No abstract

ABSTRACT. This article reviews the variety of definitions proposed for "resilience" within sustainability science and suggests a typology according to the specific degree of normativity. There is a tension between the original descriptive concept of resilience first defined in ecological science and a more recent, vague, and malleable notion of resilience used as an approach or boundary object by different scientific disciplines. Even though increased conceptual vagueness can be valuable to foster communication across disciplines and between science and practice, both conceptual clarity and practical relevance of the concept of resilience are critically in danger. The fundamental question is what conceptual structure we want resilience to have. This article argues that a clearly specified, descriptive concept of resilience is critical in providing a counterbalance to the use of resilience as a vague boundary object. A clear descriptive concept provides the basis for operationalization and application of resilience within ecological science.

No abstract

Many investigations in current ecological research focus on ecological functions, the functions of biodiversity, or the functioning of ecological systems. However, within ecology “function” is used in several different meanings. The most important ones are those of function as denoting either processes, roles, services or the “functioning” of whole systems. Some of these meanings pose considerable problems in terms of their ability to apply them in empirical research. These problems together with the ambiguity of the term “function” constitute considerable impediments for generalizations of research results. In order to improve this situation, the current paper describes the different meanings of “function” and discusses the requirements necessary to unambiguously apply the concept(s) in practice. This is illustrated by the example of current discussions on the “functions of biodiversity”.

No abstract