360
J. Kooiman
two phases, in contrast, are brief periods of time characterized by rapid change.
Resilient systems repeat these phases, in which ecological and social memory and
novelty play an important role, time and again (Berkes et al. 2003 , 16–20).
One of the primary objectives of the LTER network is to understand site-speci fi c
ecological processes on the basis of systems theory. LTER researchers have recently
sought cooperation with social sciences to broaden original ecological approaches
(Gragson and Grove 2006 ) . The ultimate aim is to develop a new integrative ecology that explicitly incorporates insights from other disciplines, such as insights on
human decisions, cultural institutions, and economic systems.
Although it emphasizes human dimensions, HEM tries to integrate both social
and biophysical elements into a single approach. A set of critical resources is required
to provide the human ecosystem with the necessary services. The social system and
these critical resources constantly in fl uence each other, ensuring the adaptation of the
social system to new internal and external conditions. It is this interaction that fosters
the system’s dynamism. Any human ecosystem can be viewed as a nested hierarchy
of divergent levels and scales. The model has been devised to account for a large
number of aspects. Where necessary, indicators have been developed to adequately
capture the approach’s features (Force and Machlis 1997 ) .
Members of the Fisheries Governance Network have conducted various studies
of coastal zones and fi sheries through a socio-ecological systems lens. The tone was
set in Chuenpagdee and Jentoft’s ( 2009 ) paper entitled, “Reality Check”. This paper
introduced an analytical matrix that, along one axis, listed the three sub-systems
and, on the other, the four features. Within the system-to-be-governed, a separate
column was reserved to account for both its ecological and socio-economic components (also see Song and Chuenpagdee 2010 ) . This line of inquiry is continued in
various chapters of this book. Some chapters focus on research questions regarding
the sub-systems (e.g. Chaps. 4 and 5 ), while others examine, in more descriptive
terms, the factors that lead to governability challenges (Chaps. 7 , 12 , and 13 ). These
are promising lines of inquiry. I believe that it would be worthwhile for follow-up
research activities to make use of the conceptual insights generated by the three
aforementioned socio-ecological system (SES) research approaches.
System-to-Be-Governed as a Set of Concerns
A third way of conceptualizing the system-to-be-governed is from a concern-driven
or a problem-opportunity point of view. This approach is quite common, because
most policy, governance and governability studies, in so far as they exist, view systems-to-be-governed from the viewpoint of problems to be solved, opportunities to
be made use of, or alternatively, sets of challenges requiring governing attention.
Yet, the question of what these problems, opportunities and challenges are remains.
This question is easier posed than answered, as the many theories devoted to problem theories show. Even an uncomplicated de fi nition of a problem like, ‘a subjectively
and negatively experienced difference between an actual and desired situation,’
J. Kooiman
two phases, in contrast, are brief periods of time characterized by rapid change.
Resilient systems repeat these phases, in which ecological and social memory and
novelty play an important role, time and again (Berkes et al. 2003 , 16–20).
One of the primary objectives of the LTER network is to understand site-speci fi c
ecological processes on the basis of systems theory. LTER researchers have recently
sought cooperation with social sciences to broaden original ecological approaches
(Gragson and Grove 2006 ) . The ultimate aim is to develop a new integrative ecology that explicitly incorporates insights from other disciplines, such as insights on
human decisions, cultural institutions, and economic systems.
Although it emphasizes human dimensions, HEM tries to integrate both social
and biophysical elements into a single approach. A set of critical resources is required
to provide the human ecosystem with the necessary services. The social system and
these critical resources constantly in fl uence each other, ensuring the adaptation of the
social system to new internal and external conditions. It is this interaction that fosters
the system’s dynamism. Any human ecosystem can be viewed as a nested hierarchy
of divergent levels and scales. The model has been devised to account for a large
number of aspects. Where necessary, indicators have been developed to adequately
capture the approach’s features (Force and Machlis 1997 ) .
Members of the Fisheries Governance Network have conducted various studies
of coastal zones and fi sheries through a socio-ecological systems lens. The tone was
set in Chuenpagdee and Jentoft’s ( 2009 ) paper entitled, “Reality Check”. This paper
introduced an analytical matrix that, along one axis, listed the three sub-systems
and, on the other, the four features. Within the system-to-be-governed, a separate
column was reserved to account for both its ecological and socio-economic components (also see Song and Chuenpagdee 2010 ) . This line of inquiry is continued in
various chapters of this book. Some chapters focus on research questions regarding
the sub-systems (e.g. Chaps. 4 and 5 ), while others examine, in more descriptive
terms, the factors that lead to governability challenges (Chaps. 7 , 12 , and 13 ). These
are promising lines of inquiry. I believe that it would be worthwhile for follow-up
research activities to make use of the conceptual insights generated by the three
aforementioned socio-ecological system (SES) research approaches.
System-to-Be-Governed as a Set of Concerns
A third way of conceptualizing the system-to-be-governed is from a concern-driven
or a problem-opportunity point of view. This approach is quite common, because
most policy, governance and governability studies, in so far as they exist, view systems-to-be-governed from the viewpoint of problems to be solved, opportunities to
be made use of, or alternatively, sets of challenges requiring governing attention.
Yet, the question of what these problems, opportunities and challenges are remains.
This question is easier posed than answered, as the many theories devoted to problem theories show. Even an uncomplicated de fi nition of a problem like, ‘a subjectively
and negatively experienced difference between an actual and desired situation,’