Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 285–296 | Cite as

Convergence of socio-ecological dynamics in disparate ecological systems under strong coupling to human social systems

  • Ram Sigdel
  • Madhur Anand
  • Chris T. BauchEmail author
ORIGINAL PAPER
  • 195 Downloads

Abstract

It is widely recognized that coupled socio-ecological dynamics can be qualitatively different from the dynamics of social or ecological systems in isolation from one another. The influence of the type of ecological dynamics on the dynamics of the larger socio-ecological system is less well studied, however. Here, we carry out such a comparison using a mathematical model of a common pool resource problem. A population must make decisions about harvesting a renewable resource. Individuals may either be cooperators, who harvest at a sustainable level, or defectors, who overharvest. Cooperators punish defectors through social ostracism. Individuals can switch strategies according to the costs and benefits of harvesting and the strength of social ostracism. These mechanisms are represented by a differential equation for social dynamics, which is coupled to three different types of resource dynamics: logistic growth, constant inflow, and threshold growth. We find that when human influence is sufficiently weak, the form of resource dynamics leaves a strong imprint on the socio-ecological dynamics, and human social dynamics are qualitatively very different from resource dynamics. However, stronger human influence introduces a broad intermediate parameter regime where dynamical patterns converge to a common type: the three types of ecological systems exhibit similar dynamics, but also, social and ecological dynamics mirror one another. This regime of strong human influence includes generation of stable limit cycles at high rates of social learning. Such oscillations are a consequence of stronger coupling and are reminiscent of synchrony in other fields, such as the classic problem of coupled oscillators. Socio-ecological convergence has implications for how we understand and manage complex socio-ecological systems. In an era of growing human influence on ecological systems, further empirical and theoretical work is required to determine whether socio-ecological convergence is present in real systems.

Keywords

Common pool resources Cooperative harvesting Social ostracism Human-environment systems Socio-ecological convergence Evolutionary game theory 

Supplementary material

12080_2018_394_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
(PDF 1.49 MB)

References

  1. Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit Soc 29(4):485–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. An L, Linderman M, Qi J, Shortridge A, Liu J (2005) Exploring complexity in a human-environment system: an agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(1):54–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barange M, Beaugrand G, Harris R, Perry RI, Scheffer M, Werner F, et al (2008) Regime shifts in marine ecosystems: detection, prediction and management. Trends Ecol Evol 23(7):402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauch CT, Sigdel R, Pharaon J, Anand M (2016) Early warning signals of regime shifts in coupled human–environment systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 201604978Google Scholar
  6. Berkes F (2005) Commons theory for marine resource management in a complex world. Senri Ethnological Studies 67:13–31Google Scholar
  7. Cox M, Arnold G, Tomás S, et al (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4)Google Scholar
  8. Ermentrout B (2002) Simulating, analyzing, and animating dynamical systems: a guide to XPPAUT for researchers and students, vol 14. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henderson KA, Anand M, Bauch CT (2013) Carrot or stick? modelling how landowner behavioural responses can cause incentive-based forest governance to backfire. PLoS One 8(10):e77735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson KA, Bauch CT, Anand M (2016) Alternative stable states and the sustainability of forests, grasslands, and agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(51):14552–14559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Innes C, Anand M, Bauch CT (2013) The impact of human-environment interactions on the stability of forest-grassland mosaic ecosystems. Sci Rep 3:2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iwasa Y, Lee J-H (2013) Graduated punishment is efficient in resource management if people are heterogeneous. J Theor Biol 333:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lade SJ, Tavoni A, Levin SA, Schlüter M (2013) Regime shifts in a social-ecological system. Theor Ecol 6(3):359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2010) Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 27(2):108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(9):3465–3472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahanty S, Gronow J, Nurse M, Malla Y (2006) Reducing poverty through community based forest management in Asia. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 5(1):78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marley J, Hyde A, Salkeld JH, Prima M-C, Parrott L, Senger SE, Tyson RC (2017) Does human education reduce conflicts between humans and bears? an agent-based modelling approach. Ecol Model 343:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ostrom E (2007) Challenges and growth: the development of the interdisciplinary field of institutional analysis. J Inst Econ 3(3):239–264Google Scholar
  19. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostrom E (2015) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pagnutti C, Bauch CT, Anand M (2013) Outlook on a worldwide forest transition. PLoS One 8(10):e75890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ratajczak Z, Nippert JB, Ocheltree TW (2014) Abrupt transition of mesic grassland to shrubland: evidence for thresholds, alternative attractors, and regime shifts. Ecology 95(9):2633–2645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarker A, Ikeda T, Abe T, Inoue K (2015) Design principles for managing coastal fisheries commons in present-day Japan. Ecol Econ 117:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlüter M, Tavoni A, Levin S (2016) Robustness of norm-driven cooperation in the commons. Proc R Soc B 283(1822):20152431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sigdel RP, Anand M, Bauch CT (2017) Competition between injunctive social norms and conservation priorities gives rise to complex dynamics in a model of forest growth and opinion dynamics. J Theor Biol 432:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tavoni A, Schlüter M, Levin S (2012) The survival of the conformist: social pressure and renewable resource management. J Theor Biol 299:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thampi VA, Anand M, Bauch CT (2018) Socio-ecological dynamics of caribbean coral reef ecosystems and conservation opinion propagation. Sci Rep 8(1):2597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75(1):2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Uchida H, Wilen JE (2004) Japanese coastal fisheries management and institutional designs. A descriptive analysisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  3. 3.Department of Applied MathematicsUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations