@article{Weise2020,
Title = {Resilience trinity: safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts},
Author = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and Bärlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elene M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Chatzinotas, Antonis and Corstanje, Ron and De Laender, Frederik and Dietrich, Peter and Dunker, Susanne and Durka, Walter and Fazey, Ioan and Groeneveld, Jürgen and Guilbaud, Camille S. E. and Harms, Hauke and Harpole, Stanley and Harris, Jim and Jax, Kurt and Jeltsch, Florian and Johst, Karin and Joshi, Jasmin and Klotz, Stefan and Kühn, Ingolf and Kuhlicke, Christian and Müller, Birgit and Radchuk, Viktoriia and Reuter, Hauke and Rinke, Karsten and Schmitt‐Jansen, Mechthild and Seppelt, Ralf and Singer, Alexander and Standish, Rachel J. and Thulke, Hans‐H. and Tietjen, Britta and Weitere, Markus and Wirth, Christian and Wolf, Christine and Grimm, Volker},
Editor = {},
Journal = {Oikos},
Year = {2020},
Pages = {445-456},
Volume = {129},
Doi = {10.1111/oik.07213},
Abstract = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi‐faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time‐horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer‐term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
}
TY - JOUR
AU - Weise, Hanna
AU - Auge, Harald
AU - Baessler, Cornelia
AU - Bärlund, Ilona
AU - Bennett, Elene M.
AU - Berger, Uta
AU - Bohn, Friedrich
AU - Bonn, Aletta
AU - Borchardt, Dietrich
AU - Brand, Fridolin
AU - Chatzinotas, Antonis
AU - Corstanje, Ron
AU - De Laender, Frederik
AU - Dietrich, Peter
AU - Dunker, Susanne
AU - Durka, Walter
AU - Fazey, Ioan
AU - Groeneveld, Jürgen
AU - Guilbaud, Camille S. E.
AU - Harms, Hauke
AU - Harpole, Stanley
AU - Harris, Jim
AU - Jax, Kurt
AU - Jeltsch, Florian
AU - Johst, Karin
AU - Joshi, Jasmin
AU - Klotz, Stefan
AU - Kühn, Ingolf
AU - Kuhlicke, Christian
AU - Müller, Birgit
AU - Radchuk, Viktoriia
AU - Reuter, Hauke
AU - Rinke, Karsten
AU - Schmitt‐Jansen, Mechthild
AU - Seppelt, Ralf
AU - Singer, Alexander
AU - Standish, Rachel J.
AU - Thulke, Hans‐H.
AU - Tietjen, Britta
AU - Weitere, Markus
AU - Wirth, Christian
AU - Wolf, Christine
AU - Grimm, Volker
TI - Resilience trinity: safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts
T2 - Oikos
PY - 2020
SP - 445-456
VL - 129
DO - 10.1111/oik.07213
AB - Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi‐faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time‐horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer‐term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.
ER -
