社会生态和社会技术系统的复原力指标:范围审查

IF 2.3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Systems Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.3390/systems12090357
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对复杂的社会-生态和社会-技术系统的复原力越来越感兴趣,因此提出了各种衡量标准。对这些指标及其基本概念的概述有助于确定科学和工程应用中的有用指标。本研究对横跨社会、生态和技术领域的系统的复原力指标进行了范围审查,以确定如何测量复原力、所提方法之间的概念差异,以及这些方法如何与其案例研究的领域保持一致。我们发现,文献中提出了各种各样的复原力衡量标准。从概念上讲,我们发现了十种不同的量化方法。我们观察到了四种不同的干扰类型,包括突发干扰、连续干扰、多重干扰和突然结束的干扰。令人惊讶的是,在使用 "生态复原力 "概念研究社会生态系统和使用 "工程复原力 "概念研究社会技术系统方面,并没有形成强有力的模式。因此,我们建议研究人员在同一项研究中使用多种复原力指标,最好采用不同的概念方法,并比较由此得出的见解。此外,应从数学角度定义所使用的指标,解释所包含的变量,提供变量单位,并说明所选函数形式的合理性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systems
Systems Decision Sciences-Information Systems and Management
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
204
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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