Table 1. Comparison of assumptions about resilience and surprise.
| |
| |
|
|
Communicative Planning Perspective |
Social–Ecological Resilience Perspective |
| |
|
What is “resilience?” |
An ability to maintain equilibrium or “bounce back,” in the
way that physicists and engineers refer to a material’s ability to absorb
energy when it is deformed elastically and then to recover that
energy upon unloading (Hollnagel et al. 2006).
|
How far a particular relationship between social processes
and ecological dynamics can be perturbed without dramatic loss of identity and
structural and functional complexity (Holling 1973). |
|
What is “resilient?” |
A social condition, defined at the level of community, organization, city, region, or globe. Ecological and technological factors are
monitored and managed to sustain social integrity, but are not part of what is
resilient.
|
A multi-scalar social and ecological condition, because a social system
cannot be dissociated from the biosphere. |
|
What are “surprises?” |
A narrow range of unexpected destructive shocks, rapid and
discrete events such as technological failure, hurricanes, and violent
attack. |
Range from sudden, rapid, discrete, and irreversible disasters to
more gradual and insidious events, such as climate change. Also
encompass incremental, discontinuous, and spatially heterogeneous events like
declining agricultural productivity, as well as events that escape notice
because they are novel or occur imperceptibly over generations.
|
|
Where do surprises come from? |
Originate outside of the community, as threats to the community’s
security and durability. |
Can be both external to a community and endogenous to it, such as
regime-change thresholds and other system dynamics.
|
|
What is the relationship between surprises and resilience? |
Surprises are harmful and undesirable events that threaten resilience, and
conversely systems that are vulnerable to surprises are always less
resilient. |
Surprises are sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial, because they can
contribute to resilience or detract from it, endangering system continuity and
integrity or marking thresholds for system transformation when existing
conditions are untenable. Conversely, vulnerability to surprise could threaten
or enhance resilience. |
|
| |
|