Abstract
This paper takes a new look on transition processes in social-ecological systems, identified based on household use of direct ecosystem services in a case study in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We build on the assumption that high dependence on local ecosystems for basic needs satisfaction corresponds to a “green loop” type of system, with direct feedbacks between environmental degradation and human well-being. Increasing use of distant ecosystems marks a regime shift and with that, the transition to “red loops” in which feedbacks between environmental degradation and human well-being are only indirect. These systems are characterized by a fundamentally different set of sustainability problems as well as distinct human-nature connections. The analysis of a case study in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, shows that social-ecological systems identified as green loops in 1993, the average share of households using a characteristic bundle of direct ecosystem services drops consistently (animal production, crop production, natural building materials, freshwater, wood). Conversely, in systems identified as red loops, mixed tendencies occur which underpins non-linearities in changing human-nature relationships. We propose to apply the green to red loop transition model to other geographical contexts with regards to studying the use of local ecosystem services as integral part of transformative change in the Anthropocene.
Introduction
In sustainability research the concept of regime shifts has repeatedly been referred to as a fundamental re-organization of a system, typically resulting in irreversible biophysical change (; ; ). The rise of global capitalism as the dominant system of production has led to an increase of the frequency and scale of shifting regimes (; ; ). Several modeling approaches are used to demonstrate the ecological and economic impacts regime shifts create (e.g., ; ; ; ). Further transgressing planetary boundaries puts the Earth system at risk of being pushed into an entirely new state (e.g., ). In the Anthropocene, referred to as a beginning new geological epoch in which human activity became the driving force of change, this could mark a regime shift at unprecedented scale (e.g., ).
However, the focus on changing biophysical and economic properties in shifting regimes largely leaves aside relational shifts between humans and the ecosystems they co-inhabit. This concerns manifold types of relations, including metabolic, cultural or spiritual relationships of humans and surrounding ecosystems and questions in how far regime shifts alter such relationships. Despite an increasing recognition of the interconnectedness between natural and human system components, to date, examining this interface between human and non-human nature in social-ecological system (SES) research is under-researched. This is likely due to a persistent dichotomic understanding of human-nature relationships in modern science (; ). Moving beyond conceptions of nature as a mechanical-causal object, both ontologically and epistemologically, will require a similar paradigmatic shift than the supersession of Newtonian physics by quantum physics at the beginning of the 20th century (ibid.). This being an aspiration beyond the purpose and possibility of this paper, we aim to establish an entry point to examine “fundamental shifts in perspectives, world views and institutions” (, 719) required to reconnect humans to the biosphere and transform toward more stable and just regimes in SES.
To explore this dimension of regime shifts, we use household level data on the use of direct ecosystem provisioning services (ES)1 required to satisfy basic needs to understand such relational shifts in the interaction between human and non-human counterparts in SES. In doing so, we extend a methodological approach developed by identifying SES based a characteristic bundle of ES, including energy, food, water and shelter. These authors use cross-sectional data. The novelty of the research is underpinned by the use of panel data which permits to analyze the dimension of time in shifting regimes. This is examined in the case study area in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, over the period 1993 and 2011.
Conceptually, the approach is rooted in the “green-to-red loop” transition model that was developed by and aims to understand implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ES. In this model, two archetypal systems exist. On the one hand, “green loops”, or rural-agricultural systems, which are characterized as types of SES in which households tend to heavily rely on locally sourced (direct) ES to satisfy basic needs, e.g., subsistence farming of crops and animals, self-collection of wood for energy, use of locally available building materials for shelter or the fetching of water. In these systems there are direct feedback mechanisms between environmental integrity and human well-being. The authors further describe a “green trap” as the consequence of ecological breakdown caused by overexploitation and degradation of the local natural resource base and reinforced by rural poverty (ibid.).
Contrarily to that, “red loops” or urban-industrialized systems denote a type of SES in which households largely rely on faraway (indirect) ES to satisfy the same basic needs. This tends to occur through marketized, transported and packaged ES in a monetary economy. Thus, the economy is built on remote extraction of ES from distant ecosystems which involves a much larger complexity, scale and degree of the division of labor. A “red trap” is described as the consequence of excessive consumption and failure to regulate ecological decline as an economy’s resource needs are scaled up. In these systems, the connections to ecosystems are “less obvious and immediate” than in green loops (ibid., p.55). To avoid environmental collapse, both types of systems need to fundamentally re-organize and address distinct sustainability challenges and avoid green or red traps, respectively (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
The transition from green to red loops involves a variety of historically specific and interrelated factors (
The paper proceeds as follows. The section Methods and data presents the case study area as well as the methods and data used to identify regime shifts from changing ES use. The section Results presents the changing ES use in the case study area of KwaZulu-Natal in the observation period between 1993 and 2011. Moreover, the spatial distribution is mapped using official shapefile data from the year 2011. The subsequent section discusses the findings focusing on empirical challenges related to the study of regime shifts within archetypal analysis (e.g.,
Methods and Data
Case Study Area and Data
KwaZulu-Natal is one of nine provinces in the south-east of South Africa (Figure 2A). It covers with 9.335.137 hectares some eight percent of South Africa’s total land area and with over 10 million inhabitants more than 20 percent of the total population (
FIGURE 2

(A) Location of KwaZulu-Natal in SA. District municipality borders are shown. (B) District municipalities in KwaZulu-Natal. Local municipality borders are shown. Data: Official shapefiles from the
Historically, the arrival of the British in the 19th century initiated the enclosure of immense areas for sugar cane plantations that required large amounts of low-skilled labor. Colonization thus paved the way for today’s agro-industry and forestry. Sugar cane and timber plantations together are the dominating land use category in KwaZulu-Natal today and represent some 12% of the total land area (
The study relies on data from the “KwaZulu-Natal Income Dynamics Study (KIDS)”, the first ever collected set of panel data containing information on ES use based on questions regarding basic needs satisfaction of households. The data set followed an initial set of 1,519 households and spans back until before the end of apartheid in 1993 (
Understanding Regime Shifts From Direct Ecosystem Service Use in Social-Ecological Systems
We propose to use household-level data on direct ES use as a proxy for the underlying dynamics of SES building on the premise that there exist characteristic bundles of ES that represent “integrated expressions of different underlying social-ecological systems” (
TABLE 1
| Number | Dummy variable | Observation (Dummy = 1, all other answers Dummy = 0) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Animal production | The household farmed one or more types of animals or poultry in the past year |
| 2 | Crop production | The household harvested one or more types of crops in the past year |
| 3 | Natural building materials | The household resides in a traditional dwelling (hut) made from locally available materialsa |
| 4 | Freshwater | The household mainly sources its freshwater for household use from either a spring, stream or river |
| 5 | Wood | Wood as the main source of energy and/or average number of trips of at least one household member collecting wood per week ≥1 |
Composition of the characteristic bundle of ES adopted from
(
ES use data are assumed to be expressive of the metabolic relationship each household2 with their surrounding ecosystems. Such metabolic relationships can be indicative of variegated relational forms between the human and non-human counterparts of a system, including cultural, spiritual or economic relationships. Uses of other ES are likely to be correlated with the use of the five ES but cannot be included in the characteristic bundle due to the lack of purpose-collected data. Indeed, many studies underpin the importance of hundreds of wild resources as significant components of livelihood constituencies in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in rural areas (
TABLE 2
| # | Premise | Rationale | Potential limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The use (or non-use) of a characteristic bundle of ES is expressive of the underlying dynamics of SES. | Households that do not (or only relatively little) use locally available ES must use distant ES (→ red loops) | System configurations in which households use both locally available and distant ES can occur (AND/OR). Such a situation cannot be captured with the data available for this study which only permits a dummy variable (YES/NO) approach. Moreover, the available data does not permit to assess quantities of ES. |
| Households that use locally available ES relatively strongly do not need to use distant ES (→ green loops). | |||
| 2 | Loops correspond to clusters which form spatially coherent units. | The cluster algorithm attributes spatial units (i.e., municipalities) their loop “status” based on the average use “intensity” with which households use components of the characteristic bundle of ES (e.g., 71% of households in municipality A (green loop) self-collect wood for energy purposes which is sufficiently distinctive from municipality B (red loop) in which only 11% of households self-collect wood for energy purposes. | The goodness of the assumption depends on measures of dispersion of observations around the cluster points (the “intra-cluster variance”). In socially diverse or economically very unequal societies, households with fundamentally different means to access basic needs services live in spatial proximity. In such contexts, outliers are obfuscated by “labeling” a spatial unit green, red or transition loop. Thus, in red loops, green loop dynamics can persist, and vice versa. |
| 3 | Decreasing direct ES use can reflect a gradual regime shift. | Systems of provision in which the majority of households satisfies its basic needs by remote extraction of ES represents a fundamental re-organization of the previous system in which the majority of households relied on local ecosystems for basic needs satisfaction. | Concurring tendencies: Poverty or crizes can “push” households back to using local ES as a last resort; Educational efforts or conscious living can enable households in red loops to re-connect to the local biosphere, e.g., by perceiving local food, water or energy communities as a way of a convivial, resilient and diversified lifestyles. |
Main premises of the methodological approach, including their rationale and potential limitations.
The type of loop is identified using a kmeans cluster algorithm which groups units (=local municipalities) with the highest average direct ES use into green loops and units with the lowest average direct ES use into red loops. Following
The procedure to identify loop types based on household-level use of the characteristic bundle of ES at local municipality level is as follows:
1. Determine the average share of households using individual ES (n = 5) at local municipality level (n = 44) and by year (n = 4)
2. Run a calibrated kmeans cluster algorithm to subdivide the 44 municipalities into clusters of high similarity: green loop (= high average use), transition loop (= medium average use) and red loops (= low average use) in the first year of the observation
3. Visualize the within-cluster change of average ES use in subsequent years comparing with the initial 1993 cluster solution
4. Spatially map the results of the analysis connecting geospatial data (official shapefiles) to spatial information contained in socio-economic survey data, where possible3
K means-clustering relies on the Hartigan-Wong algorithm (
FIGURE 3

Evolution of average direct ES use in KwaZulu-Natal between 1993 and 2004 at municipality level. Green lines correspond to green loops yellow lines to transition loops and red lines to red loops. Results from 2011 reported with stars for comparison. Standard errors (se) are within the range of se ε (0.008; 0.042). Data: KIDS 1993–2004 and 2011 census data. Note: The analysis relies on the clustering of a municipality as green, transition or red loop in 1993 to observe changes within that municipality over subsequent data collection waves. Due to limited comparability between KIDS and census data and some inconsistencies seem apparent (e.g., “Materials” where the data waves between 2004 and 2011 are not reasonably comparable).
Results
Overall Trends and Characteristics Between 1993 and 2011
Direct ES use changed substantively in all three types of SES, green, transition and red loops, over the period between 1993 and 2011 (Figure 3). When interpreting these tendencies, it is important to keep the share of households per type of loop in mind. In 1993, some 54% of all households in the KIDS sample were living in spatial units classified as red loops. Thus, more than half of the households in the sample already lived in red loops when the period of observation begins. By 2011, their share rose to 62% in 2011 in the census population. This potentially reflects the continuation of a gradual regime which has been ongoing since many decades. Moreover, in 1993, 16% of all households in the KIDS sample were living in spatial units classified as green loops, a share which decreased to 14% in the 2011 census population. Also, the share of households living in transition loops first increased from 30% in 1993 to 32 and 38% in 1998 and 2004, respectively, and drops to 24% in the census population in 2011.4 Also this trend reflects the expected linear change away from green loops and toward red loops. However, non-linearities exist in the co-evolution of the type of loops. This is visible from several jump discontinuities in the graph, e.g., for the use of locally available natural building materials. More importantly, this can be seen in opposing tendencies of ES use between green and transition or red loops. While the average ES use in green loops drops, it augments at the same time in transition or red loops, especially for the variables concerning food (animal and crop production) and wood. That households increasingly use local ecosystems to satisfy basic needs in the case study area is underpinned by the fact that between 2005 and 2011 the land cover area in KwaZulu-Natal used for subsistence agriculture almost tripled (
With few exceptions, k means clustering identifies sufficiently dissimilar ES use across the three types of SES. This can be seen through the distance between the black dots (or stars, for census data) in each year of data observation. The black dots (or stars, for census data) indicate the average share of households using an individual bundle component in a respective cluster and year. One exception for poor variance across clusters is the US “crops” and “animals” in 2011, where we see that the share of households using this individual ES does barely vary across clusters. This may be explained by the fact that in South Africa there exists a separate census for agricultural households potentially rendering data quality in the standard survey comparatively poor.
The use of ES were found to correlate significantly with one another and we can reasonably expect that households using multiple components of the characteristic bundle of ES also use many more ES not comprised by the bundle (
TABLE 3
| Water | Wood | Materials | Crops | Animals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water | 1 | 0.413 | 0.337 | 0.037 | 0.170 |
| Wood | 0.413 | 1 | 0.489 | 0.086 | 0.284 |
| Materials | 0.337 | 0.489 | 1 | 0.054 | 0.206 |
| Crops | 0.037 | 0.086 | 0.054 | 1 | 0.294 |
| Animals | 0.170 | 0.284 | 0.206 | 0.294 | 1 |
Correlation coefficients between the five components of the characteristic bundle of ES.
By Type of Social-Ecological System
In systems identified as green loops in 1993, the average share of households using direct ES from local ecosystems decreased consistently for all five components of the characteristic bundle of ES (Figure 3, green lines). Most notably, food-related provisioning services (animal and crop farming) and the use of natural building materials dropped over period of 18 years under observation. Locally sourced water and fuelwood use dropped less rapidly and remain on a comparatively high level in 2004 and 2011. In systems identified as transition loops in 1993, mixed tendencies are observed across the five components of the characteristic bundle of ES (Figure 3, yellow lines). Food-related ES (animal and crop farming) and locally collected fuelwood use become relatively more important to households’ livelihoods, while natural building material use and water use from local sources significantly drop. The sudden surge of a food and energy-related provisioning services can indicate the exposure of households to food insecurity or economic hardship. In systems identified as red loops in 1993, also mixed tendencies occur across the five components of the characteristic bundle of ES, comparable to the tendencies in transition loops (Figure 3, red lines). Food-related ES (animal and crop farming) and fuelwood from local sources become relatively more important to households’ livelihoods, while natural building material and water use from local sources are oscillating relatively little, remaining on levels of below 10% across all data waves.
By Type of Ecosystem Service
The importance of the characteristic bundle of direct ES for livelihoods varies. Clear tendencies can only be observed for the provision of drinking water and fuelwood. In all three types of systems, households decreasingly depend on natural sources for their drinking water. This is likely to be due to the increased supply of municipal tab water which has been one key pillar of urban and rural development strategies of post-apartheid South Africa. In the case of fuelwood, households seem to become increasingly reliant. Despite almost 78% of households using electricity for lighting in 2011 (
TABLE 4
| Share of total households using fuelwood as primary energy source by loop type (%) | Number of households using fuelwood as primary energy source by loop typea | Aggregate fuelwood consumption per year (tons/year)b | Estimated emission levels (Megatons carbon dioxide/year)c | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green loops | 73.50 | 316.693 | 1.161.630,4 | 1,54 |
| Transition loops | 56.50 | 435.388 | 1.597.004,8 | 2,12 |
| Red loops | 16.00 | 317.122 | 1.163.203,2 | 1,55 |
Estimate of annual fuelwood consumption in KwaZulu-Natal.
This figure includes agricultural and non-agricultural households for which separate census data is available.
This figure was calculated using a comparable default on average fuelwood consumption per capita validated by
This figure was calculated using a comparable default on the fraction of non-renewable biomass validated by
Natural building materials are decreasingly used to a lesser extent across all types of systems. The sudden drop of households indicating to live in dwellings made of locally available materials in 1998 however is due to a data inconsistency between KIDS and census data. Due to the higher representativeness, census data should ultimately be preferred for interpretation and it is likely that KIDS underestimated the number of households living in dwellings made of locally available materials. Moreover, food-related direct ES have seen a strong decrease in green loops and opposed to that, an increasing trend in transition and red loops. This is interesting in so far as that while in green loops self-grown food decreases in relative importance, in transition and red loops, they strongly increase between 1993 and 2004 and approximate levels comparable to green loops. Comparing the KIDS data to census data is also here possible only with reservation. Yet, given that red loops and transition loops represent over 65% of the total land area of KwaZulu-Natal, the finding is consistent with the most recent physical account of land cover change between 2005 and 2011 which showed that subsistence agricultural land increased almost by a factor of three between 2005 and 2011. Moreover, the increasing share of subsistence agriculture in red loops may be interpreted as a rising interest in urban agriculture, a trend found of particular relevance in urban townships (
Which ecosystem services in which spatial unit are used is a function of biophysical supply of ES and socio-economic and political factors (
Spatial Distribution of Loop Types in 2011
The compatibility of census data with recent border demarcation in KwaZulu-Natal permits to associate green, transition and red loops with shapefile data from the
FIGURE 4

(A) Typical composition of direct ES use at municipality level. Low use category corresponds to red loops, medium to transition loops and high to green loop types of SES. Petal lengths indicate the average percentage of households in a given category using one direct ES. Standard errors (se) range within se ε (0.008; 0.042). (B) Distribution of use categories across KwaZulu-Natal. Data: Census 2011 and official shapefile data for border demarcation.
The different geographical aggregation of KIDS panel data as well as several shifts in local and district municipal border demarcation between 1993 and 2011 made it impossible to spatially map the changing types of systems over time. This is why spatial mapping could only be performed for 2011 census data. Changes in ES use could well be mapped with upcoming 2022 release of census data.
Discussion
This study observed the relationship of households with surrounding ecosystems based on analyzing the changing use of a characteristic bundle of ES relevant to satisfy basic needs over time. Embedded in the green-to-red loop transition model, in three main aspects are discussed. First of all, this concerns the empirical limits and possibilities of identifying a regime shift using a characteristic bundle of ES as a proxy. The second section discusses the assumptions and limitations of the analysis. The third section discusses the underlying drivers of change based on existing research. The fourth section discusses the potential of using this approach as an entry point to study the diverse relationships between humans and ecosystems in the context of transformative change toward safely and justly staying within planetary boundaries.
Green-to-Red Loop Transition: Has a Regime Shift Occurred?
The term regime shift is repeatedly used to describe processes within social-ecological systems that fundamentally alter the organization of underlying system dynamics (
However, in our view, the substitution process of locally sourced direct ES by faraway sourced indirect ES can very relevantly underpin the understanding of regime shifts and provide an important entry point to studying the relational shifts between societies and their natural environment in SES research. In the past, this process was typically geared from green to red loops, i.e., from strong reliance on local ecosystems toward the remote extraction of ES (
In summary, our findings illustrate a critical fraction of a systemic transformation of basic needs provisioning systems in South Africa which is ongoing since decades. However, we believe that the speed of change in the observation period in post-apartheid South Africa is substantively to be higher compared to previous decades. The findings support the view that the case study area of KwaZulu-Natal is a highly heterogeneous landscape in which different types of social-ecological systems co-exist and co-evolve over time (Figure 3). We call for future research defining comparable thresholds for the speed of change from green loops (=local ES use) to red loops (=distant ES use) as a regime shift as well as on second-order conditions for “trap dynamics”, e.g., derived from downscaled frameworks on planetary boundaries or doughnut economies (e.g.,
Assumptions and Limitations of the Analysis
The expressiveness of the selected characteristic bundle of direct ES represents an important underlying assumption to infer system dynamics based on its use or non-use. We argue that while it represents a first-best and context-appropriate measure of the immediacy with which a household depends on local ecosystems, more comprehensive data is needed to include and tailor-make characteristic bundles of direct ES for case study areas. This may include differentiations between the rural-urban nexus, but also North-South differences of application. At the same time, more research is needed on the expressiveness of non-use of direct ES, which in our analysis, indicates that households rely on distant ES brought by to the site of consumption through market-based means of exchange. Across all loops, direct ES use can be seen as expressive not only of the economic status and social vulnerability of the household, but also of its cultural, historical and spiritual connection to (or disconnection from) local ecosystems. However, further qualitative inquiry would be needed to study potentially differing subjective perceptions of local environments between loop types and direct ES uses, sentiments of responsibility or of spiritual closeness to the biosphere. One strict limitation of this study is the sole use of secondary data. With exception on the use of fuelwood, for which default data could be used to quantify an estimated material-energy throughput of woody biomass, the use quantities of the different bundle components could not be analyzed as part of this study. This, however, could highly be relevant, e.g., in relation to increased purchasing power and related rebound effects, especially in urban areas.
We furthermore identify relatively coherent spatial units based on municipality-wide averages of household-level use of direct ES. This assumption reflects archetype analysis which aims at identifying recurrent patterns across similar types of systems (
As described above, this study does not use an ex-ante determined threshold (e.g., an average percentage or range) that once transgressed, marks a regime shift i.e., the transition from a green to red loop. Rather, the classification of the type of social-ecological system was guided by kmeans clustering which grouped average ES use data from local municipalities into a pre-determined number of groups. The number of centroids should depend on internal or stability measures that provide an optimal number of clusters, corresponding to green, transition and red loops (
Understanding Underlying Drivers of Change
System properties emerge as a function of biophysical supply of ES and socio-economic and political factors relating to their governance (
Associating underlying causalities of change by empirical analysis could furthermore help to explain not only the past evolution of system transformation over time but can also help understand future barriers to transformative change. Next to socio-economic and biophysical standard data surveys, such an analysis needs to take into account the political economy of transition processes. Indeed, questions of power, history and class have not received much attention in transdisciplinary sustainability research, even in ecological economics (
Identifying and Mapping Social-Ecological Systems as an Entry Point to Studying Transformative Change
We identified and mapped SES based on the use of a characteristic bundle of five direct ES and examined changing direct ES use patterns over time. It was shown that this approach provides a heuristic to observe and understand the past evolution and current distribution of different types of SES. We argue that this transition model cannot only be deployed descriptively, but also forward-looking in a normative setting (Figure 5). Sparking social-ecological transformation toward more sustainable futures may require “fundamental shifts in perspectives, world views and institutions” (
FIGURE 5

The expanded loop transition model. Adopted from
Purpose-collected data could help to build more detailed characteristic bundle of direct ES used for identifying and mapping transformative change at societal level. With purpose-collected data, it would be possible to differentiate between the quality and intention of ES use, which, in combination with more disaggregated geospatial and biophysical data could provide an excellent basis for identifying social and ecological deprivation on the one side, and on the other, seeds of transformative change (Figure 5). This could help to enrich the loop transition model and distinguish sustainable loops from unsustainable ones. Moreover, the use of additional variables as part of characteristic bundles of ES use could further expand the expressiveness of underlying relationships of households with ecosystems.
Conclusion and Research Outlook
In this paper, we explored the concept of regime shifts based on direct ES use of households in the context of the green-to-red loop transition model. First of all, we observed a clear tendency of changing systems of provision for basic needs in the transition from green to red loops. This analysis was based on decreasing use of a characteristic bundle of direct is ES. This is indicative of a gradual regime shift, however, the absence of comparative studies and quantified thresholds hindered the conclusive identification of a regime shift. Moreover, such insight likely requires longer observation periods than the 18 years observed between 1993 and 2011 in this study. The research however shows important dynamics of how direct ES use non-linearly evolves over time and to what extent locally available ES continue to be of significant importance today, even for livelihoods in red loop type of systems. We furthermore identify the spatial distribution of SES in 2011 similar to the analysis by
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article are available under the links provided in the references
Ethics statement
The authors used secondary and anonymized data. Therefore no ethical approval was needed to include the observations in this study.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, methodology design and data analysis were part of the corresponding author’s master thesis to which IO acted as supervisor of.
Acknowledgments
The corresponding author has benefitted as guest researcher from the office and knowledge infrastructure at PIK Potsdam for carrying out all research. This work would not have been possible without the master’s program EPOG that accepted a topic which may, at first sight, seem quite uneconomic or at least unconventional in its focus. Moreover, the corresponding author wants to thank a number of people including IO from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who supported him for more than 1year in drafting his research, Liliana Cano from the University of Paris 13 for devoting many hours for discussion Gavin Capps and Bob Scholes from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg for valuable comments, and lastly, Maike Hamann from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, Ryan Blanchard from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa and Fazel Hoosen from the South African Demarcation Board for supporting this research with crucial data issues.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.695348/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1.^Note that in the remainder of the study we use the abbreviation “ES use” or “direct ES use” interchangeably. For a full classification of ES and a distinction between direct and indirect uses see
2.^Defined as “a group of persons who live together and provide themselves jointly with food or other essentials for living, or a single person who lives alone. Note that a household is not necessarily the same as a family” (
3.^Mapping local municipalities was only possible for the year 2011 (census data) due to shifting municipality borders between 1993 and 2004.
4.^The absolute numbers and relative shares of sample households living in green, transition or red loops as well as the absolute number of clusters classified as either type of loop is provided in Supplementary Table 1.
5.^
References
1
AliberM.HartT. G. (2009). Should Subsistence Agriculture Be Supported as a Strategy to Address Rural Food Insecurity?Agrekon48 (4), 434–458. 10.1080/03031853.2009.9523835
2
BakerL.PhillipsJ. (2019). Tensions in the Transition: The Politics of Electricity Distribution in South Africa. Environ. Plann. C: Polit. Space37 (1), 177–196. 10.1177/2399654418778590
3
BiggsR.BlenckerT.FolkeC.GordonL.NorströmA.PetersonG. (2012). “Regime Shifts,” in Encyclopedia of Theoretical Ecology (Berkeley: University of California Press), 609–617.
4
CAT (2021). [CAT] Climate Action Tracker. South Africa. Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/climate-target-update-tracker/south-africa/(AccessedJune28, 2021).
5
CavendishW. (2000). Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-Environment Relationship of Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Develop.28 (11), 1979–2003. 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00066-8
6
CilliersP. (2001). Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems. Int. J. Innov. Mgt.05, 135–147. 10.1142/s1363919601000312
7
CoetzeeM.Van AverbekeW. (2011). “Poverty, Land and Food Production in South African Townships.,” in Reforming Land and Resource Use in South Africa. Impacts on Livelihoods. Paul Hebinck and Charlie Shackleton (London; New York: Routledge), 275–294.
8
ColeM. J.BaileyR. M.NewM. G. (2014). Tracking Sustainable Development with a National Barometer for South Africa Using a Downscaled "safe and Just Space" Framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA111 (42), E4399–E4408. 10.1073/pnas.1400985111
9
CousinsB. (2017). Land Reform in South Africa Is Failing. Can it Be Saved?. Transformation: Crit. Perspect. South. Africa92 (1), 135–157. 10.1353/trn.2016.0030
10
CousinsB. (2010). What Is a ‘Smallholder’? Class-Analytic Perspectives on Small-Scale Farming and Agrarian Reform in South Africa’. PLAAS Working Paper16. Available at: http://www.plaas.org.za/plaas-publication/wp-16.
11
CummingG. S.BuerkertA.HoffmannE. M.SchlechtE.von Cramon-TaubadelS.TscharntkeT. (2014). Implications of Agricultural Transitions and Urbanization for Ecosystem Services. Nature515 (7525), 50–57. 10.1038/nature13945
12
DovieD. B. K.WitkowskiE. T. F.ShackletonC. M. (2004). The Fuelwood Crisis in Southern Africa - Relating Fuelwood Use to Livelihoods in a Rural Village. GeoJournal60 (2), 123–133. 10.1023/b:gejo.0000033597.34013.9f
13
DriverA.NelJ.DanielsF.PooleC.JewittD.EscottB. (2015). Land and Ecosystem Accounting in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity InstituteAvailable at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Land-and-Ecosystem-Accounting-in-KZN-Discussion-Document-FINAL.pdf.
14
DriverA.SinkK.NelJ. (2012). National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Synthesis Report - an Assessment of South Africa’s Biodiversity and Ecosystems. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental AffairsAvailable at: http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NBA-2011-Synthesis-Report-low-resolution.pdf.
15
EisenackK.Villamayor-TomasS.EpsteinG.KimmichC.MaglioccaN.Manuel-NavarreteD.et al (2019). Design and Quality Criteria for Archetype Analysis. Ecol. Soc.24, 6. 10.5751/ES-10855-240306
16
FolkeC.CarpenterS.WalkerB.SchefferM.ElmqvistT.GundersonL.et al (2004). Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.35 (1), 557–581. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711
17
FolkeC.JanssonÅ.RockströmJ.OlssonP.CarpenterS. R.ChapinF. S.et al (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio40 (7), 719–738. 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y
18
GuerreroL.LauraL.PereiraM.RaveraF.Jiménez-AceitunoA. (2019). Flipping the Tortilla: Social-Ecological Innovations and Traditional Ecological Knowledge for More Sustainable Agri-Food Systems in Spain. Sustainability11 (5), 1222. 10.3390/su11051222
19
HamannM.BiggsR.ReyersB. (2016). An Exploration of Human Well-Being Bundles as Identifiers of Ecosystem Service Use Patterns. PLOS ONE11 (10), e0163476. 10.1371/journal.pone.0163476
20
HamannM.BiggsR.ReyersB. (2015). Mapping Social–Ecological Systems: Identifying ‘Green-Loop’ and ‘Red-Loop’ Dynamics Based on Characteristic Bundles of Ecosystem Service Use. Glob. Environ. Change34 (September), 218–226. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.008
21
IEA (2021). [IEA] International Energy Agency. South Africa. Available at: https://www.iea.org/countries/south-africa (AccessedJune 28, 2021).
22
JanssenP.WaltherC.LüdekeM. (2012). Cluster Analysis to Understand Social-Ecological Systems: A Guideline. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Report.
23
LadeS.TavoniA.LevinS.SchlüterM. (2013). Regime Shifts in a Social-Ecological System. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper, 105.
24
LentonT. M.HeldH.KrieglerE.HallJ. W.LuchtW.LuchtW.et al (2008). Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.105 (6), 1786–1793. 10.1073/pnas.0705414105
25
LevinS.XepapadeasT.CrépinA.-S.NorbergJ.de ZeeuwA.FolkeC.et al (2013). Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Modeling and Policy Implications. Envir. Dev. Econ.18 (2), 111–132. 10.1017/S1355770X12000460
26
McMichaelP. (2009). A Food Regime Genealogy. J. Peasant Stud.36 (1), 139–169. 10.1080/03066150902820354
27
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
28
MooreJ. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. 1st Edition. London: Verso.
29
NevesD. (2017). “Reconsidering Rural Development: Using Livelihood Analysis to Examine Rural Development in the Former Homelands of South Africa.” Africa Portal. June 30, 2017. Available at: https://www.africaportal.org/publications/reconsidering-rural-development-using-livelihood-analysis-examine-rural-development-former-homelands-south-africa/.
30
OstromE. (2007). A Diagnostic Approach for Going beyond Panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.104 (39), 15181–15187. 10.1073/pnas.0702288104
31
OttoI. M.DongesJ. F.CremadesR.BhowmikA.HewittR. J.LuchtW.et al (2020). Social Tipping Dynamics for Stabilizing Earth's Climate by 2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA117 (5), 2354–2365. 10.1073/pnas.1900577117
32
PereiraL. M.DrimieS.MaciejewskiK.TonissenP. B.BiggsR. (2020). Food System Transformation: Integrating a Political-Economy and Social-Ecological Approach to Regime Shifts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17 (4), 1313. 10.3390/ijerph17041313
33
PirgmaierE.SteinbergerJ.. 2019. Roots, Riots, and Radical Change-A Road Less Travelled for Ecological Economics.” Sustainability, 11, 2001. 10.3390/su11072001
34
PlatzkyL.WalkerC. (1985). The Surplus People: Forced Removals in South Africa. Johannesburg: Ravan Press.
35
RaworthK. (2017). A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity's Compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health1 (2), e48–e49. 10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1
36
SANBI (2018). [SANBI] South African National Biodiversity Assessment. The Status of South Africa’s Ecosystems and Biodiversity“. South African National Biodiversity Institute, 2019. Available at: https://www.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/NBA-Report-2019.pdf.
37
SchefferM.CarpenterS.FoleyJ. A.FolkeC.WalkerB. (2001). Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems. Nature413, 591–596. 10.1038/35098000
38
ShackletonS.ShackletonC. (2011). “Exploring the Role of Wild Natural Resources in Poverty Alleviation with an Emphasis on South Africa,” in Reforming Land and Resource Use in South Africa - Impact on Livelihoods (New York: Routledge), 209–235.
39
South African Demarcation Board (2016). 2016 Boundaries - District Municipalities. Available at: http://www.demarcation.org.za/site/documents/2016-boundaries-district-municipalities/.
40
SRC (2019). Regime Shifts Database. Available at: https://www.regimeshifts.org/.
41
SRC (2011). [SRC] Stockholm Resilience Centre. “Insight #2 REGIME SHIFTS.” Stockholm Resilience Centre. Available at: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.3e9bddec1373daf16fa438/1459560363336/Insights_regimeshifts_120111-2.pdf.
42
Stats SA (2011). Census 2011 - How the Count Was Done. Available at: https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/485/download/8288.
43
Stats SA (2012a). Census 2011 - Metadata - Report No. 03-01-47. Available at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/census/census_2011/census_products/Census_2011_Metadata.pdf.
44
Stats SA (2012b). Statistical Release Census 2011. Available at: https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03014/P030142011.pdf and https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/485.
45
SteffenW.RichardsonK.RockströmJ.CornellS. E.FetzerI.BennettE. M.et al (2015). Sustainability. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science347 (6223), 1259855. 10.1126/science.1259855
46
SteffenW.RockströmJ.RichardsonK.LentonT. M.FolkeC.LivermanD.et al (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA115 (33), 8252–8259. 10.1073/pnas.1810141115
47
UNFCCC (2019). [UNFCCC] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Standardized Baselines. ASB0044-2019: Improved Institutional Cookstoves in Ethiopia. Available at: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/standard_base/2015/sb142.html (AccessedJune 28, 2021).
48
University of KwaZulu-Natal (2004). Kwa-Zulu Natal Income Dynamics Study (KIDS) - Third Wave, 2004, Public Release Version 1.1. Available at: https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/93 (data waves 1 and 2) https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/286 (data wave 3).
49
WeberA. (2016). Enlivenment - toward a Poetics for the Anthropocene. Fröhliche Wissenschaft 079. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz Berlin.
50
WongJ. A.HartiganM. A. (2018). A K-Means Clustering Algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc.28, 100–108.
Summary
Keywords
regime shifts, social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, human-nature relationships, land use change (LUC), doughnut economy, provisioning systems
Citation
Censkowsky P and Otto IM (2021) Understanding Regime Shifts in Social-Ecological Systems Using Data on Direct Ecosystem Service Use. Front. Environ. Sci. 9:695348. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.695348
Received
14 April 2021
Accepted
05 July 2021
Published
19 July 2021
Volume
9 - 2021
Edited by
Alex Oriel Godoy, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
Reviewed by
Laura Nahuelhual, Universidad Austral de Chile, Chile
Víctor H Marín, University of Chile, Chile
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2021 Censkowsky and Otto.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Philipp Censkowsky, Philipp.censkowsky@posteo.de
This article was submitted to Environmental Economics and Management, a section of the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.