Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resilience: A Critical Background

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Planning for Resilience

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Geography ((BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY))

Abstract

The chapter aims to develop a conceptual framework for orienting the resilience -building challenges in planning. In a world in which the only certainty is uncertainty , resilience has become one of the most widely used concepts that has come to prominence in understanding and managing complex systems in the last decade (Welsh, Geogr J, 180:15–26, 2014). The concept of resilience was firstly formulated in ecology during the 1960s, but it has influenced many other research fields. With the advent of the social-ecological perspective, the resilience theory has also influenced political and human geography and environmental studies, with new explorations and paradigms (Davoudi et al, Plan Theory Pract 13:299–333, 2012). In particular, resilience has become a “pillar” of disaster management , climate adaptation , and regional economic development (Davoudi et al, Plan Pract Res, 28:307–322, 2013). However, the widespread use of resilience thinking has not brought any conceptual clarity but has instead contributed to the fuzzy character of the concept. The chapter firstly traces the conception of resilience and its three main currents: engineering resilience , ecological resilience , and socio-ecological resilience . Secondly, it presents how resilience can be linked with vulnerability , and finally it outlines the resilience interpretative approach to emergency management asserted in this work. The chapter also deals with the criticism to resilience in the literature, such as the unified positive meaning given to the concept and the devolution involving responsibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term Panarchy firstly coined by Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of inclusive, universal system of governance that includes all other forms of governance . Panarchy with this acceptation is used in international relations to describe global governance (Edson 2010). At a later stage, the term Panarchy was introduced in systems theory. Holling and Gunderson referred the term to the mythological figure of Greek god Pan, the paradoxical spirit of nature. They joined the idea of Pan to the dynamic reality of hierarchies across scales and to the interactions among them that can influence the phase cycles of one another (Holling 2004). In systems theory the term was coined as an antithesis to the word hierarchy in order to describe the framework of nature’s rules.

  2. 2.

    Pickett et al. (2004) use the concept learning loop to define the need of long-term dialogue among different institutions and community in order to ensure the monitoring and implementation of knowledge .

  3. 3.

    Teigão dos Santos and Partidário identified four different characteristics that planning processes should adopt to be resilient: anticipation, innovation , learning and communication .

    1. (a)

      Planning as anticipation is important to perceive emergent disturbances and to identify early signals and possible solutions.

    2. (b)

      Planning as innovation is needed to be more flexible and dynamic in generating better solutions, instead of repetitive processes.

    3. (c)

      Planning as learning is fundamental to knowledge , to produce consensus and co-accountability.

    4. (d)

      Planning as communication is decisive to raise consciousness, to bring support and build relationships.

References

  • Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24:347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Link Soc Ecol Syst Manag Pract Soc Mech Build Resil 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertuglia CS, Staricco L (2000) Complessità, autoorganizzazione, città. Franco Angeli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourbeau P (2013) Resiliencism: premises and promises in securitisation research. Resilience 1:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland G, Khalid M (1987) UN Brundtland commission report “Our Future”

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler D (2014) Beyond neoliberalism: resilience, the new art of governing complexity. Resilience 2:47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler D, Coaffee J (2017) The Routledge handbook of international resilience. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coaffee J, Wood DM, Rogers P (2009) The everyday resilience of the city: how cities respond to terrorism and disaster. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke [England]; New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen P (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23. https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi S, Shaw K, Haider LJ et al (2012) Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” 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 planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note. Plan Theory Pract 13:299–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi S, Brooks E, Mehmood A (2013) Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Plan Pract Res 28:307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eakin H, Luers AL (2006) Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annu Rev Env Resour 31:365–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edson MC (2010) Group development: a complex adaptive systems perspective. In: Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the ISSS-2010, Waterloo, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005) Frontier research: the European challenge. High level expert group report Brussel

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B et al (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15:20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fünfgeld H, McEvoy D (2012) Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? Plan Theory Pract 13:324–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser M, Krause G, Ratter B, Welp M (2008) Human/nature interaction in the anthropocene. GAIA 17(1):77–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk DR (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat Hazards Rev 4:136–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotts NM (2007) Resilience, panarchy, and world-systems analysis. Ecol Soc 12:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in systems of humans and nature. Isl Wash

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (1995) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson LH, Allen CR, Holling CS (2009) Foundations of ecological resilience. Island Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp 31–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (2004) From complex regions to complex worlds. Ecol Soc 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn T, Becker E, Keil F, Schramm E (2009) Understandind social- ecological systems: frontier research for sustainable development. Implication for European Research Policy

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF (2005) Conditions for sustainability of human–environment systems: Information, motivation, and capacity. Glob Environ Change 15:177–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAslan A (2010) Community resilience. Understanding the concept and its application. Torrens Resilience Institute, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016) Defining urban resilience: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 147:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller F, Osbahr H, Boyd E et al (2010) Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts. Ecol Soc 15:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell T, Harris K (2012) Resilience: a risk management approach. ODI Backgr Note January Lond Overseas Dev Inst

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson L, Jerneck A, Thoren H et al (2015) Why resilience is unappealing to social science: theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Sci Adv 1:e1400217. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022917721797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendall R, Foster KA, Cowell M (2010) Resilience and regions: building understanding of the metaphor. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 3:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM (2004) Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landsc Urban Plan 69:369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter L, Davoudi S (2012) The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note. Plan Theory Pract 13:329–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reghezza-Zitt M, Rufat S, Djament-Tran G et al (2012) What resilience is not: uses and abuses. Cybergeo Eur J Geogr

    Google Scholar 

  • Resilience Alliance (2010) Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: a practitioner’s workbook, Version 2.0

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw K (2012) “Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice. Plan Theory Pract 13:308–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmie J, Martin R (2010) The economic resilience of regions: towards an evolutionary approach. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 3:27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith K (2009) environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster, 5 edn. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teigão dos Santos F, Partidário MR (2011) SPARK: strategic planning approach for resilience keeping. Eur Plan Stud 19:1517–1536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh M (2014) Resilience and responsibility: governing uncertainty in a complex world. Geogr J 180:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westley F (1995) Governing design: the management of social systems and ecosystems management. In: Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson C (2012) Urban resilience: what does it mean in planning practice? Plan Theory Pract 13:319–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy

    Elena Pede

Authors
  1. Elena Pede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Pede .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pede, E. (2020). Resilience: A Critical Background. In: Planning for Resilience. SpringerBriefs in Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17262-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation