Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-20323
Publication type: Article in scientific journal
Type of review: Peer review (publication)
Title: Resilience trinity : safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts
Authors: Weise, Hanna
Auge, Harald
Baessler, Cornelia
Bärlund, Ilona
Bennett, Elena M.
Berger, Uta
Bohn, Friedrich
Bonn, Aletta
Borchardt, Dietrich
Brand, Fridolin S.
Chatzinotas, Antonis
Corstanje, Ron
De Laender, Frederik
Dietrich, Peter
Dunker, Susanne
Durka, Walter
Fazey, Ioan
Groeneveld, Jürgen
Guilbaud, Camille S. E.
Harms, Hauke
Harpole, Stanley
Harris, Jim
Jax, Kurt
Jeltsch, Florian
Johst, Karin
Joshi, Jasmin
Klotz, Stefan
Kühn, Ingolf
Kuhlicke, Christian
Müller, Birgit
Radchuk, Viktoriia
Reuter, Hauke
Rinke, Karsten
Schmitt‐Jansen, Mechthild
Seppelt, Ralf
Singer, Alexander
Standish, Rachel J.
Thulke, Hans‐H.
Tietjen, Britta
Weitere, Markus
Wirth, Christian
Wolf, Christine
Grimm, Volker
et. al: No
DOI: 10.1111/oik.07213
10.21256/zhaw-20323
Published in: Oikos
Volume(Issue): 129
Issue: 4
Pages: 445
Pages to: 456
Issue Date: 13-Jan-2020
Publisher / Ed. Institution: Wiley
ISSN: 0030-1299
1600-0706
Language: English
Subjects: Concept; Ecosystem; Ecosystem service provisioning; Management; Resilience
Subject (DDC): 577: Ecology
658.4: Executive Management
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.
URI: https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/20323
Fulltext version: Published version
License (according to publishing contract): CC BY 3.0: Attribution 3.0 Unported
Departement: School of Management and Law
Organisational Unit: Center for Corporate Responsibility (CCR)
International Management Institute (IMI)
Appears in Collections:Publikationen School of Management and Law

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2020_Weise_etal_Resilience trinity_Oikos.pdf1.5 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.