Resilience revisited: taking institutional theory seriously

Sjöstedt, Martin

doi:10.5751/es-08034-200423

Cited by 75 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As an implication, as Lewis and Kelman argue (2012), attempts to make communities more resilient can actually result in a contrary situation, as they put them in a less tenable situation. This arises because resilience-based governance approaches have a tendency to be neglectful of social conflicts, inequalities and power (Fainstein, 2015:160;Jerneck and Olsson, 2008;Davoudi, 2012;MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013;Olsson et al, 2014), underestimate the relevance of social institutions and political struggle (Hayward, 2013;Sjöstedt, 2015) or be unheeding of the challenges associated with the idea of community participation (Bahadur and Tanner, 2014;Bahadur et al, 2013).…”

Section: Conceptual Tensions Of Community Resilience In Disaster Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Kruse

Abeling

Deeming

et al. 2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The level of community is considered to be vital for building disaster resilience. Yet, community resilience as a scientific concept often remains vaguely defined and lacks the guiding characteristics necessary for analysing and enhancing resilience on the ground. The emBRACE framework of community resilience presented in this paper provides a heuristic analytical tool for understanding, explaining and measuring community resilience to natural hazards. It was developed in an iterative process building on existing scholarly debates, on empirical case study work in five countries and on participatory consultation with community stakeholders where the framework was applied and ground-tested in different contexts and for different hazard types. The framework conceptualizes resilience across three core domains: (i) resources and capacities, (ii) actions and (iii) learning. These three domains are conceptualized as intrinsically conjoined within a whole. Community resilience is influenced by these integral elements as well as by extra-community forces comprising disaster risk governance and thus laws, policies and responsibilities on the one hand and on the other, the general societal context, natural and human-made disturbances and system change over time. The framework is a graphically rendered heuristic, which through application can assist in guiding the assessment of community resilience in a systematic way and identifying key drivers and barriers of resilience that affect any particular hazard-exposed community.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Tensions Of Community Resilience In Disaster Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Kruse

Abeling

Deeming

et al. 2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, restructuring current institutions and governance systems for resilience is no small task and the challenge in relation to social-ecological systems and resilience is subject to a growing literature (e.g., Dietz et al 2003, Young 2010, Schlüter and Herrfardt-Pähle 2011, Sjöstedt 2015. Such restructuring raises issues of representative democracy, accountability, and legitimacy in governance (e.g., Hahn 2011, Cosens 2013.…”

Section: Capturing Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But resilience is influencing the environmental sciences from agriculture to oceans as well as global environmental and climate change reflected in, e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (e.g., O'Brien et al 2012) and in risk and disaster management (e.g., Berkes 2007, Tidball et al 2010, McSweeney and Coomes 2011, Djalante et al 2013). Resilience thinking is raised in the development literature and in diverse ontologies and epistemologies of the social sciences and the humanities (e.g., Hamel and Välikangas 2003, Redman 2005, Hegmon et al 2008, Simmie and Martin 2010, Robards et al 2011, Crépin et al 2012, Plieninger and Bieling 2012, Ebbesson and Hey 2013, Hall and Lamont 2013, Lorenz 2013, Lyon and Parkins 2013, Barrett and Constas 2014, Chandler 2014, Tidball 2014, Bourbeau 2015, Hobman and Walker 2015, Marston 2015, Sjöstedt 2015, Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015 and with diverse reactions from excitement to those that oppose the approach for diverse reasons (reviewed by, e.g., Brown 2014, Cretney 2014, Stone-Jovicich 2015.…”

Section: Early Work On Resilience and The Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience (Republished)

Folke¹

2016

E&S

636

393

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Resilience thinking in relation to the environment has emerged as a lens of inquiry that serves a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. Resilience is about cultivating the capacity to sustain development in the face of expected and surprising change and diverse pathways of development and potential thresholds between them. The evolution of resilience thinking is coupled to socialecological systems and a truly intertwined human-environment planet. Resilience as persistence, adaptability, and transformability of complex adaptive social-ecological systems is the focus, clarifying the dynamic and forward-looking nature of the concept. Resilience thinking emphasizes that social-ecological systems, from the individual, to community, to society as a whole, are embedded in the biosphere. The biosphere connection is an essential observation if sustainability is to be taken seriously. In the continuous advancement of resilience thinking there are efforts aimed at capturing resilience of social-ecological systems and finding ways for people and institutions to govern social-ecological dynamics for improved human well-being, at the local, across levels and scales, to the global. Consequently, in resilience thinking, development issues for human well-being, for people and planet, are framed in a context of understanding and governing complex social-ecological dynamics for sustainability as part of a dynamic biosphere.This invited article is a republication of Folke, C. 2016. "Resilience" of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science

show abstract

“…These FRGAs are the institutional structures and processes that guide and restrain collective activities of a society to regulate, reduce, or control risks (Renn et al 2011). Sjöstedt (2015) argues that the endogenous, institutional dynamics of this adjustment tend to receive little attention. We address this gap by focusing on crisisdriven institutional dynamics (Rosenthal and 't Hart 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shock events and flood risk management: a media analysis of the institutional long-term effects of flood events in the Netherlands and Poland

Kaufmann¹,

Lewandowski²,

Choryński³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Flood events that have proven to create shock waves in society, which we will call shock events, can open windows of opportunity that allow different actor groups to introduce new ideas. Shock events, however, can also strengthen the status quo. We will take flood events as our object of study. Whereas others focus mainly on the immediate impact and disaster management, we will focus on the long-term impact on and resilience of flood risk governance arrangements. Over the last 25 years, both the Netherlands and Poland have suffered several flood-related events. These triggered strategic and institutional changes, but to different degrees. In a comparative analysis these endogenous processes, i.e., the importance of framing of the flood event, its exploitation by different actor groups, and the extent to which arrangements are actually changing, are examined. In line with previous research, our analysis revealed that shock events test the capacity to resist and bounce back and provide opportunities for adapting and learning. They "open up" institutional arrangements and make them more susceptible to change, increasing the opportunity for adaptation. In this way they can facilitate a shift toward different degrees of resilience, i.e., by adjusting the current strategic approach or by moving toward another strategic approach. The direction of change is influenced by the actors and the frames they introduce, and their ability to increase the resonance of the frame. The persistence of change seems to be influenced by the evolution of the initial management approach, the availability of resources, or the willingness to allocate resources.

show abstract

Resilience revisited: taking institutional theory seriously

Cited by 75 publications

References 46 publications

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Resilience (Republished)

Shock events and flood risk management: a media analysis of the institutional long-term effects of flood events in the Netherlands and Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About