In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly. Such perturbations and disturbances can include stochastic events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation, fracking of the ground for oil extraction, pesticide sprayed in soil, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Disturbances of sufficient magnitude or duration can profoundly affect an ecosystem and may force an ecosystem to reach a threshold beyond which a different regime of processes and structures predominates. Human activities that adversely affect ecosystem resilience such as reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, land use, and anthropogenic climate change are increasingly causing regime shifts in ecosystems, often to less desirable and degraded conditions. ...
Definitions
The concept of resilience in ecological systems was first introduced by the Canadian ecologist C.S. Holling in order to describe the persistence of natural systems in the face of changes in ecosystem variables due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Resilience has been defined in two ways in ecological literature:
The second definition has been termed ‘ecological resilience’, and it presumes the existence of multiple stable states or regimes.
...
Theory
Ecologists Brian Walker, C S Holling and others describe four critical aspects of resilience: latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy.
The first three can apply both to a whole system or the sub-systems that make it up.
Closely linked to resilience is adaptive capacity, which is the property of an ecosystem that describes change in stability landscapes and resilience. Adaptive capacity in socio-ecological systems refers to the ability of humans to deal with change in their environment by observation, learning and altering their interactions.
...
The term resilience was first and most prominently defined in the field of ecology, particularly in the context of ecosystems and their sustainability. It was initially defined as the ability of a system to return to its equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance, commonly equated to the concept of stability[1]. This definition then expanded over time to account for flexibility, and the ability of a system to absorb change and find a new equilibrium, not just resist, where “resilience is essentially the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and re-organize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks”[2] (Walker Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004).
Taking this a step further, the definition of resilience evolved into being more multi-dimensional by expanding it beyond just the capacity to absorb to the capacity to adapt, learn, and self-organize, where “in this view, resilience goes further than being persistent or robust to disturbance, but also includes opportunities that disturbance opens up in terms of recombination of evolved structures and processes, renewal of the system and emergence of new trajectories”[3] (Doorn, Gordoni, Murphy, 2018). This is often referred to as socio-ecological resilience, bringing in the human and community aspect closely linked to the ecosystems in which they exist. Particularly in the context of disaster management, the ability to adapt and continue to function for communities is vital and forms the cornerstone of social resilience.
The link between social and ecological resilience not only provides a bridge where science and policy intersect but also a platform to understand how societies and ecological systems are deeply dependent on one another, particularly in instances where communities depend on environmental resources for their economic livelihoods. This connection also begs the question of social vulnerability, especially in the context of environmental change, and how susceptible and exposed a community is to a ‘stress’ caused by a physical environmental occurrence, where stress is defined by an adverse effect on the livelihoods and security of a community and individuals, bringing with it a forced need to adapt and persevere[4].
Bringing these concepts together, social and community resilience can be more closely defined as:
“A community’s capacity to ‘bounce forward’ following an adverse event such as a disaster or crisis. The bouncing portion of this resilience metaphor represents a return to a pre-crisis baseline level on one or more measures (e.g. well-being, functioning) following a temporary disruption in those variables caused by the adverse event. The forward component of the resilience metaphor represents the passing of time that occurs and is necessary for the return to baseline. The forward element also captures the reality that the return to baseline is not simply a return to how things were before the event, as it includes adjustments to a new reality that has been shaped by the event”[5] (J. Houston, 2018).
It is imperative to note here that community resilience is a collective concept and not simply an amalgamation of resilient individuals. Therefore, social institutions that make up the fabric of societies and communities have to be broken down to better understand what makes a community resilient. Social institutions can be broadly separated into formal and informal institutions. Those of a formal nature include governance structures, law, and civil institutions and informal structures consist of overarching socialized behavior in a community along with social capital which includes trust, norms, networks and relationships. The strength of social institutions, both formal and informal, are often put to the test in the face of natural disasters.
After a major environmental disaster hits, the response is not only top-down, where formal institutions and emergency aid relief efforts come into play, but also bottom-up where the vigor of social capital and behavior is on display as seen by neighbors helping one another, strangers opening doors to those in need, and coming together in the face of a crisis (J. Houston, 2018). While the former is highly documented and captured, the latter is taken as secondary and not understood in the full extent of how important it is in mitigation and the overall resilience of a community.
...
From National Council for Science and the Environment
In panarchy ... it refers to the ability of a biological system, an ecosystem, or a social system to withstand disburbance and still continue to function. A measure of resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be experienced without the system flipping into another state.
...
Panarchy recognizes that once a certain threshold is passed, it is not possible to bounce back. In an ecosystem, recovery may be impossible at worst, an expensive and distant hope at best. The preferred and disturbed states are known as alternative stable states. As far as nature is concerned, both are stable and able to carry on.
...
Resilience is another dimension of the adaptive cycle. ... Resilience shrinks as the cycle moves toward K, where the system becomes more brittle. It expands as the cycle shifts rapidly into a "back loop" to reorganize accumulated resources for a new initiation of the cycle. ...
Gunderson & Holling (2013), From Panarchy Synopsis
From Robert A Francis (Image slightly altered)
Please Note: This site meshes with the long pre-existing Principia Cybernetica website (PCw). Parts of this site links to parts of PCw. Because PCw was created long ago and by other people, we used web annotations to add links from parts of PCw to this site and to add notes to PCw pages. To be able to see those links and notes, create a free Hypothes.is↗ account, log in and search for "user:CEStoicism".
