Towards Quantitatively Understanding the Complexity of Social-Ecological Systems—From Connection to Consilience

Abstract

The complexity of social-ecological systems (SES) is rooted in the outcomes of node activities connected by network topology. Thus far, in network dynamics research, the connectivity degree (CND), indicating how many nodes are connected to a given node, has been the dominant concept. However, connectivity focuses only on network topology, neglecting the crucial relation to node activities, and thereby leaving system outcomes largely unexplained. Inspired by the phenomenon of “consensus of wills and coordination of activities” often observed in disaster risk management, we propose a new concept of network characteristic, the consilience degree (CSD), aiming to measure the way in which network topology and node activities together contribute to system outcomes. The CSD captures the fact that nodes may assume different states that make their activities more or less compatible. Connecting two nodes with in/compatible states will lead to outcomes that are un/desirable from the perspective of the SES in question. We mathematically prove that the CSD is a generalized CND, and the CND is a special case of CSD. As a general, fundamental concept, the CSD can facilitate the development of a new framework of network properties, models, and theories that allows us to understand patterns of network behavior that cannot be explained in terms of connectivity alone. We further demonstrate that a co-evolutionary mechanism can naturally improve the CSD. Given the generality of co-evolution in SES, we argue that the CSD is an inherent attribute rather than an artificial concept, which underpins the fundamental importance of the CSD to the study of SES.

Keywords

Complex networks / Consilience degree / Co-evolution / Disaster risk reduction / Social-ecological systems

References

[1] Adger N. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 2006, 16(3): 268-281

[2] Aiello, W., F. Chung, and L. Lu. 2000. A random graph model for massive graphs. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 21–23 May 2000, 171–180.

[3] Albert R, Barabási AL. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 2002, 74(1): 47-97

[4] Alexander SM, Armitage D, Charles A. Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change, 2015, 35: 213-225

[5] Aoki T, Aoyagi T. Scale-free structures emerging from co-evolution of a network and the distribution of a diffusive resource on it. Physical Review Letters, 2012, 109(20): 208702

[6] Ball P. Why society is a complex matter—Meeting twenty-first century challenges with a new kind of science, 2012, Berlin: Springer

[7] Barabási AL, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 1999, 286(5439): 509-512

[8] Bernauer T, Gampfer R, Meng T, Su YS. Could more civil society involvement increase public support for climate policy-making? Evidence from a survey experiment in China. Global Environmental Change, 2016, 40: 1-12

[9] Blaabjerg F, Teodorescu R, Liserre M, Timbus AV. Overview of control and grid synchronization for distributed power generation systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2006, 53(5): 1398-1409

[10] Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chaves M, Hwang DU. Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 2006, 424(4–5): 175-308

[11] Bodin Ö, Nohrstedt D. Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Global Environmental Change, 2016, 41: 183-194

[12] Burghouwt G, Hakfoort J, van Eck JR. The spatial configuration of airline networks in Europe. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2003, 9(5): 309-323

[13] Caldarelli G, Capocci A, De Los Rios P, Muñoz MA. Scale-free networks from varying vertex intrinsic fitness. Physical Review Letters, 2002, 89(25): 148-168

[14] Callaway DS, Newman MEJ, Strogatz SH, Watts DJ. Network robustness and fragility: Percolation on random graphs. Physical Review Letters, 2000, 85(25): 5468-5471

[15] Cohen R, Erez K, Avraham DB, Havlin S. Breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack. Physical Review Letters, 2001, 86(16): 3682-3685

[16] Cox M, Villamayor-Tomas S, Epstein G, Evans L, Ban NC, Fleischman F, Nenadovic M, Garcia-Lopez G. Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Global Environmental Change, 2016, 39: 45-56

[17] Daido H, Nakanishi K. Aging transition and universal scaling in oscillator networks. Physical Review Letters, 2004, 93(10): 104101

[18] Helbing D. Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 2013, 497(7447): 51-59

[19] Hric D, Peixoto TP, Fortunato S. Network structure, metadata and the prediction of missing nodes and annotations. Physical Review X, 2016, 6: 031038

[20] Hu XB, Shi PJ, Wang M, Ye T, Leeson MS. Consilience degree—A new network property to evaluate system’s performance against disturbances. Science China-Information Sciences, 2014, 44(11): 1467-1481 (in Chinese)

[21] Huberman BA, Adamic LA. Growth dynamics of the world-wide web. Nature, 1999, 401(6749): 131

[22] Lee, H., and all members of Editorial Board. 2009. Notes from editors. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 1(1). doi:10.7916/D8X34XZP.

[23] Nardini C, Kozma B, Barrat A. Who’s talking first? Consensus or lack thereof in coevolving opinion formation models. Physical Review Letters, 2008, 100(15): 158701

[24] Newman MEJ. Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 2002, 89(20): 208701

[25] OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. A strategy toolkit for future global shocks, International Futures Programme, OECD Report. Paris: OECD.

[26] Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 2009, 325(5939): 419-422

[27] Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A. Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Physical Review Letters, 2001, 86(14): 3200-3203

[28] Peel L, Larremore DB, Clauset A. The ground truth about metadata and community detection in networks. Science Advances, 2017, 3(5): e1602548

[29] Peyton Young H. Individual strategy and social structure: An evolutionary theory of institutions, 1998, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

[30] Shi PJ, Wang M, Hu XB, Ye T. Integrated risk governance consilience mode of social-ecological systems. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(6): 863-876 (in Chinese)

[31] Tanaka, G., K. Morino, and K. Aihara. 2012. Dynamical robustness in complex networks: The crucial role of low-degree nodes. Scientific Reports 2: Article 232.

[32] Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of “small world” networks. Nature, 1998, 393(6684): 440-442

[33] Wilson EO. Consilience: Unity of knowledge, 1999, New York: Vintage Books

[34] Wilson, E.O. 2009. A note to consilience readers. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 1(1). doi:10.7916/D8X63NBZ.

[35] Young OR. Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Global Environmental Change, 2010, 20(3): 378-385