Articles | Volume 9, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1159-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1159-2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Linking resilience and robustness and uncovering their trade-offs in coupled infrastructure systems
Mehran Homayounfar
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
John M. Anderies
School of Sustainability and School of Human Evolution and Social
Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Chitsomanus P. Muneepeerakul
independent researcher, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Steven J. Lade, Jonathan F. Donges, Ingo Fetzer, John M. Anderies, Christian Beer, Sarah E. Cornell, Thomas Gasser, Jon Norberg, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, and Will Steffen
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 507–523, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-507-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-507-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Around half of the carbon that humans emit into the atmosphere each year is taken up on land (by trees) and in the ocean (by absorption). We construct a simple model of carbon uptake that, unlike the complex models that are usually used, can be analysed mathematically. Our results include that changes in atmospheric carbon may affect future carbon uptake more than changes in climate. Our simple model could also study mechanisms that are currently too uncertain for complex models.
Related subject area
Management of the Earth system: sustainability science
Governing change: a dynamical systems approach to understanding the stability of environmental governance
Disentangling the climate divide with emotional patterns: a network-based mindset reconstruction approach
Lotka's wheel and the long arm of history: how does the distant past determine today's global rate of energy consumption?
Coupling human and natural systems for sustainability: experience from China's Loess Plateau
Groundwater storage dynamics in the world's large aquifer systems from GRACE: uncertainty and role of extreme precipitation
Exploring the biogeophysical limits of global food production under different climate change scenarios
A framework for modelling the complexities of food and water security under globalisation
Ship emissions and the use of current air cleaning technology: contributions to air pollution and acidification in the Baltic Sea
Sustainable use of renewable resources in a stylized social–ecological network model under heterogeneous resource distribution
Weather and resource information as tools for dealing with farmer–pastoralist conflicts in the Sahel
Revolutions in energy input and material cycling in Earth history and human history
Topology of sustainable management of dynamical systems with desirable states: from defining planetary boundaries to safe operating spaces in the Earth system
Socio-environmental cooperation and conflict? A discursive understanding and its application to the case of Israel and Palestine
Gender and climate change in the Indian Himalayas: global threats, local vulnerabilities, and livelihood diversification at the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve
Policies, economic incentives and the adoption of modern irrigation technology in China
Migration and global environmental change: methodological lessons from mountain areas of the global South
Farmers' perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: the case of Punjab province, Pakistan
Climate impacts on human livelihoods: where uncertainty matters in projections of water availability
Applying the concept of "energy return on investment" to desert greening of the Sahara/Sahel using a global climate model
Nusrat Molla, John DeIonno, Thilo Gross, and Jonathan Herman
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1677–1688, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1677-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1677-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
How the structure of resource governance systems affects how they respond to change is not yet well understood. We model the stability of thousands of different governance systems, revealing that greater diversity and interdependence among actors are destabilizing, while venue shopping and advocacy organizations are stabilizing. This study suggests that complexity in governance corresponds to responsiveness to change, while providing insight into managing them to balance adaptivity and stability
Roger Cremades and Massimo Stella
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1473–1489, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1473-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1473-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse the speeches of prominent climate activism and climate disinformation figures, finding that the emotional patterns behind the words reveal more than the words themselves and showing the emerging revolutionary characteristics of climate activism and some strange emotional connections on the side of disinformation, where there is surprisingly no worry about change at all.
Timothy J. Garrett, Matheus R. Grasselli, and Stephen Keen
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1021–1028, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1021-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1021-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Current world economic production is rising relative to energy consumption. This increase in
production efficiencysuggests that carbon dioxide emissions can be decoupled from economic activity through technological change. We show instead a nearly fixed relationship between energy consumption and a new economic quantity, historically cumulative economic production. The strong link to the past implies inertia may play a more dominant role in societal evolution than is generally assumed.
Bojie Fu, Xutong Wu, Zhuangzhuang Wang, Xilin Wu, and Shuai Wang
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 795–808, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-795-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-795-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the dynamics of a coupled human and natural system (CHANS) and promote its sustainability, we propose a conceptual
pattern–process–service–sustainabilitycascade framework. The use of this framework is systematically illustrated by a review of CHANS research experience in China's Loess Plateau in terms of coupling landscape patterns and ecological processes, linking ecological processes to ecosystem services, and promoting social–ecological sustainability.
Mohammad Shamsudduha and Richard G. Taylor
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 755–774, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-755-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-755-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Recent assessments of the sustainability of global groundwater resources using the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites assume that the underlying trends are linear. Here, we assess recent changes in groundwater storage (ΔGWS) in the world’s large aquifer systems using an ensemble of GRACE datasets and show that trends are mostly non-linear. Non-linearity in ΔGWS derives, in part, from the episodic nature of groundwater replenishment associated with extreme precipitation.
Philipp de Vrese, Tobias Stacke, and Stefan Hagemann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 393–412, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-393-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-393-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The potential food supply depends strongly on climatic conditions, while agricultural activity has substantial impacts on climate. Using an Earth system model, we investigate the climate–agriculture interactions resulting from a maximization of the global cropland area during the 21st century. We find that the potential food supply can be increased substantially, but guaranteeing food security in dry areas in Northern Africa, the Middle East and South Asia will become increasingly difficult.
Brian J. Dermody, Murugesu Sivapalan, Elke Stehfest, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Martin J. Wassen, Marc F. P. Bierkens, and Stefan C. Dekker
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 103–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-103-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-103-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Ensuring sustainable food and water security is an urgent and complex challenge. As the world becomes increasingly globalised and interdependent, food and water management policies may have unintended consequences across regions, sectors and scales. Current decision-making tools do not capture these complexities and thus miss important dynamics. We present a modelling framework to capture regional and sectoral interdependence and cross-scale feedbacks within the global food system.
Björn Claremar, Karin Haglund, and Anna Rutgersson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 901–919, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-901-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-901-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Shipping is the most cost-effective option for the global transport of goods, and over 90 % of world trade is carried by sea. The shipping sector, however, contributes to emissions of pollutants into the air and water. Estimates of deposition and near-surface concentrations of sulfur, nitrogen, and particulate matter originating from shipping in the Baltic Sea region have been developed for present conditions concerning traffic intensity and fuel as well as for future scenarios until 2050.
Wolfram Barfuss, Jonathan F. Donges, Marc Wiedermann, and Wolfgang Lucht
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 255–264, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-255-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-255-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Human societies depend on the resources ecosystems provide. We study this coevolutionary relationship by utilizing a stylized model of resource users on a social network. This model demonstrates that social–cultural processes can have a profound influence on the environmental state, such as determining whether the resources collapse from overuse or not. This suggests that social–cultural processes should receive more attention in the modeling of sustainability transitions and the Earth system.
Ole Mertz, Kjeld Rasmussen, and Laura Vang Rasmussen
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 969–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-969-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-969-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Conflicts over land and water resources between livestock herders and farmers are common in the Sahelian region of Africa. In this paper we show that improved information on weather, grazing areas, and water resources may reduce the level of conflict if communicated in such a way so that not too many livestock herds go to the same areas. However, if this information is not accompanied by information on herd crowding and potential conflict areas, it may lead to more conflict.
Timothy M. Lenton, Peter-Paul Pichler, and Helga Weisz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 353–370, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-353-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-353-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We identify six past revolutions in energy input and material cycling in Earth and human history. We find that human energy use has now reached a magnitude comparable to the biosphere, and conclude that a prospective sustainability revolution will require scaling up new solar energy technologies and the development of much more efficient material recycling systems. Our work was inspired by recognising the connections between Earth system science and industrial ecology at the "LOOPS" workshop.
J. Heitzig, T. Kittel, J. F. Donges, and N. Molkenthin
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 21–50, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-21-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-21-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The debate about a safe and just operating space for humanity and the possible pathways towards and within it requires an analysis of the inherent dynamics of the Earth system and of the options for influencing its evolution. We present and illustrate with examples a conceptual framework for performing such an analysis not in a quantitative, optimizing mode, but in a qualitative way that emphasizes the main decision dilemmas that one may face in the sustainable management of the Earth system.
T. Ide and C. Fröhlich
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 659–671, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-659-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-659-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate why some social groups engage in conflicts over shared natural resources while other groups cooperate over the same issue. Drawing on evidence from the particularly puzzling case of water conflict and cooperation in Israel and Palestine, we show that the discursive construction of identities and situation assessments is a crucial explanatory factor. This finding highlights the relevance of bottom-up discursive conflict transformation.
M. V. Ogra and R. Badola
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 505–523, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-505-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-505-2015, 2015
R. Cremades, J. Wang, and J. Morris
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 399–410, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-399-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-399-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Econometric analyses results revealed that policy support via subsidies and extension services have played an important role in promoting the adoption of irrigation technology. Strikingly, the present irrigation pricing policy has played significant but contradictory roles in promoting the adoption of different types of irrigation technology. Irrigation pricing showed a positive impact on household-based irrigation technology, and a negative impact on community-based irrigation technology.
A. Milan, G. Gioli, and T. Afifi
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 375–388, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-375-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-375-2015, 2015
M. Abid, J. Scheffran, U. A. Schneider, and M. Ashfaq
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 225–243, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-225-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-225-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Based on a farm household survey of 450 farmers, this study examined the adaptation to climate change and factors affecting the adoption of various adaptation measures at the farm level in Pakistan. The study demonstrates that awareness of climate change is widespread in the area, and farmers are adapting their crops to climate variability. However the adaptation process is constrained due to several factors such as lack of information, lack of money, lack of resources and shortage of water.
T. K. Lissner, D. E. Reusser, J. Schewe, T. Lakes, and J. P. Kropp
Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 355–373, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-355-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-355-2014, 2014
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change will have impacts on many different sectors of society, but a systematic method to quantify human well-being and livelihoods across sectors is so far unavailable. This paper presents the AHEAD approach, which allows for relating impacts of climate change to 16 dimensions of livelihoods and well-being. Using the example of changes in water availability, the results show how climate change impacts AHEAD. The approach also provides a tool to frame uncertainties from climate models.
S. P. K. Bowring, L. M. Miller, L. Ganzeveld, and A. Kleidon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 43–53, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-43-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-43-2014, 2014
Cited articles
AitSahlia, F., Wang, C. J., Cabrera, V. E., Uryasev, S., and Fraisse, C. W.:
Optimal crop planting schedules and financial hedging strategies
under ENSO-based climate forecasts, Ann. Oper. Res., 190, 201–220, 2011.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., and Walker, B. H.: Grazing Management,
Resilience, and the Dynamics of a Fire-Driven Rangeland System, Ecosystems,
5, 23–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0053-9, 2002.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M., and Ostrom, E.: A Framework to Analyze the
Robustness of Social-Ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective,
Ecol. Soc., 9, 18,
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/inline.html, 2004.
Anderies, J. M., Ryan, P., and Walker, B. H.: Loss of Resilience, Crisis, and
Institutional Change: Lessons from an Intensive Agricultural System in
Southeastern Australia, Ecosystems, 9,
865–878, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-006-0017-1, 2006.
Anderies, J. M., Rodriguez, A. A., Janssen, M. A., and Cifdaloz, O.:
Panaceas, Uncertainty, and the Robust Control Framework in Sustainability
Science, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 15194–15199,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702655104, 2007.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M., and Schlager, E.: Institutions and the
performance of coupled infrastructure systems, Int. J. Commons, 10, 495–516,
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.651, 2016.
ASCE RCIA Advisory Council: Report card for America's Infrastrcutre, Tech.
Rep., American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013.
Barrett, C. B. and Constas, M. A.: Toward a Theory of Resilience for
International Development Applications, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
14625–14630, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320880111, 2014.
Berkes, F. and Folke, C.: Linking Social and Ecological Systems for
Resilience and Sustainability, Linking Social and Ecological Systems:
Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, 1,
13–20, 1998.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C.: Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for Complexity and change Building, p. 393,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.01.010, 2003.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S.,
Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M.,
Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L.,
Schultz, L., and West, P. C.: Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience
of Ecosystem Services, Annu. Rev. Env. Resour., 37, 421–448,
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836, 2012.
Bode, H. W.: Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design. Bell Telephone
Laboratories Series, p. 551, 1945.
Bryant, B. P. and Lempert, R. J.: Thinking inside the Box: A Participatory,
Computer-Assisted Approach to Scenario Discovery, Technol. Forecast. Soc.,
77, 34–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.002, 2010.
Carlson, J. M. and Doyle, J.: Complexity and Robustness, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
99, 2538–2545, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.012582499, 2002.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., and Abel, N.: From Metaphor to
Measurement: Resilience of What to What?, Ecosystems, 4, 765–781,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9, 2001.
Carpenter, S. R. and Brock, W. A.: Spatial Complexity, Resilience, and Policy
Diversity: Fishing on Lake-Rich Landscapes, Ecol. Soc., 9, 8, 2004.
Carpenter, S. R., Ludwig, D., and Brock, W. A.: Management of Eutrophication
for Lakes Subject to Potentially Irreversible Change, Ecol. Appl., 9,
751–771, https://doi.org/10.2307/2641327, 1999a.
Carpenter, S., Brock, W., and Hanson, P.: Ecological and Social Dynamics
in Simple Models of Ecosystem Management, Conserv. Ecol., 3, 1–31,
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00122-030204, 1999b.
Carpenter, S. R., Westley, F., and Turner, M. G.: Surrogates for Resilience
of Social-Ecological Systems, Ecosystems, 8, 941–944,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0170-y, 2005.
Chang, S. E. and Shinozuka, M.: Measuring Improvements in the Disaster
Resilience of Communities, Earthq. Spectra, 20, 739–755,
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1775796, 2004.
Chang, S. E., McDaniels, T., Fox, J., Dhariwal, R., and Longstaff, H.: Toward
Disaster-Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure
Systems with Expert Judgments, Risk Anal., 34, 416–434,
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12133, 2014.
Cote, M. and Nightingale, A. J.: Resilience Thinking Meets Social Theory,
Prog. Hum. Geog., 36, 475–489, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708, 2012.
Csete, M. E. and Doyle, J. C.: Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity,
Science, 295, 1664–1669, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069981, 2002.
Cumming, G. S. and Peterson, G. D.: Unifying Research on Social–Ecological
Resilience and Collapse, Trends Ecol. Evol., 32, 695–713,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.014, 2017.
Folke, C.: Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social–ecological
Systems Analyses, Global Environ. Chang., 16, 253–267,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002, 2006.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., and
Walker, B.: Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive
Capacity in a World of Transformations, AMBIO, 31, 437–440,
https://doi.org/10.1639/0044-7447(2002)031[0437:RASDBA]2.0.CO;2, 2002.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., and
Rockström, J.: Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability
and Transformability, Ecol. Soc., 15, 20, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420,
2010.
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., and Rockström, J.:
Social-Ecological Resilience and Biosphere-Based Sustainability Science,
Ecol. Soc., 21, 41, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341, 2016.
Groves, D. G. and Lempert, R. J.: A New Analytic Method for Finding
Policy-Relevant Scenarios, Global Environ. Chang., 17, 73–85,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.006, 2007.
Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S.: Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of
Ecosystems and Institutions, Columbia University Press, 1995.
Holling, C. S.: Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst., 4, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245, 1973.
Holling, C. S.: Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience,
Engineering Within Ecological Constraints, 1996, 31–44, https://doi.org/10.17226/4919,
1996.
Janssen, M. A., Anderies, J. M., and Walker, B. H.: Robust Strategies for
Managing Rangelands with Multiple Stable Attractors, J. Environ. Econ.
Manag., 47, 140–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00069-X, 2004.
Kerner, D. and Thomas, J.: Resilience Attributes of Social-Ecological
Systems: Framing Metrics for Management, Resources, 3, Multidisciplinary
Digital Publishing Institute, 672–702, https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3040672, 2014.
Kot, M.: Elements of Mathematical Ecology, Cambridge University Press,
2001.
Krokhmal, P., Palmquist, J., and Uryasev, S.: Portfolio optimization with
conditional value-at-risk objective and constraints, J. Risk, 4, 43–68,
2002.
Longstaff, P. H., Armstrong, N. J., Perrin, K., Parker, W. M., and Hidek, M.:
Building Resilient Communities: A Preliminary Framework for Assessment,
Homeland Security Affairs, 6, 1–23, 2010.
May, R. M.: Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems, Princeton
University Press, 2001.
Mitra, C., Kurths, J., and Donner, R. V.: An Integrative Quantifier of
Multistability in Complex Systems Based on Ecological Resilience, Sci. Rep.,
5, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16196, 2015.
Muneepeerakul, R. and Anderies, J. M.: Strategic Behaviors and Governance
Challenges in Social-Ecological Systems, Earth's Future, 5, 865–76,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000562, 2017.
Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A., and Anderies, J. M.: Going beyond Panaceas, P.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 15176–15178, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104,
2007.
Redman, C. L.: Should Sustainability and Resilience Be Combined or Remain
Distinct Pursuits?, Ecol. Soc., 19, 37, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06390-190237,
2014.
Rockafellar, R. T. and Uryasev, S.: Optimization of conditional
value-at-risk, J. Risk, 2, 21–41, 2000.
Sarykalin, S., Serraino, G., and Uryasev, S.: Value-at-Risk vs. Conditional
Value-at-Risk in Risk Management and Optimization, INFORMS TutORials in
Operations Research, 27000294, https://doi.org/10.1287/educ.1080.0052, 2014.
Scheffer, M., Brock, W., and Westley, F.: Socioeconomic Mechanisms Preventing
Optimum Use of Ecosystem Services: An Interdisciplinary Theoretical Analysis,
Ecosystems, 3, 451–471, https://doi.org/10.1007/s100210000040, 2000.
Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R.,
Dakos, V., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., and Sugihara, G.:
Early-Warning Signals for Critical Transitions, Nature, 461, 7260,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227, 2009.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Lenton, T. M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.,
Dakos, V., van de Koppel, J., van de Leemput, I. A., Levin, S. A., van Nes,
E. H., Pascual, M., and Vandermeer, J.: Anticipating Critical Transitions,
Science, 6105, 344–348, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225244, 2012.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cummings, G., Janssen, M.,
Lebel, L., Norberg, J., Peterson, G. D., and Pritchard, R.: Resilience
Management in Social-Ecological Systems: A Working hypothesis for a
Participatory Approach, Conserv. Ecol., 6, p. 14,
2002.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., and Kinzig, A.: Resilience,
Adaptability and Transformability in Social–Ecological Systems, Ecol. Soc.,
9, 5, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205, 2004.
Water Act: Chap. 21, available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/21/contents/enacted (last
access: April 2018), 2014.
Wolpert, D. H. and Macready, W. G.: No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization,
IEEE T. Evolut. Comput., 1, 67–82, https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893, 1997.
Zymler, S., Kuhn, D., and Rustem, B.: Worst-Case Value at Risk of Nonlinear
Portfolios, Management Science, 59, 172–188, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1615,
2013.
Short summary
For many complex social-ecological systems, robustness and resilience are difficult to quantify and the connections and trade-offs between them difficult to study. In this study, we present an analytical framework to address the linkage between robustness and resilience more systematically. The results reveal the trade-offs between robustness and resilience. They also show how the nature of such trade-offs varies with the choices of certain policies, internal stresses, and external disturbances.
For many complex social-ecological systems, robustness and resilience are difficult to quantify...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint