Indicators for resiliencein socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes‘Socio-ecological production landscapes’
or SEPLs are dynamic mosaic landscapes with habitats
and land uses including villages, farmland and adjacent
woods, forests, grasslands, wetlands and coastal areas.
These landscapes have been shaped over the years by theinteractions between people and nature in ways that maintainbiodiversity and provide humans with goods and services
needed for their wellbeing. They have proven sustainable
over centuries and can be considered living examples ofcultural heritage. A number of studies indicate that the
management of these landscapes is compatible with the
Ecosystem Approach and the Addis Ababa Principles andGuidelines on the Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity.
The Satoyama Initiative, which aims to maintain and, where
necessary, revitalize or rebuild SEPLs was recognized asa potentially useful tool to better understand and support
these landscapes for the benefit of biodiversity and humanwellbeing by the 10th Meeting of the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.1

Why a resilience approach? In order to maintain,
revitalize and rebuild SEPLs in times of global change, aresilience perspective on landscapes is essential. In SEPLs,
communities create resilience with practices that further
their wellbeing, but also support key ecosystem functions
and biodiversity. In order to support these processes, a

set of indicators2 is being developed to provide a tool forcommunities to understand their resilience and encourage thepractices that strengthen it. These indicators help measure
a community’s capacity to build resilience and harness
ecosystem services through innovation, adaptation, andthrough institutions that regulate and ensure the sustainable
use of biodiversity.
This project is led by the United Nations University-Instituteof Advanced Studies and Bioversity International as a
Collaborative Activity under the International Partnership for
the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI).

Who will use the indicators and forwhat? The indicators are not conceived as a defined setof measurements but rather as a guide to understanding andstrengthening resilience. They are based on case studies that
describe communities’ strategies to cope with and adapt tochange through local innovation and the sustainable use of
biodiversity. Further development of the indicators is planned
through discussion among IPSI members, other interested
parties and local communities, and through their practicalapplication in community development projects in SEPLs. The
indicators cover key features of SEPLs that confer resilience.
While adapted for agricultural settings the indicators canbe made specific to landscapes in which agriculture is not

the main livelihood activity. They complement other existing
indicator frameworks focused on community wellbeing,
traditional knowledge and landscape productivity3,4,5.
The main purpose of the indicators is to assist communities indeveloping resilience-strengthening strategies that encourage
local innovation, ecosystem protection and beneficial
interactions between different landscape components. Unlike
many assessment tools, they are defined and measured
in terms easily perceived and used by local communities.
The main areas in which the indicators can prove useful tothe collaborative initiatives between communities, scientists,
conservation agencies and development actors are:•••Understanding the resilience of SEPLs. The indicators
provide an analytical framework with a common setof parameters for the exchange of experience andinformation across landscapes and communities.
Supporting communities in strengthening SEPLs,
biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The indicators canhelp to identify social processes, institutions, and landuse, conservation and innovation practices that need to
be encouraged to strengthen resilience.
Monitoring and evaluation of project interventions that
aim to strengthen resilience and support biodiversity
conservation.

©Frederik van Oudenhoven

Landscape heterogeneity in the Cuchillas delToa Biosphere Reserve in Cuba

What do indicators measure? The indicators
measure elements of SEPL resilience that are, almost bydefinition, strongly interrelated. The practices and institutions
that they describe can be grouped into four areas:••••

Ecosystems protection and the maintenance of
biodiversity,
Agricultural biodiversity,
Knowledge, learning and innovation,
Social equity and infrastructure.

Ecosystem protection and the maintenanceof biodiversity. The health of a landscape and theecosystems it supports is reflected in part in the diversityof species and their interactions; it also forms the physical,
cultural, and often, spiritual bases of a community’s
wellbeing. Biodiversity contributes to community andlandscape resilience by providing ecosystem services,which are sustained (or degraded) by the practices andinstitutions that regulate the use of natural resources. In thecontext of climate change, for example, the protection andrestoration of watersheds and forest and coastal ecosystems
in SEPLs helps regulate hydrology and microclimate, thereby
providing a buffer against extreme weather events, sea levelrise, floods and droughts.

Agricultural biodiversity forms the nexus between thehealth of an ecosystem and that of a community. It includes
species used for food, fodder, fibre, fuel, and the large numberof non-harvested species in the wider landscape directly
used by or benefiting communities through the services
they provide such as pollinators, soil biota and regulatorsof pests and diseases. Agricultural biodiversity provides
material for experimentation, innovation and adaptation. The
genetic diversity found in local crop varieties and animal
breeds, expressed in important traits such as drought andsaline tolerance, and resistance to pests and diseases,
helps them adapt to various soil and climate conditions.
The loss in diversity of these traits decreases options forrisk management and adaptation. Revival of local foodsystems and landscape diversification, on the other hand,
encourages the maintenance of agricultural biodiversity, andcontributes to food security and self-sufficiency.
Knowledge, learning and innovation are themeans of building resilience. Communities strengthen
resilience by experimenting, innovating, and learning within
and between different knowledge systems, cultures, andage groups. Adaptation strategies may be novel or old, but
generally build on bio-cultural or traditional knowledge. Thisknowledge is specific to the locations and cultures of givensocial-ecological interactions. It is embodied in resource use

customs, agricultural traditions, local languages, culturalvalues, and social institutions. Many communities arelosing their knowledge of local resources, biodiversity andthe historical events that have shaped the landscape. The
maintenance of this knowledge increasingly depends on
the ability of elders, parents and the younger generations in
a community to document and share it. The role of young
people in valuing traditional knowledge and assimilating
it with the new knowledge acquired in urban centres andschools is crucial, but often underestimated.
1

CBD COP10 Decision X/32. Sustainable use of biodiversity.

2

Based on work by Van Oudenhoven, F., Mijatovic, D. and Eyzaguirre, P.
(2010) Social-ecological indicators of resilience in agrarian and naturallandscapes, Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal 22(2), pp.154-173.

3

Suneetha.M.S and Balakrishna Pisupati (2009) Learning fromthe Practitioners: Benefit Sharing Perspectives from Enterprising
Communities. UNU-IAS and UNEP.

4

Tebtebba (2008) Indicators relevant for Indigenous Peoples: a Resource
Book. Indigenous Peoples International Centre for Policy Research and
Education.

5

Buck, L., Shames, S. and Scherr. S. (2007) Understanding
Ecoagriculture: A Framework for Measuring Landscape Performance.
Ecoagriculture Partners.

Social equity and infrastructure are key featuresof SEPL resilience. Gender inequality, social exclusion andmarginalization can hinder the ability of women, indigenous
and other groups to strengthen resilience. Women holdspecific knowledge and skills related to biodiversity, andthus their role in adaptation is essential. For indigenous
communities, resilience is intrinsically linked with their efforts
to protect traditional ways of subsistence and cultural heritage.
The ability to access ancestral lands and engage in traditional
land use and agricultural practices are important conditions
for communities to maintain biodiversity and associatedtraditional knowledge. Resilience is also dependent on theavailability of efficient and functioning social infrastructure,such as communication, health and education, to meetvarious needs and aspirations of the communities.

How to use the indicators? The indicators,presented in the table, are developed to guide theassessment of resilience in a community. The assessment
entails assigning a score and a trend to each indicator byanswering the questions listed in the table’s first column.
A qualitative or quantitative score can be assigned to allindicators using a 5-point scale given in the table’s second
column. To collect information about changes in trends,
the following categories can be used for each indicator
separately:
á
ä
à
æ
â

steep upward trend
slow/some increase
No change
slow/some decrease
steep downward

The way the indicators are used will differ depending on theuser. Communities may seek to monitor the impact of external
development, agricultural or conservation interventions on
traditional livelihoods; for practitioners and scientists they canhelp elucidate whether and how the day-to-day interactions
between people and the landscape contribute to landscaperesilience. Most importantly however, the indicators intend
to provide a common language between ‘traditional’ and‘scientific’ communities that values, rather than obscures thecomplexity of human-environment interactions.

Indicators for resilience in socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes
What to assess?

ScoresEcosystems protection and the maintenance of biodiversity
Heterogeneity and multifunctionality in the landscape•Do biodiversity management
and land-use practices
maintain a landscape mosaic
of cultivated, semi-managed
and wild areas, e.g. forest
patches, riparian forests,
fishing grounds, pasturelands,
water-harvesting areas, homegardens, cultivated fields andorchards?

Areas protected for theircultural and ecologicalimportance•

How many landscapecomponents are protected
for ensuring a continuous
flow of ecosystem services?
Protection may be formal orinformal and include traditional
forms of protection such as
sacred groves.

Sustainable use of resources•

Are the resources (water, soil,
forest, fisheries and others)
sustainably used?

Environmental security andsafety•Is there a risk of environmental
pollution and disasters, e.g.
soil, air and water pollution,
climate change related threats?

(5) Heterogeneous landscape consists of managed,
cultivated areas and several types of ecosystems orwild areas well-connected with ecological corridors.
(4) Landscape mosaic consists of several land-use types
and some wild areas.
(3) Landscape consists of several land-use types andfragmented wild areas.
(2) Landscape consists of two or three land-use types andvery few wild areas.
(1) No heterogeneity, i.e. one type of land-use
predominates in the landscape.
(5) Protected and low-use areas cover key resources in
the landscape and they are connected to ensure acontinuous flow of ecosystem services.
(4) Protected and low-use areas cover key resources in
the landscape.
(3) Protected and low-use areas small.
(2) Protected and low-use areas very small.
(1) Landscape intensively used, leading to resource
depletion and accelerating loss of biodiversity.

(5) Resources used in a sustainable manner.
(4) Most resources used in a sustainable manner.
(3) Not all resources used in a sustainable manner.
(2) Unsustainable use of resources.
(1) Unsustainable use of resources, accompanied bysevere or irreversible resource degradation.
5) Very low risk.
(4) Low risk.
(3) Medium risk.
(2) High risks.
(1) Very high risks.

Knowledge, learning and innovation
Innovation in agricultural
biodiversity management
for improved resilience andsustainability•

Do community members
improve, develop and adopt
new agricultural biodiversity
management practices toadapt to changing conditions,e.g. climate change, populationpressure, resource scarcity?

Access and exchange of
agricultural biodiversity•

Rice terraces, The Philippines

Agricultural biodiversity
Maintenance, documentationand conservation ofagricultural biodiversity in acommunity••

Are local crops, varieties
and animal breeds used in acommunity?
Is agricultural biodiversity
documented and conservedin community classification
systems and community seedbanks?

Diversity of local food system•

Do communities use a diversityof traditional and locallyproduced foods, e.g. cereals,
vegetables, fruits, nuts, wild
plants, mushrooms, berries,
fish and animals?

(5) Local crops, varieties and breeds (#) widely used,
documented and conserved.
(4) Local crops, varieties and breeds are used by somecommunity members; documentation and conservation
practices are weak.
(3) Local crops, varieties and breeds are used by few
community members; documentation and conservation
practices do not exist.
(2) Local crops, varieties and breeds are rare and used
only by very few community members; documentationand conservation practices do not exist.
(1) Local crops, varieties and breeds no longer found.
(5) Locally-sourced foods abundant and widely used.
(4) Locally-sourced foods available and used by somecommunity members.
(3) Locally-sourced foods available and occasionally used.
(2) Variable availability and use of locally-sourced foods.
(1) Scarcity of locally-sourced foods.

Are individuals within andbetween communities
connected through institutions
and networks for the exchangeof agricultural biodiversity, e.g.
seed exchange networks, local
markets and animal and seedfairs?

Transmission of traditional
knowledge from elders,parents and peers to theyoung people in a community•

Is the knowledge of key
concepts and practices
about land, water, biologicalresources and cosmology
transmitted between different
age groups?

Cultural traditions related tobiodiversity•

Are cultural traditions related
to biodiversity maintenanceand use continued by young
people, e.g. festivals, rituals,
songs, etc?

(5) Community members are receptive to change andadjust their practices through local innovation.
(4) Community members are receptive to change; local
innovation takes place but can be strengthened.
(3) Community members are receptive to change but therate of innovation is low.
(2) Community members are moderately receptive tochange, no innovation.
(1) Community members are not receptive to change, noinnovation.
(5) Multiple systems of exchange regularly operating within
and between communities across different culturesand landscapes.
(4) Exchange within and across communities takes places
but can be strengthened.
(3) Exchange takes place occasionally.
(2) Exchange takes place rarely.
(1) Systems of exchange do not exist.

(5) Key concepts and practices known to all community
members, including children.
(4) Key concepts and practices known to community
members, but not to those considered children.
(3) Key concepts and practices known only to adults andelders.
(2) Key concepts and practices known only to elders.
(1) Traditional knowledge lost.

(5) Cultural traditions practiced by all community members
including children.
(4) Cultural traditions practiced by community members,
but not by those considered children.
(3) Cultural traditions practiced only by adults and elders.
(2) Cultural traditions practiced only by elders.
(1) Not practiced.

•How many generations
interact with the landscape forsubsistence and income?

Practices of documentationand exchange of local
knowledge•

Are community-based
institutions and systems for
documentation, exchange
and acquisition of externallysourced knowledge in place?
E.g. existence of traditional
knowledge registers, resourceclassification systems, andcommunity biodiversity
registers, farmer field schools.

Use of local terminology or
indigenous languages•

Do community members
use local terminology related
to land and (the use of)
biodiversity, and, if applicable,
do they speak the local dialector language?

Women’s knowledge aboutbiodiversity and its use•

Are women’s knowledge,
experiences and skills
recognized as central topractices that strengthen
resilience?

(5) Three or more generations interact with the landscape.
(4) Two or three generations interact with the landscape.
(3) Two generations interact with the landscape.
(2) One or two generations interact with the landscape.
(1) One generation interacts with the landscape.
(5) Institutions and systems for knowledge documentationand exchange are present and well-functioning.
(4) Institutions and systems for knowledge documentationand exchange present but can be strengthened.
(3) Some knowledge documentations and exchange
taking place but need to be strengthened.
(2) Only a small fraction of knowledge documented.
(1) Documentation of knowledge does not take place.

(5) Local terminology (and local dialect or language) widelyused in the community.
(4) Local terminology used by the majority of community
members.
(3) Local terminology used by a part of the community.
(2) Local terminology used by a small part of thecommunity.
(1) Local terminology not used.
(5) Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills
recognized, respected and used.
(4) Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills mostly
recognized and respected and used.
(3) Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills partiallyrecognized, respected and used.
(2) Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills receive
little recognition.
(1) Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills notrecognized.

Winter descending on a fruit orchard in the Pamirs. Fruit trees
are grown around settlements, creating a little vegetation in anotherwise barren landscape. Fruits are a mainstay of the diet of thesemountains, providing energy, vitamins, and medicine.

©Frederik van Oudenhoven

Number of generations
interacting with the landscapeSocial equity and infrastructure•

Are land, water and otherresources effectively managed
by community-based
institutions? I.e. existence oftraditional institutions (village
councils, customary laws andother property sharing regimes)
and non-traditional local
initiatives for the sustainable
use of resources.

Autonomy in relation to land
and resource management••

Does the community haveautonomous access toindigenous lands, territories,
natural resources, and sacredand ceremonial sites?
Is that autonomy recognized byoutside groups and institutions,e.g. governments anddevelopment agencies?

Gender••

Are women involved indecision-making andcommunication with outsiders?
Do women have accessto resources, education,
information and opportunities
for innovation?

Social infrastructure•

Is social infrastructure,including roads, schools,
telecommunications, energy,
and electricity in place?

(5) Institutions in place and resources effectively managed.
(4) Institutions in place and some resources effectively
managed.
(3) Institutions in place but need to be strengthened.
(2) Institutions not effective.
(1) Institutions not present.

(5) Community has access to its traditional lands andresources and autonomy in their management.
(4) Community has access to its traditional lands andresources and partial autonomy in their management,
but its autonomy needs to be strengthened andrecognized by outside groups.
(3) Community has limited access to its traditional lands
and resources and limited decision power over their
management.
(2) Community has limited access to its traditional lands
and resources and no decision power over their
management.
(1) Community has neither access to nor decision powerover traditional lands and resources.

Health care••

Do community members haveaccess to health care?
Are traditional healing methods
and modern medicine present?

Health risk•

Is there a health risk
from epidemics, watercontamination, air pollution orother threats, e.g. malnutrition?

(5) Health care accessible for all community members andfunctions to the satisfaction of the community.
(4) Basic health care accessible.
(3) Health care facilities exist but do not function
satisfactory or not easily accessible.
(2) Health care facilities not satisfactory and not easily
accessible.
(1) Health care not accessible.
(5) Low risk.
(4) Average risk.
(3) Moderate risk.
(2) High risk.
(1) Very high risk.

(5) Women are involved in decision-making andcommunication with outsiders, and have the same
access to resources and opportunities as men.
(4) Women are involved in decision-making andcommunication with outsiders, and have access toresources and opportunities, but less so than men.
(3) Women are partially or occasionally involved indecision-making and have limited access to resourcesand opportunities.
(2) Women are rarely involved in decision-making andhave limited access to resources and opportunities.
(1) Women are not involved in in decision-making andhave no access to resources and opportunities.
(5) Social infrastructure exists and meets all community
needs.
(4) Basic social infrastructure exists.
(3) Not all necessary infrastructure exists or functions
satisfactory.
(2) Some major social infrastructure is missing andopportunities for its improvement are limited.
(1) No infrastructure in place.

©Hongyan Gu

Local resource governance

Sacred Forest, Yunnan, China

©Frederik van Oudenhoven

The Inca ‘agricultural research station’ of Moray, near Cusco, Peru, where crops were adapted for use in the different parts of the Inca empire. The depressions in the landscape were probably
constructed to simulate different growing conditions. Cover photo: The human-made islands, called Uros, of lake Titicaca in Peru.

For more information contact the
Secretariat of IPSI, UNU-IAS
E-Mail: isi@ias.unu.edu

http://satoyama-initiative.org/en/