Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vulnerability and Resilience in a Socio-Spatial Perspective

A Social-Scientific Approach

Vulnerabilität und Resilienz in sozio-räumlicher Perspektive

Versuch einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Fundierung

  • Wissenschaftlicher Beitrag
  • Published:
Raumforschung und Raumordnung

Abstract

This paper argues that the conceptions of “vulnerability” and “resilience”, which have been strongly influenced by ecology and natural hazards research, have been widely used in an essentialist manner. Thus, vulnerability is treated as the factual susceptibility and resilience as the factual adaptive capacity of systems, which are measurable by certain indicators. Although in the meantime social dimensions have received greater consideration than previously and although both notions have been transferred to a wider field of phenomena ranging from technology to economy and society, the conception of vulnerability and resilience still lacks the dimension of the social construction of reality that implies that actors may develop different perceptions of potential threats and of the precautionary measures that are to be adopted—even though the nature of an endangerment seems clear and proven. In this contribution we identify major conceptual desiderata and suggest a social science based conception of vulnerability and resilience addressing them. We take up ideas from social constructivism in the form pointed out in actor-network theory. We dissolve the tired dichotomy between social and material entities and instead emphasise that all kinds of entities have the same ontological status and thus interact directly with one another on the same level (‘flat ontology’). Against the background of a generic definition of governance, questions of agency in networks will be addressed. Based on a relational understanding of space, a spatial research perspective will be developed also taking into account the dimension of time. Finally the conception comprises an empirical strategy for investigating vulnerability and resilience.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass die von der Naturrisikoforschung und der (Human-)Ökologie geprägten Begriffe der Vulnerabilität und Resilienz, auch wenn sie inzwischen soziale Dimensionen aufgenommen haben und auf unterschiedliche Bereiche wie Technik, Ökonomie oder Soziales bezogen werden, insofern einseitig konzipiert sind, als Vulnerabilität und Resilienz immer noch als objektiv gegebene Tatbestände bzw. Eigenschaften von Systemen betrachtet werden. Vulnerabilitätist danach eine faktische Anfälligkeit und Resilienzist eine faktische Anpassungsfähigkeit von Systemen, die sogar aufgrund bestimmter Indikatoren messbar ist. Diesen Begriffskonzeptionen fehlt die Dimension der sozialen Konstruktion, die besagt, dass Akteure – selbst bei nachweisbaren Gefährdungen – ganz unterschiedliche Wahrnehmungen von einer möglichen Bedrohung und von zu ergreifenden Schutzmaßnahmen entwickeln können. Der Beitrag entwickelt eine begriffliche Konzeption von Vulnerabilität und Resilienz, die insofern sozialwissenschaftlich ausgerichtet ist, als sie von (sozial)konstruktivistischen Annahmen im Sinne des „Actor-network“-Ansatzes ausgeht. Dadurch wird die weit verbreitete Dichotomisierung zwischen sozialen und materiellen Entitäten aufgehoben. Stattdessen interagieren jegliche Entitäten, auch wenn sie ganz unterschiedliche Eigenschaften besitzen, auf derselben Ebene miteinander (flat ontology). Vor dem Hintergrund eines generisch gefasstenGovernance-Begriffes adressiert der Beitrag Fragen der Handlungskoordination und auf der Basis eines relationalen Raumverständnisses entwickelt er eine raumwissenschaftliche Perspektive, die auch die Dimension der Zeit einschließt. Nicht zuletzt beinhaltet die Konzeption einen Vorschlag für eine empirische Strategie zur Untersuchung von Vulnerabilität und Resilienz.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank Heiderose Kilper and Timothy Moss for the valuable ideas and comments that date back to our joint work on a more comprehensive working paper on vulnerability and resilience and with which they supported us in the drawing up of this paper (see Christmann/Ibert/Moss et al.2011). Thanks are also due to Jörn Birkmann for his suggestions on the working paper that also had consequences for the present paper.

  2. Bürkner (2010) and Christmann/Ibert/Moss et al. (2011) provide a more comprehensive review of the literature on vulnerability and resilience and related concepts like risk, uncertainty and sustainability.

  3. Fundamental and terminologically consistent social-scientific conceptions of risk and uncertainty can be found in Luhmann’s (1991) social-scientific system theory and in Knight’s (1921) decision-theoretical approach. The latter describes risk as a measurable uncertainty whereby the probability of the possible consequences of alternative actions can either be determineda priori through mathematical operations or ex post by evaluating past experiences. Luhmann (1991) in contrast sees danger as the counterpart to risk. Decisive here is the attribution of unwished consequences of action: are they attributed to the decision-making system itself (risk: I’m moving next door to a nuclear energy plant) or are they attributed to the environment of the system (danger: a nuclear energy plant is being built next to my house)? In this way a system cannot avoid producing risks for itself and dangers for its environment in the course of decision processes. Both approaches, however, have in common a view that the consequences of actions and decisions are fundamentally uncertain. Uncertainty is then, to a certain degree, the standard situation. Social action thus never occurs under fully determined conditions. An important criterium for social action should be seen in minimising contingences and dealing constructively with uncertainty (see further Böhle/Weihrich2009).

  4. Discussion of this is found in Christmann/Ibert/Moss et al. (2011).

  5. With regard to the dichotomy between social and non-social, “actor-network” theory formulates a pointed critique on the fundamental stance taken by all social-scientific approaches so far and proposes a radical rethink (see on this point the research desiderata discussed in Sect. 2). It is not in vain that actor-network theory with its relational and action-oriented understanding of social and other “actors” has had a significant influence on various relevant strands of debate—such as the transformation of socio-technical systems—, as recent literature shows (see Hommels2005; Coutard/Hanley/Zimmerman2005).

References

  • Adger, W. N. (2000): Social and ecological resilience: are they related? In: Progress in Human Geography 24, 3, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger, W. N. (2006): Vulnerability. In: Global Environmental Change 16, 3, 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderies, J. M.; Janssen, M. A.; Ostrom, E. (2004): A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. In: Ecology and Society 9, 1, 18. Online unter: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18 (letzter Zugriff am 15.02.2012).

  • Bankoff, G. (2007): The historical geography of disaster. ‘Vulnerability’ and ‘local knowledge’ in western discourse. In: Bankoff, G.; Frerks, G.; Hilhorst, D (Hrsg.): Mapping vulnerability. Disasters, development and people. London, Sterling, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bathelt, H.; Glückler, J. (2003): Toward a relational economic geography. In: Journal of Economic Geography 3, 2, 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1986): Risikogesellschaft—auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main.

  • Berger, P. L.; Luckmann, T. (1969): Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt am Main.

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

  • Birkmann, J. (2007): Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales. Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. In: Environmental Hazards 7, 1, 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkmann, J. (2008): Assessing vulnerability before, during and after a natural disaster in fragile regions. Bonn. = UNU-WIDER Research Paper No. 2008/50.

  • Birkmann, J.; Fernando, N. (2008): Measuring revealed and emergent vulnerabilities of coastal communities to tsunami in Sri Lanka. In: Disasters 32, 1, 82–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkmann, J.; Böhm, H. R.; Buchholz, F.; Büscher, D.; Daschkeit, A.; Ebert, S.; Fleischhauer, M.; Frommer, B.; Köhler, S.; Kufeld, W.; Lenz, S.; Overbeck, G.; Schanze, J.; Schlipf, S.; Sommerfeldt, P.; Stock, M.; Vollmer, M.; Walkenhorst, O. (2011): Glossar Klimawandel und Raumentwicklung. Hannover. = E-Paper der ARL, Nr. 10.

  • Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T.; Davis, I.; Wisner, B. (1994): At risk. Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disaster. London, New York.

  • Böhle, F.; Weihrich, M. (Hrsg.) (2009): Handeln unter Unsicherheit. Wiesbaden.

  • Bohle, H.-G. (2002): Vulnerability. Editorial to the Special Issue. In: Geographica Helvetica 57, 1, 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle, H.-G. (2005): Soziales oder unsoziales Kapital? Das Konzept von Sozialkapital in der Geographischen Verwundbarkeitsforschung. In: Geographische Zeitschrift 93, 2, 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle, H.-G.; Downing, T. E.; Watts, M. J. (1994): Climate change and social vulnerability. Toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. In: Global Environmental Change 4, 1, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, F. S.; Jax, K. (2007): Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. In: Ecology and Society 12, 1, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürkner, H.-J. (2010): Vulnerabilität und Resilienz—Forschungsstand und sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsperspektiven. Erkner. = IRS-Working Paper, No. 43. Online unter:http://www.irs-net.de/download/wp_vr.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 23.02.2012).

  • Callon, M. (1986): Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. (Hrsg.): Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? London, Boston, Henley, 196–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, G. B. (2010): Kommunikative Raumkonstruktionen als (Proto-) Governance. In: Kilper, H. (Hrsg.): Governance und Raum. Baden-Baden, 27–48.

  • Christmann, G. B.; Ibert, O.; Moss, T.; Kilper H. (2011): Vulnerabilität und Resilienz in sozio-räumlicher Perspektive. Begriffliche Klärungen und theoretischer Rahmen. Erkner. = IRS-Working Paper, No. 44. Online unter: http://www.irs-net.de/download/wp_vulnerabilitaet.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 15.02.2012).

  • Coaffee, J.; Wood, D. (2006): The ‘everyday’ resilience of the city. In: Browning, C. (Hrsg.): Human security and resilience. Birmingham, 6–8. = ISP/NSC Briefing Paper 06/01.

  • Coaffee, J.; Wood, D.; Rogers, P. (2008): The everyday resilience of the city. How cities respond to terrorism and disaster (New Security Challenges). London.

  • Coutard, O.; Hanley, R. E.; Zimmerman, R. (Hrsg.) (2005): Sustaining urban networks. The social diffusion of large technical systems. Oxford.

  • Cutter, S. L.; Finch, C. (2008): Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 7, 2301–2306.

  • Deffner, V. (2007): Soziale Verwundbarkeit im ‚Risikoraum Favela’—Eine Analyse des sozialen Raumes auf der Grundlage von Bourdieus „Theorie der Praxis“. In: Wehrhahn, R. (Hrsg.): Risiko und Vulnerabilität in Lateinamerika. Kiel, 207–232. = Kieler Geographische Schriften, Band 117.

  • Delanda, M. (2005): Intensive science and virtual philosophy. London.

  • Delica-Willison, Z.; Willison, R. (2007): Vulnerability reduction. A task for the vulnerable people themselves. In: Bankoff, G.; Frerks, G.; Hilhorst, D (Hrsg.): Mapping vulnerability. Disasters, development and people. London, Sterling, 145–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, K. (2006): Vulnerabilität und Anpassung in der Klima- und Entwicklungspolitik. Berlin. = Diskussionspapier 01/06 des Projektes „Global Governance und Klimawandel“ an der Freien Universität Berlin.

  • Dolata, U.; Werle, R. (2007): “Bringing technology back in”: Technik als Einflussfaktor sozioökonomischen und institutionellen Wandels. In: Dolata, U.; Werle, R. (Hrsg.): Gesellschaft und die Macht der Technik. Sozioökonomischer und institutioneller Wandel durch Technisierung. Frankfurt am Main, New York, 15–43.

  • Eriksen, S. (2004): Building adaptive capacity in a ‘glocal’ world. Examples from Europe and Africa. In: ESS Bulletin 2, 2, 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A.; Nowotny, H. (1987): Über den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Die Entdeckung der Gestaltbarkeit von Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main.

  • Felgentreff, C.; Glade, T. (Hrsg.) (2008): Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. München.

  • Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Erb, K. (2003): Gesellschaftlicher Stoffwechsel im Raum. Auf der Suche nach einem sozialwissenschaftlichen Zugang zur biophysischen Realität. In: Meusburger, P.; Schwan, T (Hrsg.): Humanökologie. Ansätze zur Überwindung der Natur-Kultur-Dichotomie. Stuttgart, 257–285.

  • Folke, C. (2006): Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological system analyses. In: Global Environmental Change 16, 3, 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg, C. (1999): Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. Münster.

  • Greiving, S. (2002): Räumliche Planung und Risiko. München.

  • Heijmans, A. (2007): From vulnerability to empowerment. In: Bankoff, G.; Frerks, G.; Hilhorst, D (Hrsg.): Mapping vulnerability. Disasters, development and people. London, Sterling, 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, M.; Marvin, S. (2008): ‘Urban ecological security’. A new urban paradigm? In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33, 1, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (1973): Resilience and stability of ecological systems. In: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommels, A. (2005): Unbuilding cities. Obduracy in urban sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA, London.

  • Hughes, T. P. (1983): Networks of power. Electrification in western society 1880–1930. Baltimore, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M. A.; Ostrom, E. (2006): Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: A cross-cutting theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. In: Global Environmental Change 16, 3, 237–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Japp, K. (1996): Soziologische Risikotheorie. Funktionale Differenzierung, Politisierung und Reflexion. Weinheim.

  • Jessop, B.; Ngai-Ling, S. (2006): Beyond the regulation approach: putting capitalist economies in their place. Cheltenham.

  • Knight, F. (1921): Risk, uncertainty and profit. Chicago.

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981): The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford.

  • Kraas, F.; Mertins, G. (2008): Megastädte in Entwicklungsländern. Vulnerabilität, Informalität, Regier- und Steuerbarkeit. In: Geographische Rundschau 60, 11, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusenbach, M.; Simms, J. L.; Tobin, G. A. (2010): Disaster vulnerability and evacuation readiness. Coastal mobile home residents in Florida. In: Natural Hazards 52, 1, 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987): Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge.

  • Latour, B. (2005): Reassembling the social. An introduction into actor-network theory. Oxford.

  • Latour, B.; Woolgar, S. (1979): Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. London.

  • Law, J. (1986): On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In: Law, J. (Hrsg.): Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? London, Boston, Henley, 234–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1992): Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. In: Systemic Practice and Action Research 5, 4, 379–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2002): Objects and spaces. In: Theory, Culture and Society 19, 5–6, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J.; Mol, A. (2001): Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. In: Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19, 5, 609–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1991): Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin, New York.

  • Massey, D. (2005): For space. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.

  • Mayntz, R. (1993): Große technische Systeme und ihre gesellschaftstheoretische Bedeutung. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45, 1, 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2010): Global structures: markets, organizations, networks—and communities? In: Djelic, M.-L.; Quack, S (Hrsg.): Transnational communities: shaping global economic governance. Cambridge, 37–54.

  • Medd, W.; Marvin, S. (2005): From the politics of urgency to the governance of preparedness: A research agenda on urban vulnerability. In: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 13, 2, 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melosi, M. (2000): The sanitary city. Urban infrastructure in America from colonial times to the present. Baltimore, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A.; Law, J. (1994): Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. In: Social Studies of Science 24, 4, 641–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, B. H. (2008): Community resilience. A social justice perspective. Miami. = CARRI Research Report, No. 4.

  • Moss, T. (2009): Models of socio-technical change and the politics of urban infrastructure: Managing energy in Berlin between dictatorship and democracy (unveröffentlichtes Manuskript).

  • Murdoch, J. (1998): The spaces of actor-network theory. In: Geoforum 29, 4, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brian, K.; Eriksen, S.; Nygaard, L. P.; Schjolden, A. (2007): Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. In: Climate Policy 7, 1, 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obrist, B. (2006): Struggling for health in the city. An anthropological inquiry of health, vulnerability and resilience in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Bern.

  • Oliver-Smith, A. (2007): Theorizing vulnerability in a globalized world. A political ecological perspective. In: Bankoff, G.; Frerks, G.; Hilhorst, D (Hrsg.): Mapping vulnerability. Disasters, development and people. London, Sterling, 10–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelling, M. (2003): The vulnerability of cities: Natural desasters and social resilience. London.

  • Pfeiffer, K. (1929): Untersuchungen über die Resilienz der durch die Prothesen beanspruchten Gewebe und ihre Bedeutung für die Okklusion der Prothesen. Zürich.

  • Prowse, M. (2003): Towards a clearer understanding of ‚vulnerability’ in relation to chronic poverty. Manchester. = CPRC Working Paper, No. 24.

  • Rittel, H.; Webber, M. (1973): Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In: Policy Sciences 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schott, D. (2010): Resilienz oder Niedergang? Zur Bedeutung von Naturkatastrophen für Städte in der Neuzeit (unveröffentlichtes Manuskript).

  • Schütz, A. (1953): Common sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14, 1, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1999): The ethnography of infrastructure. In: American Behavioral Scientist 43, 3, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, M.; Kropp, J. P.; Walkenhorst, O. (2009): Risiken, Vulnerabilität und Anpassungserfordernisse für klimaverletzliche Regionen. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 67, 2, 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerton, J. (1994): Introductory essay: The systems approach to technological change. In: Summerton, J. (Hrsg.): Changing large technical systems. Boulder, 1–21.

  • Voss, M. (2008): The vulnerable can’t speak. An integrative vulnerability approach to disaster and climate change research. In: Behemoth. A Journal on Civilisation 1, 3, 39–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, M. (2010): Einleitung: Perspektiven sozialwissenschaftlicher Klimawandelforschung. In: Voss, M. (Hrsg.): Der Klimawandel. Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven. Wiesbaden, 9–40.

  • Walker, B.; Holling, C. S.; Carpenter, S. R.; Kinzig, A. (2004): Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. In: Ecology and Society 9, 2, 5. Online unter: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 (letzter Zugriff am 15.02.2012).

  • Walker, B.; Gunderson, L.; Kinzig, A.; Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Schultz, L. (2006): A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. In: Ecology and Society 11, 1, 13. Online unter: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13 (letzter Zugriff am 23.02.2012).

  • Watts, M.; Bohle, H.-G. (1993): The space of vulnerability: The causal structure of hunger and famine. In: Progress in Human Geography 17, 1, 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weichhart, P. (2003): Gesellschaftlicher Metabolismus und Action Settings. Die Verknüpfung von Sach- und Sozialstrukturen im alltagsweltlichen Handeln. In: Meusburger, P.; Schwan, T (Hrsg.): Humanökologie. Ansätze zur Überwindung der Natur-Kultur-Dichotomie. Stuttgart, 15–42.

  • Welter-Enderlin, R.; Hildenbrand, B. (Hrsg.) (2008): Resilienz. Gedeihen trotz widriger Umstände. Heidelberg.

  • Werner, E. E. (1995): Resilience in development. In: Current Directions in Psychological Science 4, 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittle, R.; Medd, W.; Deeming, H.; Kashefi, E.; Mort, M.; Twigger-Ross, C.; Walker, G.; Watson, N. (2010): After the rain—learning the lessons from flood recovery in hull. Final project report for ‘flood, vulnerability and urban resilience: a real-time study of local recovery following the floods of June 2007 in Hull’. Lancaster. Online unter: http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/cswm/hfp (letzter Zugriff am 15.02.2012).

  • Wisner, B.; Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T.; Davis, I. (2004): At risk. Natural hazards, peoples’s vulnerability and disasters. London.

  • Wustmann, C. (2004): Resilienz. Widerstandsfähigkeit von Kindern in Tageseinrichtungen fördern. Weinheim.

  • Yeung, H. W. (2005): Rethinking relational economic geography. In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30, 1, 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2010): Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. In: Global Environmental Change 20, 3, 378–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, M. (2009): Armes Kind—starkes Kind? Die Chance der Resilienz. Wiesbaden.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung e.V. (IRS), Flakenstraße 28–31, 15537, Erkner, Germany

    Gabriela B. Christmann &  Oliver Ibert

Authors
  1. Gabriela B. Christmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oliver Ibert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Ibert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christmann, G., Ibert, O. Vulnerability and Resilience in a Socio-Spatial Perspective. Raumforsch Raumordn 70, 259–272 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-012-0171-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-012-0171-1

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation