, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 905–909 | Cite as

Resilience and Challenges of Marine Social–Ecological Systems Under Complex and Interconnected Drivers

  • Sebastián Villasante
  • Gonzalo Macho
  • Manel Antelo
  • David Rodríguez-González
  • Michel J. Kaiser


In this paper, we summarize the contributions made by an interdisciplinary group of researchers from different disciplines (biology, ecology, economics, and law) that deal with key dimensions of marine social–ecological systems. Particularly, the local and global seafood provision; the feasibility and management of marine protected areas; the use of marine ecosystem services; the institutional dimension in European fisheries, and the affordable models for providing scientific advice to small-scale fisheries. This Special Issue presents key findings from selected case studies around the world available to educators, policy makers, and the technical community. Together, these papers show that a range of diverse ecological, economic, social, and institutional components often mutually interact at spatial and temporal scales, which evidence that managing marine social–ecological systems needs a continuous adaptability to navigate into new governance systems.


Resilience Complex marine social–ecological systems Local and global drivers 



We wish to thank all authors and reviewers for their valuable contributions. We also appreciate the support of Bo Söderström, Editor-in-Chief of AMBIO, who kindly assisted us during the publication process of this Special Issue. SV was funded by Campus do Mar-International Campus of Excellence and the Norwegian Research Council.


  1. Abunge, D., S. Coulthard, and T. Daw. 2013. Connecting marine ecosystem services to human wellbeing: Insights from participatory wellbeing assessment in Kenya. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0456-9.Google Scholar
  2. Anderies, J.M., M.A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework to analyze robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9: 18.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, C. 2007. A note on the ecological–economic modelling of marine reserves in fisheries. Ecological Economics 62: 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bené, C., R. Lawton, and E.H. Allison. 2010. Trade matters in the fight against poverty: Narratives, perceptions, and (lack of) evidence in the case of fish trade in Africa. World Development 38: 933–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Da Rocha, J.M., R. Trelles-González, and S. Villasante. 2013. Credible enforcement policies under illegal fishing: Does individual transferable quotas induce to reduce the gap between approved and proposed allowable catches? AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0459-6.Google Scholar
  6. Fröcklin, S., M. de la Torre-Castro, M. Lindström, and J. Jiddawi. 2013. Fish traders as key actors in fisheries: Gender and adaptive management. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0451-1.Google Scholar
  7. Gelcich, S., F. Amar, A. Valdebenito, J.C. Castilla, C. Godoy, M. Fernandez, and D. Biggs. 2013. Financing marine protected areas through visitor fees: Insights from tourists willingness to pay in Chile. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0453-z.Google Scholar
  8. Hadjimichael, M., A. Delaney, M. Kaiser, and G. Edwards-Jones. 2013. How resilient are Europe’s inshore fishing communities to change: Differences between the north and the south. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0458-7.Google Scholar
  9. Kleisner, K., C. Longo, M. Coll, B.S. Halpern, D. Hardy, S.K. Katona, F. Le Manach, D. Pauly, et al. 2013. Exploring patterns of seafood provision revealed in the global Ocean Health Index. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0447-x.Google Scholar
  10. Lopes, P., R. Silvano, and V. Nora. 2013. Transboundary socio-ecological effects of a marine protected area in the southwest Atlantic. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0452-0.Google Scholar
  11. Macho, G., I. Naya, J. Freire, S. Villasante, and J. Molares. 2013. The key role of the Barefoot Fisheries Advisors in the co-managed TURF System of Galicia (NW Spain). AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0460-0.Google Scholar
  12. Moreno-Sanchez, R.D.P., and J. Maldonado. 2013. Adaptive capacity of fishing communities at marine protected areas: A case study from the Colombian pacific. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0454-y.Google Scholar
  13. Orensanz, J.M., A. Parma, G. Jerez, N. Barahona, M. Montecinos, and I. Elias. 2005. What are the key elements for the sustainability of “S-fisheries”? Insights from South America. Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2): 527–556.Google Scholar
  14. Outeiro, L., and S. Villasante. 2013. Linking salmon aquaculture synergies and trade-offs on ecosystem services to human wellbeing constituents. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0457-8.Google Scholar
  15. Vásquez-Lavín, F., J. Simon, and X. Paz-Lerdón. 2013. Determining the feasibility of establishing new multiple-use marine protected areas in Chile. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0455-x.Google Scholar
  16. Villasante, S., D. Rodríguez-González, M. Antelo, S. Rivero-Rodríguez, J.A. de Santiago, and G. Macho. 2013a. All fish for China? AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0448-9.Google Scholar
  17. Villasante, S., D. Rodríguez-González, M. Antelo, S. Rivero-Rodríguez, and J. Lebrancón Nieto. 2013b. Why are prices in wild catch and aquaculture industries so different? AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0449-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastián Villasante
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gonzalo Macho
    • 3
    • 5
  • Manel Antelo
    • 1
  • David Rodríguez-González
    • 1
  • Michel J. Kaiser
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.Centro Nacional Patagónico (CENPAT)CONICETPuerto MadrynArgentina
  3. 3.Departamento de Ecoloxía e Bioloxía AnimalUniversidade de VigoVigoSpain
  4. 4.School of Ocean SciencesBangor UniversityMenai BridgeUK
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations