| |
| |
|
|
Optimization for conservation |
Resilience thinking |
| |
|
Strengths (inherent) |
Recognizes resource scarcity |
Recognizes system complexity |
|
|
Encourages transparency in resource
allocation
|
Recognizes interdependence of social and biophysical
systems
|
|
Strengths (in practice) |
Can provide specific answers to a well-defined
problem |
Encourages anticipation of undesirable surprises or
thresholds |
|
|
Fits well with how business and governments
operate
|
Encourages reflection on how a system
works
|
|
Weaknesses (inherent) |
Sensitive to accuracy of underlying assumptions and
system model |
Potentially difficult to apply to systems without
identifiable alternate states |
|
Weaknesses (in practice) |
Targets or budget constraints are often informed by
politics rather than by an in-depth understanding of underlying system
dynamics |
Reliant on tools from other disciplines to be
operational to inform policy |
|
|
The term “optimal” can sound absolute to
policy-makers and the general
public
|
The term “resilience” can appear vague to
policy-makers and the general
public
|
| |
|
Adapted from Fischer et al. (2009) |