Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience Analysis
4. CONCLUSIONS
27
Alternatively, another option is to aim for a broader perspective in the analysis of resilience and to consider possible trade-offs and asymmetries in resilience between different groups and communities within the system. A broader perspective might be particularly useful when there is a conflict between long-term and short-term goals or when the boundaries of the system are not clear [53].
By using computer simulations, for example, it is possible to uncover long-term unintended consequences that might result from short-term perspectives. Uncovering unintended effects is possible because computer simulations are especially useful when the delays between the policies and their results are too large to allow for assessment by simple intuition. Simulations might also uncover unexpected and unintended consequences of policies that are beneficial to one group but negative for others.
The latter is particularly important when analysing climate change problems because there are time lags or delays between policy measures (or non-action), and effects often extend beyond the normal period of analysis [54,55]. When important consequences of current policies materialise several years later (in some cases decades later), significant future stakeholders will not be present to voice their concerns and weigh in when preferences are aggregated into policy decisions. Present stakeholders might be willing to compromise the overall future detriment of the system for short-term benefits. Namely, in the resilience analysis, present stakeholders might favour policies that yield more efficiency in the short term but diminish the capability of the system to continue providing the desired outputs in the long term. The benefits for the few who are defining the problem now might be preferred over the benefits for the many tomorrow.
Literature Cited
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2016 The State of Food and Agriculture. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; FAO:
Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
2. Tendall, D.M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q.B.; Kruetli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food system resilience: Defining the concept Resilience Sustainability. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 6, 17–23. [Google Scholar] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001
3. Campbell, B.M.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Girvetz, E.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Rosenstock, T.; Sebastian, L.; Thornton, P.K.; et al. Reducing risks to food security from climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.06.002
4. Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Abel, N.; Cumming, G.; Janssen, M.; Norberg, J.; Peterson, G.D. Pritchard, R. Resilience Management in Social-ecological Systems: A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach. Conserv. Ecol. 2002, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14/
5. Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, L.H. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
6. Gallopín, G.C. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 293–303. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
7. Maleksaeidi, H.; Karami, E. Social-ecological resilience and sustainable agriculture under water scarcity. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2013, 37, 262–290.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.746767
8. Duit, A. Resilience Thinking: Lessons for Public Administration. Public Adm. 2015, 92, 364–380. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12182 9. Pizzo, B. Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice. Cities 2015, 43, 133–140. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.015
10. Woolley, A.R.N.; Pidd, M. Problem Structuring? A Literature Review. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1981, 32, 197–206. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1981.42
11. Shaw, D.; Westcombe, M.; Hodgkin, J.; Montibeller, G. Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2004, 55, 453–463.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601712
12. Weingart, L.R.; Bennett, R.J.; Brett, J.M. The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. J. Appl.
Psychol. 1993, 78, 504–517. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.504
13. Quinlan, A.E.; Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Haider, L.J.; Peterson, G.D. Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 677–687. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12550
14. Cote, M.; Nightingale, A.J. Resilience thinking meets social theory, Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog. Hum.
Geogr. 2012, 36, 475–489. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708
15. Kelly, G. The nature of personal constructs. Psychol. Pers. Constr. 1955, 1, 105–183. [Google Scholar]
16. Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.R. Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1994, 13, 1881–1885. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620131203
17. Merriam, S.B. Introduction to qualitative research. In Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
18. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
19. World Food Programme. Countries-Guatemala; World Food Programme: Guatemala, Guateamala, 2016. [Google Scholar]
20. Guardiola, J.; Cano, V.G.; Pol, J.L.V. La Seguridad Alimentaria: Estimación de Índices de Vulnerabilidad en Guatemala; VIII Reunión de Economía Mundial;
Universidad de Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
21. Bouroncle, C.; Imbach, P.; Läderach, P.; Rodirguez, B.; Medellin, C.; Fung, E.; Martinez-Rodriguez, R.; Donatti, C.I. La Agricultura de Guatemala y el Cambio Climático: ¿Dónde Están Lasprioridades Para la Adaptación? CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhague, Dinamarca, 2015. [Google Scholar]
22. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE). Caracterización Estadística República de Guatemala 2012; INE: Guatemala, Guatemala, 2012. [Google Scholar]
23. Camposeco, M.; Thomas, M.; Kreynmar, W. Huehuetenango en Cifras; Centro de Estudios y Documentación de la Frontera Occidental de Guatemala (CEDFOG):
Guatemala, Guatemala, 2008. [Google Scholar]
24. Lane, D.C. The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System Dynamics: A Critical Account. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2008, 25, 3–23. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.826
25. Richardson, G.P. Problems with causal-loop diagrams. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1986, 2, 158–170. [Google Scholar]
26. Vennix, J.A.M. Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1999, 15, 379–401. [Google Scholar]
27. Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Andersen, D.L. Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: Methods and models. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2003, 19, 271–296.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.280
28. Randers, J. Guidelines for model conceptualization. In Elements of the System Dynamics Method; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980; pp. 117–139. [Google Scholar]
29. Ingram, J.; Ericksen, P.; Liverman, D. Food Security and Global Environmental Change; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
30. Kelly, G. A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory. In International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2003; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
31. Eden, C. Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1994, 10, 257–276. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100212
32. Doyle, J.K.; Ford, D.N. Mental models concepts revisited: Some clarifications and a reply to Lane. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1999, 15, 411–415. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199924)15:4<411::AID-SDR181>3.0.CO;2-R
33. Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
34. Darnhofer, I.; Bellon, S.; Dedieu, B.; Milestad, R. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Sustain. Agric. 2011, 2, 45–58.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009053
35. Mayumi, K.; Giampietro, M. The epistemological challenge of self-modifying systems: Governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era. Ecol.
Econ. 2006, 57, 382–399. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.023
36. Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.R. Emergent complex systems. Futures 1994, 26, 568–582. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(94)90029-9
37. Lebel, L.; Anderies, J.M.; Campbell, B.; Folke, C. Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1.
[Google Scholar] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/
38. Larsen, R.K.; Calgaro, E.; Thomalla, F. Governing resilience building in Thailand’s tourism-dependent coastal communities: Conceptualising stakeholder agency in social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 481–491. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.009
39. Eriksen, S.H.; Nightingale, A.J.; Eakin, H. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 523–533.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014
40. Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Anderies, M.J.; Abel, N. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 2001, 4, 765–781. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
41. Marshall, N.A.; Marshall, P.A. Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Social Resiliance within Commercial Fisheries in Northern Australia. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 1.
[Google Scholar] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art1/
42. Nightingale, A.J. “The experts taught us all we know”: Professionalisation and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode 2005, 37, 581–603.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00512.x
43. Peterson, G. Political ecology and ecological resilience: An integration of human and ecological dynamics. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35, 323–336. [Google Scholar]
44. Adger, W.N.; Arnell, N.W.; Tompkins, E.L. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 77–86. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005
45. Größler, A. System Dynamics projects that failed to make an impact. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2007, 23, 437–452. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.365 46. Ackermann, F. Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 219, 652–658. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.014
47. Vennix, J.A.M. Group Model Building; John Willey and Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
48. Eden, C.; Ackermann, F. Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making. Gr. Decis. Negot. 2001, 10, 119–140. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008710816126
49. Franco, L.A.; Montibeller, G. Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 205, 489–500. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.030
50. Davies, K.K.; Fisher, K.T.; Dickson, M.E.; Thrush, S.F.; Le Heron, R. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 2.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07581-200237
51. Rouwette, E.A.J.A.; Vennix, J.A.M.; Felling, A.J.A. On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Gr. Decis. Negot. 2009, 18, 567–587. [Google Scholar] https://doi.org.10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z
52. Akkermans, H.A.; Vennix, J.A.M. Clients’ opinions on group model-building: An exploratory study. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1997, 13, 3–31. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199721)13:1<3::AID-SDR113>3.0.CO;2-I
53. Duit, A.; Galaz, V.; Eckerberg, K.; Ebbesson, J. Governance, complexity, and resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 363–368. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.006
54. Young, O.R. Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 378–385.
[Google Scholar] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.001
55. Warner, K. Global environmental change and migration: Governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 402–413. [Google Scholar]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.12.001