Towards resilience : differences in management practices between land managers adopting conventional approaches and holistic management

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Reductionism, an approach to understanding complex systems based on reducing the system to its individual components and the interactions between these components, is the linear and rigid approach to traditional management and research that allows us to understand complicated systems. Yet its application to complex systems has likely added to the degradation of social-ecological systems. In recognition of this, there is currently a shift to holism: the concept that a system is greater than the sum of its components and that the system has emergent properties that are only present through the complex interactions of the whole system. The inclusion of this natural complexity within social-ecological systems is thought to promote resilience – the ability of a system to absorb shock and thus promote sustainability. However, these concepts are largely theoretical and few examples exist that demonstrate ways of transferring them to pragmatic land management. Holistic ManagementTM (HM) could potentially be such a working example. It is a decision-making framework that provides a holistic context for the adaptive management of natural resources. However, limited peer-reviewed research has been applied to this potential to promote sustainability. Thus the current study aimed to address this apparent gap by determining if HM land managers were a distinct group from non-HM (NHM) land managers in regards to their management practices and if HM land managers had a greater adaptive capacity (the management of resilience) than non-HM land managers.The study was conducted in a community of livestock farmers in the arid rangelands of the Karoo, South Africa. Data were mainly gathered through face-to-face interviews with land managers – including 20 self-defined HM land managers and 20 self-defined NHM land managers. To compare the reported management approaches of land managers, two scoring systems were developed. The HM Adoption Index measured the extent to which participants were aligned with key principles and practices of HM (including having a holistic goal, testing decisions, applying the Holistic Planned Grazing, demonstrating continuous learning and innovation). The Adaptive Capacity Index measured the extent to which participants demonstrated key traits of adaptive capacity as identified from the literature. In addition, participants were also asked to describe the strategies they apply to deal with local livestock farming challenges including parasite control, predation management and drought management. A significant difference was found between HM and NHM land managers for both the HM Adoption Index and Adaptive Capacity Index (p<0.01). The majority of HM land managers adopted ―true holistic and ―adaptive management practices (80%) while NHM land managers were mostly ―semi holistic and ―coping (65%). HM land managers also notably tended to report more innovative and environmentally aware methods in dealing with farming challenges and were more likely to be part of study groups which build social capital and promote social learning. Results imply that HM provides a framework that introduces holistic principles to land management, making the holistic context and resilience accessible to individual managers for practical day-to-day decision-making.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University