DESIGNING PROJECTS IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD

Step 4 Describe key social-ecological relationships
of system function
• Describe social–ecological interactions within
and between the biophysical and social-economic
variables that influence the dynamics. Identify
any known controlling variables – the relatively
small number of variables that regulate the system
through their direct effects and feedback loops
(e.g. ground cover that controls soil erosion; the
area of habitat required to maintain a species; social
norms and laws about resource access rights
and extraction levels).
• Describe the social-ecological interactions that lead
to both desirable and undesirable outcomes.
• Identify whose decisions can affect these relationships,
and where these interactions are mediated
by governance and management. Identify who has
the decision-making authority for different issues,
and in particular what decisions can be made at the
level of the project. This is a key aspect of system
function because in later System Assessment or
Options and Pathways components you may identify
decisions that would have the desired effect, but
the power to take them lies outside your project.
This may lead to a decision to engage with those
who can make those decisions effectively.
no requirement for all the conceptual models to be
combined into one model representing all perspectives.
Rather, synthesizing multiple models may help
to identify key points of intersection or interaction
between the conceptualizations and draw attention
to mutually inconsistent assumptions. For example,
a conceptualization of climate and land-use interactions
may oversimplify economic or demographic
drivers of land-use change, while a conceptualization
of land-use change driven only by economic drivers
may exclude climate. Both conceptualizations are
useful, and do not need to be combined into one
conceptual model. See a further example in Box K.
• Establish a process to develop and share conceptual
models of the system to foster an understanding
of the different perspectives of the system among
key stakeholders. There is no requirement to create
one “right” system description, or even a common,
shared conceptual model. There are many tools
and approaches for developing and documenting
a conceptual model (see resource links at end of
this section), and it needs to contain core elements
amenable to resilience assessment. These include:
• drivers and shocks
• actors
• main resource uses
Step 5 Identify interactions with the scales above
and below the scale of assessment
• Review and revise the outcomes of Steps 1 to 4 to
consider significant interactions across scales. For
example, how national policy response to drought
influences household decision-making and, equally,
there may be critical points at which household-level
dynamics trigger rapid, national-level change.
For example, there might be a point at which food
shortages in individual households cross a threshold,
leading to civil unrest and migration, which, in
turn spill over into ongoing unrest and mass-migration
on a far larger scale. An example of cross-scale
interactions is given in Box J.
Step 6 Synthesize conceptual models, supported by
evidence, from Steps 1 to 5
A conceptual model is a representation of the system
used to communicate the current understanding of
the system, and the assumptions underpinning that
understanding. The steps in this component may
generate multiple conceptual models, covering
different aspects of the system. There could be a conceptualization
for decision-making, and a separate
conceptualization for climate and hydrology. There is
• valued components and products of the system
• feedback loops that amplify or stabilize change
• controlling variables, and known or potential
thresholds on the controlling variables
• cross-scale interactions – connections and feedbacks
between the scale of assessment, and
those above and within that scale.
• Depending on the phase of the project cycle, the
significance of the interventions and the level of
funding and other resources, all conceptual models
should be supported with literature, data, and
evidence where possible. Conceptual models can
evolve into quantitative models or even tools such
as multi-stakeholder role-playing games, but this
is recommended only if initial iterations of RAPTA
in the design phase indicate that there are critical
uncertainties or system linkages which warrant
such investment, e.g. to identify and characterise
critical thresholds, or to inform priorities where
trade-offs are required (e.g. a nutrient budget can
inform whether better management of fertiliser and
manure is likely to have a significant impact, or a
role-playing game can highlight where social norms
are preventing potentially rewarding options).
• In order to be effective in other RAPTA components,
conceptual models should be regularly updated,
60 RAPTA guidelines for project design