How do we study resilience? A systematic review

Yann le Polain de Waroux, Marie‐Claude Carignan, Olivia del Giorgio, Leandro Díaz, Lucas Enrico, Pedro Jaureguiberry, M. L. Lipoma, Flavia Mazzini, Sandra Díaz
{"title":"How do we study resilience? A systematic review","authors":"Yann le Polain de Waroux, Marie‐Claude Carignan, Olivia del Giorgio, Leandro Díaz, Lucas Enrico, Pedro Jaureguiberry, M. L. Lipoma, Flavia Mazzini, Sandra Díaz","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nThe concept of resilience has gained immense popularity as a way to frame social and environmental challenges. However, its empirical operationalization and the integration of social and ecological dimensions continue to present difficulties.\n\nIn this paper, we conduct a systematic review of existing empirical studies of resilience in social, ecological and social‐ecological systems (SESs) and examine how and to what extent these studies have achieved the operationalization of the concept of resilience.\n\nWe evaluate the operationalization of resilience in 463 papers based on whether they define the system of interest and disturbances, whether they define resilience, whether they evaluate resilience, and for papers focusing on SESs, whether that evaluation integrates social and ecological dimensions.\n\nWe find that 51% of empirical studies do not meet at least one of these operationalization criteria, and that even those that do often lack key features for effective operationalization, such as clear system boundaries and baseline state or an effective integration of social and ecological dimensions. Of the papers examining SESs and evaluating resilience, only 54% integrate social and ecological dimensions in that evaluation.\n\nBuilding on these findings, we propose some design guidelines for operationalizing future empirical studies of resilience.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":508650,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":"49 36","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of resilience has gained immense popularity as a way to frame social and environmental challenges. However, its empirical operationalization and the integration of social and ecological dimensions continue to present difficulties. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of existing empirical studies of resilience in social, ecological and social‐ecological systems (SESs) and examine how and to what extent these studies have achieved the operationalization of the concept of resilience. We evaluate the operationalization of resilience in 463 papers based on whether they define the system of interest and disturbances, whether they define resilience, whether they evaluate resilience, and for papers focusing on SESs, whether that evaluation integrates social and ecological dimensions. We find that 51% of empirical studies do not meet at least one of these operationalization criteria, and that even those that do often lack key features for effective operationalization, such as clear system boundaries and baseline state or an effective integration of social and ecological dimensions. Of the papers examining SESs and evaluating resilience, only 54% integrate social and ecological dimensions in that evaluation. Building on these findings, we propose some design guidelines for operationalizing future empirical studies of resilience. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
我们如何研究复原力?系统回顾
复原力这一概念作为应对社会和环境挑战的一种方法,已广为流行。在本文中,我们对现有的社会、生态和社会生态系统(SES)复原力实证研究进行了系统回顾,并考察了这些研究如何以及在多大程度上实现了复原力概念的可操作性。我们评估了 463 篇论文中复原力的可操作性,评估的依据是这些论文是否定义了相关系统和干扰,是否定义了复原力,是否对复原力进行了评估,对于关注社会生态系统的论文,评估是否整合了社会和生态维度。我们发现,51% 的实证研究至少有一项不符合可操作性标准,即使是符合标准的研究也往往缺乏有效可操作性的关键特征,如明确的系统边界和基线状态或有效整合社会和生态维度。在研究 SES 并评估复原力的论文中,只有 54% 的论文在评估中整合了社会和生态维度。基于这些发现,我们提出了一些设计指南,以便在未来对复原力进行实证研究时进行操作化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信