|Variable Component Type||Natural Resource Unit, Natural Resource System|
|Theme||Outcomes (learn about themes)|
|Projects||SESMAD, Fiji fisheries|
|Question||Does this natural resource show evidence of switching stable states during this snapshot? If not, is the current stable state considered to be in a desirable / undesirable state? If yes, is the new stable state considered to be desirable / undesirable?|
|Select Options||Yes desirable, Yes undesirable, No desirable, No undesirable, Unclear - system may be transitioning, N/A|
|Importance||Resilience theory broadly suggests that natural systems exhibit shifts between two or more stable states, or basins of attraction (Peterson et al. 1998; Holling et al. 2002; Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2007). The goal of resource management from this perspective is to maintain relevant properties around desirable stable states.|
"One primary difference between resilience and robustness is the strong connection between resilience and other concepts such as attractors, states, steady states, stability domains, domains of attraction, basins of attraction, regimes, and equilibria, none of which are referenced frequently by literature on system robustness. The concept of a system state is a fundamental as any associated with resilience. Walker et al. (2002, 5) describe the state of a system in the following way: ""The ‘state’ of a system at a particular instant in time is the collection of values of the state variables at that time…In complex systems whose description requires many state variables, the term ‘state’ is loosely used to describe a characteristic of the system, rather than its state. For example, the lake is in a eutrophic ‘state’, or the rangeland is in a shrub-dominated ‘state.’ Such a loose definition is acceptable in everyday situations, but not when we want to analyze a system more carefully."" What we commonly refer to as a system ―state‖, (ex. a lake being eutrophic), actually represents a whole collection of states, or a particular set of state variable values. A state variable is simply a variable whose values help to characterize the present state of the system at a particular period of time. In a dynamical system, the evolution of each state variable is described via a differential or difference equation, and the equation for one variable frequently contains other state variables. It was this approach to systems analysis—formalization through differential equations—that originally led scholars to observe the theoretical possibility of multiple equilibria (or attractors in mathematical terms, also referred to as steady states) in complex systems (Holling 1973; Lorenz 1963). The set of states that leads to this attractor is referred to as a basin of attraction (or domain of attraction)"
The Regime Shift Database (http://www.regimeshifts.org) can help scholars compare similar systems to identify whether their system could have multiple stable states, whether a shift has occurred and whether the new state is desirable / undesirable. As per the definition above, stable states or domains of attraction are comprised of multiple 'state variables'. A 'stable state' in resilience science does not simply refer to the condition of a system. E.g., a degraded or degrading system is not necessarily in an undesirable stable state until it has crossed a threshold and transitioned / flipped to a new stable state, in which case feedbacks would reinforce the new state (i.e., the system would show no/limited recovery even if human impacts were reduced). Examples of variable use:The Great Barrier Reef has not crossed a threshold into an alternative stable state and largely remains in a coral-dominated state = No, desirable. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna stocks are in an undesirable stable state suggested by evidence that stocks are not recovering despite reduced exploitation. However, the shift to this state did not occur during the current government regime but under a previous regime = No, undesirable
|Openness and general resilience||Yes, undesirable|
|Modularity and general resilience||No, Desirable|
|Metric diversity, biodiversity loss and resilience||Yes undesirable|
|Social memory and general resilience||No desirable|
|Feedbacks and general resilience||No desirable|
|Conditions for general resilience||No Desirable|
|Social diversity and general resilience||No Desirable|
|Ecological memory, Reserves and General Resilience||No, Desirable|
|Case||Interaction Type||Component||Value Used||Explanation|
|Forests in Indonesia||Governance||Forests in Indonesia||0||Forest cover declined continuously during this period, so it does not really make sense to think of it as being in any kind of a basin during this period.|
|Forests in Indonesia||Governance||Forests in Indonesia||0||The state of the system seemed to be in continuous decline, not a stable state.|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve||Biophysical||Galapagos Sea Cucumber|
|Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)||Governance||Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna||0||Switch occurred prior to 1985, the start date of this interaction.|
|Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)||Governance||Eastern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna||0|
|Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)||Governance||Eastern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna||No undesirable|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR coral cover||0||But there is evidence that coral reefs do switch states, and hence there is concern about the health of coral reefs. This was part of the impetus for implementing the GBRMP|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR coral cover||No desirable||But there is evidence that coral reefs do switch states, and hence there is concern about the health of coral reefs.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR target fish||0|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR target fish||No desirable||Target fish are doing fairly well. The whole coral reef system, however, has the potential to switch states from reef-dominated (desirable) to algal dominated (undesirable). This has happened in some small parts of the reef.|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Sea Cucumber||Yes undesirable||The population has declined by >80% and is now economically extinct. In terms of the overall system this does not appear to have had a major impact as there is another sea cucumber in the Galapagos that is not fished/targetted to continue the ecological role (e.g. nutrient cycling).|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Patagonian Toothfish||No desirable||Although stocks have declined, they remain within a desirable range above 50% of unfished levels.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Light Mantled Albatross||Missing||There is no evidence of a basin switch for this species|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Royal Penguin||No desirable||The population has remained stable based on all estimates, and near its estimated peaks.|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi coral cover||No desirable||No evidence of switching stable states although there were major declines in coral cover detected before this snapshot - still coded as desirable because coral reefs considered to be in relatively good health (McMellor and Smith 2010). Declines in hard coral cover and increase in coral rubble reported 2002-2007 (McMellor and Smith 2010)|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi fish spawning||No desirable||Populations of spawning fish at a low level, and prior to this snapshot there were large declines in fish biomass but there is no evidence of switching states (i.e. it is not a algal dominated system) - so although fish populations appear to be in a degraded state they have not corssed a threshold.|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi Green Turtle||Not Applicable|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Lobster Fishery||No undesirable||No basin switch in this time period - sharp declines occured prior to this time period (87% decline in CPUE between 1983 and 1999 - IUCN RedList). Coded as undesirable as the population remains low.|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Green Turtle||No desirable||Lareg population of green turtles in Galapagos and thought to be stable|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Sharks||No desirable||No evidence of switching states, and overall Galapagos still considered home to relatively healthy shark populations|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Trophic Density||No desirable||High trophic levels and considered a near pristine ecosystem. >54% of the total fish biomass on forereef habitats in the NWHI consisted of apex predators (DeMartini and Friedlander, 2004).|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Green Turtle||No desirable||Population increasing|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||California Humpback Whale||Yes desirable||The humpback whale population has increased, to the point of potentially being unlisted from the ESA, and to being Least Concern for IUCN redlist. In the 1970s, humpback populations were listed under the ESA, in 1986 was Endangered by the IUCN and in 1990 was Vulnerable by the IUCN. This change is desirable, but debatable if this is stable or not.|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||California Rocky Shores Ecosystem Health||No desirable||In 2010, the coastal environment was rated to be good/fair and not changing (GFNMS Condition Report, 2010). The habitat has experienced fluctuating conditions, however, most notably a decline in health from the Sea Star Wasting Syndrome and withering syndrome for abalone. The 2009 MBNMS Condition Report showed that rocky shore habitats were fair and there was an undetermined trend in conditions. Poaching had reduced overall biodiversity at some rocky shores locations. Community-level impacts on rocky shores were felt from low abundance of key species (MBNMS Condition Report, 2009). However, broadly speaking, the habitat is in good condition during the end of this snapshot and "monitoring programs indicate healthy populations and no major perturbations" (MBNMS Condition Report, 2009).|
|Community A (Fiji fisheries)||Governance||Community A Fish Resources||Missing|
|Community B (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community B Fish Resources||Missing|
|Community C (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community C Fish Resources||Missing|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Coral Cover||No desirable||Considered a healthy marine ecosystem|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Green Turtle||No desirable||Overall considered a healthy ecosystem with fairly high numbers of green turtles|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Reef Fish||No desirable||Fish communities are generally considered to be fairly healthy, but there is evidence of overfishing with an absence of higher trophic species (Purwanto et al. 2012)|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||California Groundfish Habitat||No desirable||Some species have been slowly recovering, but no clear system state switch. Some species are still not recovering, however, a number of species have been documented to be increasing and those which have not are thought to be long-lived species which require greater time to recover.|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Polar Bear||The current state (polar bears present) is considered desirable.|
|Community F (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community F Fish Resources||Missing|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Southern Right Whale||No desirable||The population of Southern Right Whales has increased since the severe depletion by commercial whaling. The population is increasing and has been coded as desirable (although populations are comparatively low to historic levels), but there is no evidence of switching stable states during this time period as major declines and the population increase have also occurred outside of the snapshot being coded.|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Shrimp||No desirable||Biomass estimates fluctuate substantially, but literature does not suggest changing of stable states, and the shrimp stock in the Barents Sea has been at a relatively high level since 2005|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Southern Bluefin Tuna||No undesirable||SBT population has dramatically declined to 7–15% of the 1960 parental biomass (FSC 2009). Worldwide reported landings peaked in 1969, and have since gradually declined. Catches from 1992 to 2006 have been relatively stable (FAO 2009). Populations are considered overfished (critically endangered on IUCN RedList), but not considered to have changed stable states as the more dramatic declines occurred before this snapshot.|
|Seaflower MPA||Governance||Seaflower coral reefs||No undesirable||There is definitely indication that there is a shift toward algae-dominated reefs but I am not sure if the system transitioned into a new stable state. In any case the current state is undesirable.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR Green Turtle||No desirable||Commercial harvesting of green turtles in southern Queensland ended in 1950. the population has undergone significant declines and is not thought to be back at pre-harvest levels, but has shown a general trend of improving so is not considered to have changed stable states.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Light Mantled Albatross||Missing||There is no evidence of a basin switch for this species|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||King Penguin||No desirable||King Penguins were potentially extirpated at HIMI in the 1800s, but then recolonized (three were discovered in 1947) and recovered. From the first count in 1947 (3) to the last count in 2004 (~80,000), they were estimated to show a trend of doubling population size every five years with no sign of slowing down (Woehler 2006). Since there have been no counts since 2004, it is not clear if they are in a stable state yet. Qualitative counts (Heritage Expeditions 2012) and expert opinion (E. Woehler pers. comm.) suggests they are likely still increasing. Original population sizes are unknown.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Patagonian Toothfish||No desirable||No evidence of a basin switch or of a change in the stock. There is interannual variation in the catch from year to year, but this may have less to do with a population trend and more a result of fishing techniques shifting from being predominantly trawling to being predominantly longlining over the time of the snapshot (see CCAMLR 2013).|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Sea Lion||No undesirable||The high proportion of small, genetically isolated subpopulations for this species is likely a consequence of sequential declines brought about by historical sealing, more recent takes, and sustained fisheries bycatch over the last 40+ years. The population is low so coded as undesirable, but not as having switch basins during this time period as the largest population declines took place outside of this snap shot.|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Kittiwake||No desirable||On average kittiwake populations appear stable for this snap shot on Svalbard.|
|Community D (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community D Fish Resources||Missing|
|Community E (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community E Fish Resources||Missing|
|Community G (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community G Fish Resources||Missing|
|Community H (Fiji Fisheries)||Governance||Community H Fish Resources||Missing|
|Seaflower MPA||Governance||Seaflower groupers||Unclear - system may be transitioning||The abundance of groupers in 2014 is considerably lower when compared to 2000; furthermore, given the decreasing coral cover the situation does not seem to be good.|
|Cenderwasih National Park||Governance||Cenderwasih coral cover||No desirable||Coral reefs appear in fairly good state, and has recovered from bleaching event in 2010/11|
|Cenderwasih National Park||Governance||Cenderwasih target fish||No desirable||Despite fishing pressure, the fish appear to be in a fairly healthy state and tehre is no evidence of a change in stable states.|
|Falkland Islands squid||Governance||Patagonian squid (Loligo gahi)||No desirable||State has stayed desirable (no crashes, no major fishery closures) and has not changed much. Governance was preventative. Fluctuates up and down.|
|New Zealand squid||Governance||Arrow Squid (Nototodarus spp.)||No desirable||Same state throughout time, no evidence of change.|
|California squid||Governance||California market squid (Loligo opalescens)||No desirable||Fishery goes through many fluctuations, not state changes.|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.