (Brondizio et al. 2019) and peer reviewed articles by de Vos et al. (2019), Colding and Barthel (2019), Herrero-Jáuregui et al. (2018) and Binder et al. (2013). Our initial list of terms comprised: (i) human nature; (ii) nature–society*; (iii) coupled human*; (iv) human environment*; (v) social environment; (vi) social-ecological; and (vii) socio-environmental. Using the Web of Science (WoS) database, we executed these search queries, employing the Boolean operator “AND” to integrate the term “systems.” This integration was driven by an intent to determine whether articles using any of these terms were theoretically informed by a systems thinking approach. Our initial analysis confirmed the findings of a recent review (de Vos et al. 2019), which showed that the term “social-ecological” has become substantially more dominant than other terms used to describe human–nature relations (Fig. 2).

Given the centrality of the term “social-ecological systems” to the SES research field and tradition, we restricted our subsequent analysis to “social-ecological systems” and its variants. Although narrowing our scope to only these terms might raise concerns, we wanted to avoid a potentially unwieldy and incoherent sample of research within the wider sustainability space, given our specific interest in the evolution of the SES field and tradition, and its particular theoretical frameworks and firm grounding in a CAS perspective. In the second part of our scoping we therefore searched for (“social-ecological system” OR “socio-ecological system” OR “socialecological system OR “socioecological system”). We found that the exclusion of the terms “socio-ecological system,” “socialecological system,” and “socioecological system” in the recent review by Colding and Barthel (2019) missed a substantial number of articles clearly situated in the SES discourse.

We used the Thomson Reuters’ (2014) Web of Science (WoS) citation index for the literature search because, in our preliminary search, it indexed more journal articles over a longer time period and also included more subject areas than the Scopus database. We searched all publications with the identified search terms, limiting the query to the search terms appearing in the title, abstract, and keywords fields. We did not exclude any subject areas (e.g., psychology, mental health, and information and technology) and verified that their inclusion did not make any substantive difference to the analysis we present. The inclusion criteria were limited to English-language scientific articles. Our final search was conducted on 22 July 2020 and yielded a result of 3,873 documents. The citation and bibliographic information contained in these documents, including author name, year of publication, number of citations, abstract, keywords, and titles, were downloaded. Data from WoS were then loaded into the OpenRefine software (https://openrefine.org/), which is used for cleaning data, particularly for disambiguation of author names (Kumar 2015). For instance, issues of an author with two or more names who were captured twice, such as “L. Gunderson” or “L.H Gunderson,” were resolved. This process also removed duplicate author names.

Step 2: analysis of co-authorship networks

Co-authorship analysis is one of the most well-documented bibliometric techniques (Umadevi 2013, Liu and Xia 2015) used to study scientific collaborations among authors in relation to specific journals, countries, and research communities (Janssen et al. 2006, Abrahams et al. 2019). Co-authorship networks can reveal the impact of a field of study (as noted in work by Fraccascia et al. 2018), impact of a set of researchers, and the impact of a particular paper (Thanuskodi 2010, Tsay and Shu 2011). Co-authorship networks comprise nodes, which represent individual authors. These are linked to one another via co-authored scientific articles, which represent the links or the edges (the relationship between authors) (Umadevi 2013, Liu and Xia 2015). A high number of co-authored papers in a field might indicate a culture of collaboration and interdisciplinarity, suggesting that the field is complex and requires diverse expertise (Kim and Perez 2015, Liu and Xia 2015). This might indirectly indicate the field’s importance and its capacity to tackle complex issues (Kim and Perez 2015, Liu and Xia 2015). Co-authorship network analysis also enables the relationship between authors to be modeled graphically (Kim and Perez 2015). This allows for the application of graph theory and network science properties and metrics (Table 1).

The metrics in a co-authorship network can be divided into two groups. Those that focus on the macro-level represent the overall structure of the network, and this process includes the identification of the Giant Component (GC). According to Newman (2004), the GC describes the largest group of authors, who have the densest interlinkages between them. The size of the GC is calculated by measuring the fraction of the nodes in the GC relative to the total number of nodes in the network (Kumar 2016). The presence of a GC is important in that it reveals how cohesive (a community of authors that are closely linked to one another) or fragmented (a community of authors that are not linked to one another) a network is (Kumar 2015). It also reveals the “core” activity of the whole network, where the main intellectual activity happens among researchers (Newman 2001, 2004). In contrast, the micro-level properties focus on the individual authors, identifying the dominant or central authors and newcomers in the field. The micro-level properties are often analyzed using centrality measures (degree, betweenness, closeness, eigenvector) (Table 1) (Newman 2001, 2004), and were used to analyze the evolution and structure of the SES field.

The Sci2 Tool (https://sci2.cns.iu.edu) was used to extract the co-authorship networks from a “comma-separated values” (CSV) file extracted from WoS. The co-authorship data set was grouped into five time periods to allow for a temporal analysis of changes in SES research: 1981–1999, 2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014, and 2015–2019. Given the limited number of papers before 2000, we clustered these together. The temporal analysis aimed to reveal the evolution of the GC, individual small clusters and isolated nodes in the field. The co-authorship networks were visualized in Gephi 0.9.2, an open-source network analysis software (Bastian et al. 2009).

Step 3: analysis of co-citation networks

Co-citation analysis is also a well-known bibliometric method that analyzes references in order to understand the knowledge structures, core topics, and concepts of a scientific field (Small 1973). This technique describes the frequency by which two documents are cited together by other document(s). Two documents are strongly related if they are frequently cited together by other documents (Small 1973, Shiau et al. 2017), in other words these two publications are assumed to have a high degree of similarity. According to Shiau and Dwivedi (2013) and Small (1973), the more co-citations an article or publication receives, the more likely the two documents are related or focused on the same topic. Co-citation analyses are therefore seen as a representation of the “fields view” (Tang et al. 2014:337).

Citation patterns can signify a change in intellectual activity of a field over time (Small 1973). The nature of co-citation allows scholars to readily determine the underlying topics, star publications, and texts dominating a certain field of study, and therefore gain insights in the intellectual structure of scientific fields and disciplines (Chi and Young 2013, Shiau and Dwivedi 2013, Tang et al. 2014). For example, Meerow and Newell (2015) used co-citation analysis to explore the growth of the concepts of resilience and complexity. However, one of the drawbacks of co-citation analyses as well as co-authorship analyses is that they are biased toward the most productive authors (i.e., those that publish the most papers) (Garfield 2001).

The CSV file containing the bibliographic data of the 3,873 articles was imported into Bibexcel, a software package that is designed to do most of bibliometric analysis (Persson et al. 2009). Co-citation network files were automatically generated and then transferred for visualization in Gephi. This was done for the full network, 1981–2019 and then also for the time periods 1981–1999, 2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014, and 2015–2019. Within Gephi, modular optimization, which is used to determine the natural grouping of articles that cite each other (Blondel et al. 2008), was used to identify the groups or numbered clusters across the whole network and for the five consecutive year ranges. The modularity algorithm in Gephi identifies clusters/ groups in a network based on closeness. Running this algorithm on the co-citation data sets resulted in clusters that are divided by their connections in the network. The ordering, numbering, and color of clusters of the co-citation network in Gephi are all arbitrary.

Step 4: visualization of the co-authorship network and co-citation network

To visualize the co-authorship networks and co-citation network, we used Gephi and the Force Atlas 2 algorithm, which brings nodes closer together if they have more interconnections. For the co-authorship network, the collaboration patterns of SES research based on the five time periods and the institutional network based on co-authorships were visualized. The GC was revealed by using automatic filtering algorithms. Node size was set to depict the number of co-authored works (i.e., the larger the node size, the greater the number of articles co-authored) (Umadevi 2013). The thickness of the ties, links, or interconnections between the nodes represent the number of co-authored articles between those two nodes. We used cluster analysis to gain an understanding of the authorship structure of SES research by using the community detection algorithm in Gephi (Blondel et al. 2008), which decomposes networks into clusters of highly interconnected nodes. We only applied this to the GC of the network as we identified that other authors were relatively isolated or on the periphery of the network. To enhance the readability of these clusters, we limited the GC to nodes with edge weight greater than two (authors who have co-authored more than two articles). The proportion of each cluster relative to the identified 12 clusters was detected by the clustering algorithm. Each cluster was assigned a unique color using automatic algorithms in Gephi. We then did a literature scoping to understand the identified clusters and their background. We used centrality metrics (degree, closeness, eigenvector, betweenness) (see Appendix 1: Table 3) to identify the top 20 scholars within the SES research in the giant component from 1981 to 2019. The centrality measures were restricted only to the GC, because measures like betweenness are affected if applied to a network with disconnected clusters and many peripheral actors as they block the flow of information from node to node (Newman 2004).

In the visualization of the co-citation network, we identified the scholarly clusters or main research areas, similar to the co-authorship network, using the community detection algorithm in Gephi (Blondel et al. 2008). For this analysis, a community detection algorithm in Gephi (Blondel et al. 2008) was used that decomposes networks into clusters of highly interconnected nodes. These clusters were then assigned a name based on an analysis of key information in the texts of each individual cluster. In addition, each cluster was assigned a unique color using automatic algorithms in Gephi. To understand and name the clusters revealed by Gephi, additional information needed to be added to the cited references. The top 500 co-citations of each cluster were therefore selected, as providing the most information about each cluster due to their high connectivity. The selected articles were subjected to thematic analysis, after the primary emphasis of each article was recorded, and cluster themes and names were developed for each cluster.

RESULTS

Growth of social-ecological systems research over time

Our results show a notable increase in the number of publications reporting on SES research based on the search term “social-ecological system(s)” and its variants over the past two decades (Fig. 3a). Before 2000, the number of articles using SES-related terms was less than five. The term “socioecological systems” was used predominantly between 1980–2003, but since the turn of the millennium, the term “social-ecological systems” has gained more momentum than the other three terms (Fig. 3a).

Publications from North America and European-affiliated authors have dominated the field from its inception and have continued to grow over the years (Fig. 3b). Since the early 2000s, all continents have had a notable growth of journal articles in this field, with Africa entering this space last. Between the years 2005 to 2010, the USA and Europe tripled their SES-related journal article output, while the other four continents continued to progress at a lower rate. In the year 2019, Europe had an output of five times the number of SES-related journal articles published for both Africa and South America.

Co-authorship patterns between 1981 and 2019

Social-ecological systems research in the period under study has 11,559 nodes (authors) and 64,095 edges (links between authors, i.e., co-authorship) (Appendix 1: Table 1). The network has an average path length (a measure of information flow for the whole network: the shorter the path, the more efficient the network) of 5.184, which represents the cohesive nature of the field. The average degree is 11.09, which indicates that in the given period an SES research author has approximately 11 co-authors per published article. The network is highly connected as it has a large GC. We found that the size of the GC contains 8,193 nodes (70.88%) and 57,497 edges (89.71%) (Appendix 1: Table 1). The network has only 222 isolated nodes, which are separate from the GC. Thus, this field has many of its components linked rather than working in isolation.

Figure 4 (a–e) shows the structure of the co-authorship network at five different phases of the development of SES research. From 1981–1999, the field of SES research was still emerging, as authors employing the SES field terminology are largely isolated with only six articles published. From 2000–2004, the number of authors (61) and articles (29) increased, and there is evidence of clusters of authors developing. This is also true for the years 2005–2009 when the number of authors and articles increased rapidly, with evidence of more clusters on the periphery. The last decade has witnessed further rapid growth in the SES research field. The period 2010–2014 has 3,482 authors and 1,111 articles, and the period between 2015–2019 is double the size of the previous period, with a total of 8,741 authors and 2,512 articles.

Figure 4 (a–e) also shows the dynamics of the GC formation, which is the largest connected subgraph in the network, representing the networks or the relationship between authors. In the first phase 1981–1999, the SES research network only had a GC with two nodes. The years 2000–2009 see the growth in the connected authors from 25 nodes in 2000–2004 to 74 nodes in the period 2005–2009. The number of weakly connected authors increased from 17 in 2000–2004 to 109 in 2005–2009. The further development of the SES field in the past decade is reflected in further expansion of the GC (Fig. 4d-e). The community is linked through dense links to each other. In the last decade, the GC also added more nodes, as more than 50% of the network is connected. The connections between authors also increased substantially, compared with the number of links between authors in the previous phase (74 nodes in 2005–2009 to 1,586 nodes in 2010–2014). The years 2015–2019 saw a further expansion of the GC (5,603 nodes out of 8,741 are connected). These changes illustrate the evolution of the SES field network from isolated nodes, which are segregated, to a core-periphery structure in which the field has become more cohesive in the last decade, as evidenced by the rapid expansion of the GC.

Key authors and institutions in social-ecological systems research

The GC in the co-authorship network is made up of 12 major clusters (only edges >2) of authors (Fig. 5) who collaborate with each other on specific research topics (see section below). The top cluster in the SES field is led by Carl Folke (16.8%) and includes Brian Walker, Terry Chapin, Per Olsson, Stephen Carpenter, Garry Peterson, and Reinette Biggs. Carl Folke, affiliated with Stockholm University and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, is the top author in this community, both in terms of the number of authored works and the number of times his work has been cited (Appendix 1: Table 2). The second largest cluster (13.5%) centers around Berta Martín-López from Leuphana University in Germany, and the third cluster centers around Peter Verburg (12.7%) from Vrije University in the Netherlands, and the fourth cluster centers around Graeme Cumming (11%) from James Cook University in Australia. Other significant clusters center around Joern Fischer, Maja Schlüter, Fikret Berkes, Joshua Cinner, John Anderies, John Dearing, Craig Allen, and Michael Mitchell (Appendix 1: Table 2).

Most of the clusters in the SES field have their top authors affiliated with European institutions, followed by Australia, and then North America. Ten out of the 12 clusters have a male lead author (Appendix 1: Tables 2 and 4). A closer look at the authors who make up the GC shows that many of the top authors in the clusters are the most prolific authors in the field, based on degree centrality (Berta Martín-López, Carl Folke, Garry Peterson), betweenness centrality (Carl Folke, Berta Martín-López, Graeme Cumming), and closeness centrality (Steve Carpenter, Belinda Reyers, Elena Bennett) (Appendix 1: Table 3).

Social-ecological systems research hubs with strong collaborations are mainly based in Europe, North America, and Australia, with little representation in South America, Asia, and Africa. The top five SES research hubs (based on degree centrality) are Stockholm University, Arizona State University, Stanford University, James Cook University, and University of Maryland (Fig. 6). These top SES research hubs are a function of the dominance of individual authors and their influence in the network as identified in the GC. For instance, Stockholm University hosts Carl Folke, Garry Peterson, Per Olsson, and Maja Schülter, who are all leading SES researchers. Although most of the SES research hubs are based in the Global North, a couple of hubs feature in the Global South, mainly in South Africa (Stellenbosch University and University of Cape Town) and also in South America (Pontificia University Catolica de Chile) (Fig. 6).

Most SES research is conducted within universities (Fig. 6). A closer look at the top institutions reveals that most of the work is done in centers or schools in the university. These centers are interdisciplinary centers hosted within departments and faculties or other university structures. For instance, the dominant space where SES research is conducted at Stockholm University is at the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), and there are other key hubs at Arizona State University, Stanford University, University of British Columbia, James Cook University, McGill University, Humboldt University, University of Bern, and University of Stellenbosch (Fig. 6). There are also key institutions outside of the university system, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany, and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa (Fig. 6).

Publication types

Our results show that the peer-reviewed articles have been the dominant type of document used to disseminate work on SES research, with nine articles in the period 1981–1999 increasing to 2,722 articles in the period between 2015–2019 (Appendix 1: Table 5). However, there has been a gradual increase in other document types, including book chapters, proceeding papers, and editorial material. Most of the work published in SES research has shifted to open access, from only one article between 1981–1999 to five articles in 2000–2004, 65 articles in 2005–2009, 530 articles in 2010–2014 and 1,753 articles between 2015–2019. The availability of pre-prints/ early access was recorded for two articles between 2015–2019 (Appendix 1: Table 5).

Key research topics

The structure of the overarching co-citation network from 1981–2019 shows four broad clusters of SES research. Based on the key texts in each cluster, we identified these as: (a) coupled social-ecological systems dynamics, (b) resilience, (c) institutional governance, and (d) adaptive management (Fig. 7). These broad clusters consist of various thematic areas as shown in Table 2. Each cluster has its own landmark texts and influential scholars, which also corroborate the key scholars as identified in the GC (Fig. 5). At the same time, there are strong interlinkages between all four clusters (i.e., adaptive management vs. institutional governance), showing that the field is highly clustered (Fig. 7). We briefly describe each of these clusters below.

Coupled social-ecological systems dynamics

This is the largest group in the network, and the publications in this group mainly address the impact that humans continue to have on global ecosystems, identifying the underlying processes that drive ecosystem change and the benefits that humans obtain from nature. The most influential text (most frequently co-cited with other texts) is by Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke (1998), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Other influential texts, as indicated by node size and high degree centrality, include Jianguo Liu and colleagues (2007), Johan Rockström and colleagues (2009), Reinette Biggs and colleagues (2012), Stephen R. Carpenter and colleagues (2009), F. Stuart Chapin, III, and colleagues (2010), Marten Scheffer and colleagues (2001), Simon A. Levin (1998), and Robert W. Kates and colleagues (2001). A wide range of ecosystem types are investigated in this cluster, including urban systems (Grimm et al. 2008), marine systems (Hughes et al. 2005), and diverse social knowledge systems (Tengö et al. 2014). This cluster also contains sub-groups or emerging research agendas that include typology, classification, valuation, benefits, and measurement of ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA] 2005, Bennett et al. 2009, Reyers et al. 2013), research on SES as CAS (Levin1998, Levin et al. 2013), and work on critical transitions as evidenced by a seminal paper by Scheffer and colleagues (2001) and ecological regime shifts by Biggs et al. (2009). The main scholars in this group mostly have natural science training.

Resilience

This cluster focuses on resilience, with the most influential texts being Walker et al. (2004), “Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems” and Berkes et al. (2003), “Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change.” Other notable publications are Holling’s (1973) landmark paper and Folke (2006) and Folke et al. (2002, 2010). This cluster also has different sub-groups, with research on the vulnerability of the biosphere to global environmental change by Turner et al. (2003) and Adger (2000), work on adaptation or adaptive capacity such as by work by Nelson et al. (2007) and Brown and Westaway (2011), and work on social resilience and social-ecological resilience (Adger 2000, Gunderson 2000, Cote and Nightingale 2012). The main authors in this cluster include a mix of backgrounds from both the natural and social sciences.

Adaptive co-management and governance

This cluster is concerned with work on how communities navigate periods of abrupt change or crises. The most influential publication in this cluster is by Folke et al. (2005), “Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.” Other influential texts are by Dietz et al. (2003), Olsson et al. (2004) and Cash et al. (2006). Sub-groups in this cluster include work on cross-scale dynamics (Cash et al. 2006), scale mismatches (Cumming et al. 2006), learning (Pahl-Wostl 2007, Armitage et al. 2008), transformation (Olsson et al. 2004, 2006, Gelcich et al. 2010), and governance (Lebel et al. 2006). Scholars in this cluster are mainly trained in environmental studies, geography, political science, public policy, and other social sciences.

Institutional governance

This is the smallest cluster and is mainly focused on institutional approaches to managing and governing the commons. Elinor Ostrom’s publications with colleagues (1990, 2007, 2009) are the three most central nodes (most frequently co-cited texts) in this group. Other prominent texts indicated by node size in this group include John Anderies and colleagues (2004), Garrett Hardin (1968), Michael D. McGinnis and Elinor Ostrom (2014), and Eduardo S. Brondizio and colleagues (2009). This cluster is characterized by research that looks at frameworks for the analysis of SES (Ostrom 2007, 2009, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014), and those analyzing SES from an institutional perspective (Anderies et al. 2004, Ostrom 2005, Janssen et al. 2007). Scholars in this cluster come from diverse backgrounds more aligned to the social sciences.

The evolution of research themes from 1981–2019

The co-citation analyses for different time periods reveals how the SES research clusters, landmark texts, and influential scholars have shifted over time. As shown in Table 3, five clusters were found in the period 1981–1999, 12 clusters in the period 2000–2004, five clusters in 2005–2009, and four clusters in each of 2010–2014 and 2015–2019. In general, the major themes (e.g., resilience, adaptive co-management, and governance) appear as distinctive clusters from the time period 2005–2009 onward. It is also evident that the landmark publications have shifted over the years, for example, in the years 2005–2009, the most influential publication under “institutional governance” was Berkes and Folke (1998), but in 2010–2014, it shifts to Ostrom 1990.

Analysis of the first phase (1981–1999) reveals five clusters that comprise work on understanding the social-ecological system of primates (Dunbar 1992, Emory and Harris 1981), formulation of holistic models of a socio-ecological system based on systems analysis (Shaw and Öberg 1994), and management of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Bragg and Kershner 1999). In this time period, there is evidence that the field was still very sparse without a unified definition and framework of a “social-ecological system” and it can be regarded as the incubation or development stage of the SES field, where the term is not necessarily used in the way it is used in the SES field today.

Analysis of the second phase (2000–2004) represents a highly diverse environment with 12 communities that are organized by both discipline (sociology, psychology, geography, ecology) and major topics (management of natural and human systems, rangeland management). In this period, there is evidence that the field proliferated and became a highly diverse environment with research spanning from ecological resilience to understanding human–natural systems to community/human psychology (Table 2). This period is rich with calls for integrative and holistic tools for managing society–nature relations (Redman 1999, Levin 1999, Berkes and Folke 1998). The most influential texts cited in this period are Berkes and Folke (1998), Carpenter et al. (2001), Gunderson (1995), Gunderson and Holling (2002), Scheffer et al. (2001), Ostrom (1990), Levin (1999), Holling (1973, 1978, 1986), and Holling and Meffe (1996).

In the third phase (2005–2009) of our analysis, the SES field revealed five distinct clusters that are clearly organized by topics (adaptive management, institutional governance, resilience, nature’s benefits to people, and vulnerability), with other clusters organized by field or discipline (i.e., geography, psychology, sociology). The five distinct clusters in this phase are a result of the convergence of emerging thematic areas in the first and second phases. This suggests a consolidation of the field around an emerging set of core topics.

The time periods 2010–2014 and 2015–2019 both have four distinct clusters. These clusters also appear in the overall network (Fig. 5) as described above. In these two time periods, the two clusters, which were separate in the period 2005–2009 (i.e., vulnerability and cross-scale dynamics, and nature’s benefits to people), are assimilated into the more cohesive groups of resilience and coupled dynamics of SES. In the resilience cluster between the years 2005–2009, the most influential publications were Berkes et al. (2003), Gunderson and Holling (2002) and Walker et al. (2004), whereas in the years between 2010 and 2019, Folke (2006) becomes the most influential publication by node size and centrality.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we explore how the field of SES research has evolved, informed by science studies literature on the development of research fields. Focusing on the term “social-ecological systems” and its variants, we used bibliometric analyses to explore the size of the SES field, networks of collaboration, and research topics over time. Our results show a rapid growth and growing consolidation of the SES field over the past two decades. In this section, we interpret this pattern and explore four main issues:

1. The development of SES research from an “invisible college” to an “epistemic community,”
2. The highly collaborative nature of SES research, set within the interactive context of the internet age,
3. Patterns that suggest SES research is in transition, and preliminary reflections on the future institutional structure of the field, and
4. Limitations of the study and future research directions.

From an “invisible college” to an “epistemic community”

Our analysis shows a rapid growth in SES research, since the term “social-ecological systems” was used in 1998 to conceptualize the interlinked nature of social-ecological systems (Berkes and Folke 1998), becoming a lively, productive scientific field (Fig. 3a). This growth is reflected in the size of the co-authorship network, from only eight authors in 1999 to over 11,000 authors in 2019. Accompanying this growth, we see a shift in the terminology used, notably around the year 2000, when the term “social-ecological system” increases rapidly and becomes dominant in relation to other terms describing nature–society relations (Fig. 2), as well as in relation to variants of the term SES (Fig. 3a). We also see a rapidly growing set of connections between the different areas of research within the SES field (Figs. 4a-e). Such consolidation around key terms and concepts is central to and reflects the development of new research fields (Guo et al. 2011).

Together with the growth of the field and the shift in terminology, our analysis reveals the evolution from a loosely aligned set of scholars and work in the early years to a large, highly connected set of researchers coming together to form a new scientific field (Fig. 4a-e). Our analysis suggests that the field initially functioned largely as an “invisible college” (de Solla Price 1963, Crane 1972), i.e., it consisted of researchers working in informal spaces and located in geographically dispersed places, who interacted and developed common concepts and arguments. Over time, the field has become an increasingly cohesive “epistemic community” (Renn 2018), i.e., a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain housed in dedicated institutions. This is reflected by the growing proportion of the GC in the network, particularly over the last decade, from 1,111 articles between 2010–2014 to 2,512 articles between 2015–2019 (Fig. 4), as well as the establishment of several institutions specifically dedicated to SES research (Fig. 6). The field now consists of a large cohesive core of very connected scholars, and a considerable number of scholars on the periphery of the network (Figs. 4e and 6). Several factors contributed to this shift; we focus on the roles played by the development of handbooks and field-specific journals, institutionalization and positioning within universities, and the formation of a community of practice.

Engwall et al. (2018) highlight the role of handbooks in the development of a field. The handbook Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Folke and Berkes 1998) provided the first conceptual framework for SES research. This framework was grounded in a CAS perspective and emphasized that social and ecological systems are intertwined and interdependent. The framework also argued for the use of the term “social-ecological systems” to emphasize that these two systems should be considered equal (Colding and Barthel 2019), which marked a conceptual shift in understanding of human–nature interactions (Preiser et al. 2018). As illustrated by our analysis, the term “social-ecological systems” has subsequently become the lynchpin of a shared nomenclature in SES research.

Two institutions—the Resilience Alliance (RA 1999) and the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC 2007)—have played a pivotal role in the development of the SES field. Both these institutions were substantially influenced by and built on research programs hosted by the Beijer Institute of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in the 1990s. The Linking Social and Ecological Systems book (Berkes and Folke 1998) was produced as part of the Beijer Institute’s property rights program (Hanna et al. 1996) and the Resilience Network (RN) was created jointly by the Beijer Institute (K. G. Mäler, C. Folke) and the University of Florida, Gainesville (C. S. Holling, L. H. Gunderson). The RA evolved out the RN and played a central role in building a community of practice that pioneered SES research and facilitated the development of an “invisible college” in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The RA was set up as an international, multidisciplinary research organization in 1999, with the explicit objective of facilitating interdisciplinary social-ecological and resilience research, bringing together a group of scientists from a variety of backgrounds and a wide range of institutions spanning the USA, Canada, Sweden, South Africa, and Australia (Parker and Hackett 2012). The RA operated by meeting periodically on “islands” (remote and isolated settings) with a smallish group of people (typically 20–30) with a range of different disciplinary expertise (applied mathematics, ecological economics, ecosystems ecology, political science, sociology) to collaborate specifically on sustainability-related topics (Parker and Hackett 2012). An important commonality was that everyone was interested and bought into using a CAS-based approach to understanding SES dynamics (Parker and Hackett 2012). Members were also encouraged to bring their partners and families along, which played an important role in building personal relationships and trust that facilitated collaboration among the early network members (Parker and Hackett 2012). Once the RA become more well known, this way of working and the fact that membership was initially restricted to a very limited number of SES research “nodes” contributed to a sense of the RA being exclusionary and somewhat of an “exclusive circle” (although the group included several leading female researchers from early on). However, it can be argued that at least in the initial years, this small-group, relational way of working was crucial to creating a “safe space” for the development and growth of the SES field. The meetings, which became known as “island time” (Parker and Hackett 2012) provided an exploratory and fun space that emphasized curiosity, trust, and relationships, where the relatively radical new CAS-based SES ideas that spanned the natural–social science divide could be developed, relatively shielded from critique. Such safe, collaborative environments that enable dialog and learning, and where participants can experiment with new mental models, ideas, and practices are recognized as often being key to the development of transformative new ideas or practices (Westley et al. 2013, Fazey et al. 2018, Pereira et al. 2018).

The RA provided the platform for another important form of institutionalization, namely the establishment of the journal Ecology and Society in 1997 (initially known as Conservation Ecology). The journal was explicitly established to provide a venue for publishing SES research, by providing a space for work on the “interplay and interdependence between society and ecological systems, on both local scales and global scales to be better reflected” (Folke and Gunderson 2003:1). An important and novel feature of the journal when it was launched was that it was an online, open-access journal with the ability to comment and have discussions linked to particular publications. It was one of the first journals to adopt this feature after the first major international statement on open access, the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) and subsequently the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Science and Humanities (2003). Journal articles are the main currency of academic research (Kieser and Leiner 2009), and this new “intellectual home” for SES research meant more recognition for the questions and problems that the field sought to answer. It is at this point that we also see the SES field start to enter a period of rapid growth (Fig. 4c, between the years 2005–2009).

During the 2000s, the RA started gaining a considerable profile, and key members played leadership roles in a number of key initiatives. This included a background paper feeding into the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, and leadership roles in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005). These initiatives helped create the impetus for the establishment of the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) at Stockholm University in 2007, funded by, at that time, the largest ever grant from Mistra, a Swedish foundation that aims to promote environmental research (Clark 2009, SRC 2017). It is at this point that we see the field start coalescing (Fig. 4c-d, Table 3). With the establishment of the SRC, the SES field was institutionalized in a major research center within the university for the first time. The establishment of appropriate institutions is an important step in legitimizing a field of research (Whitley 1984, Stinchcombe 1994, Wenzel and Gill 2019). The SRC became an important new institutional space, and the Center’s initial joint-positioning within the faculties of science and humanities reflected the interdisciplinary orientation of the new field (Stockholm University 2006).

Renn (2018) describes the importance of establishing “epistemic communities,” or a group of scholars with similar values and beliefs, seeking to generate, improve, and preserve knowledge within dedicated institutions. Similar institutions and schools started being established at a number of other institutions, albeit often with a wider sustainability focus, including the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University (established in 2006), the Department of Environmental Science at Rhodes University (established on 1998), the Social-Ecological Systems Institute at Leuphana University (established in 2020), and the South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies (SARAS; established in 2006). Newman (2004) asserts that, notwithstanding the importance of journal publishing and person-to-person contact through conferences, co-location of researchers at the same institution is paramount for communication and the growth of scientific fields.

Following its establishment, the SRC started playing a lead role within the wider RA network and made influential contributions or played leadership roles in a number of key science and policy initiatives. In 2008, the SRC and the Beijer Institute in collaboration with the RA hosted the first international resilience conference, a major gathering for SES scholars, which provided an important space for the emerging epistemic community. The SRC made influential contributions to the establishment of Future Earth and hosted the international project office of the newly established Program on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS), another key international network for SES scholars, for most of the first decade of its existence (2009–2018). The SRC and the broader RA network also made influential contributions to the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2012), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 (Reyers et al. 2018, Reyers and Selig 2020), which influenced the growth and scholarly debates in SES research. The first handbook on SES research methods (Biggs et al. 2021) was published in 2021 and grew out of discussions in the PECS and RA networks based on teaching experiences at SES hubs in South Africa, the SRC, RA partners, and elsewhere. The handbook involved 97 contributing authors from 16 countries and has a dedicated website with videos and other teaching resources. Much like the RA in the early years, the SRC (which today has over 100 staff members) has through these activities played a leading role in the further growth and establishment of the field over the past decade.

Despite the rapid growth and growing diversity in the SES field (Fig. 3), our analysis, like other reviews (Herrero-Jáuregui et al. 2018, Colding and Barthel 2019, de Vos et al. 2019), highlights that authors from North America and Europe are overrepresented, as is the case in the scientific community at large. North America and Europe dominate the global production of scientific publications and global investment in scientific research and development (Adams 1998, Holmgren and Schnitzer 2004, Gonzalez-Brambila et al. 2016). Consistent with de Vos et al.’s (2019) findings, the institutional affiliations of the leading collaboration clusters (Fig. 6) reveal that Stockholm University, Leuphana University, Arizona State University, and James Cook University are the dominant institutions in the production of SES research. These hubs were also the main early SES hubs established at universities. There is nevertheless evidence of the growth of the SES field in specific countries within the Global South, such as South Africa and Chile (Fig. 3b). This may partly be attributed to colleagueship and apprenticeship as described by Mullins (1962). Several prominent scholars in the Global South have been trained in the Global North, or have been part of international networks such as the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) (https://pecs-science.org/, Norström et al. 2022) which has specifically focused on engaging scholars based in the Global South. The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society has also intentionally held conferences in countries of the Global South, such as South Africa and Mexico, to provide a platform for SES scholars in Global South countries to foster collaboration and network opportunities. The PECS international project office is now hosted in South Africa, in a deliberate move to broaden the SES community and ownership to the Global South. Regional PECS networks like the Latin America and Caribbean Programme on Ecosystem and Change (LAPECS) (Calderón-Contreras et al. 2022) and the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society (SAPECS) (Biggs et al. 2022, 2023) aimed at building SES communities of practice in the Global South have played important roles in helping SES research become assimilated in the academic institutions in the Global South.

The collaborative nature of social-ecological systems research in the context of the internet age

Our analysis, particularly the evolution of the large GC, indicates that the field of SES research is consolidating and highly collaborative. According to Newman (2001:407), a prolific author on scientific collaboration patterns, “science would probably not work at all if scientific communities were not densely interconnected.” We argue that the volume and collaborative nature of the field reflects a response to the systemic nature of the sustainability challenges we face and has been facilitated by digitalization and the rise of the internet, but also reflects the natural science bias in the origins and culture of the field. At the same time, the extensive interconnections evident in the co-authorship and co-citation networks suggest a tight-knit network of researchers that may create a sense of the field being somewhat insular and may partly be a legacy of the early ways in which the RA functioned.

As discussed above, the RA specifically sought to bring together leading scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds to grapple with sustainability challenges, using a CAS perspective as a common underlying conceptual basis and means of integration across disciplines. The initial RA products, such as the edited book Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Gunderson and Holling 2002), were highly collaborative, specifically recognizing that novel insights could emerge from deeply interdisciplinary (and not simply multidisciplinary) collaboration (Parker and Hackett 2012, Brandt et al. 2013, Fazey et al. 2020)). This ethos and culture have remained an important hallmark of the field and have influenced the evolution of the key themes over time (Table 3). In the early years of the field, collaboration tended to involve people with clear disciplinary PhD training in different fields, although several scholars were already working on highly interdisciplinary topics for their PhDs (Appendix 1, Table 4). However, we increasingly see younger scholars with an interdisciplinary training from their first degrees. This has both strengths and weaknesses. It has likely facilitated more collaboration as disciplinary differences are reduced, but possibly sacrificed some of the depth of thinking available in more established domains.

In particular, it has been argued that whereas the SES field positions itself as straddling the natural–social science divide, it privileges quantitative, positivist approaches over qualitative or critical perspectives (Stojanovic et al. 2016), and downplays important dimensions such as power, equity, and justice, which are integral to the development and functioning of SES (Cote and Nightingale 2012, Schlüter et al. 2021). This bias is more evident in the early years of SES research, but has changed substantially over the past decade, as is evident in the growing focus on topics of power, inequality, and justice and increasing engagement with the social sciences prevalent in the SES field today (Dietz 2014, Epstein et al. 2014, Pineda-Pinto et al. 2021). We suggest that this bias in the early years is partly a legacy of the natural science bias of the early field development, as many of the leading early scholars were trained in the natural sciences (Parker and Hackett 2012; Appendix 1, Table 4). This bias is also reflected in the collaborative culture of the field, as large multi-author collaborations are a much more common mode of working in the natural sciences (Newman 2004, Tian et al. 2023). The theoretical focus on SES as CAS further reflects the historical development and influence of “complexity science” which developed earlier and faster in the natural sciences than the social sciences (Waldrop 1993, Capra 1997). This was partly due to the incorporation of simple equilibrium concepts of systems in the early founding texts of sociology, such as those by Parsons (1970) and Durkheim (1984), which were strongly criticized and tended to lead to the rejection of the concept of system altogether rather than to its revision and gradual improvement (Walby 2015). However, we now see a marked growth of complexity-based concepts and approaches across a wide range of fields (Ottino 2004, Miller and Page 2007, Meerow and Newell 2017) associated with the so-called “complexity turn” (Urry 2005), which is likely facilitating further growth of the SES field and deepening integration of perspectives and approaches from the social sciences. These changes reflect that the growth of scientific fields themselves constitutes complex adaptive processes (Ziman 2000), where emerging key issues and critiques help shape the future development of the field.

We suggest that the SES field has also been substantially influenced and shaped by the fact that it emerged within the wider context of the interactive technologies associated with Web 2.0. Specifically, SES research developed from around the 2000s when the internet became widely accessible to people and institutions, facilitating access to knowledge that was previously restricted to specific locales and disciplinary silos. For example, the SRC has for almost 10 yrs been actively recording the many guest lecturers it hosts and making these videos freely available, as well as producing short videos summarizing its key research outputs.^[1] These videos are widely accessed, and have made it possible for ideas and information, often still under development, to spread in ways that were not previously possible, to a much wider set of interested researchers but also policy makers, practitioners, and funders. Access to ideas still under development has been further expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, where many workshops and conferences have gone fully online or hybrid, opening up participation to a much larger community (Parncutt et al. 2021, Puccinelli et al. 2022). This has particularly benefited scholars from the Global South who often do not have the funds to attend in-person events that are typically held in the Global North (Wu et al. 2022). Combined with the growing awareness and urgency around the sustainability crisis, we suggest that these factors aided the rapid growth of the SES field.

It is also significant that many SES journals are open access, and particularly that the founding journal of SES research, Ecology and Society, has been open access since its inception. Wenzel and McGill (2019) argue that if academic fields do not visibly and actively communicate their work through journal articles that are accessible, then “they do not exist.” Because open-access journals are freely available to a global audience of scientists, it increases the number of readers and citation rates. Ottaviani (2016) shows open-access journals have a citation advantage as high as 19% compared with the traditional journal types. Although publishing in open-access journals promotes accessibility, it also introduces new forms of inequality, as the high publication fees are a hindrance to scholars from resource-poor institutions. This serves to reinforce the centrality of well-resourced authors who can afford open-access fees and whose work is therefore more accessible (Iyandemye and Thomas 2019, Demeter and Istratii 2020, Mwambari et al. 2022).

Technological advances also mean that researchers in the SES field can collect, analyze, and share data and ideas in more efficient and effective ways. One of the most significant changes brought about by the digital era is the ability to access and run sophisticated analyses using online software, and to access support communities for questions. In earlier decades, such expertise and skills were much more difficult to access, especially for researchers based at smaller universities. Methods such as spatial mapping and analysis, historical profiling and reconstruction, future analysis, participatory data collection, and impact analysis are increasingly employed in the field (de Vos et al. 2019), and substantial resources are available online. Advances in the digital era also allow researchers to collect and process large amounts of data. The digital era has furthermore brought about new research methodologies, such as computational social science, which involves using computer simulations and mathematical models to study complex social phenomena (Cioffi-Revilla 2021). Perhaps most importantly, the digital era has opened up the possibility for interactive websites as a way of gathering, synthesizing, and co-producing knowledge in SES research. For example, the Seeds of Good Anthropocene initiative, provides an online platform for collecting and sharing examples of social-ecological innovations (or “seeds”) solicited from different communities of research and practice around the world that are used to co-construct alternative visions of the future.

Although the SES field has endeavored to engage widely, and the main scholars or the “stars” of SES research are situated in different institutions (Figs. 5, 6), it is interesting to note that most of these scholars have co-authored papers, reports, or book chapters together. Looking deeper into these dynamics shows that most of the prolific authors have met through prominent networks, institutions, conferences, and programs, such as the RA, MA, SRC, Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, and PECS, highlighting the importance of these networks for building collaborations and developing new research questions (Schneider et al. 2021, Norström et al. 2022). At the same time, the tightly knit, cohesive structure of the field (Fig. 5) suggests that it exhibits characteristics of “homophily” (McPherson et al. 2001), where scholars tend to collaborate, co-author, and cite others who engage in similar research or are affiliated with the same institutions or networks. Homophily can result in limitations on how scholars receive information, the type of knowledge they use, and the interactions they have with other scholars across disciplines and departments (McPherson et al. 2001). Emerging fields of study are also known to be susceptible to “citation cartels,” where networks of authors and journals excessively cite one another inflating apparent influence and impact (Fister et al. 2016). These features, together with the historical legacy of the ways in which the RA functioned, have led to criticisms and experiences of the SES field being somewhat insular and difficult for new scholars to enter. This challenges the ambition of SES research to be open and engage with new ideas and approaches and diverse knowledge types and values (Norström et al. 2020, 2022). Partly in response to these critiques, the RA changed its membership structure more than a decade ago to accommodate individual, and not only institutional, members, as well as investing and supporting the development of a young scholars’ network. The PECS network, which forms part of Future Earth, was also from the start purposely established to be much more open, including a diverse set of scholars on its scientific committee, and more recently, specifically issuing an open call for working groups to bring new, interested scholars into the network.

Social-ecological systems research in transition and preliminary reflections on the future of the field

Our analyses suggest that SES research is undergoing a generational change, as older scholars and founding members retire. Many pioneers of SES research, such as Crawford “Buzz” Holling, Brian Walker, Fikret Berkes, Lance Gunderson, and Carl Folke, received their PhD education in ecology-related fields, although several were already working on highly interdisciplinary topics and went on to lead or found leading interdisciplinary SES research centers (Appendix 1: Table 4). However, especially over the past decade, new entrants or young scholars have emerged who have been trained in a variety of new interdisciplinary PhD programs that have emerged over the past two decades (Appendix 1, Table 4), accompanied by a shifting emphasis in the intellectual focus of the field (Table 3). Furthermore, although the RA and SRC were pivotal in the development of the SES field, there are a growing number of SES-focused research centers within several universities around the world that are broadening the field (Fig. 6). This generational and institutional change is bringing fresh perspectives and new ideas to the field, as well as starting to shift and broaden established power structures.

The prominence of different thematic clusters has changed substantially over time (Table 3), and arguably reflects the growing prominence of social scientists and interdisciplinary scholars in the SES field. Specifically, during the 2005–2009 period there was a significant restructuring in the field, with research on vulnerability, previously categorized as an independent group, merging with resilience. Additionally, the cluster we referred to as “nature’s benefits to people” converges with the cluster “coupled SES dynamics.” We suggest this shift reflects the increasing prominence and integration of issues such as power dynamics, justice, and equity into SES research, as also noted by Norström et al. (2022). The growing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusivity in SES research (Norström et al. 2020) is also being accompanied by explicit efforts to include scholars from the Global South, and increase the representation of women, people of color, and other underrepresented groups in the field. Whereas few women were involved in the early RA network (although it is notable that there were women), many SES research hubs now feature a dominance of female researchers. Researchers from the Global South are also playing increasing leadership roles in SES research, for instance, serving as editors-in-chief for Ecology and Society, and in the coordination of the PECS network. These represent substantial and possibly under-appreciated changes in the evolution of the SES field.

Social-ecological systems research is becoming increasingly data driven and reliant on digital tools and technologies. Social-ecological systems scholars are developing new skills and competencies related to data analysis, machine learning, and other digital technologies (Schlüter et al. 2021). Novel methods, such as advances in time-series analysis and Bayesian score-based approaches, have been proven to work effectively for large data sets, which is often the case in modeling complex systems. Big data, which could be previously analyzed in isolation or parts, can now be synergized to more comprehensively understand social-ecological dynamics (Schlüter et al. 2021). There is also experimentation with methods that transcend the natural and social science dichotomy through a focus on relationality, or process-relational ontologies (Schlüter et al. 2019).

Collaboration in the SES field is being increasingly facilitated through online collaboration tools, access to information, social media, and online communities. The internet provides access to a wealth of information from a wide range of fields, meaning that people inside and outside academia, can quickly and easily learn about other fields, find relevant research, and explore new ideas. Social media platforms, such as X (formerly known as Twitter), LinkedIn, and Facebook, allow people from different fields to connect, share ideas, ask questions, and advance inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration. The many online collaboration tools and platforms, such as Google Drive, Trello, Slack, and Asana, are making it easier for scholars from different fields to work together, share information, and coordinate their efforts.

Much SES research involves collaborating with stakeholders outside of academia, such as policy makers, civil society organizations, and communities, to develop more effective and equitable solutions to social-ecological challenges (de Vos et al. 2021b). A significant area of innovation in SES research methods involves the development of transdisciplinary research approaches and tools (Schlüter et al. 2021). There is also growing interest in the role of technology and innovation in addressing social-ecological challenges (Alhborg et al. 2019), including development of the idea of social-ecological-technological systems (Grimm et al. 2017, McPhearson et al. 2022), as well as in the potential of Indigenous knowledge and practices to inform sustainable management of natural resources (Stori et al. 2019). Given the rising prominence and urgency of the sustainability crises we face, there is also a growing emphasis on practical, real-world applications in SES research. These transitions in SES research are likely to shape the future of SES research in important ways.

As these transitions are underway, questions are also being raised as to whether SES research should be consolidating as a discipline or remain a more open inter- and transdisciplinary space. This debate focuses on the extent to which SES research should continue to function as an “epistemic network” or become more discipline-like. In other words, should it: (1) become more of a Kuhnian normal science, where the major SES hubs become departments, and the field becomes more of a discipline, and where there is more conceptual and methodological unity; or (2) become a more established epistemic network, expanding its transdisciplinary approach, broadening its diversity, and forgoing discipline-like coherence on concepts and methods. Some of these questions are being driven by the challenges the field experiences in locating itself within the university, struggling to find an “institutional space” and sustainably financing activities (Manyani et al. unpublished manuscript). Most SES centers or hubs rely substantially on external or “soft funding,” which makes them relatively precarious environments compared with conventional departments, but often also more innovative and dynamic. Social-ecological systems hubs may also struggle with staff retention due to a lack of academic career pathways in some of these centers. They may further struggle to adequately support students, especially if they do not have the option or resources to build and support graduate programs. These factors place pressures on the field to adopt more of a departmental or disciplinary approach.

Navigating these tensions is likely to be a key challenge for the future development of the field: Becoming more discipline-like in order to stabilize itself in the university environment, while at the same time retaining its open, transdisciplinary commitment to not only engage across disciplines but also with non-academic knowledge-holders. In forging this path, the SES field may provide an example of new ways to institute fields and disciplines within the university, that are better suited to the digital age and the urgent challenges of Anthropocene (Frodeman 2015). Critical to this endeavor will be the engagement of scholars from the Global South, given that the most pressing sustainability challenges are felt in the Global South, while at the same time these regions often have substantially less support and resources to fund research.

Limitations of the study and future research directions

Our study used the term “social-ecological system” and its variants to bound our study. It can be argued that restricting the bibliometric analysis in this way produces an overly narrow image of the SES field. Our choice was guided by an initial scoping study, during which we searched for a broader list focusing on the relationship between humans and nature. Our analysis showed that the term “social-ecological” has become substantially more dominant than other terms (Fig. 2) and also indicated that broadening the set of terms could produce an unwieldy and less coherent sample of research within the wider sustainability space. Given our specific interest in the evolution of the SES field and tradition, its particular theoretical frameworks, and grounding in a CAS perspective, we therefore focused on the term “social-ecological systems” and its variants as the lynchpin of the SES field. We nevertheless acknowledge that there is substantial overlap with the SES terminology and other terms such as CHANS, and that the contribution of authors working with alternative terminology was missed in our study. A study that incorporates a wider set of terms would also be of interest in understanding the evolution of the wider emerging domain of sustainability science, building on the work of Clark and Harley (2020).

Our study further included only peer-reviewed articles written in English. Our study therefore does not account for work published in document types like chapters, gray literature, and conference proceedings. It also misses the contributions of non-academic outputs, such as art and poetry, that are increasingly part of many SES research endeavors. Our study also misses literature published in other languages, especially Spanish and German, which constitute important communities working in the SES domain, although the extent of published literature in these languages is unknown. Furthermore, our study only indexed journals from WoS because it had more articles and covered more subject areas than Scopus. Web of Science has, however, been criticized for introducing biases that favor natural sciences and engineering as well as biomedical research to the detriment of social sciences and arts and humanities (Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2015). Future studies that are wider in scope could address some of these limitations.

Finally, the bibliometric methods we used highlight and focus on the most prolific authors, which may crowd out more innovative, although perhaps less frequently cited, contributions to the field. The bibliometric approach we adopted also means that the “stars” in our analysis may be biased toward the authors that have a natural science background and more of a culture of large, collaborative publications. The term “social-ecological systems” is arguably also less favored and used by social scientists. Furthermore, the emphasis of bibliometric analyses on key authors and institutions, may inadvertently contribute to academia’s growing obsession with citations per scholar—number of peer-reviewed journal articles per scholar—which may be counter to the slower, transdisciplinary, solution-oriented work that the SES field often espouses as its objective. Although our ability to address these limitations was limited within the scope of the methodology we adopted, we flag these as serious issues to be considered in studies of this type.

Beyond addressing some of the shortcomings discussed above, our study points to a number of further research areas that would add to our understanding of the SES field and sustainability science more broadly. In particular, better understanding the institutional obstacles faced by SES research centers and the strategies they are using to overcome them, could be very helpful in supporting the institutionalization of the field and a wider set of institutional activities within the university context. Moreover, gaining more insight into the younger generation of SES scholars and how they are helping shape the transition to more diverse questions, particularly in relation to topics of power, diversity, and inequalities would be valuable, as would the potential impact of under-representation of some scholars from the Global South in framing the frontiers of SES research. Finally, there are also ongoing discussions about the potential for establishing an SES society that could provide a home for SES researchers; understanding some of the implications this may have for the development of the field would be a very timely and practical contribution.

CONCLUSION

Our study reflects on the development of the SES field and community, drawing on a variety of perspectives on the development of scientific fields. Our analysis suggests that the SES field has grown from an “epistemic community” (centered around RA and SRC) into a much larger “epistemic network” with a constellation of SES hubs around the world, although based mainly in the Global North. Our analysis also highlights the highly collaborative nature of SES research, which we argue has been facilitated by the digital age. However, the tightly knit, cohesive structure of the field, together with the historical legacy of the ways in which it originated, have led to criticisms of the SES field being somewhat insular. At the same time, SES research is in transition, with a new generation and an increasingly diverse set of scholars becoming leaders, and there are debates about whether the field should be consolidating as a discipline or remain a more open inter- and transdisciplinary space.

Based on our analysis, we suggest that the development of the SES field and other interdisciplinary fields of study are better understood through the lenses of more recent work on the development of scientific fields, such as those of Frodeman (2015), Renn (2018) and Funtowicz and Ravetz (2020), than focusing on the older traditions notably Kuhn (1970) and Merton (1973). The development of the SES field and its growth deviate from “normal science” as posed by Kuhn, and the assumption of relatively “closed” fields. For example, SES research has a solid footprint in policy making arenas and incorporates diverse forms of knowledge in seeking to understand problems, making the field much more “open” than more conventional scientific fields. Our analysis also suggests that, due to its history of development, the SES field has arguably been somewhat biased toward the academic practices and perspectives of the natural sciences, despite its transdisciplinary ethos. However, there is growing engagement of social science scholars, perspectives, and topics in the SES field, with issues of power and justice now increasingly being explored in SES research (Epstein et al. 2014, Fabinyi et al. 2014), and this shift and broadening of the field has arguably been under-appreciated amongst critics.

Finally, a key contribution and value of the SES field has been the diversity of expertise it has brought to bear on issues of sustainability. There has been an emphasis on engaging a wider set of societal actors, the “extended peer community” (Funtowicz and Ravetz 2020), bringing about not only legitimacy for scientific work but also a “sense of adventure for a new generation of recruits to science in the future.” The core themes of SES research today draw on a diversity of scientific theories, frameworks, and methods (Fischer et al. 2015, Preiser et al. 2018, de Vos et al. 2021a). Although this is seen by many in the field as a strength that provides methodological agility (Haider et al. 2018, Biggs et al. 2021, Schlüter et al. 2021), it has led to some authors questioning the epistemological grounding and depth of concepts used from both the social sciences and natural sciences (Stojanovic et al. 2016). Despite the ethos of inclusivity and diversity, the field is tightly knit and cohesive and has faced criticisms of being insular. It is imperative for the longer-term viability and relevance of SES research that the discourse finds ways to engage with less dominant voices and fosters broader inclusivity. We argue that this is already happening to a significant extent through the development of new networks, such as PECS, and the establishment of new SES centers in diverse places around the world. At the same time, the field faces substantive challenges in locating itself within the university, financing its activities, supporting student training, and providing a secure environment for staff. These place pressures on the field to adopt more of a department or disciplinary approach. Navigating these diverse perspectives is likely to be a key challenge for the future development of the field.

__________

^[1] https://www.stockholmresilience.org/news--events/video-archive.html?keyword=

LITERATURE CITED

Abrahams, B., N. Sitas, and K. J. Esler. 2019. Exploring the dynamics of research collaborations by mapping social networks in invasion science. Journal of Environmental Management 229:27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.051

Adams, J. 1998. Benchmarking international research. Nature 396:615-618. https://doi.org/10.1038/25219

Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24:347-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465

Ahlborg H., I. Ruiz-Mercado, S. Molander, and O. Masera. 2019. Bringing technology into social-ecological systems research—motivations for a socio-technical-ecological systems approach. Sustainability 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072009

Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00610-090118

Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18(1):86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002

Armitage, D. R., R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R. I. Arthur, A. T. Charles, I. J. Davidson-Hunt, A. P. Diduck, N. C. Doubleday, D. S. Johnson, M. Marschke, and P. McConney. 2009. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2):95-102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089

Barabási, A. L., H. Jeong, Z. Néda, E. Ravasz, A. Schubert, and T. Vicsek. 2002. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 311(3-4):590-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7

Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. Gephi: an open-source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 3(1):361-362. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937

Beaver, D., and R. Rosen. 1979. Studies in scientific collaboration part Ⅲ—professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1:231-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016308

Becker, E. 2012. Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. Pages 55-77 in M. Glaser, G. Krause, B. M. W. Ratter, and M. Welp, editors. Human–nature interactions in the Anthropocene. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123195

Bender, M. E., S. Edwards, P. von Philipsborn, F. Steinbeis, T. Keil, and P. Tinnemann. 2015. Using co-authorship networks to map and analyse global neglected tropical disease research with an affiliation to Germany. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9(12):e0004182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004182

Bennett, E. M., G. D. Peterson, and L. J. Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394-1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x

Berkes, F. 1989. Common property resources. Ecology and community-based sustainable development. Belhaven Press, London, UK.

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692-1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957

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

Bettencourt, L. M., D. I. Kaiser, and J. Kaur. 2009. Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 3(3):210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.001

Bettencourt, L. M. A., and J. Kaur. 2011. Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(49):19540-19545. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108

Biggs, R., S. R. Carpenter, and W. A. Brock. 2009. Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(3):826-831. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811729106

Biggs, R., H. S. Clements, G. S. Cumming, G. Cundill, A. de Vos, M. Hamann, L. Luvuno, D. J. Roux, O. Selomane, R. Blanchard, J. Cockburn, and B. Reyers. 2022. Social-ecological change: insights from the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society. Ecosystems and People 18(1):447-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478

Biggs, R., A. de Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski, and M. Schlüter, editors. 2021. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339

Biggs, R., B. Reyers, R. Blanchard, H. Clements, J. Cockburn, G. S. Cumming, G. Cundill, A. de Vos, L. Dziba, K. J. Esler, C. Fabricius, M. Hamann, R. Henriksson, K. Kotschy, R. Lindborg, L. Luvuno, V. Masterson, J. L. Nel, P. O’Farrell, C. G. Palmer, L. Pereira, S. Pollard, Rika Preiser, D. J. Roux, R. J. Scholes, O. Selomane, C. Shackleton, S. Shackleton, N. Sitas, J. A. Slingsby, M. Spierenburg, and M. Tengö. 2023. The Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society: an emergent community of practice. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2150317. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2150317

Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E. L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G. Cundill, V. Dakos, T. M. Daw, L. S. Evans, K. Kotschy, and A. M. Leitch. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37:421-448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, and M. L. Schoon, editors. 2015. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316014240

Binder, C. R., J. Hinkel, P. W. G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(4): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426

Blondel, V. D., J. L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008(10):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008

Bourdieu, P. 2004. Science of science and reflexivity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Bragg, D. C. 1997. Simulating catastrophic disturbance effects on coarse woody debris production and delivery in a northwestern Wyoming riparian system. In R. Teck, M. Moeur, and J. Adams, editors. Proceedings: forest vegetation simulator conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-373.

Bragg, D. C., and J. L. Kershner. 1999. Coarse woody debris in riparian zones: opportunity for interdisciplinary interaction. Journal of Forestry 97(4):30-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/97.4.30

Brandt, P., A. Ernst, F. Gralla, C. Luederitz, D. J. Lang, J. Newig, F. Reinert, D. J. Abson, and H. von Wehrden. 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics 92:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Bromley, D. W. 1992. The commons, common property, and environmental policy. Environmental and Resource Economics 2:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324686

Brondizio, E. S., E. Ostrom, and O. R. Young. 2009. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34:253-278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707

Brondizio, E. S., J. Settele, S. Diaz, and H. T. Ngo, 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

Brown, K., and E. Westaway. 2011. Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36:321-342. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905

Calderón-Contreras, R., P. Balvanera, M. Trimble, A. Langle-Flores, E. Jobbágy, M. Maass Moreno, J. Marcone, N. Mazzeo, M. M. Muñoz Anaya, I. A. Ortiz-Rodríguez, M. Perevochtchikova, S. Avila-Foucat, M. Bonilla-Moheno, L. B. Clark, M. Equihua, B. Ayala-Orozco, I. Bueno, L. Hensler, J. C. Leyva Aguilera, M. Martínez Ramos, J. Merçon, M. Azahara Mesa-Jurado, H. Österblom, R. Pacheco-Vega, B. Pérez Alcántara, O. Pérez-Maqueo, L. Porter-Bolland, S. Quijas, L. E. Quiroz Rosas, E. Rios Patron, J. C. Rocha-Gordo, I. A. Rojo Negrete, L. P. Romero-Duque, J. A. Rosell, M. Scheffer, L.-B. Vázquez, M. Villada Canela, and M. Velázquez. 2022. A regional PECS node built from place-based social-ecological sustainability research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ecosystems and People 18(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.2000501

Capra, F. 1997. The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Anchor Books, New York, New York, USA.

Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R. S. DeFries, S. Díaz, T. Dietz, A. K. Duraiappah, A. Oteng-Yeboah, H. M. Pereira, and C. Perrings. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(5):1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106

Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9

Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, and L. Pritchard. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208

Chapin, F. S. III, S. R. Carpenter, G. P. Kofinas, C. Folke, N. Abel, W. C. Clark, P. Olsson, D. M. S. Smith, B. Walker, O. R. Young, F. Berkes, R. Biggs, J. M. Grove, R. L. Naylor, E. Pinkerton, W. Steffen, and F. J. Swanson. 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (4):241-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008

Cherven K. 2015. Mastering Gephi network visualization. Packt Publishing, Birmingham, UK.

Chi, R., and J. Young. 2013. The interdisciplinary structure of research on intercultural relations: a co-citation network analysis study. Scientometrics 96(1):147-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0894-3

Cioffi-Revilla, C. 2021. The scope of computational social science. Handbook of Computational Social Science 1:17-32. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003024583-3

Clark, W. C. 2009. Start-up review of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Harvard University, Cambridge. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.668e42d4131b5c9d5138000835/SRC+Review+Final+Report.pdf

Clark, W. C., and N. M. Dickson. 2003. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14):8059-8061. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100

Clark, W. C., and A. G. Harley. 2020. Sustainability science: towards a synthesis. Sustainability Science Program Working Paper 2019-01, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society 24(1):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102

Colding, J., T. Elmqvist, and P. Olsson. 2003. Living with disturbance: building resilience in social-ecological systems. Pages 163-186 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957

Collins, H. 2010. Tacit and explicit knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, and R. G. Raskin. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

Cote, M., and A. J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708

Crane, D. 1972. Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Cumming, G. S., D. H. M. Cumming, and C. L. Redman. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01569-110114

Daily, G. C. 1997. Introduction: what are ecosystem services. Pages 1-10 in G. C. Daily, S. Postel, K. S. Bawa, and L. Kaufman, editors. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Delson, E. 1975. Evolutionary history of the Cercopithecidae. Contributions to Primatology 5:167-217.

Demeter, M., and R. Istratii. 2020. Scrutinising what open access journals mean for global inequalities. Publishing Research Quarterly 36:505-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09771-9

de Solla Price, D. J. 1963. Little science, big science. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844

de Vos, A., R. Biggs, and R. Preiser. 2019. Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecology and Society 24(4):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-11236-240416

de Vos, A., K. Maciejewski, Ö. Bodin, A. V. Norström, M. Schlüter, and M. Tengö. 2021a. The practice and design of social-ecological systems research. In R. Biggs, A. de Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski, and M. Schlüter, editors. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339

de Vos, A., R. Preiser, and V. A. Masterson. 2021b. Participatory data collection. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-10

Dietz, K. 2014. Researching inequalities from a socio-ecological perspective. Working Paper Series No. 74. desiguALdades.net International Research Network on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America, Berlin, Germany.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907-1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015

Dunbar, R. I. M. 1992. A model of the gelada socio-ecological system. Primates 33:69-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02382763

Durkheim, É. 1984. The division of labor in society. Macmillan, New York, New York, USA.

Emory, G. R., and S. J. Harris. 1981. Attention, orientation and socioecological systems in cercopithecine primates. Observational study. Social Science Information 20(2):259-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901848102000202

Engwall, L., C. Pahlber, and O. Persson. 2018. The development of IB as a scientific field. International Business Review 27(5):1080-1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.009

Epstein, G., A. Bennett, R. Gruby, L. Acton, and M. Nenadovic. 2014. Studying power with the social-ecological system framework. Understanding society and natural resources: forging new strands of integration across the social sciences. Springer Nature, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8959-2_6

Fabinyi, M., L. Evans, and S. J. Foale. 2014. Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology. Ecology and Society 19(4):28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07029-190428

Fazey, I., P. Moug, S. Allen, K. Beckmann, D. Blackwood, M. Bonaventura, K. Burnett, M. Danson, R. Falconer, A. S. Gagnon, R. Harkness, A. Hodgson, L. Holm, K. N. Irvine, R. Low, C. Lyon, A. Moss, C. Moran, L. Naylor, K. O’Brien, S. Russell, S. Skerratt, J. Rao-Williams, and R. Wolstenholme. 2018. Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda. Climate and Development 10(3):197-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864

Fazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, A. Hodgson, I. Kendrick, C. Lyon, G. Page, J. Patterson, C. Riedy, T. Strasser, S. Verveen, D. Adams, B. Goldstein, M. Klaes,G. Leicester, A. Linyard, A. McCurdy, P. Ryan, B. Sharpe, G. Silvestri, A. Y. Abdurrahim, D. Abson, O. S. Adetunji, P. Aldunce, C. Alvarez-Pereira, J. M. Amparo, H. Amundsen, L. Anderson, L. Andersson, M. Asquith, K. Augenstein, J. Barrie, D. Bent, J. Bentz, A. Bergsten, C. Berzonsky, O. Bina, K. Blackstock, J. Boehnert, H. Bradbury, C. Brand, J. Böhme (born Sangmeister), M. M. Bøjer, E. Carmen, L. Charli-Joseph, S. Choudhury, S. Chunhachoti-ananta, J. Cockburn, J. Colvin, I. L. C. Connon, R. Cornforth, R. S. Cox, N. Cradock-Henry, L. Cramer, A. Cremaschi, H. Dannevig, C. T. Day, C. de Lima Hutchison, A. de Vrieze, V. Desai, J. Dolley, D. Duckett, R. A. Durrant, M. Egermann, E. Elsner (Adams), C. Fremantle, J. Fullwood-Thomas, D. Galafassi, J. Gobby, A. Golland, S. K. González-Padrón, I. Gram-Hanssen, J. Grandin, S. Grenni, J. L. Gunnell, F. Gusmao, M. Hamann, B. Harding, G. Harper, M. Hesselgren, D. Hestad, C. A. Heykoop, J. Holmén, K. Holstead, C. Hoolohan, A.-I. Horcea-Milcu, L. G. Horlings, S. M. Howden, R. A. Howell, S. I. Huque, M. L. Inturias Canedo, C. Y. Iro, C. D. Ives, B. John, R. Joshi, S. Juarez-Bourke, D. W. Juma, B. C. Karlsen, L. Kliem, A. Kläy, P. Kuenkel, I. Kunze, D. P. M. Lam, D. J. Lang, A. Larkin, A. Light, C. Luederit, T. Luthe, C. Maguire, A.-M. Mahecha-Groot, J. Malcolm, F. Marshall, Y. Maru, C. McLachlan, P. Mmbando, S. Mohapatra, M.-L. Moore, A. Moriggi, M. Morley-Fletcher, S. Moser, K. M. Mueller, M. Mukute, S. Mühlemeier, L. O. Naess, M. Nieto-Romero, P. Novo, K. O’Brien, D. A. O’Connell, K. O’Donnell, P. Olsson, K. R. Pearson, L. Pereira, P. Petridis, D. Peukert, N. Phear, S. R. Pisters, M. Polsky, D. Pound, R. Preiser, M. S. Rahman, M. S. Reed, P. Revell, I. Rodriguez, B. C. Rogers, J. Rohr, M. N. Rosenberg, H. Ross, S. Russell, M. Ryan, P. Saha, K. Schleicher, F. Schneider, M. Scoville-Simond, B. Searle, S. P. Sebhatu, E. Sesana, H. Silverman, C. Singh, E. Sterling, S.-J. Stewart, J. D. Tàbara, D. Taylor, P. Thornton, T. M. Tribaldos, P. Tschakert, N. Uribe-Calvo, S. Waddell, S. Waddock, L. van der Merwe, B. van Mierlo, P. van Zwanenberg, S. J. Velarde, C.-L. Washbourne, K. Waylen, A. Weiser, I. Wight, S. Williams, M. Woods, R. Wolstenholme, N. Wright, S. Wunder, A. Wyllie, and H. R. Young. 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research and Social Science 70:101724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724

Fischer, J., T. A. Gardner, E. M. Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. R. Carpenter, T. M. Daw, C. Folke, R. Hill, T. P. Hughes, T. Luthe, M. Maass, M. Meacham, A. V. Norström, G. Peterson, C. Queiroz, R. Seppelt, M. Spierenburg, and J. Tenhunen. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

Fister, I. Jr., I. Fister, and P. Matjaž. 2016. Toward the discovery of citation cartels in citation networks. Frontiers in Physics 4:49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16:253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., and F. Berkes. 1998. Understanding dynamics of ecosystem-institution linkages for building resilience. Beijer discussion paper No. 112. The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.

Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31(5):437-40. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437

Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Folke, C., and L. Gunderson. 2003. An end and a beginning. Conservation Ecology 7(2):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00517-070213

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441-473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Folke, C., S. Polasky, J. Rockstrom, V. Galaz, M. Scheffer, O. Henrik, F. Westley, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin III, K. C. Seto, E. U. Weber, B. I.. Crona, G. C. Daily, P. Dasgupta, O. Gaffney, L. J. Gordon, H. Hoff, S. A. Levin, J. Lubchenco, W. Steffen, and B. H. Walker. 2021. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50:834-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8

Fraccascia, L., I. Giannoccaro, and V. Albino. 2018. Resilience of complex systems: state of the art and directions for future research. Complexity 2018:3421529. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3421529

Frodeman, R. 2015. Sustainable knowledge: a theory of interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137303028_3

Froelich, H. A. 1973. Natural and man-caused sediment in headwater streams. Loggers Handbook, Pacific Logging Congress, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 2020. Science for the post-normal age. CommonPlace [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.8a99dd09

Garfield, E. 2001. From bibliographic coupling to co-citation analysis via algorithmic historio-bibliography. Technical report, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Gelcich, S., T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L. H. Gunderson, C. Rodríguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, and R. S. Steneck. 2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(39):16794-16799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107

Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., L. Reyes-Gonzalez, F. Veloso, and M. A. Perez-Angón. 2016. The scientific impact of developing nations. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0151328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151328

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water. BioScience 41(8):540-551. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311607

Grimm, N. B., S. T. Pickett, R. L. Hale, and M. L. Cadenasso. 2017. Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social-ecological–technological systems? Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3(1):1879063. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1255

Grimm, N. B., H. F. Stanley, N. E. Golubiewski, C. L. Redman, J. Wu, X. Bai, and J. M. Briggs. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(5864):756-760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195

Gunderson, L. H. 2000. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31(1):425-439. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425

Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling, editors. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of regional ecosystems. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Guo, H., S. Weingart, and K. Börner. 2011. Mixed-indicators model for identifying emerging research areas. Scientometrics 89(1):421-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0433-7

Haider, L. J., J. Hentati-Sundberg, M. Giusti, J. Goodness, M. Hamann, V. A. Masterson, M. Meacham, A. Merrie, D. Ospina, C. Schill, and H. Sinare. 2018. The undisciplinary journey: early career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 13(1):191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1

Hanna, S., C.F. Folke, K-G. Mäler. 1996. Property rights and the natural environment. Pages 1-10 in S. Hanna, C. Folke and K-G. Mäler, editors. Rights to nature: ecological, economic, cultural, and political principles of institutions for the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science 162(3859):1243-1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

Hartman, H. L. 1987. Introductory mining engineering. Wiley-Interscience, New York, New York, USA.

Heilig, G. 1993. Lifestyles and energy use in human food chains. Working Paper WP-93-14. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.

Herrero-Jáuregui, C., C. Arnaiz-Schmitz, M. F. Reyes, M. Telesnicki, I. Agramonte, M. H. Easdale, M. F. Schmitz, M. Aguiar, A. Gómez-Sal, and C. Montes. 2018. What do we talk about when we talk about social-ecological systems? A literature review. Sustainability 10(8):2950. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082950

Hertz, T., and M. Schlüter. 2015. The SES-framework as boundary object to address theory orientation in social–ecological system research: the SES–TheOr approach. Ecological Economics 116:12-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.022

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Holling, C. S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystems: local surprise and global change. Pages 292-317 in W. C. Clark, and R. E. Munn, editors. Sustainable development and the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328. x

Holling, C. S., D. W. Schindler, B. W. Walker, and J. Roughgarden. 1995. Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: an ecological synthesis. Biodiversity loss. Economic and Ecological Issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Holmgren, M., and S. A. Schnitzer. 2004. Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biology 2(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020001

Hughes, T. P., D. R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R. S. Steneck, and J. Wilson. 2005. New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(7):380-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.03.022

Hung, J. L. 2012. Trends of e-learning research from 2000 to 2008: use of text mining and bibliometrics. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01144.x

Iyandemye, J., and M. P. Thomas. 2019. Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: a systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature. PLoS ONE 14(7):e0220229. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220229

Janssen, M. A., J. M. Anderies, and E. Ostrom. 2007. Robustness of social-ecological systems to spatial and temporal variability. Society and Natural Resources 20(4):307-322. https://doi10.1080/08941920601161320

Janssen, M. A., M. L. Schoon, W. Ke, and K. Börner. 2006. Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 16(3):240-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.001

Jolly, A. 1972. The evolution of primate behavior. Macmillan, New York, New York, USA.

Kaiser, D. 2005. Training and the generalist’s vision in the history of science. Isis 96(2):244-251. https://doi.org/10.1086/431536

Kates, R. W., C. C. William, C. J. Robert, M. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J. J. McCarthy, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N. M. Dickson, S. Faucheux, G. C. Gallopin, A. Grübler, B. Huntley, J. Jäger, N. S. Jodha, R. E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B. Moore, III, T. O’Riordan, and U. Svedin. 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641-642. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386

Kieser, A., and L. Leiner. 2009. Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies 46(3):516-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x

Kim, J., and C. Perez. 2015. Co-authorship network analysis in industrial ecology research community. Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(2):222-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12256

Kirch, P. V. 1997. Microcosmic histories: island perspectives on “global” change. American Anthropologist 99(1):30-42.

Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Kumar, S. 2015. Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67(1):55-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2014-0116

Kumar, S. 2016. Efficacy of a giant component in co-authorship networks: evidence from a Southeast Asian dataset in economics. Aslib Journal of Information Management 68(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0172

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7:25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Latour, B. 1993. We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Lebel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke, S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. P. Hughes, and J. Wilson. 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-01606-110119

Levin, S. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1:431-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900037

Levin, S. A. 1999. Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Helix Books, Perseus, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Levin, S., T. Xepapadeas, A. S. Crépin, J. Norberg, A. De Zeeuw, C. Folke, T. Hughes, K. Arrow, S. Barrett, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, N. Kautsky, K. G. Mäler, S. Polasky, M. Troell, J. R. Vincent, and B. Walker. 2013. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics 18(2):111-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X12000460

Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. C. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H. Schneider, and W. W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513-1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004

Liu, P., and Xia, H. 2015. Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field. Scientometrics 103(1):101-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1525-y

Lukina, E. V., W. R. Raun, M. L. Stone, J. B. Solie, G. V. Johnson, H. L. Lees, J. M. LaRuffa, and S. B. Phillips. 2000. Effect of row spacing, growth stage, and nitrogen rate on spectral irradiance in winter wheat. Journal of Plant Nutrition 23(1):103-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160009382001

Malecki, C. K., and S. N. Elliot. 2002. Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: a longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly 17(1):1-23. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.17.1.1.19902

Mannheim, K. 1997. (First published in 1952.) The problem of generations. Pages 276-320 in P. Kecskemeti, editor. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.

Marinetto, M. 2018. Fast food research in the era of unplanned obsolescence. Journal of Management Studies 55(6):1014-1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12338

Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M. A. McKean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 17(3):649-650. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01738.x

McGinnis, M. D., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19(2):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

McIntosh, R. J., J. A. Tainter, and S. K. McIntosh. 2000. The way the wind blows: climate, history, and human action. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

McNiff, J. 1988. Action research: principles and practice. Routledge, London, UK.

McPhearson, T., E. M. Cook, M. Berbes-Blazquez, C. Cheng, N. B. Grimm, E. Andersson, O. Barbosa, D. G. Chandler, H. Chang, M. V. Chester, and D. L. Childers. 2022. A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth 5(5):505-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007

McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415-444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Meadows, D. H, D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrems, 1972. The limits to growth. Signet, New York, New York, USA.

Meerow, S., and J. P. Newell. 2017. Resilience and complexity: a bibliometric review and prospects for industrial ecology. Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(2):236-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12252

Merton, R. K. 1973. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Miller, J., and S. Page. 2007. Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Mongeon, P., and A. Paul-Hus. 2016. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106: 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Morin, E. 1992. Method: towards a study of humankind. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 14(4):246-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769401400486

Mullins, N. C. 1962. The development of a scientific specialty: the phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva 1(1):51-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01881390

Mullins, N. C., L. L. Hargens, P. K. Hecht, and E. L. Kick. 1977. The group structure of cocitation clusters: a comparative study. American Sociological Review 42(4):552-562. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094554

Mwambari, D., F. A. Ali, and C. Barak. 2022. The impact of open access on knowledge production, consumption and dissemination in Kenya’s higher education system. Third World Quarterly 43(6):1408-1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2056010

Nellemann, C., and M. G. Thomsen. 2001. Long-term changes in forest growth: potential effects of nitrogen deposition and acidification. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 128:197-205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010318800180

Nelson, D. R., W. N. Adger, and K. Brown. 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32:395-419. 10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348

Newman, M. E. J. 2001a. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(2):404-409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404

Newman, M. E. 2001b. Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E 64(1):016131. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131

Newman, M. E. J. 2004. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(suppl_1):5200-5205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307545100

Nilsson, S., O. Sallnaes, and P. Duinker. 1990. Potential futures for the forest resources of western and eastern Europe: base cases, forest decline and expansion of forest land. Vol. I. Final report of the forest study. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.

Norström, A. V., B. Agarwal, P. Balvanera, B. Baptiste, E. M. Bennett, E. Brondízio, R. Biggs, B. Campbell, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Castilla, and A. J. Castro. 2022. The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS)—a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. Ecosystems and People 18(1):598-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173

Norström, A. V., C. Cvitanovic, M. F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A. T. Bednarek, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B. M. Campbell, J. G. Canadell, S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E. A. Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich, J.-B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. Le Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder, M.-F. Loutre, A. M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G. D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes, C. I. Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van Putten, and H. Österblom. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3:182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00683-090402

Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01595-110118

Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763

Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39):15181-15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Ottaviani, J. 2016. The post-embargo open access citation advantage: it exists (probably), it’s modest (usually), and the rich get richer (of course). PLoS ONE 11(8):e0159614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159614

Ottino, J. 2004. Engineering complex systems. Nature 427(6973): 399. https://doi.org/10.1038/427399a

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management 21:49-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4

Parker, J. N., and E. J. Hackett. 2012. Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. American Sociological Review 77(1):21-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411433763

Parncutt, R., P. Lindborg, N. Meyer-Kahlen, and R. Timmers. 2021. The multi-hub academic conference: global, inclusive, culturally diverse, creative, sustainable. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 6:699782. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.699782

Parsons, T. 1970. On building social system theory: a personal history. Daedalus: 826-881.

Partelow, S. 2018. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecology and Society 23(4):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10594-230436

Patton M. Q. 1997. Utilization-focused evaluation, the new century text. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Peirce, C. S. 1878. How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly 12:286-302.

Pereira, L. M., T. Hichert, M. Hamann, R. Preiser, and R. Biggs. 2018. Using futures methods to create transformative spaces. Ecology and Society 23(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119

Perold J. J. 2000. Paradox and pedagogy: the double bind in South African schools. Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Persson, O., R. Danell, and J. W. Schneider. 2009. How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. Pages 9-24 in F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, and J. W. Schneider, editors. Celebrating scholarly communication studies: a festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics e-zine special edition 5.

Pickett, S. T. 1999. The culture of synthesis: habits of mind in novel ecological integration. Oikos 87(3):479-487. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546812

Pineda-Pinto, M., P. Herreros-Cantis, T. McPhearson, N. Frantzeskaki, J. Wang, and W. Zhou. 2021. Examining ecological justice within the social-ecological-technological system of New York City, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 215:104228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104228

Pinkerton, E. 1998. Integrated management of a temperate montane forest ecosystem through wholistic forestry: a British Columbia example. Pages 363-389 in F. Berkes, C. Folke, and J. Colding, editors. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Preiser, R., R. Biggs, A. de Vos, and C. Folke. 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and Society 23(4):46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446

Puccinelli, E., D. Zeppilli, P. V. Stefanoudis, A. Wittische-Helou, M. Kermorgant, S. Fuchs, L. Menot, E. E. Easton, and A. A. Weber. 2022. Hybrid conferences: opportunities, challenges and ways forward. Frontiers in Marine Science 9:1329. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.902772

Redman, C. 1999. Human impact on ancient environments. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Renn, J. 2018. The evolution of knowledge: rethinking science in the Anthropocene. Journal of History of Science and Technology 12(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.2478/host-2018-0001

Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G. S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A. P. Hejnowicz, and S. Polasky. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(5):268-273. https://doi.org/10.1890/120144

Reyers, B., C. Folke, M.-L. Moore, R. Biggs, and V. Galaz. 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43:267-289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349

Reyers, B., and E. R. Selig. 2020. Global targets that reveal the social-ecological interdependencies of sustainable development. Nature Ecology and Evolution 4(8):1011-1019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1230-6

Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen and J. A. Foley. 2009. A safe operation space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413(6856):591-596. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000

Schlüter, M., R. Biggs, H. C. Clements, A. de Vos, K. Maciejewski, and R. Preiser, R. 2021. Synthesis and emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems research methods. In R. Biggs, A. de Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski, and M. Schlüter, editors. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339

Schlüter, M., L. J. Haider, S. J. Lade, E. Lindkvist, R. Martin, K. Orach, N. Wijermans, and C. Folke. 2019. Capturing emergent phenomena in social-ecological systems: an analytical framework. Ecology and Society 24(3):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11012-240311

Schneider, F., T. Tribaldos, C. Adler, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, T. Buser, C. Krug, M-F. Loutre, S. Moore, A. V. Norström, K. Paulavets, D. Urbach, E. Spehn, G. Wülser, and R. Zondervan. 2021. Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 49:127-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.007

Scoones, I. 1999. New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology 28(1):479-507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.479

Sedell, J. R., F. H. Everest, and F. J. Swanson. 1982: Fish habitat and streamside management: past and present. Pages 41-52 in H. C. Brown, editor. Proceedings of the technical session on effects of forest practices on fish and wildlife production. Society of American Foresters, Orlando, Florida and Washington, D.C., USA.

Shaw, R. W., and S. Öberg. 1994. Sustainable development: applications of systems analysis. Science of the Total Environment 149(3):193-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(94)90179-1

Shiau, W. L., and Y. K. Dwivedi. 2013. Citation and co-citation analysis to identify core and emerging knowledge in electronic commerce research. Scientometrics 94(3):1317-1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0807-5

Shiau, W. L., Y. K. Dwivedi, and H. S. Yang. 2017. Co-citation and cluster analyses of extant literature on social networks. International Journal of Information Management 37(5):390-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.04.007

Simonds, P. E. 1974. The social primates. Nelson and Nelson, Trenton, South Carolina, USA.

Sinclair, A. R. E. 1977. The African buffalo: a study of resource limitation of population. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Slavin, R. E. 1992. When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Pages 145-173 in R. Hertz-Lazarowitz and N. Miller, editors. Interaction in cooperative groups: the theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Small, H. 1973. Co‐citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24(4):265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406

Small, H. G. 1978. Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science 8(3):327-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277800800305

Small, H. G., and B. C. Griffith. 1974. The structure of scientific literatures I: identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies 4(1):17-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277400400102

Smith, D. A. 1973. Systematic study of chimpanzee drawing. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 82(3):406-414. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034135

Smith, D. A., and D. R. White. 1992. Structure and dynamics of the global economy: network analysis of international trade 1965–1980. Social Forces 70(4):857-893. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/70.4.857

Sokal, R. R. 1952. Variation in a local population of Phemphigus. Evolution 6:296-315.

Soper, M.E. 1976. Characteristics and use of personal collections. The Library Quarterly 46(4):397-415. https://doi.org/10.1086/620584

Sorokin, P. 1985. Social and cultural dynamics: a study of change in major systems of art, truth, ethics, law and social relationships. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Southwick, C. H. 1963. Primate social behavior. Nostrand Company, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Steyn A. G. W. 1999. The elimination of inequalities in the provision of school education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education 19(1):66-73.

Steyn G. M. 1998. Teacher empowerment and the leadership role of principals. South African Journal of Education 183:131-138.

Stigliani, W. M. 1988. Changes in valued “capacities” of soils and sediments as indicators of nonlinear and time-delayed environmental effects. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 10:245-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395083

Stigliani, W. M. 1990. Chemical emissions from the processing and use of materials: the need for an integrated emissions accounting system. Ecological Economics 2(4):325-341.

Stigliani, W. M., and S. Anderberg. 1992. Industrial metabolism at the regional level: the Rhine Basin. In R. U. Ayres and U. E. Simonis, editors. Industrial metabolism: restructuring for sustainable development. The United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.

Stinchcombe, A. L. 1994. Disintegrated disciplines and the future of sociology. Sociological Forum 9:279-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01476366

Stockholm Resilience Centre Decennial Report 2007–2017. 2017. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. https://stockholmuniversity.app.box.com/s/azv5x5fbecstap26dfw2x5r7x89p8zlp

Stockholm University. 2006. Stockholm MISTRA institute (SMI) on sustainable governance and management of social-ecological systems. Proposal to MISTRA on a new interdisciplinary research centre initiative on sustainable governance and management of social-ecological systems. Beijer Institute, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Stojanovic, T., H. M. McNae, P. Tett, T. W. Potts, J. Reis, H. D. Smith, and I. Dillingham. 2016. The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique of analytical frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecology and Society 21(3):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08633-210315

Stori, F. T., C. M. Peres, A. Turra, and R. L. Pressey. 2019. Traditional ecological knowledge supports ecosystem-based management in disturbed coastal marine social-ecological systems. Frontiers in Marine Science 6:571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00571

Struhsaker, T. T. 1967. Auditory communication among vervet monkeys (Cecropithecus aethiops). Pages 281-324 in S. Altmann, editor. Social communication among primates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Tainter, J. A. 1988. The collapse of complex societies. (New studies in archaeology.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Tanaka, G., and K. Reid. 1997. Peer helpers: encourage kids to confide. Educational Leadership 55(2):29-31.

Tang, K. Y., C. C. Tsai, and T. C. Lin. 2014. Contemporary intellectual structure of CSCL research (2006–2013): a co-citation network analysis with an education focus. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 9(3):335-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9196-5

Tengö, M., E. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43(5):579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

Thanuskodi, S. 2010. Bibliometric analysis of the journal library philosophy and practice from 2005-2009. Library Philosophy and Practice 1(7). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/437

Tian, W., R. Cai, Z. Fang, Y. Geng, X. Wang, and Z. Hu. 2023. Understanding corresponding authorship: a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 75(1):3-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24836

Tsay, M. Y., and Z. Y. Shu. 2011. Journal bibliometric analysis: a case study on the Journal of Documentation. Journal of Documentation 67(5):806-822. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111164682

Turner, B. L. II, R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, and C. Polsky. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14):8074-8079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100

Umadevi, V. 2013. Automatic co-authorship network extraction and discovery of central authors. International Journal of Computer Applications 74(4):1-6. https://doi.org/10.5120/12870-9853

Urry, J. 2005. The complexity turn. Theory, Culture and Society 22(5):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405057188

Vilchek, G. E. 1997. Arctic ecosystem stability and disturbance: a West Siberian case history. Pages 179-189 in R. M. M. Crawford, editor. Disturbance and recovery in Arctic lands: an ecological perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Vinogradov, A. M. 1981. The geometry of nonlinear differential equations. Journal of Soviet Mathematics 17(1):1624-1649. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01084594

Vitousek, P. M., J. D. Aber, R. W. Howarth, G. E. Likens, P. A. Matson, D. W. Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, and D. G. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applications 7(3):737-750. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0737:HAOTGN]2.0.CO;2

Vostokov, S. V. 1982. Symbols on formal groups. Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya 19(2):261.

Vostokov, S. V., and V. A. Letsko. 1984. Canonical decomposition in the group of points of a formal Lubin-Tate group. Journal of Soviet Mathematics 24:419-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01094370

Walby, S. 2015. Crisis. Wiley, Cambridge, UK.

Waldrop, M. 1993. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York, USA.

Walker, B. H. 1993. Rangeland ecology–understanding and managing change. Ambio 22(2-3):80-87.

Walker, B. H, S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. S. 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. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00356-060114

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Walker, B. H., and D. Salt, editors. 2006. Resilience thinking. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Waser, P. M. 1977. Individual recognition, intragroup cohesion and intergroup spacing: evidence from sound playback to forest monkeys. Behaviour 60(1-2):28-74. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853977X00270

Wenzel, M., and M. G. Will. 2019. The communicative constitution of academic fields in the digital age: the case of CSR. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 146:17-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.006

Westley, F. R., O. Tjornbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B. Crona, and Ö. Bodin. 2013. A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327

Whitley, R. 1984. The fragmented state of management studies: reasons and consequences. Journal of Management Studies 21(3):331-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00415.x

Wilbanks, T. J., and R. W. Kates. 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic Change 43:601-628. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005418924748

Wrangham, R. W. 1980. An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behaviour 75(3-4):262-300. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853980X00447

Wu, J., A. Rajesh, Y. N. Huang, K. Chhugani, R. Acharya, K. Peng, R. D. Johnson, A. Fiscutean, C. D. Robles-Espinoza, F. M. De La Vega, and R. Bao. 2022. Virtual meetings promise to eliminate geographical and administrative barriers and increase accessibility, diversity and inclusivity. Nature Biotechnology 40(1):133-137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01176-z

Young, O. R. 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3807.001.0001

Ysseldyke, J., M. Burns, P. Dawson, B. Kelley, D. Morrison, S. Ortiz, S. Rosenfield, and C. Telzrow. 1997. School psychology: a blueprint for training and practice II. National Association of School Psychologists, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Young, O., F. Berkhout, G. C. Gallopin, M. A. Janssen, E. Ostrom, and S. van der Leeuw. 2006. How will globalization affect the resilience, vulnerability, and adaptability of socio-ecological systems at various scales? An agenda for scientific research. Global Environmental Change 16(3):304-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.004

Ziman, J. M. 2000. Real science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Zimov, S. A., V. I. Chuprynin, A. P. Oreshko, F. S. Chapin, III, J. F. Reynolds, and M. C. Chapin. 1995. Steppe-tundra transition: a herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the Pleistocene. American Naturalist 146(5):765-794. https://doi.org/10.1086/285824