2.5 Panarchy, The Adaptive Cycle, and Resilience

“command and control... usually results in unforeseen consequences for both natural ecosystems and human welfare in the form of collapsing resources, social and economic strife, and losses of biological diversity.” Holling & Meffe, 1996.

Referring to “a universal realm”, in 1848 poet Philip James Bailey wrote of “the starry panarchy of space” (Oxford Dictionary, online, 2017). Though several are the subsequent applications of the term, as relates to this thesis that of Gunderson and Holling applies (2002). A morpheme of which the prefix, ‘Pan’, refers to the Grecian god of nature and the wild, and the suffix, ‘archy’, to ‘rules’, it describes “how variables at different scales interact to control the dynamics and trajectories of chance in ecological and social-ecological systems” (Gunderson, Allen and Holling, 2010, p. 431).

Panarchy draws on ecologist C.S. Holling’s extensive body of research, including his influential paper, ‘Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems’ (1973), in which he qualitatively explored the persistence of ecological relationships that had been subject to external disturbance, concluding there “several domains of attraction” (Ibid, p.4), thus multiple possible system trajectories. Having noted wildfires have “particularly illuminating” impact upon terrestrial ecosystems, and that “the natural world is not very homogenous” instead consisting of “a mosaic of spatial elements with distinct biological, physical, and chemical characteristics” (Ibid, p.16), he described resilience as a property that determines the capacity of an ecological system to “absorb changes of state variables” (Ibid, p.17). Across several years and publications, Holling propagated the conceptual precepts of Panarchy, expanding upon ecological phenomena including multiple equilibria states and their relations, in the process thereof critiquing Clements successional theory, and developing of The Adaptive Cycle (Holling, 1986) [Fig. 6]. Concluding, “ecosystems are moving targets, with multiple futures that are uncertain and unpredictable” (Holling, 1996, p.32), and there to be distinct qualitative differentials between states of engineering and ecological resilience (Ibid), Holling advocated for integrated approaches to scientific exploration of socio-ecological systems, by means of facilitating the design of “inter-relations between people and resources that are sustainable in the face of surprises and the unexpected” (Ibid, p.44).

Panarchy’s fundamental tenets and that of its wider school of philosophical and scientific thought have been advanced by multiple authors (Walker et al, 2004, 2006, 2012; Folke et al, 2010; Kinzig el al, 2006; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Gunderson et al, 2010). The process thereof still underway, Holling’s precepts have been expanded such that today it presents a compelling means to rationalise the exchange between “change and persistence”, and “predictable and unpredictable”, accommodating of “periodic, but transient phases of destruction” followed by periods of reorganisation. (Resilience Alliance, online, 2013). As noted by Elmqvist et al (2003), diversity of response has been found to be especially significant in ecosystemic renewal and reorganisation following disruption, wherein functional groups, each of which fulfil qualitatively distinct recovery roles, enhance ecological resilience.

Panarchy’s interdisciplinary approach creates a lens through which conceptual flaws in interpretations of the natural world can be identified. For example, echoing the words of ecologist Daniel Botkin in his seminal work Discordant Harmonies (1990), Holling and peers (Gunderson et al, 2002) highlighted how, in the absence of insights into other fields, conservationists develop partial perspectives that are too simplistic, of which a consequence is they accommodate not for multiple event horizons, thus “generate actions that are unsustainable” (Ibid, p.8). They identified four ‘myths’ of ‘nature’, as follows:

• Nature Flat – the lens thereof perceiving of “few or no forces affecting [ecological] stability”, thus there not “feedbacks or consequences” (Ibid, p.11) as result from human actions. Within this worldview humanity has capacity to control nature whereupon the ‘right’ decisions are made. Hence, this narrative aligns to a technocratic approach in which ‘technology saves the world’.

• Nature Balanced – within this worldview, whereupon ecological systems are disturbed they return to a state of equilibrium. “Infinitely forgiving” (Ibid, p.12) of human error, ‘nature’ bounces relentlessly back. Gunderson et al ascribed this this perspective to the Brundtland Commission, the World Resources Institute, and the International Institute of Sustainable Development, amongst others.

• Nature Anarchic – “dominated by hyperbolic processes of growth and collapse” (Ibid, p.13), they of anarchic persuasion, such as the late economist E. F. Schumacher, are described as perceiving of persistence being only possible whereupon systems are decentralized and “demands on nature” minimal (Ibid), thus the antithesis of ‘Nature Flat’.

• Nature Resilient – comprised elements that evolved into The Adaptive Cycle, and expressed in Joseph Schumpeter economics theorems (1950), and Holling’s early resilience hypotheses (1986), though still a myth, this worldview, perceives of multiple ecological states that cycle through “discontinuous events and nonlinear processes” (Ibid). The principle differential between this myth, and the worldview that descended therefrom is that while it “revolves around reorganisation for renewal”, it viewed landscapes in states of stasis, akin to closed systems (Ibid).

  Over the course of the past three decades a fifth perspective has emerged. Nature Evolving views ecological systems as evolutionary and adaptive (Ibid). Endowed with insights from the wider complex systems domain, including the constructs of “discontinuous change, chaos and order, self-organisation”, and nonlinear system behaviour (Ibid, p.14), this worldview perceives of ecological systems as open and transformative, thus exogenous events, such as wildfire, impact upon system states, and relationships, which, be they biotic or abiotic are symbiotic in nature. Ecologist Simon Levin’s Fragile Domain (2000) is representative of this lens, it being that which has also been applied to this study.

The Adaptive Cycle

Baring a strong similarity to John Wallis’ infinity symbol [∞], which pioneered in 1655, in turn bares a likeness to the Greek letter omega [ὦ], the Adaptive Cycle model strikes a balance between creating and conserving, revolting and remembering, the former of the two pairs periods of invention, experimentation, and testing, the latter of conservation of “accumulated memory” of “surviving experiments” and successes (Resilience Alliance, online, 2013). An organising framework, its validity has been expressed in multiple studies of disruption and recovery in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecological systems worldwide (Gunderson et al, 2010; Gunderson and Holling, 2002).

The heuristic cycle shifts through four phases: exploitation [r-phase], conservation [K-phase], release [Ω-phase], and reorganisation [a-phase], which collectively express the integration of creative destruction to the Clements’ successional model. Though the durations of the phases vary, as they process “at radically different rates” (Gunderson et al, 2002, p.26), in toto they express that both stability and instability play a fundamental role in sustaining the integrity of ecosystems over space and time. Thus, preserving ecosystems in “pristine” and “static” states, as advocated by some conservation movements is perceived as doing ‘more harm than good’ (Ibid, p.31), and preserving processes takes precedent over sustaining populations.

The cycle, which is “the fundamental unit of dynamic change” within systems (Ibid, p. 396) involves three variants of learning: incremental, lurching, and transforming, each of which generates a qualitatively different lesson, and “requires a model of at least 3-5 key interacting components”, together with “3 qualitatively different speeds” and nonlinear causation (Ibid, p. 397), multi-stable behaviour, spatially contagious processes, and “creation of structures by biota and reinforcements of biota from structure” (Ibid, p.409), which, amongst other research, built on Holling’s Textural Discontinuity Hypothesis (1992). As discussed at length it the coming chapters and case studies, all of the above features are expressed in wildfire and its behaviours in landscapes.

Discontinuous in space and time, the cycle is a subset of further cycles, which nested, can “generate novel recombinations”, in which “larger and slower components of the hierarchy provide the memory of the past and of the distant to allow recovery of smaller and faster adaptive cycles” (Ibid, p.20), thus a system of systems. Conceptually, nested adaptive cycles allow for, sensu Levi-Strauss (1962), bricolage, wherein elements are recombined and “new mutations and inventions” create novelty “that solves the newly emerged problem or creates new opportunity” (Gunderson et al, 2002, p.89).

Panarchy Evolving

Methodologically, Panarchy necessitates a tripartite approach that bridges the ecological, economic, and social sciences, and which accommodates for “an ever- changing landscape”, thus “continual learning and adaptation”. (Ibid, p. 421). In 2002, Gunderson et al published a call to [research] arms (Ibid), suggesting pursuit of several questions by means of further developing the field of disciplinary enquiry. They that are particularly pertinent to this study are:

• “How are self-organised patterns created and sustained in ecosystems and on landscapes at different scales, from meters and months to thousands of kilometres and millennia?

• How do such patterns, the processes that produce them, and species adaptation sustain critical ecological functions across those scales?

• How can we understand the role of diversity in allowing and modulating adaptability in a wide range of settings, from biodiversity and evolution to the diversity of ideas and its influence on human adaptability to changing circumstances?

• How does the interaction between social, economic, and ecological processes interact to change those patterns?

• How do we develop adaptive capacity in a world of rapidly changing information, technology, and the homogeneity created by globalization?” (Ibid, p.436).

Whereas popular futures narratives tend veer to extremes, of which typical incarnations include the command and control electric dreams vs. nightmares of they as ascribe to Nature Flat; and the pastoral bliss or dystopian ecological crisis hell of Nature Anarchic-ers, whatsoever tomorrow brings it will be not mutually exclusive abiotic and biotic relationships. As technocrats wax ever-increasingly lyrical about the potentialities of a connected world, the Nature Evolving lens helps illuminate the flaws therein. In the words of Holling, “rapidly rising connectivity within global systems, both economic and technological, increases the risk of deep collapse” (Homer-Dixon, 2017) the statement thereof pertinent in light of recent, largely unexpected, ecological and political events.

As relates to wildfire, scant has been the application of Panarchy to fire ecology studies of the past several years. However, a relatively recent chapter by Moritz, Hessburg, and Povak (2011) presented an overview that illustrated there to be further potential in the exploration thereof. An overarching theme of this study from the outset, Panarchy has been discussed in several of its prior outputs, and especially during its early developmental phase.

Read Literature Review in full here.

The thesis is also available in PDF format, downloadable in several parts on Academia and Researchgate.

Note that figures have been removed from the digital version hosted on this site, but are included in the PDFs available at the links above.

Citation: Sterry, M. L., (2018) Panarchistic Architecture: Building Wildland-Urban Interface Resilience to Wildfire through Design Thinking, Practice and Building Codes Modelled on Ecological Systems Theory. PhD Thesis, Advanced Virtual and Technological Architecture Research [AVATAR] group, University of Greenwich, London.