Climate change is a buzzword in the world. Scientist has approved it as global warming with its projection of undesired and unpredicted frequent extreme events and their vulnerabilities not only at present but also at future. There is an assumption of occurrence of adaptive capacity and behavior of farmers in agriculture production activity at some extent to neutralize climate change vulnerabilities of flood and landslides on paddy production. This paper empirically examines the effects of climate change in paddy production and farmer’s adaptive behaviors to neutralize such climatic shocks and events in paddy production by employing CD production function based econometric model. The study employed primary data collected through 642 household surveys. The study finds that climatic shocks and events have huge loss (60%) in paddy production and revenue income in such plot where farmers have not indigenous knowledge and practices. But both small and larger farmers who have adaptive capacity and behavior with their indigenous knowledge have less loss in paddy production and revenue income, although they have heterogeneity in their socio-economic characteristics (income, asset holding, literacy, experience, land holding and age). The farmers who have used adaptive behavior have indigenous knowledge and experiences including bamboo wall construction to control flood and landslides and seed change to resist climatic shocks and events. In hilly region, the farmers have not sufficient alternative measures, except both adaptive measures because of their poverty, illiteracy and remote locations. The study finds their higher effective level to minimize vulnerabilities to paddy production and revenue per farm plot, although these adaptive behaviors are cost effective and local entity. Comparatively, bamboo wall construction is more effective measure in the paddy production than others are (seed switch) to minimize the flooding materials from the flood and the landslides. Thus, low cost indigenous adaption behavior of farmers is effective measure to climate change and climate change induced disasters and events vulnerability in paddy production.

In the last decade, probably in response to global changes and environmental crisis, the use of the term “social-ecological system” (SES) in the scientific literature has been growing. This is certainly a sign of the recognition of the need and importance of transdisciplinary research. Here, we explore whether the use of the term is a buzzword, or it actually represents a key concept toward the integration of social and ecological research. We compiled a data base of publications (N = 1289) that mentioned SES in title, keywords and abstract. Subsequently, we analyzed: authors affiliations, type of work (conceptual, empirical, review), study site, prevailing human use, temporal and spatial scales of analysis, kind of variables analyzed (socioeconomic, biophysical), and the method/s used to integrate them. We detected four time spans in the use of the term (1975–1997, 1998–2006, 2007–2012, 2013–2016). Our results suggest that SES is a widely invoked concept to study the interface between social and ecological systems. Most works show some common elements such as the analysis of resilience, ecosystem services, sustainability, governance and adaptive management. However, the majority of studies does not study SES as a whole, integrating both social and ecological variables and their feedback loops. We consider that SES is still a concept in construction in order to build a necessary framework to integrate social and ecological sciences. For a robust evolution we recommend to focus on 1. a conscious, discussed and agreed effort of scientists to conduct transdisciplinary research needed to study SES; 2. developing methodological tools for the true integration of social and ecological data.

Most mature companies have started some kind of “transformation”, either digital, or agile transformations, to cope with changes in the environment, yet most fail, ending up delivering nothing or just one more reorganization. We postulate that considering the Organization as a self-aware Complex Adaptative System (CAS) is paramount, as the common conception (Industrial: mechanistic and predictive) results in bringing the systems in a frozen or defensive mode. Stimulating the system enables us to use its adaptative power to develop new capabilities, and all layers should be tackled simultaneously, to prevent the system from collapsing back into its original state. To ensure this, it is necessary to create a seed per level, and a mechanism to propagate the transformation, with a focus on development instead of growth, that is qualitative change rather than quantitative. A common vocabulary should also be provided, so conversations can occur at every level. Finally, changing mindsets is key, and both concepts and techniques should be provided as enablers to the adequate mindset level. We detail one such transformation that resulted in distributed leadership and more intrinsic motivation, providing both an account of the transformation itself and a model to read it.