Carl FolkeEdit
Carl Folke is a Swedish ecologist and sustainability scientist whose work has helped reshape how scholars and policymakers think about the resilience of ecosystems and the governance systems that manage them. Based at Stockholm University and closely associated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Folke has been a central figure in integrating ecological science with governance, economics, and local knowledge. His contributions span resilience theory, social-ecological systems, and the practical implications of ecosystem services for how societies organize, invest, and adapt to change.
Folke’s career has been characterized by bridging scientific insight and policy relevance. He has been a key contributor to major international assessments that shape policy discussions on biodiversity, climate adaptation, and sustainable development, including involvement with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and ongoing work linked to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Through his research, Folke has helped advance the idea that ecological health and human welfare are inseparable, and that governance structures must be flexible enough to navigate uncertainty while preserving long-term value in landscapes, cities, and economies.
Resilience thinking and social-ecological systems
Central to Folke’s influence is the framework of resilience thinking, which emphasizes the capacity of social-ecological systems to absorb shocks, learn, and reorganize in the face of stress while maintaining their core functions. This approach treats ecosystems and human institutions as a single, tightly coupled system, where changes in one domain reverberate through the other. He has been a prominent advocate for concepts such as adaptive capacity, transformability, and the idea that sustainable outcomes arise from managing for multiple possible futures rather than chasing a single equilibrium.
Folke’s work has helped popularize the language of social-ecological systems in both scientific and policy circles. By linking ecological integrity to economic and social outcomes, his research supports arguments for diverse landscapes, precaution in the face of uncertainty, and the idea that governance should be capable of adapting as conditions shift. The field he helped shape emphasizes not just conserving nature for its own sake, but maintaining the suite of services nature provides to people, such as provisioning resources, regulating climate, supporting cultural and recreational activities, and sustaining livelihoods in communities around the world. See Resilience and Ecosystem services for more background on these ideas.
Policy impact and governance
Folke’s work has had tangible influence on how governments and organizations think about governance. The resilience framework he advanced is closely associated with adaptive and polycentric approaches to decision-making, where multiple actors—ranging from local communities to regional authorities—are engaged in a flexible, learning-oriented process. This has informed discussions about how to design governance systems that can endure shocks such as natural disasters, economic upheavals, or climate stress without collapsing.
His scholarship tends to emphasize practical governance tools, including co-management with stakeholders, the inclusion of local knowledge, and institutions that can adjust rules and incentives in response to new information. These ideas connect to broader debates about how to balance conservation goals with development needs, how to safeguard property rights and market incentives, and how to avoid, in policy terms, sliding into rigid central planning or command-and-control mechanisms that hinder innovation and investment. See Adaptive governance and Polycentric governance for related governance concepts.
In policy discussions, Folke’s perspectives intersect with the governance of biodiversity and the management of Biodiversity and Ecosystem services. His work has framed the way many policymakers view the value of ecosystems in urban planning, agriculture, forestry, and water management, making it easier to incorporate environmental considerations into economic decision-making and investment strategies.
Controversies and debates
As with any influential theoretical frame, resilience thinking has sparked controversy and vigorous debate, particularly from critics who favor market-based or more decentralized approaches to land use and resource management. From a conservative or market-oriented perspective, some argue that the resilience framework can unintentionally expand the scope and reach of government intervention, creating a framework in which policy is oriented toward managing risk and keeping options open rather than delivering measurable, near-term economic returns. Critics sometimes contend that the emphasis on adaptive governance and “learning by doing” may yield uncertain outcomes and higher costs, and can blur lines of accountability when multiple actors share responsibility for outcomes.
Another line of critique centers on the ecosystem-services paradigm itself. While many conservatives accept the importance of natural capital and ecosystem services, there is concern that placing a price on nature or integrating ecological benefits into budgeting can distort markets, over-simplify complex ecological relationships, or privilege values favored by experts over those of local communities and property owners. Folke and his collaborators respond by arguing that resilience, adaptive capacity, and diversity are not anti-market values but complementary tools that help markets function more stably by reducing vulnerability and increasing predictability in the face of uncertainty.
Advocates of resilience also emphasize that the approach does not prescribe a single prescription for all places. Instead, it calls for context-specific, locally legitimate management arrangements and learning processes that can work within market economies and private property regimes. In that sense, resilience thinking is presented as a framework that can align ecological sustainability with economic vitality, rather than a critique of markets per se. Critics of this stance sometimes argue that the framework risks becoming a vaguer umbrella under which policy goals are reframed rather than clarified or funded with concrete outcomes. Proponents counter that the framework provides structure for disciplined experimentation, monitoring, and accountability across jurisdictional boundaries.
From a perspective skeptical of broad technocratic planning, Folke’s emphasis on transformation and governance is sometimes read as a justification for significant government involvement in long-horizon resource management. Supporters counter that adaptive governance makes room for private initiative, community-led management, and market mechanisms within a stable, rule-based system that reduces the probability of abrupt losses in ecosystem services. See Adaptive governance for more on how governance structures can be designed to balance flexibility with accountability.
Selected works and further reading
Folke’s work spans numerous articles and collaborative projects in ecology, economics, and policy. His research is frequently cited in discussions of how to safeguard ecological integrity while supporting human development, and it remains influential in debates about climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable development.
Notable themes include resilience thinking, social-ecological systems, adaptive capacity, and the governance of ecosystems. Key terms and topics linked to his work appear in the entries for Resilience and Ecosystem services, as well as in discussions of Adaptive governance and Biodiversity.
He is associated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, where his research groups have contributed to global assessments and policy-oriented science.
His work has intersected with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and related policy platforms that shape how governments assess ecological value and plan for long-term resilience. See also IPBES for the broader policy science interface.
Selected works for further reading are typically found in journals such as Ecology and Society and in cross-disciplinary volumes addressing resilience, sustainability science, and governance.