© William Dunbar

Indicators of Resiliencein Socio-ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes‘Socio-ecological production landscapesand seascapes’ or SEPLS are dynamic mosaic

landscapes and seascapes with habitats and land uses
including villages, farmland and adjacent woods, forests,
grasslands, wetlands and coastal areas. These landscapes
are shaped by the interactions between people and nature
in ways that maintain biodiversity and provide humans withgoods and services needed for their well-being. A number ofstudies indicate that the management of these landscapes iscompatible with the Ecosystem Approach and the Addis Ababa
Principles and Guidelines on the Sustainable Use of Biological
Diversity. The Satoyama Initiative, which aims to maintainand, where necessary, revitalize or rebuild SEPLS has beenrecognized by every meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Bioogical Diversity for its role in better
understanding and supporting these landscapes for the benefitof biodiversity and human well-being.1

Why a resilience approach? In order tomaintain, revitalize and rebuild SEPLS in times of globalchange, a resilience perspective on landscapes and seascapesis essential. In SEPLS, communities create resilience withpractices that further their well-being, and also support key
ecosystem functions and biodiversity. In order to support
these processes, a set of indicators2 has been developed andimplemented to provide a tool for communities to understandtheir resilience and encourage the practices that strengthen

2it. These indicators help measure a community’s capacity
to build resilience and harness ecosystem services throughinnovation, adaptation, and through local institutions that
regulate the sustainable use of biodiversity.
The initial development of the indicators was completed
in 2011 by the United Nations University Institute for theAdvanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) and Bioversity
International. The indicators were then field-tested throughapplication in SEPLS in more than 20 countries globallyand updated to their current version in 2014 by UNU-IAS,
Bioversity International, UNDP and the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES) as part of 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

set of measurements but rather as a guide to understanding
and strengthening resilience. They describe communities’
strategies to cope with and adapt to change through local
innovation and the sustainable use of biodiversity. Theindicators cover key features of SEPLS that contributeto resilience and complement other existing indicator
frameworks focused on community well-being, traditional
knowledge and landscape productivity3,4,5.

The main purpose of the indicators is to assist communities
in developing resilience-strengthening strategies thatencourage innovation, ecosystem protection and beneficialinteractions between different landscape components. Unlikemany assessment tools, they are defined and measured interms easily perceived and used by local communities. Areasin which the indicators can prove useful to collaborative
initiatives between communities, scientists, conservation anddevelopment agencies and other stakeholders are:• Understanding SEPLS resilience. The indicators provide
an analytical framework for understanding resilience andits status and changes in SEPLS.
• Supporting development and implementation of resiliencestrengthening strategies. Through review and discussion of assessment results, communities can learn what
areas and factors to focus on and reflect on strategies totrengthen resilience.
• Enhancing communication among stakeholders. The indicators provide a framework with a common set of parameters to enhance the exchange of experiences and information within and beyond SEPLS and their communities.
• Empowering communities in decision-making processes
and adaptive management. Use of the indicators facilitates a continous process of discussion and participation,
leading to active community participation in decisionmaking.

© Frederik van Ouedenhoven©Frederik van Oudenhoven

What do the indicators measure? Theindicators measure elements of SEPLS resilience that are,almost by definition, strongly interrelated. The practices andinstitutions that they describe can be grouped into five areas:•••••

Landscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem protection
Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity)
Knowledge and innovation
Governance and social equity
Livelihoods and well-being

Landscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem
protection. Heterogeneous landscapes and seascapesthat resemble natural patterns provide greater biodiversity
benefits than intensively-managed monocultures or marine
environments where natural ecosystems like mangroves,seagrass beds or coral reefs have been heavily transformedby extractive practices. Resulting SEPLS are likely to support
higher levels of biodiversity and be more resilient to external
shocks than more simplified systems. In the context of climatechange, the protection and restoration of watersheds, forestsand coastal ecosystems in SEPLS help regulate hydrology
and microclimate, thereby providing a buffer against extreme
weather events, floods and droughts.
Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity). The
health of a landscape or seascape and the ecosystems itsupports is reflected in part in the diversity of species living in it
and their interactions. It also often forms the physical, culturaland spiritual bases of communities’ well-being. Biodiversity
contributes to community and landscape/seascape resilienceby providing ecosystem services, which are sustained ordegraded by the practices and institutions that regulate theuse of natural resources. Agricultural biodiversity includes
species used for food, fodder, fiber and fuel, as well as
the large number of non-harvested species in the wider
landscape that benefit communities through the services theyprovide, such as pollinators, soil biota and regulators of pests
and diseases. Agricultural biodiversity provides material forexperimentation, innovation and adaptation. The genetic
diversity found in local crop varieties and animal breeds,
expressed in important traits such as drought, cold and saline
tolerance and resistance to pests and diseases, helps themadapt to various soil and climate conditions. Loss in diversityof these traits decreases options for risk management andadaptation.
Knowledge and innovation. Communities strengthen
their own resilience by experimenting, innovating and learning
within and between different knowledge systems, cultures andage groups. Adaptation strategies may be novel or old, butgenerally build on bio-cultural or traditional knowledge. Thisknowledge is specific to the locations and cultures of givensocio-ecological interactions. It is embodied in resource-use

Landscape heterogeneity in the Cuchillas
del Toa Biosphere Reserve in Cuba

customs, agricultural traditions, local resources, biodiversity
and historical events that have shaped their landscapes andseascapes. The maintenance of this knowledge increasingly
depends on the ability of elders, parents and younger
generations in a community to document and share it.
Governance and social equity. Gender inequalities,social exclusion and marginalization can hinder the abilityof women, indigenous groups and others to strengthen
resilience. Women, youth and the elderly hold specific1

CBD COP 10 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 Foundation (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.

3

knowledge and skills related to biodiversity. For indigenouscommunities, resilience is intrinsically linked with efforts toprotect traditional ways of subsistence and cultural heritage.
The abilities to access ancestral lands and engage in
traditional land use and agricultural practices are importantconditions for communities to maintain biodiversity andassociated traditional knowledge.
Livelihoods and well-being. The resilience of aproduction landscape or seascape is also dependent on theavailability of efficient and functioning infrastructure suchas communication, health and education to meet various
community needs and aspirations. Livelihood improvement
can be directly linked to the options and opportunities ofcommunity members to engage in a variety of sustainable
income-generating activities developed through peoples’
ingenuity and the biodiversity portfolio they have available.

How are the indicators used? The indicatorspresented in the table below have been developed to guidethe assessment of resilience during workshops participatedin by community members and others. Assessment entails
assigning a score and trend to each indicator in responseto the questions in the table’s first column. A score can beassigned to all indicators using the 5-point scale given in thetable’s second column, and information about trends andscores can be captured using the categories shown here:TRENDS
á

Upward trend(5) Very high(3) Medium(2) Lowâ Downward trend

4

QUESTIONS FOR SCORINGSCORESLANDSCAPE/SEASCAPE DIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION(1) Landscape/seascapediversity
Is the landscape/seacapecomposed of diverse naturalecosystems (terrestrial andaquatic) and land uses?

(2) Ecosystem protection
Are there areas in the landscapeor seascape where ecosystems
are protected under formal orinformal forms of protection?

(3) Ecological interactions
between different
components of thelandscape/seascape
Are ecological interactions
between different componentsof the landscape or seascapeconsidered while managing
natural resources?

(5) Very high (There is a large number ofnatural ecosystems and land uses)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There is only one or a verysmall number of natural ecosystems
and land uses)(5) Very high (Key resources are undersome form of protection)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There are no areas underprotection)(5) Very high (Ecological interactions are
considered while managing naturalresources)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Ecological interactions
are not considered while managing
natural resources

SCORES(4) Highà No change

INDICATORS OFRESILIENCE IN
SOCIO-ECOLOGICALPRODUCTIONLANDSCAPES AND
SEASCAPES(1) Very low(4) Recovery andregeneration of thelandscape/seascape
Does the landscape or seascapehave the ability to recoverand regenerate after extreme
environmental shocks?

(5) Very high (Very high ability to recoverand regenerate)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Very low ability to recoverand regenerate)© William Dunbar

KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION

Scoring the indicators at a resilience assessment workshop in Ondangwa, Namibia

BIODIVERSITY (INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY)(5) Diversity of local foodsystem
Does the community consume adiversity of locally-produced food?

(6) Maintenance and useof local crop varieties andanimal breeds
Are different local crops, varieties
and animal breeds conserved andused in the community?

(7) Sustainable
management of common
resources
Are common resources managed
sustainably?

(5) Very high (Diversity of locally-sourced
foods is very high and these foods arewidely consumed)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There are very few or nolocally-sourced foods)(5) Very high (Local crop varieties andanimal breeds are widely conservedand used)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There are few or no local
crop varieties and animal breeds)(5) Very high (Common resources aremanaged sustainably)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Common resources areoverexploited or depleted)(8) Innovation in agriculture
and conservation practices
Does the community develop,improve and adopt new
agricultural, fisheries, forestry andconservation practices and/orrevitalize traditional ones to adapt
to changing conditions, including
climate change?
(9) Traditional knowledge
related to biodiversity
Are local knowledge and cultural
traditions related to biodiversity
transmitted from elders andparents to young people in thecommunity?
(10) Documentation ofbiodiversity-associatedknowledge
Is agricultural biodiversity,and associated knowledge,
documented and exchanged?
(11) Women’s knowledge
Are women’s knowledge,
experiences and skills recognized
and respected at household,community and landscape levels?

(5) Very high (The community is
receptive to change and adjusts itspractices)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (The community is notreceptive to change and makes few
innovations)(5) Very high (Local knowledge andcultural traditions are transmitted toyoung people)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Local knowledge andcultural traditions are lost)(5) Very high (Documentation is robust)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There is little or no
documentation in the community)(5) Very high (Women’s knowledge,
experiences and skills recognized andrespected at all levels)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Women’s knowledge,
experiences and skills are notrecognized and respected)

5GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL EQUITY(12) Rights in relation
to land/water andother natural resource
management
Does the community havecustomary and/or formallyrecognized rights over land,(seasonal) pastures, water andnatural resources?
(13) Community-basedlandscape/seascapegovernanceIs there a multistakeholder
landscape/seascape platform
or institution able to effectively
plan and manage landscaperesources?
(14) Social capital in theform of cooperation acrossthe landscape/seascapeIs there connection, coordinationand cooperation within andbetween communities forthe management of naturalresources?

© COMDEKS Indonesia(15) Social equity (includinggender equity)6

Is access to opportunities andresources fair and equitable forall community members, including
women, at household, communityand landscape level?

Semau Island, Indonesia(5) Very high (Rights are fully recognized
and not disputed)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Rights are not recognizedand heavily disputed)(5) Very high (Platform or institution iscapable of transparent, participatory
and effective decision making)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There is no
multistakeholder platform orinstitution)(5) Very high (There is a very high levelof cooperation and coordination innatural resource management)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There is little or no
cooperation and coordination innatural resource management)(5) Very high (Access to resources andopportunities is fair and equitable atall levels)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Access to resources andopportunities is not fair and equitable)

LIVELIHOOD AND WELL-BEING

Is the socio-economic
infrastructure adequate for theneeds of the community?

(17) Human health andenvironmental conditions
What is the general healthsituation of local people also
considering the prevailingenvironmental conditions?
(18) Income diversity
Are households in the community
involved in a variety ofsustainable, income generating
activities?

(19) Biodiversity-based
livelihoods
Does the community develop
innovative use of the local
biodiversity for its livelihoods?

(20) Socio-ecologicalmobility
Are households and communities
able to move around between
different production activities andlocations as necessary?

(5) Very high (Socio-economic infrastructure meets all community needs)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Socio-economic
infrastructure does not meet
community needs)(5) Very high (Health situation and theenvironmental conditions are good)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (The health and theenvironmental conditions are bad)(5) Very high (Households are involvedin a variety of sustainable, income
generating activities)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Households have noalternative economic activities)(5) Very high (Livelihoods are being
improved by innovative use of localbiodiversity)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Livelihood improvements
are not related to local biodiversity)(5) Very high (There are sufficient
opportunities for mobility)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (There are no opportunitiesfor mobility)© COMDEKS India(16) Socio-economic
infrastructure

Landscape map created by community members in Uttarakhand, India

How were the indicators developed?

The indicators contained in this brochure were developed in 2014 as an update of theoriginal set of Indicators of Resilience in SEPLS created by Bioversity Internationaland UNU-IAS in 2011. A Toolkit publication has also been published containing further
elaboration, examples and detailed instructions for the use of the indicators, and isavailable for download at:
http://satoyama-initiative.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TOOLKIT-X-WEB.pdf.

7©Frederik van Oudenhoven© Akane Minohara

A satoumi seascape with oyster production in the Urato Islands, JapanFor more information contact theIPSI Secretariat, UNU-IAS
E-Mail: isi@unu.edu

http://satoyama-initiative.org
Second edition, October 2015