Mochizuki Junko, Keating Adriana, Liu Wei, Hochrainer-Stigler Stefan, Mechler Reinhard
Research Scholar at the Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria.
Senior Research Scholar at the Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria.
Disasters. 2018 Apr;42(2):361-391. doi: 10.1111/disa.12239. Epub 2017 Jul 6.
A systematic review of literature on community resilience measurement published between 2005 and 2014 revealed that the profound lack of clarity on risk and resilience is one of the main reasons why confusion about terms such as adaptive capacity, resilience, and vulnerability persists, despite the effort spared to operationalise these concepts. Resilience is measured in isolation in some cases, where a shock is perceived to arise external to the system of interest. Problematically, this contradicts the way in which the climate change and disaster communities perceive risk as manifesting itself endogenously as a function of exposure, hazard, and vulnerability. The common conceptualisation of resilience as predominantly positive is problematic as well when, in reality, many undesirable properties of a system are resilient. Consequently, this paper presents an integrative framework that highlights the interactions between risk drivers and coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities, providing an improved conceptual basis for resilience measurement.
一项对2005年至2014年间发表的关于社区恢复力测量的文献的系统综述显示,尽管人们努力将适应能力、恢复力和脆弱性等概念付诸实践,但对风险和恢复力缺乏清晰认识仍是导致这些术语混淆持续存在的主要原因之一。在某些情况下,恢复力是孤立测量的,即认为冲击源自所关注系统之外。问题在于,这与气候变化和灾害领域将风险视为由暴露、危害和脆弱性内生表现的方式相矛盾。将恢复力主要概念化为积极的这一普遍观念也存在问题,因为实际上系统的许多不良属性具有恢复力。因此,本文提出了一个综合框架,突出了风险驱动因素与应对、适应和变革能力之间的相互作用,为恢复力测量提供了更好的概念基础。