Adaptive Capacity, Adaptive Governance and Resilience - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 43

the development of stable and predictable structures at higher levels (law, regulation,
government institutions) might also allow for greater flexibility and experimenta-
tion at lower levels (Cosens 2010 ; Garmestani and Benson 2010 ) . This would posit
the role of law as one of stability within change, as opposed to stability versus change.
Legal rules and rights are a central and critical part of the social-ecological sys-
tem, but perhaps not the defining influence as many lawyers would see them. For
example, Hurlbert ( 2010 ) shows that, across three different case areas in Canada,
processes of formal re-evaluation of the law are occurring whether or not they are
statutorily required or not, suggesting that other factors are more influential than the
legal framework in embedding adaptive processes in those case areas. Nevertheless,
finding the right balance between structured and reflexive aspects of the legal frame-
work will be a core element in enabling adaptive capacity within water governance
regimes.

3.4 Navigating Change in Socio-ecological Systems

Resilience is the ability of a socio-ecological system to absorb disturbances while
retaining the same fundamental structure, function and identity, including the capac-
ity to adapt to stress and change, through either recovery or reorganisation in a new
context (Chapin et al. 2009 ; Parry et al. 2007 ). While resilience theory emerged from
the field of ecology (Holling 1973 ) and theoretical and mathematical modelling
sciences (Gallopin 2006 ), the advent of the anthropocene has meant an increasing
recognition that physical processes should no longer be examined in isolation from
the human processes that are now becoming the dominant driver (Folke et al. 2005 ;
Olsson et al. 2004a ). The social system is intrinsically linked to the physical system,
yet the institutions that manage them tend to be fragmented and constructed on borders
unrelated to the ecological systems they manage (Cumming et al. 2006 ).
Today's mounting complex socio-ecological challenges require more integrated
and adaptive approaches to resolving past, present and future resource management
problems. Since few of the drivers of changes are purely physical, ecological or
social, neither should be the framework within which we interpret these changes
(Chapin et al. 2009 ). From the resilience perspective, the growing recognition of the
importance of human-made influences on ecosystems, means that researchers need
to pay close attention to both the human and environmental components of socio-
ecological systems (SES) (Walker et al. 2006 ) .
The concept of SES is key to understanding the complex interrelated changes
that water institutions face. SES are comprised of interconnected socio-economic
properties, or human components, (human-made infrastructure, institutions, gover-
nance system, economic systems, etc.) and ecological properties or environmental
components (species, climate, biota, etc.) (Gallopin 2006 ). They represent the inter-
related nature of the resources and ecosystem services upon which humanity relies,
and the human activities which influence these ecological dynamics (Berkes et al.
2003 ). Social-ecological systems are typical examples of complex adaptive systems