Community Resilience to Climate Change Theory, Research Section II Resilience in Theory

SECTION II RESILIENCE IN THEORY Engineering resilience Ecological resilience resilience Ecosystem services resilience Resilience thinking adaptation 31 Resilience in Theory Underpinning all present discussions about resilience and related goals are theories conceptual which have shaped our general understanding of what the word really means . You may feel that these conceptions should be the intellectual domain of academics and scholars , particularly if you are interested in a more practical , applied approach to urban climate change resilience . However , we suggest that even the most student can benefit from understanding a few of these basic theoretical . Resilience theory may help you understand what is meant when the word appears in an urban development or climate adaptation plan . Furthermore , these theoretical conceptions may provide clarity to your own ideas about what a resilient city , society , or system actually looks like . One of the reasons that a universal conception of resilience has been so elusive is that it appears across a broad range of disciplines , each offering its own framing and interpretation of the term . These disciplines include , but are not limited to engineering , ecology , psychology , sociology , disaster management , and economics . A theoretical conception is more than a simple definition , and also includes the boundaries , characteristics , and appropriate applications of the concept in question . For the purpose of this course , we will focus on conceptions of resilience which are commonly applied to the subject of climate change resilience , including both formative and more recent theoretical . Engineering resilience is one of those early formative concepts , which defines resilience as the ability for a system to withstand change , to bounce back quickly from disturbance , and to retain its status quo . This definition assumes that the systems of interest are stable , linear , and predictable . Although this conception is better suited to machines than fluid human and natural systems , its influence mains . Many people still think of resilience in these terms ( bounce back , status quo ) regardless of the subject . Tenets of engineering resilience still appear in practice , particularly regarding physical infrastructure and the built environment . Another formative concept is that of ecological resilience , introduced by . Holling in the . Unlike engineering resilience , the ecological conception focuses on natural system dynamics which are constantly exposed to disturbance , unpredictable and liable to change . According to Holling , resilience is the amount of disturbance that an ecosystem can withstand before losing function and switching to an alternative state ( a forest becoming a desert , for example ) While certainly relevant to the effects of climate change on ecosystem function and change , ecological resilience does not quite address all of the complex problems faced by people and cities . Recent literature often frames climate change issues in terms of resilience . This perspective retains ideas of disturbance and flux found in ecological resilience , but further acknowledges the feed backs that exist between human and natural systems . Human dependence and influence on natural processes ( ecosystem services ) are at the core of this theoretical conception , and a key point is that humans continue to get what they need to survive thrive lo . Unlike both engineering and ecological resilience which favor persistence , resilient systems are encouraged to work with change in order to make survival possible . This perspective , which includes not only the ability to withstand disturbance , but also to adapt and transform as needed , is known as resilience thinking . Adaptability and many other features which have been theorized to enhance systems may alternatively be characterized as general resilience . Literature Cited . Quinlan , Peterson , 2016 ) Measuring and assessing resilience Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives . Journal of Applied Ecology , 53 ( Holling , 1996 ) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience . In ( Ed . Engineering within ecological constraints ( Washington , The National Academies Press . 2019 ) Climate change resilience strategies for the building sector Examining existing domains of resilience utilized by design professionals . Sustainability , 11 ( 10 ) li . Schoon , 2015 ) Chapter An introduction to the resilience approach and principles to sustain ecosystem services in systems . In , Schoon ( Principles for building resilience Sustaining ecosystem services in ecological systems ( Cambridge , UK Cambridge University Press . Walker , Salt , 2006 ) Chapter The system rules Creating a mind space for resilience thinking . In Resilience thinking Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world ( Washington , Island Press . Carpenter , Arrow , Barrett , Brock , A . 201 ) General resilience to cope with extreme events . Sustainability , li ( 32

READINGS INCLUDED Open access articles Full text included , Carpenter , Walker , Chapin , 2010 ) Resilience thinking Integrating resilience , adaptability and transformability . Ecology and Society , A ) Carpenter , Arrow , Barrett , Brock , A . 201 ) General resilience to cope with extreme events . Sustainability , lo ( I ) Brand , Jax , 2007 ) Focusing the meaning ( of resilience Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object . Ecology and Society , 12 ( 2019 ) Climate change resilience strategies for the building sector Examining existing domains of resilience utilized by design professionals . Sustainability , IO ) 2016 ) Comparing of urban climate resilience in theory and practice . Sustainability , ALTERNATIVE SELECTIONS Full text not included May be accessible through your university library or elsewhere , Schoon , 2015 ) Chapter An introduction to the resilience approach and principles to sustain ecosystem services in systems . In , Schoon ( Principles for building resilience Sustaining ecosystem services in systems ( Cambridge , UK Cambridge University Press . Holling , 1996 ) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience . In ( Ed . Engineering within ecological constraints ( Washington , The National Academies Press Walker , Salt , 2006 ) Chapter Living in a complex world . In Resilience thinking Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world ( Washington , Island Press . Walker , Salt , 2006 ) Chapter The system rules Creating a mind space for resilience thinking . In Resilience thinking Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world ( Washington , Island Press . 33

STUDENT EXERCISES To be completed after assigned reading ( Consider some of the different ways that resilience is in the literature . Which of these appeals most to you , or aligns most closely with your understanding of resilience ?

Is there anything you feel is missing from these ?

Anything you would like to add ?

What do you think is the relationship between RESILIENCE , ADAPTATION and TRANSFORMATION ?

It may help to draw a simple diagram showing how these ideas relate to one another . instructors We suggest that students be given the opportunity to read each other is responses prior to class . This will alleviate the students to each other what they have written , and leave more class deeper , exploratory discussions . FOR INSTRUCTORS CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES ( Discussion Prompt Imagine you are speaking with a community group ( eg , neighborhood association , religious group , climate rally , etc . about climate change and resilience . How would you frame the concept ?

What examples might you use ?

How could you describe climate resilience in a way that makes sense to , without getting too technical ?

Think of a metaphor you would use to convey this concept . Consider the opportunities and challenges of using this metaphor when speaking with a community group . 34 Resilience Thinking Integrating Resilience , Adaptability and Transformability by Carl , Stephen Carpenter , Brian Walker , Marten , Terry Chapin and Johan This article was originally published in Ecology Society , 15 ( 2010 . Imp This work is licensed under a Creative Commons International ( license ABSTRACT Resilience thinking addresses the dynamics and development of complex systems ( SES ) Three aspects are central resilience , adaptability and transformability . These aspects interrelate across multiple scales . Resilience in this context is the capacity of a SES to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds . Adaptability is part of resilience . It represents the capacity to adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and thereby allow for development along the current trajectory ( stability domain ) Transformability is the capacity to cross thresholds into new development trajectories . Transformational change at smaller scales enables resilience at larger scales . The capacity to transform at smaller scales draws on resilience from multiple scales , making use of crises as windows of opportunity for novelty and innovation , and recombining sources of experience and knowledge to navigate transitions . Society must seriously consider ways to foster resilience of smaller more manageable SESs that contribute to Earth System resilience and to explore options for deliberate transformation of SESs that threaten Earth System resilience . Keywords adaptability adaptation resilience systems transformability transformation INTRODUCTION One of the most cited papers in Ecology and Society was written to exposit the relationships among resilience , adaptability and transformability ( Walker et al . 2001 ) That paper defined resilience as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function , structure , identity , and ( Walker et al . 20041 ) Discussions since publication of that paper have exposed some confusion about the use of the term resilience . The idea that adaptation and transformation may be essential to maintain resilience may at first glance seem counterintuitive , as it embraces change as a requisite to persist . Yet the very dynamics between periods of abrupt and gradual change and the capacity to adapt and transform for persistence are at the core of the resilience of systems ( SESs ) We therefore strive to develop a theoretical framework for understanding what drives SESs , centered around the idea of resilience . We term this framework resilience thinking . Here we rephrase the three core elements of resilience thinking to embrace these ideas . RESILIENCE THE HISTORY OF A CONCEPT Resilience was originally introduced by Holling ( 1973 ) as a concept to help understand the capacity of ecosystems with alternative to persist in the original state subject to , as reviewed by . 2000 ) 2006 ) and ( 2009 ) In some fields the term resilience has been technically used in a narrow sense to refer to the return rate to equilibrium upon a perturbation ( called engineering resilience by Holling in 1996 ) However , many complex systems have multiple . This implies that a perturbation can bring the system over a threshold that marks the limit of the basin of attraction or stability domain of the original state , causing the system to be attracted to a contrasting state . This is qualitatively different from returning to the original state , and ( 1996 ) definition of ecological or ecosystem resilience has been instrumental to emphasize this difference . The concept of alternative stable states with basins of attraction is a highly simplified image of reality in ecosystems . may be stable points or more complicated cycles of various kinds . Intrinsic tendencies to produce cyclic or chaotic dynamics are blended in intricate ways with the effects of environmental , and with trends that cause thresholds as well as the nature of to change over time . Nonetheless , we observe sharp shifts in ecosystems that stand out of the blur of fluctuations around trends . Such shifts are called regime shifts and may have different causes ( et al . 2001 , Carpenter 2003 ) When they correspond to a shift between different stability domains they are referred to as critical transitions ( 2009 ) All of these concepts have precise definitions in the mathematics of dynamical systems ( 1998 , 2009 ) However , despite their elegance and rigor , they capture only part of reality . One of the main limitations of the dynamical systems theory 35

that forms the broader underlying framework is that it does not easily account for the fact that the very nature of systems may change over time ( er 2009 ) This implies that , in order to understand the dynamics of an intertwined system ( SES ) other concepts are needed . In many disciplines , human actions are often viewed as external drivers of ecosystem dynamics examples include fishing , water harvesting , and . Through such a lens the manager is an external intervener in ecosystem resilience . There are those who suggest constraining the use of the resilience concept to ecosystem resilience , for conceptual clarity , as the basis for practical application of resilience within ecological science and ecosystem management ( Brand and Jax 2007 ) However , many of the serious , recurring problems in natural resource use and management stem precisely from the lack of recognition that ecosystems and the social systems that use and depend on them are inextricably linked . It is the feedback loops among them , as interdependent systems , that determine overall dynamics . ADAPTABILITY AND TRANSFORMABILITY AS PREREQUISITES FOR SES . This communities and ecosystems , but the great acceleration of human activities on earth now also makes it an issue at global scales ( et al . 2007 ) making it difficult and even irrational to continue to separate the ecological and social and to try to explain them independently , even for analytical . To put the issue in context , ice core data reveal that humanity has for the last years lived in a relatively stable climate , an era referred to as the . This era has allowed agriculture and all major human civilizations to develop and flourish . The future of human may be seriously compromised if we should pass a critical threshold that tips the earth system out of this stability domain ( et al . 2009 ) It is plausible that paradigms and patterns , if continued , would tip the system into a radically different basin of attraction ( et al . 2007 ) Preventing such an undesired critical transition will require innovation and novelty . Profound change in society is likely to be required for persistence in the stability domain . Alas , resilience of behavioral patterns in society is notoriously large and a serious impediment for preventing loss of Earth System resilience . SES resilience that contributes to Earth System resilience is needed to remain in the state . be this social change is essential for SES resilience . This is why we incorporate adaptability and the more radical concept of transformability as key ingredients of resilience thinking ( Table ) Adaptability captures the capacity of a SES to learn , combine experience and knowledge , adjust its responses to changing external drivers and internal processes , and continue developing within the current stability domain or basin of attraction ( et al . 2003 ) Adaptability has been defined as the capacity of actors in a system to influence ( Walker et al . Thus , adaptive capacity maintains certain processes despite changing internal demands and external forces on the SES ( Carpenter and Brock 2008 ) By contrast , transformability has been defined as the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological , economic , or social structures make the existing system untenable ( Walker et al . Extending the use of resilience to systems makes it possible to explicitly deal with issues raised by Holling ( 1986 ) about renewal , novelty , innovation and reorganization in system development and how they interact across scales ( and Holling 2002 ) This is an exciting area of explorative work broadening the scope from adaptive management of ecosystem to understanding and accounting for the social dimension that creates barriers or bridges for ecosystem stewardship of dynamic landscapes and in times of change ( et al . 1995 ) Are there deeper , slower variables in social systems , such as identity , core values , and that constrain adaptability ?

In addition , what are the features of agency , actor groups , social learning , networks , organizations , institutions , governance structures , incentives , political and power relations or ethics that enhance or undermine resilience ( et al . 2005 , Chapin et al . 2006 , Smith and Stirling 2010 ) How can we assess ecological thresholds and regime shifts and what governance challenges do they imply ( and Cumming 2008 , et al . 2009 ) Similarly , it helps to broaden the social domain from investigating human action in relation to a certain natural resource , like dairy or fruit production , or environmental issue , like climate change , to the challenge of multilevel collaborative societal responses to a broader set of and thresholds in systems ( Chapin et al . 2009 ) For example , governance of the catchment in the Murray Darling Basin , Australia has had to solve problems , adapting to change while continuing to develop , connecting the region to global markets . cropping , grazing , irrigated dairy and fruit production is widespread and the catchment produces one quarter of the State of Victoria export earnings ( Walker et al . 2009 ) At a first glance , economically lucrative activities seem to be thriving . But if the analysis is broadened to a approach to account for the capacity of the landscape in sustaining the values of the region , the picture looks quite different . Widespread clearing of native vegetation and high levels of water use for irrigation have resulted in rising water tables , creating severe problems so severe that the region faces serious thresholds with possible effects between them . Crossing such thresholds may result in irreversible changes in the region ( Walker et al . 2009 ) Hence , strategies for adaptability that are socially desirable may lead to vulnerable systems and persistent undesirable states such as poverty traps or rigidity traps ( 2009 ) Will the adaptability among people and governance of the catchment be sufficient to deal with environmental change , like and interacting thresholds , and avoid being pushed into a poverty trap , or does the system need to transform into a new stability landscape , forcing 36

people to change deep values and identity ( Walker et al . 2009 ) Table . Glossary of resilience terms . Term Active The deliberate initiation of a phased introduction of one or more new state ( new way of making a living ) at lower scales . while maintaining the resilience of the system at higher scales as transformational change proceeds , Adaptability ( adaptive The capacity of actors in a system to . capacity ) Adaptive cycle A portrays an endogenously driven cycle of ( ological systems and other complex adaptive systems ' common is from a phase of rapid growth where resources are freely available and there is high resilience ( phase ) through into a gradually phase most resources are locked up and there IS little or novelty , and low resilience ( thence mi a sudden collapse into a release phase of chaotic dynamics in which relationships and structures are undone ( a phase of ' where novelty can ( 11 ) The dynamics reflect a predictable . relatively slow and the ( dynamics represent a chaotic . Est that strongly the nature of the next foreloop External or can cause a move from any phase to any other phase . Forced transformation An imposed transformation of a system that is not introduced by the actors General The of any and all pans of a system to all kinds of shocks . including ones . Panarchy The interactive dynamics of a nested set of adaptive cycles . Regime The set of system states within a stability landscape Regime shift A change in a system state from one regime or domain to another Resilience The of a system to absorb and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain the same function . structure and . and therefore identity . that is . the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity system Integrated system of ecosystems and human society with reciprocal feedback and . The concept emphasizes the perspective resilience The resilience to what ofsome ofa . related to a control , to one or more kinds of shocks , Stability domain A basin of attraction of a system , in which the dimensions are defined by the set of controlling variables that have threshold levels ( equivalent to a system regime ) landscape The extent of the possible states of system space . defined by the set of control variables in which stability domains are embedded Threshold ( aka critical A level or amount of a controlling . often slowly changing variable in which a change occurs in transition ) a critical feedback causing the system to along a different trajectory . that is . towards a attractor Transformability The capacity to transform the stability landscape itself in order to become a different kind of system . to create a fundamentally new system when ecological . economic . or social structures make the existing system untenable SPECIFIED AND GENERAL RESILIENCE In practice , resilience is sometimes applied to problems relating to particular aspects of a system that might arise from a particular set of sources or shocks . We refer to this as specified resilience . In other cases , the manager is concerned more about resilience to all kinds of shocks , including completely novel ones . We refer to this as general resilience . In systems , specified resilience arises in response to the question resilience of what , to what ?

Carpenter et al . 2001 ) However , there is a danger in becoming too focused on specified resilience because increasing resilience of particular parts of a system to specific disturbances may cause the system to lose resilience in other ways ( et al . 2010 ) This is illustrated by the HOT ( highly optimized tolerance ) theory ( Carson and Doyle 2000 ) which shows how systems that become very robust to frequent kinds of disturbance necessarily become fragile in relation to infrequent kinds . For example , international travel in Europe became increasingly focused on improving and elaborating air travel , with less emphasis on international ground and water transportation . The Icelandic volcano of 2010 exposed the low resilience of this travel system to an extensive cloud of airborne ash that interfered with the operation of . General resilience , in contrast , does not define either the part of the system that might cross a threshold , or the kinds of shocks the system has to endure . It is about coping with uncertainty in all ways . The distinction is important , because our experience in 37

working with groups who are interested in using a resilience approach suggests that they tend to focus on specified resilience , and in doing so they may be narrowing options for dealing with novel shocks and even increasing the likelihood of new kinds of instability . Recognizing that efforts to foster specified resilience will not necessarily avoid a regime shift is a first step to understanding the need for transformational change . Getting beyond the state of denial , particularly in SESs with strong identity or cultural beliefs , is not easy and often requires a shock or at least a perceived crisis . Resilience thinking suggests that such events may open up opportunities for reevaluating the current situation , trigger social mobilization , recombine sources of experience and knowledge for learning , and spark novelty and innovation . It may lead to new kinds of adaptability or possibly to transformational change . AND TRANSFORMABILITY As defined in Walker et al . 2004 ) transformational change involves a change in the nature of the stability landscape , introducing new state variables and losing others , as when a household adopts a new direction in making a living or when a region moves from an agrarian to a economy . It can be a deliberate process , initiated by the people involved , or it can be forced on them by changing environmental or socioeconomic conditions . Whether transformation is deliberate or forced depends on the level of transformability in the SES concerned . he attributes of transformability have much in common with those of general resilience , including high levels of all forms of capital , diversity in landscapes and and of institutions , actor groups , and networks , learning platforms , collective action , and support rom higher scales in the governance structure . Transformational change often involves shifts in perception and meaning , social network configurations , patterns of interactions among actors including leadership and political and power relations , and associated organizational and institutional arrangements ( et al . 2009 , and 2009 , Smith and Stirling 2010 ) Deliberate transformational change can be initiated at multiple scales , and perhaps gradually , as suggested by recent experience with applying resilience thinking to catchment planning and management in SE Australia ( Walker et al . 2009 ) Deliberate transformational change at the scale of the whole catchment , of all the component parts at the same time , is likely to be too costly , undesirable or socially unacceptable . Transformational changes at lower scales , in a sequential way , can lead to feed back effects at the catchment scale , which is a learning process , and facilitate eventual transformational change . Actors and organizations that bridge the local to scales are often involved in such processes ( et al . 2001 ) Forced transformation , however , is likely to occur at scales larger than the scale of the management focus and therefore be beyond the influence of local actors . Changes in regional tax structures , for example , may precipitate transformations from farming to suburbanization . Loss of summer sea ice may transform the geopolitical and economic among Arctic nations . Systems with nigh transformative capacity may deliberately initiate transformational changes that shape the outcomes of forced transformations occurring at larger scales . Transformation trajectories are the subject of a growing literature ( and Holling 2002 , Buchanan et al . 2005 , and Kemp 2006 , Chapin et al . 2010 ) A resilience perspective emphasizes an adaptive approach , facilitating different transformative experiments at small scales and allowing and new initiatives to emerge , constrained only by avoiding trajectories that the SES does not wish to follow , especially those with known or suspected thresholds . The first part of this process is much the same as that proposed in the transitions literature , which encourages arenas for safe experimentation ( 2007 , and 2009 ) However , where the transition model then determines the new goal and adopts a particular process for reaching it , a resilience approach would allow the new identity of the SES to emerge through interactions within and across scales . For example , declining agricultural productivity in several Latin American countries clue to land degradation reached an unsustainable level in the . This breakdown prompted some farmers to start experimenting with unconventional methods for land management , in particular alternatives to plowing that enhanced soil organic matter and fertility ( and Friedrich 2009 ) Responses to the land productivity crisis and subsequent social crisis of deteriorated livelihoods were first pursued by individual farmers and researchers in Brazil , Paraguay , and Argentina . Experimentation with new innovative breakthroughs in technologies were necessary , as the shift from methods to required major changes in land management practices , such as weed management , and green techniques , as well as new machines for direct planting . The experimental learning approach at small scales , with processes for emergence and learning , caused a transformation of the whole farming system . Currently , more than 25 million ha of agricultural land is under in Brazil alone , and in Latin America the transition from conventional agriculture to systems has reached a scale where one can talk of an agrarian revolution or a transformation ( Fowler and 2001 ) Case studies of SESs suggest that transformations consist of three phases being prepared for or even preparing the systems for change , navigating the transition by making use of a crisis as a window of opportunity for change , and building resilience of the new regime ( et al . 2004 , Chapin et al . 2010 ) Such transformations are never , but draw on sources of resilience across scales ( and Holling 2002 ) For example , at the Great Barrier Reef a governance transformation across multiple levels of natural resource management took place from protection of selected individual 38

reefs to stewardship of the seascape . The transformation was triggered by a sense of urgency induced by threats to the reef of terrestrial runoff , and global warming . The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was crucial in the transformation and provided leadership process . Strategies involved internal reorganization and management innovation , leading to an ability to coordinate the scientific community , to increase public awareness of environmental issues and problems , to involve a broader set of stakeholders , and to maneuver the political system for support at critical times ( et al . 2008 ) resilience is fundamental for understanding the interplay between persistence and change , adaptability and transformability . Without the scale dimension , resilience and transformation may seem to be in stark contrast or even conflict . Confusion arises when resilience is interpreted as backward looking , assumed to prevent novelty , innovation and transitions to new development pathways . This interpretation seems to be more about robustness to change and not about resilience for transformation . The resilience framework broadens the description of resilience beyond its meaning as a buffer for conserving what you have and recovering to what you were . Beyond this concept of persistence , resilience thinking incorporates the dynamic interplay of persistence , adaptability and transformability across multiple scales and multiple in SESs . Fruitful avenues of inquiry include the existence of potential thresholds and regime shifts in SESs and the challenges that this implies adaptability of SESs to deal with such challenges , including uncertainty and surprise and the ability to steer away from undesirable , innovate and possibly transform SESs into trajectories that sustain and enhance ecosystem services , societal development and human . CONCLUSIONS In a nutshell , resilience thinking focuses on three aspects of systems ( SES ) resilience as persistence , adaptability and transformability . Resilience is the tendency of a SES subject to change to remain within a stability domain , continually changing and adapting yet remaining within critical thresholds . Adaptability is a part of resilience . Adaptability is the capacity of a SES to adjust its responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and thereby allow for development within the current stability domain , along the current trajectory . Transformability is the capacity to create new stability domains for development , a new stability landscape , and cross thresholds into a new development trajectory . Deliberate transformation requires resilience thinking , first in assessing the relative merits of the current versus alternative , potentially more favorable stability domains , and second in fostering resilience of the new development trajectory , the new basin of attraction . Transformations do not take place in a vacuum , but draw on resilience from multiple scales , making use of crises as windows of opportunity , and recombining sources of experience and knowledge to navigate transitions from a regime in one stability landscape to another . Transformation involves novelty and innovation . Transformational change at smaller scales enables resilience at larger scales , while the capacity to transform at smaller scales draws on resilience at other scales . Thus , deliberate transformation involves breaking down the resilience of the old and building the resilience of the new . As the Earth System approaches or exceeds thresholds that might precipitate a forced transformation to some state outside its stability domain , society must seriously consider ways to foster more flexible systems that contribute to Earth System resilience and to explore options for the deliberate transformation of systems that threaten Earth System resilience . 39

Literature Cited , and , editors . 2003 . Navigating building complexity and change . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , UK . Carpenter , and . Brock . 2009 . Turning back from the brink detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it . Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States ca , Brand , and lax . 2007 . Focusing the ) of resilience resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object . Ecology and Society 12 ( online URL . Buchanan , Fitzgerald , Jones , Neath , and . 2005 . No going back a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change . Reviews . Carpenter , 2003 . Regime shifts in lake ecosystems pattern and variation . Ecology Institute , Germany . Carpenter , and . Brock . 2008 . Adaptive capacity and traps . Ecology and Society 13 ( online URL . Carpenter , Walker , and Abel . 2001 . From metaphor to measurement resilience of what to what ?

Ecosystems Carson , and Doyle . 2000 . Highly optimized tolerance robustness and design in complex systems . Physical Review Letters 84 ( 11 ) Chapin , III , Carpenter , Abel , Clark , Smith , Walker , Young , Grove , and . 2010 . Ecosystem stewardship sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet . Trends in Ecology and Evolution Chapin , III , and , editors . 2009 . Principles of ecosystem stewardship natural resource management in a changing world . Springer , New York , New York , USA . Chapin , III , Lovecraft , Nelson , Robards , Peterson , Huntington , and . 2006 . Policy strategies to address sustainability of Alaskan boreal forests in response to a directionally changing climate . Proceedings of the of the ofAmerica , and Rodriguez . 2010 . Robustness , vulnerability , and adaptive capacity in systems the Irrigation system in Nepal . Ecology and Society 15 ( online URL . and Friedrich . 2009 . Development and current status of adoption in the world . conference paper from the 18 Triennial International Soil Tillage Research Organization ( conference , June , 2009 , publications . online URL ag ca . and . 2009 . observing , and influencing transitions . Ecology and Society 14 ( online URL . 2006 . Resilience the emergence of a perspective for systems analyses . Global Environmental Change ' Chapin III , and . 2009 . Transformations in ecosystem stewardship . Pages in . Chapin III , and , editors . Principles of ecosystem stewardship natural resource management in a changing world . Springer , New York , USA . Hahn , and . 2005 . Adaptive governance of systems . Annual Review of Environment and Resources Fowler , and . 2001 . Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture an agrarian revolution gathers momentum in Africa . Soil Tillage Research 01 , and Kemp . 2006 . Transitions , transformations and reproduction dynamics in systems . Pages in . and , editors . Flexibility and stability in the innovating economy . Oxford Scholarship Online , Oxford , UK . 2000 . Ecological resilience in theory and application . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , and . Holling , editors . 2002 . Understanding transformations in human and . Island Press , Washington , USA . Holling , and Light , editors . 1995 . Barriers and bridges to the renewal and institutions . Columbia University Press , New York , USA . Holling , 1973 . Resilience and stability of ecological systems . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

Holling , 1986 . Resilience of ecosystems local surprise and global change . Pages in Clark and . editors . Sustainable development and the biosphere . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , UK . Holling , 1996 . Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience . Pages 44 in , editor . Engineering within ecological constraints . National Academy Press , Washington , USA . and , editors . 2009 . Water policy entrepreneurs a research companion to water transitions around the globe . Edward , UK . 1998 . Elements of applied bifurcation theory . Second edition . New York , USA . 2007 . Transition management new mode sustainable development . International Books , The Netherlands . and Cumming , editors . 2008 . Complexity a . Columbia University Press , New York , USA . and Hahn . 2004 . transformation for ecosystem management the development of adaptive of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden . Ecology and Society ( online URL . and . Hughes . 2008 . Navigating the transition to management of the Great Barrier Reef , Australia . Proceedings of the of the United States ofAmerica , Chapin III , de Wit , Hughes , van der , So ' Snyder , Hansen , Walker , and . Foley . 2009 . A safe operating space for humanity . Nature , 2009 . Critical transitions in nature and society . Princeton University Press , Princeton , New Jersey , USA . Carpenter , Foley , and . Walker . 2001 . Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems . Nature 35098000 Smith , and Stirling . 2010 . The politics of resilience and sustainable transitions . Ecology and Society 15 ( online URL . and . 2007 . The are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature ?

Walker , Abel , and Ryan . 2009 . Resilience , adaptability , and transformability in the Catchment , Australia . Ecology and Society 14 ( online URL . Walker , Holling , Carpenter , and . 2004 . Resilience , adaptability and transformability in systems . Ecology ( online URL artS .

General Resilience to Cope with Extreme Events by Stephen Carpenter , Kenneth Arrow , Scott Barrett , Reinette , William Brock , Gustav , Carl , Terry Hughes , Nils , Li , Geoffrey , Kyle Meng , Stephen , Marten , Jason , Thomas Sterner , Jeffrey Vincent , Brian Walker , and de This article was originally published in ( 12 ) hugs This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ( BY ) license . ABSTRACT Resilience to specified kinds of disasters is an active area of research and practice . However , rare or unprecedented disturbances that are unusually intense or extensive require a more type of resilience . General resilience is the capacity of ecological systems to adapt or transform in response to unfamiliar , unexpected and extreme shocks . Conditions that enable general resilience include diversity , openness , reserves , monitoring , leadership , and trust . Processes for building general resilience are an emerging and crucially important area of research . Keywords extreme events general resilience polycentric governance resilience system . INTRODUCTION Extreme events sometimes have effects on systems . Examples include storms such as Hurricane Katrina , wildfires like those in eastern Australia in 2009 or western North America in 2012 , deep droughts such as the North American dust bowl , and the earthquake and tsunami that triggered the disaster . Each of these events caused extensive losses and evoked searching of policies and practices for managing systems . Resilience , in the context of environmental management and sustainability , is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance , reorganize , and thereby retain essential functions , structures and . A rich and growing literature addresses specified resilience , the resilience of a particular aspect of a system to a particular kind of disturbance . For example , management of in Australia seeks to avoid a threshold that the soil and thereby destroys the fertility of agricultural land . Vulnerability is a related concept that considers the stresses that lead to threshold changes in systems . More specifically , vulnerability is the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt . or shocks , there is often a good deal of information that is relevant to specified resilience . Risk analyses for large storms , earthquakes , floods , fires and other kinds of disturbance regimes are informed by existing knowledge . Even though each event is random , similar events have been seen before , and experience provides a basis for building specified resilience . For rather hazards , The World Economic Forum identifies several strategies that build specified resilience . These include monitoring hazards and communicating risk ( through early warning systems , for example ) strengthening ( such as of power , water and sanitation plants , diversification of supply chains , and establishment of ecological buffers ) sharing of risk ( using insurance as well as instruments such as weather derivatives or catastrophe bonds ) and disaster preparedness ( training , or establishing reserves of pharmaceuticals ) Numerous case studies provide practical information for building specified resilience to particular shocks . Other events are outside the scope of experience . For example , no one foresaw that changes in animal feeding would lead to emergence of bovine spongiform encephalitis or mad cow disease . In another recent case , the earthquake of 2011 was unusually powerful . It triggered of 111 that breached designed for the expected maximum wave height of The tsunami damaged nuclear power stations by shutting down back up diesel generators which were situated on the assumption that the sea walls would hold . Extreme events that are unusually intense or extensive require a more ind of resilience . General resilience is the capacity to absorb shocks of all kinds , including novel and unforeseen ones . The challenge of resilience to unknown disturbances is far more difficult than planning for known types of disturbance , and like any management strategy it has a cost . In this article , we discuss some approaches for building general resilience of systems . We by discussing perceptions of extreme events that increase the need for general resilience . Next we summarize nine elements of general resilience based on the literature . We conclude by discussing some of the problems of implementing general resilience . 42

. DATA AND PERCEPTIONS ABOUT EVENTS Extreme events are challenging because the probabilities are hard to measure and because decisions about rare events with important consequences pose special challenges . Profound uncertainty makes rational responses difficult , and makes it easier for irrational approaches to take hold . Extreme events are not only uncertain , but the measure of uncertainty ( the tail of the probability ) also is itself uncertain . In some cases probabilities may be fundamentally unknowable , due to the complex interactions between human and environmental systems . The probability is obviously unknown for completely new events , such as the emergence of a particular new disease . However , probabilities may be poorly known even for events that have occurred only occasionally in the past . In the tails of probability , observations are rare and therefore data are sparse for fitting models . As a consequence , trends in extreme events are hard to discern . For example , large data sets and extensive analysis are needed to establish trends in extreme rainfall events , flood damages or sizes of forest fires . Where limited data make it hard to measure the probability of a certain kind of extreme event , assessing a trend in that probability is even more difficult . Some classes of extreme events , such as flood damages , earthquake , and wildfire sizes , have probability . In the probability densities of extreme events are much larger than in more familiar such as the normal distribution . In these cases it is highly misleading to estimate the magnitude of the next event from the events that have been observed so far . Sometimes two or more kinds of extreme events occur , for example if flooding causes landslides in a watershed previously denuded by fire . In ecology such multiple impacts are called compound disturbances 16 . tend to magnify the correlations of extreme events and thereby increase the probability of compound disturbances 17 . In addition to these statistical challenges of anticipating extreme events , there are cognitive biases that can lead to irrational decisions when the stakes are high and probabilities are near zero or one . For example a tyranny of recent events ( availability heuristic , 20 ) causes people to misjudge risk , as when fears of terrorism are exaggerated for a time after a terrorist attack 21 . In contrast , when risks are familiar there is a tendency to underestimate the danger and overestimate one ability to control the situation . Sometimes inconsistent decisions are made about gains versus losses 18 . Different preferences for gains or losses of similar magnitude are the subject of prospect theory 23 . Perceiving gains and losses differently is a bias in the context of rational choice theory , but not if prospect theory is instead used as the benchmark for expected behavior . Nonetheless , with respect to rational choice theory people can make poor decisions about risk of extreme events . People in isolation have their limits collectively , however , people can create an institution to improve on these cognitive limits to rational behavior . The challenge is to design institutions so that the aggregate decision creates more good outcomes for the group . These ( and other ) behavioral phenomena inevitably affect societal decision making about extreme environmental events 24 . These interactions between complex aspects of natural systems and human cognition add to the challenges of understanding and managing extreme events , and make general resilience important . General resilience should protect systems against vagaries of human volition as well as uncertainty about the relevant probabilities . In the remainder of the discuss characteristics of institutions that contribute to general resilience of systems . GENERAL RESILIENCE AS A STRATEGY Extreme events , including extremes and new kinds of shocks , have been with us forever and may intensify in the future . General capacity of systems to adapt or transform in response to unfamiliar or unknown essential for sustainability in the face of extreme events . However , the nature of general resilience makes it difficult to define specific steps for creating it . Instead it is possible to identify conditions that can enable or support the development of general resilience ( Table ) Diversity provides for different kinds of processes within a system ( functional diversity ) It also provides for components that have similar functions but different responses to disturbance ( response diversity ) so the function is maintained even if one component is damaged . When teams of people are solving complex problems , diversity of perspectives and experience matters as much as individual ability 25 . The cumulative adverse effects of factors that diminish human wellbeing may also reduce the capacity of a society to respond effectively to disasters . There is a strong relationship between various aspects of human and income inequality 26 , suggesting that high income inequality reduces the general resilience of a society . helps contain disturbances by compartmentalizing systems 27 . For example , land management with prescribed fire uses to limit the spread of the fire . This makes it possible to manage burn units independently , and thereby build landscape diversity . Similarly , quarantine mechanisms may restrict the spread of epidemics or invasive species . relates 43

to the connectivity of a system , whereas diversity relates to the variety among elements of the system . Table . Enabling conditions for general resilience System Pi ' Elements or Examples Questions Diversity Species . functional . and response diversity Can multiple elements of the system perform Cultural diversity functions if one element is knocked out ?

Heterogeneity of system types on the Can different elements of system respond in landscape or seascape different ways to shocks ?

Quarantine for pathogens or species Are subsets of the system insulated so that People with different approaches to shocks can not spread ?

Independent organizations with similar functions in society Does the insulation prevent spread of ideas or ?

Openness Strength of connection between a system Can the system maintain free and neighboring systems trade with neighboring systems ?

Can the system shocks that originate outside the system ?

Is there an optimal solution to the tradeoff of openness and ?

Reserves Capacities to features of the system that have Can key components of the been lost to disturbance . such as seed banks , recolonization system be regenerated ?

neighboring systems . or social memory . Nutrient cycles and or of ecosystems Are control variables linked directly and Networks of economic transactions effectively to response variables ?

Consequences of decisions Are sanctions and incentives tightly connected to actions ?

Can the societal response to an opportunity or Township . County , Province . National . Global interacting levels of governance systems problem be timed to the natural scale ?

Openness of a system is related to at larger scales . Free trade among systems often improves human , for example . In ecosystems , seed dispersal plays a key role in recovery from large infrequent disturbances 28 . On the other hand , too much openness can transmit harmful shocks , as when bank collapses spread from country to country or an invasive species moves easily across a rather homogeneous and connected landscape . between and openness with respect to system fragility are understood for some ecosystems , and ecological principles have been applied to banking networks 30 . However the analysis of versus openness is a research frontier for systems . organisms , knowledge , or skills for contribute to recovery from disturbance . Residual plants and animals are important in ecological recovery from disturbance , even in extraordinarily devastating fires and volcanic eruptions 31 . Social memory and residual social networks play somewhat similar roles in recovery of social systems after major disasters . in systems are sometimes manageable , at least in part . Where it is possible , should be managed to move the system away from thresholds that trigger harmful outcomes . For example , reductions in soil phosphorus content move farther away from the threshold that causes toxic algae blooms and fish mortality in lakes and reservoirs 32 . In systems , incentives or sanctions to conserve resource stocks should be transparent , effective , and tied closely to the human actions that affect the resource , but implementation of such practices is not easy . 44

of systems enables polycentric governance 35 . This allows management systems to be scaled appropriately for the problems they are aiming to solve , capitalizing on the advantages of a particular governance arrangement while simultaneously having institutional backup systems 36 . Polycentric governance among global actors is now emerging as a response to shocks and new connections . For example , interactions among climate change , ocean acidification , and marine are addressed by the Global Partnership on Climate , Fisheries and Aquaculture ( initiative . currently includes representatives from , The World Bank Programme and 13 additional international organizations . The involves deliberate attempts for mutual adjustments and action , with mechanisms ranging from information sharing to coordinated action and conflict resolution . operates at the international level through the interplay of individuals , international organizations and their collaboration patterns 37 . provision of transparent , relevant information about status and trends of the essential or building and maintaining resilience . Indicators of social processes and the ecosystem help users and managers understand status and trends of critical ecosystem services . Sometimes indicators may provide early warnings of approaching thresholds . and trust confer resilience on systems and social relations in general . Often a mere handful of key individuals ( institutional entrepreneurs that manage the context , complex as it is ) help shape management and governance trajectories , developing shared visions , building trust , connecting social networks across levels , and seizing windows of opportunity or transformations towards adaptive governance that nurture general resilience . Nonetheless , resilience can Lie undermined by social dilemmas such as the incentive to cheat on agreements . This tendency can be countered if trust is built up through repeated interactions among people 42 . This aspect of trust construction plays a role in regulation of environmental commons 33 . Trust is a component of social capital that sometimes helps to overcome such social dilemmas , AA . FOSTERING GENERAL RESILIENCE General resilience is the area of research currently receiving most attention from those involved in applying resilience in practice . Resilience assessments have tended to focus on aspects of the specified resilience of a particular region . The principles for enhancing resilience of individual systems are consistent with the types of enabling conditions for general resilience just described . For example , et al . suggest seven principles for enhancing resilience , which address diversity , connectivity , and slow variables , polycentric governance , learning and experimentation , breadth of participation , and the complex adaptive characteristics of systems . In this section of the paper , we touch upon some implications of recent studies in other , including those on natural disasters , social vulnerability , scenario planning , and adaptive management . Some elements of general resilience are implicit in the literature of natural disasters . A recent report from the World Bank focused on four policy needs for managing environmental disasters ( make information about environmental disaster risk more easily accessible ( use land and housing markets to induce people to locate in appropriate areas and take preventive measures ( provide adequate infrastructure and public services to reduce vulnerabilities and ( Li ) build institutions that permit public oversight of disaster preparedness and disaster response . These are important practical steps at the level of national governance . Consideration of general resilience reminds us that additional factors must be considered , such as polycentric governance to match scales of problems and solutions . After a disaster occurs , rapid response is crucial but it is also important to rebuild resilience , as detailed in a recent meeting of disaster experts 47 . Disturbance erodes capacity to organize and respond , and induces new that tend to keep the system in the disturbed state . The longer a community stays in a disturbed state after a disaster the more difficult recovery becomes , and eventually it may not be able to recover at all . Yet responses may lead to superficial outcomes that are harmful in the long run 48 . Thus response strategies for disasters must also consider rebuilding of resilience against possible future disturbances . The attributes that confer resilience to shocks are often unrecognized , and they may be eroded or lost over time unless they are actively fostered and managed 49 . Increased awareness , learning and collaboration across sectors , improved education , mobilization of experience and social capital , leadership , and governance are critical elements in reducing vulnerability and building resilience to shocks . All of these factors affect social vulnerabilities . Failure to reduce social vulnerabilities can amplify risk more than the escalation of physical hazards does 46 . Scenario planning is a method of exploring the resilience of a system to a wide range of factors . Scenarios are a coordinated set of stories that reveal sharply different alternative futures for a system . The alternate scenarios within a set diverge as a result of human decisions , diverging drivers , and events . The purpose of the set of scenarios is to evoke conversations about thresholds that separate different future pathways of a system . The alternative pathways often have different implications for resilience to future shocks that are outside the scope of the scenarios . For example , the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 51 described four different states of the world in 2050 . Each state has different resilience to climate changes that are expected to unfold after 2050 . In regional environmental assessment and planning , the scenario process has many similarities to adaptive ecosystem management 53 , a pioneering form of resilience analysis . 45

Adaptive management is always embedded in institutions and governance systems . Extreme events call for governance systems that provide incentives for resilience building and are themselves resilient to such events 54 . Adaptive governance systems with polycentric arrangements and bridging organizations connecting scales enable adaptive management 555 . For general resilience such attributes should not be subject to planning and control in a narrowly prescribed way 33 , but instead supported by enabling legislation and economic incentives that allow for and innovation . Critical features of adaptive governance systems for resilience include the role of key actors , bridging organizations , flexible institutions , and social networks that serve to connect the dynamic responses and strategies . CONCLUSION General resilience has a valuable role in managing rare extreme events with large consequences for social ecological systems . necessity , the guidelines for general resilience are rather . Nonetheless , in applications of general resilience it is essentia to tailor policies and practices to the particular characteristics ( governance , social interactions , ecosystem processes , etc . of the ecological system that is being managed . In some cases , actions to build resilience against specific extreme events also contribute to general resilience . The greatest challenge of general resilience is to design and implement concrete policies and actions . Unless incentives are properly , decision making will tend away from the view that is needed to build and maintain general resilience . How can practices be woven into actions that also meet the immediate needs of people and ecosystems ?

This is the challenge of general resilience , a challenge that faces many real limits of costs and political barriers . General resilience is a public that has a cost . How much resilience is needed , in what dimensions , and at what cost ?

Policies for general resilience must overcome budget limitations , address , be acceptable to competing interests , and overcome barriers in politics and the structure existing agencies and institutions . It may well be the case that costs are too great to justify more investment in general resilience . Such practical limitations may be the greatest barrier to policies for general resilience . Research and practice have built some how to build general resilience . Nonetheless , much research is needed to practices for general resilience in diverse situations . For example , how general is general resilience ?

Are certain characteristics of ecological systems ( Table ) more or less effective for building general resilience ?

Are some characteristics particularly well to building resilience for certain classes of problems ?

So far there are only a few case studies that reveal effectiveness of strategies for general resilience . Further research on general resilience is a high priority , in view of the rapid rates change and emergence of new interactions and feedback in systems . 46

Literature Cited . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 26 . 27 . Walker , Salt , Resilience Practice Island Press Washington , USA , 2012 . Google Scholar , Hughes , Carpenter , resilience to coastal disasters . Science 2005 , 309 , Google Scholar , Global Environ . Change 2006 , 16 , Google Scholar . World Economic Forum , Building Resilience to Natural Disasters A Private Sector Engagement World Economic Forum Geneva , Switzerland , 2008 . Walker , Salt , Resilience Thinking Island Press Washington , USA , 2006 . Google Scholar , Smith , Predictability of the UK variant disease epidemic . Science 2001 , 294 , Google Scholar , Scientific consensus on great quake came too late . Science 2011 , 332 , Google Scholar Cutter , Are natural hazards and disaster losses in the increasing ?

2005 , 86 , Google Scholar , Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years . Nature 2005 , 436 , Google Scholar , Walton , Easterling , Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the . Res . Lett . 2009 , 36 , Google Scholar , Climate extremes and climate change The Russian heat wave and other climate extremes of 2010 . Res . Google Scholar Webster , Holland , Curry , Chang , Changes in tropical cyclone number , duration , and intensity in a warming environment . Science 2005 , 309 , Google Scholar , Modeling Insurance and Finance Berlin , Germany , 1997 . Google Scholar , Tails of natural hazards . Physics World 2004 , 17 , Google Scholar 17 35 , Adapting to Extreme Events Managing Fat Tails Resources for the Future Washington , USA , 2010 . Google Scholar Paine , Johnson , Compounded yield ecological surprises . Ecosystems , Google Scholar , Correlation and Dependence in Risk Management Properties and Pitfalls . In Risk Management Value at Risk and Beyond Dempster , Ed . Cambridge University Press Cambridge , UK , 2002 . Google Scholar , Thinking , Fast , and New York , USA , 2011 . Google Scholar , Maps of bounded rationality Psychology for behavioral economics . Am . Econ . Rev . 2003 , 93 , Google Scholar 000282803322655392 , Availability A heuristic frequency and probability . 1973 , Google Scholar 73 , Risk and Reason Cambridge University Press Cambridge , UK , 2002 . Google Scholar Thaler , Nudge Improving Decisions About Health , Wealth , and Happiness Yale University Press New Haven , Connecticut , USA , 2008 . Google Scholar , The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice . Science 1981 , 211 , Google Scholar , Taylor , On behavioral environmental economics . Rev . Environ . Econ . Pol . 2007 , Google Scholar ree Page , The Difference Princeton University Press Princeton , USA , 2007 424 . Google Scholar Wilkinson , The Spirit Level Allen Lane London , UK , 2009 . Google Scholar Levin , Fragile Dominion New , USA , 1999 . Google Scholar

28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . 32 . 33 . 34 . 35 . 36 . 37 . 38 . 39 . 40 . 41 . 42 . 43 . 44 . 45 . 46 . 47 . 48 . 49 . 50 . 51 . Turner , Baker , Peterson , Peet , Factors influencing succession Lessons from large , infrequent natural disturbances . Ecosystems 1998 , Google Scholar , Carpenter , Brock , van de , van de , Levin , van Nes , Pascual , Anticipating critical transitions . Science 2012 , 338 , Google Scholar May , Levin , Complex systems Ecology for bankers . Nature 2008 , 451 , Google Scholar Turner , Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world . Ecology , Google Scholar Carpenter , of aquatic ecosystems and soil phosphorus . Google Scholar , Adiagnostic approach for going beyond . 2007 , 104 , Google Scholar , A general framework for analyzing sustainability of systems . Science 2009 , 325 , Google Scholar , Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change . Global Environ . Change 2010 , 20 , Google Scholar . Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective . Pol . Sci . Google Scholar , Polycentric systems and interacting planetary governance of climate biodiversity . Econ . 2012 , 81 , Google Scholar , Brock , Carpenter , Held , van Nes , signals for critical transitions . Nature 2009 , 461 , Google Scholar Carpenter , Cole , Pace , Batt , Brock , Cline , Smith , Early warnings of regime shifts experiment . Science 2011 , 332 , Google Scholar , Hughes , Navigating the transition to management of the Great Barrier Reef , Australia . 2008 , 105 , 9494 . Google Scholar Moore , Surmountable chasms Networks and social innovation for resilient systems . Soc . 2011 , 16 , Google Scholar , Measuring trust . Econ . Google Scholar 003355300554926 , Social Traps and the Problem of Trust Cambridge University Press Cambridge , UK , 2005 . Google Scholar , trust and information in relationships , alliances and network . Account . Org . Soc . Google Scholar 00 , Daw , Evans , et al . Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services . Rev . Environ . 2012 , 37 , Google Scholar , Natural Hazards , UnNatural Disasters The International Reconstruction and Development , The World Bank Washington , USA , 2010 . Walker , Perspectives on resilience to disasters across sectors and cultures . Soc . Google Scholar Sterner , Vincent , Barrett , Brock , Carpenter , et al . Quick fixes for the environment Part of the solution or part of the problem ?

Environment Science and Sustainable Development 2006 , 48 , Google Scholar Boyd , Adapting Institutions Governance , Complexity and Resilience Cambridge University Press Cambridge , UK , 2012 . Google Scholar Tompkins , Partnership in the Provision of Environmental Governance A Case of Disaster Management . In Adapting Institutions Governance , Complexity Resilience Boyd , Cambridge University Press Cambridge , UK , 2012 . Google Scholar Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . In Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing Scenarios Island Press Washington , USA , 2005 .

52 . 53 . 54 . 55 . 56 . 57 . disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras . 5208 . Google Scholar Cumming , Carpenter , Scenario planning for conservation in an uncertain world . 2003 , 17 , Google Peterson , Scholar , Hahn , Adaptive governance of systems . Rev . Environ . 2005 , 30 , Google Scholar , Parker , Learning in support of governance Theories , methods , and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance . Soc . 2012 , 17 , Google Scholar , Carpenter , Ryan , Holling , Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of systems . Soc . 18 . Google Scholar , Global cooperation among diverse organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean . 2012 , 26 , 648 . Google Scholar

Focusing the Meaning ( of Resilience Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object by Simon Brand and This article was originally published in Ecology Society , 12 ( 2007 . Imp This work is licensed under a Creative Commons International ( license . ABSTRACT This article reviews the variety of definitions proposed for resilience within sustainability science and suggests a typology according to the specific degree of . There is a tension between the original descriptive concept of resilience first defined in ecological science and a more recent , vague , and malleable notion of resilience used as an approach or boundary object by different scientific disciplines . Even though increased conceptual vagueness can be valuable to foster communication across disciplines and between science and practice , both conceptual clarity and practical relevance of the concept of resilience are critically in danger . The fundamental question is what conceptual structure we want resilience to have . This article argues that a clearly specified , descriptive concept of resilience is critical in providing a counterbalance to the use of resilience as a vague boundary object . A clear descriptive concept provides the basis for and application of resilience within ecological science . Keywords boundary object definition descriptive concept ecological resilience resilience sustainability typology . INTRODUCTION The concept of resilience is one of the most important research topics in the context of achieving sustainability ( et al . 1995 , et al . 2001 , Foley et al . 2005 ) First introduced as a descriptive ecological term ( 1973 ) resilience has been frequently redefined and extended by heuristic , metaphorical , or normative dimensions ( Holling 2001 , Ott and 2001 , et al . 2004 , Hughes et al . 2005 ) Meanwhile , the concept is used by various scientific disciplines as an approach to analyze ecological as well as systems ( et al . 2006 , 2006 ) As such , it promotes research efforts across disciplines and between science and policy . However , both conceptual clarity and practical relevance are critically in danger . The original descriptive and ecological meaning of resilience is diluted as the term is used ambiguously and in a very wide extension . This is due to the blending of descriptive aspects , specifications of what is the case , and normative aspects , prescriptions what ought to be the case or is desirable as such . As a result , difficulties to and apply the concept of resilience within ecological science prevail . This , in turn , impedes progress and maturity of resilience theory ( et al . The success of the concept in stimulating research across disciplines on the one side and the dilution of the descriptive core on the other raises the fundamental question what conceptual structure we want resilience to have . This article is divided into four parts . The first section offers a typology to structure the numerous definitions of resilience proposed within sustainability science . typology as a background , the second section investigates in more detail a descriptive , ecological concept of resilience viewed from both a formal and an operational perspective . Subsequently , the third section examines the use of resilience as a rather vague boundary object and points to some chances and pitfalls . The fourth section concludes with final thoughts on the recent conceptual development and a fruitful conceptual structure of resilience . A TYPOLOGY FOR DEFINITIONS OF RESILIENCE In what follows we suggest a typology for the variety of definitions of resilience used in sustainability science . The typology is based on the analysis of key papers published in the last 35 yr ( et al . 2006 ) It provides the background for discussing the conceptual development of resilience . Before turning to the definitions in detail some words on the terminology used are in order . First , two distinct meanings of resilience must be distinguished . The first one refers to dynamics close to equilibrium and is defined as the time required for a system to return to an equilibrium point following a disturbance event . It has been coined engineering resilience ( 1996 ) and is largely identical to the stability property , elasticity ( Grimm and Wissel 1997 ) The second meaning of resilience refers to dynamics far from any equilibrium 50

steady state and is defined as the amount of disturbance that a system can absorb before changing to another stable regime , which is controlled by a different set of variables and characterized by a different structure . It has been termed ecosystem resilience ( and Holling 2002 ) and it is applied almost interchangeable with the words ecological resilience ( Holling 1996 , Holling et , 2000 , and Pritchard 2002 , et al . 2006 ) or resilience ( Holling 1973 , 1986 , Arrow et al . 1995 , et al . 1995 , Carpenter and 1997 , Carpenter et al . 2001 , Walker et al . 2002 , 2004 , Bellwood et al . 2004 , et al . 2001 , Carpenter and 2006 ) It is this second kind of resilience to which we refer in this text . The result of our analysis is displayed in Table . It shows categories , 10 classes , and correspondingly 10 definitions of resilience . The three categories reflect whether the definition is in accordance with either a genuinely descriptive concept ( Category I ) a hybrid concept , in which descriptive and normative connotations are intermingled ( Category II ) or a genuinely normative concept ( Category III ) Thus , our scheme in the first place emphasizes the degree of included in the different definitions that fit under the overall category of resilience as characterized above . However , we also found it useful and necessary to distinguish between purely ecological definitions , Class , and those which are also used in the context of other fields such as economy and sociology , Class . In the following , each definition of resilience is explained in more detail with respect to its category and class , respectively . Note that the proclaimed titles do not correspond to the particular references . Category I Descriptive concept Subcategory Ia Ecological science Class Original ecological definition In his seminal paper , Holling ( 1973 ) defines resilience as a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables ( Holling ) In this ecological meaning , resilience focuses on the persistence of populations or communities at the ecosystem level and corresponds to both the overall area and the height of the lowest point of a population domain of attraction . A relative measure is a probability of extinction . Class Extended definition Subsequent work from the late ( Holling 1986 , 1996 , Walker 1999 , 2000 , and Holling 2002 , and Pritchard 2002 , Walker et al . 2002 , 2001 ) is strongly influenced by theory on complex adaptive systems ( Levin 1998 ) including the morphology of ecosystems ( Holling 1992 ) According to the extended keystone hypothesis originally proposed by Holling ( 1992 ) the hierarchical structure of ecosystems is primarily regulated by a small set of plant , animal , and abiotic processes each operating over different scale ranges . Important changes in ecosystem dynamics can be understood by analyzing a few , typically no more than five , key ( Walker et al . 2006 ) In this interpretation , the scientific focus is on the critical structure and processes of an ecosystem . Individua species can be replaced if the critical structure and key processes persist ( Walker et al . 1999 , et al . 2003 , 2006 ) In this meaning , resilience is defined as the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behaviour ( and Holling 2002 Li ) or the capacity of a system to experience shocks while retaining essentially the same function , structure , and therefore identity ( Wa er et al . Class Three characteristics Some authors interpret the meaning as comprising three characteristics . Those are ( the amount of change a system can undergo and sti I remain within the same domain of attraction , to retain the same controls on structure and processes ( the degree to which the system is capable of and ( the degree to which the system expresses capacity for learning and adaptation ( Carpenter et al . 2001 , Walker et al . 2002 , 2006 ) Class Four aspects One line of research emphasizes the concept of alternative stable regimes ( and Carpenter 2003 , et al . 2001 , Walker and Meyers 2001 ) Note that the term regime is preferred to avoid the static connotations of the term state and to describe the actual dynamic situation of a specified ecosystem ( and Carpenter 2003 ) Formally , alternative stable regimes exist within alternative basins of attraction ( Walker et al . 2001 ) Four aspects ofa basin of attraction are crucial . Those are ( latitude or the maximum amount the system can be changed before losing its ability to recover , the width of the basin ( resistance , which matches the ease or difficulty of changing the system , the topology of the basin ( precariousness , the current trajectory of the system and proximity to a limit or threshold and ( lo ) relations , or how the above three aspects are influenced by the dynamics of the systems at scales above and below the scale of interest ( et al . 2001 , Walker et al . 2001 ) 51

Class definition Some scholars have worked on the of the concept of resilience , which include a heuristic for the dynamics of productive , systems , the This ( Cumming and Collier 2005 ) of ecosystem dynamics consists of Table . Ten of resilience with respect to the degree of . Categories and classes ( I ) EFT ( In ) OLOGICAL SCIENCE ) Measure of die persistence of systems and of their ability to Holling relationships between or state variables ) The of disturbance that can be absorbed before the and system changes its structure by changing the and 2002 processes that control behavior and The capacity ofa system to experience shocks while retaining Walker et al . the same . structure . and 2006 ! identity In ) This capacities i ) to absorb disturbances . ii ) for . Walker et al . 2002 and in ) learning and adaptation ) Four specs I ) of the domain ) et al ) resistance ( height ofthe domain ) 20041573 ) relations ) that changes ecosystem Holling 2001 dynamics and occurs on each ofan hierarchy ) Operational Resilience Io what ?

Carpenter et al . and 2001 . 2005 ( SCIENCES ) Sociological The ability or to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result political and chang ) Transition between states as a function ofthe Brock et al and of decision makers The environmental shocks without the capacity to allocate 2006 resources ( II ) CONCEPT ) The underlying capacity of an ecosystem to desired et al . 200114 ecosystem services in the face of a fluctuating and human use ) system Sal The capacity of a systems to absorb recurrent Axles et al . so as to retain . processes and 52

! Ra A or approach to analyze ) 3006 ( III ) EP ' one the long term et al . 2004381 10 ) Maintenance capital in the long run On and 200411 31 adaptive cycles , and , which occur on each level of a system hierarchy . Against this background , resilience represents a quantitative property that changes throughout the adaptive cycle and principally occurs on each level of a hierarchy ( Holling 2001 , and Holling 2002 ) Class is Operational definition To apply the concept of resilience to empirical cases , it is critical to specify resilience of what to what ( Carpenter et al . 2001 ) This operational definition constitutes the first step to make resilience concrete . Further operational steps suggest focusing on the concept of identity and defining resilience as the ability of the system to maintain its identity in the face of internal change and external shocks and disturbances ( Cumming et al . 2005 ) Subcategory 112 Social Class Sociological definition Some scientists apply the concept of resilience to social systems . Social resilience is defined as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social , political , and environmental change ( Class definition In addition , the concept of resilience is used to analyze systems ( and Walker 1997 , and Stern 2000 , Brock et al . 2002 , 2006 ) Resilience matches the transition probability between states as a function of the consumption and production activities of decision makers ( Brock et al . or the ability of the system to withstand either market or environmental shocks without loosing the capacity to allocate resources efficiently ( 2006 ) Category II Hybrid concept Class Ecosystem definition In this hybrid sense , resilience corresponds to the underlying capacity of an ecosystem to maintain desirable ecosystem services in the face of human use and a fluctuating environment ( Carpenter 2001 , et al . 2002 ) Studies focus on desirable ecosystem services of an ecological system , food production , water purification , or aesthetic enjoyment ( MEA 2005 ) Class system . Many scientists state that it is critical to apply the concept of resilience to coupled systems , as it may be a fundamental error of environmental policy to separate the human system from the natural system and treat them as independent ( et al . 2002 , et al . 2006 , Walker et al . 2006 ) The split is seen as arbitrary and artificial humans are regarded as part of the ecosystem ( et al . 2002 , et al . 2003 ) Class definition resilience is defined as the capacity of systems to absorb recurrent disturbances ( so as to retain essential structures , processes and ( et al . In this approach , a system analysis tends to incorporate specific values , cultural diversity or international aid . Consequently , there is an increase in the degree of , resilience gets more and more desirable as such . Class Resilience approach Recently , resilience has been increasingly conceived as a perspective , as a way of thinking to analyze linked systems ( 2006 ) No clear definition is suggested . Rather , resilience is conceived as a collection of ideas about how to interpret complex 53

systems ( et al . 2006 ) Category III Normative concept Class Metaphorical definition In a metaphoric interpretation , the concept of resilience means flexibility over the long term ( et al . and is viewed as desirable as such . Class 10 definition Resilience has been suggested as to be one of the guidelines for a conception of strong sustainability ( Ott 2001 , 2003 , Ott and 2001 ) Hereby the term refers to the maintenance of natural capital in the in order to provide ecosystem services that provide instrumental as well as eudaemonistic values for human society . These ten definitions together represent the intension of the term resilience . Even though they are all related to the original , descriptive concept of resilience , as introduced by Holling ( 1973 ) the term has been transformed considerably . The conceptual development of resilience has been recently reviewed by ( 2006 ) who made a distinction between an early interpretation of resilience , which focuses on the robustness of systems to withstand shocks while maintaining function , ecosystem or ecological resilience , social resilience , and a subsequent interpretation , which refers more to the interplay of disturbance and reorganization within a system as well as to transformability , learning and innovation , resilience . Although ( 2006 ) points to the change in the specific meaning of resilience our own interpretation of the conceptual development of resilience highlights the distinct use of the concept of resilience within the spectrum of scientific disciplines . Thus , the subsequent sections contrast ( a ) a clearly specified concept of resilience that is merely used in ecology with ( a vague and malleable concept of resilience that is used as a communication tool across different scientific disciplines and between science and practice . RESILIENCE AS A DESCRIPTIVE ECOLOGICAL CONCEPT This section describes a descriptive , ecological concept of resilience in more detail . By definition a descriptive concept of resilience excludes normative dimensions . Resilience may be viewed as either desirable or undesirable in a specific case this depends on the state of concern . This means , a degraded savannah or a polluted lake can be highly resilient but at the same time undesirable from an anthropocentric perspective ( Carpenter et al . 2001 , Carpenter and 2002 , Walker et al . 2002 ) In a descriptive sense , the concept of resilience points to a nonequilibrium view on ecological systems ( et al . 2005 ) that is , it assumes the existence of alternative stable regimes ( Holling 1996 ) For example , a savannah may exhibit either a locally stable grassy regime or a locally stable woody regime depending on the value of some driving factors , such as rainfall , grazing pressure and fire events ( Walker 2002 ) There is strong evidence that most ecosystem types can exist in alternative stable regimes , for instance lakes , coral reefs , deserts , woodlands , and forests ( et al . 2001 , Walker and Meyers 2001 ) However , the weight of empirical evidence shows that the relative frequency of the occurrence of alternative stable regimes across systems is higher for systems controlled by environmental adversity , deserts , arctic tundra , or savannahs , than those controlled by competitive adversity , forests or coral reefs ( 2006 ) A mathematical model of this behavior termed is provided by phase plane and bifurcation diagrams proposed by Ludwig et al . 1997 , 2002 ) Formally a system exhibits alternative basins of attraction when a fast state variable , annual grasses , responds to changes in a slow variable , organisms , nutrient , by a curve , as shown in Fig . Because of the backward fold , two stable basins overlap , separated by an unstable one over a given range of the slow variable ( et al . 2001 , and Carpenter 2003 , et al . 2005 ) When the system is in a regime on the upper blue branch of the folded curve in Fig . it can not pass to the lower green branch smoothly . Instead , when the slow variable changes pass the critical value , the ecological threshold ( to the lower branch occurs , either caused by only an incremental change in conditions or due to a bigger disturbance . To induce a switch back to the upper branch it is not sufficient to restore the slow variable to the value before the collapse . Instead , one needs to go back further , beyond the other switch point ( at which the system recovers by shifting back to the upper branch , a pattern known as hysteresis ( and Carpenter 2003 , et al . 2006 , et al . 2006 ) In contrast to a narrow equilibrium view , this indicates the importance of the boundaries of a basin of attraction and the ease or difficulty with which a system could be moved out of this basin ( Holling 1973 , 1996 , and Holling 2002 ) For example , shallow lakes can exhibit two stable regimes with respect to nutrient load , a regime with aquatic plants and a turbid regime without vegetation . If the lake is in the regime , an increase of the nutrient level will lead to a gradual and moderate rise in turbidity until the critical turbidity for plant survival is reached . At this point , vegetation collapses and the lake shifts to the turbid regime . Reduction of nutrients after this catastrophic transition does not result in a return of plants immediately . However , 54

the backward switch happens at much lower nutrient level than the forward switch . Thus , often reduction of the nutrient level to values at which the lake used to be clear and vegetated will not lead to restoration of that state ( Dent et al . 2002 ) Correspondingly , in a descriptive sense the resilience of an ecological system can be defined as the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system shifts to another basin of attraction ( Class in Table and Holling 2002 , Bellwood et al . 2004 , 2006 ) In addition , some authors distinguish several characteristics or aspects of resilience , respectively ( Class and in Table ) The descriptive ecological definitions described above ( Class in Table ) differ with respect to the criteria they provide as means to determine if a system is resilient and to what degree . In this article we focus on the definition of resilience in order to point to the concept of slow controlling variables , which can be used to resilience , and thus to the importance of a quantitative and measurable approach to resilience . Fig . Bifurcation diagram ofa system described by a fast variable and a slow variable the stable regimes are given by the blue and green solid lines and the boundary of the basins of attraction , unstable state , by the dashed line . ET and represent ecological threshold points ( from and Carpenter 2003 ) fast variable ET , ET , slow variable Indeed , a crucial question for scientific progress is are there any possibilities to estimate or measure the resilience of an ecosystem ?

Any operational interpretation of resilience means to specify resilience to what and of what ( Class A in Table Carpenter et al . 2001 ) and channels into a comprehensive resilience analysis ( Walker et al . 2002 , Brand 2005 ) This also means to inquire which of the criteria for resilience described in definition Classes are in fact meant as criteria that must be measured to assess or quantify the resilience of an ecosystem . The part of the analysis to what exactly a certain regime of an ecosystem should be resilient . This corresponds to specifying the disturbance regime , the kind of disturbances , their frequency , and intensity ( and White 1985 , White and 2001 ) which may include both human disturbances , pollution pulses or habitat fragmentation , and natural disturbances , hurricanes or floods , as well as possible multiplicative effects ( et al . 2001 ) The subsequent part the specific regime that is meant to be resilient to the identified disturbance regime . This part of the analysis is comprised of several steps . Step one means to assess which ecosystem processes or ecosystem services ( see Jax 2005 ) of the regime are of primary concern on which spatial and temporal scale ( Walker et al . 2002 ) Step two the identity of the selected regime in step one . This includes the precise boundary of the regime , the set of variables of interest , and the expected internal degree of relationships , as well as the component resolution ( Jax et al . 1998 , 2006 , Cumming et al . 2005 ) Step one and step two are dependent on societal values or and should therefore incorporate environmental assessment procedures and participative deliberations ( 1991 , Jax and 2001 ) 55

Apparently , the overall aim is to assess if the ecosystem is and remains within the regime of concern , which has been identified in the previous steps . Thus , step three specifies the variables and mechanisms that control the specific position of an ecosystem within state space . There are two options . The first option is to investigate empirically the value of the slow variables of a regime and plot it in a bifurcation diagram , as considered in Fig . The amount of resilience is then measured as the distance between the current value of the slow variable and the critical value ( Carpenter et al . 2001 , Walker et al . 2002 , Peterson et al . 2003 , Bennett et al . 2005 ) which is termed precariousness ( Walker et al . 2001 ) It may be possible to predict the position of an ecological threshold either by studying return time and standard deviations of a fast variable ( Wissel 1984 , Carpenter and Brock 2006 ) or by the repeated calculation of the Fisher information of a regime ( Mayer et al . 2006 ) The second option of step three refers to the amount of resilience mechanisms inherent in the desirable regime . Resilience mechanisms include ( a ) critical functional groups and functional important species , such as top predators or keystone species ( et al . 2001 , Bellwood et al . 2004 , and 2005 ) ecological redundancy and response diversity within functional groups ( Walker 1995 , Peterson et al . 1998 , et al . 2003 , Hooper et al . 2005 , 2006 ) and ( the existence of a matrix of support areas at the landscape scale that provide potential colonists to compensate for the loss of species at the local scale ( et al . 2003 , Hughes et al . 2005 ) The amount of resilience mechanisms may be a measure to assess the relative resilience of the desirable regime to the given disturbances ( Allen et al . 2005 ) The message of this section is that in a descriptive interpretation resilience can be a clearly specified and stability concept . It is in this sense that resilience represents a quantitative and measurable concept that can be used for achieving progress in ecological science . RESILIENCE AS A BOUNDARY OBJECT contrast to the use as a descriptive concept , resilience is increasingly viewed in a rather vague and malleable meaning . In the several scholars discovered the concept as an important tool to measure sustainability ( Arrow et al . 1991 , et al . 1995 , et al . 1996 , Levin et al . 1998 ) Since then resilience has been used by various scientific disciplines , for instance economics ( 1995 , 1998 , and Stern 2000 , Brock et al . 2002 , 2006 ) political science ( et al . 2006 ) sociology ( 2000 ) or planning ( et al . 2001 ) and each discipline has provided specific definitions ( Class in Table ) Moreover , resilience has seen related to other scientific concepts such as carrying capacity ( and 1999 ) critical natural capital ( et al . 2003 ) strong sustainability ( Arrow et al . 1995 , Ott 2003 , Ott and 2004 ) globalization ( Armitage and Johnson 2006 ) justice ( 2003 ) and adaptive ( et al . 2003 , et al . 2001 ) particular , resilience is increasingly interpreted in a broader meaning across disciplines as a way of thinking , a perspective or even for analyzing systems ( et al . 2002 , 2003 , et al . 2006 , 2006 , Walker et al . 2006 ) Some authors expand theories or concepts drawn from ecological systems , alternative regimes , panarchy , or ecological redundancy , to examine social , political , and institutional systems ( and Holling 2002 , et al . 2003 , Allison and 2001 . Much research aims at a general theory for the resilience of whole systems ( Class in Table , et a . 2006 ) It is in this sense that resilience incorporates the capacity of systems to cope with , adapt to , and shape change and learn to live with uncertainty and surprise ( 2003 , 2006 ) we suggest that resilience has become a boundary Within the field of science and technology studies , this signifies a term that facilitates communication across disciplinary borders by creating shared vocabulary although the understanding of the parties differ regarding the precise meaning of the term in question ( Star and 989 ) Boundary objects are able to coordinate different groups without a consensus about their aims and interests . If they are both open to interpretation and valuable for various scientific disciplines or social groups , boundary objects can be highly useful as a communication tool in order to bridge scientific and the gap between science and policy ( 2002 , Cash et al . 2003 ) Indeed , it is this vagueness and malleability , the potential variety of interpretations or applications of the term that makes boundary objects po successful ( 2002 ) For example , the object sustainability has been highly successful in providing the common ground for ecologists and economists , which were formerly thought contrary , to engage together for the needs of future generations . In addition , the concept has helped to reconcile contrasting interests of industrial and developing countries ( 2002 ) But there is a drawback to this . Boundary objects can in fact be a hindrance to scientific . For example , the meaning of the term sustainability is highly diluted and unclear . The conception of sustainability , development in economic , social , and systems , has been reduced to a listing of any societal objectives that agents happen to think important . That means that the extension of the term has become extremely wide . This is due to the fact that the sustainable development enables different scientific disciplines or social groups to justify their particular interest with respect to an accepted and ethically , societal goal ( Ott 2003 , It may thus even hide conflicts and power relations when different persons agree on the need for sustainability when in fact meaning different things by it . Therefore , sustainability is generally conceived as arbitrary or as an illusion and within sustainability science there is confusion on how to and apply the concept ( To 56

foster conceptual clarity and practical relevance some authors have suggested a clear and specified theory of sustainability , which is characterized by both a narrow extension and a clear intension of the term ( et al . 2001 , 2006 , Ott 2003 , Ott and 2004 , et al . 2005 ) These insights indicate that , metaphorically spoken , boundary objects are , they are inherently ambivalent . They may have positive and negative aspects in terms of scientific progress and political success . What does that mean for a scientific concept of resilience ?

DISCUSSION In this section we synthesize the points made in the previous sections and discuss some implications for a fruitful conceptual structure of resilience . Resilience is a concept . On the one hand , the concept is used as a descriptive , ecological concept ( Walker 2002 , and Holling 2002 , Bellwood et al . 2001 , 2006 ) whereas , on the other hand , it represents a boundary object with a rather wide and vague meaning ( and Holling 2002 , et al . 2003 , 2003 , Hughes et al 2005 , 2006 , Walker et al . 2006 ) As a result , the original ecological concept of resilience first defined by Holling ( 1973 ) has been transformed considerably . This becomes apparent in several points . First , the specific meaning of resilience gets diluted and increasingly unclear . This is due to the use of the concept ( a ) with many different and ( with a very wide extension . For example , Hughes et al . 2005 ) suggest several key components of resilience for marine regions . These include leadership and insight , sustained mobilization of national and international aid , cultural and ecological diversity , development of social networks , and the resolution of local civil unrest . Apparently , Hughes et al . 2005 ) apply both the definition and the metaphoric definition of resilience ( Classes and in Table ) in order to link an meaning of resilience to governance structures , economics and society . As a result , however , the concept of resilience includes very much , from international aid and leadership to ecological diversity , and it is for this reason why the meaning of resilience gets diluted and unclear , as for logical reasons any concept that encompasses very much , wide extension , must lose specific meaning , clear intension ( Ott 2003 ) Indeed , regarding the interpretation of resilience put forward by Hughes et al . 2005 ) it gets difficult to decide whether a certain state is resilient or not or to specify the particular degree of resilience inherent in a certain state . Second , a broad concept of resilience often includes normative dimensions . Following the interpretation of Hughes et al . 2005 ) resilience represents a hybrid concept containing a blending of descriptive and normative aspects , as international aid , cultural diversity , and the resolution of local civil unrest represent instrumental and eudaemonistic values . The fact that a broad concept of resilience includes normative dimensions is not surprising . We see other boundary objects floating between descriptive and normative meanings , as in the case of biodiversity , biodiversity in the specific scientific sense of diversity at the level of genes , species , and ecosystems biodiversity in the sense of the ominous value of life on earth ( 2002 ) But the important point is that these normative aspects within a broad concept of resilience ought to be made explicit and , whenever possible , justified ethically ( and , personal communication ) Third , the term resilience is used ambiguously as divergent conceptions of resilience are proposed . There are at least 10 different approaches to resilience . Each approach emphasizes different aspects of resilience with respect to the specific interest . The ecological aspect is stressed by ecologists , whereas the political and institutional aspects are stressed by sociologists , etc . Thus , the term resilience is used ambiguously for fundamentally different ( Class in Table ) The direct consequences are between social and environmental objectives within a conception of resilience , which may be difficult to handle . Fourth , the original ecological dimension of resilience is about to vanish . Our impression is that recent studies increasingly stress the social , political , and institutional dimensions of resilience ( 2002 , et al . 2004 , 2006 , 2006 ) or address whole systems ( et al . 2005 , Hughes et al . 2005 , 2006 , Walker et al . 2006 ) whereas genuinely ecological studies of resilience get rare ( but , Bellwood et al . 2004 , 2006 ) Finally , resilience is increasingly conceived as a perspective , rather than a clear and concept . Recently , resilience has been conceived either as a way of thinking , as an approach to address social processes , such as social learning , leadership and adaptive governance ( Class in Table 2006 ) or as a metaphor for the flexibility of a system over the long term ( Class in Table et al . 2001 ) According to et al . 2006 ) resilience is better described as a collection of ideas about how to interpret complex systems . As a result , the meaning of resilience gets increasingly vague and unspecified . How to evaluate this conceptual development of resilience ?

We suggest on the one side that both conceptual clarity and practical relevance of resilience are critically at stake . A scientific concept of resilience must have a clear and specified meaning that is constantly used in the same way . In particular , it must be possible ( a ) to specify the particular objects the concept refers to , to decide whether particular states in nature are resilient or and it should be possible ( to assess the degree of resilience of a certain state ( Jax 2006 ) In fact , the quality of the term resilience is strongly dependent on the ability to exclude phenomena that 57

do not meet this term , as both and application with respect to environmental management are strongly dependent on a clear and meaning of the term ( et al . 2001 ) On the other side , however , we propose that the increased vagueness and malleability of resilience is highly valuable because it is for this reason that the concept is able to foster communication across disciplines and between science and practice ( 2002 ) Therefore , it is not the suggestion to eradicate this vagueness and ambiguousness entirely but to grasp the ambivalent character of boundary objects and , hence , of a wide and vague use of resilience . To counterbalance the positive and negative aspects of the conceptual development of resilience we , thus , argue for division of labor in a scientific sense . Resilience , conceived as a descriptive concept , should be a clear , well defined , and specified concept that provides the basis for and application within ecological science . For the sake of clarity , this meaning may be dubbed ecological resilience , for ecological systems , or just resilience if applied to systems other than ecological , climatic systems . In contrast , resilience conceived as a boundary object should be designed in a manner to foster work . In this sense , resilience constitutes a vague and malleable concept that is used as a approach to analyze systems . For greater clarity this meaning may be termed resilience ( as in 2006 ) 58

Literature Cited , 2000 . Social and ecological resilience are they related ?

Progress in Human Geography 24 ( 030913200701540465 , 2003 . Building resilience to promote sustainability an agenda for coping with globalisation and promoting justice . international Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change ( Newsletter , Germany . Vulnerability . Change 16 ( Hughes , Carpenter , and . 2005 . resilience to coastal disasters . Science Allen , and Johnson . 2005 . The use of and functional groups to assess relative resilience in complex systems . Ecosystems ( Allison , and Hobbs . 2004 . Resilience , adaptive capacity , and the Trap of the western Australian agricultural region . Ecology and Society ( online URL . Walker , and . 2006 . Fifteen weddings and a funeral case studies and management . Ecology and Society 11 ( online URL . Armitage , and Johnson . 2006 . Can resilience be reconciled with globalization and the increasingly complex conditions of resource degradation in Asian coastal regions ?

Ecology and Society 11 ( online URL . Arrow , Bolin , Holling , Levin , and . 1995 . Economic growth , carrying capacity , and the environment . Science , A . A . 1998 . The concept of resilience retrospect and prospect . Environment and Development Economics Bellwood , Hughes , and . 2004 . Confronting the coral reef crisis . Nature , and . 2003 . Reserves , resilience and dynamic 32 ( Bennett , Cumming , and Peterson . 2005 . A systems model approach to determining resilience surrogates for case studies . Ecosystems , and , editors . 2003 . Navigating building complexity and change . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , UK . Brand , 2005 . Ecological resilience and its relevance within a theory development . Centre for Environmental Research , Department of Ecological Modelling , Germany . and . 2006 . A unified framework for assessment and application of ecological thresholds . Ecology and Management 59 ( Brock , and . 2002 . Resilience and sustainability the economic analysis of nonlinear dynamic systems . Pages in and Holling , editors . Panarchy understanding transformations in human . Island Press , Washington , USA . Carpenter , and . 1997 . Resilience and restoration of lakes . Ecology ( URL . online Carpenter , Walker , and Abel . 2001 . From metaphor to measurement resilience of what to what ?

Ecosystems Carpenter , and Brock . 2006 . Rising variance a leading indicator of ecological transition . Ecology letters ( Carpenter , and . 2006 . Ecology for transformation . Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21 ( Cash , Clark , Jager , and Mitchell . 2003 . Knowledge systems for sustainable development . Proceedings ofthe USA 100 ( 14 ) Cumming , and Collier . 2005 . Change and identity in complex systems . Ecology and Society 10 ( online URL . Cumming , Barnes , Holt , Stickler and Van Holt . 2005 . An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience . Ecosystems

, and . 2003 . The critical capital of ecosystem performance as insurance for human . Ecological Economics 02 , 2006 . When are alternative stable states more likely to occur ?

113 ( Peterson , Walker , and . 2003 . Response diversity , ecosystem change , and resilience . Frontiers in ecology and the environment ( 2003 ) 001 0488 , 2002 . Der Wert der , und . Pages in , and Jax , editors . Germany . 1995 . Economic resilience and economic policy . Ecological Economics 95 Foley , Carpenter , Chapin , Coe , Daily , Gibbs , Holloway , Howard , Prentice , and Snyder . 2005 . Global consequences of land use . Science , 2003 . Freshwater for resilience a shift in thinking . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London , 2006 . Resilience the emergence of a perspective for system analyses . Global Environmental Change 16 ( Holling , and . 1996 . Biological diversity , ecosystems , and the human scale . 2269584 , Carpenter , Holling , Walker , Gordon , Levin , Reid , and . 2002 . Resilience and sustainable development building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations . Scientific Background Paper on the process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government . Carpenter , Walker , and Holling . 2004 . Regime shifts , resilience , and biodiversity in ecosystem management . Annual Review , Evolution and Systematics Grimm , and Wissel . 1997 . or the ecological stability discussions an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion . 5004420050090 , Baron , Gold , Goodman , Palmer , Peterson , Reynolds , Turner , Weathers , and . 2006 . Ecological thresholds the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application ?

Ecosystems , A . Die von und die der . Pages in and Schmidt , editors . von . Metropolis , Germany . A . und . 13 ( 2000 . Ecological theory and application . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , and Holling , editors . 2002 . Panarchy understanding transformations in human and . Island Press , Washington , USA . and Pritchard , editors . 2002 . Resilience and the behaviour systems . Island Press , Washington , USA . Holling , 1973 . Resilience and stability of ecological systems . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Holling , 1986 . The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems , local surprise and global change . Pages in Clark and , editors . Sustainable development of the biosphere . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , UK . Holling , 1992 . morphology , geometry , and dynamics of ecosystems . Ecological 62 ( 2937313 Holling , 1996 . Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience . Pages in , editor . Engineering within ecological constraints . National Academy Press , Washington , USA . Holling , 2001 . Understanding the complexity of economic , ecological , and social systems . Ecosystems Hooper , Chapin , III , Hector , Lodge , and . 2005 . Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning a consensus of current knowledge . Ecological 75 ( Hughes , Bellwood , and Wilson . 2005 . New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems . Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (

. A . 2006 . Historical institutional analysis of Economics ( do . Schoon , Ke , and . 2006 . Scholarly networks on resilience , vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions environmental change . Global Environmental Change 16 ( Jax , 2005 . Function and functioning in ecology what does it mean ?

Jax , 2006 . The units of ecology definition and application . Quarterly Review ( 506237 Jax , Jones , and . 1998 . The of ecological units . 3546965 Jax , and . 2004 . Ecological theory and values in the determination of conservation goals examples from the temperate regions of Germany , USA and Chile . de Natural , Clark , Hall , Jaeger , Lowe , McCarthy , Bolin , Mooney , Moore III , and . 2001 . Sustainability science . Science , and A . 2005 . What is sustainable development ?

Goals , indicators , values , and practice . Environment 47 ( editor . 2006 . Ein Das integrative in der . Edition sigma , Berlin , Germany . and . 2001 . Edition sigma , Berlin , Germany . Levin , A . 1998 . Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems . Ecosystems Levin , Barrett , Bliss , Bolin , Holling , Martin , and . 1998 . Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems . Environment and Development Economics . Ludwig , Walker , and Holling . 1997 . Sustainability , stability , and resilience . Conservation Ecology ( online URL . Ludwig , Walker , and Holling . 2002 . Models and metaphors of sustainability , stability , and resilience . Pages in , and . editors . Resilience and the behavior systems . Island Press , Washington , USA . Mayer , and . 2006 . Fisher information and dynamic regime changes in ecological systems . Ecological Modelling . and , 2005 . Low functional redundancy in coastal marine . Ecology Letters Ecosystem Assessment ( MEA ) 2005 . Ecosystems and human well being synthesis . Island Press , Washington , USA . 2006 . Redundancy and response diversity of functional groups implications for the resilience of coral reefs . 35 ( and . 2004 . Adaptive for building resilience in systems . Environmental Management 34 ( Carpenter , Ryan , and Holling . 2006 . Shooting the rapids navigating transitions to adaptive governance of . Ecology and 11 ( online URL . Ott , 2001 . Eine . und ( Ott , 2003 . The case for strong sustainability . Pages in Ott , and , editors . environmental ethics . Rose , Germany . Ott , and . 2004 . und Praxis . Metropolis , Germany . A . 2006 . Resilience and sustainable development . Environment and Development Economics , Holling , and . editors . 1995 . Biodiversity conservation , problems . Academic , The Netherlands . and Walker . 1997 . Biodiversity , resilience and the control of systems the case . Ecological Economics 97 , and Stern . 2000 . Modelling Loss of Resilience in in . Environmental and Resource Economics

Peterson , Allen , and Holling . 1998 . Ecological resilience , biodiversity , and scale . Ecosystems Peterson , Carpenter , and Brock . 2003 . Uncertainty and the management of ecosystems an apparently rational route to collapse . Ecology 84 ( and White . 1985 . The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics . Academic Press , Orlando , Florida , USA . and Jones . 1994 . Ecological understanding . Academic Press , London , UK . and Grove . 2004 . Resilient cities meaning , models , and metaphor for integrating the ecological , and planning realms . Landscape and Urban Planning , 1994 . fur im . und . and Carpenter . 2003 . Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems linking theory to observation . Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18 ( 12 ) and De . 2005 . Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states a review . 110 ( and . 1999 . Carrying capacity reconsidered from population theory to cultural carrying capacity . Ecological Economics 99 Star , and . 1989 . Institutional ecology , translations and boundary objects amateurs and professionals in Berkeley museum of vertebrate zoology , of 19 ( 030631289019003001 ( United Nations Environment Program ) 2002 . Integrating environment and development . Pages in . Global Environmental Outlook Past , present perspectives . London , UK . and . 2004 . Impacts of multiple stressors on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning the role of species . Walker , 1995 . Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience . Conservation Biology ( Walker , 2002 . Ecological resilience in grazed a generic case study . Pages in , and Pritchard , editors . Resilience and the behavior systems . Island Press , Washington , USA . Walker , and . 1999 . Plant attribute diversity , resilience , and ecosystem function the nature and significance of dominant and minor species . Ecosystems 5100219900062 Walker , Carpenter , Abel , Cumming , Peterson , and Pritchard , 2002 . Resilience management in ecological systems a working hypothesis for a participatory approach . Ecology and Society ( online URL . Walker , and . Meyers . 2004 . Thresholds in ecological and systems a developing database . Ecology and Society ( online URL . Walker , Holling , Carpenter , and . 2004 . Resilience , adaptability and transformability in systems . Ecology ( online URL . Walker , Carpenter , and Schultz . 2006 . A handful of and some propositions for understanding resilience in ecological systems . Ecology and Society 11 ( online URL . Hobbs , and Moore . 2005 . Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation a review of the salient issues . Ecology and Society 10 ( online URL . Carpenter , Brock , Holling , and . 2002 . Why systems of people and nature are not just social and ecological systems . Pages in and Holling , editors . Panarchy understanding transformations in human and . Island Press , Washington , USA . White , and . 2001 . The search for generality in studies of disturbance and ecosystem dynamics . Progress in Botany Wissel , 1984 . A universal law of the characteristic return time near thresholds .

Climate Change Resilience Strategies for the Building Sector Examining Existing Domains of Resilience Utilized by Design Professionals by Nicholas and This article was originally published in Sustainability , 2019 . Imps This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International ( BY ) license ABSTRACT Recently , climate change resilience efforts in the building sector have increased . Previous studies have examined the theoretical that have shaped the concept development of resilience . However , little is known about the theoretical approaches adopted building professionals in their climate change resilience work . A literature review identified climate change resilience across four academic domains ecology , engineering , disaster risk reduction , and the social sciences . To better understand how resilience is defined in the building sector , we examined eighteen climate change resilience documents developed to provide guidance to building sector in the United States . Our analysis of these documents helps to understand how professionals are framing and possibly incorporating these strategies in their work , though we did not measure the adoption rate of each of the documents . We find that resilience is mostly a discourse on , status quo , emergency responses to major hazards . documents incorporated an ecological or social logic . This highlights the challenges of translating resilience from our academic domains into building strategies for the professional community . In closing , we discuss how competing conceptions of resilience may impact the implementation and effectiveness of climate change resilience strategies in the built environment . building sector building codes building standards building design climate adaptation . INTRODUCTION Recent events , such as Hurricane Sandy that struck New York City and the Northeastern United States in 2012 , have the resilience , or lack thereof , of the building sector . Events like Hurricane Sandy , and other phenomena , illustrate that the climate is shifting rapidly in many parts of the globe planning for future building stock can no longer rely solely on data . After Hurricane Sandy , the New York City Housing Authority ( reported loss of power , heat , and hot water in approximately housing units 94 of the damaged properties inspected by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) experienced flooding damage . In response , the City of New York proposed a comprehensive plan titled A Stronger , More Resilient ew York , with the goal of increasing the resilience of infrastructure and buildings in communities across the city . ew York City and New York State are not the only locations grappling with this threat . Due to multiple events in recent years , resilience efforts to reduce risks related to the building stock have been deployed by and . These organizations are disseminating reports , voluntary standards , and other information to build resilience in the built environment . While the interest in resilience in the public and political sphere has largely been in reaction to climate disasters , literature on climate change resilience in the built environment is growing rapidly . According to et , due to its recent popularity , resilience risks turning into another with no meaning . Some argue that the diversity and ambiguity in resilience thinking challenges its , Li , while others have suggested that resilience conceptual vagueness facilitates communication . Reaching a holistic definition may be difficult , however efforts to explore how different definitions of resilience modify the approach of professionals is important . To this end , this paper examines how resilience is translated from four academic domains into practical guidance currently in use by built environment professionals . In the following three subsections of this paper , we provide an overview of the concept of resilience across four academic domains identified within the resilience literature . Next , we illustrate how resilience is translated into practice . In the final subsection , we highlight how the building sector approaches and climate change resilience by analyzing existing climate change resilience documents providing guidance to building professionals . 63

. Understanding Resilience Four Academic Domains The word resilience originates from the Latin word meaning to spring back . Resilience generally refers to the ability of a system to withstand an array of shocks and stresses . Within the literature , resilience has overlapped with concepts such as stability and robustness and is considered a complementary approach to sustainability . Definitions of resilience are grounded in a diverse array of disciplinary perspectives . While the definitions of resilience across domains overlap , it is important to explore the differences in how resilience is framed in each individual domain . This allows one to grasp how resilience definitions may shape policy and professional efforts to adapt the building climate change . A review of the literature has identified four main academic domains of resilience ecology , engineering , disaster risk reduction , and the social sciences . Ecology the most prominent researcher on resilience is Holling , who introduced the concept of resilience to the field of ecology in 1973 . defines resilience as a , measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables . In this definition , ecological systems are viewed as having multiple equilibrium or stable states ecological resilience examines the threshold required to move a system from one equilibrium state to another . recent years , literature on ecological resilience has explored notions of constantly changing systems , or nonequilibrium systems . As such , resilience reflects a process of continuous adaptation to stresses and disturbances rather than an attribute or outcome . notions of resilience shift from reinforcing the ability to towards exploring opportunities for transformation and change or bouncing This literature also acknowledges interactions between social and ecological systems . This conception of resilience in the ecological domain was essential to understanding change in systems ( SES ) Resilience in is defined as , the capacity of inked systems to absorb recurrent disturbances such as hurricanes or floods so as to retain essential structures , and feedback the degree to which a complex adaptive system is capable of ( versus lack of organization or organization forced by external factors ) and the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation 12 . this way , resilience in the ecological domain also embraces a potential for change and highlights the capacity of systems to reorganize . Disturbances can create ( or force ) opportunities for and stakeholders to innovate and adapt 13 . Ecological resilience addresses both acute and chronic stresses , meaning it does not focus primarily on temporary disturbances , but requires a shift in that respond to long term impacts and chronic vulnerabilities within a system . Engineering Engineering resilience describes the capacity ofa system to withstand disturbances and return to a steady state . To engineers , systems wave only one equilibrium state that they return to after a shock or disturbance . Engineering resilience thus emphasizes a resistance to disturbances , the speed of return to a resilient state , and its overall ability to bounce back . This contrasts with the concept of ecological resilience which recognizes systems as having multiple states of equilibrium . Generally , engineering resilience is appropriate when a stable state is desired the bearing capacity of building foundations and the robustness of a building structure are examples . While engineering resilience has limitations in capturing the dynamics of a system under stress , because the desired state is defined , the of resilience may be easier to attain 14 . In the built environment , the idea of recovery and bouncing back , or engineering resilience , underpins many resilience efforts and is in government documents . For example , the Department of Homeland Security defined resilience as , the ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies 15 . However , recovery to the norm and speed of return alone are not sufficient measures of resilience 16 . Generally , viewpoints do not adequately account for multiple pathways that retain essential structures within a system 16 . These other resilience strategies may be better explored under a disaster risk reduction or social approach . Disaster Risk Reduction While engineering and ecological resilience are dominant domains of resilience , resilience has been growing in other fields , notably disaster risk and the social sciences . A reduction approach , like engineering , generally adopts a equilibrium viewpoint of resilience 10 . Resilience in the disaster risk reduction domain attempts to quantify the probability of a hazardous event and understand internal and external vulnerabilities of , and measures 64

resilience in terms of economic , physical , and social recovery from a disturbance back to a single state . The importance of resilience in disaster risk was highlighted by the adoption in 2005 of the Declaration Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters , by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction ( The framework for action provided guidance to various sectors and stakeholders on developing legislative and institutional to reduce disaster risk . The actions comprised the assessment and monitoring of risks , building a culture of safety and resilience , reducing risk factors , and improving disaster preparedness . In 2015 , the strategy was superseded by the Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction ( he Framework action priorities include understanding disaster risk , strengthening disaster risk governance , investing in or resilience , enhancing disaster preparedness and building back better . The fourth priority in the Framework highlights a shift rom recovery to the norm or status quo ( bounce back ) to recovery to an improved state by building better and improving response to risk ( bouncing forward ) Social Sciences Resilience studies in ecological , engineering , and disaster risk reduction domains have yet to account for the underlying socioeconomic inequities the resilience of vulnerable populations to harm and have on the physical resilience 18 . As such , resilience in the social sciences domain emerged to explore the factors that shape how individuals and communities respond to climate change hazards and risks 19 . The emphasis on preserving a steady state frequently shapes how governments , cities , and professionals frame climate change resilience and respond to hazards . It also highlights the need to evaluate if the status quo is meeting the needs of vulnerable populations 20 . Can a community be considered resilient if it bounces back to a state that reinforces structural inequities across race , class , gender , and income levels ?

For example , research has shown that communities are particularly vulnerable to because of limited access to , utility poverty , and low housing quality . In this scenario , recovery to a norm where income communities remain vulnerable does little to prepare them for future events . a study on the relationship between social and ecological resilience , social resilience was defined as , the ability of groups and communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social , political , and environmental change 19 . Specifically , questions of resilience to what , ofwhat , and for whom are explored . By recognizing differential vulnerabilities to climate change impacts due to existing inequities within communities , resilience efforts move away from only focusing on recovery to support the immune system of social systems . Resilience in Practice As discussed above , the debate on resilience definitions has mainly emerged from four academic domains ecology , engineering , disaster risk reduction , and the social sciences . Most efforts currently adopted are driven by one or two resilience academic domains , mainly engineering and disaster risk reduction . However , as states , given the nature of problems that do not adhere to system boundaries or can even arise from interacting systems , disciplinary approaches reach their limits 14 . More specifically , because how we define and understand resilience impacts how we , apply , measure , and evaluate the resilience of systems , efforts from these four academic domains have resulted in divergent resiliency measurements and applications . As such , understanding the multiple theoretical ( academic domains ) of resilience in the development of strategies and guidance tools is critical . Despite this challenge , there are limited efforts to examine how resilience has translated into practice . Do professionals employ a approach to resilience , as in the engineering and disaster risk domains , or do they adopt other approaches , as in the ecology and social sciences domain ?

In their study comparing of urban climate resilience in theory and practices , and found that amongst practitioners local United States governments , resilience was mostly defined through an engineering perspective 23 . They also found that practitioners indicated robustness as an important characteristic of resilience 23 . Similar approaches to resilience were also found in interviews with construction stakeholders and local authorities in the UK 24 . Because of its abstract nature and the challenges in the concept , planning for resilience is a significant challenge for . In the building sector , researchers have suggested the need for resilience metrics and guidance to inform building stakeholders including building owners , managers , residents , architects , engineers , community organizations , and . In his 2008 book , Bosher states that a resilient built environment , should be designed , located , built , operated and maintained in a way that maximizes the ability of built assets , associated support systems ( physical and institutional ) and the people that reside or work 65

within the built assets , to withstand , recover from , and mitigate for , the impacts of extreme natural hazards and human induced threats 25 . Indeed , the use of resilience as a concept for buildings has been rapidly growing . Much work has been directed towards examining the climate resilience of cities and communities , or urban resilience ( see for example ) However , understanding how resilience is within the building sector and how it is translated into practice by building professionals remains unclear and therefore is the focus of this paper . Objective of Paper Approaches to climate change resiliency are varied and grounded in multiple academic domains . For example , in their examination of community resilience definitions , the Community and Regional Resilience Institute listed 46 definitions of resilience 31 . et al . found 25 definitions for urban resilience 32 , while found 12 definitions of resilience 33 . The variability in definitions is a reflection of current literature on resilience that argues its malleable nature as a concept challenges the development of coherent , consistent , and holistic definitions it . However , to date , there have been few efforts to examine how the building sector approaches climate change resiliency . To address this gap , this paper examines eighteen climate change resilience documents providing guidance to the building sector . The primary objective is to better understand the current approaches and limitations to climate change resiliency efforts in the building sector . Accordingly , we compare conceptualization of resilience in the building sector through a content analysis of recent resilience documents for the building sector in the United States . Specifically , the paper addresses the following research questions ( How do existing resilience guidance documents in the building sector address and incorporate different academic domains of resilience ?

Does the building sector employ a or approach to climate change resilience ?

Based on the literature review , we hypothesized thatthe majority of resilience efforts in the shaped by and disaster risk reduction academic domains , thus employing a approach to climate change resilience . MATERIALS METHODS To examine how the building sector resilience we analyzed climate change resilience documents developed for building professionals in the United States . To identify relevant documents , we screened resilience initiatives , programs and that directly addressed the resilience of buildings . These included general guidance documents , resilience standards , and building design and construction strategies that could be utilized by stakeholders within the building sector such as architects , building managers and operators , homeowners , building users , and neighborhoods and community organizations . A total of eighteen resilience documents for buildings were identified . Table provides a brief description of each tool . Table . Description of climate change resilience documents for building professionals . Document Description LEED Resilient Design Film Developed by the Green Building Council ( the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design , or LEED , rating system is one credits or the most popular green building rating in the world In , the it pilot credits on resilient design were adopted . Three pilot credits were incorporated in the LEED rating system and fall into the Process category oi LEED . The three pilot are ( assessment and planning tor resilience ( climate change assessment or emergency ) 12 ) design for enhanced resilience ( design for top three hazards and ( design for passive survivability ( choose two of thermal resilience , power , and access to water ) PEER Performance by Green Business . washington , the PEER standards evaluate the or power Excellence in systems in seven categories reliability and resilience operations , management and energy and environment grid services Renewal innovation and regional priority and education . There are tour levels of certified , silver , gold , and platinum , I standards aim at integrating with the energy and power industry by improving the , reliability , and resiliency of power systems in campuses , critical , transit , and utilities and cities A total of 39 credits were examined . Li Resilience Action List Developed by the ?

Collaborative ( Perkins and Will , Building Council , Research , Living Design , The and Credit Catalog Capital Markets I National and Committee , ALA Minnesota , and the University oi School ! Architecture ) is a resilient rating system providing for buildings , neighborhoods , and The action list is into four main categories including panoramic approach , risk adaptation and mitigation for acute ever adaptation and mitigation for a resilience present and future and applied creativity and contextual factors for resiliency . A total of oz , and ( including , the credit catalog consists of over 190 credits ) Developed and administered by the Institute for sustainable Infrastructure , the rating system is a of sustainability criteria , or credits , tor infrastructure The of is to improve the and resiliency of physical , Credits are divided into tive overarching categories quality of lite leadership resource allocation natural world and climate and risk A total of 50 credits were examined . Developed by ( Norway ) the building resilience assessment tool incorporates an assessment of local climatic hazards and a building vulnerability and resilience to provide a resiliency ( based on a scale ) The assessment tool also provides tor resilience treasures based on in the industry . The resilience cover twelve building including envelope and structure mechanical systems and controls ical and lighting and interim , equipment . and furnishing energy generation and storage , fire plumbing site , conveying equipment , and operations , and community . A total or 130 resilience were examined . 66

Table Cant . Document Description Building Angeles Developed by the Los Angeles chapter , the primer tor ' es offers guidance for and buildings Io become more resilient . it provides a tor developing an resilience building process at the building and campus level . The primer includes multiple regional , national , and international case studies and sample resilience strategies divided into six categories including shelter , water , energy , food , natural and outdoor spaces , and communication A total of at sample strategies were examined ENTERPRISE strategies tor Building Resilience Developed by Enterprise community Partners , New York , NY , USA ) the strategies tor Buildings Resilience provides guidance for existing buildings through several and mitigation strategies . The manual includes guidance on a buildings exposure to hazards , messing risks , and determining resilience strategies . The proposed strategies are grouped into four categories including protection adaptation , backup , and community . A total of 19 resilience strategies were explored . Green Building and Climate Resilience This guidance report titled Green Building and ate Resilience understanding impacts and Preparing tor changing Conditions was developed by the and the university of Michigan The report highlights research on the projected impacts change by region and explores design , construction , and operation strategies that improve a buildings resilience . the strategies include and resilience strategies which are divided into six categories including envelope siting and landscape heating cooling lighting water and waste equipment and process and operations A total of 81 strategies were examined . Community Resilience Planning Guide Developed by the National institute of standards and Technology , the community Resilience Planning Guide tor Buildings and infrastructure systems consists of two volumes . The tirst illustrates a process for planning for resilience , while the second volume provides tools to characterize the social and built community and identity , and highlights examples or community resilience metrics . Unlike other documents , this guide addresses climate change resilience at the community level and identifies strategies for sectors , including buildings , transportation , energy , communication , and water and wastewater . strategies that explore the resilience of buildings were examined . This included references to existing best practices and resistant design and construction and solutions for future and existing construction while the guide incorporates a vulnerability assessment to identify potential climate change impacts , the building strategies included only address wind , and rain hazards . strategies were examined . climate change impacts on New Building sector Developed by the university at tor the New York state Energy Research and Development Authority , this document provides guidance to owners and operators , and planners , and architects and engineers on how to prepare buildings tor the expected impacts or change in New York state . The document 25 strategies that were examined . Enhancing Resilience in Boston Developed by A Better city ( ABC ) this guide for large buildings and institutions examined are resilience or commercial buildings . the report illustrates risks and identifies resilience actions , or strategies , tor buildings inside and of projected in Boston The strategies are group into three main categories including pavement , dry , and permanent barriers . A total of 32 strategies were examined . Table . Cam . Description New York city Preliminary climate Resiliency Design Guidelines Develop by the New York city ( Mayor or Recovery and Resiliency , the goal or the guidelines is to incorporate climate data in the design of and buildings . The guidelines are grouped to address three main hazards including increasing heal , increasing precipitation , and sea level rise . A total of 16 guidelines were examined . FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL Hail and High Wind The insurance institute tor Business and Home ( FORTIFIED programs provide recommendations tor reducing damage caused by natural hazards tor existing and new buildings ( programs are designated buildings or homes ) The program otters levels of FORTIFIED designations , bronze , silver , and gold based on the intended goals . A total guidelines for reducing nail and high wind damage to commercial buildings were examined . FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL Hurricane ( sec for Hail and High above ) A total of guidelines for reducing hurricane damage to commercial buildings were examined FORTIFIED HOME Hail and High Wind ( see FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL for Hail and High Wind above ) A ( Dial of 16 guidelines for reducing hail and high wind damage to homes were examined . HOME High Wind ( see COMMERCIAL for Hail and High above ) A of guidelines for reducing high wind damage to homes were examined . HOME ( see FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL for Hail and High Wind above ) A of 22 guidelines for reducing hurricane damage to homes were examined . Design initiative A resilience rating system with silver , gold , and platinum ratings The rating system , developed by ( London , UK ) is based on tour overarching guidelines and organizational resilience , building resilience , ambient resilience , and loss . A total of 55 resilience criteria were examined . Ten of the resilience documents were developed for specific building , mainly residential ( three single family and two housing ) and commercial ( four ) PEER and ENVISION tools addressed resiliency of infrastructures , campuses , and capital projects , while the remaining tools were not specific to any building typology . For the LEED and tools , resilience strategies that respond to the specific requirements of a building typology were considered a part of the overall resilience process . Generally , all tools recommend that stakeholders examine the needs and vulnerability of their buildings by incorporating typology considerations such as building functions , occupants , operations , and business continuity . Table also illustrates who controls the implementation or operation of the resilience strategies . Data Analysis 67

A content analysis was performed on the eighteen building resilience documents and the strategies proposed . The analysis consisted of coding the text and strategies based on the research objectives including climate change hazards addressed ( resilience to what ?

and the resilience academic domain adopted within each tool ( ecology , engineering , disaster risk reduction , and social sciences ) Examining the Table . Characteristics of climate change resilience tools for buildings . Type Building Control of RESILIENCE TOOLS ' 13 . a a , at a a in LEED Design PEER ( Excellence In Electricity Resilience . List ( i Building Resilience 05 Angeles for ' Building ( Climate Community Planning Climate Change Impacts on NY Building Sector ( Enhancing Resilience In Boston I Design Guidelines FORTIFIED High FORTIFIED ) HOME Hall High wind I ( I lO ) building ) categorized single family ( and homes ( variety of climate change hazards addressed provides a better understanding of the scope of hazards that are prioritized by the building sector . This theme builds on research that argues hazards which have resulted in visible physical and fiscal damage are prioritized in climate change responses SA . The resilience academic domains adopted are examined to gain a better understanding of how resilience is shaped within the building sector . This was conducted by coding all building strategies proposed based on the intended outcome of that strategy . For example , resilience strategies that addressed social cohesion and community empowerment were coded as social sciences resilience and as resilience , while strategies for bracing reinforcements and roof strengthening were coded as engineering resilience and resilience . The tools were thus categorized according to the four academic domains identified in the literature section , engineering , ecology , disaster risk reduction , and social sciences . RESULTS . Resilience to What ?

A total of 724 resilience strategies were identified from eighteen building climate change resilience tools . To examine the climate change hazards addressed , strategies were grouped into 12 hazard categories based on the coding results ( Table ) The documents ranged from being hazard specific ( developed to address one or two types of hazards ) to having an approach in which a vulnerability assessment was part of the resilience building process . Only three documents were developed to address a specific context including BOSTON ( Boston ) New York State ) and ( Los Angeles ) This means that the resilience strategies proposed within those documents were developed to address the climate change hazards specific to a region . Five resilience documents ( LEED , PEER , ENVISION , and ) address climate change hazards as part of a vulnerability assessment , or approach . The documents provide guidelines on the process of conducting a vulnerability assessment to inform the development of appropriate resilience strategies . Resilience strategies in these tools were considered as pathways that building resilience regardless of the projected hazards or expected risks . For example , strategies such as maintaining backup 68

power to critical systems , building community ties , providing areas of refuge , developing emergency management plans , planning for monitoring and maintenance , and system redundancy are not and can be applied to improve the overall resilience of a building . Table . Hazards addressed in climate change resilience documents for buildings . as LEED ' PEER is REL , I I A la I , 1131 91 I ) is i I BOSTON i i i I i FORTIFIED Wind Hail ) i FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL ( Hurricanes ) i FORTIFIED HOME ( High Wind ) i FORTIFIED HOME ( High Wind Hail ) i FORTIFIED HOME ( Hurricanes ) i i Key Document addresses hazard . Document addresses hazard as pan of an approach assessment . Document indirectly addresses hazard . Document does not address hazard . Eight tools ( BOSTON , FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL , FORTIFIED HOME , and ) were identified as hazard specific . Building strategies were developed to improve a building resilience to a defined hazard including seismic activity , rising sea levels , flooding , hurricanes , severe storms , winter storms , and . The remaining documents were general resilience guidance documents that incorporated strategies to address a range of climate change hazards either directly or indirectly . Table above illustrates that flooding , severe storms , and hurricanes encompassed the focus of most climate change resilience tool in the building sector . Other hazards such as air and water quality , drought , wildfires , and pest infestation were not as extensively covered . This pattern is consistent with literature in which current climate change efforts are concentrated on visible hazards or hazards that have resulted in extensive physical and economical damage 34 . Resilience Approach To examine the resilience academic domains adopted within each tool , a total of 721 resilience strategies for the building sector were coded based on the intended outcome of that strategy as explained in the previous section . All documents were also coded based on the overall approach to climate change resilience they described . It is important to note that some resilience strategies may fall under more than one resilience academic domain . For example , elevating a building on piles can be considered as an engineering and disaster risk reduction approach to resilience . Similarly , extreme heat awareness can be categorized as a disaster risk reduction and social sciences approach . Based on the coding results , Figure illustrates the variability of resilience approaches . The figure highlights the representation of the four academic domains of climate change resilience . While some of the documents may have addressed the importance ofa conducting 69

vulnerability assessment to identify the appropriate resilience pathways for buildings , most strategies introduced represented narrow of climate change resilience . Specifically , engineering resilience and disaster risk resilience were represented in all documents . Accordingly , the majority of strategies reinforced and robustness after a disturbance or shock . This finding aligns with current resilience literature that states the predominance of engineering resilience in current climate change policy , programs , and initiatives . Figure . Framing across the eighteen resilience documents . lIl i i ' in mi . gig ' Il ' Il ' i i . iii ( I nu . in . in . iv . an . Ecological resilience was adopted in eleven resilience documents but not as extensively as engineering and disaster risk resilience . Ecological resilience strategies addressed adaptation to change and uncertainty and the need for transformation in current practices mainly through passive design approaches . The social sciences resilience was the least represented resilience approach . Resilience strategies within this approach support social cohesion , community ties , information flow , and the empowerment of individuals and communities . Strategies included extreme heat 70

awareness , fostering collaboration and teamwork , and providing bilingual communication . DISCUSSION While this analysis does not explore how professionals themselves define resilience , the findings provide crucial insights on the applications and definitions of climate change resilience being used by guidance documents for the building sector . Based on the findings above , resilience practice in the building sector is driven by resilience . Consequently , the focus on the ability of buildings to after a disaster to an equilibrium state has reduced resilience building efforts to the development of emergency responses , or disaster risk reduction . In addition , the building sector emphasizes strategies that reduce the time scale of recovery after a disaster or shock . Specifically , resilience strategies on the ground and at the local level represent strategies that reinforce building stability and emergency responses . Current resilience tools reflect a focus on the physical resilience of buildings with minimal attention to underlying inequities facing building users and community residents . This finding aligns with current literature on the predominance of engineering resilience in practice , and the need to explore the factors that shape how individuals and communities respond to climate change hazards and risks 19 . In addition to its narrow implementation , resilience is often employed to address specified hazards , leaving the responsibility to address other hazards to other disciplines . However , increasing the resilience of one component of a system to one specific shock may leave it vulnerable to other types of disturbances . As such , resilience efforts must recognize the importance of addressing the interrelation of all system components and they system response to varying climate change impacts . Generally , the buildings resilience tools draw on no clear empirical evidence to efficiently validate the development of climate change resilience strategies . While some employ case studies , community knowledge through participatory techniques , stakeholder consultation , discussions on the theoretical background of resilience in the built environment were not evident . In response to current limitations , we find that new alliances and fields have emerged that provide more resilience . The Resilience Alliance was established to provide an Resilience Thinking framework for understanding transformation in systems . The Resilience Engineering Association has introduced a subspecialty of engineering , resilience engineering , as a new way of thinking about safety . Additionally , the American Society of Adaptation Professionals was recently established to support and connect climate adaptation professionals working to improve the climate change adaptation and resilience of cities and communities across the country . These new fields reflect an increasing awareness of the challenges professionals faces in and implementing climate change resilience in the built environment . Diversity is a key theme in resilience diversity of impacts , of system components , of measurement , and as explored in this paper , of definitions and applications . As a multifaceted concept , current discourse on climate change resilience in the building sector requires more critical and constructive action . Having insights on the different of resilience and the associated building strategies helps stakeholders select appropriate approaches and make informed decisions . Specifically , stakeholders can identify the limitations and opportunities provided within different of resilience and develop and climate change resilience strategies for their own buildings . CONCLUSIONS The goal of this paper was to examine how resilience is translated into practice within the building sector by examining existing climate change resilience tools for buildings . The findings highlight the need for new approaches that addresses the variability of resilience definitions . While each academic domain brings unique contributions to the practice of resilience in the building sector , it is important to acknowledge that each body of literature alone can not comprehensively address all aspects of resilience . As a complex challenge for the building sector , addressing climate change and resilience will require integrative and efforts . This may be achieved by providing platforms for authentic dialogue and stakeholder engagement to build a deep understanding of impacts , hazards and risks across sectors , and facilitating collaboration and of new resilience guidance , strategies , and standards . Further research on the barriers to collaboration among domains and professionals , and how resilience is approached on individual projects is a critical next step . Finally , this research also shows that adopting climate change resilience strategies is not as simple as selecting an existing resilience guidance document produced by others . At this early stage of climate resilience practice , building professionals must acknowledge the limitations of existing literature , guidance , codes , and standards to avoid maladaptation and undermining of resilience . 71

Literature Cited . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . A Stronger , More Resilient New York New City Economic Development Corporation New York , NY , USA , 2013 . Google Scholar , Resilience A bridging concept or a dead end ?

Plan . Theory . 2012 , 13 , Google Scholar , Translating resilience to enhance communication and implementation . In Proceedings of the Symposium on Resilience Engineering , The Netherlands , June 2013 . Google Scholar , Resilience A Literature Review Rockefeller Foundation New York , NY , USA , 2011 . Google Scholar Brand , Jax , Focusing the meaning ( of resilience Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object . Soc . 2007 , 12 , 23 . Google Scholar , Barker , A review of definitions and measures of system resilience . Eng . Saf . 2016 , 145 , Google Scholar , Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits ?

Soc . 2014 , 19 , Google Scholar , Sustainability . Resilience . Available ( accessed on 20 May 2019 ) Holling , Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems . Rev . 1973 , Google Scholar , Foster , Resilience and regions Building understanding of the metaphor . Camb . Reg . Econ . Soc . 2010 , Google Scholar res 028 Holling , Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience . Eng . Constraints 1996 , 31 , 32 . Google Scholar , Hughes , Carpenter , Resilience to Coastal Disasters . Science 2005 , 309 , Google Scholar doi or , Resilience The emergence of a perspective for systems analyses . Glob . Environ . Chang . 2006 , 16 , Google Scholar . The diversity of resilience Contributions from a social science perspective . Nat . Hazards 2013 , 67 , Google Scholar . Resilience . Available ( accessed on 20 May 2019 ) Walker , Holling , Carpenter , A . Resilience , Adaptability and Transformability in Systems . Soc . 2004 , Google Scholar Vale , The Resilient City How Modern Cities Disaster Oxford University Press New , USA , 2005 . Google Scholar , A . Seven principles for equitable adaptation . Sustain . Dev . Law Policy 2013 , 13 , 41 . Google Scholar , Social and ecological resilience Are they related ?

Prog . Hum . 2000 , 24 , Google Scholar 030913200701540465 Vale , The politics of resilient cities Whose resilience and whose city ?

Build . Res . inform . 2014 , 42 , Google Scholar , Cool governance ofa hot climate issue Public and private responsibilities for the protection of vulnerable citizens against extreme heat . Reg . Environ . Chang . Google Scholar , Parker , Staying cool in a changing climate Reaching vulnerable populations during heat events . Glob . Environ . Chang . 2013 , 23 , Google Scholar . Comparing of Urban Climate Resilience in Theory and Practice . Sustainability 2016 , 701 . Google Scholar , Bosher , Dainty , Sustainability and resilience in the built environment The challenges of establishing a turquoise agenda in the UK . Sustain . Cities Soc . 2015 , 15 , Google Scholar Bosher , Hazards and the Built Environment Attaining Resilience Taylor Francis London , UK New York , NY , USA , 2008 . Google Scholar 9780203938720

26 . 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . 32 . 33 . 34 . Prasad , Shah , Kessler , Climate Resilient Cities A Primer on Reducing Vulnerabilities to Disasters World Bank Group , VA , USA , 2009 . Google Scholar Newman , Boyer , Resilient Cities Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change Island Press Washington , USA , 2009 . Google Scholar Blakely , Resilient Coastal City Regions Planning for Climate Change in the United States Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Cambridge , MA , USA , 2012 . Google Scholar Torres , What It Means to Become More Resilient An Analysis of Local Approaches in Three Florida Communities . Weather . Soc . 2017 , Google Scholar , Designing , planning , and managing resilient cities framework . Cities 2013 , 35 , Google Scholar . Definitions of Community Resilience An Analysis Community and Regional Resilience Institute Washington , USA , 2013 . Google Scholar , Defining urban resilience A review . Urban Plan . 2016 , 147 , Google Scholar , The concept of resilience revisited . Disasters 2006 , 30 , Google Scholar , A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation . Sci . USA , Google Scholar

Comparing of Urban Climate Resilience in Theory and Practice by Sara Melissa This article was originally published in Sustainability , This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International ( BY ) license ABSTRACT Abstract In the face of climate change , scholars and are increasingly concerned with fostering urban resilience . This paper seeks to contribute towards a better understanding of and differences in how academics and local think about resilience in the context of climate change . We compare definitions and characteristics of urban climate resilience in the academic literature with a survey of 131 local government representatives from across the Our analysis shows discrepancies in how academics and practitioners define and characterize urban climate resilience , most notably in their focus on either bouncing back or bouncing forward after a disturbance . Practitioners have diverse understandings of the concept , but tend to favor potentially problematic bouncing back or definitions of resilience . While local government respondents confirm the importance of all 16 resilience characteristics we identified in the academic literature , coding practitioners free response definitions reveals that they rarely mention qualities commonly associated with resilience in the scholarly literature such as diversity , flexibility , and redundancy . These inconsistencies need to be resolved to ensure both the usability of climate resilience research and the effectiveness of resilience policy . Keywords climate change resilience urban resilience resilient city climate resilience adaptation . INTRODUCTION There is a critical relationship between cities and climate change . On the one hand , urban areas are to climate change , being responsible for the majority of global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions . On the other hand , densely populated urban areas are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts including rise , storm surge , heat waves , droughts , and shifting diseases , with vulnerable populations in cities likely to be disproportionately impacted . Moreover , due to the heat island effect , urban areas are already experiencing amplified warming effects , which will probably continue as the climate warms . In short , climate change is likely to exacerbate existing urban problems and vulnerabilities , placing additional pressure on already strained municipal capacities . Confronted with these challenges , cities can not simply sustain the status quo . This realization has led academics and to look for new ways to frame development and operations in a manner that helps cities build the capacities needed to effectively and efficiently prepare for climate change impacts . Increasingly , these conversations are turning to the concept of resilience . This resilience turn in urban policy is evident in both the academic literature ( Figure ) and in major policy initiatives like the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities . Figure . The rise of resilience in climate change research graph shows the number of citations in Web of Science for each year with the terms urban resilience and climate change in the title , keywords , or abstract . Number of publications on urban climate resilience 80 40 I I 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 of Publications 74

The concept of resilience is not new . It has along history of use in engineering , psychology , and ecology 10 . The urban climate change literature draws heavily on ecological resilience theory originally developed by Holling 11 . In his conceptualization , resilience refers to an ecosystem ability to persist in the face of a disturbance or change , but this persistence does not necessarily mean that the system remains static 11 . Holling and colleagues used this dynamic ecological resilience concept as the foundation for broader theories of change for systems 12 . The explosion in popularity of the term has been accompanied by an equally remarkable proliferation of definitions of resilience . Some argue that the concept very popularity is owed at least in part to the fact that the meaning of resilience is infinitely malleable 13 . Yet scholars have expressed concern that as resilience becomes ubiquitous , the term may lose any real meaning or cause confusion 14 . In this regard , resilience may be comparable to other increasingly ambiguous yet fashionable concepts like sustainability 15 . Undoubtedly , one of the strengths of resilience theory is its applicability across disciplines and ability to serve as a boundary object 16 . This malleability can be a barrier to collaboration , however , if every discipline has its own idea of what resilience means 17 . The absence of an accepted definition has not stopped researchers from proposing various and system characteristics that supposedly enhance climate resilience . However , the lack of a unified understanding of resilience has made it difficult to the concept or to develop metrics for resilient systems . Prior studies have reviewed the academic literature on urban resilience , but it is unclear how scholarly definitions and characteristics compare with those of practitioners . In this paper we attempt to address this gap and advance our knowledge of how climate resilience is understood in both theory and practice . We compare definitions and characteristics of urban climate resilience from a recent review of the academic literature and a survey of local government practitioners from across the Our analysis reveals some important inconsistencies in how the scholarly literature defines and characterizes urban climate resilience as opposed to how practitioners view the topic , particularly as it relates to recovering and bouncing back versus transformation and bouncing forward . In addition , practitioner survey responses show a much wider range of interpretations of what resilience means in practice than what is commonly discussed in the scholarly literature . Collectively , the practitioners seem to favor bouncing back or engineering definitions of resilience , which we argue could be problematic . Survey results also suggest that practitioners see all sixteen characteristics of resilient systems that we identified in the literature as important , but we find considerable variation in the extent to which practitioners include these characteristics in their own definitions of urban resilience . Ultimately , understanding these and differences in how academics and practitioners are thinking about climate resilience can lay the foundation for more usable resilience research , which is crucial given the scope of the urban climate change challenge . MATERIALS AND METHODS To examine how practitioners and academics conceptualize resilience , we combined an extensive literature review with the results of a 201 A survey of local government officials . For the literature review , we drew from a broader review of the urban resilience literature 18 , which looked at 172 articles from 1973 to 2013 with the terms urban resilience and resilient cities in the title , abstract , or keywords in order to identify how resilience was across the literature . We reviewed these articles , as well as the studies they frequently cited , to identify a list of potential characteristics of resilient urban systems . We then developed a survey instrument to gauge how urban climate change resilience is defined and characterized by practitioners and how this compares to definitions characteristics in the literature . It should be acknowledged that since urban resilience research and practice is rapidly evolving , new definitions have likely emerged since the research was completed . The survey of local practitioners was conducted as part of a larger project funded by The Foundation to assess the range climate adaptation resources and services available to support local climate adaptation ( for more information see et al . 19 ) The online survey was developed and administered by the researchers in collaboration with three nonprofit organizations Governments for Sustainability USA ( the Urban Sustainability Directors Network ( and the National League of Cities ( The survey instrument , which was built using software , was reviewed by members of the Foundation , the expert advisory committee , and survey experts at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research . The survey was also with students at the University of Michigan and local government staff members from three communities around the . The fina survey was distributed by , and through their membership lists , and ran from 27 March 2011 to May 2014 . We are unable to calculate exactly how many individuals received the survey , since membership in the three organizations administering the survey overlap . However , we estimate that around 1200 distinct individuals working for local governments received the survey . A total of 446 began taking the survey and 291 completed more than of the questions . A total of 13 ! completed the fina two questions on resilience that are pertinent to this analysis . importantly , the survey sample is not representative of the population of cities in the , since communities elect to be members of each of these three organizations . Nevertheless , the survey as a whole did succeed in capturing a wide range of communities respondents represented 41 states and were well distributed in terms of loca jurisdiction size and geographic features . Respondents roles in their communities also varied with the largest group ( 30 percent ) working in the energy or environment field ( energy , environmental services , parks , or sustainability staff ) followed by 21 percent that serve as elected officials , and 12 percent that work in local government administration . 75

The survey included a total of 24 questions , but for the purposes of this study , we were primarily interested in the two questions that focus on of resilience . The first of these was a free response question asking respondents , What do you think it would mean for your local jurisdiction to be resilient to climate change ?

A total of 131 respondents provided a response to this question . The second question asked , In your opinion , how important are each of the following characteristics in making your local jurisdiction more resilient and then asked respondents to rate the importance of 16 different characteristics on a scale ( unimportant , important , important , A total of 199 respondents filled out this question . The characteristics were drawn from and defined based on the literature review and chosen because of their common association with resilience . Respondents were also given the opportunity to fill in and rate a other characteristic . We coded all responses to the question where respondents were asked to define resilience ( question one ) looking for the presence of the 16 characteristics identified in the literature . We also coded the definitions for whether they focused on bouncing back or bouncing forward , explained in Section . All responses were coded independently by two researchers ( agreement was the reliability percentage includes all instances where both researchers agreed that a characteristic was either present or absent in the definition ) after which the discrepancies were discussed and reconciled . RESULTS DEFINITIONS OF A CLIMATE CITY Definitions of urban climate resilience in the scholarly literature differ , but they do have some commonalities . All definitions identified in our analysis ( Table ) are broad , defining resilience in terms ofa generic capacity to deal with climate impacts and disturbances . One key distinguishing factor is the extent to which the definitions incorporate change , as opposed to resistance or recovery . This tension is also evident in the definitions provided by practitioners in the survey . Overall , we find much more variation in the practitioners definitions of resilience than what exists in the scholarly literature . Table . of urban climate resilience from the academic literature ( taken from review conducted by et al . 2016 ) 18 ) Authors The capacity of an individual , community or institution to dynamically and effectively respond to shifting climate circumstances while continuing to function at an acceptable level . This definition includes the ability to resistor withstand impacts , as well as the ability Brown et al . 2012 ) to recover and in order to establish the necessary functionality to prevent catastrophic failure at a minimum and the ability to thrive at best . Resilience is thus a spectrum , ranging from to a state where transformational change is possible . 534 ) A city . has the capacity to withstand climate ( 2012 ) change stresses , to respond effectively to hazards , and to recover quickly from residual negative impacts ( 178 ) The ability of a city or urban system to withstand a wide array of shocks and stresses ( 164 ) the ability of a city to absorb disturbance while maintaining its functions and structures ( 200 ) Lu and Stead ( 2013 ) a general quality of the city social , economic , and natural systems eI JI 23 to be sufficiently ( In the case of urban climate adaptation , an approach based on resilience encourages practitioners to consider innovation and change Tyler and ( 2012 ) JI to aid recovery from stresses and shocks that may or may not be three generalizable elements of urban resilience systems , agents and institutions . 312 ) A disaster resilient city can be understood as a city that has managed . to ( a ) reduce or avoid current and future hazards ( reduce et al . current and future susceptibility to hazards ( establish functioning mechanisms and structures for disaster response and ( establish functioning mechanisms and structures for disaster recovery ( 71 ) A resilience approach makes the system less prone to disturbances , enables quick and responses , and is better capable of dealing et , 2010 ) with surprises than traditional predictive approaches a way of thinking about adaptation that aims to promote a capability of coping with disturbances and surprises ( 988 ) 76

. Bouncing back or Bouncing forward ?

The academic literature makes a major distinction between engineering resilience , which is about resisting change and returning to a disturbance , and ecological resilience , which focuses on maintaining key functions while accepting that it is not always possible or desirable to return to previous conditions . This division is also framed as bouncing back versus bouncing forward 27 . Prominent resilience scholars , such as the leaders of the international Resilience Alliance , advocate for the latter conceptualization . They argue that the concept of resilience , particularly ecological resilience , is better suited for complex systems that are in a constant state of flux , and must therefore adapt to change and uncertainty . Cities are certainly complex and dynamic systems 28 , and indeed , et 18 review found that the majority of urban resilience definitions are more closely aligned with ecological resilience . Despite this recognition , engineering resilience continues to persist in many fields , including disaster management , economics , and public policy 29 . That said , there still seems to be some disagreement within the urban climate resilience literature as to whether resilience is about resisting impacts and change or embracing them . Looking at the definitions identified in the literature ( Table ) 21 seems more aligned with engineering resilience since it emphasizes the capacity to withstand and recover . In contrast , Brown et al . 20 include reorganization and even transformational change as part oftheir definition of resilience , which is more bounce forward or ecological resilience . This divide is also evident in the different definitions of resilience provided by survey respondents , with engineering , equilibrium perspectives . According to our coding , 35 definitions suggested that resilience was about bouncing back , 15 indicated that it could be about improving and bouncing forward , and seven indicated that both could be important . In the remaining definitions it was impossible to determine the respondent position . Five respondents specifically mentioned bouncing back , another emphasized a return to normalcy ) two equated resilience to stability , and several others highlighted minimal disruption or community changes as being key to a resilient urban system . Of the 15 that provided definitions related to bouncing forward or improving , two explicitly mentioned the ability to bounce forward and several others saw resilience notjust in terms of persisting under changing climate conditions , but actually adapting , improving and thriving . These definitions are more closely aligned with resilience as defined in the systems literature . Unpacking Practitioners Definitions of Urban Resilience One of the most striking results of the survey was the variation in the responses practitioners provided when asked what resilience would mean in their local jurisdiction ( Table ) While academics see resilience as omnipresent 30 , several practitioners claimed not to know what it means , others noted that it was not acknowledged in their community , and one even dismissed it as meaningless jargon . In contrast , other respondents called resilience critical and absolutely imperative . Some definitions focused on very specific threats or sectors , like heavy rain hurricanes , or public transportation , whereas in other cases resilience was more generic , such as improvement in quality of life . In fact , livability or quality of life was mentioned in almost 10 percent of responses . For more than 20 percent of respondents , resilience had an economic component , whether in terms of general economic prosperity or specifically in terms of reducing the cost of climate impacts . Other common themes ( found in at least percent of responses ) were health , education and learning , sustainability , advanced planning , and the importance of assisting vulnerable populations . In . RESULTS CHARACTERISTICS OF A CLIMATE RESILIENT CITY In our review of the academic literature we identified 16 characteristics of urban systems and processes that supposedly foster resilience ( Table ) Hypothesized characteristics of resilient processes include , transparency , and equity in stakeholder engagement approaches , as well as processes that are flexible , forward looking , and iterative . Resilience processes are also valued for being knowledge or information driven , meaning that they integrate traditional , as well as scientific knowledge into their and approaches and provide equitable access to information for all parties interested . Research in the climate , urban , and resilience fields has postulated that there may be general characteristics of resilience , as well as forms of adaptive capacity that promote resilient systems 39 , AO , Examples of general resilience characteristics include diversity , mechanisms , transparency , collaboration and integration , integration ( also coined environmental focus ) efficiency , and adaptive capacity enhancement , AA , There is also a series of characteristics that are believed to be important for assessing specific resilience to unique climate impacts . Examples include redundancy in the case of drought , robustness in the case of hurricanes and extreme winds , and decentralization in the case of flooding , 77

Table . Illustrative a of urban climate resilience from local practitioner survey . To be able to bounce seemingly little or no negative heavy rains and . To have our city infrastructure built and ready to take on heavy rains and drastically fluctuating temperatures , with little or no impact . Achieving the goal of climate change resilience will mean the city can reduce the sensitivity of Vulnerable communities to extreme weather events while increasing their capacity to bounce back from such an event . In the long term , this is made possible when city departments will work together to develop a City Climate Resiliency Plan with specific goals and actions . This will have to include the coordination and communication with regional partners . Have the ability to bounce forward from climate change impacts to create a more sustainable Our community could become one that reflects a quality of life that includes the of human and other species . It means a commitment to collaboration , learning new skills and recognition that we are far better To not suffer economic damage every time a severe weather event hits our city . That we are able to lessen the costs of repairs and shrink the time needed to make those repairs . And to help our residents recover more quickly or suffer less impact from storms . It would mean that we are better prepared to respond to the extreme weather events and their consequences that will occur as a result of climate change in all areas of municipal infrastructure and operations , including but not limited to , emergency management , public health , public works , urban forestry , parks and recreation , and facility management . It would also mean we are incorporating reasonably foreseeable weather scenarios into our planning and budgeting processes . It would also mean we are better prepared to help our citizens respond to the impacts of climate change , especially those least able to take action on their own , households , the elderly , the young , those with respiratory and other health Be more attractive to certain kinds of businesses . Hopefully prevent poor decisions on location of development for the future . We do even know what you mean by like meaningless jargon to us . We have real issues to pursue like public safety and economic that matter now to our residents . Even given unlikely worse case scenarios , our need to react is limited , and not cost effective at this time . These eight definitions were chosen from the 134 different responses provided by survey respondents to highlight their variation , and do not represent all . When asked to rate the importance of these 16 characteristics ( Table ) survey respondents collectively indicated that they were all important . The mean score for all 16 was high ( Figure ) with very few respondents indicating that any of the characteristics were or only important ( Figure ) Additionally , only five respondents listed an other characteristic , which could suggest that they were satisfied with the list . There is , however , some variation in the perceived importance of the characteristics . For example , robustness had the highest average rating , over to ( very important ) and the largest number of respondents who rated it ( critical ) In contrast , decentralization had the lowest average ranking , although the mean score is still above important ) A careful review of survey respondents collective rating ofthe 16 characteristics ( Figure and Figure ) combined with those included in responses ( Figure to ) points to key differences in what practitioners and the scholarly literature view as resilience . For example , some of the most commonly cited characteristics in the academic literature , such as diversity , redundancy , flexibility , decentralization , and adaptive capacity , were not among the highest rated by local government respondents . Conversely , practitioners emphasized the importance of robustness , yet there is debate in the literature about the universal desirability of this attribute . There were other characteristics commonly mentioned in the literature that practitioners simply did not focus on , including being predictable or , iterative , having good systems for feedback , and transparency . Where scholars and local government respondents did seem to agree was on the importance of supporting environmental systems , equity , and integration . Tensions between Resilience Characteristics in Theory and Practice In the urban resilience literature , robustness is about a system ability to resist change or disturbance it is essentially about strength 22 . In the survey , the characteristic robustness was defined as ensuring infrastructure and organizations can withstand external shocks and quickly return to the previous operational state . Robustness is very similar to the notion of engineering resilience . If robustness is seen as a desirable characteristic of a system , it implies a wish to maintain the status quo . This is not controversial when thinking about certain scales or engineered systems no one wants a building to collapse in a hurricane . But there are many other more problematic , but nonetheless robust , aspects of modern cities ( inequality or the reliance on fossil fuels ) Many 78

Table . Sixteen Resilience Characteristics from the literature . Characteristic Illustrative ' Sources Ensuring and organizations can withstand external shocks and quickly return It ) the previous operational state Redundancy Having systems , infrastructure , institutions , and agents , Making sure that plans and actions are integrated multiple 65657 departments and external organizations that all residents have access to municipal and , including providing an opportunity or all people to participate in , processes . Ensuring that the and impacts associated with actions are felt equitably throughout the municipality um uv elI and learned are continually 610 and ( solar or wind Building so that is rapidly ted back to Feedback or system operators 5153 Protecting natural systems and municipal processes and operations are open 658 maxi My operations and plans and open to change Thinking Integrating about future conditions ties population , economy , 614 weather ) into community planning and decision making Adaptive Capacity that all residents have the to adapt to climate change Predictable Ensuring that are designed to fail in predictable , sate ways Enhancing the ot and external operations References are meant to be illustrative , and do not represent an exhaustive list of that mention these characteristics . Figure . Mean resilience characteristic importance rating . Mean Resilience Characteristic Importance Ratings or 99 go ?

ab . as 063 ?

79 Figure . Distribution of resilience characteristic importance ratings . Distribution of Resilience Characteristic Importance Ratings 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 20 i i i iii I ! I i I I I 30 i I ( Pose ?

69 ' at as we 96 929 In Unimportant I Slightly Important I Important I Very Important I Critical Figure . Number of practitioner referencing resilience characteristics based on coding . a , I I . I I . go ) 50 00 , 67 ego 460 043 , 66 ?

critics of resilience discourse and policy argue that resilience , particularly when applied to social systems , is inherently conservative and often employed to prevent positive transformations . In response to these criticisms , some resilience scholars have incorporated transformation into their of resilience 65 . In academic theory , the trend seems to be away from static , engineering resilience with its emphasis on robust systems towards these more flexible and adaptive forms of resilience . However , the high importance ascribed to robustness by survey respondents , as well as the numerous references in the definitions to bouncing back suggest that it persists as a dominant line of thinking in urban resilience activities . According to the local practitioners surveyed , the characteristic was second only to robustness in terms of average importance . For the purposes of the survey , was defined as Integrating information about future conditions ( 80

population , economy , weather ) into community planning and In the definitions written by practitioners , almost one in ten specifically mentioned the future , and nearly 15 percent of responses suggested the need for advanced planning . For example , one respondent defined resilience as No surprises for changing landscape . Advanced planning to make us better prepared . Another wrote as change occurs , it has been anticipated and planned for such that no or minimal disruption occurs . While the academic literature also emphasizes preparing for future changes , some resilience scholars caution against too much emphasis on prediction or the use of single scenarios to understand future threats . Instead , focus is placed on techniques such as scenario planning and the selection of actions that will perform well under a wide array of potential future conditions ( known as robust actions in the scholarly literature ) 66 . This assessment did not evaluate the types of tools or techniques that local practitioners are using as part of their advanced planning , but we would argue that it is important to provide practitioners with appropriate tools and the support needed to effectively utilize them . Another area of discrepancy relates to the relative importance of adaptive capacity . In the urban climate resilience literature , building resilience is often equated with enhancing adaptive capacity . However , survey respondents did not rate adaptive capacity among the most important characteristics . Furthermore , the term adaptive capacity was not explicitly used in any respondents definitions however , 21 respondents did allude to it . In the academic literature , flexibility is one of the most commonly cited resilience characteristics . Flexibility means that a system can function under different circumstances and absorb change . In the survey , flexibility was defined as making municipal operations and plans flexible and open to change when needed . Unfortunately , efficient adaptation and robustness against certain threats may come at the expense of the flexibility to deal with unexpected future changes 35 . If practitioners are primarily focused on robustness , as the survey results suggest , urban systems may not be sufficiently flexible to deal with unexpected climate impacts or other stressors . There were two respondents who explicitly called out flexibility One noted that moving towards climate resilience would mean increasing flexibility and another stated that should exhibit nimble behavior . Overall , however , flexibility was not highlighted in the practitioners definition of resilience . This seems logical given that local institutional structures and processes are rigid , making it difficult to create flexible , adaptive systems capable of integrating emerging information and changing as needed . Going forward , devising solutions to build more flexible systems will likely remain an important area of research . Like flexibility , diversity is frequently cited in the literature as a key characteristic of resilience . This relates back to ecological theory , which suggests that biodiversity enhances the ability of an ecosystem to withstand change 51 . Looking specifically at the urban climate change context , Tyler and differentiate between spatial diversity , meaning system components are widely distributed to reduce the likelihood that the whole system is impacted by a single disruption , and functional diversity , where there are multiple avenues for meeting critical needs . Diversity can also be applied to governance systems , with the idea being that polycentric systems that engage a wide array of stakeholders are more resilient . For the purposes of the survey , diversity was defined more broadly as Ensuring a diverse economy , infrastructure , and resource base ( not relying on single mode of operation , solution , or ) Given the emphasis on diversity in the resilience literature , it was surprising that more respondents did not rate it as important , and only one explicitly mentioned diversity in their definition . Related to the concept of spatial diversity , scholars have argued that decentralized systems are more resilient than centralized ones because when something disrupts a central unit , the entire system is jeopardized , whereas in a decentralized system it only impacts a small portion . In the literature , arguments are made for decentralization in both physical systems ( like electricity generation ) and governance . Admittedly , some resilience scholars caution that decentralized governance may not be universally preferable . Survey respondents clearly rated decentralization , defined in terms of services , resources , and governance , solar or wind energy stronger local governance as less critical for resilience than all the other 15 criteria . Similarly , none of their definitions mentioned decentralization . For most resilience scholars , a certain level of functional redundancy is thought to enhance resilience the argument being that when you have units with overlapping functions , if one falters , it can be easily substituted 24 . The definition provided for redundancy in the survey was having backup systems , infrastructure , institutions , and agents . Like diversity , redundancy is a characteristic that can be applied to both technical systems , like electricity infrastructure , and social networks . Only one respondent mentioned redundancy in their definition , and then only in the context of water and power systems . This mismatch between theory and practice with respect to redundancy could stem from the fact that redundancy has a somewhat negative connotation , and supporting it may seem to conflict with cost or even . In fact , scholars have cautioned that efficiency may be at odds with redundancy 70 and that efficiency , as traditionally conceived , does not necessarily promote resilience 71 . Yet efficiency still tends to have a positive connotation in popular discourse , and is sometimes cited in the literature as a characteristic of resilient urban systems 22 . Some urban resilience scholars such as 51 have argued that resilient systems should be as opposed to safe . In the survey , this was represented by the characteristic predictable , defined as ensuring that systems are designed to fail in predictable , safe ways . Looking specifically at urban climate resilience , Tyler and define safe failure as the ability to 81

absorb sudden shocks ( including those that exceed design thresholds ) or the cumulative effects of stress in ways that avoid catastrophic failure . Safe failure also refers to the interdependence of various systems , which support each other failures in one structure or linkage being unlikely to result in cascading impacts across other Practitioners did not seem to consider this characteristic to be important , and predictability or was not mentioned in any of the resilience definitions . In fact , one respondent even commented why would anyone design a system to fail indicating the mismatch between what theoretically is conceived of as being important to resilient systems and what is achievable in practice . According to the literature , efforts to build resilience should be conducted iteratively , providing opportunities for participants to take stock of what has been learned and apply that knowledge to the next step . As defined in the survey , an iterative process is one whereby feedback and lessons learned are continually used to inform future actions . This characteristic emphasizes the importance of learning , which includes not only the mobilization and sharing of knowledge but also such factors as basic literacy and access to education . These kinds of factors have been identified empirically as contributing to community resilience to disasters . Iterative learning is also an important part of the popular adaptive management approach , which is closely tied to resilience theory 59 . While the iterative process characteristic was not rated as important , on average , as other characteristics , the terms understanding education or learning did appear in almost 10 percent of respondents definitions . For example , one respondent wrote that resilience means a commitment to learning new skills another an educated community and still others noted that residents need to be educated on climate change . Implementing tight as defined in the survey building mechanisms so that information is rapidly fed back to makers or system operators support the iterative process , learning , and ultimately , the resilience of urban systems . As previously noted , a number of practitioners referred to education or learning in their of resilience , but none of them mentioned feedback directly . On average , respondents also rated this characteristic relatively low in importance . Transparency and are also both or characteristics . The meaning of transparency as described in the survey is ensuring that all municipal processes and operations are open and transparent . Survey respondents were prompted to think as residents have access to municipal infrastructure and services , including providing an opportunity for all people to participate in processes . While transparency and are not as commonly associated with resilience theory as other characteristics such as diversity and flexibility , both are mentioned in the literature as being important for continued good governance . For example , Tanner . 58 note thata delivery of climate resilient urban development relies on a municipal system that maintains a relationship of accountability to its citizens , and is open in terms of financial management , information on the use of funds and adherence to legal and administrative Researchers also emphasize the importance of inclusive , participatory processes that engage those groups most heavily impacted . This emphasis was not mirrored in practitioners definitions of resilience neither transparency nor were mentioned in any of the survey responses . between Theory and Practice While we do see a number of inconsistencies and unresolved issues with respect to resilience characteristics in the academic literature and amongst the surveyed practitioners , there are some promising areas of agreement . Within the urban climate change literature , the concept of resilience is most often traced back to the field of ecology , and therefore the relationship between humans and the environment are often central to definitions of resilience . The survey results reveal that practitioners also consider being environmental , defined as protecting natural systems and assets as quite important for resilience . It was , on average , the third highest rated characteristic . Moreover , several respondents specifically mentioned ecosystem health , ecosystem integrity , ecosystem services , natural resources , and biodiversity in their definitions of resilience . While resilience theory is often praised for its focus on the between social and ecological systems , a common critique leveled against resilience theory generally , and urban climate resilience more specifically , is that it fails to address issues of equity . These scholars critically ask resilience for whom ?

and argue that because resilience theory traditionally uses a systems approach , it ignores inequalities and within the system boundaries . It is therefore interesting that practitioners rated the importance of equity , defined in terms of ensuring that the benefits and impacts associated with actions are felt equitably throughout the municipality , fairly high . While the word equity was not used in any of the respondents definitions , a number of them did specifically mention assisting vulnerable or less powerful groups within their communities . For example , one respondent wrote that resilience would also mean we are better prepared to help our citizens respond to the impacts of climate change , especially those least able to take action on their own , households , the elderly , the young , those with respiratory other health Another respondent noted , our priority is to build resilience in our institutions , systems , infrastructure , and communities that must protect the poor , elderly , young and ill against hazards and The characteristic integration , as defined in the survey , requires making sure that plans and actions are integrated across multiple departments and external organizations . argues that dealing with the uncertainties and complexities of climate change necessitates an integrative approach one that fosters collaboration across a multitude of public and private stakeholders , agencies , and organizations . Additionally , adaptation planning may be more effective if it is integrated into other local plans , with plans at the state or federal level , or combined with efforts of surrounding municipalities . A number of the survey respondents specifically 82

mentioned integration in their definitions . For example , one noted that resilience suggests an approach to foster sector , cross Another definition did not use the term integration but noted that to be resilient they would need to include climate adaptation in all of our future planning plans , resource allocation , etc . Similarly , another respondent highlighted the importance of regular communications between all sectors and with and among the community . Overall , scholars and practitioners seem to agree on the importance of supporting ecological systems , equity , and integrated planning for urban resilience , so there is some common ground for collaboration or knowledge exchange . However , there are a number of other theorized characteristics that practitioners see as relatively less important , or that have been called into question by other scholars . In particular , practitioners emphasis on robustness , which is associated with an engineering or bounce back conceptualization of resilience , may be problematic . CONCLUSIONS Academic researchers and are increasingly focused on the concept of urban resilience . Arguably , resilience now rivals sustainability as a major organizing principle or for urban research and policy 76 . Resilience is especially predominant in the climate change discourse , since it is fundamentally about coping with disturbances and change . The challenge is that resilience , like sustainability , is a fuzzy concept that is not easily defined or measured 77 . Indeed , it is clear from our comparative analysis of the literature on urban climate resilience and the results of a survey of local government respondents that academics and practitioners define and characterize urban climate resilience quite differently ( Table is ) This points to a disconnect between academic theory and practice . Although local government generally confirmed the importance of the 16 resilience characteristics commonly discussed in the academic literature ( and did not suggest many others ) when prompted to define resilience , they did not incorporate most of these characteristics into their definitions . Furthermore , the characteristics that were rated most important on average did not necessarily match those that are cited most frequently in the practitioners definitions of resilience or those frequently discussed in the academic literature . For example , diversity , flexibility , and redundancy are considered fundamental to resilience in the scholarly literature , yet they are rarely mentioned in practitioners definitions . Conversely , robustness , which is more controversial in the resilience literature , was rated as the most important characteristic in the survey . It is also interesting that many practitioners still use a more engineering , or bounce back conceptualization of resilience , while the scholarly literature seems to be moving towards a bouncing forward conceptualization . This is consistent with the findings of other studies 29 , and bolsters criticisms that resilience policy and discourse is overly focused on maintaining the status quo and therefore inherently conservative . This is particularly disheartening for those who do not think our cities are currently sustainable and would like to see transformative urban change . Table . Some key differences in how academics and practitioners conceptualize urban resilience . Academic Literature Local Government Practitioners Resilience as bouncing . bouncing back Majority back Huge variation in meaning , perceived importance , scope , and Some differences , but share a broad ' te ' um on coping with climate and Diversity , redundancy , capacity , integration , equity , iterative process , decentralization , feedback , environmental , predictable cited characteristics Robustness , integration , equity Decentralization . Robustness , efficiency redundancy , feedback , iterative process , Less frequently cited or Contested characteristics These findings highlight several avenues for future research . First , it would be interesting to survey urban climate resilience scholars and ask them to rate the importance of the sixteen characteristics , to allow for more direct comparison between results presented in this paper and the thinking of leading resilience scholars . It would also be useful to conduct a more representative sample of local practitioners in the and to survey practitioners in other countries to see how their definitions and characteristic ratings compare . This latter point seems logical since many of the academics whose work we reviewed are not from the . Given the recent explosion in resilience research and policy , it would also be useful to rerun the survey and update the literature review to see whether understandings of resilience have changed in the last couple years . Moving beyond this study , there is a clear need to explore why scholars and practitioners have different of resilience and to empirically examine and test resilience characteristics in different urban to see what types of plans and policies are being implemented at the local level to build more resilient communities , how these activities relate to what is known about fostering resilience , and whether they lead to improved outcomes . 83

Literature Cited . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . Hunt , A , Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities A review of the literature . Chang . 2010 , 104 , Google Scholar do Klein , The Resilience of Coastal to Hazards . In Building Safer Cities The Future Risk , Arnold , Carlin , World Bank Disaster Management Facility Washington , USA , 2003 . Google Scholar Stone , The City and the Coming Climate Climate Change in the Places We Live Cambridge University Press New York , NY , USA , 2012 . Google Scholar Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group . Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation Field , Stocker , Cambridge University Press Cambridge , UK , 2012 . Google Scholar , Brown , Conway , Adaptation to climate change in the developing world . Prog . Dev . Stud . 2003 , Google Scholar 1464993403 Tyler , for urban climate resilience . Dev . 2012 , Google Scholar , The Risk City Springer , The Netherlands , 2015 . Google Scholar , Brink , Rivera , Planning for climate change in urban areas From theory to practice . Clean . Prod . 2013 , 50 , Google Scholar , Climate change and urban resilience . Curr . Upin . Environ . Sustain . 2011 , Google Scholar dos Santos , SPARK Strategic Planning Approach for Resilience Keeping . Plan . Stud . Google Scholar Holling , Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems . Rev . 1973 , Google Scholar , Holling , Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , Holling , Island Press Washington , USA , 2002 . Google Scholar Turner , Political ecology I An alliance with resilience ?

Prog . Hum . 2014 , 38 , Google Scholar Cote , Nightingale , Resilience thinking meets social theory social change in systems ( SES ) research . Prog . Hum . 2011 , 36 , Google Scholar 0309132511425708 , Urban technical networks resilience assessment . In Resilience and Urban Risk Management , Ed . Press London , UK , 2013 . Google Scholar Star , Institutional Ecology , Translations and Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley Museum Zoology , Soc . Stud . Sci . Google Scholar Brand , lax , Focusing the Meaning ( of Resilience Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object . Soc . Google Scholar , Defining urban resilience A review . Urban Plan . Google Scholar , Environmental Science Policy Supporting local climate change adaptation Where we are and where we need to go . Environ . Sci . Policy 2016 . Google Scholar Brown , Dayal , Del Rio , From practice to theory Emerging lessons from Asia for building urban climate change resilience . Environ . Urban . Google Scholar 0956247812456490 , Toward the City Extreme Weather and Urban Climate Adaptation Policies in Two Canadian Provinces . Comp . Policy Anal . Res . Google Scholar Lu , Stead , Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning A case study of , The Netherlands . Cities 2013 , 35 , Google Scholar Thornbush , Sustainable cities targeted by combined efforts for . Sustain . Cities Soc . 2013 , Google Scholar

24 . 25 . 26 . 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . 32 . 33 . 34 . 35 . 36 . 37 . 38 . 39 . 40 . 41 . 42 . 43 . 44 . 45 . 46 . van der , a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes . Forecast . Soc . Chang . 2010 , 77 , Google Scholar Holling , Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience . In Engineering Ecological Constraints , Ed . The National Academies Press Washington , USA , 1996 . Google Scholar , Resilience and Complexity A Review and Prospects for Industrial Ecology . ind . 2015 , 19 , Google Scholar Shaw , Managing for local resilience Towards a strategic approach . Public . Google Scholar 0952076711432578 Batty , The Size , Scale , and Shape of Cities . Science 2008 , 319 , Google Scholar , Shaw , Quinlan , Peterson , Wilkinson , Porter , Resilience A Bridging Concept or a Dead End ?

Resilience Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience What Does It Mean in . Plan . Theory . Google Scholar Brown , Global environmental change I A social turn for resilience ?

Prog . Hum . Google Scholar 0309132513498837 , Cooper , Building Capacity for Disaster Resiliency in Six Disadvantaged Communities . Sustainability 2011 , 20 . Google Scholar , Climate Change Governance . Chang . Gov . 2013 , 26 . Google Scholar Benson , Stone , Practitioner Perceptions of Adaptive Management Implementation in the United States . Soc . 2013 , 18 , Google Scholar Walker , Carpenter , Abel , Cumming , Peterson , Pritchard , Resilience Management in Systems Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach . 2002 , 14 . Google Scholar Nelson , Brown , Adaptation to Environmental Change Contributions ofa Resilience Framework . Rev . Environ . Google Scholar ) Cram , Lai , Improving the practice of evaluation through indigenous values and methods the gaze from I and . In Fundamental Issues in Evaluation Smith , Brandon , New York , NY , USA , 2007 . Google Scholar Dilling , Creating usable science Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy . Glob . Environ . Chang . Google Scholar Vogel , Linking vulnerability , adaptation , and resilience science to practice Pathways , players , and partnerships . Glob . Environ . Chang . 2007 , 17 , Google Scholar , Adaptation to Climate Change A the international Climate Change Taskforce Institute for Public Policy Research London , UK , 2005 . Google Scholar , Nelson , Johns , Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Less Developed Countries . In Climate Serving Society Research , Modeling and Prediction Priorities , Springer , The Netherlands , 2013 . Google Scholar , Vincent , Uncertainty in adaptive capacity . 2005 , 337 , Google Scholar Walker , Perspectives on Resilience to Disasters across Sectors and Cultures . Soc . 2011 , 16 , Google Scholar Pearson , Pearce , Deprived yet healthy resilience in New Zealand . Soc . Sci . Med . Google Scholar , Carpenter , Walker , Chapin , Resilience Thinking Integrating Resilience , Adaptability and transformability . Soc . Google Scholar , Walker , Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy Robustness , Resilience , and Sustainability . Soc . 2013 , 18 , Google Scholar , Brown , Nelson , et al . Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change . Chang . 2011 , Google Scholar

47 . 48 . 49 . 50 . 51 . 52 . 53 . 54 . 55 . 56 . 57 . 58 . 59 . 60 . 61 . 62 . 63 . 64 . 65 . 66 . 67 . 68 . 69 . 70 . Fu , Tang , Planning for communities An evaluation of local comprehensive plans in the fastest growing counties in the US . Cities 2013 , 32 , Google Scholar , Chang , Cole , Fostering resilience to extreme events within infrastructure systems Characterizing decision for mitigation and adaptation . Glob . Environ . Chang . 2008 , 18 , Google Scholar , Urban Hazard Mitigation Creating Resilient Cities . Nat . Hazards Rev . 2003 , Google Scholar 6988 2003 136 Rose , A . Economic resilience to natural and disasters origins and contextual dimensions . Environ . Hazards 2007 , Google Scholar , I . From to Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world . Urban Plan . 2011 , 100 , Google Scholar , Designing , planning , and managing resilient cities A conceptual framework . Cities 2013 , 35 , Google Scholar Wilkinson , resilience Insights and issues for planning theory . Plan . Theory , Google Scholar 1473095211426274 , Urban Resilience and the Recovery of New Orleans . I . Am . Plan . 2006 , 72 , Google Scholar 01944360608976734 , on urban resilience to basis for alternative planning practices . Soc . 2012 , 17 . Google Scholar , Towards Urban Resilience in Planning Practice From Securitization to Integrated Place Making . Plan . Res . 2013 , 28 , Google Scholar , A . Chapter Resilience Thinking for Planning . In Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning , Library Springer , The Netherlands , 2013 Volume 106 , Google Scholar Tanner , Mitchell , Polack , Urban Adaptation Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities IDS Working Paper IDS Brighton , UK , 2009 . Google Scholar , Ibrahim , Tanner , The Resilience Renaissance ?

Unpacking of Resilience for Tackling Climate Change and Disasters Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Papers Strengthening Climate Resilience Brighton , UK , 2010 . Google Scholar , From the City to Urban Resilience . A review essay on understanding and integrating the resilience perspective for urban systems . Doc . Anal . 2012 , 58 , Google Scholar , Stead , Lu , Dias , Costa , Dis , et al . Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning . Think . Urban Plan . 2013 , 106 , Google Scholar , From resilience to resourcefulness of resilience policy and activism . Prog . Hum . 2013 , 37 , Google Scholar 0309132512454775 Brown , Policy Discourses of Resilience . In Climate Change and the Crisis of Capitalism A Chance to Reclaim , Self , Society and Nature , UK , 2012 Volume , Google Scholar , Urban resilience for whom , what , when , where , and why ?

Urban . 2016 . Google Scholar , Sustainability transformations A resilience perspective . Soc . 2014 , 19 , Google Scholar Quay , Anticipatory Governance . I . Am . Plan . 2010 , 76 , Google Scholar , Tanner , Policy climates and climate policies Analysing the politics of building urban climate change resilience . Urban . 2014 , Google Scholar , Campbell , Hughes , Wilson , Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Systems . Soc . 2006 , 11 , Google Scholar Walker , Salt , Resilience Thinking Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World Island Press Washington , USA , 2006 . Google Scholar Zhu , Ruth , resilience of industrial ecosystems . Environ . Google Scholar

71 . 72 . 73 . 74 . 75 . 76 . 77 . 78 . 79 . Friend , What is the purpose of urban climate resilience ?

Implications for addressing poverty and vulnerability . Urban . 2013 , Google Scholar , Green , Pursuing Equity and Justice in a Changing Climate Assessing Equity in Local Climate and Sustainability Plans in Cities . Plan . Res . Google Scholar Vale , The politics of resilient cities Whose resilience and whose city ?

Build . Res . In ) 2014 , 42 , Google Scholar , Planning the resilient city Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk . Cities 2013 , 31 , Google Scholar Muller , Adapting to climate change Water management for urban resilience . Environ . Urban . 2007 , 19 , Google Scholar 0956247807076726 , New in town ?

On resilience and Resilient Cities . Cities 2013 , 32 , Google Scholar , Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation The Importance of Framing . Plan . Res . 2013 , 28 , Google Scholar Joseph , Resilience as embedded A approach . Int . Policy . 2013 , Google Scholar 216932932011765741 , Resilience for Whom ?

Emerging Critical of Resilience . Compass 2014 , Google Scholar