Adaptation dominates climate responses in social-ecological systems in northern Sweden

Human well-being depends on benefits provided by nature¹. To emphasize their significance, such benefits can be conceptualized as nature’s contributions to people (NCP)². NCP, which can be divided into three broad categories-material, non-material, and regulating contributions-is co-produced through interactions between humans and ecosystems within social-ecological systems (SES), shaped by institutions, policies, and practices that manage ecosystem function^2,3. However, climate change effects constrain the capacity of SES to co-produce NCP³. For example, more intense and frequent disturbances such as droughts, fires, and pest outbreaks in northern European forests reduce tree growth and undermine forest production⁴. Maintaining NCP provision under these intensified conditions requires SES that are flexible and capable of navigating accelerating global change and uncertainty^5,6,7. In other words, SES must possess a certain degree of resilience. Resilience describes the capacity of SES to provide essential functions under changing conditions by (1) absorbing and coping with shocks⁵; (2) learning and adapting over time; and (3) shifting away from unsustainable or undesirable pathways by transforming the structures and dynamics of the system^6,7. Fostering these three resilience dimensions-coping, adapting, and transforming-is becoming increasingly important when the effects of climate change intensify. While coping alone may have been sufficient for mild disturbances^8,9, more severe and complex challenges require systems that can draw on all three resilience dimensions to maintain NCP provision^10,11.

A fundamental property of resilience is response diversity¹². As an ecological concept, response diversity describes how species contributing to the same ecological function respond differently to environmental change, which increases the likelihood that essential functions remain when faced with disturbances^12,13,14,15. While most often referring to the capacity to maintain functions across different disturbances, contributing to a system’s general resilience^6,16, response diversity can also be applied more specifically to how an ecosystem responds to a particular disturbance, contributing to specified resilience^6,12. For example, in arid rangelands, response diversity to the specific pressure of grazing among grass and shrub species (e.g., thorns, palatability, and dispersal syndrome) underpinned the resilience of ecosystem functions such as primary productivity, nutrient cycling, and soil stabilization¹⁷. Empirical studies across various taxa (e.g., trees, invertebrates, and pollinators) consistently show the positive relationship between response diversity and (general as well as specified) resilience in ecosystems^18,19,20. Response diversity has also been applied to SES, where the concept has been broadened to include both the diversity of ecological and human responses (e.g., refs. ^21,22,23,24). For example, the response diversity of actors has contributed to the resilience of agropastoral mountain systems as it enables different land-use strategies among farmers to collectively buffer multiple disturbances and sustain the provision of NCP²². In wetland systems, response diversity among landowners and wetlands can mitigate the specific impacts of drought, as multiple water sources and varied landowner practices have helped maintain wetland water levels and habitats for birds²³. In coral reef tourism, the diversity of strategies, such as selling assets and restoration measures, have been used to navigate bleaching and cyclones, thereby improving actors’ resilience by enabling them to continue operations and navigate financial risks during and after these disturbances²⁵.

To date, much of the existing empirical work on response diversity has focused on counting the number of different responses to disturbances (e.g., refs. ^22,23). Hereafter, we refer to this as quantitative response diversity, with little qualitative assessment of how these responses actually support the resilience dimensions of coping, adapting, and transforming. Recent conceptual work has thus begun to unpack qualitative aspects of response diversity, including its role across spatial and temporal dimensions of SES (e.g., refs. ^16,26,27). Despite these advancements, the explicit link between response diversity in SES and the resilience dimensions it is meant to support remains conceptually and empirically underexplored. This connection is important to articulate in order to purposefully build resilient SES that can maintain the provision of essential NCP even when disturbances become more intense and frequent. For instance, in Dutch coastal management, the Delta Program delivers flood protection through a system of defenses such as dikes, dunes, seawalls, dams, and storm-surge barriers²⁸, indicating high quantitative response diversity. However, these measures are targeted at adaptation with an emphasis on protecting the coastline in its current state²⁹. The historic focus on hard infrastructure in the Delta Program has been argued to limit attention and resources for more transformative strategies that are needed to sufficiently address the long-term risks of sea-level rise for communities in the low-lying delta³⁰. Meanwhile, responses in Oakwood Beach following the severe devastation of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 included short-term emergency measures that helped support coping, such as medical assistance, and responses that facilitated transformation through managed retreat, which included state buyouts and relocation of residents to regions less exposed to storms and flooding. The following restoration of wetlands and dunes now acts as a natural buffer of future events for surrounding residential areas^10,31. These examples illustrate that when disturbances become more severe, systems will require more than coping and adaptation to be resilient. Strengthening resilience amid accelerating climate change not only requires an increased focus on transformation; it also requires that the coping, adapting, and transforming dimensions of resilience are fostered simultaneously^5,6,10. If diverse responses to climate change in, for instance, agricultural systems only strengthen the capacity to cope, such as applying more fertilizers or increasing irrigation, they may be able to withstand disturbances such as drought without major disruption in crop production^8,9. However, over time, these systems can become increasingly dependent on such short-term strategies and require continuous anthropogenic input to remain resilient, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as ‘coerced resilience’³². Furthermore, relying solely on coping risks depleting assets of the system without the shift in land-use practices needed to address the underlying vulnerabilities to climate change effects over time⁸. Conversely, if responses only strengthen adaptation, such as switching to drought-resistant crops or improving soil management, vulnerability may decrease, but it indicates a limited capacity of the agricultural system to take immediate action during crisis¹⁰. It is worth noting here that response diversity is neither inherently ‘good’ nor ‘bad’. Rather, it serves to maintain the current system functions, regardless of whether the system state is considered desirable or not¹⁶. This means that in systems where functions are maintained by unsustainable practices, adaptation can inadvertently lead to maladaptation. A narrow focus on adaptation may also create or entrench path dependency that raises the threshold for the transformative changes needed to shift toward a more sustainable system in which the root causes of vulnerability are addressed³³. Eventually, path dependency can lead to social-ecological traps, where reinforcing feedbacks lock the system in an undesirable trajectory, for example, when fishers expand their effort or invest in more efficient but ecologically destructive gear to navigate declining catches in ways that further contribute to overexploitation of the fish stock^34,35. Keeping all three resilience dimensions alive at the same time can help buffer against such trap dynamics^10,11.

Here, we use quantitative and qualitative measures of response diversity to assess social-ecological resilience to climate change in the Vindelälven-Juhttátahkka Biosphere Reserve (VJBR) in northern Sweden (Fig. S1). The VJBR exemplifies multiple SES in which terrestrial ecosystems and NCP underpin local livelihoods, traditional practices, and cultural heritage (e.g., forestry and reindeer herding), all affected by climate change effects, including warmer winters and repeated freeze-thaw cycles^36,37,38,39. Our analysis draws on qualitative data from 17 semi-structured interviews with actors managing the co-production of NCP. In line with previous social-ecological applications (e.g., refs. ^16,21,22,), we operationalize response diversity as the variation in how these actors respond to change by adjusting their management practices to maintain NCP provision, extending the original ecological concept of variation in species responses within ecosystem functions^12,13. As management practices reflect the interactions between a system’s social and ecological components⁴⁰, they serve as a meaningful unit for capturing response diversity in SES. We define each SES as an actor-landscape system co-producing a specific NCP and examine how response diversity fosters resilience of this NCP provision. In particular, we explore to what extent coping, adaptive, and transformative responses, distinguished by how they contribute to resilience, are reflected in the response diversity to climate change effects across SES in the VJBR. We end by proposing that response diversity needs to support all three resilience dimensions to ensure NCP provision as climate change accelerates.

NCP important to actors in the Vindelälven-Juhttátahkka Biosphere Reserve

Across the VJBR, a total of 45 NCP belonging to the three broad categories-material, non-material, and regulating contributions²-were identified by the interviewees as important to them in the sense that they personally considered them valuable. 12 material NCP were mentioned, with forestry products (e.g., timber and pulpwood), agricultural production, and berries being the most frequent. 22 non-material NCP were mentioned, with outdoor recreation, tourism and ecotourism, sense of place and community, and reindeer herding as part of Sámi culture being most commonly highlighted. Regulating NCP were mentioned as important less frequently than material and non-material NCPs, with pollination and habitats for birds being mentioned the most (Table S1). The Vindel River that runs through VJBR itself and associated fishing for both subsistence and recreation was identified as important by actors but fell outside the scope of this analysis, which focused on NCP associated with terrestrial ecosystems.

Distribution of resilience capacities in NCP management under climate change

Looking at the response diversity to all perceived climate change effects combined across SES, we found that actors primarily focused on adaptive responses (Fig. 1), with the exception of the agricultural SES, where the local-scale actor gave equal emphasis to coping responses. In general, responses found in VJBR support both NCP provision and actors’ livelihoods, though in some cases they primarily support actors’ livelihoods (e.g., income diversification and production self-sufficiency), which in turn enables the maintenance of NCP provision (e.g., agricultural production). We also found that in response to the most frequently reported climate-related changes, coping responses currently used by actors tend to reduce their flexibility and limit future options to respond (e.g., packing snow in front of logging machines), as they provide short-term relief that decreases incentives for learning and adjusting to new conditions, ultimately increasing the threshold for change. In contrast, adaptive responses generally maintain or expand these future response options by preserving or enhancing SES flexibility and potential to pursue these responses even if conditions worsen (e.g., seeking out new grazing grounds) (Table S4). In the following sections, results are presented by SES defined by the NCP managed (i.e., forest products, reindeer herding, agricultural production, tourism and ecotourism), and for actors with indirect influence. Within each SES, we summarize some of the responses that actors currently use, or plan to use, to maintain NCP provision under climate change (Table 1 and S2, 3), and examine patterns in response diversity in relation to the capacity of the specific SES to cope, adapt, and transform.

Forest products

We found that an encroachment of pests and wetter winters with less ground frost are the two most frequently perceived current effects of climate change by both local and regional forestry actors. These effects are also perceived as two of the most anticipated changes that will affect future forest production in the VJBR, along with more frequent and intense forest fires (Fig. S2). Pests and wetter winters were also the two disturbances where forestry actors had among the highest quantitative response diversity compared to other disturbances mentioned (Fig. 2a). Many actors, both local and regional, currently use coping responses that enable logging when winters are wet and with less ground frost, focusing on stabilizing soil by cutting and putting down tree tops, trunks or blasting mats in front of machines. Adaptive responses of local actors also include investing in smaller and lighter logging equipment. For regional actors’ adaptation to wetter winters involves ensuring year-round access to dry logging areas such as pine heaths (Table 1). To cope with pest outbreaks, local actors remove fallen or broken trees more quickly than before, while regional actors focus only on adaptive responses, such as diversification of tree species when planting and logging, and adjusting the planting of tree species to the specific site conditions (e.g., dry soil). Many interviewees highlight an aspiration to change the legacy of planting spruce on pine heaths and emphasize the need to plant “the right tree in the right place” for improved tree health and navigating multiple climate-related changes (Table 1 and S3). Individual forestry actors reported between 2 and 11 (local) and 1 and 14 (regional) distinct current responses to climate change effects and disturbances.

When looking at the future, local forestry actors mention the potential application of micronutrients to keep forests healthier in order to cope with, and continuous cover logging to adapt to, an expected increase in pest outbreaks (Table 1). Meanwhile, regional actors focus only on future adaptation through plant breeding for pest resistance. When it comes to navigating wetter winters with less ground frost in the future, regional actors plan to use coping responses that still involve soil-stabilizing techniques and adaptive responses that involve planting species that are better suited to the environment (i.e., “the right tree in the right place”). Local actors expressed no future responses related to less ground frost specifically; instead, future responses involve adapting to warmer weather overall (Fig. S2). With the exception of one local actor, all forestry actors reported that they perceived their responses to be representative of other actors involved in forest product management in the VJBR (Table S5).

None of the forestry actors use transformative responses that would change the dominant feedbacks of the system, such as a full shift from single-species, clear-cut forests to mixed-species forests with continuous cover. However, elements of the subprocess preparing for change that contribute to the system’s transformative capacity⁴¹ were identified (Table S3). Preparing for change includes actors in the first step of making sense of the current situation by analyzing the elements that make the existing system problematic. This step is often followed by envisioning an alternative systemic pathway, and finally by gathering of momentum that moves the system towards that envisioned trajectory⁴¹. For example, one actor expressed a strong interest in utilizing forests to support the transition from fossil fuels to biofuels, arguing that, as an arena for sustainable development, the VJBR should spearhead efforts to develop forest-based alternatives to fossil fuels. The actor is engaging with experts and actively participating in discussions and projects around a transition. This sensemaking, envisioning, and gathering of momentum reflects elements involved in SES transformation⁴¹, and, if a window of opportunity were to open up, could lead to a major shift in the forestry SES as it would entail changes in management, harvesting priorities, infrastructure and market dynamics (Box 1).

Reindeer herding

We found that the currently experienced effects of climate change on reindeer herding are primarily related to the increased difficulty for reindeer to access forage. In particular, more frequent freeze-thaw events create layers of ice that cover reindeer lichen, making this key winter food source inaccessible. Warmer and wetter winters with unpredictable weather also make it harder for herders to follow the biorhythm traditionally used in reindeer herding, which interviewees reported had negatively affected the mental health of many herders. Herders expect these effects to increase in the future, and also emphasize that reindeer, as an Arctic animal that thrives in colder climates, will not be able to survive in warmer weather. In this regard, actors expressed doubts about whether future generations will be able to maintain reindeer herding. These effects of climate change are compounded by existing challenges related to historic trends of land-use fragmentation, which herders express already disrupt migration routes, the connectivity and quality of reindeer pastures, and the ability of reindeer to graze undisturbed, which is particularly important during calving. As a result, climate change not only introduces new stressors but also intensifies the difficulties for reindeer herders in maintaining their cultural practices within an already fragmented grazing landscape (Box 2).

Herders currently show the highest quantitative response diversity to navigate the increasing frequency of freeze-thaw events and warmer, wetter winters (Fig. 2b). Supplementary feeding is the primary coping response currently used and planned to be used whenever needed (Table 1 and S3). Current adaptive responses include seeking out grazing grounds that can offer more or alternative food sources when traditionally used pastures are diminished. Another adaptive response, advised by the Sámi Parliament, involves Sámi villages collaborating with the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute and local authorities to develop climate adaptation plans for spring, summer, and fall, in order to prepare and adapt reindeer herding to the effects of climate change. The adaptation plan includes responses already in use, such as shifting the timing of culling, marking, and the seasonal movement of reindeer. It also maps areas expected to become wetter or drier, which in turn can inform where herders might move their reindeer in the future; however, herders emphasize that changing such movement patterns will take time due to the strong behavioral tendencies of reindeer. Reindeer herders individually reported between 4 and 12 distinct current responses to climate change effects and disturbances.

Looking ahead, herders plan to develop climate adaptation plans for the winter season as well. Together, these plans also reflect a process of sensemaking, acknowledging that reindeer herding cannot continue without a strategic approach to manage a changing climate, and an envisioning by the Sámi Parliament that Sámi villages must be prepared. Depending on the outcomes and momentum of these plans, they could lead to large-scale adaptation and even transformation of the SES of reindeer herding⁴¹. Reindeer herders also reported a transformative response for the future (Fig. S2 and Table S3), involving stopping traditional seasonal migration to coastal winter pastures if their quality becomes further diminished and instead remaining in the mountains year-round if conditions allow, changing the traditional practices of reindeer herding and Sámi culture within Sápmi. All reindeer herders reported that they believed their responses reflected those of other herders (Table S5).

Agricultural production

We found that drought and increased agricultural production are the two climate-related changes most currently perceived (Fig. 2c) and most commonly expected to increase in the future by agricultural actors across scales (Figure. S2). Local and regional agricultural actors have the highest quantitative response diversity for navigating drought and currently use responses that contribute to both coping and adapting (Table 1). Coping responses involve purchasing additional feed and applying more fertilizer. Adaptive responses include locating new pastures or meadows for hay harvest and improving land management to maintain soil health and fertility, thereby enhancing drought tolerance. The local agricultural actor reported six distinct current responses to climate change effects and disturbances, while the regional actor reported nine. Responses for the future involve coping through irrigation and adapting to become more self-sufficient in production by establishing their own dairy or slaughterhouse. A warmer climate can also bring new opportunities for food production in the Swedish north. With a slightly warmer climate potentially leading to a prolonged growing season, actors are monitoring and exploring the potential for growing cereal and taking repeated hay harvests. Actors also expressed that livelihood diversification is an overall strategy to navigate multiple uncertainties inherent to agricultural production. Both the local and regional agricultural actors viewed their responses as representative of other agricultural actors (Table S5).

Tourism and ecotourism

We found that changing weather patterns is the most currently perceived climate-related change by actors within the tourism and ecotourism industry, and to which they had the highest quantitative response diversity (Fig. 2d). Warmer weather is also anticipated to influence tourism and ecotourism in the future, along with an increase in pests (Fig. S2)

Actors within tourism and ecotourism currently use adaptive responses to navigate the effects of climate change. However, we did not identify any current responses that contribute to the capacity to cope or transform. An adaptive response currently used is to account for cancellations in the business model (Table 1 and S3). Actors within tourism and ecotourism reported 1-3 distinct current responses individually. Responses that actors plan to use in the future support both coping (by moving horseback riding to earlier in the day so horses can avoid the warmest hours) and adaptation (by shifting activities to be less dependent on snow). All actors in this SES reported low perceived representativeness of their responses.

Actors with indirect influence on NCP management

In addition to actor groups who directly manage the provision and resilience of NCP, we also identified a group of actors who recognized the importance of multiple NCP (Table S1) but reported indirect or no influence on their management (e.g., through planning, coordination, or advocacy) (Table S2). These are recreational users and representatives from municipalities, academia, and a Non-Governmental Organization. While these actors are engaged in activities that shape the broader conditions that support NCP provision and resilience in VJBR, they do not represent the direct and targeted management responses and were therefore not included in the response diversity analysis.

Our findings highlight that response diversity can support NCP provision under climate change by fostering the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform simultaneously. While previous work has stressed the importance of having a range of different responses for resilience (e.g., ref. ²¹) and the continued provision of NCP (e.g., ref. ¹⁵), our study demonstrates that quantitative measures of response diversity do not capture how it supports resilience in SES. In other words, even if a variety of responses exist, they may have little positive influence on resilience if they all support the same resilience dimension (e.g., only adaptation). Our findings thus show that equal emphasis should be placed on qualitative assessment of responses and, in particular, how they support the three resilience dimensions of coping, adapting, and transforming. We also found that indirect management, multi-level governance structures, and overlapping social-ecological challenges shape the broader context that supports NCP provision and resilience in VJBR, even if these dynamics are not captured by our analysis of response diversity. In the following discussion, we reflect on how response diversity fosters resilience of NCP provision through the distribution of coping, adaptive, and transformative responses across SES in the VJBR, and how these responses may shape future options to respond.

We found that higher quantitative response diversity (i.e., a higher number of different responses to a disturbance) to climate-related changes does not ensure that the three resilience dimensions are supported across SES in the VJBR. However, where quantitative response diversity was low, responses appeared to contribute only to one dimension, most often adaptation, as seen, for instance, in the tourism and ecotourism SES when navigating more unpredictable weather patterns. In some instances, high quantitative response diversity was associated with contributions to multiple dimensions, such as the range of coping and adaptive responses used in reindeer herding to navigate more freeze-thaw events, both needed to manage the immediate disruptions in pasture function and to make long-term adjustments in pasture availability. Across SES in the VJBR, most responses to climate change-related disturbances were adaptive responses, fewer contributed to coping, and none were explicitly transformative. Our results thus highlight a focus on adaptation but a limited capacity to cope with immediate shocks, leaving many of the SES vulnerable to more sudden climate-related events, such as forest fires and landslides, which some respondents identified as future threats. Overall, the emphasis on adaptive responses was consistent across local and regional actors in the SES, suggesting that adaptation is fostered across scales in the VJBR rather than confined to the local level. Still, resilience of SES depends on more than adaptation, and actors need a range of responses that can enable any of the three dimensions of resilience whenever necessary^6,7. The lack of transformative responses may reflect that climate-related effects are not yet perceived as severe enough by actors in the VJBR to warrant transformation. Mild to moderate disturbances can typically be managed through coping and adaptation, whereas transformation becomes necessary only when the frequency or severity of disturbances accelerates⁸. Additionally, transformative responses may require cross-scale interactions and institutional support to be realized⁴¹. For reindeer herders in particular, the absence of transformation may also reflect constrained agency shaped by structural power inequalities and pressures beyond climate change alone³⁶ (Box 2). It is also possible that transformative responses are inherently rare in practice, aligning with prior studies (e.g., refs. ^42,43), which indicate that while coping and adaptative responses are common in SES facing climate change effects, transformative responses are uncommon⁴³ or entirely absent⁴⁴. It is also worth noting that our findings are based on the climate change effects and responses to navigate them that actors themselves perceived and reported. Using actor perceptions to define climate change effects ensures that they are the most relevant to the actors and the maintained provision of NCP, increasing the legitimacy of the research itself⁴⁵. It also means that some effects and strategies may be underrepresented and that there may be transformative responses by other actors in the VJBR that we were unable to capture. Nonetheless, while transformative responses were limited, some responses contributed to the subprocess preparing for change, highlighting elements that build the transformative capacity of a system, such as sensemaking and envisioning⁴¹. These strategies were not categorized as transformative in this study because they depend on external forces⁴⁶ or do not represent the structural change needed for a response to be considered transformative, although they may eventually evolve in that direction. The lack of transformative responses may therefore also reflect how response types are defined within our conceptual framework (Table 2). Based on SES resilience and transformation literature, we categorize transformative responses as strategies that fundamentally alter the structure and feedback of NCP provision to address root causes of vulnerability (e.g., refs. ^8,9,). We acknowledge that a broader conceptualization of transformation that includes preparatory processes (e.g., sensemaking) as distinct transformative responses might have yielded different results.

We also found that while many responses primarily contribute to a single resilience dimension, some strategies can support multiple dimensions through different mechanisms and at different points in time. Investments in lighter logging equipment in forestry illustrate this. Here, we classified these investments as contributing to adaptation, as actors described them as proactive, long-term responses informed by their experience of gradually wetter and warmer winters, which allows them to adjust their land-use practices. However, the use of this equipment during sudden events can act as a coping response as well. Although actors did not describe the use of smaller machines as deliberate coping responses, lighter machinery can enable continued operations following shocks, such as heavy rainfall, when conventional and larger equipment cannot be used. In this way, the same strategy (i.e., an investment in lighter equipment) supports adaptation through long-term adjustment, while also providing the capacity to cope by buffering immediate disturbances. Relatedly, some aspects of the climate adaptation plans conducted by Sámi villages can also influence multiple resilience dimensions. While many components of these plans enhance adaptation, other components involve preparing for change, such as the identified potential to keep reindeer on mountainous pastures year-round rather than following traditional migration routes. This planned response is not yet in practice, but respondents indicated they see this as an option to continue reindeer herding if conditions become infeasible for current practices. This illustrates how this plan supports adaptation and creates the potential for transformation when triggers, such as major social or ecological disruptions, generate opportunities for systemic restructuring⁴¹. Together, these examples demonstrate that individual responses do not always fit neatly into a single response type and can actually contribute to multiple resilience dimensions simultaneously. Our findings thus resonate with the description of coping, adapting, and transforming as pathways of change that together constitute resilience^26,44,47. Rather than being discrete categories, pathways are argued to emerge through practices that often blend elements of each⁴⁷.

Response diversity also needs to be considered across scales, as local diversity can mask homogeneity at the regional level¹⁶. Even though individual SES in this study show slight variation in response types, there is a clear tendency for adaptive responses across the VJBR. The consistent emphasis on adaptation can eventually create regional homogeneity, increasing the risk of synchronized, abrupt disruptions in NCP provision across the VJBR, particularly given that coping responses help buffer immediate shocks and provide the system with time to adapt or transform^10,16,48. However, assessing how different responses contribute to regional homogeneity remains challenging, as even within adaptation there is considerable variation, including temporal differences in implementation and influence on future options.

Although most actors in the SES employ adaptive responses, we found some variation across SES and across the scales at which actors operate within them. Our results suggest that local forestry and agricultural actors tend to place greater emphasis on coping responses for disturbances such as drought and wetter winters with less ground frost than actors at the regional scale, though it should be noted that the sample of agricultural actors was small. For local forestry actors, the emphasis on coping also applies to pest encroachment, where fallen and broken trees are removed quickly to navigate sudden outbreaks. Meanwhile, regional actors seem to focus more on adaptive responses, which may leave them more vulnerable if disturbances occur more rapidly than expected. This contrast potentially indicates a scale-dependent distribution of resilience dimensions in the VJBR, where local actors employ coping responses more than regional actors, who more often focus on adaptation. Although we could not confirm this pattern for tourism operators and reindeer herders, since the actors interviewed in these SES operate at a single spatial scale, previous studies have found that local actors often focus on immediate, short-term responses, whereas regional actors engage in more planned, institutional responses⁴⁹. Our results also suggest that the resilience dimensions supported by current responses in the VJBR may be linked to the characteristics of the disturbance. For example, agricultural actors tend to employ more coping responses to deal with drought, whereas forestry actors seem to focus primarily on adaptive responses when navigating more gradual changes, such as warmer weather. This pattern was not consistent across all SES and requires further investigation, but it echoes findings from previous studies showing that the likelihood of actors engaging in specific responses depends on disturbance severity and characteristics (e.g., refs. ^8,9,). Sudden events (e.g., cyclones and flooding) are often met with short-term, reactive coping responses, whereas gradual, persistent pressures (e.g., coral bleaching and eutrophication) tend to prompt long-term adaptation^25,50. In the specific SES of reindeer herding, high quantitative response diversity appears to support both the capacity to cope and adapt. The emphasis on adaptation may stem from a history of herding in an increasingly fragmented landscape, which has required continuous adjustment of land use practices³⁶. Additionally, herders express that the connection to nature embedded in Sámi culture and practices means that they have already experienced environmental changes firsthand over many generations. As one interviewee emphasized, their livelihood “is not meant to make us rich […] it is about caring for a heritage to pass on to future generations. We do not own this land; we have only borrowed it […] and we, who live with nature, are the first to experience these climate changes” (author’s translation from Swedish). We also found that transformation might be an option for herders in the future, reflecting their recognition of a current unsustainable and undesirable pathway they aim to change⁴¹. If climate disturbances intensify, herders may need to abandon seasonal transhumance and stay in the mountains in order to maintain reindeer herding as a livelihood. Such a transformation could come at the cost of traditional knowledge and practices central to Sámi culture and identity³⁶, raising the question of whether this pathway is desirable or simply necessary to maintain NCP provision.

To explore how current response diversity can shape resilience of SES over time, we also consider how the current responses could influence options for responding in the future. In the VJBR, we found that responses used to cope with immediate shocks, when not accompanied by other sorts of responses, generally reduce future response options, whereas adaptive responses tend to maintain or expand those options. Specific coping responses within forestry, such as packing snow in front of logging machines, offer short-term solutions but are likely to reduce actors’ future options, as continued reliance on these responses does not involve learning or adjustment of land-use practices in response to increasingly wet winters. If coping responses are too heavily relied upon, they risk locking actors into reactive and unsustainable pathways with reduced adaptability, transformability, and overall resilience for facing climate-related disturbances in the future^26,32. However, none of the SES in VJBR relies only on coping responses, and adaptive responses were broadly used by actors. Responses such as ensuring access to sites with dry soil that can be logged with less ground frost can maintain or even increase future forestry options. By acknowledging that wet conditions are becoming more common in northern Sweden and adapting land-management practices accordingly, this response supports flexibility. Similarly, supplementary feeding is essential to maintain reindeer herding during periods of poor forage availability. Relying on an external food source may support immediate coping but can undermine the development of long-term grazing strategies^9,32,36. It risks creating dependency on costly external resources for sufficient fodder provision, potentially leading to ‘coerced resilience’³², particularly if pasture conditions continue to worsen under climate change. To complement coping responses, herders use adaptive responses that include seeking out new grazing grounds when traditional pastures are diminished, thereby increasing future options of pastures. Our qualitative analysis of response diversity thus highlights how actors’ responses influence the system’s ability to cope, adapt, and transform, which shapes not only current resilience but also the response options available in the SES over time.

Across the SES, actors mostly believed that their responses were representative of others who manage the same NCP. This suggests that participants perceive their challenges and management approaches as broadly shared among similar actors within the VJBR. The exception was tourism and ecotourism actors, who did not find their responses representative, indicating potential differences in homogeneity among actor groups. This is relatively unsurprising given that tourism and ecotourism generally encompass a wider range of activities, practices, and business models than sectors such as large-scale forestry. Nevertheless, the climate change effects and disturbances actors experience and the specific responses they use to navigate them are inherently linked to the ecological, social, and economic context in which they operate. That said, we would like to highlight two key findings that have broader, more generalizable implications beyond the VJBR. First, the differentiation of coping, adaptive, and transformative responses is applicable to the management of any NCP regardless of the context or type of disturbance. Second, the finding that quantitative response diversity does not automatically translate into responses across the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform is important for resilience assessments more broadly, as it suggests that the conventional framing of response diversity may fall short as disturbances become increasingly intense and frequent under climate change. We argue that these findings have particular value for policy and practice, as the distinction between response types and how they collectively support resilience can help make visible which dimensions are supported or lacking in a SES. As such, they can help prioritize where governance and management efforts should be directed to foster the response diversity necessary for maintaining NCP provision under climate change. In conclusion, our findings suggest that high quantitative response diversity alone does not translate into resilience of SES in reality. Instead, the effectiveness of response diversity depends on how responses support the three dimensions of resilience. Thus, qualitative measures of response diversity is essential for understanding how response diversity fosters resilience and the long-term provision of NCP under climate change. Research has an important role to play in further advancing this understanding and translating it into action.

Data collection

This study was carried out in collaboration with the local program coordinators of the VJBR, beginning in 2021. Following proposed practices for participatory science in general and for identification and selection of NCP in particular⁵¹, the collaboration started at the outset of the research project (Methods S1). This early involvement ensured that the study objective would be relevant to stakeholders, not only to scientific research, thereby increasing the likelihood that the results would address real-world needs and the priorities of participants⁵². A stakeholder analysis was conducted in collaboration with the program coordinators of the VJBR, who have extensive experience working in the area and with its actors. Potential stakeholder inclusion was primarily based on actors’ representation on the VJBR steering board, where board members represent key NCP and their management in the region across the focus areas of the official VJBR program (e.g., Successful reindeer herding, Living landscapes, and Tourism and recreation for all). A balance in geographical location and gender was also considered. The resulting list of potential participants was continuously updated in an iterative process based on the availability of invited participants and also included non-board members who represent the management of NCP in the VJBR. As such, interviewees were selected through purposive sampling of key informants, where sample size is determined by the relevance of actors to the research question rather than statistical representativeness⁵³. We conducted semi-structured interviews in the field and online between June 2022 and 2023. We followed an interview guide (Methods S2) but allowed for open discussion and gave participants space to guide the conversation. Each interview lasted between 40 and 80 minutes. Interviews were held with 17 individuals who influence land use practices, either through direct management or through advisory roles across the following actor groups: forestry, reindeer herding, agriculture, tourism and ecotourism, Non-Governmental Organizations, academia, municipalities and recreational users, with four participants representing multiple sectors (Table S5). In the interviews, participants were asked to describe which NCP they use, manage, and consider important. The interviewees were also asked to elaborate on potential climate change effects they have experienced, as well as those they expect in the future. Interviews further focused on current and anticipated future responses that actors use (or plan to use) to navigate these effects. Participants were also asked whether they believed their answers were representative of other actors who manage the same NCP. We presented anonymized and aggregated results from the interviews to the program coordinators of the VJBR to assess whether the patterns found reflected their understanding of the region. Collaborators confirmed that the aggregated results provided a realistic and representative view of activities in the VJBR and the general challenges related to climate change. While it was not possible to verify or reject specific response strategies, this triangulation supports the validity of our findings, even though some SES had relatively few respondents. For instance, the study included only two agricultural actors. However, this was deemed reasonable as it is believed to reflect the comparatively smaller role of agriculture in northern Sweden relative to the dominant forestry sector. Moreover, by focusing on the characteristics and diversity of responses rather than statistical generalization, even small subgroups provide meaningful insights into SES resilience across the VJBR. Before engaging with actors, the research project (including methods and a data management plan) went through an ethical review at Stockholm University and attained approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2022-01514-01). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the interviews and approved the quotes used in the manuscript.

Analysis

All interviews were manually transcribed verbatim. We then conducted a thematic analysis⁵⁴, which is well-suited for this study as it enables the identification of patterns in how actors across diverse SES experience and respond to climate change. The coding process was mainly deductive, with attention placed on coding data related to the specific research questions (e.g., NCP managed by actors, climate change effects, and the strategies used to navigate those) (Methods S3). This was combined with more inductive coding to identify qualities in the data that could be interesting to explore further. For instance, one such quality was the scale at which actors operate (i.e., local vs. regional), derived from how actors described the extent of their NCP management within the VJBR. When coding, we also noted which aspects of the data seemed to be informative for the development of themes. Then, we actively constructed candidate themes by collapsing multiple codes that shared features (e.g., management of material NCP). Themes were then established by deciding their importance to the research questions or other aspects that could contribute to the analysis. Results of the thematic analysis were structured in a matrix-style display, heatmaps and bar plots to summarize and communicate management responses used by actors and how they collectively contribute to the resilience of the particular SES. Self-reported representativeness was assessed using a yes-or-no format, with responses on a 0-10 Likert scale translated into binary format using the following cutoff: 7-10 = Yes, and 0-6 = No.

Response diversity to climate change effects and disturbances was assessed both quantitatively (by the number of distinct responses in NCP management) and qualitatively (by the contribution of the different responses in NCP management across resilience dimensions) for each SES in which interviewees had direct or targeted influence over the management of land-based NCP. SES were defined by the interactions between specific actor groups (e.g., foresters) and the landscapes they manage (e.g., forests), with each system linked to the management of a particular NCP (e.g., forest products). Advisory actors were included when their guidance or regulation directly influenced NCP management (e.g., the Swedish Forest Agency). Responses that actors reported using or planning to use, whether implemented directly or through advisory support, were grouped according to their functional contribution to NCP management within each SES. Response diversity in this study was analyzed in relation to specific disturbances perceived by actors (e.g., drought) and as an aggregate measure capturing response diversity to all perceived effects of climate change in the SES. Quantitative response diversity was calculated as the total number of distinct responses to a given disturbance within each SES, with similar responses by multiple actors within the same SES counted as a single distinct response (e.g., cutting tree tops in front of logging machines to navigate wetter winters). Quantitative response diversity was then aggregated across all disturbances to derive an overall numeric metric of response diversity to climate change for each SES and for all SES combined. We then assessed whether this quantitative response diversity also qualitatively supports the three resilience dimensions. To do this, we first assessed the contribution of each individual response to the capacity to cope, adapt, or transform (Table 2). We then aggregated these contributions to the SES level to investigate the balance of resilience dimensions in the response diversity for each perceived disturbance and to climate change overall. We also aggregated contributions across all SES to assess the resilience to climate change of VJBR as a whole. Responses by actors were classified according to their contribution to resilience dimensions based on the following criteria:

Coping responses

Immediate, reactive responses that maintain system function and NCP provision without changing the structure of the SES^5,26,47. These responses often rely on external resources and do not involve learning or changes in land use practices⁹.

Adaptative responses

Responses that involve learning and adjustment to new climate change conditions^6,47, typically through changes in land use practices to sustain NCP provision over time⁹. Adaptation alters social and/or ecological components of the SES but does not change the fundamental structure or feedbacks of the SES^5,26,41.

Transformative responses

Responses that fundamentally alter key social and/or ecological components of the SES and change the structure and feedbacks while maintaining NCP provision^5,26. Transformative responses go beyond adjusting existing land use practices within system structures to address root causes of vulnerabilities by restructuring systems⁹ and directing them toward a more desirable trajectory^6,41.

These criteria were applied to each response by considering key characteristics such as whether it relied on external resources, involved learning or adjustments in land use practices, or fundamentally altered social-ecological components and feedbacks. When responses were primarily adaptive but involved elements associated with transformation, we identified them as contributing to the transformational subprocess preparing for change⁴¹. This included actors’ sensemaking of problematic aspects of the system (e.g., recognizing dependencies on fossil fuels), envisioning alternative pathways (e.g., proposing sustainable biofuel production within Swedish forestry), and taking steps to gain momentum toward change (e.g., collaborating with experts or engaging in pilot projects). This mainly applied to responses where the outcome for transformative capacity was not yet clear and/or depended on other factors to be realized, such as windows of opportunity (e.g., disruptions or policy changes). While these transformative elements may exist in other responses, we only included those explicitly mentioned by actors. Additionally, we considered how some of the current responses influence the ability of the SES to respond in the future. These responses were qualitatively assessed to determine whether they reduce, maintain, or increase the response options available in the future. The assessment was grounded in the concept of option space in SES, which refers to the set of options that remain available in a system under a given management context⁵⁵. Responses were considered to reduce future options if they constrain flexibility and limit the potential to pursue alternative system trajectories, to maintain options if they preserve flexibility to pursue multiple trajectories, and to increase options if they broaden the range of potential future trajectories.

A resilience analysis also requires answers to “resilience of what, to what and for whom”^46,56. In our analysis, the distinct actor-landscape SES and the NCP they provide represent the “of what”, the disturbances of climate change answer “to what,” and the actors in the system answer “for whom”. While we use this framing to guide our analysis, we recognize that these systems are open and embedded in broader ecological, social, and institutional contexts⁵⁷ such as the VJBR in its entirety, the county of Västerbotten, or the country of Sweden. In practice, NCP co-produced in the VJBR may therefore extend beyond the actors included in our analysis, broadening the scope of the “for whom” to include other beneficiaries in reality.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.