Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Operationalizing resilience: cross-fertilizing the Resilience Assessment and Transition Movement approaches
Stockholms universitet, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering. Stockholms universitet, Stockholm Resilience Centre.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6452-5696
Stockholm university, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Stockholm University, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
2017 (English)In: Ecology and Society, Vol. 22, no 1, 28Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The concept of resilience is currently being widely promoted and applied by environmental and development organizations. However, their application of resilience often lacks theoretical backing and evaluation. This paper presents a novel cross-fertilization of two commonly used approaches for applying resilience thinking: the grassroots movement of Transition Towns and the Resilience Alliance’s Resilience Assessment. We compared these approaches through a text analysis of their key handbooks and combined them in a series of participatory workshops with a local partner active in the Transition Movement. Our results demonstrate that despite sharing a number of key features, these two approaches have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Strengths of the Transition Movement include its motivating overarching narrative of the need to transform in response to global sustainability challenges, as well as practical tools promoting learning and participation. The Resilience Assessment’s conceptual framework and structured process generated context-specific understanding of resilience, but provided little guidance on navigating transformation processes. Combining the Resilience Assessment’s theory on complex systems with the Transition Movement’s methods for learning also generated synergies in fostering complexity thinking. Based on these findings, we believe that integrating strengths from both approaches could be widely useful for practitioners seeking to apply resilience for sustainable development. Our study also highlights that methods for assessing resilience can be improved by combining insights from science and practice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 22, no 1, 28
Keyword [en]
sustainability science, sustainable development, transdisciplinary research, transformation, Transition Towns
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-204464DOI: 10.5751/ES-09051-220128OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-204464DiVA: diva2:1084707
Note

QC 20170406

Available from: 2017-03-27 Created: 2017-03-27 Last updated: 2017-04-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full texthttps://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss1/art28/

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Borgström, Sara
By organisation
Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 6 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf