“社会—生态系统”治理研究的原型分析：概念、方法和展望

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2021.08.015

Abstract

Abstract:

A key challenge of social-ecological system governance is to effectively accumulate and transfer successful strategies across heterogeneous contexts. The context-dependence of social-ecological dynamics makes it extremely difficult to draw general conclusions about the determinants of effective governance. Generic design factors can be too abstract to be applied to concrete problems because every case is different. Archetype analysis is a particularly salient approach in this regard that helps researchers to understand and compare patterns of (un)sustainability in heterogeneous cases. This article clarifies the concept and characteristics of archetype, expounds on the significance of archetype analysis, and reviews the progress of archetype analysis in the key research fields of social-ecological system governance. The result reveals that: 1) Archetype analysis generally investigates recurrent patterns of the phenomenon of interest at an intermediate level of abstraction to identify multiple models that explain the phenomenon under specific conditions. 2) Archetype analysis is best conceived as a methodological approach, rather than a particular method, framework, or theory. 3) Archetype analysis can promote the accumulation and transfer of case study knowledge, is compatibility with multiple research methods, and can achieve a certain degree of predictability in social-ecological system governance. 4) Archetype analysis is based on "type-subtype" multi-level analysis, which helps to find the "strong" causality of the complex social-ecological system. 5) Archetype is not only the result of the research but also the starting point of the research. The test, modification, improvement, and validation of the archetype are also an important direction of future research.

Key words: social-ecological systems, archetype analysis, governance, complexity, casual explanation

GONG Yanqing, TAN Rong. Archetype analysis in social-ecological system governance research: Concepts, methods and prospect[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(8): 1430-1438.

Figures/Tables 3

References 46

[1]	刘志敏, 叶超. 社会—生态韧性视角下城乡治理的逻辑框架[J]. 地理科学进展, 2021,40(1):95-103.
	[ Liu Zhi-min, Ye Chao. A logical framework of rural-urban governance from the perspective of social-ecological resilience. Progress in Geography, 2021,40(1):95-103. ]
[2]	Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems[J]. Science, 2009,325:419-422.
[3]	宋爽, 王帅, 傅伯杰, 等. 社会—生态系统适应性治理研究进展与展望[J]. 地理学报, 2019,74(11):2401-2410.
	[ Song Shuang, Wang Shuai, Fu Bojie, et al. Study on adaptive governance of social-ecological system: Progress and prospect. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(11):2401-2410. ]
[4]	王群, 银马华, 杨兴柱, 等. 大别山贫困区旅游地社会—生态系统脆弱性时空演变与影响机理[J]. 地理学报, 2019,74(8):1663-1679.
	[ Wang Qun, Yin Mahua, Yang Xingzhu, et al. Spatio-temporal evolution and impact mechanism of socio-ecological system vulnerability in poor mountainous tourist distinations: Taking Dabie Mountain area as example. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(8):1663-1679. ]
[5]	Cox M. Advancing the diagnostic analysis of environmental problems[J]. International Journal of the Commons, 2011,5(2):346-363.
[6]	Ostrom E. Understanding institutional diversity [M]. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press, 2005.
[7]	Agrawal A. Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: Context, methods, and politics[J]. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2003,32:243-262.
[8]	Ostrom E. Analyzing collective action[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2010,41:155-166.
[9]	Jäger J, Kok M T J, Koshy L, et al. Vulnerability of humans and the environment: Challenges and opportunities[J]. Oncology, 2007,27(5):301-360.
[10]	Eisenack K, Lüdeke M, Kropp J. Construction of archetypes as a formal method to analyze social-ecological systems[C]// Proceedings of the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Synthesis Conference. Bali, Indonesia, 2006.
[11]	Oberlack C, Sietz D, Bürgi Bonanomi E, et al. Archetype analysis in sustainability research: Meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making[J]. Ecology and Society, 2019,24(2):26. doi: 10.5751/ES-10747-240226.
[12]	Oberlack C, Eisenack K. Alleviating barriers to urban climate change adaptation through international cooperation[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2014,24:349-362.
[13]	Eisenack K, Villamayor-Tomas S, Epstein G, et al. Design and quality criteria for archetype analysis[J]. Ecology and Society, 2019,24(3):6. doi: 10.5751/ES-10855-240306.
[14]	Sietz D, Frey U, Roggero M, et al. Archetype analysis in sustainability research: Methodological portfolio and analytical frontiers[J]. Ecology and Society, 2019,24(3):34. doi: 10.5751/ES-11103-240334.
[15]	Glaser M, Krause G, Ratter B, et al. Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene: potentials of social-ecological systems analysis[M]. New York, USA: Routledge, 2012.
[16]	Wang R Y, Eisenack K, Tan R. Sustainable rural renewal in China: Archetypical patterns[J]. Ecology and Society, 2019,24(3):32. doi: 10.5751/ES-11069-240332.
[17]	Sietz D, Ordoñez J C, Kok M T J, et al. Nested archetypes of vulnerability in African drylands: Where lies potential for sustainable agricultural intensification?[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2017,12(9):095006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa768b.
[18]	Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, et al. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems[J]. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005,30:441-473.
[19]	Oberlack C, Tejada L, Messerli P, et al. Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2016,41:153-171.
[20]	van Vliet J, Magliocca N R, Büchner B, et al. Meta-studies in land use science: Current coverage and prospects[J]. AMBIO, 2016,45(1):15-28.
[21]	Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander S M, et al. Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2015,14:34-40.
[22]	Václavík T, Lautenbach S, Kuemmerle T, et al. Mapping global land system archetypes[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2013,23(6):1637-1647.
[23]	Václavík T, Langerwisch F, Cotter M, et al. Investigating potential transferability of place-based research in land system science[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2016,11(9):095002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095002.
[24]	Manuel-Navarrete D, Gómez J J, Gallopín G. Syndromes of sustainability of development for assessing the vulnerability of coupled human-environmental systems: The case of hydrometeorological disasters in Central America and the Caribbean[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2007,17(2):207-217.
[25]	Bocken N M P, Short S W, Rana P, et al. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014,65:42-56.
[26]	Wardropper C B, Gillon S, Mase A S, et al. Local perspectives and global archetypes in scenario development[J]. Ecology and Society, 2016,21(2):12. doi: 10.5751/ES-08384-210212.
[27]	Lüdeke M K B, Petschel-Held G, Schellnhuber H J. Syndromes of global change: The first panoramic view[J]. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 2004,13:42-49.
[28]	Schellnhuber H J, Block A, Cassel-Gintz M, et al. Syndromes of global change[J]. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 1997,6:18-33.
[29]	Moraine M, Duru M, Therond O. A social-ecological framework for analyzing and designing integrated crop-livestock systems from farm to territory levels[J]. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2017,32(1):43-56.
[30]	Fiss P C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011,54(2):393-420.
[31]	Meuer J. Archetypes of inter-firm relations in the implementation of management innovation: A set-theoretic study in China's biopharmaceutical industry[J]. Organization Studies, 2014,35(1):121-145.
[32]	Oberlack C, Eisenack K. Archetypical barriers to adapting water governance in river basins to climate change[J]. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2018,14(3):527-555.
[33]	Sietz D, Lüdeke M K B, Walther C. Categorisation of typical vulnerability patterns in global drylands[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2011,21(2):431-440.
[34]	van Vliet N, Mertz O, Heinimann A, et al. Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assessment[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2012,22(2):418-429.
[35]	Kok M, Lüdeke M, Lucas P, et al. A new method for analysing socio-ecological patterns of vulnerability[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2016,16(1):229-243.
[36]	Frey U J, Rusch H. Using artificial neural networks for the analysis of social-ecological systems[J]. Ecology and Society, 2013,18(2):40. doi: 10.5751/ES-05202-180240.
[37]	Frey U J, Rusch H. Modeling ecological success of common pool resource systems: Using large datasets[J]. World Development, 2014,59:93-103.
[38]	Wang R Y, Tan R. Patterns of rural collective action in contemporary China: An archetype analysis of rural construction land consolidation[J]. Journal of Rural Studies, 2020,79:286-301.
[39]	Petschel-Held G, Lüdeke M K B. Integration of case studies on global change by means of qualitative differential equations[J]. Integrated Assessment, 2001,2(3):123-138.
[40]	Kropp J, Lüdeke M K B, Reusswig F. Global analysis and distribution of unbalanced urbanization processes: The favela syndrome[J]. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives on Science & Society, 2001,10(2):109-120.
[41]	Sietz D, Untied B, Walkenhorst O, et al. Smallholder agriculture in Northeast Brazil: Assessing heterogeneous human-environmental dynamics[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2006,6(3):132-146.
[42]	Schellnhuber H J, Lüdeke M K B, Petschel-Held G. The syndromes approach to scaling describing global change on an intermediate functional scale[J]. Integrated Assessment, 2002,3(2/3):201-219.
[43]	Levers C, Müller D, Erb K, et al. Archetypical patterns and trajectories of land systems in Europe[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2018,18(3):715-732.
[44]	Sietz D. Regionalisation of global insights into dryland vulnerability: Better reflecting smallholders' vulnerability in Northeast Brazil[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2014,25:173-185.
[45]	Sietz D, Mamani Choque S E, Lüdeke M K B. Typical patterns of smallholder vulnerability to weather extremes with regard to food security in the Peruvian Altiplano[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2012,12(3):489-505.
[46]	Vidal Merino M, Sietz D, Jost F, et al. Archetypes of climate vulnerability: A mixed-method approach applied in the Peruvian Andes[J]. Climate and Development, 2019,11(5):418-434.

日期	诊断属性				设计属性			结果属性
日期	下雨	阴凉	刮风	炎热	雨伞	毛衣	T恤	舒适	难受
1	√			√	√		√	√
2	√	√			√	√		√
3	√				√			√
4	√		√				√		√

Archetype analysis in social-ecological system governance research: Concepts, methods and prospect

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 3

References 46

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	JIN Zerun, ZHU Shengjun. Technology-introduction pattern of cities in China and its mechanism of change based on technology relatedness and complexity [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(6): 897-910.
[2]	WU Lei, LI Guicai, CHAO Heng, LI Bin. Thoughts on the development of urban political geography in China in the new era [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(5): 858-869.
[3]	ZHANG Wenbin, ZHANG Zhibin, DONG Jianhong, ZHANG Huailin, GONG Weimin. Toward rural-urban co-governance: An interpretation of the change of rural-urban relationship since the reform and opening up [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(5): 883-869.
[4]	LI Wei, HE Canfei. Regional industrial diversification of China: Based on technological relatedness and complexity [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(4): 620-634.
[5]	YANG Yu, HE Ze. Energy geopolitics and power [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(3): 524-540.
[6]	HU Die, ZHOU Shangyi, CHEN Zixiong, GU Lili. Effect of “Traditional Chinese Village” policy under the background of rapid urbanization in China:Taking Jiangxi Province as an example [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(1): 104-113.
[7]	YE Chao, YU Jie, ZHANG Qingyuan, ZHU Xiaodan. From governance to rural-urban co-governance: Research frontiers, trends, and the Chinese paths [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(1): 15-27.
[8]	LIU Zhimin, YE Chao. A logical framework of rural-urban governance from the perspective of social-ecological resilience [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(1): 95-103.
[9]	ZHOU Guohua, ZHANG Rujiao, HE Yanhua, DAI Liuyan, ZHANG Li. Optimization of rural settlements and the governance of rural relative poverty [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(6): 902-912.
[10]	LI Yurui, CHANG Guijiang, CAO Lizhe, LONG Hualou. Rural elite and rural development [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(10): 1632-1642.
[11]	XIE Jiayan, ZENG Gang. Geography of complex knowledge and types of local knowledge pool in the Yangtze River Delta [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(12): 1968-1976.
[12]	HAN Zenglin, LI Yuan, LIU Tianbao, DONG Mengru. Spatial differentiation of public service facilities’ configuration in community life circle: A case study of Shahekou District in Dalian City [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(11): 1701-1711.
[13]	LIU Xiaofeng, GE Yuejing, HU Wei, HUANG Yu, MA Teng. Spatial impacts of the geopolitics of non-state actors and their formation pathways [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(11): 1735-1746.
[14]	Zhengyuan ZHAO, Zhigao LIU. Review of tourist destination research in the perspective of evolutionary economic geography [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(1): 101-110.
[15]	Dan CUI, Hao WU, Dianting WU. A review and prospect of regional governance in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(1): 1-14.