TY - JOUR
T1 - Review article: Towards a context-driven research
T2 - a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change
AU - Ossewaarde, Ringo
AU - Filatova, Tatiana
AU - Georgiadou, Yola
AU - Hartmann, Andreas
AU - Özerol, Gül
AU - Pfeffer, Karin
AU - Stegmaier, Peter
AU - Torenvlied, René
AU - van der Voort, Mascha
AU - Warmink, Jord
AU - Borsje, Bas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Institute of Physics Inc.. All rights reserved.
Financial transaction number:
342113961
PY - 2021/3/26
Y1 - 2021/3/26
N2 - Since the 1970s, Holling's socio-ecological systems (SES) approach has been a most predominant theoretical force in resilience research in the context of the climate crisis. From Holling's approach, however, two contrasting scientific approaches to resilience have developed, namely, naturalism and constructivism. While naturalist resilience research takes SES as complex systems marked by non-linearity and evolutionary changes, constructivist resilience research focuses on the embeddedness of SES in heterogenous contexts. In naturalist resilience research resilience is defined as a system property, while in constructivist resilience research resilience is politically loaded and historically contingent. The aim of this paper is to review and structure current developments in resilience research in the field of climate change studies, in terms of the approaches, definitions, models and commitments that are typical for naturalism and constructivism; identify the key tension between naturalist and constructivist resilience research in terms of the widely discussed issue of adaptation and transformation, and discuss its implications for sustainable development; and propose a research agenda of topics distilled from the adaptation-transformation tension between naturalist and constructivist resilience research.
AB - Since the 1970s, Holling's socio-ecological systems (SES) approach has been a most predominant theoretical force in resilience research in the context of the climate crisis. From Holling's approach, however, two contrasting scientific approaches to resilience have developed, namely, naturalism and constructivism. While naturalist resilience research takes SES as complex systems marked by non-linearity and evolutionary changes, constructivist resilience research focuses on the embeddedness of SES in heterogenous contexts. In naturalist resilience research resilience is defined as a system property, while in constructivist resilience research resilience is politically loaded and historically contingent. The aim of this paper is to review and structure current developments in resilience research in the field of climate change studies, in terms of the approaches, definitions, models and commitments that are typical for naturalism and constructivism; identify the key tension between naturalist and constructivist resilience research in terms of the widely discussed issue of adaptation and transformation, and discuss its implications for sustainable development; and propose a research agenda of topics distilled from the adaptation-transformation tension between naturalist and constructivist resilience research.
U2 - 10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021
DO - 10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021
M3 - Review article
SN - 2195-9269
VL - 21
SP - 1119
EP - 1133
JO - Natural hazards and earth systems sciences discussions
JF - Natural hazards and earth systems sciences discussions
IS - 3
ER -