Abstract
In the context of accelerated global change, the concept of resilience, with its roots in ecological theory and complex adaptive systems, has emerged as the favored framework for understanding and responding to the dynamics of change. Its transfer from ecological to social contexts, however, has led to the concept being interpreted in multiple ways across numerous disciplines causing significant challenges for its practical application. The aim of this paper is to improve conceptual clarity within resilience thinking so that resilience can be interpreted and articulated in ways that enhance its utility and explanatory power, not only theoretically but also operationally. We argue that the current confusion and ambiguity within resilience thinking is problematic for operationalizing the concept within policy making. To achieve our aim, we interrogate resilience interpretations used within a number of academic and practice domains in the forefront of contending with the disruptive and sometimes catastrophic effects of global change (primarily due to climate change) on ecological and human-nature systems. We demonstrate evolution and convergence among disciplines in the interpretations and theoretical underpinnings of resilience and in engagement with cross-scale considerations. From our analysis, we identify core conceptual elements to be considered in policy responses if resilience is to fulfill its potential in improving decision making for change. We offer an original classification of resilience definitions in current use and a typology of resilience interpretations. We conclude that resilience thinking must be open to alternative traditions and interpretations if it is to become a theoretically and operationally powerful paradigm.
Highlights
With an increased likelihood of major shifts in earth systems, greater emphasis is being placed on maintaining their resilience to disruptive change and even building the ability to steer humanenvironment systems away from unproductive or hazardous regimes toward more sustainable and less hazardous ones (Walker et al 2004, Olsson et al 2004, 2008, Adger et al 2005, Folke 2006, Bohensky 2008, Folke et al 2009)
Following Kuhn (1970), we could argue from our observations that the current diversity of, and competition among, resilience interpretations constitutes a preparadigmatic movement while the perceived convergence of interpretations and underlying theoretical bases is a possible indicator of an emerging resilience paradigm
Through our analysis we showed that there are some conceptual elements that appear in most interpretations, other elements occur sporadically and are domain specific (Fig. 1)
Summary
With an increased likelihood of major shifts in earth systems, greater emphasis is being placed on maintaining their resilience to disruptive change and even building the ability to steer humanenvironment systems away from unproductive or hazardous regimes toward more sustainable and less hazardous ones (Walker et al 2004, Olsson et al 2004, 2008, Adger et al 2005, Folke 2006, Bohensky 2008, Folke et al 2009). Some scholars argue that blurred boundaries and conceptual fuzziness may be appropriate to inter- and transdisciplinary contexts where research questions are unclear and creativity is required (Strunz 2012, Deppisch and Hasibovic 2013), while others maintain they may be a function of the concept’s immaturity and detachment from policy (Lagendijk 2003, Chelleri 2012). Whatever the reasons, this ambiguity means that the concept is open to many interpretations across multiple theoretical and practice contexts (Stead 2013). We argue that these attempts to apply the concept of resilience to so many different fields have impeded the continual improvement of its operationalization within policy making and implementation because of the following:
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
