The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Abel, N., D. H. M. Cumming, and J. M. Anderies. 2006. Collapse and reorganization in social-ecological systems: questions, some ideas, and policy implications. Ecology and Society 11(1): 17. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art17/

Collapse and Reorganization in Social-Ecological Systems: Questions, Some Ideas, and Policy Implications

Nick Abel¹, David H. M. Cumming² and John M. Anderies³

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Identification and Analysis of α and Ω Events and Processes
• The Case Studies
• South East Lowveld, Zimbabwe
• Western New South Wales, Australia
• Implications for Resilience Theory
• Characteristics of Ω
• Characteristics of α
• Cross-scale interactions: panarchy effects
• Regime shifts and transformations
• What has the concept of the adaptive cycle contributed to our understanding of α and Ω processes?
• Implications for Policy
• Responses to this Article
• Acknowledgments
• Literature Cited
• Erratum (add 30 March 2006)

We tested the explanatory usefulness and policy relevance of Holling’s (2001) “adaptive cycle” theory in exploring processes of “collapse,” also called “release,“ and recovery in regional social-ecological systems (SESs) in Zimbabwe and Australia. We found that the adaptive cycle is useful in recognizing changes in system behavior during the various phases. However, our small sample of cases did not generally show either the sequential passage of stages or the prerelease decline in resilience that adaptive cycle theory implies. In all cases, however, the reasons for releases were apparent with hindsight. On the other hand, our examples mostly supported the proposition that resilience is controlled by slowly changing variables. Although we found the adaptive cycle, and complex system theory in general, to be useful integrating frameworks, disciplinary theories are required to explain causes and effects in specific cases. We used theories linking distribution of political power to institutional change; to investment in natural, human, social, and physical capitals; and to access to financial capital. We explored patterns of change of these capitals before, during, and after release and reorganization. Both the patterns of change and relative importance of the different capitals during reorganization varied widely, but the importation of resources from broader scales was often a key to recovery. We propose that the resilience of most regional or national SESs can be explained in these terms. The capacity to self-organize emerged from our studies as a critical source of resilience. Although rebuilding this capacity at times requires access to external resources, excessive subsidization can reduce the capacity to self-organize. The policy implication is that cross-scale subsidization should end when self-organization becomes apparent, because subsidization can increase the vulnerability of the system as a whole. When the aim is to recover without changing the system fundamentally, the focus should be upon conserving or investing in the elements of capital critical for this. If the current system is not viable, it is necessary to invest in forms of capital that will enable fundamental change. It will also be necessary to stop investing in the capitals that maintained the unviable regime. The political difficulty of doing this is why SESs so often remain maladapted to current conditions and opportunities and eventually reach the point of collapse.

Key words: Key words: resilience, collapse; recovery; social-ecological systems; adaptive cycle; natural capital; social capital; human capital; Zimbabwe; Australia

The aim of this paper is to assess the usefulness of the “adaptive cycle” (Holling 1987, 2001) in understanding the “collapse,” reorganization, and recovery of social-ecological systems (SESs). The adaptive cycle is a theory that can be used to examine the dynamics and resilience of ecological and social-ecological systems. It proposes that these complex adaptive systems (Cocks 2003) tend to follow a four-phase adaptive cycle that includes growth or “exploitation” (the r phase), “conservation” or consolidation (the K phase), “collapse” or “release” (Ω), and reorganization (α). The resilience of the system is thought to begin increasing during the r phase, grow more rapidly during K, peak and collapse in Ω, and remain low during α before increasing again in the next r phase. The Ω and α phases are together known as the “backloop,” and they are the focus of this paper. During these phases, theory proposes that one of three types of change can occur. First, the system can reorganize and remain within the same regime. Alternatively, it can shift to a different regime, characterized by changes in feedback processes or changes in the scale at which the dominant processes operate, but with the state variables remaining the same. Finally, it can transform to a new regime characterized by changes in scale, state variables, and feedbacks (Walker et al. 2006).

According to theory, the adaptive-cycle dynamics of a system at a particular focal scale, e.g., a region, are influenced by the adaptive-cycle dynamics of linked systems at finer scales, e.g., a farm, and broader scales, e.g., a nation. This cross-scale aspect of resilience theory is termed “panarchy” (Gunderson and Holling 2002).

Our focus is on Ω and α processes and events. The applicability of the adaptive cycle as a conceptual framework for complex system dynamics and the problems of determining when a system has changed from one regime to another were examined by Cumming and Collier (2005). Scheffer and Carpenter (2003) analyzed catastrophic regime shifts in ecological systems. Scheffer et al. (2003) examined the reasons why it is so difficult for societies to respond quickly to new problems. There are case studies that use the adaptive cycle to analyze the growth and collapse of regional SESs (Allison and Hobbs 2004, Anderies 2005). Berkes et al. (1998), and the authors of the various chapters in the collection they edited, studied the role of what we later define as social and natural capitals in maintaining the resilience of local- and regional-scale SESs. Cocks (2003) discussed societal collapses using the adaptive cycle and synthesized theories about the drivers of social-ecological change that can lead to collapse. Brunk (2002) used complex adaptive systems theory to account for societal collapses. Working outside the complexity and resilience paradigms, Tainter (1988), Flannery (1994), and Diamond (2005) analyzed collapses of societies using other theories. By and large, however, little has been written about the recovery of SESs following collapse, with a few notable exceptions. These include Seixas and Berkes (2003), who studied crises and recovery in a Brazilian fishery; Alcorn et al. (2003), who researched the ways in which Dayak society reorganized to cope with massive encroachment on their traditional lands by outsiders; Putnam (2000), who analyzed the adaptation of U.S. society to industrialization, urbanization, and immigration a century ago; and Cocks (2003), who briefly mentioned recovery in his examination of adaptive-cycle theory. This paper aims to expand our understanding of the important but relatively neglected area of α processes and events, and relate it to preceding Ω processes.

Walker et al. (2006) outline several propositions relevant to the α and Ω phases:

• multiple modes of reorganization are possible during phases of rapid change in an SES;


• transitions among the four phases of change may not be a fixed sequence or necessarily reflect a cycle;


• cross-scale interactions critically determine the form of the subsequent adaptive cycle at any particular focal scale;


• slowly changing variables control ecological resilience, whereas social resilience is controlled by either fast- or slow-changing variables;


• there are attractors in the ecological domain of SESs, although it is unclear whether there are similar attractors in the social domain;


• adaptability is primarily determined by (1) the absolute and relative amounts of all forms of capital, be it social, human, natural, manufactured, or financial, and (2) the system of institutions and governance. This proposition is so comprehensive that it is useful only in suggesting that researchers need to look at these elements, which we did;


• adaptability is enhanced through partially overlapping mental models of SES structure and function, i.e., there must be some commonality of understanding of the system among different stakeholders;


• efforts to deliberately enhance adaptability can unintentionally lead to a loss of resilience; and


• determinants of transformability include incentives, awareness, experimentation, reserves, and governance. Again, the main use of this very comprehensive proposition is to suggest that researchers need to look at these elements, which we also did.

1. What caused the system to “collapse?”
2. What was released during the collapse?
3. What enabled reorganization and recovery?
4. What are the implications of our findings for policy and practice?
5. What has the concept of the adaptive cycle contributed to our understanding of collapse, reorganization, and recovery?

• an increasing appreciation of alternatives such as wildlife ranching and tourism, which had been developing since 1960 (Child 1988, Jansen et al. 1992);
• wildlife legislation, such as the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 and Act 14 of 1975, that devolved full responsibility for the management and consequent benefits of wildlife to landowners;
• subsidized fencing for managing black rhinoceros (du Toit 1992); and
• subsidized restocking with species such as black rhinoceros, elephant, and buffalo.

• increasing human populations under conditions that made it impossible for families to exist without external inputs and subsidies on less than about 500 ha per household (Cumming 2004),
• a “land hunger” generated by long-standing inequities in land and resource access rights that was readily exploited by politicians and newly emerged warlords, and
• a populist “fast-track” land-reform program introduced by the central government after it had lost a referendum on constitutional reform.

• social networks (social capital) and knowledge (human capital) adapted to exploit spatial and temporal heterogeneity across and from outside the region;
• knowledge (human capital) of how to organize for the collective management (social capital) of a fire-adapted system (natural capital) tolerant of and dependent on Aboriginal fire-stick farming; and
• a cultural memory that encompassed the knowledge, beliefs, and values passed on through religion (social and human capital). We believe that it was the persistence of this memory that enabled the Aboriginal SES to survive colonization as a recognizable system.

• the formation of state and national organizations of Aboriginal peoples that pressed for Aboriginal rights and formed alliances (bridging capital as per Putnam 2000) with non-Aboriginal urban activists (Goodall 1996) to influence urban votes;
• the immigration after World War II of many nationalities, which made multicultural policies acceptable through necessity and increased the pressure to accept Aboriginal cultures (Goodall 1996);
• British atomic weapons tests on Aboriginal land in South Australia, which created national support for their cause;
• mixed-race children who had been removed from their Aboriginal families and educated as part of the assimilation policy becoming leaders, political activists, and lawyers;
• links to the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s and international support;
• the granting of citizenship to Aboriginals in 1967;
• legislation in the 1980s and 1990s that enabled Aboriginal peoples to acquire land, conserve ceremonial sites, and negotiate mining rights; and
• the emergence of leaders from within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities outside of New South Wales that had been less disrupted by colonization. These leaders led anti-mining protests and secured native title legislation.

• the high price of wool between 1880 and 1891, which had given pastoralists economic power and political influence (Cain 1962);
• additional political influence that had accrued because the pastoralists occupied “empty” land. This was considered an imperative in the national ideology because of a perceived territorial threat from the more densely populated countries to the north, and was one of the multiple motives behind closer settlement (Williams 1975);
• access to external resources through this political influence;
• an increase in the duration of leases to enable longer-term resource use (Young et al. 1984, Quinn 1995);
• the forgiveness of pastoral debt by banks under government pressure; and
• post-drought rains and post-recession recovery of wool prices (Fig. 5).

• the continuing, but now waning, political influence of pastoralists, which enabled them to maintain external support. Public investments were made at various times in infrastructure and communications, agricultural research and extension, pest control, tariff protection, price support, drought, and tax relief; and
• pastoral investment in artificial water points that enabled them to maintain high numbers of sheep. They graze mainly within 2 km of water. The spread of water points across previously unwatered country simultaneously gave sheep access to more grazing while reducing stocking density by orders of magnitude (Fig. 7).

• failure to anticipate or perceive problems, for example, the unpreparedness of the pastoral SES in New South Wales for major drought;
• individually rational behavior in which those benefiting from the current configuration of the SES block change at the expense of society. The theory of political economy we used to explain resource allocation to regional SESs supports this perspective, which is compatible with a view of SESs as self-organizing and essentially leaderless systems;
• collective adherence to values that are detrimental to SESs. Our examples are ideologically driven land-settlement policies in Zimbabwe and New South Wales;
• failure to solve problems for climatic, technological, or ecological reasons. Often a solution is not feasible, e.g., the Aboriginal peoples were unable to prepare for or prevent the British invasion of Australia.

• general systems theory continues to be a useful legitimation of transdisciplinarity;
• complex adaptive systems theory is a strong foundation for understanding change in SESs, in particular in its recognition of self-organization and nonlinear change;
• the adaptive cycle, as an elaboration of complex adaptive systems theory, is useful in recognizing the change in system behaviors during the various phases;
• although there is likely to be intrinsic stochastic cyclicity in any self-organizing system, external disturbances can disrupt this cyclicity at any time. The finer the scale of the system, the more susceptible to external influences it is likely to be, so we should not be surprised when, in a particular regional SES, the four phases are not sequential, and resilience does not decline before an Ω event; and
• the adaptive cycle and complex systems theory in general are useful integrating frameworks. However, to explain causes and effects in specific cases, disciplinary theories must be used.

1. Papers on environmental crises tend to end with stern recommendations to governments about their responsibilities and the policies they should implement for the long-term collective good. However, because SESs are self-organizing, their evolution rarely follows the path intended by governments (Hobsbawm 1994). As we pointed out in the section on the identification and analysis of α and Ω events and processes, governments are not free to invest or establish institutions at will, but must take account of the influence of industries and other interest groups, lobbyists, voters, and other sources of political influence.



2. The capacity to self-organize is the foundation of resilience. Rebuilding this capacity at times requires access to external resources. Excessive subsidization can, however, reduce capacity.



3. Cross-scale subsidization should end when self-organization becomes apparent, because cross-scale subsidization can increase the vulnerability of the broader system. A long-term perspective is essential. Cross-scale relationships should in the long term be mutually sustaining, neither exploitative from above nor parasitic from below.



4. Investment in the capitals is the way to enable reorganization. This is already well understood by many international aid agencies, but humanitarian and political pressures may overpromote immediate relief rather than capital investment.



5. When a system is in the backloop and the aim is to recover without a regime change, the focus should obviously be on conserving or investing in the elements of capital critical for this recovery. If the aim is to shift regimes or to transform, then there will be a need to invest in the elements of capital that support those changes. It will also be necessary to disinvest in the capitals that maintained the previous regime. The political difficulty of doing this is why SESs so often remain maladapted to current conditions and opportunities, to the point of collapse.

David Cumming’s work in the South East Lowveld was partly supported by a Resilience Alliance grant from the Mellon Foundation, and the Shashe-Limpopo case study material was informed by a study carried out for the CESVI (Cooperazione e Sviluppo) Southern Lowveld Project funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nick Abel’s work on Western New South Wales was funded by the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, now Land and Water Australia. We thank the Resilience Alliance, in particular Brian Walker, Buzz Holling and Lance Gunderson, for this opportunity to test the adaptive cycle. Two anonymous reviewers, plus Brian Walker, Gail Kelly and Tim Lynam, provided critical comments. We have addressed these, but our reviewers and critics collectively will still find much to disagree with. However, we improved the paper substantially because of their thoughtful feedback.

Alcorn, J. B., J. Bamba, S. Masiun, I. Natalia, I., and A. G. Royo. 2003. Keeping ecological resilience afloat in cross-scale turbulence: an indigenous social movement navigates change in Indonesia. Pages 299-327 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Allison, H. E., and R. J. Hobbs. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap” of the Western Australian Agricultural Region. Ecology and Society 9(1):3. [on line] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3/.

Anderies, J. M. 2005. Minimal models and agroecological policy at the regional scale: an application to salinity problems in southeastern Australia. Regional Environmental Change 5:1-17

Anderies, J., M. Janssen, and B. Walker. 2002. Grazing management, resilience, and the dynamics of a fire driven rangeland system. Ecosystems 5:23-44.

Barnard, A., editor. 1962. The simple fleece: studies in the Australian wool industry. Australian National University, Canberra, and Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia.

Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1994. Investing in cultural capital for the sustainable use of natural capital. Pages 128-149 in A. M. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, editors. Investing in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Pages 1-25 in F. Berkes, C. Folke, and J. Colding, editors. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

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

Berndt, R. M., and C. H. Berndt. 1981. The world of the first Australians. Lansdowne Press, Sydney, Australia.

Blaikie, P., and H. Brookfield. 1987. Defining and debating the problem. Pages 2-26 in P. Blaikie and H. Brookfield, editors. Land degradation and society. Methuen, London, UK.

Boserup, E. 1981. Population and technology. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Brunk, G. G. 2002. Why do societies collapse? A theory based on self-organised criticality. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(2): 195-230.

Cain, N. 1962. Companies and squatting in the Western Division of New South Wales, 1896-1905. Pages 435-456 in A. Barnard, editor. The simple fleece: studies in the Australian wool industry. Australian National University, Canberra, and Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia.

Campbell, B. M., S. Jeffrey, W. Kozanyi, M. Luckert, M. Mutamba, and C. Zindi. 2002. Household livelihoods in semi-arid regions: options and constraints. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Central Statistical Office. 1989. Statistical yearbook of Zimbabwe 1989. Central Statistical Office, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Child, B. A. 1988. The role of wildlife utilization in the sustainable economic development of semi-arid rangelands in Zimbabwe. Dissertation. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Clemens, M., and T. Moss. 2005. Costs and causes of Zimbabwe’s crisis. Center for Global Development, Washington, D.C., USA.

Cocklin C., and M. Alston, editors. 2003. Community sustainability in rural Australia: a question of capital? Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Cocks, K. D. 1992. Use with care: managing Australia’s natural resources in the twenty-first century. University of New South Wales Press, Kensington, Australia.

Cocks, K. D. 2003. Deep futures: our prospects for survival. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, Australia.

Cumming, D. H. M. 2005. Wildlife, livestock and food security in the South-East Lowveld of Zimbabwe. Pages 41-46 in Proceedings of the Southern and East African Experts Panel on Designing Successful Conservation and Development Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface: Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health. IUCN Occasional Paper. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

Cumming, G. S., and J. Collier. 2005. Change and identity in complex systems. Ecology and Society 10(1): 29. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art29/.

Dickman, C. R. 1994. Native mammals of Western New South Wales: past neglect, future rehabilitation? Pages 81-92 in D. Lunney, S. Hand, P. Reed, and D. Butcher, editors. Future of the fauna in Western New South Wales. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Australia.

Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive. Penguin Books, London, UK.

du Toit, R. F. 1992. Large-scale wildlife conservancies in Zimbabwe: opportunities for commercial conservation of endangered species. Pages 295-300 in W. Van Hoven, H. Ebedes, and A. Conroy, editors. Wildlife ranching. a celebration of diversity. South African Game Organization, Pretoria, South Africa.

Flannery, T. 1994. The future eaters: an ecological history of the Australasian lands and people. Reed Books, Chatswood, Australia.

Gale, F. P. 2000. Regulating accumulation, guarding the web: a role for (global) society? Pages 195-215 in F. P. Gale and R. M. M’Gonigle, editors. Nature, production, power: towards an ecological political economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Godden, D. 1997. Agricultural and resource policy: principles and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Goodall, H. 1996. Invasion to embassy: land in Aboriginal politics in New South Wales, 1770-1972. Allen and Unwin, London, UK.

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

Hardy, B. 1976. Lament for the Barkindji: the vanished tribes of the Darling River region. Alpha Books, Sydney, Australia.

Hobsbawm, E. J. 1992. Age of extremes: the short twentieth century, 1914-1991. Michael Joseph, London, UK.

Holling, C. S. 1987. Simplifying the complex: the paradigms of ecological function and structure. European Journal of Operational Research 30:139-146.

Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390-405.

Holling, C. S., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1998. Science, sustainability and resource management. Pages 342-362 in F. Berkes, C. Folke, and J. Colding, editors. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson. 2002. Resilience and adaptive cycles. Pages 25-62 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Jansen, D. J., B. Child, and I. Bond. 1992. Cattle, wildlife, both or neither: results of of a financial and economic survey of commercial cattle ranches in southern Zimbabwe. WWF Multispecies Animal Production Systems Project, Project Paper Number 27. World Wildlife Fund, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Jones, R. 1969. Fire-stick farming. Australian Natural History 16 (7):224-228.

Lourandos, H. 1997. Continent of hunter-gatherers: new perspectives on Australian pre-history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lunney, D., S. Hand, P. Reed, and D. Butcher, editors. 1994. Future of the fauna in Western New South Wales. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Australia.

Magee, S. P., W. Brock, and L. Young. 1989. Black hole tariffs and endogenous trade policy: political economy in general equilibrium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

McAllister, R. J., I. J. Gordon, M. A. Janssen, and N. Abel. 2005. Pastoralists’ responses to variation of rangeland resources in time and space. Ecological Applications 15(6), in press.

McKeon, G., W. Hall, B. Henry, G. Stone, and I. Watson. 2004. Pasture degradation and recovery in Australia’s rangelands: learning from history. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Indooroopilly, Australia.

Midgley, G., 2000. Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York, New York, USA.

Murphree, M. W., and D. H. M. Cumming. 1993. Savanna land use: policy and practice in Zimbabwe. Pages 139-178 in M. D. Young and O. T. Solbrig, editors. The world's savannas: economic driving forces, ecological constraints and policy options for sustainable use. Man and the Biosphere Series, Volume 12. UNESCO and Parthenon, Paris, France.

Noble, J. 1997. The delicate and noxious scrub. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra, Australia.

OECD. 2001. The well-being of nations: the role of human and social capital. OECD, Paris, France.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Owen-Smith, N., and J. Ogutu. 2003. Rainfall influences on ungulate population dynamics. Pages 309-331 in J. T. du Toit, K. H. Rogers, and H. C. Biggs, editors. The Kruger experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Phimister, I. R. 1978. Meat and monopolies: beef cattle in Southern Rhodesia, 1890-1938. Journal of African History 29:391-414.

Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York, USA.

Quinn, M. J. 1995. Possessing the West: the public management of the Western Division of New South Wales, 1880s to 1930s. Dissertation. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Sadlier, R. A. 1994. Conservation status of the reptiles and amphibians in the Western Division of New South Wales: an overview. Pages 161-167 in D. Lunney, S. Hand, P. Reed, and D. Butcher, editors. 1994. Future of the fauna in Western New South Wales. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Australia.

Scheffer, M., and S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:648-656.

Scheffer, M., F. Westley, and W. Brock. 2003. Slow response of society to new problems: causes and costs. Ecosystems 6:493-502.

Seixas, C. S., and F. Berkes. 2003. Dynamics of social-ecological changes in a lagoon fishery in southern Brazil. Pages 271-298 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Smith, P., and J. Smith. 1994. Historical change in the bird fauna of Western New South Wales: ecological patterns and conservation implications. Pages 123-148 in D. Lunney, S. Hand, P. Reed, and D. Butcher, editors. Future of the fauna in Western New South Wales. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Australia.

Tainter, J. A. 1988. The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Tongway, D., and J. Ludwig. 1997. The conservation of water and nutrients within landscapes. Pages 13-22 in J. Ludwig, D. Tongway, D. Freudenberger, J. Noble, and K. Hodgkison, editors. Landscape ecology, function and management: principles form Australia’s rangelands. CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia.

von Bertalanffy, L. 1956. General systems theory: general systems. Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General System Theory 1:1-10.
Walker, B. H., and N. Abel. 2002. Resilient rangelands—adaptation in complex systems. Pages 293-313 in H. L. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Walker, B. H., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. S. Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1):14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art14/.

Walker, B. H., L. H. Gunderson, A. P. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 13. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/.

Walker, B. H., A. Kinzig, and J. Langridge. 1999. Plant attribute diversity, resilience and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2:95-113.

Western Lands Commissioner. 1979. Annual report. Western Lands Commission, Dubbo, Australia.

Williams, M. 1975. More and smaller is better: Australian rural settlement 1788-1914. Pages 612-103 in J. M. Powell and M. Williams, editors. Australian space and time: geographical perspectives in Australia 1788-1914. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.

Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Abacus Press, London, UK.

Young, M. D., M. Gibbs, W. E. Holmes, and D. M. D. Mills. 1984. Socio-economic influences on pastoral management. Pages 79-93 in G. N. Harrington, A. D. Wilson, and M. D. Young. 1984. Management of Australia’s rangelands. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.