Synthesis, part of a special feature on State-Reinforced Transformative and Adaptive Governance of Sustainable Social-Ecological Systems

INTRODUCTION

As humans alter our environment at unprecedented temporal and spatial scales, resilience has become a pivotal concept for understanding and managing social-ecological systems (SESs) (Gunderson et al. 2022). Ecological resilience was first defined by Holling (1973) as the amount of disturbance an ecosystem can absorb and still retain similar structures, processes, and feedbacks without shifting to a new dynamic system state, and was later extended broadly to SESs. Although many challenges facing humanity are forecasted to be continuous and predictable, in reality social-ecological change can be abrupt, non-linear, and discontinuous (Steffen et al. 2018). Because of their behavior, humanity is often unprepared for these changes. This is seen with the collapse of coral reefs, fisheries stocks, and outbreaks of invasive plants or novel diseases (Gunderson 2000, Chaffin et al. 2016a, Shiferaw 2021, Spear et al. 2021). These fundamental changes are characteristic of regime shifts, wherein SESs can exist in alternative states separated by thresholds, often referred to as tipping points (Holling 1973). Alternative SESs vary in the services they provide, both in terms of their structures and functions and in their relationship to human well-being, as well as the ability of governments and decision makers to adapt to change (Hobbs 2016, Backstrom et al. 2018).

Understanding resilience and alternative state dynamics is key to describing adaptation and transformation (Fig. 1). Differentiating between adaptation and transformation within this context is especially important for how societies approach, manage, and govern SES change (Chaffin and Gunderson 2016, Dudney et al. 2018, Uden et al. 2019, Jozaei et al. 2022). Current discussions about social-ecological resilience often focus on adaptation (Dudney et al. 2018, Jozaei et al. 2022). Given the likely increase in abrupt SES change and the potential for undesired alternative states to emerge (Ratajczak et al. 2018), intentional SES transformation may be the only viable response to accelerating environmental change. As such, transformative capacity serves as the underpinnings of transformative governance and, therefore, transformation. Although definitions of transformative capacity exist, their multiplicity has diluted its meaning over time. As governments and decision makers work to steward SESs toward desirable futures, there is a need for a clear definition of transformative capacity that builds on decades of advances in resilience theory and practice and includes social-ecological perspectives. Such a definition can empower decision makers and governments to operationalize transformative capacity by accessing social-ecological memory, enhancing social-ecological diversity, and enabling social-ecological novelty. Our objectives are to: (1) define the concept and core attributes of transformative capacity as it relates to SESs; (2) provide examples of these attributes (e.g., SESs attempting to transform into fire-adapted systems, climate-resilient cities, perennial agricultural systems); and (3) discuss the complexity of these attributes in terms of their behavior, cross-scale interactions, relationship to risk and power, and how transformative capacity is an essential element for governments and decision makers governing SESs in the Anthropocene.

TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY IN THE CONTEXT OF RESILIENCE THEORY

In considering transformative capacity, it is first important to understand it in the context of resilience theory. When systems are both resilient and desirable as defined by societal preferences shaped by current power dynamics (Fig. 1), land managers, decision makers, and other societal members, often work to maintain the current SES state by cultivating a system’s adaptive capacity (Carpenter et al. 2001, Cutter 2016, Allen et al. 2018). An example of this is seen with the practice of dam construction around the world. Dams are a social-ecological attempt to control the water supply, mitigate flood damage, and generate energy (Hammersley et al. 2018, Matthews and McCartney 2018). Through management and policy efforts, dam operations are adapted to optimize these services and provide a limited set of services, despite fluctuations in water flow during wet and dry years, at the expense of other ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling or fisheries (Gunderson et al. 2017, Matthews and McCartney 2018). The degree to which a system can adapt is limited by its adaptive capacity, described as a system’s “potential” to modify its resilience in response to change, such that its current state is maintained (Fig. 2) (Angeler et al. 2019). There are many social-ecological strategies that describe how and when to encourage adaptation of SESs (e.g., Colombi and Smith 2012, Dudney et al. 2022, Vallury et al. 2022).

As a reflection of the challenges of global change, adaptation is often evoked as a panacea, even when resilience is low, but desirability is high (Fig. 1) (Rachunok and Nateghi 2021). For instance, in preparing for social-ecological disturbances, laws and policies have been developed to reinforce elements of current SESs with the hope of promoting recovery and a return to a defined normal (Green et al. 2015). This is seen with the Endangered Species Act (USA), which is primarily focused on returning threatened and endangered species’ populations to historical baselines. Shortcomings of this legislation include its primary focus on individual species, instead of ecosystems, and the assumption that ecosystems can be restored to some historical condition, which is a static approach to a non-linear, complex problem (Doremus 2010, Green and Garmestani 2012). Underpinning this use of adaptation is the expectation that societies will always be able to “bounce back” or recover from disasters (Allen et al. 2019). However, this can be unrealistic given that social-ecological baselines are often obsolete with accelerating global change (Dudney et al. 2018).

Increasingly, there are cases when SESs can exhaust their adaptive capacity, and adaptation may not be possible (Figs. 1, 2). In these cases, human interventions may attempt to mimic lost capacities for self-organization through various forms of coercion that attempt to replace ecological processes (Angeler et al. 2020b, Sundstrom et al. 2023). This is often the strategy for addressing urban infrastructure experiencing repeated stress from the extreme events of a changing climate (Araya-Muñoz et al. 2016, Hamlin and Nielsen-Pincus 2021), fire-prone landscapes experiencing surges in wildfire frequency and intensity (Fleming et al. 2015, Fernandes et al. 2019, Twidwell et al. 2019), post-agricultural lands resisting restoration efforts and requiring more resources to meet restoration goals (Suding et al. 2004, Koziol and Bever 2017), agricultural systems that increasingly depend on external inputs from synthetic fertilizers to economic subsidies (Crews et al. 2018, Sundstrom et al. 2023), coastal zones experiencing increased vulnerability to rising sea levels (Jozaei et al. 2022), and poverty traps where external aid becomes necessary to meet basic needs (Carpenter and Brock 2008, Rachunok and Nateghi 2021). Although these actions may attempt to foster system resilience, coercion strategies are rarely sustainable across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Although they emulate desirable system states, they fail to achieve self-organization and can lead to system collapse and the emergence of undesirable alternative states (Angeler et al. 2020b, Gunderson et al. 2022).

When adaptive capacity is exhausted and adaptation is no longer an option, transformation becomes a necessary intervention for SESs. Transformation is the process of intentionally shifting a SES to a more desirable, novel, self-organizing state, with its own unique set of structures, processes, and feedbacks (Figs. 1, 2) (Gunderson and Folke 2005, Jozaei et al. 2022). It is this human reasoning and agency to shift a system to a more desirable state that distinguishes transformation from other types of alternative state shifts. Transformation may occur when windows of opportunity open for people to take advantage of the loss of resilience in a system or to erode the resilience of the current system in order to push it into a new, desired alternate state (Chaffin et al. 2016a, Reyers et al. 2018). In considering the examples of coerced SESs above, when paths for adaptation have been exhausted, tapping transformative capacity to manifest transformation is prudent. The range of future possible SES configurations is a function of a system’s transformative capacity.

Transformative capacity has been defined in myriad ways, diluting the concept. For example, transformative capacity has been described as the ability of a system to shift into a new system (Brodnik and Brown 2018, Fallon et al. 2022), the ability to respond to changing circumstances (Wolfram 2016), or cross a threshold into a novel trajectory (Brodnik and Brown 2018). Akin to transformative capacity, others have used the term transformability (Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2010, Olsson et al. 2010). Although this term captures the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when the existing system is untenable, definitions range in their treatment of its social and ecological components (Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2010) and are less clear on its core attributes, instead focusing on capacity as it relates to stages of transformation (Olsson et al. 2010). Additionally, terms like “transformative adaptation” imply fundamental shifts in the social and/or ecological properties of a system that reduce its vulnerability or describe dramatic, as opposed to incremental, adaptation (Colloff et al. 2017, Fedele et al. 2019), but in doing so, they distort the critical distinctions between adaptation and transformation. Another misunderstanding of transformative capacity involves equating it with the process of transformation itself (Clement et al. 2024). Although transformative capacity provides the “potential” for the processes of transformation, this is distinct from the process of transformation. Finally, when transformative capacity has been discussed, it is often through either a social or ecological lens, but not integrated into a social-ecological perspective (Clement et al. 2024). Collectively, these ambiguities and false equivalencies act as barriers for decision makers and governments to operationalize transformative capacity, inhibiting the extent to which societies can willfully enact transformation through institutions, organizations, and stewardship. Here, we define “transformative capacity” as “the potential for a social-ecological system to be intentionally shifted to a new, self-organizing, desired state” (Fig. 2).

TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY AND ITS ATTRIBUTES

The type and degree of transformation is a function of system transformative capacities (Gunderson et al. 2022). Case histories of SESs provide examples of systems that have undergone deliberate transformation (Fig. 3) (Gunderson et al. 1995, 2022, Gelcich et al. 2010, Green et al. 2016). Among the characteristics utilized during periods of transformation, three core system attributes were common among these cases. These core attributes were social-ecological memory, diversity, and novelty. First, SES memory, along with human reasoning, provided shared visions of future feasible system transformation trajectories (Charnley et al. 2020, Dickson-Hoyle et al. 2021). Second, cross-scale functional and response diversity constrained and defined the manifold pathways for transformation (Green et al. 2016, Koziol and Bever 2017). Third, the degree of novelty, either as new system components and/or reconfigurations of the linkages among components, was critical to resolving conflicts and contradictions that opened a window of opportunity (Gunderson et al. 1995, Marks-Block and Tripp 2021, Angeler and Maybee 2025). As part of transformative capacity, informed human reasoning and decision making act in conjunction with these attributes to increase the probability that transformation will result in a desired state. This is because, whereas internal and external forces may alter the current state, transformative capacity harnessed via human agency can lower resistance thresholds between the current and desired state (Fig. 2). In doing so, transformative capacity prepares SESs to take advantage of windows of opportunity for desired state change (Olsson et al. 2010, Chaffin and Gunderson 2016, DeCaro et al. 2017).

Windows of opportunity serve as gateways of transformation and can occur through at least two different mechanisms. Some windows can be pre-programmed instabilities in the design and management of SESs, such as democratic elections, expiration of an international water compact, prescribed fire, or policy actions (Chaffin and Gunderson 2016, Mockrin et al. 2018). Other windows can appear following social-ecological crises or surprises, such as fishery stock collapse, environmental lawsuits, constitutional role reformations, wildfire outbreaks, or the landfall of a tropical cyclone (Chaffin and Gunderson 2016, Charnley et al. 2020, Morgan et al. 2024). Immediately following these events, the SES is poised for reorganization (Chaffin and Gunderson 2016), which can lead to transformation (Fig. 2).

Here, we focus on a robust treatment for each core attribute: memory, diversity, and novelty. For each attribute, we first provide a social-ecological definition specific to transformative capacity that includes how the attribute differentiates between adaptive and transformative capacity. Next, we give an example that demonstrates the workings of the attribute across temporal and spatial scales drawn from Fig. 3, and lastly, we highlight a specific mechanism associated with the workings of that particular attribute. Although we discuss these three core attributes as independent features, it is important to recognize that they are not mutually exclusive, but interact with one another, such that there is a strong linkage and dependence among these core attributes. Depending on the social-ecological context, the relative contribution of each attribute may vary. This suggests that the activation of each attribute during transformation depends on social-ecological context, human agency, and the different spatiotemporal scales across which these factors operate (Angeler et al. 2020a). Additionally, the processes and mechanisms that foster transformative capacity will likely differ among SES contexts. As such, we recognize that we cannot be exhaustive in our treatment of transformative capacity and all its attributes and instead provide a foundational framework.

Attribute 1: memory

Social-ecological memory describes the cumulative relevant information, knowledge, and experiences of the system that act across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Its social components are anchored in individual people, as well as in the collective memory of institutions, organizations, and cultural mechanisms such as practices and laws (Fig. 4) (Walker et al. 2006, Folke 2006, Moore et al. 2023, Tom et al. 2023, Biró et al. 2024, Cardoso et al. 2024). These social components are integrated with ecological components that include seed banks, migrations, rare species, ecological disturbances, and land use legacy effects (Fig. 4) (Johnstone et al. 2016, Perring et al. 2016, O’Leary et al. 2018, Ma et al. 2021, Gurarie et al. 2021). Together, SES memory components generate feedbacks that reinforce or degrade self-organizing processes that constrain and modulate future trajectories in the wake of disturbance (Walker et al. 2006, Folke 2006, Barthel et al. 2010). In this way, memory reveals where current SESs are in relation to where they have been, and where they might go. Although memory contributes to both adaptive capacity and transformative capacity, it does so in different ways. In the case of adaptive capacity, memory can actually support and reinforce the current state (Olsson 2003, Alessa et al. 2016). However, as an attribute of transformative capacity, memory provides the seeds for transformation by contrasting the current state with alternative states of the past, setting the context in which to consider change and informing a common vision evaluated by human reasoning of how transformation can be accomplished (Dickson-Hoyle et al. 2021, Gunderson et al. 2022, Angeler and Maybee 2025).

Example: living with fire

An example of how the different components of social-ecological memory interact to affect transformative capacity is seen in California’s (USA) shifting social-ecological relationship to fire-adapted landscapes (Fig. 3A). As with many SESs around the Earth, California has been contending with increased fire frequency and intensity and its devastating consequences for both people and ecosystems (Pausas and Keeley 2021). Although these fires are commonly associated with current management practices and climate change, they also reflect the legacy of colonization and the erasure of Indigenous memory. Where fire is a social-ecological cultural practice among the Indigenous peoples of California that helped maintain the health of fire-adapted ecosystems, colonization brought with it a culture of fire suppression (Keeley and Syphard 2016, Marks-Block and Tripp 2021). In the wake of increased wildfires, a growing number of organizations began to recognize the role that fire plays in stewarding fire-adapted systems and sought to include prescribed fire in their management practices to reengage the memory of these ecosystems (Berleman 2017, Klinefelter 2023). Additionally, the California legislature passed two important bills aimed at increasing prescribed fire on the landscape. This included recognizing and supporting Indigenous cultural burns (Friedman and Wood 2021) and increasing liability protections across all practitioners (Dodd and Wood 2021). Communal prescribed burns reinforce collective memory, which has been shown to play an important role in community resilience (Moore et al. 2023). Additionally, by expanding who can conduct prescribed burns and decreasing barriers to its application, the legislature institutionalized the capacity of social-ecological memory to foster a desired transformation (Charnley et al. 2020).

Collectively, these cultural, organizational, and institutional components demonstrate how social memory can be stored and retrieved across multiple scales, creating important linkages to ecological memory in several ways. Readily incorporating prescribed fire as a land management practice through social memory creates the capacity to awaken ecological memory and select for native vegetation composition and structure that encourages low fire intensity (Keeley and Syphard 2016, Keeley et al. 2023, Wu et al. 2023). For instance, fire can activate native seed banks even if plants have been absent from a landscape for some time (Young et al. 2015, Carlsen et al. 2017). Prescribed fire can also act across spatial and temporal scales to create heterogenous systems, which in turn can reduce the risk of extreme fires (Keeley 1987, Arkle et al. 2012, Povak et al. 2020). Additionally, Indigenous cultural burns foster cultural plants, which not only increases plant quality for basketry and food, but also benefits the health of ecological communities (Anderson 2018, Marks-Block et al. 2021, Marks-Block and Tripp 2021). As this example shows, when activated, social-ecological memory of a community or cultural group (e.g., Indigenous peoples of California) can help erode undesired memory (e.g., fire suppression), laying the foundation to create or restore more desired systems by awakening self-organizing feedbacks within the desired ecosystem state (Vose 2000, Cox and Allen 2008, Kelp et al. 2023).

Mechanism: mental models

A particularly important mechanism associated with social-ecological memory is that of mental models (Jones et al. 2011). Mental models are human memory structures that store and shape information about various concepts and systems that individuals encounter (Jones et al. 2011). These memory structures include both concrete and abstract ideas, as well as beliefs, about the way SESs function (Jones et al. 2011, Steger et al. 2021). As a mechanism of memory, individuals, communities, and societies use mental models to identify challenges, shape decision making, and help facilitate transformation (Garmestani et al. 2020). By their nature, mental models are incomplete and imprecise (Gray et al. 2012). Thus, a challenge for governance is updating mental models so that they accurately depict the current and desired states in order to avoid misconceptions that can lead to flawed decisions and contribute to maladaptive solutions (Gifford 2011). As part of this effort, stakeholders may need to work to reconcile divergent mental models to reach a more complete understanding of the desired SES, which in turn can provide common ground for action (King et al. 2015, van Hulst et al. 2020). Thus, as a mechanism of memory, mental models can help confront past and current perceptions of the SES to reveal the ways in which society can achieve valued outcomes (Hamilton and Salerno 2020).

An example of the ways in which mental models shape how groups and societies imagine SES change is seen in Oregon’s (USA) shifting relationship, and potential concerns, with prescribed fire. Oregon community members are intentionally working to shift their social-ecological relationship with fire. Although groups involved with imagining this new system agree on the ecological importance of prescribed fire, mental models also diverged in some important ways (Jetter et al. 2017) that might impede transformation if not addressed. For instance, in Ashland, Oregon, city leaders and planners were concerned that prescribed fire would negatively affect tourism and impact health, whereas conservationists were primarily focused on ecosystem impacts (Jetter et al. 2017). Additionally, fire managers from government agencies were preoccupied with the legal and technical constraints of prescribed fire (Jetter et al. 2017). Collectively, these mental models give a more holistic view of the SES and highlight the complex challenges and opportunities associated with the desired system. To address these challenges, mental models created through stakeholder dialog can be used to validate pathways to desired change and provide predictive foresight of alternative transformation scenarios (Herrmann et al. 2021). There are cases, however, where it is important to recognize that mental models can also act as barriers to change. This often occurs when the beliefs and assumptions that are held by a group are outdated, erroneous, or misinformed (e.g., climate misinformation) (Gifford 2011, Weber and Stern 2011). Such cases represent an additional challenge for governments and decision makers to foment transformation and need to be accounted for across temporal and spatial scales in order for transformation to occur.

Attribute 2: diversity

Social-ecological diversity describes the array of components that comprise a system’s flexibility in response to change. Components of social-ecological diversity may include social elements such as human actors or groups, forms of leadership, knowledge types, and strategies, and ecological features such as species richness, genetics, functions, and process pathways (Fig. 4) (Norberg and Cumming 2008, Gray et al. 2012, Fabinyi et al. 2014, Hodbod and Eakin 2015). Collectively, these components give rise to different aspects of diversity across spatial and temporal scales. As part of resilience theory, functional and response diversity are particularly important to transformative capacity. Where functional diversity is the variety of social-ecological services that components provide to the system, response diversity is the range of responses of these components to social-environmental change (Elmqvist et al. 2003, Mori et al. 2013, Standish et al. 2014). In the context of adaptive capacity, diversity promotes similar structures and functions in order to maintain the current state (Turner et al. 2003, Angeler et al. 2019, Dudney et al. 2022). However, in the case of transformative capacity, the addition or recombination of social-ecological diversity components may help supply the potential for desired system transformation (Olsson et al. 2010, Koziol and Bever 2017). Additionally, the loss of social-ecological diversity may influence potential pathways or cause new pathways to emerge. In both cases, recognizing and cultivating the role of social-ecological diversity keeps options open, which helps to address uncertainties inherent in the process of transformation and provides the needed components to establish new and desirable system trajectories.

Example: urban water management

An example of social-ecological diversity as an attribute of transformative capacity is seen in urban water management and the transition from gray infrastructure to green infrastructure (Fig. 3C) (Green et al. 2016). Traditional gray infrastructure dramatically reduces the functional and response diversity of the hydrologic cycle to a series of in-ground sewer and water pipes, such that water becomes another source of disinvestment and disenfranchisement (Flynn and Davidson 2016). In contrast, green infrastructure integrates stormwater through a variety of ecological functional diversity components. These components include a variety of permeable surfaces, such as rain gardens, constructed wetlands, wildflower gardens, and urban agricultural spaces, each of which has the potential to provide a different functional pathway for water flow (Green et al. 2016, Chaffin et al. 2016c). Using the Clean Water Act, government entities like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actively promote the integration of green infrastructure into urban planning to enhance water quality and social-ecological resilience. These green approaches provide functional diversity, creating a mechanistic link between diversity components and social-ecological processes (Elmqvist et al. 2003, Mori et al. 2013) that can be leveraged for transformation. Additionally, green infrastructure increases response diversity. Ecological components not only provide alternative pathways for water but also provide additional SES responses. For instance, whereas green infrastructure connects surface water to deeper underground catchments, it also elicits many additional responses, such as pollinator and wildlife habitat (Green et al. 2016, Herrmann et al. 2016, Kelleher et al. 2020). Urban green spaces and community gardens can create social response diversity by creating inclusive areas for socialization, recreation, and food production (Wolch et al. 2014, Kuo 2015). In this way, human decision making that promotes response diversity cultivates social-ecological flexibility by allowing for system components to produce a range of dynamic social-ecological pathways (Forys and Allen 2002, Leslie and McCabe 2013, Nash et al. 2014). Identifying existing and new functional and response diversity components of SESs can cultivate the potential to respond with dexterity to the challenges of transformation.

Mechanism: system feedbacks

As a focal attribute, diversity is directly associated with building feedbacks, which serve to catalyze and reinforce transformational social-ecological trajectories and desired system self-organization (Folke et al. 2004, Downing et al. 2012, Truchy et al. 2015). Generating feedbacks at one scale may result in cascading effects across scales (Bertness et al. 2015, Michaels et al. 2020). An example of this is seen in the post-agricultural lands of tallgrass prairie systems of North America (Fig. 3D). Here, agricultural practices have altered the plant-soil-microbial feedbacks upon which many tallgrass prairie plant species rely by selecting for certain soil microbes and reducing the abundance of others (Jangid et al. 2008, Fierer et al. 2013, Mackelprang et al. 2018). Because the feedbacks in these systems have been modified through changes in microbial functional and response diversity, tallgrass prairie reconstructions can remain stuck in early stages of recovery (Bauer et al. 2015, Koziol and Bever 2017). By reintroducing particular microbial community components through the process of soil inoculation, local-scale plant–soil–microbial feedbacks can overcome restoration barriers, and drive landscape change (Koziol and Bever 2019, Michaels et al. 2020). Although soil inoculants have been present in the agricultural field for some time, their use has focused on plant productivity and less so on feedbacks and, alongside other management techniques, can promote new trajectories necessary for transformation (Kaminsky et al. 2019). This example highlights the utility of interfacing with diversity to drive desired feedbacks, shifting expectations from outcomes to processes, thereby cultivating SES agility needed to address uncertainties and mitigate risk.

Attribute 3: novelty

Social-ecological novelty stems from the inherent variability that exists across spatial and temporal scales of SESs, with important consequences for adaptation and transformation (Gunderson et al. 2006, Allen and Holling 2010, Dudney et al. 2018). Ecological novelty may appear as mutations, biological invasions, or a recombination or loss of species (Fig. 4) (Allen and Holling 2010, Dudney et al. 2018). These features can give rise to hybrid systems that maintain a sense of ecological familiarity by preserving some components from previous ecosystem states (Hobbs et al. 2009, Angeler and Maybee 2025). However, these features can also produce novel ecosystems that are comprised of new species, interactions and processes (Hobbs et al. 2009, Angeler and Maybee 2025). In conjunction with ecological novelty, social novelty can interface with a system in the form of new mental models, laws, and restructuring or creating new organizational structures (Fig. 4) (Streit Krug et al. 2022, 2023a, Harvey et al. 2024). In addition, society may construct social novelty by leveraging cultural mechanisms, such as stories that explore plausible futures, consider the philosophical dimensions of change, and communicate the urgency and complexity of Anthropocene challenges (Galafassi et al. 2018, Angeler et al. 2020a). The way in which novelty interacts with the current system highlights the different roles it plays in relation to adaptive and transformative capacity. With adaptive capacity, novelty may provide an opportunity to recognize system components in ways that deepen and maintain the resilience of the current state (Gunderson et al. 2006, Allen and Holling 2010). However, for transformative capacity, novelty has the potential to inspire systems to reorganize around new structuring components (Olsson and Galaz 2012). Important to transformative capacity, novelty may be fleeting, either by manifesting itself briefly at different temporal or spatial scales, or integrated as a pivotal component for innovation and practice. Additionally, the same features that make novelty an attribute of transformative capacity can also make changes difficult because it is impossible to know a priori how novel system components will interact with other SES components (Allen and Holling 2010, Angeler et al. 2020a). Thus, sound reasoning and decision making are needed in order to consider how sources of social-ecological novelty promote or inhibit transformation (Allen and Holling 2010, Olsson and Galaz 2012).

Example: from annual agriculture to perennial agroecosystems

An example of social-ecological novelty is seen in agricultural systems through the lens of perennial agroecosystems (Fig. 3B). In reimagining agriculture, efforts are focused on plant breeding programs to generate perennial plants that not only provide beneficial ecosystem services, but meet the needs of food production (Crews et al. 2018, Lanker et al. 2020, Streit Krug et al. 2023a). The introduction of deep-rooted perennial crops can generate secondary benefits, such as the accumulation of soil organic matter and the reduction of synthetic fertilizers, due to increases in nutrient use efficacy as soil systems reorganize around new rooting systems (Pugliese et al. 2019, Sprunger et al. 2019). This ecological novelty is supported by the development of novel social components, including innovative technologies needed for crop management and harvesting, and fostering markets that are able to integrate perennial crops across scales and into the global food system (Crews et al. 2018, Streit Krug et al. 2023a). Additionally, civic science programs that engage community members with perennial agriculture are a novel way of introducing perennial crops to a wider audience through shared experiences across both local and regional geographies (Streit Krug et al. 2023b). This novel approach serves to cultivate human relationships with perennial plants around which perennial agroecosystems can organize (Streit Krug et al. 2023b). Thus, human decision making that prioritizes linkages between social and ecological novelties can enhance transformative capacity of the SES.

Mechanism: iterative learning

Iterative learning is an important mechanism that works with novelty to build transformative capacity. Among the different forms and stages of learning, iterative learning is a structured process that informs experimentation and decision making (Pahl-Wostl 2009), where monitoring at multiple spatiotemporal scales feeds back into the process at decision points, enhancing understanding of social-ecological dynamics (Herrmann et al. 2021, Garmestani et al. 2023). Through iterative learning, stakeholders learn over time, building capacity for imagining, anticipating, and facilitating desired transformation (Murray et al. 2015, Birgé et al. 2016, Tuckey et al. 2023). This process can be enhanced by intermediaries, such as bridging organizations and networks, that can take risks and fail (Cosens and Gunderson 2018, Olsson et al. 2022). Such bridging organizations can operate in parallel with organizational contemporaries of the current regime (Gunderson 1999, Olsson et al. 2006, 2022).

An example of iterative learning and its relationship to SES novelty is seen in the management of the Florida Everglades, USA (Fig. 3E). In the 20th century, the management of this SES was based on the fragmentation of the hydrologic cycle, resulting in biodiversity loss, economic strain, and even drought despite attempts at hydrologic cohesion (Davis and Ogden 1994, Gunderson et al. 1995, Douglas 2016, Harvey et al. 2017). To address these stressors, iterative learning focused on how reintroducing water impacts seasonal hydro-patterns and subsequent effects on the SES (LoSchiavo et al. 2013, Harvey et al. 2017). This has spurred awareness of a connected hydrological cycle capable of supporting humans, plants, and wildlife (LoSchiavo et al. 2013, Gunderson et al. 2018). Importantly, this iterative learning was supported by the development of water management districts in Florida. Water management districts are novel government entities that support transformative capacity of water governance through legal innovations that allowed the state of Florida to manage water systems and consider the workings of the hydrological cycle across social-ecological scales (Gunderson et al. 1995). The creation of these management districts included the South Florida Water Management District, which has been particularly important in utilizing iterative learning and using this information to coordinate stewardship across the Everglades (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011). As this example shows, leveraging iterative learning to integrate novelty into a SES sometimes requires the creation of organizations emphasizing knowledge co-production that is necessary for navigating multiple pathways of uncertainty as SESs move toward desired change.

DISCUSSION

Understanding the transformative capacity of SESs is an invaluable asset for navigating global change in the Anthropocene. By enhancing the potential for SES transformation through sound reasoning and decision-making processes, stakeholders can capitalize on windows of opportunity to establish new, desirable trajectories for systems with diminishing adaptation-based returns (Folke et al. 2010). The process of transformation is not prescriptive, and transformative capacity and its associated core attributes are context dependent. The core attributes presented here exist as potentialities that can, but do not necessarily, actualize into tangible outcomes. Nevertheless, identifying these core attributes is a first step in operationalizing transformative capacity across diverse SESs and their respective desirable futures. Additionally, identifying and building transformative capacity warrants discussion around the risks involved with transformation, exploration into how core attributes affect transformative capacity, and important dialog around power and its relationship to transformative capacity.

Transformation is not a panacea. It is important to acknowledge that outcomes arising from the process of transformation are not always as expected (Dudney et al. 2018). This is due to the nature of complex SESs and their inherent non-linearity, high uncertainty, and low controllability (Holling 2001, Carpenter et al. 2015, Preiser et al. 2018). Social-ecological systems have been characterized as radically open (Preiser et al. 2018), meaning that they have permeable boundaries through which social and ecological components and information can flow. Although this can benefit the system, it is another source of unpredictability that has the potential to cascade both up and down spatiotemporal scales and to drive outsized telecoupling effects (Preiser et al. 2018, Olsson et al. 2022). However, given accelerating global change, it is important to recognize that there are also significant risks for SESs that do not prepare for transformation (Kates et al. 2012). An improved understanding of the ways in which attributes of transformative capacity behave in relationship to each other, and across spatiotemporal scales, may help decision makers, communities, and institutions navigate the risks associated with transformation.

Exploring unknowns, interactions, and trade-offs

Thus far, we have described and demonstrated how social-ecological memory, diversity, and novelty individually contribute to transformative capacity. Importantly, the ways in which these attributes vary in terms of their intensity and breadth, and how they interact with one another, will shape when, and the degree to which, decision makers and governments activate transformative capacity. However, there is limited understanding of how these attributes determine and shape transformative capacity. Here, we outline some of the potential unknowns, interactions, and trade-offs associated with the core attributes and their subsequent impact on transformative capacity (Fig. 5A).

The strength of an individual attribute may determine the behavior of transformative capacity in several ways (Fig. 5A). An individual attribute may modify the degree of transformative capacity, which may include the direction of its response behavior (positive-to-negative), and the extent of its linearity, through interaction with other system variables. Additionally, attribute mismatches between social and ecological components may affect transformative capacity. This is evident with social and ecological memory in the example of fire-adapted systems in California (Fig. 3A). Although there was growing recognition of the need for, and importance of, prescribed fire to manage fire-adapted systems, the ability of communities and organizations to use prescribed fire was limited in part by legal hurdles (Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012). This mismatch in social and ecological memory components dampened transformative capacity of the SES. State law that institutionalized social memory helped resolve this mismatch and, in doing so, lowered barriers between prescribed fire, including cultural burns, and ecological practice (Fig.5A) (Friedman and Wood 2021).

The strength and behavior of transformative capacity may also be influenced by the interaction of two or more attributes (Fig. 5B). These interactions could yield varied responses in transformative capacity through synergistic or trade-off-based relationships. A combination of attributes could produce a negative response in transformative capacity, which might signal a decoupling or dominance among core attributes (Roberts et al. 2018, Eakin et al. 2019). The example of perennial polyculture (Fig. 3B) illustrates how the interaction of attributes can affect the strength of transformative capacity. In this case, whereas novelty (as seen in the advancement of perennial crops) has a strong positive relationship with transformative capacity (Streit Krug et al. 2023a, Olsson et al. 2024), this effect is dampened by memory associated with traditional agriculture reinforced through laws like the Farm Bill in the USA (Neher et al. 2023). Institutions focused on perennial crop development have actively sought to address the inhibition of social-ecological memory through the study and promotion of the connections between cultural and agricultural change (Streit Krug and Tesdell 2021, Streit Krug et al. 2022, The Land Institute 2024). Further investigation of these dynamics may provide an understanding of how multiple attributes working in tandem may promote or inhibit transformative capacity (Uden et al. 2018, Tedesco et al. 2023).

Contextualizing attributes across spatial and temporal scales

Particularly important to understanding transformative capacity is considering how attributes interact across spatial and temporal scales (Fig. 5C). Cross-scale interactions influence when, how, and to what degree SESs organize across social-ecological hierarchies (Allen et al. 2014, Sundstrom et al. 2014). Where attributes interface with specific phases of the adaptive cycle, and at what spatial and temporal scale, has implications for lowering resistance thresholds and, in turn, transformation within a SES (Olsson et al. 2022). Given the role of scale in shaping resilience (Allen et al. 2014), human decision making that applies the attributes of transformative capacity at different spatial or temporal scales may give rise to different trajectories of change. For instance, building transformative capacity at smaller spatial scales, such as neighborhoods within cities, may cascade upward and provide the desired effects for transformation at larger scales (Garmestani et al. 2025). In contrast, applying a top-down strategy to transformative capacity without sound reasoning, planning, and the necessary feedbacks at nested scales may result in an undesired system change at smaller scales (Moore et al. 2014, Olsson et al. 2022). Similarly, how attributes work across temporal scales may impact the degree of transformative capacity in a SES. Attributes that erode thresholds at one point in time may set the precedent for change in the future (Reyers et al. 2018, Angeler and Allen 2022). There are also cases where inhibiting interactions across spatial or temporal scales of the current state might facilitate the potential for desired transformation (Reyers et al. 2018).

For instance, the example of urban green transformation in Cleveland, Ohio, USA serves to illustrate how attributes of transformative capacity work across scales. In this case, decision makers established functional and response diversity with green infrastructure at small scales, such as with pollinator habitat and urban agriculture. This work at small scales led to larger scale transformation throughout the city (Flynn and Davidson 2016, Chaffin et al. 2016c). Whether seeking to facilitate or inhibit cross-scale interactions of the attributes of transformative capacity, the failure of decision makers to consider these issues increases the risk of perpetuating the current degraded state or creating undesired social-ecological outcomes.

As demonstrated, transformation can be top-down or bottom-up, but actions taken at multiple spatial and temporal scales are most likely to be successful (Moore et al. 2014, Shah et al. 2018, Angeler and Allen 2022). The probability of success can increase with leadership at multiple organizational levels, a network of stakeholders and the public, and frequent communication that incorporates input from a spectrum of stakeholders (Chaffin et al. 2016b, Green et al. 2016). Organizational and stakeholder diversity at multiple levels operating at different scales can allow for different entities at different times to serve as leaders of SES transformation (Chaffin et al. 2016c, Edgeley and Paveglio 2024). For instance, in the example of California’s desired change to living with fire, state-level legislation on prescribed fire was accompanied by increases in mentorship and decentralization of top-down leadership, with local agencies taking the lead for prescribed fire training and implementation (Fig. 3A). As this example highlights, understanding the dynamics of transformative capacity across spatial and temporal scales is important for creating or identifying windows of opportunity for transformation that can be harnessed by human agency in the face of desired change.

The role of power in transformative capacity

Transformative capacity is essential for guiding the transformation of SESs in ways that align with the collective vision of a group. However, the processes through which decisions are made, and who is included in those decisions, will determine who influences the transformation, what trade-offs are considered, and who ultimately benefits from the changes (Andrachuk and Armitage 2015, Sievers-Glotzbach and Tschersich 2019, Tedesco et al. 2023). As such, it is essential to reflect and act on the interplay between power and the attributes of transformative capacity. Power is a multidimensional variable that spans both direct and indirect forms, operating at multiple spatial and temporal scales. It can manifest in formal and informal ways, as well as through state, institutional, and coercive powers (Lambert-Peck et al. 2024). Discourse, knowledge, and social structure are constantly evolving as a result of these power dynamics (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2023). Power can interact with the three attributes of transformative capacity in multiple ways. For instance, the intersection of social-ecological memory and power can influence whose memories are elevated and considered in shaping a vision for the desired state. In the case of social-ecological diversity, power may determine the resources that activate functional and response diversity, which could determine the degree to which a desired state is realized. Lastly, power can influence how novelty is recognized, managed, and integrated, which may impact who bears the burden of change. Trust, leadership, and human agency, interacting through collaborations across all spheres of societies, influence the extent to which the three attributes are effective and ultimately determine the spatial and temporal shape of transformative capacity (DeCaro et al. 2017).

In considering transformative capacity and its relationship to power, it is important to recognize that marginalized groups are often excluded from key decision-making processes. This exclusion, whether through coercion or institutional power imbalances, reinforces a transformative capacity that favors those holding power (McGill et al. 2022, Gadsden et al. 2023, Tedesco et al. 2023). Addressing these inequalities is necessary, and deliberate efforts to consider power dynamics alongside the attributes of transformative capacity, to elevate marginalized voices, and decentralize the power of those traditionally viewed as experts to include local and traditional ecological knowledge will help ensure just transformational trajectories (Gray et al. 2012, Shah et al. 2018, Bennett et al. 2019).

The State plays a crucial role in shaping power dynamics by influencing who has access to decision-making processes and who holds power within SESs. Through policies, regulations, and resource allocation, the State can empower certain stakeholder groups, often those with greater political influence or institutional capacity, while marginalizing others (Folke et al. 2005, Ostrom 2010). This intersection of State power with informal aspects of governance can either support or undermine efforts to achieve more inclusive and just transformations, depending on how power is distributed and exercised (Ostrom 2010, Vallet et al. 2019, Coy et al. 2023). Consequently, the role of the State in balancing power among diverse groups is pivotal in ensuring that transformations benefit all members of society. Policy makers should be aware of the competing interests and structural inequalities that are present in SESs, as diverse perspectives can often be inadvertently or deliberately disenfranchised or ignored (Ostrom 2010, Kaika 2017, Borrelle et al. 2020). Elinor Ostrom emphasized that power within governance systems is not solely concentrated in the hands of formal authorities but can also be decentralized through polycentric governance, where multiple layers of decision making allow for a more equitable distribution of power (Ostrom 1990). Thus, in discussions about transformative capacity and its relationship to power, it is important to ask and consider: resilience of what, to what? (Carpenter et al. 2001), and importantly, for whom? (Cretney 2014, Cutter 2016). Future exploration is needed to further understand how power imbalances shape transformative capacity and to develop strategies for effectively mitigating these imbalances to foster more equitable and inclusive transformations of SESs.

CONCLUSION

In a time when the concept of tipping points abounds from news headlines to reports from the United Nations, the importance of desired, intentional, and necessary alternative state changes—transformations—are coming into focus. Current dialogs surrounding transformation often focus on the process itself, and less so on the capacity to cultivate transformation in the first place. Given the context dependency of transformation and the complexity inherent in SESs across spatial and temporal scales, defining transformative capacity and its core attributes is important in operationalizing transformation efforts. The three core attributes introduced here, social-ecological memory, diversity, and novelty, are by no means the only attributes, nor are they prescriptive; instead, they are meant to serve as a foundation for discussion, exploration, and creativity. By defining transformative capacity in terms of its social-ecological components, this definition acknowledges the essential relationships between humans and nature and accounts for the human agency necessary for transformation. But it is also this human agency that is challenging, because society must be able and willing to examine and confront the power dynamics inherent in manifesting transformation. In doing so, transformative capacity provides a basis to imagine alternative futures and steward our SESs toward desired change.

LITERATURE CITED

Alessa, L., A. Kliskey, J. Gamble, M. Fidel, G. Beaujean, and J. Gosz. 2016. The role of Indigenous science and local knowledge in integrated observing systems: moving toward adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems. Sustainability Science 11(1):91-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0295-7

Allen, C. R., D. G. Angeler, B. C. Chaffin, D. Twidwell, and A. Garmestani. 2019. Resilience reconciled. Nature Sustainability 2:898-900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0401-4

Allen, C. R., D. G. Angeler, A. S. Garmestani, L. H. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling. 2014. Panarchy: theory and application. Ecosystems 17(4):578-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9744-2

Allen, C. R., H. E. Birge, D. G. Angeler, C. A. Arnold, B. C. Chaffin, D. A. DeCaro, A. S. Garmestani, and L. Gunderson. 2018. Quantifying uncertainty and trade-offs in resilience assessments. Ecology and Society 23(1):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09920-230103

Allen, C. R., and C. S. Holling. 2010. Novelty, adaptive capacity, and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(3):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03720-150324

Anderson, M. K. 2018. The use of fire by Native Americans in California. Pages 381-398 in J. W. van Wagtendonk, editor. Fire in California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520961913-022

Andrachuk, M., and D. Armitage. 2015. Understanding social-ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity. Ecology and Society 20(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07759-200426

Angeler, D., and C. R. Allen. 2022. Scales of coercion: resilience, regimes, and panarchy. Chapter 4 in L. H. Gunderson, C. R. Allen, and A. Garmestani, editors. Applied panarchy: applications and diffusion across disciplines. Island Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Angeler, D. G., C. R. Allen, and A. Carnaval. 2020a. Convergence science in the Anthropocene: navigating the known and unknown. People and Nature 2(1):96-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10069

Angeler, D. G., B. C. Chaffin, S. M. Sundstrom, A. Garmestani, K. L. Pope, D. R. Uden, D. Twidwell, and C. R. Allen. 2020b. Coerced regimes: management challenges in the Anthropocene. Ecology and Society 25(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11286-250104

Angeler, D. G., H. B. Fried-Petersen, C. R. Allen, A. Garmestani, D. Twidwell, W.-C. Chuang, V. M. Donovan, T. Eason, C. P. Roberts, S. M. Sundstrom, and C. L. Wonkka. 2019. Adaptive capacity in ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 60:1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2019.02.001

Angeler, D. G., and J. E. Maybee. 2025. Dialectical ecosystems: theory and applications. Advances in Ecological Research 72:39-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2025.02.002

Araya-Muñoz, D., M. J. Metzger, N. Stuart, A. M. W. Wilson, and L. Alvarez. 2016. Assessing urban adaptive capacity to climate change. Journal of Environmental Management 183:314-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.060

Arias-Arévalo, P., E. Lazos-Chavero, A. S. Monroy-Sais, S. H. Nelson, A. Pawlowska-Mainville, A. Vatn, M. Cantú-Fernández, R. Murali, B. Muraca, and U. Pascual. 2023. The role of power in leveraging the diverse values of nature for transformative change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101352

Arkle, R. S., D. S. Pilliod, and J. L. Welty. 2012. Pattern and process of prescribed fires influence effectiveness at reducing wildfire severity in dry coniferous forests. Forest Ecology and Management 276:174-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.002

Backstrom, A. C., G. E. Garrard, R. J. Hobbs, and S. A. Bekessy. 2018. Grappling with the social dimensions of novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16(2):109-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1769

Barthel, S., C. Folke, and J. Colding. 2010. Social-ecological memory in urban gardens—retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 20(2):255-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001

Bauer, J. T., K. M. L. Mack, and J. D. Bever. 2015. Plant–soil feedbacks as drivers of succession: evidence from remnant and restored tallgrass prairies. Ecosphere 6(9):158. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00480.1

Bennett, N. J., J. Blythe, A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, G. G. Singh, and U. R. Sumaila. 2019. Just transformations to sustainability. Sustainability 11(14):3881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143881

Berleman, S. 2017. Harnessing one of our most effective ecological tools. Audubon Canyon Ranch, Stinson Beach, California, USA.

Bertness, M. D., C. P. Brisson, and S. M. Crotty. 2015. Indirect human impacts turn off reciprocal feedbacks and decrease ecosystem resilience. Oecologia 178(1):231-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3166-5

Birgé, H. E., R. A. Bevans, C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, S. G. Baer, and D. H. Wall. 2016. Adaptive management for soil ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management 183:371-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.024

Biró, M., K. Molnár, K. Öllerer, R. Szilágyi, D. Babai, C. Molnár, and Z. Molnár. 2024. Oral history methods can reveal drivers of landscape transformation: understanding land-use legacies with local and traditional knowledge in Central Europe. People and Nature 6(6):2463-2479. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10738

Borrelle, S. B., J. B. Koch, C. M. MacKenzie, K. E. Ingeman, B. M. McGill, M. R. Lambert, A. M. Belasen, J. Dudney, C. H. Chang, A. K. Teffer, and G. C. Wu. 2020. What does it mean to be for a place? Pacific Conservation Biology 27(4):354-361. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20015

Brodnik, C., and R. Brown. 2018. Strategies for developing transformative capacity in urban water management sectors: the case of Melbourne, Australia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 137:147-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.037

Cardoso, A. R., C. Fernandes, and J. P. Honrado. 2024. Social-ecological memory: from concepts and methods to applications. Geographical Research 63(2):179-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12683

Carlsen, T. M., E. K. Espeland, L. E. Paterson, and D. H. MacQueen. 2017. Optimal prescribed burn frequency to manage foundation California perennial grass species and enhance native flora. Biodiversity and Conservation 26(11):2627-2656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1376-y

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., W. A. Brock, C. Folke, E. H. van Nes, and M. Scheffer. 2015. Allowing variance may enlarge the safe operating space for exploited ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(46):14384-14389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511804112

Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4(8):765-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9

Chaffin, B. C., A. S. Garmestani, D. G. Angeler, D. L. Herrmann, C. A. Stow, M. Nyström, J. Sendzimir, M. E. Hopton, J. Kolasa, and C. R. Allen. 2016a. Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive governance. Journal of Environmental Management 183(Pt 2):399-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.040

Chaffin, B. C., A. S. Garmestani, L. H. Gunderson, M. H. Benson, D. G. Angeler, C. A. Arnold, B. Cosens, R. K. Craig, J. B. Ruhl, and C. R. Allen. 2016b. Transformative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1):399-423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817

Chaffin, B. C., and L. H. Gunderson. 2016. Emergence, institutionalization and renewal: rhythms of adaptive governance in complex social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management 165:81-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.003

Chaffin, B. C., W. D. Shuster, A. S. Garmestani, B. Furio, S. L. Albro, M. Gardiner, M. Spring, and O. O. Green. 2016c. A tale of two rain gardens: barriers and bridges to adaptive management of urban stormwater in Cleveland, Ohio. Journal of Environmental Management 183:431-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.025

Charnley, S., E. C. Kelly, and A. P. Fischer. 2020. Fostering collective action to reduce wildfire risk across property boundaries in the American West. Environmental Research Letters 15(2):025007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab639a

Clement, S., J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell, C. R. Allen, and A. S. Garmestani. 2024. How resilience is framed matters for governance of coastal social-ecological systems. Environmental Policy and Governance 34(1):65-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2056

Colloff, M. J., B. Martín-López, S. Lavorel, B. Locatelli, R. Gorddard, P.-Y. Longaretti, G. Walters, L. van Kerkhoff, C. Wyborn, A. Coreau, R. M. Wise, M. Dunlop, P. Degeorges, H. Grantham, I. C. Overton, R. D. Williams, M. D. Doherty, T. Capon, T. Sanderson, and H. T. Murphy. 2017. An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation. Environmental Science and Policy 68:87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007

Colombi, B. J., and C. L. Smith. 2012. Adaptive capacity as cultural practice. Ecology and Society 17(4):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05242-170413

Cosens, B., and L. Gunderson. 2018. An introduction to practical panarchy: linking law, resilience, and adaptive water governance of regional scale social-ecological systems. Pages 1-16 in B. Cosens and L. Gunderson, editors. Practical panarchy for adaptive water governance: linking law to social-ecological resilience. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72472-0_1

Cox, R. D., and E. B. Allen. 2008. Composition of soil seed banks in southern California coastal sage scrub and adjacent exotic grassland. Plant Ecology 198(1):37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-007-9383-9

Coy, D., S. Malekpour, and A. K. Saeri. 2023. Putting the power back in empowerment: stakeholder perspectives on community empowerment in energy transformations. Environmental Policy and Governance 33(5):459-473. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2043

Cretney, R. 2014. Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-ecological resilience. Geography Compass 8(9):627-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12154

Crews, T. E., W. Carton, and L. Olsson. 2018. Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Global Sustainability 1:e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.11

Cutter, S. L. 2016. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? The Geographical Journal 182(2):110-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12174

Davis, S., and J. C. Ogden. 1994. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

DeCaro, D., C. Arnold, E. F. Boamah, and A. Garmestani. 2017. Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance. Ecology and Society 22(1):33. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09154-220133

Dickson-Hoyle, S., R. Beilin, and K. Reid. 2021. A culture of burning: social-ecological memory, social learning and adaptation in Australian volunteer fire brigades. Society and Natural Resources 34(3):311-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1819494

Dodd, B., and J. Wood. 2021. SB-332 Civil liability: prescribed burning operations: gross negligence. California State Legislature, Sacramento, California, USA. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB332/id/2280013

Doremus, H. 2010. The Endangered Species Act: static law meets dynamic world new directions in environmental law. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 32(1):175-236.

Douglas, M. S. 2016. The Everglades: river of grass. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, USA.

Downing, A. S., E. H. van Nes, W. M. Mooij, and M. Scheffer. 2012. The resilience and resistance of an ecosystem to a collapse of diversity. PLoS ONE 7(9):e46135. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046135

Dudney, J., C. D’Antonio, R. J. Hobbs, N. Shackelford, R. J. Standish, and K. N. Suding. 2022. Capacity for change: three core attributes of adaptive capacity that bolster restoration efficacy. Restoration Ecology:e13647. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13647

Dudney, J., R. J. Hobbs, R. Heilmayr, J. J. Battles, and K. N. Suding. 2018. Navigating novelty and risk in resilience management. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 33(11):863-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.012

Eakin, H., R. E. Shelton, J. M. Siqueiros-Garcia, L. Charli-Joseph, and D. Manuel-Navarrete. 2019. Loss and social-ecological transformation: pathways of change in Xochimilco, Mexico. Ecology and Society 24(3):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11030-240315

Edgeley, C. M., and T. B. Paveglio. 2024. Bridging scales for landscape-level wildfire adaptation: a case study of the Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition. Journal of Environmental Management 351:119818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119818

Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9):488-494. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:RDECAR]2.0.CO;2

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. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07029-190428

Fallon, A., R. W. Jones, and M. Keskinen. 2022. Bringing resilience-thinking into water governance: two illustrative case studies from South Africa and Cambodia. Global Environmental Change 75:102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102542

Fedele, G., C. I. Donatti, C. A. Harvey, L. Hannah, and D. G. Hole. 2019. Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy 101:116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001

Fernandes, P., G. Delogu, V. Leone, and D. Ascoli. 2019. Wildfire policies contribution to foster extreme wildfires. Pages 187-200 in F. Tedim, V. Leone, and T. K. Mcgee, editors. Extreme wildfire events and disasters. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815721-3.00010-2

Fierer, N., J. Ladau, J. C. Clemente, J. W. Leff, S. M. Owens, K. S. Pollard, R. Knight, J. A. Gilbert, and R. L. McCulley. 2013. Reconstructing the microbial diversity and function of pre-agricultural tallgrass prairie soils in the United States. Science 342(6158):621-624. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243768

Fleming, C. J., E. B. McCartha, and T. A. Steelman. 2015. Conflict and collaboration in wildfire management: the role of mission alignment. Public Administration Review 75(3):445-454. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12353

Flynn, C. D., and C. I. Davidson. 2016. Adapting the social-ecological system framework for urban stormwater management: the case of green infrastructure adoption. Ecology and Society 21(4):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08756-210419

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., 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., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:557-581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(1):441-473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Forys, E. A., and C. R. Allen. 2002. Functional group change within and across scales following invasions and extinctions in the Everglades ecosystem. Ecosystems 5(4):339-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0078-0

Friedman, L., and J. Wood. 2021. AB- 642, Prescribed burn and wildfires. California State Legislature, Sacramento, California, USA. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/2021-assembly-bill-642-friedman-laura-prescribed-burn-and-wildfires-chaptered

Gadsden, G. I., N. Golden, and N. C. Harris. 2023. Place-based bias in environmental scholarship derived from social-ecological landscapes of fear. BioScience 73(1):23-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac095

Galafassi, D., T. M. Daw, M. Thyresson, S. Rosendo, T. Chaigneau, S. Bandeira, L. Munyi, I. Gabrielsson, and K. Brown. 2018. Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation. Ecology and Society 23(1):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09932-230123

Garmestani, A., C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, L. Gunderson, and J. B. Ruhl. 2023. Multiscale adaptive management of social-ecological systems. BioScience 73(11):800-807. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad096

Garmestani, A., J. B. Ruhl, J. H. Garcia, H. K. Gilissen, C. R. Allen, T. Eason, L. H. Gunderson, H. F. M. W. van Rijswick, and D. G. Angeler. 2025. Opportunities and challenges for transformation of urban social-ecological systems. Advances in Ecological Research 72:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2025.02.003

Garmestani, A., D. Twidwell, D. G. Angeler, S. Sundstrom, C. Barichievy, B. C. Chaffin, T. Eason, N. Graham, D. Granholm, L. Gunderson, M. Knutson, K. L. Nash, R. J. Nelson, M. Nystrom, T. L. Spanbauer, C. A. Stow, and C. R. Allen. 2020. Panarchy: opportunities and challenges for ecosystem management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18(10):576-583. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2264

Gelcich, S., T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L. H. Gunderson, C. Rodríguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, R. S. Steneck, and J. C. Castilla. 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

Gerlak, A. K., and T. Heikkila. 2011. Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: evidence from the Everglades restoration program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 21(4):619-644. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq089

Gifford, R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist 66(4):290-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

Gray, S., A. Chan, D. Clark, and R. Jordan. 2012. Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social-ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity. Ecological Modelling 229:88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.09.011

Green, O. O., and A. S. Garmestani. 2012. Adaptive management to protect biodiversity: best available science and the Endangered Species Act. Diversity 4(2):164-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/d4020164

Green, O. O., A. S. Garmestani, S. Albro, N. C. Ban, A. Berland, C. E. Burkman, M. M. Gardiner, L. Gunderson, M. E. Hopton, M. L. Schoon, and W. D. Shuster. 2016. Adaptive governance to promote ecosystem services in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosystems 19(1):77-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0476-2

Green, O. O., A. S. Garmestani, C. R. Allen, L. H. Gunderson, J. B. Ruhl, C. A. Arnold, N. A. J. Graham, B. Cosens, D. G. Angeler, B. C. Chaffin, and C. S. Holling. 2015. Barriers and bridges to the integration of social-ecological resilience and law. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(6):332-337. https://doi.org/10.1890/140294

Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management—antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00089-030107

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

Gunderson, L. H., C. R. Allen, and A. Garmestani. 2022. Applied panarchy: applications and diffusion across disciplines. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gunderson, L., B. A. Cosens, B. C. Chaffin, C. A. Arnold, A. K. Fremier, A. S. Garmestani, R. K. Craig, H. Gosnell, H. E. Birge, C. R. Allen, M. H. Benson, R. R. Morrison, M. C. Stone, J. A. Hamm, K. Nemec, E. Schlager, and D. Llewellyn. 2017. Regime shifts and panarchies in regional scale social-ecological water systems. Ecology and Society 22(1):31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08879-220131

Gunderson, L., and C. Folke. 2005. Resilience—now more than ever. Ecology and Society 10(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01632-100222

Gunderson, L., C. Folke, and M. Janssen. 2006. Generating and fostering novelty. Ecology and Society 11(1):50. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01811-110150

Gunderson, L., A. S. Garmestani, K. W. Rizzardi, J. B. Ruhl, and A. R. Light. 2018. Social, legal, and ecological capacity for adaptation and transformation in the Everglades. Pages 65-81 in B. Cosens and L. Gunderson, editors. Practical panarchy for adaptive water governance: linking law to social-ecological resilience. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72472-0_5

Gunderson, L., and S. S. Light. 2007. Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the everglades ecosystem. Policy Sciences 39(4):323-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9027-2

Gunderson, L. H., S. S. Light, and C. S. Holling. 1995. Lessons from the Everglades: learning in a turbulent system. BioScience 45:S66-S73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312447

Gurarie, E., S. Potluri, G. C. Cosner, R. S. Cantrell, and W. F. Fagan. 2021. Memories of migrations past: sociality and cognition in dynamic, seasonal environments. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9:742920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.742920

Hamilton, M., and J. Salerno. 2020. Cognitive maps reveal diverse perceptions of how prescribed fire affects forests and communities. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:75. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00075

Hamlin, S. L., and M. Nielsen-Pincus. 2021. From gray copycats to green wolves: policy and infrastructure for flood risk management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 64(9):1599-1621. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1835619

Hammersley, M. A., C. Scott, and R. Gimblett. 2018. Evolving conceptions of the role of large dams in social-ecological resilience. Ecology and Society 23(1):40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09928-230140

Harvey, J. W., P. R. Wetzel, T. E. Lodge, V. C. Engel, and M. S. Ross. 2017. Role of a naturally varying flow regime in Everglades restoration. Restoration Ecology 25(S1):S27-S38. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12558

Harvey, N., A. Garmestani, C. R. Allen, A. Buijze, and M. van Rijswick. 2024. Identifying untapped legal capacity to promote multi-level and cross-sectoral coordination of natural resource governance. Sustainability Science 19(1):325-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01424-y

Herrmann, D. L., K. Schwarz, C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, T. Eason, and A. Garmestani. 2021. Iterative scenarios for social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 26(4):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12706-260408

Herrmann, D. L., K. Schwarz, W. D. Shuster, A. Berland, B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, and M. E. Hopton. 2016. Ecology for the shrinking city. Bioscience 66(11):965-973. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw062

Hobbs, R. J. 2016. Degraded or just different? Perceptions and value judgements in restoration decisions. Restoration Ecology 24(2):153-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12336

Hobbs, R. J., E. Higgs, and J. A. Harris. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(11):599-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012

Hodbod, J., and H. Eakin. 2015. Adapting a social-ecological resilience framework for food systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5(3):474-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0280-6

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. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5

Jangid, K., M. A. Williams, A. J. Franzluebbers, J. S. Sanderlin, J. H. Reeves, M. B. Jenkins, D. M. Endale, D. C. Coleman, and W. B. Whitman. 2008. Relative impacts of land-use, management intensity and fertilization upon soil microbial community structure in agricultural systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40(11):2843-2853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.030

Jetter, A. J., S. A. Gray, L. Ellsworth, A. Singer, and M. Laraichi. 2017. Policy scenarios for fire-adapted communities : understanding stakeholder risk-perceptions, using fuzzy cognitive maps. Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) final report, project 14-201-26. Northern Rockies Fire Science Network, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.

Johnstone, J. F., C. D. Allen, J. F. Franklin, L. E. Frelich, B. J. Harvey, P. E. Higuera, M. C. Mack, R. K. Meentemeyer, M. R. Metz, G. L. Perry, T. Schoennagel, and M. G. Turner. 2016. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(7):369-378. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1311

Jones, N. A., H. Ross, T. Lynam, P. Perez, and A. Leitch. 2011. Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society 16(1):46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03802-160146

Jozaei, J., W.-C. Chuang, C. R. Allen, and A. Garmestani. 2022. Social vulnerability, social-ecological resilience and coastal governance. Global Sustainability 5:e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.10

Kaika, M. 2017. “Don’t call me resilient again!”: the new urban agenda as immunology ... or ... what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with “smart cities” and indicators. Environment and Urbanization 29(1):89-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816684763

Kaminsky, L. M., R. V. Trexler, R. J. Malik, K. L. Hockett, and T. H. Bell. 2019. The inherent conflicts in developing soil microbial inoculants. Trends in Biotechnology 37(2):140-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.11.011

Kates, R. W., W. R. Travis, and T. J. Wilbanks. 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(19):7156-7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109

Keeley, J. E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in California chaparral. Ecology 68(2):434-443. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939275

Keeley, J. E., R. C. Klinger, T. J. Brennan, D. M. Lawson, J. La Grange, and K. N. Berg. 2023. A decade-long study of repeated prescription burning in California native grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology 31(7):e13939. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13939

Keeley, J. E., and A. D. Syphard. 2016. Climate change and future fire regimes: examples from California. Geosciences 6(3):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences6030037

Kelleher, C., H. E. Golden, S. Burkholder, and W. Shuster. 2020. Urban vacant lands impart hydrological benefits across city landscapes. Nature Communications 11(1):1563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15376-9

Kelp, M. M., M. C. Carroll, T. Liu, R. M. Yantosca, H. E. Hockenberry, and L. J. Mickley. 2023. Prescribed burns as a tool to mitigate future wildfire smoke exposure: lessons for states and rural environmental justice communities. Earth’s Future 11(6):e2022EF003468. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003468

King, E., J. Cavender-Bares, P. Balvanera, T. H. Mwampamba, and S. Polasky. 2015. Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecology and Society 20(3):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07822-200325

Klinefelter, S. 2023. Linking social dynamics to private land management: a study of prescribed burn associations in northern California. Thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.edha-7grh

Koziol, L., and J. D. Bever. 2017. The missing link in grassland restoration: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation increases plant diversity and accelerates succession. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(5):1301-1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12843

Koziol, L., and J. D. Bever. 2019. Mycorrhizal feedbacks generate positive frequency dependence accelerating grassland succession. Journal of Ecology 107(2):622-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13063

Kuo, M. 2015. How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology 6:1093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093

Lambert-Peck, M., P. Echaubard, O. Saito, and M. Nishi. 2024. Putting power in perspective: a systematic review of power dynamics in social-ecological traps. Discover Sustainability 5(1):515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00766-6

Lanker, M., M. Bell, and V. D. Picasso. 2020. Farmer perspectives and experiences introducing the novel perennial grain Kernza intermediate wheatgrass in the US Midwest. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 35(6):653-662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000310

Leslie, P., and J. T. McCabe. 2013. Response diversity and resilience in social-ecological systems. Current Anthropology 54(2):114-143. https://doi.org/10.1086/669563

LoSchiavo, A. J., R. G. Best, R. E. Burns, S. Gray, M. C. Harwell, E. B. Hines, A. R. McLean, T. St. Clair, S. Traxler, and J. W. Vearil. 2013. Lessons learned from the first decade of adaptive management in comprehensive Everglades restoration. Ecology and Society 18(4):70. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06065-180470

Ma, M., S. L. Collins, Z. Ratajczak, and G. Du. 2021. Soil Seed Banks, Alternative Stable State Theory, and Ecosystem Resilience. BioScience 71(7):697-707. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab011

Mackelprang, R., A. M. Grube, R. Lamendella, E. da C. Jesus, A. Copeland, C. Liang, R. D. Jackson, C. W. Rice, S. Kapucija, B. Parsa, S. G. Tringe, J. M. Tiedje, and J. K. Jansson. 2018. Microbial community structure and functional potential in cultivated and native tallgrass prairie soils of the midwestern United States. Frontiers in Microbiology 9:1775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01775

Marks-Block, T., F. K. Lake, R. Bliege Bird, and L. M. Curran. 2021. Revitalized Karuk and Yurok cultural burning to enhance California hazelnut for basketweaving in northwestern California, USA. Fire Ecology 17(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-021-00092-6

Marks-Block, T., and W. Tripp. 2021. Facilitating prescribed fire in northern California through Indigenous governance and interagency partnerships. Fire 4(3):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire4030037

Matthews, N., and M. McCartney. 2018. Opportunities for building resilience and lessons for navigating risks: dams and the water energy food nexus. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy 37(1):56-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12568

McGill, B. M., S. B. Borrelle, G. C. Wu, K. E. Ingeman, J. B. U. Koch, and N. B. Barnd. 2022. Words are monuments: patterns in US national park place names perpetuate settler colonial mythologies including white supremacy. People and Nature 4(3):683-700. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10302

Michaels, T. K., M. B. Eppinga, and J. D. Bever. 2020. A nucleation framework for transition between alternate states: short-circuiting barriers to ecosystem recovery. Ecology 101(9):e03099. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3099

Mockrin, M. H., H. K. Fishler, and S. I. Stewart. 2018. Does wildfire open a policy window? Local government and community adaptation after fire in the United States. Environmental Management 62(2):210-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1030-9

Moore, M., E. C. Metcalf, and A. Metcalf. 2023. Connecting collective memory and community resilience: a case study of Anaconda, Montana. Journal of Rural and Community Development 18(3):104-128. https://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/2294/620

Moore, M.-L., O. Tjornbo, E. Enfors, C. Knapp, J. Hodbod, J. Baggio, A. Norström, P. Olsson, and D. Biggs. 2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and Society 19(4):54. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454

Morgan, M., A. J. Webster, J. C. Padowski, R. R. Morrison, C. G. Flint, K. Simmons-Potter, K. Chief, B. Litson, B. Neztsosie, V. Karanikola, M. Kacira, R. R. Rushforth, J. Boll, and M. B. Stone. 2024. Guided transformations for communities facing social and ecological change. Ecology and Society 29(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15448-290420

Mori, A. S., T. Furukawa, and T. Sasaki. 2013. Response diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change. Biological Reviews 88(2):349-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12004

Murray, C. L., D. R. Marmorek, and L. A. Greig. 2015. Adaptive management today: a practitioner’s perspective. Pages 181-199 in C. R. Allen and A. S. Garmestani, editors. Adaptive management of social-ecological systems. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9682-8_10

Nash, K. L., C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, C. Barichievy, T. Eason, A. S. Garmestani, N. A. J. Graham, D. Granholm, M. Knutson, R. J. Nelson, M. Nyström, C. A. Stow, and S. M. Sundstrom. 2014. Discontinuities, cross-scale patterns, and the organization of ecosystems. Ecology 95(3):654-667. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1315.1

Neher, D. A., C. R. Anderson, A. D. Basche, C. Costello, M. K. Hendrickson, B. D. Maxwell, A. M. Roman-Alcalá, A. Streit Krug, W. F. Tracy, E. Méndez, C. Horner, and J. M. Anderzén. 2023. Proceedings - U.S.A Agroecology Summit 2023. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty Publications 204. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac/204

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

O’Leary, B., M. Burd, S. E. Venn, and R. Gleadow. 2018. Integrating the passenger–driver hypothesis and plant community functional traits to the restoration of lands degraded by invasive trees. Forest Ecology and Management 408:112-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.043

Olsson, L., E. Andersson, J. Ardö, T. Crews, C. David, L. DeHaan, A. Hilling, A. Streit Krug, M. Palmgren, S. Rey, T. Tagesson, A. Westerbergh, and P. Vestin. 2024. What is the prospect of a perennial grain revolution of agriculture? Global Sustainability 7:e35. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.27

Olsson, P. 2003. Building capacity for resilience in social-ecological systems. Dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Olsson, P., Ö. Bodin, and C. Folke. 2010. Building transformative capacity for ecosystem stewardship in social-ecological systems. Pages 263-285 in D. Armitage and R. Plummer, editors. Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12194-4_13

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and M.-L. Moore. 2022. Capacities for navigating large-scale sustainability transformations: exploring the revolt and remembrance mechanisms for shaping collapse and renewal in social-ecological systems. Pages 155-180 in L. Gunderson, C. R. Allen, and A. Garmestani, editors. Applied panarchy: applications and diffusion across disciplines. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Olsson, P., and V. Galaz. 2012. Social-ecological innovation and transformation. Pages 223-247 in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock, editors. Social innovation. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230367098_10

Olsson, P., L. Gunderson, S. 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

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. 2010. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review 100(3):641-672. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781666993905.ch-6

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3):354-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Pausas, J. G., and J. E. Keeley. 2021. Wildfires and global change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19(7):387-395. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2359

Perring, M. P., P. De Frenne, L. Baeten, S. L. Maes, L. Depauw, H. Blondeel, M. M. Carón, and K. Verheyen. 2016. Global environmental change effects on ecosystems: the importance of land-use legacies. Global Change Biology 22(4):1361-1371. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13146

Povak, N. A., V. R. Kane, B. M. Collins, J. M. Lydersen, and J. T. Kane. 2020. Multi-scaled drivers of severity patterns vary across land ownerships for the 2013 Rim Fire, California. Landscape Ecology 35(2):293-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00947-z

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

Pugliese, J. Y., S. W. Culman, and C. D. Sprunger. 2019. Harvesting forage of the perennial grain crop kernza (Thinopyrum intermedium) increases root biomass and soil nitrogen cycling. Plant and Soil 437(1):241-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-03974-6

Quinn-Davidson, L. N., and J. M. Varner. 2012. Impediments to prescribed fire across agency, landscape and manager: an example from northern California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(3):210. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11017

Rachunok, B., and R. Nateghi. 2021. Overemphasis on recovery inhibits community transformation and creates resilience traps. Nature Communications 12(1):7331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27359-5

Ratajczak, Z., S. R. Carpenter, A. R. Ives, C. J. Kucharik, T. Ramiadantsoa, M. A. Stegner, J. W. Williams, J. Zhang, and M. G. Turner. 2018. Abrupt change in ecological systems: inference and diagnosis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 33(7):513-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.04.013

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(1):267-289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349

Roberts, C. P., D. R. Uden, C. R. Allen, and D. Twidwell. 2018. Doublethink and scale mismatch polarize policies for an invasive tree. PLoS ONE 13(3):e0189733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189733

Shah, S. H., L. Rodina, J. M. Burt, E. J. Gregr, M. Chapman, S. Williams, N. J. Wilson, and G. McDowell. 2018. Unpacking social-ecological transformations: conceptual, ethical and methodological insights. The Anthropocene Review 5(3):250-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019618817928

Shiferaw, Y. A. 2021. Regime shifts in the COVID-19 case fatality rate dynamics: a Markov-switching autoregressive model analysis. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals: X 6:100059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csfx.2021.100059

Sievers-Glotzbach, S., and J. Tschersich. 2019. Overcoming the process-structure divide in conceptions of social-ecological transformation: assessing the transformative character and impact of change processes. Ecological Economics 164:106361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106361

Spear, M. J., J. R. Walsh, A. Ricciardi, and M. J. V. Zanden. 2021. The invasion ecology of sleeper populations: prevalence, persistence, and abrupt shifts. BioScience 71(4):357-369. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa168

Sprunger, C. D., S. W. Culman, A. L. Peralta, S. T. DuPont, J. T. Lennon, and S. S. Snapp. 2019. Perennial grain crop roots and nitrogen management shape soil food webs and soil carbon dynamics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 137:107573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107573

Standish, R. J., R. J. Hobbs, M. M. Mayfield, B. T. Bestelmeyer, K. N. Suding, L. L. Battaglia, V. Eviner, C. V. Hawkes, V. M. Temperton, V. A. Cramer, J. A. Harris, J. L. Funk, and P. A. Thomas. 2014. Resilience in ecology: abstraction, distraction, or where the action is? Biological Conservation 177:43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.008

Steffen, W., J. Rockström, K. Richardson, T. M. Lenton, C. Folke, D. Liverman, C. P. Summerhayes, A. D. Barnosky, S. E. Cornell, M. Crucifix, J. F. Donges, I. Fetzer, S. J. Lade, M. Scheffer, R. Winkelmann, and H. J. Schellnhuber. 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

Steger, C., K. Gebrehiwot, S. A. Chengere, J. Marinkovich, B. W. Dullo, S. W. Zewde, and J. A. Klein. 2021. Mental models of a social-ecological system facilitate social learning among a diverse management team. Environmental Science and Policy 122:127-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.04.006

Streit Krug, A., T. E. Crews, and T. P. McKenna. 2022. A social perennial vision for the North American Great Plains rooted in the resilience of natural systems-inspired agriculture. Pages 61-74 in A. Rastandeh and M. Jarchow, editors. Creating resilient landscapes in an era of climate change: global case studies and real-world solutions. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003266440-5

Streit Krug, A., E. B. M. Drummond, D. L. van Tassel, and E. J. Warschefsky. 2023a. The next era of crop domestication starts now. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(14):e2205769120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205769120

Streit Krug, A., E. Irons, and A. Andersson. 2023b. Sensing scale in experimental gardens: un-lawning with silphium civic science. Ecozon@: European Journal of Literature, Culture and Environment 14(1):99-118. https://doi.org/10.37536/ECOZONA.2023.14.1.4831

Streit Krug, A., and O. I. Tesdell. 2021. A social perennial vision: transdisciplinary inquiry for the future of diverse, perennial grain agriculture. Plants, People, Planet 3(4):355-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10175

Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(1):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.005

Sundstrom, S. M., D. G. Angeler, and C. R. Allen. 2023. Resilience theory and coerced resilience in agriculture. Agricultural Systems 206:103612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103612

Sundstrom, S. M., D. G. Angeler, A. S. Garmestani, J. H. García, and C. R. Allen. 2014. Transdisciplinary application of cross-scale resilience. Sustainability 6(10):6925-6948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6106925

Tedesco, A. M., S. López-Cubillos, R. Chazdon, J. R. Rhodes, C. L. Archibald, K.-V. Pérez-Hämmerle, P. H. S. Brancalion, K. A. Wilson, M. Oliveira, D. F. Correa, L. Ota, T. H. Morrison, H. P. Possingham, M. Mills, F. C. Santos, and A. J. Dean. 2023. Beyond ecology: ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecological transformation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 38(7):643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.02.007

The Land Institute. 2024. Perennial cultures. The Land Institute, Salina, Kansas, USA. https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-cultures/

Tom, E., M. M. Adams, and R. W. Goode. 2023. Solastalgia to soliphilia: cultural fire, climate change, and Indigenous healing. Ecopsychology 15(4):322-330. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.0085

Truchy, A., D. G. Angeler, R. A. Sponseller, R. K. Johnson, and B. G. McKie. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services, and ecological resilience: towards an integrative framework for improved management. Advances in Ecological Research 53:55-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.004

Tuckey, A. J., Z. V. Harmáčková, G. D. Peterson, A. V. Norström, M.-L. Moore, P. Olsson, D. P. M. Lam, and A. Jimínez-Aceituno. 2023. What factors enable social-ecological transformative potential? The role of learning practices, empowerment, and networking. Ecology and Society 28(2):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14163-280227

Turner, N. J., I. J. Davidson-Hunt, and M. O’Flaherty. 2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Human Ecology 31:439-461. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025023906459

Twidwell, D., C. L. Wonkka, H.-H. Wang, W. E. Grant, C. R. Allen, S. D. Fuhlendorf, A. S. Garmestani, D. G. Angeler, C. A. Taylor, U. P. Kreuter, and W. E. Rogers. 2019. Coerced resilience in fire management. Journal of Environmental Management 240:368-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.073

Uden, D. R., C. R. Allen, F. Munoz-Arriola, G. Ou, and N. Shank. 2018. A framework for tracing social-ecological trajectories and traps in intensive agricultural landscapes. Sustainability 10(5):1646. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051646

Uden, D. R., D. Twidwell, C. R. Allen, M. O. Jones, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, and B. W. Allred. 2019. Spatial imaging and screening for regime shifts. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00407

Vallet, A., B. Locatelli, H. Levrel, N. Dendoncker, C. Barnaud, and Y. Q. Conde. 2019. Linking equity, power, and stakeholders’ roles in relation to ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 24(2):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10904-240214

Vallury, S., A. P. Smith, B. C. Chaffin, H. K. Nesbitt, S. Lohani, S. Gulab, S. Banerjee, T. M. Floyd, A. L. Metcalf, E. C. Metcalf, D. Twidwell, D. R. Uden, M. A. Williamson, and C. R. Allen. 2022. Adaptive capacity beyond the household: a systematic review of empirical social-ecological research. Environmental Research Letters 17(6):063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac68fb

van Hulst, F., R. Ellis, K. Prager, and J. Msika. 2020. Using co-constructed mental models to understand stakeholder perspectives on agro-ecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 18(2):172-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1743553

Vose, J. M. 2000. Perspectives on using prescribed fire to achieve desired ecosystem conditions. Pages 12-17 in W. K. Moser and C. E. Moser, editors. Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 21. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Walker, B., L. Gunderson, A. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01530-110113

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

Weber, E. U., and P. C. Stern. 2011. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist 66(4):315-328. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023253

Wolch, J. R., J. Byrne, and J. P. Newell. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125:234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

Wolfram, M. 2016. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: a framework for research and policy. Cities 51:121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011

Wu, X., E. Sverdrup, M. D. Mastrandrea, M. W. Wara, and S. Wager. 2023. Low-intensity fires mitigate the risk of high-intensity wildfires in California’s forests. Science Advances 9(45):eadi4123. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi4123

Young, D. J. N., L. M. Porensky, K. M. Wolf, S. E. Fick, and T. P. Young. 2015. Burning reveals cryptic plant diversity and promotes coexistence in a California prairie restoration experiment. Ecosphere 6(5):art81. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00303.1