Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change - Natural Hazards and Earth ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art
review of resilience research on climate change
Ringo Ossewaarde1 , Tatiana Filatova2 , Yola Georgiadou3 , Andreas Hartmann4 , Gül Özerol2 , Karin Pfeffer3 ,
Peter Stegmaier5 , Rene Torenvlied1 , Mascha van der Voort6 , Jord Warmink7 , and Bas Borsje7
1 Department of Public Administration, University of Twente, Enschede, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522NB Enschede, the Netherlands
2 Department of Governance and Technology for Sustainability, University of Twente,
Enschede, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522NB Enschede, the Netherlands
3 Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Geo-Information Management, University of Twente,
Enschede, Hengelosestraat 99, 7514AE Enschede, the Netherlands
4 Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Twente,
Enschede, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522NB Enschede, the Netherlands
5 Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente,
Enschede, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522NB Enschede, the Netherlands
6 Department of Design Production and Management, University of Twente,
Enschede, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522NB Enschede, the Netherlands
7 Department of Water Engineering and Management, University of Twente,
Enschede, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522NB Enschede, the Netherlands
Correspondence: Ringo Ossewaarde (m.r.r.ossewaarde@utwente.nl)
Received: 23 March 2020 – Discussion started: 31 March 2020
Revised: 8 February 2021 – Accepted: 25 February 2021 – Published: 26 March 2021
Abstract. The twofold aim of this paper is to provide an climate change does not compromise sustainability and con-
overview of the current state of resilience research with re- siderations of justice (including environmental, climate, and
gard to climate change in the social sciences and propose energy justice).
a research agenda. Resilience research among social scien-
tists is characterized by much more diversity today than a
few decades ago. Different definitions and understandings of
resilience appear in publications during the last 10 years. Re- 1 Introduction
silience research increasingly bears the mark of social con-
structivism, a relative newcomer compared to the more long- A brief and non-exhaustive overview of resilience scholar-
standing tradition of naturalism. There are also approaches ship published in the period 1970–2020 reveals a diversifi-
that are indebted to both “naturalism” and “constructivism”, cation of research foci and themes, approaches and methods,
which, of course, come in many varieties. Based on our and theoretical frameworks. Resilience has been a prevalent
overview of recent scholarship, which is far from being ex- research topic among ecologists for several decades and, very
haustive, we have identified six research avenues that ar- soon after, among cyberneticists. Given the association of re-
guably deserve continued attention. They combine natural- silience with the natural sciences and engineering (see In-
ist and constructivist insights and approaches so that human dirli, 2019), it is perhaps not so surprising that most social
agency, reflexivity, and considerations of justice and equity scientists did not see the need to have recourse to the termi-
are incorporated into systems thinking research or supple- nology or concept until much later. And if they did adopt the
ment such research. Ultimately, we believe that the overarch- idea earlier, they were likely to embrace the naturalist theo-
ing challenge for future research is to ensure that resilience to retical framework that accompanied it (Holling, 1973, 2001;
see Chandler, 2014). Other social scientists are still reluc-
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.1120 R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research tant to accept resilience as a universal and unifying concept, stronger with the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. The pointing out the “core concepts and principles in resilience widespread recourse to the language of resilience by power- theory that create theoretical tensions and methodological ful private and public actors has incited a series of schol- barriers between the natural and social sciences” (Olsson, arship critical of such discourse (Chandler, 2014; Pizzo, 2015). This conceived opposition between the natural sci- 2015; Lockie, 2016; Derickson, 2016). The latter, it is ob- ences and social sciences may not be experienced by all nat- served, easily hides vested political and economic interests uralists or social scientists. Even more importantly perhaps, and distracts attention from structural and institutional de- such opposition – real or surmised – may hinder fruitful col- fects by emphasizing resilience through technological inno- laborations in the face of our ecological crisis. Yet, collabo- vations. Katrina and, even more recently, Covid-19, it is ar- ration, integration, or “transdisciplinarity” in the real worlds gued, reveal a vulnerability that is not simply an unavoidable of universities and research institutes may not always reflect fragility in the face of natural hazards but is also the fruit a genuine transcendence of disciplinary boundaries, but in- of institutions and political decisions over a long period of stead largely consist of natural sciences and engineering re- time. Natural disasters tend to be perceived as indiscriminate search in sustainability (Groß and Stauffacher, 2014). That and indifferent as to whom they affect. Yet, as Belkhir and said, there have been genuine attempts to transcend the limi- Charlemaine (2007, p. 12) point out, “hurricanes may not tations of both naturalism – in the strict, technical sense of the single out victims by their race, or gender or class but nei- term (Andler, 2014) – and forms of social constructivism that ther do such disasters occur in historical, political, social, or border on relativism (Proctor, 1998a, b; Popa et al., 2015). economic vacuums”. In other words, social, cultural, polit- Such transdisciplinary research is typically problem-oriented ical, and economic conditions are conceived to be involved (Groß and Stauffacher, 2014). in the resilience or non-resilience of a nation or of particu- Crawford Stanley Holling’s ecological notion of resilience lar groups to natural calamities (Henkel et al., 2006; Tierney, (Holling, 1973) is considered by some to be a bridge be- 2015; Lockie, 2016). In this regard, it is interesting to take tween the social sciences and engineering (Ostrom, 2007; note of the discussion surrounding the terminology “natural Thorén, 2014). The appeal of Holling’s socio-ecological sys- disaster” vs. “disaster” (Kelman, 2020). tem (SES) approach among some social scientists may be The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the due to its being a corrective to the tendency of Holling’s current state of resilience research with regard to climate fellow ecologists to unconditionally embrace the methods change in the social sciences and propose a research agenda. and premises inherited from classical physics (see Holling, Resilience research among social scientists is characterized 1973; Thorén, 2014; Estêvãoet al., 2017; Davoudi, 2018). by much more diversity today than a few decades ago. Dif- Holling corrected what he considered to be a flawed view ferent definitions and understandings of resilience appear of the world and of ecosystems, namely as closed or sta- in publications over the last 10 years (see Indirli, 2019). ble. Against the “equilibrium-centered” view, he emphasized Resilience research increasingly bears the mark of social the influence of random events (natural or human-caused) on constructivism, a relative newcomer compared to the more ecological systems (Holling, 1973, p. 15). Yet, even this com- long-standing tradition of naturalism. Given this history, it is plex systems approach does not score very highly at the level hardly surprising that social scientists focusing on resilience of reflexivity, which is required to discover and “acknowl- to climate change should initially have borrowed the research edge overt or covert forms of dominance shaping public dis- methods common to natural and applied sciences. “Social course and participation” (Popa et al., 2015). Slightly more constructivist” approaches gradually made their entrance, es- positively framed, societal resilience to climate change also pecially in reaction to both the perceived inadequacy of par- involves political and institutional factors, lifestyles and con- ticular naturalistic approaches and the increasing normative sumer habits, production patterns, and structures of power in use of resilience in policy agendas (Weichselgartner and Kel- general (see Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983; Blühdorn, 2013; man, 2015). There are also approaches that are indebted to Kolers, 2016; Fischer, 2017; Dryzek and Pickering, 2019). both “naturalism” and “constructivism” (which, of course, Resilience research that takes into account such social fac- come in many varieties). “Ecological naturalism”, for in- tors (which do not necessarily obey physical laws) can be stance, departing from ecological science, integrates con- broadly classified as belonging to “social constructivism”. structivist insights about power and mastery, the diversity of The tsunami in 2004 and Katrina in 2005 seem to have human knowledge, and the politics of knowledge. It thereby acted as catalysts for generating more resilience research resists the reductionistic tendencies of positivist empiricism among social scientists (Pizzo, 2015). This increasing in- (Code, 2005). “Critical realism” (Carolan, 2005) similarly terest in resilience on the part of certain social scientists wishes to avoid the danger of reductionism while profiting (and other scholars from different disciplines) cannot be de- from the wealth of (applied) natural sciences. tached from the popularity that the terminology started to Hence, though we acknowledge the many varieties of both gain among national governments and global governance ac- naturalism and constructivism and the various endeavors to tors, including the Rockefeller Foundation, for instance, at transcend the limitations of both naturalism and construc- the beginning of the new century. Such tendency became tivism, we observe that most resilience research in the social Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021
R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research 1121
sciences still takes place in the dialectical field constituted by when engineers started to use the term to refer to the prop-
these two approaches, in their strict, traditional senses (see erties and capacities of materials to absorb tensions and re-
Andler, 2014). This is the theme of the next section. But first lease energy and recover their original forms, without break-
we briefly examine how resilience research in the social sci- ing or disfiguration after undergoing some external shock or
ences has undergone a thorough diversification. Such diver- disturbance (such as extreme weather conditions; Estêvão et
sity, however, sometimes means that research takes place in al., 2017; Bergström, 2018; Davoudi, 2018). In the 1950s,
parallel worlds and that there is little cross-fertilization be- psychologists re-adapted the common sense of the term to
tween scholars. It is suggested that social scientific inquiry mental health and used it to study the coping mechanisms of
into resilience in the context of climate change could be concentration camp survivors. Later, the concept is used to
raised to the next level if these two different approaches meet study various kinds of trauma, misfortune, adversity, stress,
and interact. To this end, we reconstruct contemporary de- and mental recovery (Bourbeau, 2015; Estêvão et al., 2017;
bates in that particular field of studies and distill recurrent re- Bergström, 2018; Schwartz, 2018). In the 1970s, the ecolo-
search topics that divide social scientists. The issues of adap- gist Crawford Stanley Holling (Holling, 1973, p. 14) rede-
tion and transformation in the context of severe disturbances fines resilience as “a measure of the persistence of systems
or shocks that come with climate change (such as hurricanes, and their ability to absorb change and disturbance.” Thus
floods, droughts, and heat waves) appear to be such divi- understood, resilience is widely conceived as the opposite
sive topics. Finally, naturalist and constructivist directions, of vulnerability, which is defined as the inability to absorb
as well as possible cross-fertilizations of these two currents, change and disturbance (Gallopin, 2006; Miller et al., 2010).
for future resilience research are identified. We point out that For instance, a coastal system that is vulnerable to acceler-
future resilience research in the social sciences – that is, the ated sea-level rise is not resilient enough (Smit et al., 1998).
types of questions raised, theoretical frameworks, and modes In such accounts, greater resilience means becoming less vul-
of analysis – will also be determined by changing conditions nerable to change and shocks. That said, a system can still be
(ecological, political, and socioeconomic). vulnerable to other changes while being resilient in other re-
spects (Gallopin, 2006). Holling incorporates resilience in a
socio-ecological system (SES) approach to analyze the sta-
2 The diversification of resilience research in the social bility and strength of ecological systems, which are consti-
sciences tuted by the interaction between natural ecosystems and hu-
man societies (Alexander, 2013; Bergström, 2018; Béné et
One of the earliest appearances of the term resilience – in al., 2018; Hoekstra et al., 2018). Ecosystems, as noted ear-
European literature at least – seems to have been in one of lier, are rarely closed systems but are instead subjected to
Aesop’s fables, namely The Oak Tree and the Reeds. Accord- natural and human influences.
ing to one of the versions of the story, the oak tree becomes In the social sciences, resilience research has been influ-
uprooted during a storm while its fellow reeds survive it. In enced by these earlier studies. As a result, some social sci-
a conversation, the oak tree expresses its bewilderment that entists have recourse to mathematical and simulation models
the fragile reeds were able to resist such a mighty storm while and consider resilience to be a property of a system, which
it succumbed. The reeds reply that it is precisely their non- can be (made) weak or strong. In these studies, society is
resistance that saved them. Through their capacity to bend, modeled as a social system that consists of parts (including
they moved with the direction of the wind (which thus did agents and technologies) and physical properties that can be
not break them) and rose again when the storm was gone. objectively studied (Aiken, 2006; Floridi, 2017). Resilience
They were flexible enough. The reeds “bounce” back and as a system property is an objective measure of the dynamic
are thus “resilient”. Indeed, the English word “resilience” equilibrium, stability, strength, or survivability of a socio-
derives from the Latin resilire, which generally meant re- ecological system, including coastal systems, urban systems,
bounding. This Latin word can be found in the writings of forest systems, etc. (Hoekstra et al., 2018). Such approaches,
Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Ovid, Cicero, and Livy; to indebted to applied natural sciences and the complex systems
rebound is also the sense in which resilire is used by Cicero theory, can be very useful, especially when both the problem
in his Orations (Alexander, 2013). The term also appears in and the solution are primarily and solely of a technical na-
Lucretius On the Nature of Things, where it denotes “being ture. That said, even an apparently purely technical process
forced back by a resisting surface [. . . ] with reference to the such as water purification involves reckoning with various
action on Nature” (Pizzo, 2015). Along this line, nature com- social factors (for instance, changing habits, medicine uses,
pels all things to “spring off”. and particular surroundings of water collection systems).
Despite the various meanings attributed to the term, the The story becomes even more complicated when, for in-
connotation attached to resilire was commonly that of re- stance, attempts to make communities more resilient to cli-
bounding (see Indirli, 2019). Up to the early nineteenth cen- mate change overlook the political and cultural reasons why
tury, this was the predominant understanding of resilience in particular groups living in particular areas are more vulner-
common language and imagination. A slight shift appeared able to the effects of climate change (such as heavy rainfall,
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 20211122 R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research
droughts, and heat waves). These problems may not even get SES is an example of the integration of complexity theory in
sufficient attention due to, for instance, “cultural racism and ecological science. According to the adaptive complex sys-
“institutional racism” (Henkel et al., 2006, p. 102). Social tem line of thought, the resilience of a system depends on the
constructivism provides social scientists with the conceptual capacity of individual agents to cope with uncertainty and
and analytical tools to understand social realities. Histori- complexity. They are able to interact and self-organize, learn,
cally, constructivism in the social sciences arose in reaction and adapt (in an incremental or transformative way), thereby
to what was experienced as the narrowness of the natural- making the system flexible enough to absorb shocks and de-
ist approach (once again, in the technical/strict sense of the velop even in the face of drastic changes (Jesse et al., 2019).
term, according to which “the social is part of nature, so- Social scientists drawing on complexity theory and
cial processes are natural processes, with causal powers re- evolution-based models tend to emphasize a type of laissez-
ducible to natural causation” (Andler, 2014, p. 286)). Most faireism, pointing out that adaptive complex systems have
social constructivists do not believe that reality is objective their own self-organizational structures that should not be
in the naturalist sense (strictly defined) and thus cannot be interfered with (Adger et al., 2011). Bureaucratic interven-
fully grasped. Instead, it is conceived that natural and so- tions to address vulnerability and increase resilience to cli-
cial phenomena can only be understood by taking into ac- mate change are said to generate unintended consequences
count diverse factors that determine and influence human that may well reduce a system’s ability to absorb changes
perceptions, experiences, meanings, interests, values, iden- and disturbances. In 2001, Holling introduced the notion of
tities, patterns of domination, etc. “panarchy” as an alternative to hierarchy, to safeguard the
In resilience research, social constructivists typically self-organization of complex systems against the threat of
model society as a historically embedded construct that is bureaucratic intervention (Holling, 2001). Derived from the
the result of particular understandings of nature, society, and ancient Greek god of the woods, Pan, panarchy refers to the
the person, values, symbols, and historical practices (which structure in which complex (ecological and social) systems
may not be very rational or just), and power relations. These are interlinked in an evolutionary process of adaptive cycles
social scientists tend to be more sensitive to the potential of growth, accumulation, restructuring, and renewal (Berkes
and actual abuse of power. When engaging with resilience is- and Ross, 2016). Accordingly, when confronted with shocks
sues in the context of climate change, they typically express (like extreme weather events), adaptive systems stabilize
concern for vulnerable communities. Research topics can with supporting self-organizing structures until those struc-
thus include the (un)equal distribution of environmental bur- tures are overstretched and can no longer absorb changes and
dens, struggles for recognition, claims to participation, and disturbances; this is when there is a transformation of the sys-
unequal impacts of anthropogenic climate change (Braun, tem (Allen et al., 2014). Resilience is therefore conceived as
2014; Yanarella and Levine, 2014; Skillington, 2015; Sjöst- a primary system property that is measured by the magni-
edt, 2015; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015; Pizzo, 2015; tude of shocks that can be absorbed before the structures of
Lockie, 2016; Derickson, 2016; Lyster, 2017; Schlosberg et system change (Boyer, 2020).
al., 2017; Mummery and Mummery, 2019). Davoudi (2018, Some social scientists show a predilection for agent-based
p. 5), for instance, problematize the very notion of “re- modeling (ABM) as their mode of analysis in resilience re-
silience”, pointing out that there are “unjust resilience build- search (see Cote and Nightingale, 2012; Pumpuni-Lenss et
ing programs” that not only neglect disadvantaged commu- al., 2017; Patriarca et al., 2018; Mirchandani, 2020). They
nities, but also create “resilient enclaves” for “privileged therefore aim at the constant refinement of simulation tools
elites”. Similarly, Glaser et al. (2018, p. 3) observe that re- that can integrate complexity, uncertainty, and multiplicity
silience can be “wicked” when an undesirable status quo is of agents and techniques of regulation in favor of adaptation.
being maintained. Reflexivity is arguably an indispensable Since the 1970s, when it emerged from mathematical soci-
part of resilience research (see Popa et al., 2015). ology, ABM has been used in theoretic complexity research
for analyzing complex systems (Conte and Paolucci, 2014).
The dialectic between naturalism and constructivism ABM is a computational mode of analysis that simulates
complex (non-linear) systems that include diverse agents that
Social scientists focusing on resilience to climate change make decisions, interact, and learn or adapt in their ever-
have inherited an enormous body of scholarship on resilience changing environment, according to programmable rules
stemming from the physical sciences and engineering, cyber- (Hawes and Reed, 2006; Farmer and Foley, 2009; Martin and
netics, evolutionary biology, and psychology, among others. Schlüter, 2015; Sun et al., 2019). ABM computes, in proba-
In the 1970s, social scientists could thus have recourse to bilistic terms, the recovery process of complex (non-linear)
both closed-systems theories and complexity theory to think systems under stress and tracks the emergence of new stages,
about resilience to climate change (Dahlberg, 2015; Davoudi, phases, or entries into new adaptive cycles (Filatova et al.,
2018). Some of them also merged the two models so that 2016). Resilience to climate change, as a system property,
socio-ecological systems became conceptualized as adaptive can thus be calculated (Pumpuni-Lenss et al., 2017). Since
complex systems (Wiese, 2016; Bergström, 2018). Holling’s ABM traces feedbacks between micro- and macroscale ex-
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research 1123 plicitly, it also enables scholars to estimate the resilience of ought to become more resilient, which is another word for a system’s individual agents, communities, or (sub)groups of self-reliant (Braun, 2014; Pizzo, 2015; Tierney, 2015; How- agents. ell, 2015; Anderson, 2015; Ksenia et al., 2016; Schwartz, The above approaches to resilience rely on what can be 2018; Davoudi, 2018). In some cases, such resilience dis- broadly defined as “natural” sciences and their applied vari- course enables governments to avoid their public responsi- ants. Society and humans are conceived according to the the- bility. An instance of such wicked dynamics is governments ories and models common in these disciplines. The appli- shifting the responsibility for the provision of access to wa- cation of conceptual frameworks and models developed to ter onto local “communities” while the latter might be absent study allegedly objective and objectifiable things to the inter- due to strife or inadequate management capacities (Katomero action between humans and their social and natural environ- and Georgiadou, 2018). In such situations, vulnerable indi- ments is not without its challenges and dangers. Scientists, viduals and groups are denied this basic human right, while including social scientists, may unwittingly serve political other powerful groups claim sole access to water. agendas if they are oblivious of their own political and ide- Social constructivists are generally critical of the very lan- ological commitments. The blurry line between science and guage of resilience. Those who point out the discursive or politics is illustrated by Holling’s and Friedrich Hayek’s re- narrative nature of resilience-based political speeches and appropriation of complexity theory to criticize government policies are usually indebted to Michel Foucault’s idea of a interventions (Walker and Cooper, 2011; Davoudi, 2018). discourse. The latter refers to systems of thoughts and beliefs The historical context of both men, namely, one marked by expressed through language and practices that systematically Keynesian policies, should arguably also be borne in mind. construct subjects and societies of which they speak. In other One of the possible (side) effects of scientific models pre- words, both language and practices are creative acts. Through suming resilient individual agents is that they can lend cre- resilience discourses, a particular type of subject (like re- dence to the idea of self-reliant and self-sufficient individ- silient or self-reliant) and a particular type of society (like uals and further the “neoliberal individualization of respon- a market-based “society”) are discursively constructed and sibility” (Davoudi, 2018, p. 5). Such alliance, perhaps un- reinforced (Miller et al., 2010). Evans and Reid (2013) thus witting, between political agendas and science is the great argue that resilience has the character of a doctrine, accord- fear of those social constructivists whose primary commit- ing to which the resilient subject must accept and constantly ment is to justice and the protection of vulnerable individ- adapt to a dangerous and changing world. Given this doc- uals and groups (Fainstein, 2014; Derickson, 2016; Kolers, trine, vulnerability is rejected as weakness or a moral flaw, 2016; Lockie, 2016; Lyster, 2017; Mummery and Mummery, which is very much like a lack of character or willpower 2019). (Cole, 2016). A problematic normativity is brought into ex- One of the major points of contention between natural- istence when citizens are expected to adapt to ecological ism, in the strict sense, and social constructivism is that most and societal catastrophes by becoming self-reliant (Fainstein, social constructivists are unwilling to conceive resilience to 2014; Tierney, 2015; Kolers, 2016; Ribault, 2019). In other climate change as a system property (an intellectual atti- words, some (or most) social constructivists do not merely tude that does not imply that all naturalistic approaches ac- try to answer the question of how to make societies and tually conceive resilience as a system property; see Andler, individuals resilient to climate change but instead question 2014). Instead, resilience is perceived as a socio-political the normativity of the concept resilience. Such a critical construct created by diverse stakeholders (Walsh-Dilley and approach is arguably problematic and counterproductive in Wolford, 2015; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015; Kythreo- some cases. The urgency of real problems (like rising sea tis and Bristow, 2017). This means that it is not a neutral levels that threaten millions of people) makes a dialogue be- or technical element and, accordingly, requires constant crit- tween different approaches highly desirable. ical scrutiny to uncover its possible ideological and myth- ical nature (Alexander, 2013; Bourbeau, 2015; Boas and Rothe, 2016; Juncos, 2018; Wessel, 2019). Some scholars 3 Bridging the naturalist and constructivist view on have pointed out the neoliberal ideology underpinning both resilience theories/models and policies that rely on the idea of adap- tive cycles governed by invisible laws, which make inter- Given the different appraisals of the very concept of re- vention undesirable (Chandler, 2014; Tierney, 2015). It is silience with respect to climate change among social sci- thereby overlooked that the so-called self-organizing system entists, it has been widely questioned whether resilience is itself the result of political decisions over a long period can possibly operate as a theoretical model or a unifying of time. Governments are thus accused of shifting the re- paradigm – and whether such a unifying paradigm would be sponsibility for vulnerable systems (which are themselves desirable in the first place (Alexander, 2013; Thorén, 2014; the products of formal and informal institutions and political Bourbeau, 2015; Fainstein, 2015; Pizzo, 2015). The question decisions, among other things), floods, pollution, safety, wel- of whether such a unifying paradigm is possible or desirable fare, health, etc., onto resilient individuals or individuals who need not be answered here. It can still be argued that it is https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021
1124 R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research
desirable to bring together the insights gained from natural- focus on undesirable status quos and hence on transformation
istic and constructivist approaches to enrich and renew un- – after a crisis, for example – is characteristic of many social
derstandings of resilience to climate change. Climate change constructivists but may also be important to those who have
resilience research that relies on naturalist and naturalistic somehow combined the goods of several worlds (Carolan,
premises may be able to provide quick solutions to crises 2005; Code, 2005). Scholars critical of resilience discourses
precisely because various unpredictable and apparently ir- propounded by national and international governance actors,
relevant elements are discounted. The focus on the obvious therefore, do not try to find ways to increase resilience, but
problem without taking into account the broader context – above all things, they try to ignite new imaginations and
which may be problematic – has many advantages, certainly counter-discourses necessary for realizing less unsustainable
if the bigger picture is taken into account after recovery from futures (Fazey et al., 2018). Recently, a middle ground be-
an acute crisis. In the event of a flood, for instance, the first tween adaptation and transformation has been developed,
concerns should arguably be evacuation and preventing an- in the form of “transformational adaptation” (Pelling et al.,
other flood. Once everyone is safe, the question as to why the 2015; Mummery and Mummery, 2019). Examples of trans-
flood has affected a particular group can be raised. The par- formational adaptations include green growth or the green-
ticular choices made with regard to urban and rural planning ing of present economies. These are changes that are aligned
can be critically scrutinized. Answers to the various ques- with the scale of projected, possible, and desirable changes
tions that a flood and its aftermath raise will require knowl- within systems that are informed by considerations of justice.
edge from many disciplines. Resilience to floods will mean Resilience research that emphasizes system adaption to
much more than building dams. It will also involve criticism climate change focuses on the degree to which complex sys-
of particular social structures, institutions, and decisions that tems can build capacity for learning, as a way to respond
have rendered some people or areas more vulnerable to nat- to shocks or disturbances, embrace evolutionary change, and
ural hazards or the effects of climate change. live with complexity and uncertainty (Thorén, 2014; Juncos,
2017; Warmink et al., 2017; Béné et al., 2018). Given un-
3.1 The debate on adaptive and transformative predictability and uncontrollability, adaptive resilience is es-
resilience pecially a matter of short-term planning, uncertainty reduc-
tions, and incremental and path-dependent changes (Borsje
Resilience research in recent years reveals divergence among et al., 2011; Haasnoot et al., 2013). Adaptive resilience –
social scientists when it comes to the issue of adaptation and the system’s re-stabilizer – is conceived as inherently posi-
transformation (Chandler, 2014; Redman, 2014; Fainstein, tive, while disturbances and shocks (destabilizers) are neg-
2014; Dahlberg et al., 2015; Sjöstedt, 2015; Boas and Rothe, ative (Duit, 2016; Lockie, 2016). Research building on the
2016; Duit, 2016; Ziervogel et al., 2016; Clément and Rivera, premise that adaptive resilience is desirable thus partners
2017; Lyster, 2017; Schlosberg, Collins and Niemeyer, 2017; well with climate risk management (Boyd et al., 2015;
Fazey et al., 2018; Glaser et al., 2018; Hoekstra et al., 2018; Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2017). The response of the Dutch
Jesse et al., 2019; Dryzek and Pickering, 2019). Such dis- government to the overflowing of the Meuse River in 1993
agreement can partly be explained by a particular ambiguity and 1995 illustrates research-based risk reduction through
in Holling’s SES approach (Redman, 2014). In the 1970s, adaption that involves a break with the past. The Dutch gov-
Holling (1973) reinterpreted resilience as bouncing back or ernment did not simply have recourse to build more dykes
forward in terms of SES adaptation. Adaptation refers, on the and strengthening existing barriers, which has been the tradi-
one hand, to the capacity of agents to influence the system tional approach, but instead opted for river deepening and
(and influence or strengthen resilience as a system property). widening measures (Dijkman et al., 1997; Hamers et al.,
And on the other hand, it alludes to panarchical adaptation to 2015). Since its completion in 2015, the Room for the River
new (ecological and social) environments, as an evolution- project has been considered effective thus far, particularly as
ary process towards a new stage, phase, or adaptation cycle its secondary objective to increase ecosystem values in the
(Boyd et al., 2015). river appears to be successful. However, research completed
Yet, as Holling emphasizes, the bouncing back and bounc- in 2013 (Ward et al., 2013) points out that the risk of flooding
ing forward of a system does not only refer to a return in certain parts of the Netherlands is expected to increase in
to some previous (dynamic) equilibrium or to the persis- the future (2- to 3-fold increase by 2030 compared to 2010)
tence and endurance of systems. It also refers to socio- and emphasizes the need for change with respect to land use.
ecological transformation in an ongoing process of non- Indeed, the researchers found that the impact of land use on
equilibrium and instability and reinvention of systems in flood risk is likely to be greater than climate change itself.
changing environments marked by different adaptive cycles, This means that households, for instance, can help to reduce
such as growth, accumulation, restructuring, and renewal the risk of future floods through a change of behavior. But
(Folke, 2006). Transformation means that agents are capable that is easier said than done. The authors of the report note
of creating a new system and a new discourse, particularly that there are few means to move Dutch households to partic-
when the existing system is untenable or illegitimate. This ipate in such risk reduction and point out the need for further
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research 1125
research on ways to implement new measures and motivate ing a few of their constituents. In cases of inherent or struc-
people to change their behavior (Ward et al., 2013, p. 45). tural defects, resilience refers to the capacity to “use” a cri-
Research that prioritizes transformative resilience in the sis to critically reappraise the social, cultural, and political
context of climate change looks at a system’s internal capac- choices underpinning SES and, if necessary, to make new
ities, capabilities, and relations that enable it to create a new choices (Pizzo, 2015; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015;
condition marked by new or different power relationships VanderPlaat, 2016; Ziervogel et al., 2016; Hughes, 2017;
and different priorities. In such cases, constructivists typi- Jesse et al., 2019). The reconfigurations of SES do require
cally point out the undesirability and injustice of status quos interventions by all governance actors. Transformative re-
(Ziervogel et al., 2016; Rothe, 2017; Béné et al., 2018). Ac- silience used in this sense is thus a post-neoliberal concept.
cording to this perspective, “anthropological shocks” (Beck, When applied to the energy transition, transformative re-
2015, p. 80) open up new horizons, reassessments (including silience entails a more radical change than adaptive resilience
of past ideas, beliefs, and practices), and rediscoveries (Fazey does. In the former case, this means concrete plans to phase
et al., 2018). Anthropological shocks refer to the disruptive out fossil fuels and hence to reorganize economies, where
and lasting effects of certain horrendous events on people. the old fossil fuel industry no longer holds the reins (Alexan-
There is no going back to how it was before these shocks. Ac- der and Yacoumis, 2018; Stegemann and Ossewaarde, 2018;
cording to these critical voices, adaptive resilience research Bergmann and Ossewaarde, 2020). Adaptive resilience is in-
and policies based on that research contribute to maintain- volved when the phasing out of fossil fuels is being delayed
ing systems that are unjust (Skillington, 2015; Derickson, and when certain discourses ensure that the fossil fuel in-
2016; Fazey et al., 2018; Mummery and Mummery, 2019). dustry is given carte blanche to carry on business as usual
This does not mean that adaptive resilience research – which (Buschmann and Oels, 2019). Geels (2014, p. 24) explains
usually draws on naturalistic methods – does not include how “the coal regime has so far resisted climate change pres-
justice in its models (Redman, 2014; Thorén, 2014; Kse- sures through a ‘clean coal’ discourse and the innovation
nia et al., 2016; Schlosberg et al., 2017; Bergström, 2018). promise of carbon capture and storage (CCS)”.
Yet, such models are based on, and reflect, existing systems. It is widely agreed that non-renewable fossil energy
They do not take structures of power into account (Howell, sources like coal, oil, and gas are largely responsible for land-
2015; Pizzo, 2015; Lockie, 2016; Derickson, 2016; Davoudi, scape degradation, air and water pollution, and greenhouse
2018). This also means that they cannot possibly integrate gas emissions that have been causing global warming (Cook
thoroughly unequal power relationships – such as the Global et al., 2016). The sustainable energy transformation, accord-
North–Global South relationship – into their models (Pizzo, ingly, is, amongst other things, a response to climate change.
2015; Clément and Rivera, 2017; Davoudi, 2018; Glaser et In a more robust sense, it is more than simply a response
al., 2018; Dryzek and Pickering, 2019). to climate change. Instead, the latter is a symptom of the
The limitations of models need not be a problem un- inherent unsustainability of the present socioeconomic sys-
less they become the political tools to implement adap- tem and is therefore an additional, urgent reason to radically
tive measures (Fainstein, 2014; Weichselgartner and Kel- transform the latter (Alexander and Yacoumis, 2018). Hence,
man, 2015; Huang et al., 2016; McGreavy, 2016; Ziervogel those who conceive an energy transition as an adaptive neces-
et al., 2016; Ribault, 2019). Adaptive responses to shocks sity are primarily concerned with what several scholars call
and disturbances may blur long-term sustainability visions “energy resilience” (Béné et al., 2018, p. 120; Jesse et al.,
and enable powerful stakeholders to maintain their positions 2019, p. 21), that is, with the continuing supply of energy to
(Lockie, 2016; Derickson, 2016; Rothe, 2017; Estêvão et support the prevailing socioeconomic system and prevention
al., 2017; Ribault, 2019). Kythreotis and Bristow (2017) call of power outage during the transition. In other words, reliable
this phenomenon the “resilience trap” – the reinforcement energy supplies at stable costs must be kept going to support
of established power relations and contemporary resilience the present socioeconomic system (Wiese, 2016). Since sys-
discourses (Blühdorn, 2013; Redman, 2014; Yanarella and tem collapse is to be avoided at any cost, adaptive resilience
Levine, 2014; Lockie, 2016; VanderPlaat, 2016; Schilling to climate change means incremental changes and the in-
et al., 2018; Glaser et al., 2018; Ribault, 2019). Hence, creasing use of renewables without stopping the use of fossil
some constructivist scholars reject Holling’s panarchy con- fuels (Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2017; Schilling et al., 2018;
cept, emphasizing that transformation towards more sustain- Stegemann and Ossewaarde, 2018). Adaptive resilience here
able worlds is not an evolutionary process of adaptive cycles means the gradual greening of energy and hence the grad-
but a political-administrative phenomenon (see Boyer, 2020). ual greening of the system through green technological in-
novation without essentially changing the old system (Geels,
3.2 Transformative resilience and sustainability 2014). In fact, important stakeholders of the “old regime”
resist the transition to a new order. Such resistance takes,
For some constructivist scholars, genuine sustainability pre- among other things, the form of continuing investments in
supposes transformative resilience because inherently unsus- fossil-fuel-based energy and greening measures – which cre-
tainable systems cannot be made more wholesome by tweak- ate the impression of a transition (especially in the media) –
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 20211126 R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research
thereby further anchoring the existing system (Alova, 2020; mise sustainability and considerations of justice (including,
Gençsü et al., 2020). The incentives to “destabilize” such a environmental, climate, and energy justice). Based on our
flourishing economic system are thus weakened. overview of recent scholarship, which cannot possibly be ex-
Scholars who challenge existing social structures therefore haustive, we have identified six research avenues that deserve
critically point out that the primary and sole focus on en- continued attention.
ergy resilience (that is to say, energy security) is more likely One of them is the further development of transdisciplinar-
to maintain the energy system’s status quo, which further ity, which includes the collaboration between constructivist
allows powerful stakeholders to promote fossil energy and and naturalistic approaches to resilience, not only at the in-
keep their established positions. As Simpson (2013, p. 249) stitutional level, but especially also at the level of research it-
notes, the self. Such transdisciplinarity thus means that a scholar draws
on different scientific traditions to approach one particular
critical approach to energy security challenges the problem. In other words, transdisciplinarity does not restrict
existing economic, political and technical assump- itself to “forced” collaboration between scholars from differ-
tions that underpin traditional debates on energy ent disciplines, which is a prevalent organization of inter-,
production and consumption, but it also challenges multi-, and transdisciplinarity (see Pohl, 2001). It also does
traditional notions of security that have the nation- not mean homogenization of science and the repression of
state as their referent object. the diversity of human thinking. It entails an appreciation
An uncritical adaptive energy resilience approach can thus of diverse scientific vocabularies, of the variety of scien-
reinforce “energy injustice”, that is, the “the unequal distri- tific knowledge, and the acknowledgement of clashes, which
bution of ills” throughout the energy system, whereby that can be conducive to the advancement of human knowledge
system is defined as “the entire energy chain, from mining, (see Pfeffer and Georgiadou, 2019). Bringing together var-
conversion, production, transmission, and distribution, right ious perspectives of a complex reality arguably fosters our
through to energy consumption and waste” (Jenkins et al., understanding of that same reality.
2016, p. 179). Scholars who focus on the transformative re- There have been several attempts to “bridge” the disci-
silience of energy systems are therefore generally committed plinary divide, some more successful than others. Such at-
to energy justice and have a more critical approach to en- tempts at integration are deemed even more desirable when
ergy resilience (or security) because the latter presumes the it comes to environmental issues (Pompe and Rinehart, 2002;
socioeconomic order and unequal structures of power (Jenk- Mooney et al., 2013). Edward O. Wilson’s famous “con-
ins et al., 2016; Heffron and McCauley, 2017). They pro- silience” is a good example of a failed attempt since he takes
pose the creation of a renewable-energy-based system, en- the natural sciences and their methods to be hegemonic. Wil-
ergy commons, and collaboratives beyond the energy estab- son (1998, p. 11) thus notes
lishment (VanderPlaat, 2016; Bourbeau and Ryan, 2018; Jun- Given that human action comprises events of phys-
cos, 2018; Schwartz, 2018; Acosta et al., 2018; Jesse et al., ical causation, why should the social sciences and
2019). humanities be impervious to consilience with the
natural sciences? [. . . ] Nothing fundamental sepa-
rates the course of human history from the course
4 Six emerging themes in diversified resilience research of physical history, whether in the stars or in or-
ganic diversity.
Current research on resilience to climate change in the so-
cial sciences reflects a diversity of focuses and commitments, Similarly, the allegedly transdisciplinary “Earth system
ranging from climate-resilient infrastructure to issues of jus- analysis” approach, developed at the Potsdam Institute for
tice and power. Some critical scholars question the very no- Climate Impact Research (Germany), makes use of mathe-
tion of resilience and point to the wicked dynamics involved matical modeling in which the world is conceived as a cyber-
as resilience becomes a policy instrument to consolidate one netic organism (Pohl, 2001, p. 40).
particular, often established social reality at the expense of More successful integrative approaches do not allow the
other, fairer possible alternatives. Research that unwittingly methodology and theoretical framework of one particular sci-
supports such political purpose has thus attracted the criti- entific tradition to dominate the other. We have mentioned
cism of scholars who emphasize transformation towards new ecological naturalism above as an example of such an ap-
social constellations, where power (to influence the course proach. The critical realist (Proctor, 1998a, b) is yet another
of things), responsibility, burdens, and benefits are fairly dis- way to benefit from the realism of the naturalist approach,
tributed (Derickson, 2016; Jenkins et al., 2016; Heffron and thereby avoiding relativism, without falling into the trap of
McCauley, 2017; Alexander and Yacoumis, 2018; Davoudi, reification and determinism. With regard to energy, for in-
2018; Glaser et al., 2018; Stegemann and Ossewaarde, 2018). stance, Jenkins et al. (2016, p. 179) argue that a “combina-
Ultimately, the overarching challenge for future research is tion of the social science account of energy (policy) with its
to ensure that resilience to climate change does not compro- natural science counterpart (systems)” helps us to determine
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research 1127 where injustices lie, even more accurately than through so- Mummery, 2019). It can also generate insights into the (pos- cial constructivist approaches alone. Conversely, evolution- sible) connection between particular resilience policies and ary resilience approaches that draw on systems thinking can models, on the one hand, and new forms of power inequal- be enriched by taking into account human agency, the is- ities, polarization, injustice, and democratic deficits, on the sue “unequal power relations that can disrupt feedback loops other hand. Bierbaum and Stults (2013, p. 18) point to the and channels of communications” (Davoudi, 2018, p. 4), and “growing recognition of the need for a new model of deep more generally, the idea that we cannot simply wait for evo- and long-term stakeholder engagement”. Such a model en- lutionary change, or for systems to explode, but instead have sures that all (local) stakeholders are involved in determining to realize alternatives through human imagination. a “vision of resilience, impediments to achieving that vision, This brings us to the second theme, which could be dubbed and contextually relevant actions for achieving that vision” “critical resilience” research. Critical thinking is arguably a (Bierbaum and Stults, 2013, p. 30). It can safeguard both the precondition for, and characteristic of, science in general. effectiveness and equitability of solutions. This means that reservations with regard to the very con- A fourth promising topic for future resilience research cept resilience, in policies and models, need to be taken is the interplay between adaptive resilience and transforma- seriously. Research that constantly analyses the dominant tive resilience and transformational adaptation (Clément and and new – and often, implicit – conceptions of resilience Rivera, 2017). The focus can be on the ways in which trans- must thus be stimulated even if it does not seem to serve formational adaptation manifests itself, how multiple adapta- practical purposes. Critical resilience research thus also in- tions may lead to transformational adaptation, and the thresh- cludes the integration of reflexivity in transdisciplinary re- old that needs to be surpassed for adaptation to be consid- search, which involves “a reflexive questioning of values, ered transformational (Grove and Chandler, 2017; Glaser et background assumptions and normative orientations” (Popa al., 2018). The notion of “tentative governance” appears par- et al., 2015, p. 46) of various approaches to resilience. Crit- ticularly relevant in the context of transformational politics, ical resilience research is expected to pay attention to di- when it comes to phasing out systems and weakening adap- verse conceptions of resilience and also to address the “ques- tive resilience. Tentative governance is marked by interven- tion of outcomes and who gets to define them as resilient or tions that are designed as preliminary rather than as persis- otherwise”, “the potential exclusions in determining system tent, for purposes of probing and learning rather than for ’boundaries”’, and “the question of the political – resilience stipulating definite targets or fixating existing systems and from what, to what, and who gets to decide?” (Porter and their underlying assumptions (Kuhlmann et al., 2019). It is Davoudi, 2012, p. 331). Such critical resilience research can likely that stakeholder engagement (including resistance) in accompany other resilience research, thereby preventing sci- transformational politics and tentative governance varies, and ence from serving ideological goals. manifests itself differently, across different policy fields. For A third research avenue, somewhat related to the second instance, the sustainable energy transformation may include theme, consists in the contextualization of resilience research multi-layer governance challenges, many pro-active stake- and discourse, that is, in embedding them in their political holders, and new investment opportunities and job opportu- and cultural context. By understanding the bigger picture in nities. In contrast with the sustainable energy transformation, which both the ecological crisis and the responses to it arise, sea-level rise and the disruption and relocation of coastal it may be possible to govern resilience research towards sus- cities may trigger a more limited transformative politics, de- tainability and justice and to identify the factors – which may spite inevitable transformation of systems due to shocks and be institutional, cultural, or political – that stimulate or de- disturbances (metamorphosis). Yet, in the coming decade, ter such changes (see Bahadur and Tanner, 2014). In a sys- transformational politics and tentative governance – includ- tems thinking language, such research can identify the vari- ing anthropogenic topics like population displacement, pri- ous agents that maintain or disrupt the system. An example vatization of climate adaptation, conflict surrounding scarce of disruptive forces may then be environmental movements resources (like water resources), intergenerational environ- that are able to develop a leverage required to transform es- mental conflict, and the shutting down of old infrastructures tablished systems (such as energy systems) and their gover- that are too costly to maintain – become more urgent research nance arrangements. Agents that maintain the system, on the topics. other hand, include those who hold power, thanks to such ar- The fifth research theme concerns the relationship between rangements, and typically use tactics of repression and crim- the phasing out of unsustainable systems and societal trans- inalization, particularly in the extractive sectors of the Global formations. What are the implications of the disintegration South (Szablowski and Campbell, 2019). Research focus- of old systems for societies, that is, for their cultures, collec- ing on the different fields of forces in various political con- tive identities, traditions, economies, political-administrative texts may discover how differences in system adaptation and power constellations, class structures, etc.? Which societal reconfiguration relate to particular administrative capacities transformations promote such disintegration? Research top- and governance arrangements (see Blühdorn, 2013; Fischer, ics encompass the governing and accelerating of the decline 2017; Davoudi, 2018; Köhler et al., 2019; Mummery and of existing systems and their adaptive cycles (Stegmaier et https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021
1128 R. Ossewaarde et al.: Review article: Towards a context-driven research al., 2014, 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2017); the particular cir- A sixth theme for future resilience research concerns the cumstances in which accelerations can manifest themselves; role of environmental, energy, and climate justice in theoriz- the identification of, and coping with, uncertainties in pro- ing, modeling, interpreting, and explaining resilience to cli- cesses of adaptation and transformation and transformational mate change (see Skillington, 2015; Fazey et al., 2018; Mum- adaptation; and the construction of new incentive structures, mery and Mummery, 2019). What kind of research results for accelerating sustainable transformation (see Clément and from the integration of theories of environmental justice, en- Rivera, 2017; Warmink et al., 2017; Köhler et al., 2019). This ergy justice, and climate justice into adaptive and transfor- branch of discontinuation research assumes that technolo- mative resilience and transformational adaptation models? gies influence socio-ecological systems. Some technologies Future resilience research will somehow have to confront threaten resilience to climate change, while others enhance wicked problems: given unstable political contexts, scarcity it (Smith and Stirling, 2010), which brings us to another re- of “resources”, and struggles for survival and power, how lated research topic, namely the implications of the so-called can principles of equity, fairness, and access to resources and “AI revolution” and the (top-down and politically steered) services be secured? In the problematic context of mobili- making of the alleged “age of artificial intelligence” for re- ties and a political environment marked by anti-immigration silience research and SES (Berendt, 2019). policies, how can the wellbeing of migrants be ensured and, Given worldwide investments in AI technologies and top- in general, human rights be safeguarded? How can the dis- down AI strategies that global governance actors and na- parity and inequality in the distribution of risks, locally and tional governments have recently published (Ossewaarde and globally, be tackled? Equity in this regard will mean much Gülenç, 2020), AI will most plausibly become a major force more than equality. Other challenges include the incorpo- that shapes or undermines resilience to climate change. New ration of cross-sectional dimensions of justice, particularly interplays between automation, (un)sustainability, and adapt- gender and ethnic relations, into climate justice (Terry, 2009) ing and transforming systems trigger new questions for fu- and energy justice (Feenstra and Özerol, 2018) frameworks. ture resilience research (see Köhler et al., 2019). Hoefsloot And in the Global South, addressing issues of corruption, vi- et al. (2019) have expressed the concern that the total and olence, poverty, and lack of access to resources (and violent unconditional reliance on the data generated by AI tech- battles for resources) and services (like education and sani- nology may lead to a flawed prediction of climate disas- tation) may have a higher priority than global environmental ters. For instance, the coverage of climate disasters – satel- considerations (Köhler et al., 2019). lite data, drone data, sensor data, social media data, volun- teer geographic information (VGI) data, among others – may be incomplete and leave out certain geographical areas and 5 Conclusion even certain social groups (Hoefsloot et al., 2019). Other sources of information are necessary to ensure more accu- In the social sciences, resilience to climate change is a con- rate measurements (and predictions), complement data gaps, cept that is incorporated in different theoretical approaches and identify the needs of local communities (Bierbaum and that are linked to contrasting scientific approaches. Holling Stults, 2013; Pfeffer and Georgiadou, 2019). A recent exam- originally reinterpreted and incorporated the notion of re- ple of the integration of different sources of knowledge is silience in his SES approach, which was then picked up by the resilient settlement program led by UN HABITAT, which naturalist scientists and embedded in cybernetic complex- brought together a multitude of actors (policy, private, aca- ity theory, for instance. The complexity theory was for a demic, community organizations) and data and algorithms very long time the preferred approach to resilience to cli- and local knowledge to identify settlements at risks (UN- mate change in the social sciences. This situation changed Habitat, 2019). This example illustrates the importance of as resilience increasingly became the theme of political dis- embedding AI technologies in particular contexts so that the courses and policies a decade ago, especially in the wake needs of particular communities, for instance, are served, of socio-ecological catastrophes, financial crises, and pan- and fairness and transparency are safeguarded. Resilience demics. The instrumentalization and decontextualization of research and models must therefore include an evaluation resilience by local and global governance actors invited the of AI technologies. How have data been acquired and by critical response of scholars who often had recourse to con- whom? What are the implications of particular AI technolo- structivist approaches. The diversification of resilience re- gies for the SES in question? Which new power relations are search and expansion of the social scientific jargon resulted established through the reliance on AI technologies? Which from this development. The question of whether resilience stakeholders are being included and which ones are being ex- should operate as a unifying paradigm is not yet settled. cluded during the whole process, beginning with the problem However, it may well facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue and definition and extending to the formulation of solutions that even transdisciplinarity. Such cooperation or dialogue is ar- involve an intensive application of AI? (Rajan and Saffiotti, guably necessary given the extremely complex nature of our 2017; Taddeo and Floridi, 2018; Khakurel et al., 2018; Va- socio-ecological predicaments. New light may be shed on hedifard et al., 2019; Miller, 2019; Saravi et al., 2019). how new political-administrative institutions (including pa- Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1119–1133, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1119-2021
You can also read
