Patrick Steinmann, Hilde Tobi, George A. K. van Voorn
{"title":"社会生态和社会技术系统的复原力指标:范围审查","authors":"Patrick Steinmann, Hilde Tobi, George A. K. van Voorn","doi":"10.3390/systems12090357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An increased interest in the resilience of complex socio-ecological and socio-technical systems has led to a variety of metrics being proposed. An overview of these metrics and their underlying concepts would support identifying useful metrics for applications in science and engineering. This study undertakes a scoping review of resilience metrics for systems straddling the societal, ecological, and technical domains to determine how resilience has been measured, the conceptual differences between the proposed approaches, and how they align with the domains of their case studies. We find that a wide variety of resilience metrics have been proposed in the literature. Conceptually, ten different quantification approaches were identified. Four different disturbance types were observed, including sudden, continuous, multiple, and abruptly ending disturbances. Surprisingly, there is no strong pattern regarding socio-ecological systems being studied using the “ecological resilience” concept and socio-technical systems being studied using the “engineering resilience” concept. As a result, we recommend that researchers use multiple resilience metrics in the same study, ideally following different conceptual approaches, and compare the resulting insights. Furthermore, the used metrics should be mathematically defined, the included variables explained and their units provided, and the chosen functional form justified.","PeriodicalId":36394,"journal":{"name":"Systems","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resilience Metrics for Socio-Ecological and Socio-Technical Systems: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Steinmann, Hilde Tobi, George A. K. van Voorn\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/systems12090357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An increased interest in the resilience of complex socio-ecological and socio-technical systems has led to a variety of metrics being proposed. An overview of these metrics and their underlying concepts would support identifying useful metrics for applications in science and engineering. This study undertakes a scoping review of resilience metrics for systems straddling the societal, ecological, and technical domains to determine how resilience has been measured, the conceptual differences between the proposed approaches, and how they align with the domains of their case studies. We find that a wide variety of resilience metrics have been proposed in the literature. Conceptually, ten different quantification approaches were identified. Four different disturbance types were observed, including sudden, continuous, multiple, and abruptly ending disturbances. Surprisingly, there is no strong pattern regarding socio-ecological systems being studied using the “ecological resilience” concept and socio-technical systems being studied using the “engineering resilience” concept. As a result, we recommend that researchers use multiple resilience metrics in the same study, ideally following different conceptual approaches, and compare the resulting insights. Furthermore, the used metrics should be mathematically defined, the included variables explained and their units provided, and the chosen functional form justified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systems\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090357\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systems","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090357","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Resilience Metrics for Socio-Ecological and Socio-Technical Systems: A Scoping Review
An increased interest in the resilience of complex socio-ecological and socio-technical systems has led to a variety of metrics being proposed. An overview of these metrics and their underlying concepts would support identifying useful metrics for applications in science and engineering. This study undertakes a scoping review of resilience metrics for systems straddling the societal, ecological, and technical domains to determine how resilience has been measured, the conceptual differences between the proposed approaches, and how they align with the domains of their case studies. We find that a wide variety of resilience metrics have been proposed in the literature. Conceptually, ten different quantification approaches were identified. Four different disturbance types were observed, including sudden, continuous, multiple, and abruptly ending disturbances. Surprisingly, there is no strong pattern regarding socio-ecological systems being studied using the “ecological resilience” concept and socio-technical systems being studied using the “engineering resilience” concept. As a result, we recommend that researchers use multiple resilience metrics in the same study, ideally following different conceptual approaches, and compare the resulting insights. Furthermore, the used metrics should be mathematically defined, the included variables explained and their units provided, and the chosen functional form justified.