How resilience is framed matters for governance of coastal social‐ecological systems

Abstract

Effective governance of social‐ecological systems (SES) is an enduring challenge, especially in coastal environments where accelerating impacts of climate change are increasing pressure on already stressed systems. While resilience is often proposed as a suitable framing to re‐orient governance and management, the literature includes many different, and sometimes conflicting, definitions and ideas that influence how the concept is applied, especially in coastal environments. This study combines discourse analysis of the coastal governance literature and key informant interviews in Tasmania, Australia, demonstrating inconsistencies and confusion in the way that resilience is framed in coastal governance research and practice. We find that resilience is most often framed as (1) a rate of recovery from disturbance or (2) the process of acting in response to, or anticipation of, a disturbance. A third framing considers resilience as an emergent property of SESs. This framing, social‐ecological resilience, accounts for multiple configurations of SES, which necessitates adaptation and transformation strategies to address changes across temporal and spatial scales. Coastal managers recognised the value of this third framing for governing coastal SESs, yet the confusion and inconsistency in the literature was also evident in how they understood and applied resilience in practice. Expanding the use of social‐ecological resilience is essential for more effective coastal governance, given the dynamics of coastal SESs and the intensity of social, economic, and environmental drivers of change these systems face. However, this requires addressing the unclear, confused, and superficial use of resilience‐oriented concepts in research and policy discourse.

To burn or not to burn: governance of wildfires in Australia

“…The Shire did not want to merely pay lip service to the concept of shared responsibility. For the Shire, achieving a sense of shared responsibility required that all stakeholders, especially Peninsula landowners, were able to contribute to a truly deliberative discourse regarding what a more wildfire resilient (see Clement et al 2023) future for the Peninsula should look like. Shared responsibility between stakeholders also required that the Shire lead through action, and thus sought to establish a de facto social contract with other Peninsula landowners to collectively take action to manage the wildfire risk.…”

Adaptive Governance of Disaster Preparedness? The Case of Regional Networks in Finland

“…a According to Bixler et al [13], the concept of resilience is an essential link between disaster risk reduction and AG. There are different ways to conceptualise resilience [45]. The AG literature typically emphasizes the importance of the socio-ecological system's capacity to absorb disturbance and reorganize, learn and adapt while retaining its function and identity [9,15].…”