Guest Editorial

Welcome to this latest issue of Ecology and Society. Its publication marks a watershed moment in the evolution of the field of social-ecological systems. We are delighted and proud to publish a special editorial introducing the new Society for Social Ecological Systems – SocSES. The paper outlines the development of the field of social-ecological systems. The short historical perspective demonstrates how scholarship has grown and diversified from a focus on ecosystems and change to encompass a broad, vibrant, and far-reaching community of scholars, practitioners, and policy makers. This field has grown organically yet has been facilitated by some key innovations, institutions, organizations, and initiatives. Primary amongst these is our journal, Ecology and Society, which has been the home of social-ecological systems research and scholarship for more than 20 years. The journal was, and remains, highly innovative in publishing open access articles spanning disciplines, creating a new field of inquiry and scholarship and promoting novel ideas that have inspired an amazing array of research and action. The publications in Ecology and Society have changed the discourse and understanding of sustainability and social and environmental change. The journal has expanded and developed alongside the field as it has evolved. We aim to be inclusive, diverse, and to enable and support new perspectives, hitherto unheard voices and to facilitate debate, discussion, and scientific advancement to inform just and sustainable transformation. We see SocSES as a critical step in building and advancing linked social-ecological research and perspectives, building on the work of Ecology and Society and its publisher, the Resilience Alliance. The multi-author paper published here highlights some of the serious structural and other constraints to greater participation by scholars and practitioners from non-mainstream, BIPOC, and other communities and from Global South institutions and settings. We look forward to working with SocSES, to publishing exciting new findings, championing emerging scholars, and always supporting diverse voices, experiences from myriad settings, and advancing new conceptualizations and theory development. We wish SocSES every success and look forward to working closely with members of the society.

    —Katrina Brown, Patricia Balvanera, and Craig R. Allen, Editors-in-Chief

 

INTRODUCTION

Social-ecological systems (SES) research has emerged as a vital field for addressing the complex challenges of the Anthropocene^[1] across scales (Folke et al. 2016, Biggs et al. 2021, Bennett and Reyers 2024). Rooted in the understanding that human and ecological systems are intertwined and function as complex adaptive systems (Berkes and Folke 1998, Levin et al. 2013, Preiser et al. 2018), and enriched by other scholarly traditions that explore the social-environmental nexus (Burnside et al. 2022, Chester et al. 2023), SES work responds to persistent sectoral and reductionist approaches in academia, policy, and practice. Over the past three decades, the SES field has grown substantially and now stands at a critical transition point that requires new structures to better organize the community, facilitate inclusive collaboration, and leverage insights from the field to inform action toward more sustainable and just futures across multiple scales (Manyani et al. 2024).

The inter- and transdisciplinary character of SES work has been foundational since its early development (Berkes and Folke 1998), catalyzed by efforts to bring together ecology, economics, geography, sociology, anthropology, political science, and related fields (Sundstrom et al. 2023). This intellectual convergence laid the groundwork for the approaches that now define the SES field (Balvanera et al. 2017, Norström et al. 2022), and has demanded the development of new and integrated theoretical and methodological approaches (Preiser et al. 2018, De Vos et al. 2019, Biggs et al. 2021, Norström et al. 2022), alongside journals, funding schemes, and research networks (Carpenter et al. 2012, Calderón-Contreras et al. 2022, Manyani et al. 2024, Manyani 2025). The field has also given rise to graduate, undergraduate, and non-graduate programs at many academic and non-academic institutions that increasingly foreground reflexivity and transdisciplinary competencies (Haider et al. 2018, Biggs et al. 2021, Norström et al. 2022, Manyani et al. 2024).

Despite this growth and success, the field faces several conceptual and structural challenges as it seeks to deepen its influence to drive change toward more sustainable and just development pathways (Reyers et al. 2018, Norström et al. 2022). Researchers have to balance groundedness with agility in defining methodological integrity (Haider et al. 2018, De Vos et al. 2021, Schlüter et al. 2021, Chambers et al. 2022, Seiferth et al. 2024), and context dependency with the need for generalizable knowledge (Lade and Niiranen 2017, Magliocca et al. 2018, Meyfroidt et al. 2018, Cox et al. 2020). Regional imbalances, largely shaped by colonial legacies, have constrained the exploration of diverse social-ecological contexts and connections that could inform global sustainability efforts (Balvanera et al. 2017, Guibrunet et al. 2024, Manyani et al. 2024). SES research is also challenged by scientific skepticism, climate change denial, and rising political polarization—broader societal dynamics that foster disinformation, undermine public trust in science (Zapp 2022, Benson 2024), and threaten long-term research funding. But perhaps most pressingly, the SES field has to navigate embracing a diverse and growing community while sustaining the networks, relational foundations, and small-group interactions that have driven its development (Manyani et al. 2024).

While demand for SES insights and collaboration continues to grow, most existing networks remain precariously funded and were intentionally designed as flexible, distributed communities—not as long-term coordinating infrastructures for the field. These design choices fostered innovation and strong relationships, but coupled with persistent funding challenges, they now constrain the ability of networks to scale, coordinate activities, and provide sustained support—particularly for early-career researchers and for efforts to broaden participation across regions, disciplines, and knowledge systems. Consequently, although many active SES-focused networks exist, the field remains fragmented and lacks a stable, unifying structure. What is now needed is a well-resourced institutional platform—one that can coordinate across networks, support researchers and practitioners at the science-policy-practice interface, and help consolidate the identity of SES research and practice by connecting the growing number of centers, programs, and projects worldwide (Norström et al. 2017, 2022, Manyani et al. 2024). Such a structure is crucial to leverage the field’s collective contributions in confronting urgent sustainability and equity challenges (Bednarek et al. 2025).

To support the growing scope and diversity of the SES field and to build on its momentum and evolving opportunities, two prominent SES networks—the Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) and the Resilience Alliance (RA)—have partnered to lead the establishment of a new Society for Social-Ecological Systems (SocSES, pronounced “sock-ses”; https://socses.org/). This society aims to support and strengthen inter- and transdisciplinary SES research, practice, and action toward a more equitable, just, and sustainable future by providing an intellectual home, a sense of community, and a shared identity for SES researchers, practitioners, research institutes, and networks worldwide.

This paper introduces SocSES as a timely response to both the persistent challenges and generative opportunities facing the SES field. Rather than positioning SocSES as a corrective or replacement, we present it as a necessary next step in the evolution of a thriving but under-supported research community—one whose expanding reach, increasing conceptual maturity, and growing relevance to sustainability policy now demand more intentional coordination and institutional support. We situate SocSES within the broader trajectory of SES research, highlighting the milestones, tensions, and aspirations that have shaped its evolution. We outline the society’s vision, mission, and core functions, including its commitment to co-developing a more inclusive, globally representative SES community. Finally, we discuss the implications of SocSES for the future of SES research, focusing on how it can enhance collaboration, bridge theory and practice, and foster transformative action toward more just and sustainable futures.

FOUNDATIONS OF THE FIELD

The field of SES has emerged through decades of conceptual innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and institutional experimentation (Fig. 1). Several influential strands of work in the 1970s and 1980s, including on ecological resilience (Holling 1973), adaptive management (Holling and Chambers 1973), complex systems thinking (Holling 1978), and natural resource governance (Ostrom 1990), culminated in the formal articulation of coupled social-ecological systems in the late 1990s (Berkes and Folke 1998). These ideas were advanced through informal collaborations and early workshops (particularly those convened by the Beijer Institute) that helped crystallize the field’s central insight: that human and ecological systems are deeply intertwined and must be studied as complex adaptive systems (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Folke 2006, Folke et al. 2016, Holling 2017, Preiser et al. 2018, Manyani et al. 2024).

This early work laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Resilience Network that became formalized as the RA in 1999. The RA played a pivotal role in shaping the SES field by developing and synthesizing foundational concepts such as resilience thinking (Folke et al. 2005, 2010), the adaptive cycle and panarchy (Gunderson and Holling 2002), and social-ecological traps (Platt 1973, Allison and Hobbs 2004, Carpenter and Brock 2008, Bowles et al. 2011). It pioneered a distinctive mode of collaboration through small, interdisciplinary workshops designed to foster trust, creativity, and theoretical integration (Walker et al. 2004, Parker and Hackett 2012, Scheffer et al. 2024), an approach that remains a hallmark of SES research today. Beyond shaping theory, the RA helped legitimize the emerging SES field through the launch of Ecology and Society, one of the first open-access, online-only journals for interdisciplinary sustainability science (Folke et al. 2016, Schlüter et al. 2019, Manyani et al. 2024). It also translated theory into practice through tools like the Resilience Assessment Workbook and Wayfinder guide (Walker et al. 2002, Resilience Alliance 2010, Enfors-Kautsky et al. 2021) and extended its influence by seeding institutions such as the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) (Palmer et al. 2016, Manyani et al. 2024). Finally, through the Resilience Alliance Young Scholars initiative, the RA played a key role in mentoring a new generation of researchers (Manyani et al. 2024), many of whom authored foundational SES work (e.g., Norberg and Cumming 2008, Biggs et al. 2015) and have since become leaders in the field (Manyani et al. 2024).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) played a catalytic role in advancing the SES field by legitimizing interdisciplinary and systems-based approaches at the global science–policy interface (Reyers et al. 2018). The MA drew on work by the RA and the Beijer Institute to embed resilience thinking, adaptive governance, and the importance of non-linear dynamics, thresholds, and feedbacks into its framework and activities (Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2016, Reyers et al. 2018), particularly in its development of explicitly social-ecological scenarios (Peterson et al. 2003, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Raskin 2005, Carpenter et al. 2006). By embedding key SES concepts into large-scale assessment and scenario processes (Carpenter et al. 2009, Reyers et al. 2018), the MA provided a high-profile platform for collaboration across epistemologies, exposing the methodological limitations of dominant modeling approaches in capturing social-ecological dynamics (Cumming et al. 2005), and set powerful precedents for inclusive, transdisciplinary research (Reyers et al. 2018). Importantly, the MA also included a set of subglobal assessments, which enabled greater context specificity and relevance to regional challenges and priorities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). In addition to its conceptual contributions, the MA helped catalyze a wave of institutional development, including the development of several SES institutes, training programs, and research networks (Mooney et al. 2013, Díaz et al. 2015, Balvanera et al. 2017, Manyani et al. 2024). Among the most prominent networks emerging from this era were PECS and the Global Land Programme (initially “Global Land Project”), both established specifically to address the need for globally relevant, locally grounded research on social-ecological dynamics (Kok et al. 2007, Carpenter et al. 2009, 2012). The MA also led to the creation of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a formalized science-policy platform for advancing integrated approaches to biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being (Díaz et al. 2015).

Since the MA, a substantial number of SES networks have emerged at global and local scales (Fig. 2, Appendix Table S1), cultivating enduring communities of practice (Biggs et al. 2023, Manyani et al. 2024)—self-organized groups grounded in mutual trust, iterative learning, and long-term collaboration (Wenger 1998). These communities have played a vital role in sustaining and evolving the SES field by fostering a shared conceptual language (Fischer et al. 2015), supporting methodological innovation across disciplines and knowledge systems (Biggs et al. 2021, West and Schill 2022), and enabling long-term collaboration and learning across cases, regions, and scales (Balvanera et al. 2017, Norström et al. 2022). These communities have increasingly included transformation-oriented (e.g., the Transformations Community) and science-practice-policy-focused networks (e.g., Global Resilience Partnership) that bridge research and action, extending the field’s reach and relevance in real-world decision-making contexts.

Over time, the growing influence of networks and their communities of practice have both shaped and been shaped by the establishment of dedicated SES research institutes (an interactive map and table can be found in Appendix 1 and at http://socses.org/about/paper), creating a reinforcing cycle where networks fostered institutionalization and institutes provided stable platforms for networks to expand (Martín-López et al. 2020, Biggs et al. 2023, Manyani et al. 2024, Manyani 2025). By expanding regional hubs and connecting researchers across institutional boundaries, these networks have broadened the field’s geographic and epistemic reach, promoted knowledge pluralism, and strengthened science-policy engagement through platforms like IPBES (Fischer et al. 2015, Martín-López et al. 2020). Critically, these networks have offered support for researchers embedded in disciplinary or institutionally isolated settings, enabling participation in a global epistemic community and advancing regionally rooted research that broadens the field’s geographic and cultural scope (Calderón-Contreras et al. 2022, Norström et al. 2022). Many of these communities have increasingly grappled with issues of power, inclusion, and transformation, contributing to a broader shift in the field toward justice-oriented and reflexive approaches (Norström et al. 2022). Through this ecosystem of relational, place-based, and evolving collaboration, SES networks have become the scaffolding through which much of the field’s most generative and inclusive scholarship has emerged.

NEW FRONTIERS IN AN EXPANDING FIELD: NAVIGATING GROWTH, COMPLEXITY, AND THE NEED FOR COORDINATION

As the field has grown in depth, diversity, and global reach, so too have the opportunities and challenges associated with sustaining collaboration, navigating complexity, and deepening the impact of SES research across scales and contexts. This section discusses some of the key emerging frontiers.

Advancing systemic social-ecological systems understandings

A longstanding issue in SES research, policy, and practice is developing analytical and theoretical frameworks that adequately integrate ecological feedbacks alongside social and institutional dynamics—particularly when dealing with nonlinear interactions, cascading effects, and cross-scale feedbacks (Cumming et al. 2005, Guerrero et al. 2018, Schlüter et al. 2019, Falardeau and Bennett 2020, Bennett and Reyers 2024). This challenge has often played out in the form of uneven attention to different system components. Historically, SES research has been critiqued for its dominant focus on ecological dynamics and quantitative methods, underemphasizing critical social dimensions such as power relations (Cote and Nightingale 2011, Brown 2014, Copes-Gerbitz et al. 2021), governance structures, and cultural factors (Adger 2000, Stojanovic et al. 2016, Horcea-Milcu et al. 2020, McIlwain et al. 2023). In the other direction, many studies that claim to be social-ecological ignore ecological variables altogether (Guerrero et al. 2018).

The central challenge is not simply one of inclusion or emphasis (which is also influenced by the scales of interactions; Cumming and Dobbs 2020), but of navigating the epistemological tensions that arise when different paradigms (each with their own ontologies, assumptions, and ways of knowing) converge in the study of SES. These tensions are not a flaw in the field, but a defining feature of the complexity it seeks to engage (Preiser et al. 2018, Hertz et al. 2020, Bennett and Reyers 2024). SES research aspires to go beyond interactionism (where social and ecological entities are seen as distinct but linked) to relational approaches that treat these domains as fundamentally entangled, co-constituted, and inseparable (Preiser et al. 2018, Chester et al. 2023, Bennett and Reyers 2024). Thus, there remains an urgent need for frameworks and methods that simultaneously incorporate key social, ecological, and technological variables and feedback loops while also addressing the ontological assumptions underlying SES research (Guerrero et al. 2018, Hertz et al. 2020, Bennett and Reyers 2024). Addressing these tensions requires not just conceptual innovation, but also more shared spaces for reflexivity and synthesis—where scholars can navigate pluralism, challenge disciplinary defaults, and build frameworks and models that reflect the fuller complexity of SES. While some of this work is already underway—including major advances in recognizing feedbacks, coevolution, and systemic approaches to transformation (Folke et al. 2016, Norström et al. 2022)—it remains a frontier for both theoretical development and collaborative practice.

Navigating approaches for place-based and global impact

SES research is increasingly defined by a productive and necessary tension between the richness of place-based, transdisciplinary research and the need for generalizable frameworks and approaches that can support cross-scale synthesis and policy relevance. SES research often produces rich, localized insights, but significant barriers remain in translating these into frameworks or mid-range theories that are broadly applicable across diverse regions and contexts (Balvanera et al. 2017, Magliocca et al. 2018, Meyfroidt et al. 2018, Schlüter et al. 2019, Rocha et al. 2022). Inconsistent modeling approaches across studies, a lack of methodological coherence and transparency, and limited longitudinal data continue to hinder synthesis and generalizability (Magliocca et al. 2018, Schlüter et al. 2019, Cox et al. 2020).

Much effort has gone into addressing these challenges of integration and synthesis. Networks like PECS were specifically established to help synthesize more generalizable insights from place-based research (Carpenter et al. 2012), and this has been complemented by initiatives that reduce fragmentation and strengthen shared approaches. Projects like the SES Methods Handbook (Biggs et al. 2021), for example, have helped build methodological coherence, and the development of various case-study databases has yielded important theoretical and methodological advances in natural resource governance (e.g., Cox et al. 2016, 2020), transformation (Pereira et al. 2020, Kuiper et al. 2024), and regime shifts (e.g., Biggs et al. 2018, Rocha et al. 2018). Despite these important efforts, structural barriers remain that limit the field’s ability to produce timely, actionable insights across scales. Challenges such as limited shared infrastructure for synthesis, ongoing tensions in integrating diverse knowledge systems, and uneven institutional support continue to hinder the SES field’s ability to inform decision-making from local to global levels (Folke et al. 2016, Reyers et al. 2018, Norström et al. 2022).

At the same time, producing generalizable knowledge is not always the goal of transdisciplinary SES work (Angelstam et al. 2013, Balvanera et al. 2017), and in some cases may undermine it by reinforcing dominant paradigms at the expense of weaving context-appropriate knowledge systems (Angelstam et al. 2013). Although the field has made progress in linking diverse knowledges in place-based contexts (Tengö et al. 2014), particular challenges remain in effectively weaving together different epistemologies and knowledge systems, as well as aligning research with social actor perspectives (Tengö et al. 2014, Balvanera et al. 2017, Schneider et al. 2021, Turnhout 2024), requiring more reflexive and rigorous methodologies and inclusive knowledge co-production processes (Balvanera et al. 2017). Moreover, developing frameworks that connect theory to participatory action and learning, and fostering transdisciplinary, multi-knowledge communities of practice alongside, is a critical next step for the field (Cundill et al. 2015, Sellberg et al. 2017, Bennett and Reyers 2024). In this domain, unique opportunities derive from long-term horizontal collaborations with artists, organizers, and social movements, that can weave emotions, embedded knowledge, and insights derived from a wide range of academic disciplines into experiences and non-verbal actionable knowledge (Österblom et al. 2023, Balvanera et al. 2025).

A strong place-based orientation has brought SES research closer to real-world complexity—embracing participatory approaches, diverse knowledge systems, and context-sensitive frameworks (Tengö et al. 2014, Schneider et al. 2021, Norström et al. 2022). Yet these same strengths can complicate efforts to synthesize findings across cases or generate generalizable frameworks that inform cross-scale decision-making (Balvanera et al. 2017, Magliocca et al. 2018, Schlüter et al. 2019). Rather than seeing this as a contradiction to be resolved, SES researchers increasingly recognize it as a dynamic that must be navigated—by investing in both methodological coherence and epistemological inclusivity (Biggs et al. 2021, Bennett and Reyers 2024) and keeping these approaches and goals in conversation with each other.

Supporting diverse participation in SES research

The SES field has made deliberate efforts to embrace more inclusive and pluralistic approaches, reflected in its growing geographic reach, epistemological diversity, and commitment to place-based research (Balvanera et al. 2017, Biggs et al. 2023, Manyani et al. 2024). In many ways, it has been successful: Global South leadership in networks like PECS and the formation of regionally grounded research networks have expanded participation and visibility for scholars working outside of dominant institutions (Balvanera et al. 2017, Bennett et al. 2021, Manyani 2025). Yet as the field has grown and gained traction globally, these advances have also increased the visibility of persistent structural challenges, such as funding disparities, language and visa restrictions, and the dominance of institutions, funders, and conferences in the Global North that continue to limit participation from Global South scholars and underfunded institutions (Calderón-Contreras et al. 2022, Kosanic et al. 2022, 2023, Manyani 2025). Inequities are compounded by the continued underrepresentation of BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, gender-diverse communities and researchers with disabilities, shaping whose knowledge, values, and epistemologies are recognized in SES research and practice (Balvanera et al. 2017, Reyers et al. 2018, Kosanic et al. 2022, 2023, Caniglia and Vogel 2023, Pascual et al. 2023).

Structural exclusions are reinforced by persistent funding inequalities, which have become even more consequential as the SES field matures and its ambitions expand. For example, large-scale international funding initiatives that supported SES efforts, such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), and later Future Earth (Carpenter et al. 2009, Rockström 2016, Norström et al. 2017), have mainly been based in institutions in North America and Europe. These are not challenges unique to SES, but reflect deeper patterns across global academia (Oliveira et al. 2025); however, they are especially salient in a field that depends on, and advocates for, diverse knowledges and transdisciplinary collaboration (Reyers et al. 2018, Pascual et al. 2023). As such, the challenge is not only to broaden participation, but to reshape the institutions, norms, and infrastructures of SES research in ways that reflect its core commitments to justice, pluralism, and collaboration.

The tight-knit and highly networked nature of SES research has been instrumental to the field’s success—enabling trust, deep collaboration, and intellectual coherence across disciplines (Manyani et al. 2024, Manyani 2025). Yet these same qualities now present a new challenge: as the field grows, its strong internal cohesion and reliance on established collaborations can unintentionally limit accessibility, reinforce epistemic exclusions, and constrain engagement with adjacent disciplines. Exclusion from networks remains a major barrier as many researchers, particularly early-career scholars and those outside dominant institutions, are unaware of how to join key SES initiatives or networks, participate in synthesis efforts, or access transdisciplinary collaborations (Manyani 2025). This is also mirrored in the structure of SES research itself, which exhibits a highly cohesive network where scholars primarily cite within the field and where research not produced within dominant SES networks is often overlooked or excluded from how the field is defined (Manyani et al. 2024). Although this dense network reflects strong intellectual collaboration, it may also limit engagement with relevant insights from other fields, reinforcing epistemic exclusions and reducing opportunities for interdisciplinary innovation. Stronger cross-field engagement with fields such as climate change (Reyes-García et al. 2024), disaster management (Haque et al. 2022, Lejano et al. 2021), conservation (Hoole and Berkes 2010, Jupiter et al. 2017), ecological restoration (Fischer et al. 2021), agroecology and rural development (Baldwin and van Bommel 2023), and planning (Berkes 2023) could enhance both theoretical and applied contributions.

An institutional home that can coordinate research-for-action

As the SES field has grown in scope, depth, and relevance, it has outpaced the institutional infrastructure needed to support and sustain it. Landmark institutions such as the Stockholm Resilience Centre and SESYNC have played pivotal roles in shaping training, synthesis, and collaborative research (Folke et al. 2016, Schlüter et al. 2019), while many smaller centers and research networks have extended this impact globally (Manyani et al. 2024). Yet much of SES work remains precariously housed in soft-funded centers and short-term initiatives, vulnerable to shifting funding landscapes and institutional restructuring (Norström et al. 2022, Manyani et al. 2024), creating employment precarity, fragmented research agendas, and institutional instability (Manyani 2025). Such instability reflects broader academic trends toward the casualization of university labor and the underfunding of interdisciplinary research (Reyers et al. 2018), but in the case of SES, it also reveals a critical maturity challenge: the field’s increasing demand for coordination, training, and collective identity now exceeds what distributed, project-based support can offer and was designed to do. Without a cohesive institutional home, global SES efforts remain fragmented—limiting synergies, duplicating efforts, and constraining the long-term sustainability of the networks that have driven the field forward (Balvanera et al. 2017, Preiser et al. 2018).

The SES field now stands at a pivotal moment, uniquely positioned to address the increasing complexity of sustainability challenges in the Anthropocene (Reyers and Selig 2020, Convention on Biodiversity [CBD] 2022, IPBES 2024). While decades of foundational work have helped mainstream key SES concepts, the field must now respond to an urgent need for synthesis, theoretical innovation, and actionable, scalable insights that link global goals with local realities (Balvanera et al. 2017, Reyers et al. 2018, Norström et al. 2022, Holzer et al. 2024), while continuing to support place-based, transdisciplinary work that addresses immediate and context-specific challenges. At the same time, it must confront persistent structural barriers and leverage its increasingly global, diverse, and uneven network of institutions and initiatives. However, unlocking the full potential of these networks requires stronger, more sustained mechanisms for coordination and cross-network learning, without losing the relationships and trust that have defined the field’s success. To realize its potential and meet the urgency of the Anthropocene, the SES field now needs a shared infrastructure that can link and consolidate these efforts, amplify their reach, and transform distributed energies into collective momentum for action.

BUILDING A MORE IMPACTFUL, INCLUSIVE, AND RESILIENT SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS COMMUNITY

Building on the strong foundations laid by diverse SES networks and institutions, SocSES seeks to address the challenges currently facing the field by creating a globally connected community of researchers and practitioners who are working at the science-practice interface to drive transformative change by fostering collaboration, advancing theory and practice, and integrating social-ecological perspectives into global sustainability efforts. With a mission to foster inter- and transdisciplinary research, practice, and actions that support a just and sustainable future, SocSES provides an intellectual home for the SES community around the world that is guided by core values of inclusivity, methodological innovation, practical relevance, equity, and justice. It emphasizes diverse frameworks, knowledge streams, and values, particularly from currently underrepresented regions. The society aims to support and coordinate efforts to advance and leverage SES research, policy, and practice to address the pressing challenges of the Anthropocene across multiple scales.

SocSES is envisioned as a co-created and member-driven organization, with its governance, activities, and priorities shaped collaboratively by its members. The founding transition phase of the society (Fig. 3) will ensure continuity with existing networks and will also provide a collaborative environment for shaping the long-term governance structures of the society. SocSES is uniquely positioned to guide the SES field at this critical juncture by addressing six interconnected dimensions: (1) establishing a coherent identity and coordinating platform for SES research and action, (2) addressing knowledge frontiers, (3) supporting transdisciplinary research partnerships and impact, (4) informing global policy and assessment, (5) supporting education and training, and (6) fostering inclusive and diverse spaces (Fig. 4).

Establishing a coherent identity and coordinating platform for social-ecological research and action

SocSES will serve as a hub to coordinate global efforts in SES research and practice, offering a “home” for this community that streamlines support structures and fosters synergies across networks, research centers, and projects. A governing board will ensure strategic oversight, institutional continuity, and financial stability by setting membership rates, approving hubs and streams, and overseeing the publishing arm, thus directly addressing challenges of fragmented governance and precarious funding models. The governing board will be supported by a small advisory group of “SES Elders” and other leading SES scholars with deep histories in the field, ensuring that the society can draw on its valuable collective memory. The governing board will also collaborate with dedicated “task teams” (constituting members drawn from various SocSES communities) who will develop key strategies and policies for the society.

An institutional hub, made up of representatives of institutional members, will foster networking opportunities and support across SES research centers, networks, and NGOs. This hub will allow established and emerging SES research centers and networks across the world to share best practices, foster innovation, and support institutional development, including the development of educational programs that can drive the SES field forward and leverage its impact in policy and practice. The ability to be formally affiliated with SocSES aims to strengthen the position of SES research hubs across universities and research organizations, where they often occupy marginal and precarious spaces (Manyani et al 2025).

Recognizing the need for sustainable funding, the society will establish core funding streams through memberships and partnerships with funders. SocSES’s publishing arm will also play a strategic role, serving not only as a hub for cutting-edge SES research but also as a platform that reinforces the field’s shared identity and credibility. By supporting established outlets like Ecology and Society, exploring innovative formats, and partnering with values-aligned journals, SocSES signals that SES is not a transient research theme but a mature, evolving field with its own intellectual traditions and standards of practice.

Fostering inclusive and diverse spaces

SocSES is being intentionally designed to foster inclusivity, equity, and diversity within the SES field—guided by decolonial and justice-centered approaches that challenge structural, institutional, and epistemic barriers, and that recognize engagement with diverse knowledge systems, bodies, and identities as essential for transforming SES research and practice (Caniglia and Vogel 2023, Kosanic et al. 2023, Pascual et al. 2023). This includes embedding disability-inclusive practices in conferences, online engagement, and governance; supporting intersectional perspectives that account for power, identity, and systemic inequality; and seeking diverse representation across leadership, thematic streams, and regional hubs (Kosanic et al. 2022, 2023, Caniglia and Vogel 2023). SocSES is also committed to removing financial, institutional, language, and structural barriers through reduced fee–membership options, scholarship fundraising, and travel grants, while building accessible digital infrastructure mindful of connectivity, literacy, and language diversity. By prioritizing equitable North-South collaborations, investing in regional hubs and training opportunities, and supporting inter- and transdisciplinary training initiatives, SocSES will build capacity while fostering mutual respect, reciprocity, and co-learning in SES research and practice.

SocSES will furthermore embed diversity in its governance structures, with representatives from varied geographic, disciplinary, and cultural backgrounds participating in task forces and leadership positions. Leadership roles will rotate to ensure equitable collaboration and a plurality of perspectives. By placing the Global South at the heart of its founding coordination hub and leadership team, SocSES intends for perspectives and contributions from historically marginalized regions to shape its priorities and activities. Regional hubs will also play a pivotal role in amplifying marginalized voices, supporting transdisciplinary place-based work, and promoting context-specific learning to address longstanding inequities in the field. SocSES will also have an active early career hub, which will provide a forum to build relationships and equip the next generation of SES professionals with diverse skills and networks. Similarly, the institutional stream will help provide networking opportunities and representation for smaller SES institutions in under-resourced regions, thus helping to reduce structural inequities at both individual and institutional levels.

Advancing social-ecological systems knowledge frontiers

Thematic streams and their associated working groups will serve as incubators for conceptual and methodological innovation, advancing priority areas such as resilience thinking and practice; relational approaches; governance and collaboration; transformation and pathways; SES modeling and methods; place-based research and transdisciplinary; nature-based solutions and adaptation; and the monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of SES change. Thematic streams and working groups will also function as platforms for cross-network collaboration, connecting SES networks globally to co-create theoretical advances and innovative methods. Various synthesis groups will integrate insights across thematic streams, regional hubs, and curated databases to help bridge the gap between local findings and global sustainability frameworks. The group focused on integrating and sharing lessons between regional hubs will be particularly important for highlighting place-based context-sensitivity.

In the past decade several SES databases, such as the Biosphere Futures Database (https://biospherefutures.net/ [Kuiper et al. 2024]), SES Methods Website (https://sesmethods.org/), Seeds Database (https://goodanthropocenes.net/), SES Library (https://seslibrary.asu.edu/), and Regime Shifts Database (https://www.regimeshifts.org/), have emerged as structured repositories of knowledge that enhance comparative research, support methodological innovation, and inform sustainability practices across diverse contexts. SocSES will run a “Database Curation Initiative” to compile these databases in a central place. Additionally, the society will set up an open-access database of place-based studies from its members, including information about the datasets collected in the projects. As the database evolves, it will also provide a foundation for interfacing with emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools in ways that enhance ethical, inclusive, and reflexive synthesis of place-based knowledge. In a world increasingly shaped by AI-driven decision-making, this infrastructure offers a critical opportunity to ensure that context-rich, diverse, and grounded SES insights inform and help shape how AI engages with sustainability science, global policy frameworks, and real-world decision-making processes. These database initiatives, coupled with a dedicated thematic stream on methods, will enhance the field’s capacity to systematically compare and analyze SES studies, advancing methodological coherence, knowledge cross-fertilization, and enabling robust meta-analyses.

Supporting global policy and assessment

The conceptual advances described above are essential for overcoming the SES field’s current limitations in generalizing localized insights and coordinating fragmented research efforts. By addressing these challenges through synthesis, methodological innovation, and integration across regions and themes, SocSES will not only advance foundational knowledge of SES but also provide the critical infrastructure to amplify and align these insights with global sustainability initiatives. Positioned as a central hub for SES research, SocSES will curate and develop impactful knowledge products, including databases, policy briefs, position papers, and flagship reports, designed to directly influence global sustainability frameworks and initiatives.

Working groups and cross-cutting synthesis initiatives will play a key role in generating insights and recommendations that are both generalizable and rooted in diverse sustainability contexts. This work will be closely supported by regional networks and place-based projects, whose engagement is critical for reflecting a plurality of values, knowledge systems, and situated practices. Leveraging its role as a coordinating platform, SocSES aims to ensure these outputs gain traction while serving as a key resource for identifying contributors and experts to engage in critical policy and assessment processes. Soon, these efforts may be amplified by new tools that interface with artificial intelligence, enabling curated SES databases to support dynamic knowledge synthesis, generate policy-relevant insights in real time, and offer alerts on emerging sustainability risks. We envisage these repositories to be valuable resources for future assessment processes, such as those conducted by IPBES.

Supporting transdisciplinary research partnerships and impact

SocSES recognizes that SES research is often most impactful at the local level, where researchers collaborate with communities, decision-makers, and practitioners to address sustainability challenges in contextually relevant ways (Balvanera et al. 2017, Norström et al. 2022). Many SES researchers do not aspire to global impact, but rather seek to understand, support, and influence local, place-based sustainability efforts. Yet despite progress in transdisciplinary research and knowledge co-production (Balvanera et al. 2017, Norström et al. 2022), SES researchers, particularly early-career scholars, continue to face persistent challenges in navigating the emotional weight and institutional constraints of this work. Aligning research with social actor perspectives (Reyers et al. 2018), sustaining long-term collaborations (Norström et al. 2022, Manyani et al. 2024), and ensuring meaningful local impact (Schneider et al. 2021) are ongoing struggles, particularly as transdisciplinary engagement rarely fits neatly within conventional academic, funding, or career advancement timelines (Balvanera et al. 2017, Manyani 2025).

SocSES aims to support transdisciplinary SES research and its impact by providing a platform for collaboration, shared learning, and advancing ethical practices. Researchers engaged in transdisciplinary SES work will have opportunities to exchange methodological approaches, lessons learned from diverse contexts, and coping strategies for navigating the complexities of place-based transdisciplinary research. Strengthening regional hubs will be particularly important in this context, as these hubs serve as valuable spaces for fostering regionally appropriate and context-specific engagement with the challenges of place-based SES work. SocSES will also play a key role in capacity-building for early-career researchers, equipping them with training in transdisciplinary methodologies, co-production approaches, and strategies for collaborating effectively with local actors and decision-makers. Additionally, the institutional hub will be essential for addressing the broader structural and institutional dimensions of transdisciplinary SES research. This includes reflecting on how ethical place-based approaches intersect with university and SES institute structures, career advancement incentives, and training programs. SocSES is not a platform for local implementation or practitioner coordination, but rather a society designed to support, connect, and amplify the work of SES scholars who engage in transdisciplinary sustainability science.

Supporting education and training

As the SES field grows in complexity and global relevance, so too does the need for transformative approaches to education and capacity-building. The SocSES coordination hub will help meet this need by facilitating training programs, short courses, and immersive learning experiences that foreground transdisciplinary thinking, reflexivity, and methodological innovation. These efforts will address long-standing gaps in formal SES education and support practitioner engagement across contexts—with a particular focus on accessibility for researchers and institutions in resource-constrained regions. The institutional hub will complement this work by fostering collaboration among academic programs, enabling peer learning, resource-sharing, and curricular co-development across the society’s institutional members. Together, these efforts aim not only to strengthen capacity but also to cultivate a more connected, reflexive, and globally inclusive SES research community—one capable of supporting the next generation of scholars and practitioners as they navigate the challenges of social-ecological transformation.

CONCLUSION

The SES field is entering a new phase—shaped by decades of innovation, collaboration, and growing societal recognition of the need for integrated approaches to sustainability. SES concepts are now mainstreamed, its networks more diverse and widespread, and its relevance to policy increasingly evident. But with this reach comes a new set of responsibilities: to synthesize ever-deepening local insights into global action, to deepen partnerships across disciplines and sectors, and to transform the institutions and norms of knowledge production themselves.

What the field needs now is not simply more distributed coordination, but a transformative and mature infrastructure that can match the complexity, ambition, and urgency of the SES field to address today’s sustainability challenges, amid rising political barriers to doing so. SocSES emerges not as a remedy to failure, but as a response to success—a recognition that the SES field has grown into something that now requires new forms of collective organization. The growing number of regional networks, the broadening of epistemologies, and the mainstreaming of SES concepts in policy all point to a field that has matured—but that now needs a platform to weave together its many strands. SocSES aims to provide this connective tissue: a connection point for diverse networks, curating shared resources, fostering inclusive communities of practice, and enabling cross-scale synthesis without losing contextual richness. It will not replace or control existing networks, but amplify them—weaving together the mycelial networks of the field into a more resilient, visible, and influential whole.

More than a society, SocSES is a commitment: to build a community capable of responding to the profound challenges of the Anthropocene with creativity, humility, and collective strength. The SES field has long offered insights into how systems can adapt and transform. Now, it must do the same—and SocSES has emerged to help make that transformation possible.

We welcome responses to this editorial through Ecology and Society’s formal commentary process and hope it will spark wider discussion on the future of SES research. For those interested in continuing the conversation, we also invite engagement with SocSES as an evolving space for connection, reflection, and collaboration across the SES community.

__________

^[1] We use Anthropocene not as a formally defined geological epoch but as a way to describe the current trajectory of the Earth system, characterized by profound human influence on planetary processes (Steffen et al. 2018).

LITERATURE CITED

Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24(3):347-364. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465

Allison, H. E., and R. J. Hobbs. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap” of the Western Australian agricultural region. Ecology and Society 9(1):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00641-090103

Angelstam, P., K. Andersson, M. Annerstedt, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, P. Garrido, P. Grahn, K. I. Jönsson, S. Pedersen, P. Schlyter, et al. 2013. Solving problems in social-ecological systems: definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. Ambio 42(2):254-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0372-4

Baldwin, C., and S. van Bommel, editors. 2023. Rural development for sustainable social-ecological systems: putting communities first. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland.

Balvanera, P., T. M. Daw, T. A. Gardner, B. Martín-López, A. V. Norström, C. Ifejika Speranza, M. Spierenburg, E. M. Bennett, M. Farfan, M. Hamann, et al. 2017. Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) perspective. Ecology and Society 22(1):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08826-220114

Balvanera, P., M. Martinez Balvanera, M. A. Mesa-Jurado, L. Pérez-Volkow, A. Cadena Roa, R. Dominguez-Yescas, E. Guerrero Molina, E. Hernandez Martínez, D. Hernández-Muciño, G. A. Morales Valdelamar, et al. 2025. Cocina Colaboratorio: cooking transdisciplinary transformations of local food systems. Ecology and Society 30(1):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15829-300117

Bednarek, A. T., B. Miyamoto, K. Corbett, C. Hudson, G. Scarrow, M. Brass, K. DuMont, B. Holmes, L. Supplee, R. McLean, et al. 2025. How and why funders support engaged research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(1):e2400931121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400931121

Bennett, E. M., P. Morrison, J. M. Holzer, K. J. Winkler, E. D. G. Fraser, S. J. Green, B. E. Robinson, K. Sherren, J. Botzas-Coluni, and W. Palen. 2021. Facing the challenges of using place-based social-ecological research to support ecosystem service governance at multiple scales. Ecosystems and People 17(1):574-589. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1995046

Bennett, E. M., and B. Reyers. 2024. Disentangling the complexity of human–nature interactions. People and Nature 6(2):402-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10611

Benson, J. 2024. Democracy and the epistemic problems of political polarization. American Political Science Review 118(4):1719-1732. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001089

Berkes, F. 2023. Social-ecological systems. Pages 361-363 in: Elgar encyclopedia in urban and regional planning and design. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800889002.0000126

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.

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, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339

Biggs, R., G. D. Peterson, and J. C. Rocha. 2018. The Regime Shifts Database: a framework for analyzing regime shifts in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 23(3):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10264-230309

Biggs, R., B. Reyers, R. Blanchard, H. Clements, J. Cockburn, G. S. Cumming, G. Cundill, A. de Vos, L. Dziba, K. J. Esler, et al. 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, and M. L. Schoon, editors. 2015. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240

Bowles, S., S. N. Durlauf, and K. Hoff. 2011. Poverty traps. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841295

Brown, K. 2014. Global environmental change I: a social turn for resilience? Progress in Human Geography 38(1):107-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513498837

Burnside, W. R., S. Pulver, K. J. Fiorella, M. L. Avolio, and S. M. Alexander, editors. 2022. Foundations of socio-environmental research: legacy readings with commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009177856

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, et al. 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

Caniglia, G., and C. Vogel. 2023. On being oriented: strengthening transgressive orientations in transdisciplinary sustainability research through queer theory. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 32(1):167-171. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.1.15

Carpenter, S. R., E. M. Bennett, and G. D. Peterson. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecology and Society 11(1):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01610-110129

Carpenter, S. R., and W. A. Brock. 2008. Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecology and Society 13(2):40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02716-130240

Carpenter, S. R., C. Folke, A. Norström, O. Olsson, L. Schultz, B. Agarwal, P. Balvanera, B. Campbell, J. C. Castilla, W. Cramer, et al. 2012. Program on ecosystem change and society: an international research strategy for integrated social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(1):134-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.001

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, et al. 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

Chambers, J. M., C. Wyborn, N. L. Klenk, M. Ryan, A. Serban, N. J. Bennett, R. Brennan, L. Charli-Joseph, M. E. Fernández-Giménez, K. A. Galvin, et al. 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Global Environmental Change 72:102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

Chester, M. V., T. R. Miller, T. A. Muñoz-Erickson, A. M. Helmrich, D. M. Iwaniec, T. McPhearson, E. M. Cook, N. B. Grimm, and S. A. Markolf. 2023. Sensemaking for entangled urban social, ecological, and technological systems in the Anthropocene. Urban Sustainability 3:39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00120-1

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2022. Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Copes-Gerbitz, K., S. M. Hagerman, and L. D. Daniels. 2021. Situating Indigenous knowledge for resilience in fire-dependent social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 26(4):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12757-260425

Cote, M., and A. J. Nightingale. 2011. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475-489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708

Cox, M., S. Villamayor-Tomas, N. C. Ban, G. Epstein, L. Evans, F. Fleischman, M. Nenadovic, G. A. Garcia Lopez, F. Laerhoven, C. Meek, et al. 2020. From concepts to comparisons: a resource for diagnosis and measurement in social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy 107:211-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.009

Cox, M., S. Villamayor-Tomas, G. Epstein, L. Evans, N. C. Ban, F. Fleischman, M. Nenadovic, and G. Garcia-Lopez. 2016. Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Global Environmental Change 39:45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.011

Cumming, G. S., J. Alcamo, O. Sala, R. Swart, E. M. Bennett, and M. Zurek. 2005. Are existing global scenarios consistent with ecological feedbacks? Ecosystems 8:143-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0075-1

Cumming, G. S., and K. A. Dobbs. 2020. Quantifying social-ecological scale mismatches suggests people should be managed at broader scales than ecosystems. One Earth 3(2):251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.007

Cundill, G., D. J. Roux, and J. N. Parker. 2015. Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 20(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07580-200222

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. Norström, M. Schlüter, and M. Tengö. 2021. The practice and design of social-ecological systems research. Pages 47-63 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, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-4

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Enfors-Kautsky, E., L. Järnberg, A. Quinlan, and P. Ryan. 2021. Wayfinder: a new generation of resilience practice. Ecology and Society 26(2):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12176-260239

Falardeau, M., and E. M. Bennett. 2020. Towards integrated knowledge of climate change in Arctic marine systems: a systematic literature review of multidisciplinary research. Arctic Science 6(1):1-23. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2019-0006

Fischer, J., T. A. Gardner, E. M. Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. Carpenter, T. Daw, C. Folke, R. Hill, T. P. Hughes, et al. 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

Fischer, J., M. Riechers, J. Loos, B. Martin-Lopez, and V. M. Temperton. 2021. Making the UN decade on ecosystem restoration a social-ecological endeavour. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36(1):20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.018

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16(3):253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., R. Biggs, A. V. Norström, B. Reyers, and J. Rockström. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341

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., 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

Guerrero, A. M., N. J. Bennett, K. A. Wilson, N. Carter, D. Gill, M. Mills, C. D. Ives, M. J. Selinske, C. Larrosa, S. Bekessy, et al. 2018. Achieving the promise of integration in social-ecological research: a review and prospectus. Ecology and Society 23(3):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10232-230338

Guibrunet, L., D. González-Jiménez, G. Arroyo-Robles, M. Cantú-Fernández, V. Contreras, D. F. Mendez, A. V. O. Castrejón, B. Lliso, A. S. Monroy-Sais, T. H. Mwampamba, et al. 2024. Geographic and epistemic pluralism in the sources of evidence informing international environmental science-policy platforms: lessons learnt from the IPBES values assessment. Global Sustainability 7:e36. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.23

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

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 13:191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1

Haque, C. E., F. Berkes, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, H. Ross, F. S. Chapin III, B. Doberstein, M. G. Reed, N. Agrawal, P. K. Nayak, D. Etkin, et al. 2022. Social learning for enhancing social-ecological resilience to disaster-shocks: a policy Delphi approach. Disaster Prevention and Management 31(4):335-348. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2021-0079

Hertz, T., M. Mancilla Garcia, and M. Schlüter. 2020. From nouns to verbs: how process ontologies enhance our understanding of social‐ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems. People and Nature 2(2):328-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10079

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

Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York, USA.

Holling, C. S. 2017. Bubbles and spirals: the memoirs of C. S. Buzz Holling. Second edition.

Holling, C. S., and A. D. Chambers. 1973. Resource science: the nurture of an infant. BioScience 23(1):13-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1296362

Holzer, J. M., T. Awada, J. Baird, E. M. Bennett, E. T. Borer, R. Calderon-Contreras, P. M. Groffman, J. M. Grove, B. Harvey, G. M. Hickey, et al. 2024. Managing environmental knowledge networks to navigate complexity. Ecology and Society 29(4):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15493-290404

Hoole, A., and F. Berkes. 2010. Breaking down fences: recoupling social-ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Geoforum 41(2):304-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.10.009

Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., B. Martín-López, D. P. M. Lam, and D. J. Lang. 2020. Research pathways to foster transformation: linking sustainability science and social-ecological systems research. Ecology and Society 25(1):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11332-250113

IPBES. 2024. Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment report on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. McElwee, P. D., P. A. Harrison, T. L. van Huysen, V. Alonso Roldán, E. Barrios, P. Dasgupta, F. DeClerck, Z. V. Harmáčková, D. T. S. Hayman, et al., editors. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13850289

Jupiter, S. D., G. Epstein, N. C. Ban, S. Mangubhai, M. Fox, and M. Cox. 2017. A social-ecological systems approach to assessing conservation and fisheries outcomes in Fijian locally managed marine areas. Society & Natural Resources 30(9):1096-1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1315654

Kok, K., P. H. Verburg, and T. A. Veldkamp. 2007. Integrated assessment of the land system: the future of land use. Land Use Policy 24(3):517-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.007

Kosanic, A., J. Petzold, and B. Martín-López. 2023. Pathways towards sustainable and just futures with and for disabled populations: a leverage points perspective. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2274590. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2274590

Kosanic, A., J. Petzold, B. Martín-López, and M. Razanajatovo. 2022. An inclusive future: disabled populations in the context of climate and environmental change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 55:101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101159

Kuiper, J. J., L. R. Carpenter-Urquhart, M. Berbés-Blázquez, E. Oteros-Rozas, L. Fredström, K. Psiuk, C. Savu, R. Kautsky, A. D. Guerry, S. R. Carpenter, et al. 2024. Biosphere Futures: a database of social-ecological scenarios. Ecology and Society 29(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14795-290119

Lade, S. J., and S. Niiranen. 2017. Generalized modeling of empirical social-ecological systems. Natural Resource Modeling 30(3):e12129. https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12129

Lejano, R. P., C. E. Haque, and F. Berkes 2021. Co-production of risk knowledge and improvement of risk communication: a three-legged stool. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 64:102508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102508

Levin, S., T. Xepapadeas, A.-S. Crépin, J. Norberg, A. de Zeeuw, C. Folke, T. Hughes, K. Arrow, S. Barrett, G. Daily, et al. 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

Magliocca, N. R., E. C. Ellis, G. R. H. Allington, A. De Bremond, J. Dell’Angelo, O. Mertz, P. Messerli, P. Meyfroidt, R. Seppelt, and P. H. Verburg. 2018. Closing global knowledge gaps: producing generalized knowledge from case studies of social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 50:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.003

Manyani, A. 2025. The emergence, conceptual and institutional development of social‐ecological systems (SES) research. Dissertation. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Manyani, A., R. Biggs, L. Hill, and R. Preiser. 2024. The evolution of social-ecological systems (SES) research: a co-authorship and co-citation network analysis. Ecology and Society 29(1):33. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14694-290133

Martín-López, B., P. Balvanera, R. Manson, T. H. Mwampamba, and A. Norström. 2020. Contributions of place-based social-ecological research to address global sustainability challenges. Global Sustainability 3:e21. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.18

McIlwain, L., J. M. Holzer, J. Baird, and C. L. Baldwin. 2023. Power research in adaptive water governance and beyond: a review. Ecology and Society 28(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14072-280222

Meyfroidt, P., R. Roy Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E. C. Ellis, K.-H. Erb, T. Filatova, R. D. Garrett, J. M. Grove, A. Heinimann, T. Kuemmerle, et al. 2018. Middle-range theories of land system change. Global Environmental Change 53:52-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.006

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Mooney, H. A., A. Duraiappah, and A. Larigauderie. 2013. Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(suppl_1):3665-3672. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107484110

Norberg, J., and G. Cumming. 2008. Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Norström, A. V., P. Balvanera, M. Spierenburg, and M. Bouamrane. 2017. Programme on ecosystem change and society: knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 22(1):47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09010-220147

Norström, A. V., B. Agarwal, P. Balvanera, B. Baptiste, E. M. Bennett, E. Brondízio, R. Biggs, B. Campbell, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Castilla, et al. 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

Oliveira, T., F. P. J. Marques, M. Goyanes, and M. Dutta. 2025. Structural challenges for the global circulation of knowledge and scientific sovereignty in a multipolar world. Online Media and Global Communication 4(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2025-0002

Österblom, H., F. Gazitúa, and A. Leible. 2023. To split a stone. Ecology and Society 28(3):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14270-280311

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

Palmer, M. A., J. G. Kramer, J. Boyd, and D. Hawthorne. 2016. Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.01.002

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

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620:813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Pereira, L., N. Frantzeskaki, A. Hebinck, L. Charli-Joseph, S. Drimie, M. Dyer, H. Eakin, D. Galafassi, T. Karpouzoglou, F. Marshall, et al. 2020. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustainability Science 15(1):161-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x

Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. E. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17(2):358-366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x

Platt, J. 1973. Social traps. American Psychologist 28(8):641-651. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035723

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

Raskin, P. D. 2005. Global scenarios: background review for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems 8:133-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0074-2

Resilience Alliance. 2010. Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: workbook for practitioners. Version 2.0.

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 & Evolution 4(8):1011-1019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1230-6

Reyes-García, V., D. García-del-Amo, S. Álvarez-Fernández, P. Benyei, L. Calvet-Mir, A. B. Junqueira, V. Labeyrie, X. LI, S. Miñarro, V. Porcher, et al. 2024. Indigenous Peoples and local communities report ongoing and widespread climate change impacts on local social-ecological systems. Communications Earth & Environment 5:29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01164-y

Rocha, J. C., G. Peterson, Ö. Bodin, and S. Levin. 2018. Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362(6421):1379-1383. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7850

Rocha, J. C., L. B. Luvuno, J. T. Rieb, E. T. H. Crockett, K. Malmborg, M. Schoon, and G. D. Peterson. 2022. Panarchy: ripples of a boundary concept. Ecology and Society 27(3):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13374-270321

Rockström, J. 2016. Future earth. Science 351(6271):319. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2138

Scheffer, M., J. M. Anderies, T. Bjordam, J. Bollen, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin III, C. Folke, F. Gazitua, M. Holmgren, J. Marcone, et al. 2024. A heart model of Earth Stewardship: shaking up science for positive futures. Earth Stewardship 1(1):e12019. https://doi.org/10.1002/eas2.12019

Schlüter, M., R. Biggs, H. Clements, A. de Vos, K. Maciejewski, and R. Preiser. 2021. Synthesis and emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems research methods. The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-40

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. Norström, et al. 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

Seiferth, C., M. Tengö, and E. Andersson. 2024. Designing for collective action: a knowledge co-production process to address water governance challenges on the island of Öland, Sweden. Sustainability Science 19:1623-1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01531-4

Sellberg, M. M., S. T. Borgström, A. V. Norström, and G. D. Peterson. 2017. Improving participatory resilience assessment by cross-fertilizing the Resilience Alliance and Transition Movement approaches. Ecology and Society 22(1):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09051-220128

Steffen, W., J. Rockström, K. Richardson, T. M. Lenton, C. Folke, D. Liverman, C. P. Summerhayes, A. D. Barnosky, S. E. Cornell, M. Crucifix, et al. 2018. Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(33):8252-8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

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. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08633-210315

Sundstrom, S. M., D. G. Angeler, J. Bell, M. Hayes, J. Hodbod, B. Jalalzadeh-Fard, R. Mahmood, E. VanWormer, and C. R. Allen. 2023. Panarchy theory for convergence. Sustainability Science 18:1667-1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01299-z

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

Turnhout, E. 2024. A better knowledge is possible: transforming environmental science for justice and pluralism. Environmental Science & Policy 155:103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103729

Walker, B., 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

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932

West, S., and C. Schill. 2022. Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9(1):294. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01297-z

Zapp, M. 2022. The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash: cross-national and longitudinal trends and determinants of attitudes toward science. Public Understanding of Science 31(7):885-902. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221093897