Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management
Resilience thinking appears to offer a holistic approach that can be used by social researchers to interpret past and contemporary conditions and identify possible futures for social-ecological systems (SES). Resilience thinking is shaping contemporary environmental policy and its implementation in...
Đã lưu trong:
| Tác giả chính: | , , |
|---|---|
| Ngôn ngữ: | English |
| Năm xuất bản: |
Resilience Alliance
2018
|
| Chủ đề: | |
| Truy cập Trực tuyến: | http://lrc.quangbinhuni.edu.vn:8181/dspace/handle/DHQB_123456789/4011 |
| Tags: |
Thêm thẻ
Không có thẻ, Hãy là người đầu tiên gắn thẻ bản ghi này!
|
| id |
oai:localhost:DHQB_123456789-4011 |
|---|---|
| recordtype |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:localhost:DHQB_123456789-40112018-10-22T08:43:59Z Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management Katrina, Sinclair Andrea, Rawluk Saideepa, Kumar Science Biology Ecology Resilience thinking appears to offer a holistic approach that can be used by social researchers to interpret past and contemporary conditions and identify possible futures for social-ecological systems (SES). Resilience thinking is shaping contemporary environmental policy and its implementation in Australia, Europe, and North America. At the same time, social researchers have raised concerns about the limitations of resilience thinking, particularly in its handling of human agency, power relationships, social thresholds, and the social construction of SES definitions. We argue for a reflexive turn in resilience thinking as a way to address these concerns. We draw on lessons from three Australian case studies where a reflexive application of resilience thinking generated insights for research and practice. We propose six areas for reflexive inquiry: (1) focal scale and level, (2) SES definition, (3) narratives of change, (4) processes of knowledge production, (5) social transition trajectories, and ( 6) social thresholds. In so doing, the assumptions of resilience thinking are politicized and problematized, which improves its theoretical analytical utility, and in practice generates new insights into social processes. Reflexivity offers opportunity for greater cross-disciplinary dialogue between resilience thinking and the social sciences, while allowing methodologies with differing ontologies and epistemologies to be applied in a complementary manner. 2018-09-06T09:07:39Z 2018-09-06T09:07:39Z 2017 http://lrc.quangbinhuni.edu.vn:8181/dspace/handle/DHQB_123456789/4011 en Resilience Alliance |
| institution |
Trung tâm Học liệu Đại học Quảng Bình (Dspace) |
| collection |
Trung tâm Học liệu Đại học Quảng Bình (Dspace) |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Science Biology Ecology |
| spellingShingle |
Science Biology Ecology Katrina, Sinclair Andrea, Rawluk Saideepa, Kumar Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| description |
Resilience thinking appears to offer a holistic approach that can be used by social researchers to interpret past and contemporary conditions and identify possible futures for social-ecological systems (SES). Resilience thinking is shaping contemporary environmental policy and its implementation in Australia, Europe, and North America. At the same time, social researchers have raised concerns about the limitations of resilience thinking, particularly in its handling of human agency, power relationships, social thresholds, and the social construction of SES definitions. We argue for a reflexive turn in resilience thinking as a way to address these concerns. We draw on lessons from three Australian case studies where a reflexive application of resilience thinking generated insights for research and practice. We propose six areas for reflexive inquiry: (1) focal scale and level, (2) SES definition, (3) narratives of change, (4) processes of knowledge production, (5) social transition trajectories, and ( 6) social thresholds. In so doing, the assumptions of resilience thinking are politicized and problematized, which improves its theoretical analytical utility, and in practice generates new insights into social processes. Reflexivity offers opportunity for greater cross-disciplinary dialogue between resilience thinking and the social sciences, while allowing methodologies with differing ontologies and epistemologies to be applied in a complementary manner. |
| author |
Katrina, Sinclair Andrea, Rawluk Saideepa, Kumar |
| author_facet |
Katrina, Sinclair Andrea, Rawluk Saideepa, Kumar |
| author_sort |
Katrina, Sinclair |
| title |
Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| title_short |
Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| title_full |
Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| title_fullStr |
Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| title_sort |
ways forward for resilience thinking: lessons from the field for those exploring social-ecological systems in agriculture and natural resource management |
| publisher |
Resilience Alliance |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| url |
http://lrc.quangbinhuni.edu.vn:8181/dspace/handle/DHQB_123456789/4011 |
| _version_ |
1717292465827872768 |
| score |
9,463379 |