TY - JOUR
T1 - Measuring and assessing resilience
T2 - broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives
AU - Quinlan, Allyson E.
AU - Berbés-Blázquez, Marta
AU - Haider, L. Jamila
AU - Peterson, Garry D.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank our colleagues in the resilience assessment working group for helpful discussions. Garry Peterson is supported by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS. Jamila Haider is supported by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS and the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no. 283950 SES-LINK. Data have not been archived because this article does not contain data.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Increased interest in managing resilience has led to efforts to develop standardized tools for assessments and quantitative measures. Resilience, however, as a property of complex adaptive systems, does not lend itself easily to measurement. Whereas assessment approaches tend to focus on deepening understanding of system dynamics, resilience measurement aims to capture and quantify resilience in a rigorous and repeatable way. We discuss the strengths, limitations and trade-offs involved in both assessing and measuring resilience, as well as the relationship between the two. We use a range of disciplinary perspectives to draw lessons on distilling complex concepts into useful metrics. Measuring and monitoring a narrow set of indicators or reducing resilience to a single unit of measurement may block the deeper understanding of system dynamics needed to apply resilience thinking and inform management actions. Synthesis and applications. Resilience assessment and measurement can be complementary. In both cases it is important that: (i) the approach aligns with how resilience is being defined, (ii) the application suits the specific context and (iii) understanding of system dynamics is increased. Ongoing efforts to measure resilience would benefit from the integration of key principles that have been identified for building resilience.
AB - Increased interest in managing resilience has led to efforts to develop standardized tools for assessments and quantitative measures. Resilience, however, as a property of complex adaptive systems, does not lend itself easily to measurement. Whereas assessment approaches tend to focus on deepening understanding of system dynamics, resilience measurement aims to capture and quantify resilience in a rigorous and repeatable way. We discuss the strengths, limitations and trade-offs involved in both assessing and measuring resilience, as well as the relationship between the two. We use a range of disciplinary perspectives to draw lessons on distilling complex concepts into useful metrics. Measuring and monitoring a narrow set of indicators or reducing resilience to a single unit of measurement may block the deeper understanding of system dynamics needed to apply resilience thinking and inform management actions. Synthesis and applications. Resilience assessment and measurement can be complementary. In both cases it is important that: (i) the approach aligns with how resilience is being defined, (ii) the application suits the specific context and (iii) understanding of system dynamics is increased. Ongoing efforts to measure resilience would benefit from the integration of key principles that have been identified for building resilience.
KW - indicators
KW - metrics
KW - multidisciplinary
KW - resilience assessment
KW - resilience measurement
KW - social-ecological systems
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949034356&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949034356&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1365-2664.12550
DO - 10.1111/1365-2664.12550
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84949034356
SN - 0021-8901
VL - 53
SP - 677
EP - 687
JO - Journal of Applied Ecology
JF - Journal of Applied Ecology
IS - 3
ER -