Resilience and Systems: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Khalilullah Mayar
,
David G. Carmichael
,
Xuesong Shen

Resilience is a growing area of interest and study, but it has a variety of origins and apparent inconsistencies across disciplines. 

  • resilience
  • resilience definitions
  • engineering resilience

1. Resilience—Roots and Evolution

The word resilience originates from the Latin word ‘resiliere’, which translates as ‘bounce back’. The first usage of the term was possibly made by the physicist Thomas Young in 1807 to describe elastic deformation in the context of material sciences [1][2]. As a natural environment concept within the sustainability science research [3], the term is said to have first appeared in the work of Holling [4], where resilience is interpreted as ‘the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of those systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist’ (p. 17, [4]), [3]. Subsequent multidisciplinary development and evolution of the concept of resilience, however, remains fragmented [5][6]. Anderies et al. [7] argue that the reason the term resilience can be ambiguous is because of its broad usage in serving different discipline-specific goals and, as such, makes resilience more of a way of thinking rather than a fixed concept. Accordingly, discussion of resilience can create confusion [8] and there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes resilience.
Carpenter et al. [9] argue that for every resilience scenario, a guiding question must be the qualification ‘of what, to what’. Systems thinking can help in this regard. The first question, ‘of what’, has relevance to system definition, system boundaries, system external environment, and the interaction between the system and the external environment. Here ‘environment’ is distinguished from its usage with reference to the natural or green environment. The second question, ‘to what’, has relevance to system inputs, outputs, and behavior but is expressed as change. All the definitions provided for resilience in the literature include some aspect of dealing with change, whether it is resistance to change, adaption to change, or recovering from change [10].
At a global level, thinking is directed towards an ever-changing world due to a growing set of major changes such as global economic competition, demographic shifts, rapid urbanization, the rise of technology, increased level of interconnectedness and complexity, climate, resource scarcity, and global pandemics [11][12][13][14][15]. Change is a major driver behind the growth in resilience interest and the evolution in resilience thinking while managing change presents its own challenges in all disciplines. Figure 1 shows a growing trend in publications on resilience; a total of more than 42,000 publications have surfaced between November 1973 and June 2022 covering 27 different disciplines, with social sciences, medicine, engineering, environmental sciences, and psychology at the top of the list, while veterinary and dentistry are at the bottom of the list. Multidisciplinary research only comprises about 1% of the total number of publications (Figure 2). The start date chosen is 1973, the year of the Holling seminal paper. The resilience literature, published between November 1973 and June 2022, is scattered among 159 different journals/sources (Table 1), with some authors quite prolific (Table 2). Some publications attract citations more than others (Table 3), but it is generally acknowledged that number of publications and number of citations are not correlated with the originality in the publications or the advancement of knowledge presented in the publications—quantity is not a good measure of quality.
Sustainability 14 08327 g001
Figure 1. Number of publications with resilience in their titles—November 1973 to June 2022.
Sustainability 14 08327 g002
Figure 2. Number of publications with resilience in their title, by discipline—November 1973 to June 2022.
Table 1. Resilience journals/sources listing (highest to lowest) as per publications count—November 1973 to June 2022.
Journal/Source Publications Count
Sustainability Switzerland 539
Ecology and Society 297
PLoS ONE 289
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 288
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 278
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 277
Frontiers in Psychology 208
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 181
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 147
Natural Hazards 138
The rest of the 149 journals (including undefined journals) publishing fewer than a total of 135 publications per source 6959
Table 2. Resilience authors listing (highest to lowest) as per publications count—November 1973 to June 2022.
Author Main Area(s) of Expertise Publications Count
Ungar, M. Social Works 116
Pietrzak, R.H. Clinical Psychology 90
Linkov, I. Risk and Decision Science 85
Cimellaro, G.P. Earthquake Engineering 78
Southwick, S.M. Psychiatry 69
Masten, A.S. Competence, Risk and Resilience 59
Shaw, R. Disaster risk and Climate Change 58
Allen, C.R. Ecological and Social-ecological Resilience 53
Bonanno, G.A. Psychology and Resilience 51
Theron, L. Educational Psychology 50
Folke, C. Social–ecological systems, Sustainability and Global Change 46
Others Various disciplines <46
Table 3. Listing of publications with resilience in their titles by citation count—November 1973 to June 2022.
Author(s) Publication Title Citations Count
Holling [4] Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems 19,670
Luthar et al. [18] The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work 4284
Connor and Davidson [19] Development of a New Resilience Scale: The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) 4043
Folke [20] Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social–Ecological Systems Analyses 3952
Masten [21] Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development 3817
Walker et al. [8] Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–Ecological Systems 3652
Bonanno [22] Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive after Extremely Aversive Events? 3483
Rutter [23] Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms 2806
Lozupone et al. [24] Diversity, Stability and Resilience of the Human Gut Microbiota 2724
Hughes et al. [25] Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs 2648
Bruneau et al. [26] A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities 2401
Norris et al. [27] Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness 2378
Others   <2370
Within existing publications, change or change implication might be described under different names, including disruption, disturbance, perturbation, stressor, accident, and disaster. Based on their root causes, disasters are commonly grouped under natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, …), human/man-made disasters (technological or human error-related, deliberate terrorist or cyber-attacks, …) and complex disasters (famine, …) [28]. Disasters, of course, can lead to damaged physical infrastructure and a damaged natural environment and they can endanger people’s safety [29][30]. Figure 3 shows a generally increasing trend in the number of disasters from 1900 onwards, and particularly 1950 onwards, with many climate change-related. Falling under the broad category of natural disasters, global pandemics—particularly the current COVID-19 pandemic—have caused major disruptions to various systems, from mental health [31][32][33] and healthcare to supply chain [34], global trade [35], and economic systems [36], with cascading impacts across the scales.
Sustainability 14 08327 g003
Figure 3. World disasters count for natural and technological categories from 1900. The complex disasters category would not be visible on the scale of Figure 3 because the numbers are very small.

2. Resilience Variants and Extensions

This section looks at a range of variants and extensions of resilience and related ideas, including management, adaptability, and transformability.

2.1. Socio-Ecological and Engineering Resilience

The work of Holling [4][37] with respect to ecological resilience and engineering resilience has attracted much attention. The extension, socio-ecological resilience, and engineering resilience are seen as overarching.
Socio-ecological and engineering resilience use ideas also found in the systems optimization literature, and in particular in the calculus of extrema and nonlinear programming related to local and global optima and starting points for searches, while engineering resilience also borrows from the systems stability literature. Engineering resilience:
… concentrates on stability near an equilibrium steady state, where resistance to disturbance and speed of return to the equilibrium are used to measure [resilience] …
[37] (p. 33)
Socio-ecological resilience:
… emphasizes conditions far from any equilibrium steady state, where instabilities can flip a system into another regime of behavior—that is, to another stability domain. In this case, the measurement of resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure …
[37] (p. 33)
… 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 feedbacks …
[8] (p. 1)
Engineering resilience is seen to be more narrowly defined. The different units of measurement for resilience expressed in these definitions are not satisfying. Terminology, generally, is something that is holding back the development of a unified resilience framework.
Resilience as described here can be visualized, as with global and local minima in systems optimization, in terms of a landscape with a single valley (engineering resilience) or multiple valleys (socio-ecological resilience), and movement between states, equivalently locations on the topography. The multiple valleys are domains of attraction [38]. Some publications describe a ball moving over the topography, where the ball location corresponds to the system state [8]. Social resilience is seen as a natural extension of ecological resilience, where social systems involving humans exhibit equivalently shaped topographies with multiple domains of attraction [39][40][41][42]. Terms introduced such as latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy [8], in attempting to understand resilience, would generally not be able to be determined or would be very difficult to determine for actual systems.
The terms ‘specified resilience’ and ‘general resilience’ can be found in the literature. The former is close to the concept of resistance and focuses on maintaining a certain level of system behavior for a known and likely set of perturbations, while the latter refers to wider system-level features such as the capacity for learning and adaptation; and coping with perturbations in all forms [43][44][45]. For a range of perturbations described as narrow and predictable for engineering resilience, and broad and unpredictable for socio-ecological resilience [4][37], specified resilience and general resilience might be considered alternative terms for engineering resilience and socio-ecological resilience, respectively.

2.2. Introduced Terminology

Resilience is a fruitful source of new terminology, introduced as part of verbal modeling and in an attempt to explain all the variants possible. For example: socio-ecological resilience [8][46]—resistance, latitude, panarchy, precariousness, adaptability, and transformability; resilience of engineered and infrastructure systems [47][48]—absorptive capacity, restorative capacity, and adaptive capacity; seismic resilience of communities [26]—robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity; engineering resilience [37]—resistance, rate of return to equilibrium, and single domain of attraction; general resilience [49]—response diversity, modular, thinking, planning and managing across scales, exposure to disturbances, quick response, guiding not steering, and transformable; ecological resilience (quantitative) [50]—alternative regimes, scale, thresholds, and adaptive capacity; general resilience [51]—diversity, modularity, openness, nestedness, trust, monitoring, feedbacks, reserves, and leadership; ecological resilience [52]—diversity, modularity, openness, cross-scale interactions, slow variables, reserves, polycentric governance, social capital, adaptability, tight feedbacks, and innovations; ecological resilience [53]—diversity and redundancy, connectivity, slow variables and feedbacks, complex adaptive systems, learning and experimentation, polycentric governance, and inclusive participation; and ecological resilience [4][37]—system identity, functional diversity, multiple domains of attraction and nonlinearity, spatial and temporal heterogeneity, cross-scale interactions, critical thresholds, qualitative behavior, redundant regulations, broad and unpredictable perturbations, adaptive feedbacks, and transformation (extinction).
Of interest among the above terms from a systems viewpoint are the notions of adaptation, learning, and feedback, though there is not a consensus in the resilience literature on tight definitions for these terms.
Although different terminology is used to describe perturbations throughout the resilience literature, perturbations are related to where the system boundary is drawn. Perturbations are external/exogenous to the system and reflect the system–environment interaction. Perturbations are also referred to as accidents and stressors [27] and when a serious disruption/disturbance occurs to a system, it is called a disaster [54]. Perturbations are sometimes inappropriately referred to as changes. Change may come about through system parameter changes or through system structure changes [43][55][56][57].

2.3. Resilience-Inherent or Managed

Resilience may be obtained through the inherent system characteristics or through management. The former might be thought of as preset or internal control, while the latter might be thought of as controls applied external to the system, along with modifying the system itself.
Terminology such as ‘absorb changes of state variables and driving variables’ [4] (p. 17), elastic resilience [58], self-organization [59], static resilience [60], system internal resistance [61], and built-in adaptability [62][63] are some of the terms used in the literature to describe resilience through the inherent system characteristics. Similarly, ‘absorb changes of parameters’ [4] (p. 17), ductile resilience [58], and dynamic resilience [64] are some of the terms used for resilience through management.
However, some researchers [44][65] acknowledge a conceptual tension between resilience being inherent or managed; both of the two notions can obtain resilience [66][67][68]—though in different forms and combinations depending on the system type (Figure 4). For the engineering resilience category, as the system dynamics are known and the perturbations are of a limited and known range, the resilience focus is on the perturbed system state rate of return to the equilibrium which is mostly achieved through the inherent system characteristics and any anticipated degradation in the system structure is countered by the management of a fixed and known nature. A vital consideration for engineering resilience must be a careful examination of the relationship between the inherent system characteristics versus the system state rate of return to equilibrium and seeking an optimum solution. An over-passive system might work as a double-edged sword and negatively affect the system state rate of return to the equilibrium, as well as creating unwanted rigidity and inertia along with any associated additional lifecycle costs [61][69].
Sustainability 14 08327 g004
Figure 4. Resilience interpretation in terms of adaptation: a big picture.
For socio-ecological resilience, because the system dynamics are not well known and the perturbations are also not well known and wide-ranging, the resilience focus shifts toward management that is not fixed but rather of a broader and adaptive nature [70][71]. With an increasing trend of complexity and uncertainty involved in infrastructure systems, there is a growing tendency for engineering/specified resilience to trend toward general/socio-ecological resilience in the resilience literature [66][72] (Figure 4).

2.4. Resilience Engineering-Designing Resilience

Resilience engineering appears to have a stronger academic rather than industry focus [73]. It initially appeared in a resilience engineering symposium held in Söderköping, Sweden, on 25–29 October 2004 [74][75]. A distinction is made with engineering resilience. Resilience engineering focuses on addressing risks, improving safety, and operational management in complex socio-technical and human services delivery systems such as infrastructure—through mainly system organization [76][77][78]. Hollnagel defines resilience engineering as:
… the intrinsic ability of a system to adjust its functioning prior to, during, or following changes and disturbances, so that it can sustain required operations under both expected and unexpected conditions…
[79] (p. 36)
Some of the terminology as part of the verbal modeling available in the literature for characterizing resilience engineering are: cross-disciplinary [80]—anticipate, respond, learn, and monitor. Organizational domain [75]—avoid, withstand, adapt, and recover. Organizational domain [81]—awareness, preparedness, learning, flexibility, management commitment, and reporting culture. Most of the terminology used here is not consistent with system terms.
Cimellaro [82] and Cimellaro et al. [83] introduce the concept of resilience-based design (RBD)—an extended version of performance-based design (PBD), which is a holistic framework to define and measure resilience at various scales. Similarly, Forcellini proposes a resilience-based (RB) methodology that underpins resilience’s holistic and dynamic nature and the relevant perturbations. He demonstrates the RB methodology application to two sample systems of civil infrastructure [84] and health system infrastructure [85] exposed to climate change (temperature as the dynamic environmental variable) and the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, respectively. Both RBD and RB methodology are closely related concepts to resilience engineering.
Resilience engineering might be considered as an approach to design in resilience for a dynamic system, looking at the trade-offs between obtaining resilience through the inherent system characteristics and resilience through management centered on certain objective functions such as system-required functionality and behavior.

2.5. Resilience and Sustainability-Related or Distinct Concepts

The concept of resilience and its relationship with sustainability has received enormous attention from academia, industry, government, and other stakeholders over the past decade [86]. Despite the two concepts’ contextual differences and their independent theoretical evolutions, sustainability—in the context of sustainable development—defined as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ [87] (p. 12), with a triple bottom line of social, environmental, and economic pillars, shares a vast number of similarities with resilience. While scholars may hold a different opinion on the notion of resilience as a component of sustainability or vice versa, there is an overwhelming consensus among researchers that the two concepts are mutually complementary and need a holistic and systematic treatment [88].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14148327

References

  1. Yunes, M.A.M. Psicologia Positiva e Resiliência: O Foco No Indivíduo e Na Família. Psicol. Em Estudo. 2003, 8, 75–84.
  2. Sudmeier-Rieux, K.I. Resilience—An emerging paradigm of danger or of hope? Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2014, 23, 67–80.
  3. Kates, R.W.; Clark, W.C.; Corell, R.; Hall, J.M.; Jaeger, C.C.; Lowe, I.; McCarthy, J.J.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Bolin, B.; Dickson, N.M. Sustainability Science. Science 2001, 292, 641–642.
  4. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23.
  5. Bhamra, R.S.; Dani, S.; Burnard, K.J. Resilience: The concept, a literature review and future directions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 5375–5393.
  6. Brand, F.S.; Jax, K. Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 23–38.
  7. Anderies, J.M.; Walker, B.H.; Kinzig, A.P. Fifteen Weddings and a Funeral: Case Studies and Resilience-based Management. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 21–32.
  8. Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-ecological Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5–13.
  9. Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Anderies, J.M.; Abel, N. From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 2001, 4, 765–781.
  10. Vugrin, E.D.; Warren, D.E.; Ehlen, M.A.; Camphouse, R.C. A Framework for Assessing the Resilience of Infrastructure and Economic Systems. In Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems; Gopalakrishnan, K., Peeta, S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 77–116. ISBN 978-3-642-11404-5.
  11. Field, C.; Look, R. A value-based approach to infrastructure resilience. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2018, 38, 292–305.
  12. Modly, T. Five Megatrends and Their Implications for Global Defense & Security. PwC Rep. Megatrends 2016, 1–27. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/archive/archive-government-public-services/publications/five-megatrends.html (accessed on 10 July 2021).
  13. UK Ministry of Defence. Strategic Trends Programme: Global Strategic Trends. Out to 2045, 1st ed.; Development, Concepts, Doctrine Centre: Shrivenham, UK, 2014.
  14. Darnhofer, I. Resilience and why it matters for farm management. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2014, 41, 461–484.
  15. Haldane, V.; De Foo, C.; Abdalla, S.M.; Jung, A.-S.; Tan, M.; Wu, S.; Chua, A.; Verma, M.; Shrestha, P.; Singh, S.; et al. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from 28 countries. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 964–980.
  16. Scopus. Scopus Database Search on Resilience Statistics. 2022. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  17. Google Scholar. Google Scholar Database. 2022. Available online: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Resilience+and+stability+of+ecological+systems&btnG= (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  18. Luthar, S.S.; Cicchetti, D.; Becker, B. The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 543–562.
  19. Connor, K.M.; Davidson, J.R.T. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 2003, 18, 76–82.
  20. Folke, C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 253–267.
  21. Masten, A.S. Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 227–238.
  22. Bonanno, G.A. Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events? Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 20–28.
  23. Rutter, M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 1987, 57, 316–331.
  24. Lozupone, C.A.; Stombaugh, J.I.; Gordon, J.I.; Jansson, J.K.; Knight, R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 2012, 489, 220–230.
  25. Hughes, T.P.; Baird, A.H.; Bellwood, D.R.; Card, M.; Connolly, S.R.; Folke, C.; Grosberg, R.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Jackson, J.B.C.; Kleypas, J.; et al. Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science 2003, 301, 929–933.
  26. Bruneau, M.; Chang, S.E.; Eguchi, R.T.; Lee, G.C.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Shinozuka, M.; Tierney, K.; Wallace, W.A.; Von Winterfeldt, D. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities. Earthq. Spectra 2003, 19, 733–752.
  27. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2007, 41, 127–150.
  28. EM-DAT. The Emergency Events Database. 2022. Available online: https://public.emdat.be/data (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  29. Lee, M.; Basu, D. An Integrated Approach for Resilience and Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering. Indian Geotech. J. 2018, 48, 207–234.
  30. Leaning, J.; Guha-Sapir, D. Natural Disasters, Armed Conflict, and Public Health. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 783.
  31. Killgore, W.D.S.; Taylor, E.C.; Cloonan, S.A.; Dailey, N.S. Psychological resilience during the COVID-19 lockdown. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 291, 113216.
  32. Bozdağ, F.; Ergün, N. Psychological Resilience of Healthcare Professionals During COVID-19 Pandemic. Psychol. Rep. 2020, 124, 2567–2586.
  33. Kaye-Kauderer, H.; Feingold, J.H.; Feder, A.; Southwick, S.; Charney, D. Resilience in the age of COVID-19. BJPsych Adv. 2021, 27, 166–178.
  34. Boyacι-Gündüz, C.; Ibrahim, S.; Wei, O.; Galanakis, C. Transformation of the Food Sector: Security and Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Foods 2021, 10, 497.
  35. Mena, C.; Karatzas, A.; Hansen, C. International trade resilience and the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 138, 77–91.
  36. Hynes, W.; Trump, B.D.; Kirman, A.; Latini, C.; Linkov, I. Complexity, Interconnectedness and Resilience: Why a Paradigm Shift in Economics Is Needed to Deal with Covid 19 and Future Shocks. In COVID-19: Systemic Risk and Resilience; Linkov, I., Keenan, J.M., Trump, B.D., Eds.; Risk, Systems and Decisions; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 61–73. ISBN 978-3-030-71587-8.
  37. Holling, C.S. Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience. In Engineering within Ecological Constraints; Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; p. 13.
  38. Zhang, W.; van Luttervelt, C. Toward a resilient manufacturing system. CIRP Ann. 2011, 60, 469–472.
  39. Adger, W.N. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2000, 24, 347–364.
  40. Gunderson, L.H.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S. Foundations of Ecological Resilience, 2nd ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-61091-133-7.
  41. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; ISBN 1-139-43479-9.
  42. Westley, F.; Carpenter, S.R.; Brock, W.A.; Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, L.H. Why Systems of People and Nature Are Not Just Social and Ecological Systems. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 103–119.
  43. Mekdeci, B.; Ross, A.M.; Rhodes, D.H.; Hastings, D.E. A Taxonomy of Perturbations: Determining the Ways That Systems Lose Value. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Systems Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–22 March 2012; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012.
  44. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20–28.
  45. Walker, B.H.; Abel, N.; Anderies, J.M.; Ryan, P. Resilience, Adaptability, and Transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 12–35.
  46. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35, 557–581.
  47. Francis, R.; Bekera, B. A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2014, 121, 90–103.
  48. Vugrin, E.D.; Warren, D.E.; Ehlen, M.A. A resilience assessment framework for infrastructure and economic systems: Quantitative and qualitative resilience analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane. Process Saf. Prog. 2011, 30, 280–290.
  49. Walker, B.H. Resilience: What it is and is not. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 11.
  50. Baho, D.L.; Allen, C.R.; Garmestani, A.S.; Fried-Petersen, H.B.; Renes, S.E.; Gunderson, L.H.; Angeler, D.G. A quantitative framework for assessing ecological resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 1–17.
  51. Carpenter, S.; Arrow, K.J.; Barrett, S.; Biggs, R.; Brock, W.A.; Crépin, A.-S.; Engström, G.; Folke, C.; Hughes, T.P.; Kautsky, N.; et al. General Resilience to Cope with Extreme Events. Sustainability 2012, 4, 3248–3259.
  52. Walker, B.H.; Salt, D. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-59726-622-2.
  53. Biggs, R.; Schlüter, M.; Biggs, D.; Bohensky, E.L.; BurnSilver, S.; Cundill, G.; Dakos, V.; Daw, T.M.; Evans, L.S.; Kotschy, K.; et al. Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 421–448.
  54. Cimellaro, G.P.; Fumo, C.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Bruneau, M. Quantification of Disaster Resilience of Health Care Facilities; MCEER: Buffalo, NY, USA, 2009.
  55. Meyer, K. A Mathematical Review of Resilience in Ecology. Nat. Resour. Model. 2016, 29, 339–352.
  56. Hollnagel, E.; Woods, D.D.; Leveson, N. Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts, 1st ed.; Ashgate Publishing Ltd.: Aldershot, UK, 2006; ISBN 0-7546-8136-X.
  57. Beisner, B.E.; Haydon, D.T.; Cuddington, K. Alternative Stable States in Ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 376–382.
  58. Tamarin, Y. Atlas of Stress-Strain Curves, 2nd ed.; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-87170-739-0.
  59. Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Abel, N.; Cumming, G.S.; Janssen, M.; Lebel, L.; Norberg, J.; Peterson, G.D.; Pritchard, R. Resilience Management in Social-ecological Systems: A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach. Conserv. Ecol. 2002, 6, 14–30.
  60. Rose, A. Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2004, 13, 307–314.
  61. Youn, B.D.; Hu, C.; Wang, P. Resilience-Driven System Design of Complex Engineered Systems. J. Mech. Des. 2011, 133, 101011.
  62. Agarwal, J. Improving resilience through vulnerability assessment and management. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2015, 32, 5–17.
  63. Anderies, J.M.; Folke, C.; Walker, B.; Ostrom, E. Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy: Robustness, Resilience, and Sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 8–23.
  64. Rose, A. Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environ. Hazards 2007, 7, 383–398.
  65. Farid, A.M. Static Resilience of Large Flexible Engineering Systems: Axiomatic Design Model and Measures. IEEE Syst. J. 2015, 11, 2006–2017.
  66. González-Quintero, C.; Avila-Foucat, V.S. Operationalization and Measurement of Social-Ecological Resilience: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6073.
  67. Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 390–405.
  68. Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, L.H. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; ISBN 1-55963-857-5.
  69. Elmqvist, T.; Andersson, E.; Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Olsson, P.; Gaffney, O.; Takeuchi, K.; Folke, C. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 267–273.
  70. Hahn, T.; Nykvist, B. Are adaptations self-organized, autonomous, and harmonious? Assessing the social–ecological resilience literature. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 12–40.
  71. Cosens, B.; Gunderson, L.H. Practical Panarchy for Adaptive Water Governance: Linking Law to Social-Ecological Resilience; Practical Panarchy for Adaptive Water Governance: Linking Law to Social-Ecological Resilience, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9783319724720.
  72. Nykvist, B.; Von Heland, J. Social-ecological memory as a source of general and specified resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 47–58.
  73. Hickford, A.J.; Blainey, S.P.; Hortelano, A.O.; Pant, R. Resilience engineering: Theory and practice in interdependent infrastructure systems. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2018, 38, 278–291.
  74. Patriarca, R.; Bergström, J.; Di Gravio, G.; Costantino, F. Resilience engineering: Current status of the research and future challenges. Saf. Sci. 2018, 102, 79–100.
  75. Madni, A.M.; Jackson, S. Towards a Conceptual Framework for Resilience Engineering. IEEE Syst. J. 2009, 3, 181–191.
  76. Nemeth, C.; Herrera, I. Building change: Resilience Engineering after ten years. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015, 141, 1–4.
  77. Stroeve, S.H.; Everdij, M.H.C.; Blom, H.A.P. Studying Hazards for Resilience Modelling in ATM: Mathematical Approach towards Resilience Engineering in ATM (MAREA); Schaefer, D., Ed.; First SESAR Innovation Days: Toulouse, France; EUROCONTROL: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  78. Schafer, D.; Abdelhamid, T.S.; Mitropoulos, P.; Howell, G.A. Resilience Engineering: A New Paradigm for Safety in Lean Construction Systems. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Manchester, UK, 16–18 July 2008; pp. 723–734.
  79. Hollnagel, E.; Paries, J.; Woods, D.D.; Wreathall, J. Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook; Ashgate Publishing Limited: Farnham, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-4094-1035-5.
  80. Hollnagel, E. Resilience engineering and the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2013, 42, 221–228.
  81. Wreathall, J. Properties of Resilient Organizations: An Initial View. In Resilience Engineering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 275–285.
  82. Cimellaro, G.P. Resilience-Based Design (RBD) Modelling of Civil Infrastructure to Assess Seismic Hazards. In Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems; Tesfamariam, S., Goda, K., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 268–303. ISBN 978-0-85709-268-7.
  83. Cimellaro, G.P.; Renschler, C.; Bruneau, M. Introduction to Resilience-Based Design (RBD). In Computational Methods, Seismic Protection, Hybrid Testing and Resilience in Earthquake Engineering: A Tribute to the Research Contributions of Prof. Andrei Reinhorn; Cimellaro, G.P., Nagarajaiah, S., Kunnath, S.K., Eds.; Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 33, pp. 151–183. ISBN 978-3-319-06394-2.
  84. Forcellini, D. The Role of Climate Change in the Assessment of the Seismic Resilience of Infrastructures. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 76.
  85. Forcellini, D. A Resilience-Based (RB) Methodology to Assess Resilience of Health System Infrastructures to Epidemic Crisis. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3032.
  86. Metaxas, T.; Psarropoulou, S. Sustainable Development and Resilience: A Combined Analysis of the Cities of Rotterdam and Thessaloniki. Urban Sci. 2021, 5, 78.
  87. Brundtland, G.; Khalid, M.; Agnelli, S.; Al-Athel, S.; Chidzero, B.; Fadika, L.; Hauff, V.; Lang, I.; Shijun, M.; Morino de Botero, M.; et al. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  88. Redman, C.L. Should Sustainability and Resilience Be Combined or Remain Distinct Pursuits? Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 37–43.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback