7. Favourable or fatal attraction? Between adaptation and transformation in social-ecological systems Chair: Florian Keil, Inst for social-ecological research (ISOE), Frankfurt/Main, Germany Panel members: Per Olsson, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden Jan Sendzimir, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria Description: It is widely acknowledged that social-ecological systems have to be conceived as complex adaptive systems, where non-linearity, emergence, and self-organisation are key characteristics. E.g. the urban water supply system with its technical components for resource exploitation, its different patterns of water use, its institutions and its management practices can be described as a social-ecological system [1]. A resilient social-ecological system is usually considered a system that can absorb internal or external, human or natural disturbances without undergoing major functional or structural changes or shifts in its dynamic regime [2] – or in terms of complex systems thinking: it remains in its current basin of attraction. But, according to Folke and colleagues, another important feature of a resilient social-ecological system is that it can as well benefit from e.g. external disturbances by transforming ‘into more desirable states’ [3], i.e. into a completely new and, ideally, more favourable basin of attraction. Referring to the example: strongly decreasing water consumptions due to demographic change in urban areas cause severe problems in the centralised water supply systems (e.g. hygienic problems due to extended holding times of waste water in high throughput sewers); for a number of these ‘shrinking cities’ there is growing evidence that limits of resilience are reached and a transformation towards decentralised autonomous systems is required [4]. The key question to be addressed on the panel is: What are characteristics of governance systems that are (1) able to identify basins of attraction ‘fatal’ or favourable for the sustainable provision and maintenance of key services, (2) able to eventually guide the social-ecological system through a transformation phase and (3) able to stabilise it in the new state by applying adaptive strategies that iteratively couple regulation and monitoring of the system? A potentially important aspect of this is question is the way in which the social dimension is represented in a specific notion of governance systems. As an overarching question we propose to highlight the possible contribution complexity theory can make to improve understanding of social-ecological system dynamics. The proposed panellists are asked to elaborate on that question on the basis of their outstanding expertise and current research experiences. References [1] Hummel, Diana / Hertler, Christine / Niemann, Steffen / Lux, Alexandra / Janowicz, Cedric (2004): Supply Systems as Subjects of Social-Ecological Research: Food and Water. Versorgungssysteme als Gegenstand sozial-ökologischer Forschung: Ernährung und Wasser / unter Mitarbeit von Kay Oliver Schulze, Johanna Maiwald. demons working paper, Nr. 2. Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung ISOE. Frankfurt am Main. [2] Folke, C./Berkes, F./Colding, J. (1998): Ecological Practices and social mechanisms for building resilience and sustainability. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems, pp. 414-26, ed. F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3] Folke, C./Hahn, T./Olsson, P./Norberg, J. (2005): Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:441-73-doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. [4] Kluge, Thomas / Schramm, Engelbert (2006): Transformationsmanagement in Kommunen. In: Kluge, Thomas / Libbe, Jens (Hg.), Transformation netzgebundener Infrastruktur. Strategien für Kommunen am Beispiel Wasser. DIFU-Beiträge zur Stadtforschung. Berlin: DIFU, 57-63.