Abstract:Comparable to the traditional notion of stability in system dynamics, resilience is currently predominantly measured in a way that quantifies the quality of a system's response, for example the speed of its recovery. We present a broadly applicable complementary measurement framework that quantifies resilience similarly to basin stability by estimating a resilience basin which represents the extent of adverse influences that the system can recover from in a sufficient manner.As a proof of concept, the resilien… Show more
“…in a way similar to basin volume-based metrics proposed by Menck et al (2013), Mitra et al (2015), Hellmann et al (2016), Kan et al (2016)or the quantifiers following Hodgson et al (2015). One example of this is the work of Bien et al (2021) in the context of power grids. A more sophisticated type of novel resilience metric might be a real-valued function f that maps a combination of four indicators-one for the current state x of the system, one for the acceptable threshold θ of the sustainant, one for the strength σ of potential adverse influences, and one for the allowable recovery time T-to the probability p = f(x, θ, σ, T) that the system will return to acceptable levels of the sustainant within the allowable time after suffering in the specified state an adverse influence of the given strength.…”
The term `resilience' is increasingly being used in Earth system science and other disciplines which study what could be called "social-technical-environmental systems" -- systems composed of closely interacting social (e.g. economic and political), technical (e.g. energy production infrastructure), and environmental components (e.g. climate and the biosphere). However, the diversity of resilience theories and a certain (intended) openness of proposed definitions can lead to misunderstandings and may impede their application to complex systems modelling. We propose a guideline that aims to ease communication as well as to support systematic development of research questions and models in the context of resilience. It can be applied independently of the modelling framework or underlying theory of choice. At the heart of this guideline is a checklist consisting of four questions to be answered: (i) Resilience of what? (ii) Resilience regarding what? (iii) Resilience against what? (iv) Resilience how? We refer to the answers to these resilience questions as the ``system'', the ``sustainant'', the ``adverse influence'', and the ``response options''. The term `sustainant' is a neologism describing the feature of the system (state, structure, function, pathway, ...) that should be maintained (or restored quickly enough) in order to call the system resilient. The use of this proposed guideline in the field of Earth system resilience is demonstrated for the application example of a potential climate tipping element: the Amazon rainforest. The example illustrates the diversity of possible answers to the checklist's questions as well as their benefits in structuring the modelling process. The guideline supports the modeller in communicating precisely what is actually meant by `resilience' in a specific context. This combination of freedom and precision could help to advance the resilience discourse by building a bridge between those demanding unambiguous definitions and those stressing the benefits of generality and flexibility of the resilience concept.
“…in a way similar to basin volume-based metrics proposed by Menck et al (2013), Mitra et al (2015), Hellmann et al (2016), Kan et al (2016)or the quantifiers following Hodgson et al (2015). One example of this is the work of Bien et al (2021) in the context of power grids. A more sophisticated type of novel resilience metric might be a real-valued function f that maps a combination of four indicators-one for the current state x of the system, one for the acceptable threshold θ of the sustainant, one for the strength σ of potential adverse influences, and one for the allowable recovery time T-to the probability p = f(x, θ, σ, T) that the system will return to acceptable levels of the sustainant within the allowable time after suffering in the specified state an adverse influence of the given strength.…”
The term `resilience' is increasingly being used in Earth system science and other disciplines which study what could be called "social-technical-environmental systems" -- systems composed of closely interacting social (e.g. economic and political), technical (e.g. energy production infrastructure), and environmental components (e.g. climate and the biosphere). However, the diversity of resilience theories and a certain (intended) openness of proposed definitions can lead to misunderstandings and may impede their application to complex systems modelling. We propose a guideline that aims to ease communication as well as to support systematic development of research questions and models in the context of resilience. It can be applied independently of the modelling framework or underlying theory of choice. At the heart of this guideline is a checklist consisting of four questions to be answered: (i) Resilience of what? (ii) Resilience regarding what? (iii) Resilience against what? (iv) Resilience how? We refer to the answers to these resilience questions as the ``system'', the ``sustainant'', the ``adverse influence'', and the ``response options''. The term `sustainant' is a neologism describing the feature of the system (state, structure, function, pathway, ...) that should be maintained (or restored quickly enough) in order to call the system resilient. The use of this proposed guideline in the field of Earth system resilience is demonstrated for the application example of a potential climate tipping element: the Amazon rainforest. The example illustrates the diversity of possible answers to the checklist's questions as well as their benefits in structuring the modelling process. The guideline supports the modeller in communicating precisely what is actually meant by `resilience' in a specific context. This combination of freedom and precision could help to advance the resilience discourse by building a bridge between those demanding unambiguous definitions and those stressing the benefits of generality and flexibility of the resilience concept.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.