Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv Review Reviewing social-ecological resilience for agroforestry systems under climate change conditions ⁎ Esteve Viñals a,e, , Roser Maneja a,b, Martí Rufí-Salís e, Miquel Martí a,d, Neus Puy a,c a Forest Science and Technology Center of Catalonia (CTFC), Solsona, Catalonia, Spain b Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici Cn, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain c Department of Chemistry, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici Cn, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain d Department of Urbanism and Regional Planning, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Av. Diagonal, 649, 08028 Barcelona, Spain e Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (CEX2019-000940-M), Z Building, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Campus UAB, Bellaterra, 08193 Barcelona, Spain H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T • Agroforestry systems require adaptation measures to deal with climate change. • Understanding social-ecological resilience is key to adapt to global change issues. • Changes in historical nature-human inter- actions are transforming landscapes. • Local communities create small-scale solu- tions with significant global impact. • Description of practical strategies aimed at enhancing social-ecological resilience. A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Editor: Manuel Esteban Lucas-Borja Global change is shaping social-ecological systems, threatening both natural and socio-economic ecosystems as a whole. Landscapes with combined nature-human interactions are particularly vulnerable to changing climatic Keywords: conditions. Therefore, there is a need to find viable and practical solutions for the preservation and recovery Resilience of the affected systems. A relevant way to cope with disturbances is to promote social-ecological resilience Global change adaptation through the use of strategies targeting the social-ecological system as a whole, in order to ensure an efficient Landscapes Biodiversity conservation self-reorganization of a landscape. This study presents a research innovation by clarifying the concept of Social-ecological heritage social-ecological resilience while being focused on providing a useful tool for landscape managers. For doing so, the research first defines social-ecological resilience and aims to give a clear idea of its characteristics and ap- plication features. Second, it explains the importance of social-ecological resilience for landscapes, focusing on the relationship of humans with nature and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) for biodiversity conserva- tion. Third, it proposes guidelines and measures for the promotion and enhancement of social-ecological resil- ience. The outcomes of the study show a broad perspective on the concept of social-ecological resilience to understand the necessary adaptation to global change. As findings, this research highlights the significance of nature-human interactions for agroforestry systems, citing also the potential contribution that digital innovation can play for the conservation of those interactions in a sustainable way. Moreover, it uncovers the key role of local communities in building social-ecological resilience through the application of a variety of described ⁎ Corresponding author at: Forest Science and Technology Center of Catalonia (CTFC), Ctra. St Llorenç Km 2, 25280 Solsona, Catalonia, Spain. E-mail address: esteve.vinals@ctfc.cat (E. Viñals). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161763 Received 11 October 2022; Received in revised form 4 January 2023; Accepted 18 January 2023 Available online 23 January 2023 0048-9697/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 strategies that can have a relevant impact and be useful for landscape management practices to face upcoming challenges linked to climate change. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Social-ecological resilience concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Resilience to what, of what, for what . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Relevant measurement indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Nature human interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as a way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Guidance on operational strategies for building social-ecological resilience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CRediT authorship contribution statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Data availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction conceptualization of human-environmental systems and the development of resilience-enhancing governance methods (Hosen et al., 2020). Increasing global environmental pressures could lead to the crossing of Social-ecological systems are complex systems with feedback and critical ecological thresholds. When these thresholds are surpassed, major cross-scale dynamic interactions (Folke, 2006) that include ecological, so- changes are triggered, affecting the structure and function of ecosystems cial and economic elements as well as the interactions between them and the broader social-ecological systems in which they are embedded (Cumming et al., 2015). Feedback interactions occur when a part (or all) (Shackleton et al., 2018). Humanity is a major driver in global change of the system's output is used as input for subsequent actions, making and shapes ecosystem dynamics from the small scale of local environments them relevant to the dynamics and outcome of the system. Therefore, it is to the whole biosphere of the planet (Folke, 2006). Moreover, humans con- necessary to first understand that social-ecological systems can have multi- tribute to more than 95 % of the rapid temperature rise by emitting green- ple states that have the inherent features of change and uncertainty (Olsson house gases, especially due to burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and et al., 2004), shaping the basins of attraction they may have. Basins of at- land-use changes that emit greenhouse gases (Hosen et al., 2020). traction are defined as states in which the systems tend to remain and Actions like these are triggering climate change scenarios that suggest a where they can find their equilibrium (Walker et al., 2004). largely deterioration of renewable natural resources, such as agricultural Due to this complexity of the social-ecological systems, a major chal- soils or water resources; posing a threat to sustainable management lenge is to better understand these systems with the aim of building their (Jacobs et al., 2016) and to human livelihood (Hellin et al., 2018). In fact, resilience to face climate change conditions. But, for the enhancing of resil- if the increased frequency or severity of climatic events does not allow ience, it is first needed to understand it's meaning. Resilience is a concept time for ecosystem function to recover before the next hazard occurs, eco- with multiple definitions, partly due to the widespread use of the term in systems may decline, failing to provide essential services, for example, by different disciplines and systems (Nikinmaa et al., 2020). ceasing to provide fresh water supply, as a result of several droughts. Ulti- Walker et al. (2004) defines resilience as the capacity of a system to ab- mately, this will cause the ecosystem to transform into an undesirable sorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still re- state (Jacobs et al., 2016). tain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedback. When These phenomena cause climate change to become a significant concern looking at the resilience of social-ecological systems, the human-natural for land and resource management, creating an urgent need to build social– system is considered as a whole. Hence, understanding their social and eco- ecological capacity to address uncertain environmental changes (Mori nomic component is as fundamental as understanding their ecology if we et al., 2013). Nevertheless, although social and ecological systems are af- are to analyze and manage their resilience (Cumming et al., 2015). fected by the changing climate, the conservation behaviors of local and Consequently, whether the social-ecological system at a given site is re- global societies play a fundamental role in determining the future climate silient to different disturbances will fundamentally depend on both the (Mori et al., 2013) such as through the implementation of adaptation mea- starting-point ecological conditions and the social conditions at that loca- sures or strategies aimed at mitigating climate change. However, some ap- tion (Aslan et al., 2021). Since the social factor is relevant in social- proaches to nature conservation, like those defined by strong prohibitions ecological systems, humans have the added capacity to anticipate and on land and resource use, were founded on the conception of “nature” plan for the future by acting on the landscape. Such interventions can, how- and human society as separate entities. The role that local communities ever, modify the structure and functions of ecosystems. This is why a have played in shaping many globally important ecosystems has, in fact, broader interdisciplinary perspective on resilience is needed for these been ignored through processes of co-evolution (van Oudenhoven et al., systems. 2011). Now, however, it is known that synergies between traditional eco- Social-ecological resilience is defined as the ability of a social- logical knowledge (TEK) and scientific knowledge can also contribute to ecological system to accommodate disturbances without shifting into an al- biodiversity conservation (Shokirov and Backhaus, 2020). In fact, social- ternative state with different functions and processes (Folke, 2006; Walker ecological systems are being increasingly recognized as a tool for the et al., 2004), understanding people and nature as interdependent systems (Folke et al., 2010). In fact, social-ecological resilience refers to the 2 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 “humans in the environment perspective” (Reyhani et al., 2017) and places first condition of the sequence refers to all the orthographic possibilities a strong focus on the adaptive and transformative capacity of the social part of the term social-ecological resilience. In the second condition, keywords of the system (Nikinmaa et al., 2020). are intended to find studies that describe ways of managing or applying A historical connection between natural and human factors can be the term in practice. In the third condition, it was searched for the desired found in agroforestry systems. Indeed, strong links between agricultural systems or conditions for the study. Finally, the sequence left out to urban landscapes and socioecological heritage have been observed (Cusens areas, as this was not the scope of this study. The objective in this part et al., 2022). However, as a consequence of climate change conditions, was to find as many articles as possible that were suitable for this study, these interactions between nature and humans are affected, which can and then to screen them for making a final selection. transform landscapes. It needs to be considered that it is the quality of The search initially yielded a total of 230 journal articles published these relationships that dictates the strength of ecological and social resil- until February 2022, which was the date defined by the authors as the ience, a fundamental fact for adaptation in the wake of global climate final deadline for published articles to be included in this study. change (Wang et al., 2018). Accordingly, addressing socioecological resil- As the objective of the search is to find articles with case studies that ience is challenging as the impacts of extreme climate events can be devas- promote social-ecological resilience in agroforestry landscapes, all initially tating and disruptive to social and economic activity, as well as to natural identified abstracts were screened, and two criteria were applied in order to ecosystems (Jacobs et al., 2016). make the final selection. First, the concept of “social-ecological resilience” Because landscapes are characterized by integrating both the social and in the abstract or in the title had to be related to an active verb the ecological system, conducting the combined assessment of social- (e.g., manage, build, improve). That way, it was ensured that reviewed pa- ecological resilience is challenging but necessary to adequately predict re- pers propose action towards a more practical understanding of the social- covery (Aslan et al., 2021). Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that ecological resilience concept. Second, the abstract had to focus on natural social-ecological resilience continues to be a hazy concept for decision terrestrial systems (e.g., forests ecosystems, agricultural landscapes, moun- makers. These challenges prevent a correct and widespread implementa- tain areas). The aim here was to discard analyses not centered in land nat- tion, raising the necessity of introducing guidelines towards the goal of an ural environments (e.g., marine analyses). Papers that followed both operational use (Chapin et al., 2021). criteria were the ones finally considered (Fig. 1). For sustainable landscape management, it is essential to understand the In the case studies, a combination of geographies of more and less techno- role of the different stakeholders (Mansourian et al., 2020) in order to have logical regions has been found. However, 34 of the total refer to case studies a clear picture of the analyzed system. For this, it is necessary to identify developed in less modernized regions, which has a strong influence on the re- which ecological or socio-economic disturbances challenge the system sults. Communities in these regions have been less exposed to the effects of and to define which attributes need to be resilient for facing them. In addi- modernization and a more sustainable and tradition-sensitive transition tion, it is necessary to integrate science with people's perceptions to develop may still be possible. In the more modernized regions, it was considered better management policies and interventions (Chettri et al., 2021), which that communities experienced a highly transformative effect during the last may help in its successful implementation and is important to understand centuries and traditional habitats may have almost completely disappeared. the goal of the resilience actions. Therefore, management actions should As this research has analyzed case studies from less and more modern- first take into account and answer the following questions: resilience to ized regions, it provides a general point of view and a broader perspective what, resilience of what (Carpenter et al., 2001) and resilience for what on social-ecological resilience can be obtained. In fact, it is because of this (Charnley et al., 2017). For example, when facing resilience to wildfires combination of case studies, that results obtained on how to foster social- of forest ecosystems, managing resilience is important for sustaining social ecological resilience can be useful for the practical application of manage- values (like safely maintaining homes and infrastructure) or ecological ment actions for the overall range of landscapes threatened by climate values (like conservation of biodiversity) (Charnley et al., 2017). change. In summary, this study aims at clarifying the concept of social- Additionally, some other papers related to the objectives were also se- ecological resilience and at facilitating its application in agroforestry land- lected and reviewed, as they have provided a more theorical view of the re- scapes. To do so, a literature review methodology was applied to select dif- silience concept. These studies were identified from references found in the ferent case studies that promote the building of social-ecological resilience initial search papers. They sum up to the previous list, making up a total of in their respective ecosystems. As a result, the following objectives are 57 papers referenced for this literature review. intended to be achieved: 1. To understand the concept of social-ecological resilience, focusing on 3. Results what factors can landscapes be vulnerable to. 2. To analyze how important the social-ecological resilience concept can 3.1. Social-ecological resilience concept be in a climate change context, where changing conditions are affecting human-nature interactions. The first objective of the paper is to understand the concept of social- 3. To develop guidance to promote or build social-ecological resilience for ecological resilience, giving a clear picture of its characteristics for practical landscape management. use. In fact, studies have demonstrated a lack of operational facilities for managers (Chapin et al., 2021). 2. Materials and methods Social-ecological resilience assumes the existence of multiple basins of attraction (Folke et al., 2010) and the focus is on shaping those states A literature review was carried out to understand how the concept of in which the systems tend to remain via changing the social part of the sys- social-ecological resilience is currently assessed in the scientific literature. tem (Nikinmaa et al., 2020) in order to keep them in their desired state. A search was performed in the Scopus database using the following se- Humans have the capacity of influencing in both negative and positive quence; (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“soci* ecological resilience” OR “soci*-ecologi- ways the complex system, so they can co-work towards a positive impact. cal resilience” OR “soci*ecological resilience”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY It should be noted then that social-ecological resilience includes the (manag* OR plan* OR conser* OR policy) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (forest* characteristics of resistance, recovery, adaptive capacity and the ability to OR landscape* OR agro* OR biodivers* OR “climate change”) AND NOT transform (Folke et al., 2010). This complexity is basically what differenti- TITLE-ABS-KEY (urban)). ates the social-ecological resilience concept to other scientific used concepts Applying the search string in the Scopus database guaranteed that re- (like ecological or engineering resilience) (Nikinmaa et al., 2020). Social- sults were published in scientific journals. The specific keywords were ecological resilience is characterized by these three fundamental features used to find papers aligned with the research objectives. Therefore, the (Carpenter et al., 2001): 3 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 Fig. 1. Diagram of article selection for the review. 1. The amount of change a system can undergo while remaining within a 3.2. Resilience to what, of what, for what desired basin of attraction. 2. The degree to which the social-ecological system is capable of self- Management actions aiming at the fostering of social-ecological resil- organization. ience need to consider the questions of resilience to what, of what and for 3. The building capacity of a social-ecological system to learn and what. In this study, case studies of the application of social-ecological resil- adapt. In this adaptive capacity, feedback loops can play a great ience from the identified literature have been analyzed and assembled in role if resilient social-ecological systems are able to learn from previ- Table 1. This table aims to group the main factors used for the study of ous input actions after an impact or change and adapt the feedback social-ecological resilience to understand how landscapes are vulnerable. output produced. To this end, it was analyzed which disturbances threaten them, which attri- butes are important to maintain to face them and what are the objectives of promoting this resilience. Factors were separated between two different It is important to note that resilience does not imply that systems should categories (ecological and socio-economic). This was done both to have a bounce back to desired states after perturbations, but rather that they will better visual understanding and to observe in which category most of the persist with change in desirable states (de Vos et al., 2016). Hence, social- factors were identified. ecological resilience emphasizes on transformation and self-evolvement of Resilience to what can be defined as the ecological or socio- the system. economical disturbances that challenge the social-ecological system. In Table 1 Percentages of the factors in relation to the total attributes identified for each question. They have been extracted from the reviewed case studies. Factors Resilience to what Resilience of what Resilience for what Ecological • Climate change conditions (rising temperatures.• Forest ecosystem practices 11.4 % • Biodiversity conservation 13.2 % Decrease in precipitation) 27.1 % • Biodiversity 9 % • Safe species migration pathways 3.8 % • Extreme events (20.8 %) • Community dependent forests 6.8 % • Transforming agricultural systems to biocultural refugia 3.8 % • Ecosystem services 4.5 % • Species safe wellbeing 3.8 % • Forest fragments connectivity 4.5 % • Ecological integrity and health 3.8 % o Wildfires 8.3 % • Soil and freshwater quality 4.5 % o Drought 8.3 % • Habitat provision 2.3 % o Floods 4.2 % • Protected areas 2.3 % • Disturbance agents (pathogens, invasive species) • Natural reforestation 2.3 % 8.3 % • Land and forest degradation 8.3 % • Melting glaciers 2.1 % Socio-economic • Globalization & modernization 12.5 % • Traditional Practices (20,3 %) • Community welfare and preservation of values 15.1 % • Changes in land use 8.3 % • Human wellbeing 15.1 % • Socioeconomic pressures 4.2 % • Maintenance of farming and agricultural systems 11.3 % o Traditional Ecological Knowledge • Marketization of resources 4.2 % • Better resource availability 9.4 % (TEK) 9 % • Human conflicts 2.1 % • Food security & survival 5.7 % o Pastoral social-ecological system 4.5 % • Petro-chemical agricultural systems 2.1 % • Sustainable economic development and poverty alleviation 5.7 % o Plant-based food production 4.5 % • Increase in landholder income and diversification of o Traditional Healthcare System 2.3 % opportunities 5.7 % • Water security of communities 9 % • Social & gender equity 3.8 % • Organic farming & agriculture 6.8 % • Adaptive capacity management 6.8 % • Cultural connections with nature 4.5 % • Ecosystem & landscape management 4.5 % 4 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 this column, a higher percentage of factors were identified within the eco- and support between them) and (ii) modularity (autonomous units in logical category, meaning that disturbances affecting the studied systems which self-organization is enhanced at the local level and threats can mostly have an ecological origin. Specifically, climate change and extreme be isolated to stop them spreading). A right equilibrium between the climatic events were the most studied disturbances (27.1 % and 20.8 % of two dimensions can mean a high level of resilience. the studies for resilience to what, respectively). Within the extreme events, - Heterogeneity: Includes economic diversity, cultural diversity, biolog- wildfires and droughts were studied at the same percentage rate (8.3 %). ical diversity and response diversity. This way the system has a bigger Nevertheless, socio-economic factors that affect the studied social- range of available pathways and can spread the risk. ecological systems were also identified and the highest percentages were - Social capital: It refers to the level of social cohesion within the social found for the disturbances of globalization and modernization (12.5 % of system and includes effective leadership, trusted relationships between the studies), followed by changes in land use (8.3 %). key stakeholders, collaboration and reciprocity. As to which key functions and structures the stakeholders within a sys- - Feedbacks: Observing and analyzing if the system can produce feed- tem might wish to maintain over time in the face of potential disturbances backs that pushes back against disturbance is key to determining resil- (resilience of what); factors were identified almost in equal quantity of ience. In fact, closed feedback loops can produce surprising and percentage within the ecological and socio-economic categories. By this it unexpected dynamics (Cumming et al., 2015) in the systems. This is be- can be observed that stakeholders value in similar rates the preservation cause when a part (or all) of the system's output is used as input for sub- of factors from both categories in the context of social-ecological resilience. sequent actions, the resulting effect can either reinforce (positive) or Traditional practices and water security of communities were the most dampen (negative) change, influencing the dynamics of the ecosystem studied attributes to face disturbances (20.3 % and 9.0 % of the studies, re- (Tagliari et al., 2021). spectively) for socio-economic factors. As of the ecological ones, forest eco- system practices (11.4 %), biodiversity (9.0 %) and community dependent forest (6.8 %) were the most studied ones. These factors work as enabling indicators of how resilient a social- Finally, for the column of resilience for what, the table clearly shows a ecological system is and they are presented as measurement considerations higher percentage of factors within the socio-economic category, which in a general way, aiming at better understanding the whole concept of means that most of the objectives for managers on building socio- social-ecological resilience. ecological resilience are aimed at targeting the conservation and enhance- ment of socio-economic systems. In particular, community welfare and 4. Discussion preservation of values, human wellbeing and maintenance of farming and agricultural systems (15.1 %, 15.1 % and 11.3 % respectively) were the The presented results aim at achieving the first objective of the study as most studied goals of social-ecological resilience implementation. As for they provide a broad theorical understanding of social-ecological resil- the ecological factors, biological conservation was also identified in a ience. As a summary, the results part helped to (i) have a general definition high percentage of the cases reviewed (13.2 % of all the studies) and was of the concept, (ii) understand what factors create disturbances in the envi- the most studied goal in the ecological category itself. ronment, (iii) define what key system functions are important to address the challenges, (iv) know what objectives managers aim to achieve, and (v) give some considerations and measurement indicators. The second ob- 3.3. Relevant measurement indicators jective aims to understand the key role that social-ecological resilience plays in the current context of global change. The challenge is when resilience measurement takes place. The space As a matter of fact, the world continues to struggle in order to find via- and time scale become crucial too for determining the resilience of a land- ble solutions to mitigate and adapt to a number of critical issues facing the scape because these aspects change (Folke, 2006) and a system can be resil- Earth, such as degradation of ecosystem services, drying up of water ient just on the moment of the measurement, but maybe not later. As a sources or declining food productivity (Wang et al., 2018). The future sce- matter of fact, social-ecological resilience concepts lack established indica- nario of climate change is not certain; and the question is not so much tor frameworks that could easily be adopted by managers (Nikinmaa et al., what exact changes occur, but the fact that there is always the possibility 2020). that they will occur. Consequently, and given that there is a high probabil- Conventional indicators of ecosystem health (such as species richness or ity of problems occurring, it is urgent to rethink strategies to cope with un- soil nutrients) fail to capture the social dimension (van Oudenhoven et al., equivocal and continuous climate change (Mori et al., 2013) to which we 2011) because in social-ecological systems the relevant factors come from must adapt to. social-ecological interactions, where human communities adapt to In fact, adaptation to climate change presents unprecedented methodo- their environment and change that environment in the process. logical challenges given the uncertainty and complexity of the hazard Nevertheless, some general enabling factors can also be considered im- (Kopprio et al., 2014). Historical approaches applied to deal with climate- portant for understanding and measuring social-ecological resilience of a sensitive hazards or resource management (such as water resource manage- system. These factors are presented below and are drawn primarily from ment) may no longer be valid to cope with this complex global change. As a Baumber et al. (2020) complemented by information found in other case consequence, the intensification and normalization of extreme events studies reviewed: (Jacobs et al., 2016; Devisscher et al., 2021) is making some communities - Buffers and redundancies: Extra capacity that a system holds in re- particularly vulnerable to environmental, economic and social shocks serve. It is a way of storage (del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al., 2015) (Shumsky et al., 2014). and some examples of it could be a reserve of capital, water or organic Some of the case studies reviewed reflect the reality of several develop- matter. It can help to minimize the severity of a disturbance or to enable ing countries facing the same challenge of developing while maintaining a faster recovery. profit-generating natural resources. The application of a new logic in nature - Monitoring and sharing information: A regular, systematic collection conservation projects integrated into economic development presupposes of data that has the capacity to gather information in a transparent and new ways of acting and thinking (Aza et al., 2021). shared way. Together with the transmission of traditional knowledge, So, there is an urgent need to research and develop innovative adapta- they are important indicators of the resilience of a system (Hosen tion mechanisms (Providoli et al., 2010) in order to increase social- et al., 2020). ecological resilience. Yet, the strong and urgent call to implement climate - Management in the right scale: This refers to whether a system main- adaptation strategies should not be an excuse to define adaptation goals tains the right balance between: (i) connectedness (connections to and assess its success following a single dimension focused on livelihoods neighboring systems and higher system levels so there can be exchange (Rodriguez-Solorzano, 2014). 5 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 However, local communities are often best placed to guide research on 4.2. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as a way forward the ecological and social processes affecting their livelihoods (Hosen et al., 2020). Thus, this measurement to understand social-ecological resilience TEK can be considered as the memory of the human environment in can be conducted using qualitative assessment methods to understand the landscapes. The deeper this memory, the more traditional ecological social mechanisms of adapting to and shaping change (Olsson et al., knowledge can be expected to reflect the complexities of these dynamics 2004). In addition, the enabling factors presented previously can help to and facilitate communities' adaptation to change (van Oudenhoven et al., better understand the landscape and be useful in defining strategies that ap- 2011). Resilience theory perceives traditional knowledge as the basis of ob- proach the system as a whole. At the same time, in order to plan these ad- servation and long-standing responses to climate shocks and stresses; there- aptation strategies, it is important to understand nature-human fore, it enhances the capacity to manage impacts (Hosen et al., 2020). interactions. Of special relevance is comprehending how these connec- Indeed, enhancing communities' cultural knowledge and social-ecological tions are important for the social-ecological resilience of landscapes. heritage in innovative ways would improve the resilience of social- Learning about nature-human interactions, along with understanding ecological systems in the future, as well as their contribution to climate traditional ecological knowledge, supports the second objective of the change mitigation and biodiversity conservation (Marull et al., 2019), paper and helps to see how important it is to build social-ecological resil- which demonstrates the relevance of transferring and maintaining tradi- ience for climate change adaptation. tional ecological knowledge to deal with shocks (Calvet-Mir et al., 2016). Knowledge is conceived as the product of local ecological understand- 4.1. Nature human interactions ing accumulated over time and learned from past mistakes and crises. It is an evolutionary process and the result of adaptive and transformative re- Social-ecological systems have inherent interactions between the social sponses to environmental, social and cultural pressures and changes and ecological systems. Knowledge to monitor, interpret and respond to (Zank et al., 2019). Many studies have shown that economic factors are these connections is crucial to strengthen the capacity to cope with uncer- among the most important factors affecting degradation and resilience at tainty and change (Olsson et al., 2004). Landscapes that have coevolved the community level (Cotroneo et al., 2021), creating communities that with anthropogenic activities over time require their continuity in order are more vulnerable and less able to innovate and seek solutions, especially to preserve the existence of certain species and ecosystem services (van if they are not supported by institutions (Bhalerao et al., 2021). Oudenhoven et al., 2011). This conceptual view is important for addressing This tends to be true especially in small-scale cases. The idea that cli- climate change, especially at the local scale, because the impacts of climate mate change is a global phenomenon tends to automatically produce argu- change on society and human well-being are deeply connected to the im- ments that responses must also be large-scale and responses at the local pacts on the ecological systems on which humans depend (Mori et al., level are rarely thought of. As an example, it has been found that small riv- 2013; Cusens et al., 2022). ers (Lebel et al., 2010) or small patch fields in the Amazon (Vogt et al., The findings of this research indicate that humans are highly depen- 2015) receive much less attention than other large rivers or large land dent on nature and the long-term persistence and effective management areas, respectively in management discussions and for policy action. But of both cannot be achieved in isolation. Ecological diversity and biodi- small scale is also relevant (Ota et al., 2020) and traditional knowledge is versity conservation are fundamental to securing ecosystem services, mostly preserved in small communities. Thus, both collective and individ- which are key to the survival of humans and biodiversity. To ensure ual capacities, on the one hand, and system properties, on the other, are that this relationship is resilient in the face of climate change threats, very important for enhancing resilience at the local level through agency ecological, cultural and livelihood diversity must be preserved and pro- and self-organization (Zank et al., 2019). moted (Wang et al., 2018), engaging with the quality and strengths of In fact, some papers like Zank et al. (2019), Ota et al. (2020) and social-ecological resilience. Tagliari et al. (2021) suggest that local community peoples are ideal envi- Building resilience provides many benefits to ecosystems that, through ronmental administrators. Through the use of traditional knowledge, feedback loops, ultimately benefit the entire complex system, including most communities have managed to maintain sustainable traditional agri- local populations in the area (Honrado et al., 2017). In this sense, the cultural practices, traditional forest management and conservation prac- multi-functional landscapes proposed by Ens et al. (2016) are a great tices and traditional livelihoods in their territories (Hosen et al., 2020). way to obtain ecocultural outcomes that provide a positive impact on Indeed, despite modernization and mechanization, traditional knowledge social-ecological resilience. Multi-functional landscapes contain diverse continues to play an important role in conservation (Shokirov and uses, states or management practices. This diversity of practices is part of Backhaus, 2020). Learning from communities, cultures or peoples that the traditional heritage of communities and their relationship with the nat- have been able to maintain their traditional ecological knowledge and prac- ural system (Cadena et al., 2014) that has social, economic and ecological tices is key to building social-ecological resilience. benefits (Ens et al., 2016). This research, therefore, argues that social-ecological resilience can play But nature and human interactions have changed drastically in recent an important role in adaptation to climate change conditions, using TEK as centuries and not all communities have retained their traditional practices an important tool for resilience building. The relevance of social-ecological (Shokirov and Backhaus, 2020). For example, alpine pastures and manual resilience for landscapes has also been explained through nature-human in- mowing of meadows where machinery cannot be used in mountain valleys teractions, agreeing with the second objective of the study. The change in (Milestad and Hadatsch, 2003) are getting lost. However, not only have social-ecological management regimes affects the whole social-ecological these traditional practices been lost, but also the entire communities that system, but the way to manage it presents difficulties that are not easy to held the knowledge have been changed and transformed by modernization. solve. TEK is presented as the set of traditional memories that communities This has implications for ecological resilience and, given that a high human have accumulated over centuries about their relationship with nature and dependence on ecosystems in the communities was found (Wang et al., the practices that ensured the sustainable conservation of the environment 2018), the system could shift to an undesirable state if the social system in which they lived. In this way, communities were aiming for their survival fails to renew itself (Milestad and Hadatsch, 2003; Teague and Barnes, and the preservation of their people, their social-ecological heritage and the 2017). Nevertheless, modernization should not be considered a threat in it- ecological values they possessed. These objectives of preservation can be self. It is important to learn what the social system is capable of doing with common to nowadays societies facing the problem of climate change. the means currently available to avoid degradation of the ecological sys- Nevertheless, one perceived drawback from TEK is that historical states tem. In this sense, the use of technological practices combined with the may no longer be sustainable today due to observed climatic conditions. TEK of each community can be a useful way to cope with future climate Climate change produces conditions never seen before and adaptation strat- change scenarios and to re-enhance the sometimes lost connections be- egies that were useful for local communities in the past may not be suitable tween human activities and the natural environment. for the future. However, it has been observed that TEK is not a static, nor a 6 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 straightforward practice to follow. In contrast, the knowledge systems con- and living with uncertainty can be crucial for a resilient system. This en- sist of a dynamic approach (Hosen et al., 2020) and are useful for finding gages the transformative capacity of resilience, which can re-define the innovative ways to solve challenges. In this sense, the great value of com- system and make a positive change in the relationship between humans munities' cultural and ecological knowledge together with nowadays digi- and nature (Olsson et al., 2004; McWethy et al., 2019). That said, the first tal innovations can produce a combined solution to enhance social- strategy found in the case studies reviewed is collaborative management. ecological resilience in today's conditions. Enhancing cooperation and collective action in landscape management provides the ability to self-organize (Reyhani et al., 2017), which is an im- 4.3. Guidance on operational strategies for building social-ecological resilience portant element in building social-ecological resilience (Hellin et al., 2018). Specifically, a key point to promote this collective action is to strengthen so- The last goal of this paper is to show some guiding strategies used in the cial networks and foster greater interaction between different stakeholders reviewed case studies to build social-ecological resilience and that these can (Charnley et al., 2017). The examples found in Table 2 show how important inspire landscape management practices. collaborative management has been for strengthening social-ecological re- Social-ecological systems have change and complexity as fundamental silience. characteristics (van Oudenhoven et al., 2011). Given this complexity, ef- Another strategy is ecological diversity, which is an important strategy forts to maintain social-ecological systems in static or historical states for maintaining resilience and could bring additional benefits to the envi- may no longer be sustainable given the observed and predicted changes ronment even in a short period of time (Dymond et al., 2014). Indeed, it in the climate system (McWethy et al., 2019). To address this, resilience has been argued that natural diversification of cultivated products increases shifts the focus from mere optimization (e.g., of performance levels) and ef- resilience to climatic shocks because it spreads the risk of harvest failure ficiency to adaptability, resilience, development and flexibility and also provides farmers with a greater margin of opportunity to switch (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2008). Therefore, an important aspect of fu- crops in response to changing circumstances (del Mar Delgado-Serrano ture management is adaptive management, which minimizes uncertainty et al., 2015; Nordhagen et al., 2017). However, a limitation here is that di- and is the best approach for dealing with external shocks, giving the com- versity does not always convey resilience if that heterogeneity includes veg- plex non-linear dynamics of social-ecological systems (Hosen et al., 2020). etation conditions that are not resilient to the disturbances they face The basic strategies found in the case studies reviewed are presented in (Charnley et al., 2017), so proper analysis is needed to first determine below and are complemented by Table 2. Reviewed examples of each of the which species are suitable for a particular ecosystem. strategies are presented in this table so that it is easy to analyze how they The third strategy is to promote knowledge transmission, which is re- are helping the local communities in which they are being applied. But lated to the previously explained importance of traditional ecological first, a general key point that helps to cope with climate change scenarios knowledge for social-ecological resilience. In this sense, traditional knowl- is learning to live with change and uncertainty (Reyhani et al., 2017; edge fills unstudied gaps in science and can provide insights into local im- Porcuna-Ferrer et al., 2020). Given that knowledge about the complexity pacts and adaptations (Reyhani et al., 2017). In fact, cultural values, and interconnectedness of ecosystems is incomplete, accepting change which are maintained through oral traditions and traditional festivals, Table 2 Reviewed examples from each of the strategies that aim at building social-ecological resilience. Strategies Reviewed examples Collaborative management • The study on araucaria forests (Tagliari et al., 2021) shows that bottom-up co-management offers a possible solution to conservation dilemmas, as it effectively incorporates the principles of resilient thinking: management of feedbacks, maintenance of ecological diversity, and broad participation of different stakeholders. • Similarly, a social-ecological system on the Tibetan plateau (Gongbuzeren et al., 2018) has shown considerable improvement in resilience by maintaining community governance. • Another example is a collaborative forest management program in Ghana (Akamani and Hall, 2019) where the impact of the program at the community level was moderately positive. Engaging ecological diversity • Wild plant diversity (Thorn et al., 2020) has shown some collateral benefits such as helping to prevent erosion from torrential rains or increasing immunity among food insecure communities where malnutrition is high. • Mixed-species reforestation and the use of non-commercial timber for alternative products can improve forest health (Ota et al., 2020; Devisscher et al., 2021). Also, reforestation can increase human capital, improving the knowledge and skills of smallholders and generating direct or indirect employment opportunities. Promoting transmission of knowledge • A study of home gardens in the Catalan Pyrenees (Calvet-Mir et al., 2016) highlights the importance of transmitting and maintaining local knowledge and how this helps transform home gardens from an agricultural system to biocultural havens. • Another case study of communities in Brazil (Zank et al., 2019) focuses on collective learning for health systems. This promotes the sharing of experiences, ideas, and social context to maintain ongoing knowledge. Shared pooling resources • Multiple-paddock grazing provides tangible and substantial advantages if well planned and adaptively managed (Teague and Barnes, 2017). • Community shared seed banks were observed as potential ways to improve local community self-organization capacity in western Guatemala (Porcuna-Ferrer et al., 2020). However, the limitations found here show that shared strategies for risk reduction are most effective when only a few participate. Building infrastructure • Reversing the abandonment of rural infrastructures (drinking water, health, education, transport, communication) seems crucial for the preservation of landscapes and communities (Cotroneo et al., 2021). Policies and institutional support • Reviewed example of a plan for small-scale agriculture in Guatemala (Hellin et al., 2018) to engage municipal authorities in developing policy measures for local farmer organizations along with financial assistance that has been successful. Sustainable agricultural practices • Carbon farming has increased income generation opportunities for rangeland owners in Australia (Baumber et al., 2020). However, it has its limitations because carbon farming also has the potential to erode the social-ecological resilience of rangelands, which requires careful management and policy responses. • Agroforestry practices (Gebru et al., 2019) help alleviate farmers' livelihood problems through improved access to fuelwood and employment and income opportunities, thus improving their resilience. • Renewable energy sources and sustainable agroecological practices have helped some family farms in Cuba adapt to climate change shocks, maximizing socioecological resilience (Rodríguez and González, 2018). Increase income diversification • The example of community-based tourism activities (Gu et al., 2012; Hellin et al., 2018) aims to create social capital with the idea of instilling a sense of ownership and improving the capacity of local communities to provide goods and services. • Another example is increasing farmers' income through the production and marketing of local agricultural products to help preserve traditional resource management practices and prevent land use conversion or abandonment (Gu et al., 2012). 7 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 have shaped how communities govern their resources and how they pro- challenging problems (Shackleton et al., 2018; Urquiza and Billi, 2020). mote and maintain social cohesion among This is why the traditional way Moreover, the adaptation strategies used should be accompanied by gov- of life of communities must be recognized and sustained to support resilient ernment interventions that favor the local communities to improve resil- social-ecological systems (Hosen et al., 2020). Some characteristics en- ience (Bhalerao et al., 2021). In fact, these communities must find hanced with knowledge transmission include social memory, heterogene- adaptation solutions and be engaged with the strategies that are useful for ity, social learning, and adaptive capacity (Calvet-Mir et al., 2016), them. This way conditions can be enabled to establish ownership and re- features that help maintain active knowledge, allowing local communities sponsibility for adequate project implementation (Shokirov and to promote their social-ecological resilience (Zank et al., 2019). Backhaus, 2020). In other words, those who bear the risk also have to get Another strategy is the pooling of resources. Pooling allows farmers to the benefit. Without this type of incentive, investment to increase resilience share risks with a group of people working together on a given activity to climate change and future shocks will remain unattractive (Devisscher (Rodriguez-Solorzano, 2014). This increases the availability of natural re- et al., 2021). In addition to this, it is worth highlighting the importance sources in case of disturbances, diversifying risk and decreasing the conse- that digital innovation can bring to assist and facilitate adaptation mea- quences on individuals. In one example reviewed, it is found that sharing sures. Modernization can engage in the transformative capacity of humans, grazing land showed numerous benefits for farmers (Teague and Barnes, allowing for a faster re-definition of a system and technology is a great tool 2017). In another from Guatemala (Porcuna-Ferrer et al., 2020), potential when combined with the knowledge that promotes the social-ecological re- benefits were also observed, however, some limitations were identified silience of a landscape. For example, in humid tropics, innovation gives here. Indeed, to achieve a capacity for self-organization and build smallholders the choice of reforesting and to use more advantageous socioecological resilience, the community first has to overcome structural land-use practices (Ota et al., 2020). Also, new technologies are a relevant gender inequalities, social fragmentation and mistrust. mode of knowledge transmission for home gardeners (Calvet-Mir et al., Another strategy for building socio-ecological resilience is the con- 2016). struction of infrastructures since this is necessary for communities to be Overall, this review contributes to clarifying the concept of social- able to develop their activities. In fact, the availability of infrastructure is ecological resilience, trying to cover from the definition to its features an important factor of physical capital because it enables the action of ex- found in the scientific literature. In the context of climate change, tension agents, the diffusion of technology from farmer to farmer or the social-ecological resilience plays an important role because nature- added value of products (Ota et al., 2020). It is also useful as storage infra- human interactions are changing and affecting the systems in which structure to create additional capacity in a system in the form of reserve they interact. The presented specific strategic practices that can be (Baumber et al., 2020). applied by local communities aim at being helpful for operational One relevant strategy that has been found is to have policy and institu- management of landscapes. tional support. In social-ecological systems, sometimes rapid socioeco- nomic changes could disrupt the functional links between culture and 5. Conclusions biodiversity (Gu et al., 2012), so it is important to develop policy measures to strengthen social-ecological resilience. Indeed, policies aimed at main- The overall objective of this research was to uncover the relevance of taining key agricultural landscapes provide socioecological resilience in social-ecological resilience for agroforestry landscapes in a context of global the face of drivers of change that affect linked cultural heritage and agricul- change, where it has proven to be an effective approach to address the chal- tural values (Cusens et al., 2022). In addition, financial assistance programs lenges ahead. The main findings highlight the importance of re-thinking the would help to more quickly recover affected systems after a disturbance oc- interactions between nature and humans, emphasizing the high value of curs (Charnley et al., 2017) by avoiding consequences that could be devas- common responsibility in landscapes, in terms of ecosystem service provi- tating. In fact, in one example reviewed (Hellin et al., 2018), financial sion and biodiversity conservation. Digital innovation and technology resources are used for both common property resource management and must play a key role for the maintenance of these interactions, providing microcredit schemes for individual households, thereby reducing the likeli- replicable and transferable sustainable practices. It is emphasized that hood of conflicts over access and use of these resources and ultimately con- TEK and community-based management are essential for building social- tributing to greater social-ecological resilience. ecological resilience and, in fact, become an optimal framework for involv- Sustainable agricultural practices, where healthier relationships be- ing local people in landscape management and conservation practices. In tween society and the environment are established, are another strategy this sense, the application of the different described strategies can become that contributes to building socio-ecological resilience. These practices do valuable for the management of agroforestry systems and may contribute to not necessarily require the use of high-tech adaptation methods, but effec- face the upcoming challenges of climate change. tive measures such as changes in planting and harvesting times, crop rota- In conclusion, there is complexity around how to manage social- tion or agroforestry can work just fine (Bhalerao et al., 2021). The ecological systems. From our understanding, there are still some gaps in examples in Table 2 show numerous benefits for farms, such as increased the scientific literature: i) A broader interdisciplinary perspective on the biomass reserves that can allow landowners to better recover from drought management of social-ecological systems incorporating and involving all (Baumber et al., 2020); reduced incidence of natural hazards and floods, stakeholders; and ii) In-depth research into the role that digital innovation and reduced migration of rural people to urban areas to earn a living and technology can provide for local communities in building their social- (Gebru et al., 2019) or the establishment of a closer and stronger connec- ecological resilience. Such additional studies would help to better under- tion with the natural environment, making efficient use of available local stand resilient social-ecological landscapes, which is necessary to advance resources, as well as respecting and working with the cycles of nature the definition of these more sustainable systems to address the challenges (Rodríguez and González, 2018). of global change. Finally, the last strategy presented consists of increasing income di- versification. Indeed, diversification of income sources and skills are CRediT authorship contribution statement used to spread the risks related to disturbances at the household level (del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al., 2015). An example, found in Table 2, is Esteve Viñals: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, In- community-based tourism activities in which local community members vestigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project administration. participate in tourism planning and implementation processes (Gu et al., Roser Maneja: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – re- 2012; Hellin et al., 2018). By doing so, local communities can increase in- view & editing, Supervision. Martí Rufí: Writing – review & editing. come diversification and have more opportunities in times of disturbances. Miquel Martí: Writing – review & editing. Neus Puy: Conceptualization, Response strategies and adaptation options are variable and context- Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding specific, making governance complex because in many cases it encounters acquisition. 8 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 Data availability Ens, E.J., Daniels, C., Nelson, E., Roy, J., Dixon, P., 2016. Creating multi-functional land- scapes: using exclusion fences to frame feral ungulate management preferences in remote Aboriginal-owned northern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 197, 235–246. https://doi.org/10. No data was used for the research described in the article. 1016/j.biocon.2016.03.007. Falkenmark, M., Rockström, J., 2008. Building resilience to drought in desertification-prone savannas in sub-Saharan Africa: the water perspective. Nat. Res. Forum 32 (2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1477-8947.2008.00177.X. Declaration of competing interest Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems anal- yses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16 (3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA. 2006.04.002. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter- Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockström, J., 2010. Resilience ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15 (4). work reported in this paper. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420. Gebru, B.M., Wang, S.W., Kim, S.J., Lee, W.K., 2019. Socio-ecological niche and factors affect- ing agroforestry practice adoption in different agroecologies of southern Tigray, Ethiopia. Acknowledgements Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133729. Gongbuzeren, Huntsinger, L., Li, W., 2018. Rebuilding pastoral social-ecological resilience on The present research has been funded by the LIFE Program from the the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in response to changes in policy, economics, and climate. Ecol. Soc. 23 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10096-230221. European Union for the project LIFE BIOREFFORMED (LIFE 19 ENV/ES/ Gu, H., Jiao, Y., Liang, L., 2012. Strengthening the socio-ecological resilience of forest- 000544). dependent communities: the case of the Hani Rice Terraces in Yunnan, China. For.Policy We thank Albert Bach and Núria Aquilué, both CTFC researchers, for Econ. 22, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.04.004. Hellin, J., Ratner, B.D., Meinzen-Dick, R., Lopez-Ridaura, S., 2018. Increasing social- their scientific support and advice. ecological resilience within small-scale agriculture in conflict-affected Guatemala. Ecol. Soc. 23 (3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10250-230305. References Honrado, J.P., Lomba, A., Alves, P., Aguiar, C., Monteiro-Henriques, T., Cerqueira, Y., Monteiro, P., Barreto Caldas, F., 2017. Conservation management of EU priority habitats after collapse of traditional pastoralism: navigating socioecological transitions in moun- Akamani, K., Hall, T.E., 2019. Scale and co-management outcomes: assessing the impact of tain rangeland. Rural. Sociol. 82 (1), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12111. collaborative forest management on community and household resilience in Ghana. Hosen, N., Nakamura, H., Hamzah, A., 2020. Adaptation to climate change: does traditional Heliyon 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01125. ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (2). https://doi. Aslan, C.E., Sandor, M., Sample, M., Stortz, S., Souther, S., Levine, C., Samberg, L., Gray, M., org/10.3390/su12020676. Dickson, B., 2021. Estimating social-ecological resilience: fire management futures in the Jacobs, B., Boronyak-Vasco, L., Moyle, K., Leith, P., 2016. Ensuring resilience of natural re- Sonoran Desert. Ecol. Appl. 31 (4). https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2303. sources under exposure to extreme climate events. Resources 5 (2). https://doi.org/10. Aza, A., Riccioli, F., di Iacovo, F., 2021. Optimising payment for environmental services 3390/resources5020020. schemes by integrating strategies: the case of the Atlantic Forest,Brazil. For. Policy Kopprio, G.A., Freije, R.H., Arias-Schreiber, M., Lara, R.J., 2014. An ecohydrological adaptive Econ. 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102410. approach to a salt lake in the semiarid grasslands of Argentina: future management per- Baumber, A., Waters, C., Cross, R., Metternicht, G., Simpson, M., 2020. Carbon farming for re- spectives. Sustain. Sci. 9 (2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0207-7. silient rangelands: people, paddocks and policy. Rangel. J. 42 (5), 293–307. https://doi. Lebel, L., Xu, J., Bastakoti, R.C., Lamba, A., 2010. Pursuits of adaptiveness in the shared rivers org/10.1071/RJ20034. of Monsoon Asia. Int.Environ.Agreements: Polit.Law Econ. 10 (4), 355–375. https://doi. Bhalerao, A.K., Rasche, L., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U.A., 2021. Sustainable agriculture in org/10.1007/s10784-010-9141-7. Northeastern India: how do tribal farmers perceive and respond to climate change? Int. Mansourian, S., Parrotta, J., Balaji, P., Bellwood-Howard, I., Bhasme, S., Bixler, R.P., J. Sust. Dev. World https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1986750. Boedhihartono, A.K., Carmenta, R., Jedd, T., de Jong, W., Lake, F.K., Latawiec, A., Cadena, A.J., Pond, D., Rattanasorn, T., 2014. Integrated livelihoods and landscape approach Lippe, M., Rai, N.D., Sayer, J., van Dexter, K., Vira, B., Visseren-Hamakers, I., Wyborn, for smallholders in Northern Thailand. Future Food: J.Food Agric.Soc. 2 (2), 22–29. C., Yang, A., 2020. Putting the pieces together: integration for forest landscape restora- Calvet-Mir, L., Riu-Bosoms, C., González-Puente, M., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Reyes-García, V., Molina, tion implementation. Land Degrad. Dev. 31 (4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr. J.L., 2016. The transmission of home garden knowledge: safeguarding biocultural diver- 3448. sity and enhancing social-ecological resilience. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29 (5), 556–571. Marull, J., Cattaneo, C., Gingrich, S., de Molina, M.G., Guzmán, G.I., Watson, A., MacFadyen, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1094711. J., Pons, M., Tello, E., 2019. Comparative energy-landscape integrated analysis (ELIA) of Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., Abel, N., 2001. From metaphor to measurement: re- past and present agroecosystems in North America and Europe from the 1830s to the silience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 (8), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10021- 2010s. Agric. Syst. 175, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.011. 001-0045-9. McWethy, D.B., Schoennagel, T., Higuera, P.E., Krawchuk, M., Harvey, B.J., Metcalf, E.C., Chapin, J., Abrams, J., Timberlake, T.J., Schultz, C., Evans, A.M., Fernández-Giménez, M., Schultz, C., Miller, C., Metcalf, A.L., Buma, B., Virapongse, A., Kulig, J.C., Stedman, 2021. Operationalizing resilience on U.S. national forestlands: a quantitative analysis of R.C., Ratajczak, Z., Nelson, C.R., Kolden, C., 2019. Rethinking resilience to wildfire. environmental impact statements. Soc. Nat. Resour. 34 (10), 1394–1411. https://doi. Nat. Sustain. 2 (9), 797–804. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0353-8. org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1961043. Milestad, R., Hadatsch, S., 2003. Organic farming and social-ecological resilience: the Alpine Charnley, S., Spies, T.A., Barros, A.M.G., White, E.M., Olsen, K.A., 2017. Diversity in forest Valleys of Sölktäler, Austria. Ecol. Soc. 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00584-080103. management to reduce wildfire losses: implications for resilience. Ecol. Soc. 22 (1). Mori, A.S., Spies, T.A., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Andrade, A., 2013. Reframing ecosystem manage- https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08753-220122. ment in the era of climate change: issues and knowledge from forests. Biol. Conserv. 165, Chettri, N., Aryal, K., Thapa, S., Uddin, K., Kandel, P., Karki, S., 2021. Contribution of ecosys- 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.020. tem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: a case study from the Eastern Nikinmaa, L., Lindner, M., Cantarello, E., Jump, A.S., Seidl, R., Winkel, G., Muys, B., 2020. Himalaya. Land Use Policy 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105643. Reviewing the use of resilience concepts in forest sciences. Curre.For.Rep. 6 (2), 61–80. Cotroneo, S.M., Jacobo, E.J., Brassiolo, M.M., 2021. Degradation processes and adaptive strat- https://doi.org/10.1007/S40725-020-00110-X/FIGURES/5. egies in communal forests of Argentine dry Chaco. Integrating stakeholder knowledge Nordhagen, S., Pascual, U., Drucker, A.G., 2017. Feeding the household, growing the business, and perceptions. Ecosyst.People 17 (1), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916. or just showing off? Farmers'motivations for crop diversity choices in Papua New Guinea. 2021.1972042. Ecol. Econ. 137, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.025. Cumming, G.S., Allen, C.R., Ban, N.C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H.C., Cumming, D.H.M., de Vos, A., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hahn, T., 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem manage- Epstein, G., Etienne, M., Maciejewski, K., Mathevet, R.L., Moore, C., Nenadovic, M., ment: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Schoon, M., 2015. Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social- Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 9 (4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00683-090402. ecological approach. Ecol. Appl. 25 (2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2113.1. Ota, L., Herbohn, J., Gregorio, N., Harrison, S., 2020. Reforestation and smallholder liveli- Cusens, J., Barraclough, A.M.D., Måren, I.E., 2022. Participatory mapping reveals biocultural hoods in the humid tropics. Land Use Policy 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. and nature values in the shared landscape of a Nordic UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Peo- 2019.104455. ple Nat. 4 (2), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10287. Porcuna-Ferrer, A., Fiala, V., Freyer, B., van Etten, J., Vernooy, R., Probst, L., 2020. Do com- de Vos, A., Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M., Ament, J.M., Baum, J., Clements, H.S., Grewar, munity seed banks contribute to the social-ecological resilience of communities? A case- J.D., Maciejewski, K., Moore, C., 2016. Pathogens, disease, and the social-ecological resil- study from western Guatemala. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 18 (3), 232–249. https://doi.org/ ience of protected areas. Ecol. Soc. 21 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07984-210120. 10.1080/14735903.2020.1747199. del Mar Delgado-Serrano, M., Escalante, R., Basurto, S., 2015. Is the community-based man- Providoli, I., Man Sthapit, K., Dhakal, M., Sharma, E., 2010. Mainstreaming a Decade's Expe- agement of natural resources inherently linked to resilience? An analysis of the Santiago riences in Watershed Management to Meet the Challenges of Environmental Change in Comaltepec Community (Mexico). Ager 18, 91–114. https://doi.org/10.4422/AGER. the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. In Nova Science Publishers. Nova Science Publishers. 2015.07. https://novapublishers.com/shop/mainstreaming-a-decades-experiences-in-watershed- Devisscher, T., Spies, J., Griess, V., 2021. Time for change: learning from community forests to management-to-meet-the-challenges-of-environmental-change-in-the-hindu-kush- enhance the resilience of multi-value forestry in British Columbia,Canada. Land Use Pol- himalayas/. icy 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105317. Reyhani, M.N., Eslamian, S., Davari, A., 2017. Sustainable agriculture: building social- Dymond, C.C., Tedder, S., Spittlehouse, D.L., Raymer, B., Hopkins, K., McCallion, K., ecological resilience. Handbook of Drought and Water Scarcity: Environmental Impacts Sandland, J., 2014. Diversifying managed forests to increase resilience. Can. J. For. and Analysis of Drought and Water Scarcity, pp. 187–203 https://doi.org/10.1201/ Res. 44 (10), 1196–1205. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0146. b22244. 9 E. Viñals et al. Science of the Total Environment 869 (2023) 161763 Rodríguez, L.C., González, J.A.C., 2018. How to make prosperous and sustainable family maintain ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes of the Terai Plains of Nepal. farming in Cuba a reality. Elementa 6. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.324.s1. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00382-4. Rodriguez-Solorzano, C., 2014. Unintended outcomes of farmers'adaptation to climate vari- Urquiza, A., Billi, M., 2020. Water markets and social–ecological resilience to water stress in ability: deforestation and conservation in Calakmul and Maya biosphere reserves. Ecol. the context of climate change: an analysis of the Limarí Basin,Chile. Environ. Dev. Sus- Soc. 19 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06509-190253. tain. 22, 1929–1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0271-3. Shackleton, R.T., Biggs, R., Richardson, D.M., Larson, B.M.H., 2018. Social-ecological drivers van Oudenhoven, F.J.W., Mijatović, D., Eyzaguirre, P.B., 2011. Social-ecological indicators of and impacts of invasion-related regime shifts: consequences for ecosystem services and resilience in agrarian and natural landscapes. Manag.Environ.Qual.Int.J. 22 (2), human wellbeing. Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831111113356. 2018.08.005. Vogt, N.D., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Brondízio, E.S., Almeida, O., Rivero, S., 2015. Forest transi- Shokirov, Q., Backhaus, N., 2020. Integrating hunter knowledge with community-based con- tions in mosaic landscapes: smallholder's flexibility in land-resource use decisions and servation in the Pamir region of Tajikistan. Ecol. Soc. 25 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ livelihood strategies from world war II to the present in the Amazon estuary. Soc. Nat. ES-11253-250101. Resour. 28 (10), 1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1014603. Shumsky, S., Hickey, G.M., Johns, T., Pelletier, B., Galaty, J., 2014. Institutional factors affect- Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and ing wild edible plant (WEP) harvest and consumption in semi-arid Kenya. Land Use Pol- transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9 (2), 5. https://doi.org/10. icy 38, 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.014. 5751/ES-00650-090205. Tagliari, M.M., Levis, C., Flores, B.M., Blanco, G.D., Freitas, C.T., Bogoni, J.A., Vieilledent, G., Wang, S.W., Lee, W.K., Kim, J.G., 2018. Understanding the relationships in nature-human sys- Peroni, N., 2021. Collaborative management as a way to enhance Araucaria Forest resil- tems to improve social-ecological resilience in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas. Asian J. ience. Perspect.Ecol.Conserv. 19 (2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021. Conserv.Biol. 7 (1), 17–27. 03.002. Zank, S., de Araujo, L.G., Hanazaki, N., 2019. Resilience and adaptability of traditional Teague, R., Barnes, M., 2017. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and healthcare systems: a case study of communities in two regions of Brazil. Ecol. Soc. 24 grazingland livelihoods. Afr.J.Range Forage Sci. 34 (2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.2989/ (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10701-240113. 10220119.2017.1334706. Thorn, J.P.R., Thorn, J.P.R., Thorn, J.P.R., Thornton, T.F., Thornton, T.F., Helfgott, A., Willis, K.J., Willis, K.J., Willis, K.J., 2020. Indigenous uses of wild and tended plant biodiversity 10