Although resilience thinking is increasingly popular and attractive among restoration practitioners, it carries an abstract quality that hinders effective application. Because resilience and its components are defined differently in social and ecological contexts, individual managers or stakeholders may disagree on the definition of a system's state, occurrence of a state change, preferred state characteristics, and appropriate methods to achieve success. Nevertheless, incentives and mandates often force managers to demonstrate how their work enhances resilience. Unclear or conflicting definitions can lead to ineffective or even detrimental decision‐making in the name of resilience; essentially, any convenient action can be touted as resilience‐enhancing in this case. We contend that any successful resilience management project must clearly identify up‐front the stressors of concern, state traits, scales of appropriate management, and success indicators (the 4S's) relevant to the management targets. We propose a deliberate process for determining these components in advance of resilience management for conservation. Our recommendations were inspired and informed by two case studies wherein different definitions of stressors, state, scales, and success would result in very different management choices, with potentially serious consequences for biodiversity targets.
Operationalizing resilience for conservation objectives: the 4S's
Clare E. Aslan,Brian Petersen,A. Shiels,W. Haines,Christina T Liang
Published 2018 in Restoration Ecology
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2018
- Venue
Restoration Ecology
- Publication date
2018-08-22
- Fields of study
Business, Environmental Science
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-60 of 60 references · Page 1 of 1
CITED BY
Showing 1-12 of 12 citing papers · Page 1 of 1