Resilience in the conceptual framework of RECREATE · Resilience in the conceptual framework of...

Resilience in the conceptual framework of RECREATE

D5.8 Mid-term report - no. 2

06/2015

Document Title: D5.8 Mid-term report - no. 2: Resilience in the conceptual framework of RECREATE

Reference:

Nature:

Dissemination level: Public

Version: 1.0

Status: Final

Date: 3 July 2015

Author(s): Torsti Loikkanen, Mikko Dufva, Kaisa Oksanen, Johanna Kohl, Olli Salmi

Changes:

Reason for change:

Authorised:

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 603860.

RECREATE – Resilience in the conceptual framework of RECREATE

2

Revision history

Version Date Modified by Comments

0.1 22.6.2015 Mikko Dufva First version in the RECREATE template

0.2 23.6.2015 Torsti Loikkanen Elaboration

0.3 2.7.2015 Torsti Loikkanen Draft final version

1.0 3.7.2015 Mikko Dufva Final version


3

General Information

Authors Torsti Loikkanen, Mikko Dufva, Kaisa Oksanen, Johanna Kohl, Olli Salmi

WP Partners Arcelor ittal ai i res Research A A R ALFRED-WEGENER-INSTITUT FUER POLAR- UND MEERESFORSCHUNG (AWI) DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET (DTU) POTSDAM INSTITUT FUER KLIMAFOLGENFORSCHUNG (PIK) PNO Consultants N.V. (PNO) SP SVERIGES TEKNISKA FORSKNINGSINSTITUT AB (SP) FUNDACION TECNALIA RESEARCH & INNOVATION (Tecnalia) TEKNOLOGIAN TUTKIMUSKESKUS VTT (VTT) University College London (UCL)

Contact WP5 Leader Olli Salmi VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd Kemistintie 3, Espoo P.O. Box 1000 FI-02044 VTT, Finland [email protected]


Executive Summary of 32

Executive Summary This report reviews and analyses the notion of the resilience in the environmental economics and the ecological economics, as agreed by participants of Working Package 5 of the RECREATE EU-FP7 project. The purpose of analysing resilience in the context of RECREATE project is to give a preliminary assessment of what kind of resilience related issues may arise from the analyses of these economic approaches for various parts of the RECREATE framework, and whether the resilience analysis could benefit and be further developed in the entire RECREATE project. The literature overview indicates that resilience is a complex issue and the existing State-of-the-Art of the concept in the literature of various disciplines is controversial. Chapter 2 gives and overview on resilience concept in scientific literature, Chapter 3 considers the ways to integrate and analyse resilience concept to the conceptual framework of the RECREATE project, and Chapter 4 draws conclusions, policy implications and recommendations with respect to the resilience concept in European policy-making. In Section 3.4 the report presents a simple illustration of the interactive dynamics of the resilience in both ecological and socio-economic systems. The analysis of resilience shall contain also many other essential elements besides resilience (adaptability, transition, transformation, vulnerability, redundancy and feedbacks, learning, etc.) and accordingly the model can be elaborated in the further work. On a basis of the analysis of using the resilience concept in the context of RECREATE project the following conclusions can be drawn for discussion in the coming research work of the RECREATE project. First, although analysing the notion of resilience only in the literature of the environmental and resource economics and the ecological economics, the report concludes that the resilience concept beneficial for the RECREATE project may be both ecological and cross-disciplinary as is the RECREATE project itself. Various parts of the project lean much on cross-disciplinary approach and cross-disciplinary nature is also among in-built approaches of Work Programmes of H2020 in general. This means that that the corresponding analysis of resilience as done in the context of the conceptual RECREATE framework could be included in appropriate and cost-effective ways in various parts of RECREATE project. Accordingly resilience could be discussed in the context of RTDI and other relevant policies and consequent policy options thinking of their interactive ecological and socio-economic impacts in the use of raw-materials and environmental resources and causing climate change. For example, reduced emissions to water and soils have positive impacts on the resilience of ecosystems and decreased use of material (e.g. metal ores in products) reduces pressure on depletion of natural resources. This development again changes the social and economic conditions of the mankind and this analysis could benefit from corresponding socio-economic analysis of resilience. In addition to the conceptual analysis of resilience, this report considers shortly the contribution of the environmental and ecological economics to environmental and natural resource management and policies. Economic analysis may give support to policy planning and decision-making, for example, on a basis of empirical studies related to the valuation of the environment, benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and the analysis of economic instruments in environmental control and regulation, giving suggestions of alternative measures and instruments for decision-makers in various stages of policy-making. On European policy agenda of sustainability the concept of resilience is so far discussed mainly in the context of the role of adaptation in the climate change policies. The suggestion arising from this report is to broaden the scope of the approach of climate actions to raw materials and resource efficiency according to the agenda of the RECREATE project. The concept of resilience is both the issue to be taken into account in related European policy-making as well as an important theme of underlying cross-disciplinary research efforts on the European RDTI agenda supporting policy-making. In conclusion, the analysis of the resilience vis-à-vis the conceptual framework of RECREATE project raises many interesting and relevant aspects which could be of benefit and be further developed in the RECREATE project. As Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) conclude, although all frameworks with respect to the notion of resilience in the literature have their historical roots in particular disciplines, the frameworks themselves can be applied to any domain with following examples: Engineering Resilience is utilized in


Executive Summary of 32

some child development studies; Systems Resilience is often used in governance and management; and the Complex Adaptive Systems approach has been applied to economics, innovation in technology, history, and urban planning. Thus different frameworks along the spectrum offer a choice of perspective. The acceptability of trade-offs between them and not subject matter will ultimately determine which perspective is chosen (Martin-Breen and Anderies 2011).


Table of contents of 32

Table of contents General Information .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Authors ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 WP Partners ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Contact ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Table of contents ................................................................................................................................................... 6 List of pictures and graphs .................................................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Overview on resilience concept in scientific literature............................................................................... 10

2.1 Resilience in the literature of environmental and ecological economics......................................... 11 2.2 Resilience in the economics of the environment, natural resources and management ................. 12 2.3 Resilience in the ecological economics ..............................................................................................13 2.4 Conclusions of the analysis of resilience in the environmental and ecological economics ............15

3 Resilience in the context of the conceptual RECREATE framework ......................................................... 16 3.1 General conceptual framework for RECREATE project ................................................................... 16 3.2 Transition analysis of European research system within MLP framework ..................................... 20 3.3 Outline of RECREATE impact analysis logic ...................................................................................... 22 3.4 Conclusion on resilience and the conceptual RECREATE framework ............................................. 23

4 Conclusions and policy implications ............................................................................................................ 26 5 References .................................................................................................................................................... 28


List of pictures and graphs of 32

List of pictures and graphs Figure 2.1 The context in examining sustainability, which is the instrumental rationale of adaptive co-management through the lens of resilience. Three components for evaluation in adaptive co-management processes are an ecological component, an economic component using a sustainable livelihoods framework, and a process component drawing attention to the role of institutions and power (Plummer and Armitage 2007). .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3.1 General outline of the RECREATE conceptual framework................................................................ 16 Figure 3.2 Value chains in the socio-economic and environmental systems. .................................................... 17 Figure 3.3 Example of illustrating interlinks and various resource and emission flows (Mugdal et al. 2012) . 19 Figure 3.4 Interrelations between the focus areas. ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 3.5 System transition within the general RECREATE framework ........................................................... 21 Figure 3.6 Phases of transition. ............................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 3.7 Transition in RECREATE ...................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.8 Changes and logic of impacts in the transition. ................................................................................ 23 Figure 3.9 The general context of RECREATE project: the UN concept of the Sustainable Development. ... 24 Figure 3.10 The simple illustration of the resilience and the interrelated impacts of environmental (or earth) and socio-economic systems. ............................................................................................................................. 25


Abbreviations of 32

Abbreviations BAT- BREFs Best Available Techniques

DG European Commission Directorate General

EU European Union

GHG Greenhouse Gas

IPP Integrated Product Policy

LCA Life-Cycle Assessment

MLP Multi-Level Perspective

NGO Non-governmental organisations

R&I Research and innovation

RECREATE REsearch network for forward looking activities and assessment of research and innovation prospects in the fields of Climate, Resource Efficiency and raw mATErials

RTD Research and Technological Development

RTDI Research, Technological Development and Innovation

SME Small and medium-sized enterprises


Introduction of 32

1 Introduction This report examines the notion of resilience within the conceptual framework of the RECREATE project1. In the seminal paper Holling (1973) defined resilience as a measure how far the system could be perturbed without a shifting to a different regime and called this “ecological resilience” Holling 1996 . Gunderson and Holling (2002) extended the definition so that resilience is the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behaviour. Since the introduction of resilience numerous scholars in different research fields and traditions in ecological and social sciences have made references to and interpretations and definitions of the original resilience concept. The purpose of this report is to give a conceptual introduction to resilience and analyse this concept especially in the literature of environmental and ecological economics. The purpose of the analysis is to give at least a preliminary assessment, first, what kind resilience related issues may arise from the analyses of these economic approaches for various parts of the RECREATE framework, and, second, does resilience analysis of these economic approaches comprise ideas that could be of benefit and be further developed in the RECREATE project. The report is structured as follows. As the resilience concept is used extensively in different scientific literature, Chapter 2 is an overview on this development and related controversy and an introduction to the analysis of resilience in the literature of environmental and ecological economics. On a basis of Chapter 2, Chapter 3 analyses various aspects of resilience, as analysed in the environmental and ecological economics, vis-à-vis the conceptual framework of the RECREATE project. Chapter 4 concludes by drawing policy implications and recommendations with respect to the resilience concept in European policy-making. As the use of the resilience concept in scientific literature is extensive, this report should be taken as the tentative analysis based on selected limited literature.

1 The RECREATE framework was presented in the RECREATE Methodology report for forward looking activities, 31 March 2014.


Overview on resilience concept in scientific literature of 32

2 Overview on resilience concept in scientific literature Since the early contributions of the notion of resilience in ecological research a lot of literature has emerged around this notion also in socio-economic studies. Along the extended use has developed also the controversy whether extended socio-economic definitions and meanings of resilience are positive or negative thinking of the original idea. Pros and cons have been assessed in several review studies such as Brand and Jax (2007), Bhambra et al. (2011), Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) and Brown (2013). In order to describe some of the key controversial issues on definitions and meanings proposed to resilience in the in ecological and social science literature, this Chapter draws mainly on Brand and Jax (2007). Brand and Jax (2007) develop a typology to structure various definitions of resilience in the literature of ecological and social sciences. The typology is based on the analysis of key papers published in the last 35 years (before publishing year 2007 of Brand and Jax paper), and they analyse descriptive, normative and “hybrid” characteristics of resilience concept of those papers. On a basis of the typology they conclude that the descriptive ecological interpretation of resilience is clearly specified quantitative and measurable concept which can be used for achieving progress in ecological science. After that Brand and Jax examine the use of resilience in in the literature by concluding that in this literature the concept is used “as a rather vague boundary object”. “Boundary object” refers to a term in science and technology studies that facilitates communication across disciplinary borders by creating shared vocabulary although the understanding of the parties would differ regarding the precise meaning of the term in question. Brand and Jax refer to several socio-economic and cross-disciplined socio-ecological studies in which according to their judgement resilience is used as a boundary object. In the 1990s several scholars discovered the resilience concept as an important tool to measure sustainability (Arrow et al. 1994, Perrings et al. 1995, Folke et al. 1996, Levin et al. 1998), and since then the concept has been used in different scientific disciplines, for example, in economics (Farber 1995, Batabyal 1998, Perrings and Stern 2000, Brock et al. 2002, Perrings 2006), political sciences (Olsson et al. 2006), sociology (Adger 2000), and planning (Pickett et al. 2004). Moreover each discipline has provided specific definitions for resilience and this concept has been related to other scientific notions, for example to carrying capacity (Seidl and Tisdell 1999), critical natural capital (Deutsch et al. 2003), strong sustainability (Arrow et al. 1995, Ott 2003, Ott and Döring 2004), globalization (Armitage and Johnson 2006), justice (Adger 2003), and adaptive co-management (Berkes et al. 2003 (Eds), Olsson et al. 2004). Brand and Jax add that resilience is increasingly interpreted in a broader meaning across disciplines as a way of thinking, a perspective or even paradigm for analysing social-ecological systems (Folke et al. 2002, Folke 2003, Anderies et al. 2006, Folke 2006, Walker et al. 2006). Some authors expand theories or concepts drawn from ecological systems, e.g., alternative stable regimes, panarchy, or ecological redundancy, to examine social, political, and institutional systems (e.g., Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003, Allison and Hobbs 2004). The interpretation of Adger et al (2005) even aims at a general theory for the resilience of whole social-ecological systems. It is in this sense that resilience incorporates the capacity of social-ecological systems to cope with, adapt to, and shape change and learn to live with uncertainty and surprise (Folke 2003, 2006).2 In conclusion, the scope of the content of resilience broadened in the literature using resilience as boundary object. Brand and Jax analyse first the merits of using resilience as boundary object. The vagueness and malleability and related variety of interpretations make boundary objects politically successful. These objects may support the coordination of different groups without a consensus about their aims and interests. If open to interpretation and valuable to different scientific disciplines or social groups, boundary objects can be useful as communication tools to bridge scientific disciplines and the gap between science and policy. Besides resilience Brand and Jax give the term sustainability as an example of successful boundary object providing the common ground for ecologists and economists to engage together for the needs of future generations. They conclude however that the use of boundary objects has drawbacks and they can even hinder scientific progress. For example the meaning of sustainable development is in many

2 See the article including these sources in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/; see also responses to the article in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/responses/.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/responses/



ways vague and unclear, and various interpretations enable scientific disciplines or social groups to justify their interest with respect to an accepted and ethically legitimated, societal goal. As different persons agree on the need for sustainability but mean by it different things, this may hide conflicts and power relations. In conclusion, boundary objects have positive and negative aspects in terms of scientific progress and political success, but, as a result, the original ecological concept of resilience transforms considerably which threatens its conceptual clarity and practical relevance (Brand and Jax 2007). In spite of the criticism above Brand and Jax assess that the use of resilience as boundary object is however also positive because the concept may foster communication across disciplines and between science and practice. In order to counterbalance positive and negative aspects of the conceptual development of resilience they call for division of labour in a scientific sense. Resilience as a descriptive concept should be a clear and well specified concept providing the basis for operationalization and application in ecological science. For clarity this meaning could be called for example ecological resilience or ecosystem resilience. Alike when used as a transdisciplinary approach in the analysis of social-ecological systems “as boundary object” it could be termed for example social-ecological resilience. In the review of resilience literature, Brown 2013 draws the similar conclusion on “sociali ation” of resilience: “While resilience ideas and applications are disputed and critiqued, I suggest that its multiple meanings and interpretations can – and should – result in rich scholarship and discussion”. The analysis of Brand and Jax (2007) raises questions to discussions of using the resilience concept in the context of RECREATE project and related framework. Socio-economic sciences consist of many various traditions and schools of thought raising the question whether it is possible to develop and agree upon of a common definition of “social-ecological resilience” as suggested by Brand and Jax, or just let various flowers bloom? How established are definitions of resilience in various socio-economic sciences? The variety of the definitions and the use of the term resilience is however broad and rich, and the processing and agreeing upon a common definition seems to remain a challenge for the socio-economic scientific communities. After the review of Brand and Jax (2007) on the term resilience in scientific literature, several other reviews have been published. For example the cross-disciplinary review of Bhambra et el. (2011) analyse resilience within the context of SMEs, Brown (2013) across fields of geography, environmental change, natural resource management and international development, and Norris et al. (2008) in context of community adaptation. Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) is a comprehensive overview on different meanings of resilience across fields. Keck and Sakdapolrak (2013) in turn develop the definition of social resilience3. Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) can be considered as a balanced approach between various resilience concepts, as the authors say, their overview provide a spectrum of ways resilience can be conceived, such that any particular use can be situated somewhere along this spectrum. The focus of the review is on three resilience frameworks, of increasing complexity: engineering Resilience or “Common ense” resilience , systems Resilience (called Robustness in economics), and in resilience in complex adaptive systems. Martin-Breen and Anderies conclude that, although each framework has historical roots in particular disciplines, the frameworks themselves can be applied to any domain with following examples: Engineering Resilience is utilized in some child development studies; Systems Resilience is often used in governance and management; and the Complex Adaptive Systems approach has been applied to economics, innovation in technology, history, and urban planning. Thus different frameworks along the spectrum offer a choice of perspective; the acceptability of trade-offs between them, and not subject matter, will ultimately determine which perspective is chosen (2011).

2.1 Resilience in the literature of environmental and ecological economics In the analysis of resilience throughout the conceptual framework of the RECREATE in Chapter 3, the definition of resilience is based on the literature of the environmental and ecological economics, and this

3 Keck and Sakdapolrak (2013 suggest to define “social resilience” in social sciences as being comprised of three dimensions: 1 coping capacities – the ability of social actors to cope with and overcome all kinds of adversities; (2) adaptive capacities – their ability to learn from past experiences and adjust themselves to future challenges in their everyday lives; and (3) transformative capacities – their ability to craft sets of institutions that foster individual welfare and sustainable societal robustness towards future crises.



section gives an introduction to this literature. The economics related to the environment and natural resources consist of several various traditions and schools of thoughts around related scientific journals. This section introduces to three fields of environmental and ecological economics and related definition and analysis of resilience in this literature. The economics of the environment and natural resources is among established research fields with The Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics4. Another field is the environmental economics and management with The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management5. The roots of these research communities are in the tradition of the welfare equilibrium economics6. The definition and investigation of the term resilience in these fields of economics are based on interpretation of the ecological definition of resilience. Moreover, in the environmental economics and management the analysis of resilience is not confined to the behaviour of nature but encompasses also environmental management by human and societal actions. In recent decades the analysis of the environment and natural resources in the economic literature has diversified, and the ecological economics is among relatively new established communities in the economics, having The Ecological Economics7 as an international publication forum. Ecological economics consist of multidimensional and interdisciplinary elements. Another science community based also on interdisciplinary approach is around the journal Ecology and Society8. This section gives a short overview on these three fields of environmental and ecological economics. The aim thus section is not to give any judgement of the considered fields of economics but to discuss related definitions and analysis of resilience before the analysis of resilience vis-à-vis the conceptual RECREATE framework in Chapter 3.

2.2 Resilience in the economics of the environment, natural resources and management

Among the characteristics in the analysis of the environmental and natural resource economics are economic valuation and pricing of environmental and natural resource commodities and the identification of threshold levels in analysing the resilience of the nature to external disturbance or perturbations. The definition of resilience is based on the interpretation of economists on the definition made by ecologists. For example according to Pearce and Barbier (2000) ecologists usually mean by ecological resilience the capacity of an ecosystem to recover from and thus absorb external shocks and stresses, whether they be natural (e.g. drought, fire, earthquakes) or human-induced (e.g. pollution, biomass removal). If an ecosystem is resilient, it should recover sufficiently from any human-induced or natural stresses. Otherwise ecosystems are insufficiently resilient and the ability of ecosystems to function normally and deliver important biological resources and ecological services will be affected (Pearce and Barbier 2000). Mäler (2008) gives a following more detailed description of resilience in the economics. Ecological systems in general are characterized by thresholds at which the system may quickly change to a different regime with different functions and therefore different value of its service. The distance between the current state of the system and the threshold is called the resilience of the system at that state. Thus the resilience gives the maximum perturbation that we can make to the system without forcing it into another regime. If the current regime is having a higher value than the alternate regime, the resilience can be interpreted as a buffer stock that reduces the probability of a change of regimes. This stock will have an accounting price and with that price, the resilience can be included in the wealth calculations. Resilience in a system should be regarded as a capital stock, and for accounting purposes, we need to define an accounting price for this capital stock. If we can measure the resilience perfectly and if we know how to control the resilience perfectly, the accounting price of it would be zero (unless we are at the threshold). This is, because a change in resilience with one unit will, in this case, have no impacts. However, if there is uncertainty about

4 Springer, http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640 5 Elsevier, http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-environmental-economics-and-management/ 6 It is however good to remember that in the economics as in other sciences different schools of thought are competing with each other, and as Dosi reminds in discussing different modes of thinking in the welfare economics and the evolutionary economics, there is not any sharp discontinuity between these schools of thought but rather some fuzzy continuum (Dosi 1991). 7 Elsevier, http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-economics/ 8 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org. The review of Brand and Jax (2007) discussed above was published in the special issue of Ecology and Society on exploring resilience in social-ecological systems, Ecology and Society 11(1) 2006.

http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-environmental-economics-and-management/

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-economics/

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/



the dynamics of the system and if cannot control the system perfectly, a change today in resilience will in general affect the probability of a future flip of the system. The accounting price of resilience is thus the expected value of the present value of future net benefit for the services from the system, where the expectations is taken over the probability distribution for a future flip. As Mäler concludes, unfortunately we know very little of the resilience of our ecosystems quantitatively. We hardly know how to measure it (except in very simple systems) and it may seem overoptimistic to discuss economic valuation of a stock we know so little about. On the other hand, the development of a framework suitable for accounting of resilience, will give precision in the questions we have to ask about the systems and will therefore be valuable for measuring resilience. Potentially, the value of resilience in the ecosystems of the world may be very high and that should lead us to invest in much more theoretical and empirical studies of the dynamics of ecosystems. Without such knowledge we may mismanage them grossly (ibid.). In the literature of the environmental economics and management resilience is based on the definition in ecological sciences. For example Quaas et al. (2013) refer to Sheffer et al. (2001) define resilience as a property of natural systems meaning the extent to which these systems can buffer exogenous shocks. The definition of resilience in the literature of the environmental economics and management is however not confined to behaviour of nature but encompasses human and societal actions and management in the recovery of ecosystem from human-induced or natural stresses. Hence, as Quaas et al. (2013) note, resilience is not just an intrinsic feature of natural resources; institutions, technology, and preferences are likely to play an important role, too. In the tradition of environmental and natural resources and of the environmental economics and management an extensive empirical research has emerged related to the valuation of the environment, benefit-cost analysis and the analysis of economic instruments in environmental control and regulation, that support decision-making in various stages of policy-making (see e.g. Miedzinski (Ed.) (2015).

2.3 Resilience in the ecological economics In the literature of the ecological economics, resilience thinking emerged as an endeavour to understand change and the multiple, cross-scale interactions in social–ecological systems. As Cummings et al. (2005) note, deliberate progress towards sustainability necessarily involves an understanding of the dynamics of linked social/ economic–ecological systems. Plummer and Armitage (2007) give a broad overview on the conceptual analysis of resilience based e.g. on Holling (1973), Berkes and Folke (1998), Gunderson and Holling (2002), Berkes et al. (2003), Gunderson (2003), Anderies et al. (2004), Anderies et al. (2006), Folke (2006), and Walker et al. (2006). As many of these references already indicate, the ecological economics literature is closely linked to cross-disciplinary research community of ecological and social sciences9. The following text draws much on the review of Plummer and Armitage (2007) in The Ecological Economics. Plummer and Armitage (2007) discuss sustainable natural resource management, related responsibilities for allocating and using resources, collaborative and adaptive approaches in pursuit of sustainable resource use, and social–ecological resilience, which is shared among multiple parties. The key concept is adaptive co-management, a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of trial-and-error (Folke et al. 2002). In this analysis resilience, although grounded in ecological sciences, has increasingly been tested and applied by natural and social scientists in examining a range of ecological communities. It is linked to social–ecological systems and institutional and organizational arrangements. Plummer and Armitage support the conclusion of Anderies et al. (2006) who characterises resilience as a framework for systematically thinking through system dynamics (rather than a coherent body of theory) which helps our understanding of complex systems behaviour. According to Plummer & Armitage (2007) the instrumental rationale of adaptive co-management is

9 Among visible such communities is around the journal Ecology and Society which published a special issue exploring resilience in social-ecological systems (Ecology and Society 11(1) 2006, URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/view.php?sf=22).

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/view.php?sf=22



sustainability: it aims to solve resource problems through a collaborative process which fosters ecologically sustainable livelihoods (Berkes, 2004; Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Folke et al., 2005). Plummer & Armitage (2007) examine the above rationale through the lens of resilience to identify three focal components for evaluation in adaptive co-management processes: an ecological component, an economic component approached using a sustainable livelihoods framework, and a process component that draws attention to the role of institutions and power (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 The context in examining sustainability, which is the instrumental rationale of adaptive co-management through the lens of resilience. Three components for evaluation in adaptive co-management processes are an ecological component, an economic component using a sustainable livelihoods framework, and a process component drawing attention to the role of institutions and power (Plummer and Armitage 2007).

Plummer & Armitage (2007) give examples of various definitions of the term resilience. Berkes et al. (2003) identify three central features of resilience: (1) the ability of a system to absorb or buffer disturbances and still maintain its core attributes; (2) the ability of the system to self-organize; and (3) the capacity for learning and adaptation in the context of change. Walker et al. (2006) describe resilience as the potential of a system to remain in a particular configuration, and maintain feedbacks, functions, and an ability to reorganize following disturbance driven change. On a basis of these definitions resilience thinking leads to several insights about complex system behaviour that provide useful context for evaluating adaptive co-management, and identification of areas for evaluation where complexity is a starting point for analysis. Berkes et al. (2003) identify slow moving variables that operate at larger spatio-temporal scales and promote stability, maintain the legacies necessary for natural evolutionary or adaptive processes, and enable a ‘remember’ effect. Fast variables operate at smaller temporal and spatial scales and can overwhelm slower variables, thus precipitating a period of revolt or creative destruction and eventual, for example, draw attention to the existence of multiple thresholds in social–ecological systems, and the potential for regime shifts and possibility of alternative regimes. Understanding the social–economic and ecological processes that destabilize these slow variables, and lead potentially, to fundamental system change (i.e., regime shifts) presents an important focus for adaptive co-management evaluation. For co-managers, therefore, a central objective may be to keep social–ecological systems from moving towards or further into system states or conditions that meet neither ecological nor socio-economic sustainability



criteria i.e., avoiding system ‘flips’ that occur when certain thresholds are reached . Plummer & Armitage (2007) conclude that resilience thinking described above offers a potentially unifying concept when evaluating adaptive co-management in complex systems as it highlights an important feature of ecological and livelihood outcomes, and raises the challenge of goal formation as a key social process. There is a normative dimension to the notion of resilience because the resilience of certain social–ecological system configurations may not be desirable (Carpenter et al., 2005). Efforts to define resilience must be situated in the context of contested and evolving human interests, thus highlighting the critical role of human interaction mediated through adaptive co-management processes. In the article Plummer and Armitage draw attention to the key parameters that may provide a consistent focus for evaluation of adaptive co-management efforts, and also serve as a basis for systematizing learning across multiple sites to support empirical examination and theory development. In conclusion, in the literature of the ecological economics the term resilience, although grounded in ecological sciences, is increasingly tested and applied by natural and social scientists in examining a range of ecological communities. Resilience is linked to social–ecological systems as well as to institutional and organizational arrangements (Plummer and Armitage 2007). Plummer and Armitage (2007) develop a framework to evaluate adaptive co-management and foster systematic learning across multiple sites. The characteristics of resilience, as described above in the literature of the ecological economics, have many resemblances with the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and transition management literature, like the concept of system change, regime shifts, learning by trial and errors, etc.

2.4 Conclusions of the analysis of resilience in the environmental and ecological economics

As the overview on selected literature above indicates the definition and analysis of resilience in the literature of environmental and ecological economics is diverse. In the literature of the environmental and resource economics the definition is primarily based on the interpretations of resilience term by ecologists. An ecosystem is resilient if it can recover sufficiently from any human-induced or natural stresses. In the literature of the environmental economics and management the analysis of resilience is not confined on the behaviour of nature but encompasses also environmental management by human and societal actions. Accordingly institutions, technology and preferences play important roles in the recovery of ecosystem from human-induced or natural stresses. In the literature of the ecological economics the definition and analysis of resilience are interdisciplinary over ecological and social sciences and correspondingly over the dynamics of linked social/ economic–ecological systems. Resilience is characterized as a framework for systematically thinking through system dynamics which helps understanding of complex systems behaviour. Among key concepts is adaptive co-management, a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of trial-and-error. Central features of resilience are the ability of a system to absorb or buffer disturbances and still maintain its core attributes; the ability of the system to self-organize; and the capacity for learning and adaptation in the context of change. The analysis of resilience in the ecological economics comprises many elements related to the dynamics of complex linked socio-economic and ecological systems.


Resilience in the context of the conceptual RECREATE framework of 32

3 Resilience in the context of the conceptual RECREATE framework

This Chapter analyses resilience vis-à-vis the conceptual framework of RECREATE project, resilience understood as in the selected literature in the environmental and resource economics, the environmental economics and management, and the ecological economics. The purpose of the analysis is to give at least a preliminary assessment, first, what kind resilience related issues may arise from the analyses of these economic approaches for various parts of the RECREATE framework, and, second, does resilience analysis of these economic approaches comprise ideas that could be of benefit and be further developed in the RECREATE project. Among the criteria in this analysis are the objectives of the RECREATE project, the intensification of European RTD activities in areas of raw materials, resource efficiency and climate action, and impact assessment of RTDI. From the perspective of concrete actions and related policy-making for sustainability it is important how are RTDI impacts especially on decision-making, and how decision-making gradually impacts on the state of the environment and ecological resilience to change of eco-systems. This section follows a simply methodology: the original text is rewritten through the eyeglasses of resilience analysis in the two economic research fields above.

3.1 General conceptual framework for RECREATE project The overarching framework of the RECREATE project is the environmental (or earth) system, and ecological resilience is of general relevance for the environmental system as argued also by the economic analysis (Figure 3.1). In the environmental (or earth) system framework the socio-economic system consists of actors and processes extracting, harvesting and using raw-materials and environmental resources and causing climate change. Extraction and processing of raw-materials and resources take place in value chains of production and consumption systems. As to the economic analyses, the environmental and natural resource economics pursue to value environmental and natural resource commodities and identify (on ecological principles) of threshold levels in analysing the resilience of the nature to external disturbance or perturbations. In this tradition of the environmental and natural resource economics various methodologies have emerged, like benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic analysis of the economic instruments of pollution control, etc. that are aimed at and used as a support for concrete decision-making (see e.g. Miedzinski et al. 2015). The multidimensional and interdisciplinary analysis of resilience in the ecological economics links ecology, economics and societal levels as in the general RECREATE framework. The literature of the environmental economics and management pays attention to human and societal preferences and actions and management in the recovery of ecosystem from human-induced or natural stresses, meaning interdisciplinary research over environmental and socio-economic systems.

Figure 3.1 General outline of the RECREATE conceptual framework

In the general RECREATE framework sustainable solutions of extraction and processing of raw-materials and resources are supported by life-cycle assessment. Life-cycle thinking largely follows the logic of business value chains. The search for innovative solutions in the three focus areas of RECREATE of production and consumption system will be analysed within the innovation eco-system. In various life-cycle analyses and related conclusions an understanding of ecological resilience is of importance. The



analysis of traditional life-cycle assessment has broadened also to economic analysis of life-cycle costs (e.g. Swarr et al. 2011) which is relevant to notice in appropriate parts of the RECREATE study. The system transition from the current regime with fragmented European R&I in the three focus areas to the new regime with more integrated R&I will be considered within the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework which makes a distinction between changes at the landscape level, regime level and niche level (Geels, 2002). Accordingly, the MLP framework, within the overarching environmental system and socio-economic system, forms the second general outline of the conceptual RECREATE framework illustrating the system transition. Thinking of research of resilience in the economic analyses considered, MLP framework has certain resemblances and common characteristics and even terminology with the ecological economics, such as multi-level approach, interdisciplinary analysis, adaptive co-management, regimes, system dynamics, etc. In fact van den Bergh (2004) gives an interesting analysis related to these resemblances in his analysis of difference in the evolutionary, ecological and mainstream environmental and resource economics (2004). This is interesting especially because the background of research tradition of MLP and transition management is in social scientists´ interpretation of the evolutionary economics: According to Geel and Schot (2007) the first key concept is sociotechnical regime which is an extended version of technological regime by Nelson and Winter (1982), referring to shared cognitive routines in an engineering community and explaining patterned development along ‘technological trajectories’.10 Within the environmental system the focus of RECREATE project is on the socio-economic system consisting of actors and processes extracting, harvesting and using raw-materials and environmental resources, contributing to climate change by emitting greenhouse gases. Extraction, harvesting and use of resources occur by economic activities in production and consumption system. The investigation of sustainable solutions of production and consumption system is supported by life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies. In tangible industries business value chains follow largely the logic of LCA throughout life cycle of raw-material and resource circulation. Different phases of LCA frame illustrate material circulation from exploitation of natural resources via production, consumption conversion, distribution and re-using and recycling to emissions and wastes, and industrial value of companies originates and grows along various life cycle stages between companies. Ecological resilience, referred both in the equilibrium economics and in the ecological economics literature, is relevant throughout the life cycle of raw-material and resource circulation. In the RECREATE framework life cycle analysis also manifests the interdependence of social and environmental systems and resilience concepts related to both systems, as suggested by the literature of the ecological economics.

Figure 3.2 Value chains in the socio-economic and environmental systems.

10 In sociological studies of technology this explanation is broadened based on the argumentation that scientists, policy makers, users and special-interest groups also contribute to patterning of technological development (Bijker, 1995).



Life-cycle thinking and LCA methodology is an established approach supporting sustainable policy-making in industrialized economies. Life-cycle thinking is integrated in EU policies (e.g. Integrated Product Policy, IPP) and directives such as waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE, 4 July 2012). LCA aspects are considered in reference material of Best Available Techniques (BAT- BREFs) adopted under IPPC Directive (2008/1/EC). BAT-BREF material also consists of material of innovation potentials of different industrial sectors. Value chain is a conventional approach in analysing value creation in management literature. Value chain may refer to the internal value creation process of a company (e.g. Porter 1985) or common industrial level value creation process between companies in upstream and downstream in supply chains (e.g. Special Issue 15 of Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 16, October 2008). The integrated analysis consisting of both LCA analysis and value chain analysis is relatively scarce in the literature. Some studies however have developed frameworks by integrating these two approaches (e.g. Hagelaar and van der Vorst 2001; Matos and Hall 2007; Seuring and Müller 2008). As argued above in the life-cycle analysis ecological resilience plays an important role and the economic analysis of life-cycle costs is bringing a interdisciplinary element to LCA methodology. Empirical studies related to the valuation of the environment, benefit-cost analysis and the analysis of economic instruments in environmental control and regulation give support for decision-making in various stages of life-cycle assessment (see e.g. Miedzinski (Ed.) (2015). The attainment of sustainable production and consumption patterns requires RTD activities and related various innovations – whether technological, behavioural, social, related to services, or so - in all phases of life-cycle and business value chains. Carefully accomplished LCA exercises support the identification of improvement points in various stages of life-cycle of product and production chains supporting in this way the identifications and accordingly the development of technological solutions leading to sustainable innovations throughout the value chains. In RTD and innovation chain literature the focus has been both in internal innovation processes of firms (e.g. Kline and Rosenberg 1986) and in innovation processes between companies within value chains Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami 2009 . “Innovation eco-system” approach gives a modern context for the analysis of sustainable solutions throughout production and consumption systems11. As innovation activities in the context of sustainability are aimed at decreasing environmental impacts of production and consumption, they should lead to sufficient recovery from any human-induced or natural stresses, i.e. to resilient eco-system as defined by environmental economists (e.g. Pearce and Barbier 2000). One point of departure of RECREATE project is the recognition that RTD activities and research collaboration in the focus areas of RECREATE is fragmented in the European Union and Member States. The study “Assessment of resource efficiency indicators and targets”, commissioned by DG Environment of EU, BIO Intelligence Service (Mugdal et al. 2012), presenting a framework for resource efficiency indicators, describes also the links between water and land resources, materials and energy, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study analyses these interrelations and interdependencies of salient materials and resources by taking into account also GHG emissions. By identifying interlinks and various resource and emission flows between RECREATE focus areas BIO IS study is a valuable exercise for RECREATE analysis (Figure 3.3 shows one example of figures of BIO-IS study).

11 Carayannis and Campbell (2009) give an example of definition of innovation eco-system: “` ode 3´ innovation eco-system is a multi-layered, multi-modal, multi-nodal and multi-lateral system, encompassing mutually complementary and reinforcing innovation networks and knowledge clusters consisting of human and intellectual capital, shaped by social capital and underpinned by financial capital.” ee also oore´s seminal article Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review 71 (3), 1993.



Figure 3.3 Example of illustrating interlinks and various resource and emission flows (Mugdal et al. 2012)

The precise focus of BIO IS study differs from RECREATE but it can be considered as useful material for illustrative purposes in RECREATE project. By natural resources the BIO IS study refers to materials (biotic and abiotic), energy (fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables), air, water and land (spatial dimension including terrestrial, inland water and sea areas). When placed into the RECREATE context of environmental and socio-economic systems BIO IS framework well illustrates three focus areas of RECREATE project and the links in between these areas. While the focus areas of BIO IS study are not precisely in the focus areas of the RECREATE project, the respective frame of RECREATE areas must be developed accordingly. Figure 3.3 however illustrates nicely the links between BIO IS focus areas benefitting the corresponding analysis in the RECREATE project. When considered from the perspective of resilience, the complex interlinks and various resource and emission flows in Figure 3.3 also well illustrates the challenges of identifying resilience, as concluded e.g. by Mäler (2008) (see Section 2.2). One objective of RECREATE project is to intensify European RTD and innovation activities between the focus areas of raw materials, resource efficiency and climate action. A versatile intensive RTD between focus areas probably leads to such impacts as perception of “gaps” in existing RTD programs in borderlines of focus areas, overlapping or doubling RTD efforts and programs and funding, and also identification of new relevant RTD areas. Research in the identified areas may in turn lead to identification of new private and public actions and policies and interventions till the year 2050. In some RECREATE focus areas steps towards more integrated research mode may already occur for example before 2025. Hence since then, after the impact of European research to private and public actions and innovations, these actions in turn lead to more efficient raw-material and resource use and practices, consequent reduction of greenhouse gases, and finally both to positive impacts in the state of natural environment and also positive socio-economic impacts for example in health and welfare of European citizens.



Figure 3.4 Interrelations between the focus areas.

Framework of BIO IS study illustrates interdependencies of resource use and the elements presented are related to ecological resilience discussed both in the equilibrium economics as well as in the ecological economics literature. With links to resilience, BIO IS study, in context of existing resource use and resource efficiency policy targets, discusses the targets related to threshold levels of resource use and resource efficiency. The study refers to various policy targets but concludes that there is little political consensus among national governments for setting targets both nationally and globally, due partly to the lack of scientific evidence and general agreement on the planet’s sustainability thresholds. Non-governmental organisations and academics however are pushing for more policy targets (one example is the recommendation of the Stockholm Resilience Centre on limiting the percentage of global land cover converted to cropland to 15%). Interdependencies of resource use and environmental impacts well indicate challenges of setting threshold level targets and assessment of resilience.

3.2 Transition analysis of European research system within MLP framework The aim of the RECREATE project is to contribute to the transformation from the fragmented European research and research collaboration in the three focus areas to the integrated research and research collaboration in the future in the EU and Member States. In the RECREATE project this transition will be analysed within Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework. The project analyses the system transition from the current regime with fragmented research in RECREATE focus areas to the new regime of integrated research within the MLP framework. In the new regime a more integrated and intensive research and research collaboration create conditions for a more efficient and sustainable use of raw-materials and natural resources and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the future. Figure 3.5 illustrates the system transition within the general RECREATE framework (based on Foxon 2010). The planning and implementation of actions in transition process will be carried out in collaboration of all key actors and stakeholders. The analysis consists of three dimensions, landscape, socio-technical regime and niche innovations. As in previous MLP studies, also in RECREATE projects MLP approach consists of certain important elements (see e.g. Geels 2002, Eerola and Loikkanen 2009). For example, small networks of actors will support the development of solutions for actions of sustainable raw-material, resource efficiency and climate change mitigation on the basis of expectations and visions of various stakeholder



communities. Mutual learning processes and co-construction of the new technologies take place in multiple dimensions, with efforts to link different elements in a seamless web (e.g. demonstrations of new tech applications, together with the required infrastructure). The transition takes place in subsequent phases of pre-development, take-off, acceleration and stabilization which may be supported by corresponding policy measures and instruments (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.5 System transition within the general RECREATE framework

Multi-level perspective framework is based on transformation in time meaning analysing the dynamic changes on all levels of the RECREATE framework and related changes in resilience whether we refer to its ecological or social definitions in the literature of the equilibrium economics or in the ecological economics. By referring to van den Bergh (2000) study comparing differences of the evolutionary, ecological and mainstream environmental and resource economics (2004), it could be interesting to compare in a similar way the MLP approach and the approach of resilience in complex adaptive systems as described by Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011).

Figure 3.6 Phases of transition.



The State-of-the-Art today is that research of raw-materials, resource efficiency and climate action is fragmented as is the research collaboration in the EU and Member States in these areas. Landscape-level pressures have arisen and are recognized by the EU in terms of the need of intensifying research between raw-materials, resource efficiency and climate action. Moreover external influences on niches via expectations and networks (international platforms, sustainability campaigns by NGOs, etc.) are arising to push actions towards more intensive collaboration of research in these areas.

3.3 Outline of RECREATE impact analysis logic While the focus of the RECREATE project is the fragmented research and research collaboration in the areas of raw materials, resource efficiency and climate action in the European Union and Member States, the expected transition is mainly related to the shift of moving from fragmented research and research collaboration to more integrated and intensive research and research collaboration in the RECREATE focus areas (Figure 3.7). As in some focus areas progress towards more integrated research may occur well before 2050, having impact on new private and public actions and policies in focus areas, also the impacts of these new actions may lead to positive environmental and socio-economic impacts well before 2050. So the question in RECREATE project is not only of the transition to more integrated research mode between the three focus areas but also, by utilising research results, of the transition towards more sustainable raw-material, resource and climate change development via concrete actions.

Figure 3.7 Transition in RECREATE

The aim of RECREATE project is to contribute to more integrated research mode between the three focus areas and accordingly more effective common RTDI impact of these RTDI areas, and, by utilising research results in decision-making, to more sustainable raw-material, resource and climate change development by concrete actions. In the framework presented in Figure 3.8 the dynamics of resilience depends on what kind of impacts RTDI have on environmental decision-making and decision-making in turn to actions to improve the state of the environment. Here also indirect and unintended impacts of RTDI should be



investigated because some seemingly positive socio-economic impacts may cause negative impacts on the environment and natural resources. In badly deteriorated eco-systems even relatively inconsiderable negative impacts may lead to serious consequences. Gradually in due course impacts of a more integrated research start to appear: breakthroughs of new configurations such as energy solutions, taking advantage of ´windows of opportunity´ in all RECREATE focus areas. Corresponding adjustments occur in socio-technical regime (e.g. various raw-material and resource efficiency services, etc.). Finally the targeted State-of-the-Art will realize partly evidently already well before 2050 when European research concept of raw-materials, resource efficiency and climate action is optimally integrated and intensive as is the related research collaboration in the EU and Member States. What follows is the impact on results of RECREATE research on new private and public actions and policies in focus areas, and gradually, as impacts also of these actions, positive environmental and socio-economic impacts.

Figure 3.8 Changes and logic of impacts in the transition.

To sum up, RECREATE project is about transition from fragmented and uncoordinated research in three focus areas and related fragmented research collaboration, and consequent incoherent support from research to private and public actions and policies in the EU and Member States to integrated research concept of three focus areas and related intensive research collaboration, and consequent significant support from research to private and public actions and policy-making in the EU and Member States. Hence RECREATE project is not only about the transition towards more integrated research mode of the three focus areas, but also about utilising RECREATE research results to support the transition towards more sustainable raw-material, resource and climate change development via concrete private and public actions of the EU and the Member States.

3.4 Conclusion on resilience and the conceptual RECREATE framework General conclusions of RECREATE framework This section has described both the overall conceptual framework for analysing the interactions, trade-offs,



synergies and bottlenecks of R&I policy on the three focus areas of climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials, and the methodology for creating scenarios and vision related to them. A major challenge in the RECREATE project is to keep the focus on the interaction and the “in-between” of the three focus areas and not to analyse them separately. The conceptual framework aims to help in achieving that. Likewise the forward looking activities are aimed at looking at the three focus areas and their interaction as a whole by producing a vision for the integration of the focus areas and three complementary scenarios to reaching that vision. The forward looking activities of the RECREATE project will begin with the stocktaking in April 2014 and continue with vision scoping, trend analysis and scenario elaboration. The forward looking activities will produce three deliverables on the scenarios, as well as mid-term reports documenting the process. The conceptual frame and methodology described will be beneficial also for other researchers as well as policy makers hoping to anticipate and give guidance in a situation integrating different regimes or domains. More specifically, the conceptual frame will be useful in other projects aiming to look at policies, research and innovation related to climate action, resource efficiency and raw material. In addition, the participatory forward looking methods and the multi-regime framework described are applicable in other grand challenge driven foresight projects. Simple illustration of resilience in the RECREATE framework The integrated analysis of ecological and socio-economic resilience can be illustrated on a basis of the overarching context of the RECREATE project, i.e. by the UN concept of the Sustainable Development (Figure 3.9) (see the conceptual framework of the RECREATE project12).

Figure 3.9 The general context of RECREATE project: the UN concept of the Sustainable Development.

In this overarching framework, as in the conceptual framework of the RECREATE project, the human socio-economic system is considered as an integral part of the environmental (or earth) system. Figure 3.10 gives a simply illustration of the interactive dynamics of the resilience in both ecological and socio-economic systems. In this model the man-made harmful activities on the environment lead to disturbances causing the shift from the certain state of the environmental system E1 to inferior state E2 which in due time leads to inferior state of the socio-economic system (welfare) from the state SE1 to SE2. As the human being recognizes this impact on he/she starts to improve the state of the environment by remedial measures which in due time lead to get back to the previous state of the environment E3 and which gradually leads to corresponding better state of the socio-economic system and welfare SE3.

12

The RECREATE framework was presented in the RECREATE Methodology report for forward looking activities, 31 March 2014.



Figure 3.10 The simple illustration of the resilience and the interrelated impacts of environmental (or earth) and socio-economic systems.

Figure 3.10 is for illustrative purpose of the resilience and the interrelated impacts of environmental and socio-economic systems. The analysis however contains also many other important elements besides resilience, and can accordingly be elaborated more complicated in the further work. Besides resilience, among key elements of the interactive dynamics of the resilience in both ecological and socio-economic systems are adaptive capacity or adaptability, transformability and transformation of systems diversity, vulnerability, and redundancy and responsive and regulatory feedbacks, and learning (see for example Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011), Ernstson et al (2010) and Pelling (2011)13. In the further analysis of resilience WP 5 may clarify how these concepts are connected to and also differ from each other. Moreover an additional analysis is needed in the issue how learning and action aspects will be included in the foresight of socio-economic systems. In this issue the former RECREATE work in “Bridging the gap” the aspects of “Learning and foresight” are discussed in several sources reflecting the socio-economic or socio-technical system views of vulnerability and resilience. Conclusions on resilience analysis in the context of the RECREATE framework As the literature overview in Chapter 2 of this report indicates, resilience is a complex issue the existing State-of-the-Art of which is in the literature also controversial. As the report is about integrating and analysing resilience vis-à-vis the framework of RECREATE project, the question arises what kind of consequences the resilience analysis has on other parts of RECREATE project, and should corresponding analysis of resilience be executed in other parts of the project, for example to RECREATE scenarios. Again, as for example the scenario approach is multidimensional in nature and cross-disciplinary scientifically, the question arises whether resilience should discussed also in context of RTDI and other relevant policies and consequent optional policy options in each RECREATE scenario thinking of their possible impacts on harvesting and using raw-materials and environmental resources and causing climate change? Here again we need a comprehensive multidimensional analysis as, for example, reduced emissions to water and soils have positive impacts on the resilience of ecosystems and decreased use of material (e.g. metal ores in products) reduces pressure on depletion of natural resources. Economic analysis may support this analysis for example by empirical studies related to the valuation of the environment, benefit-cost analysis and the analysis of economic instruments in environmental control and regulation, giving support for decision-making in various stages of policy-making.

13 For example Pelling (2011) by studying adaptation to climate change argues that, without care, adaptive actions can deny the deeper political and cultural roots that call for significant change in social and political relations if human vulnerability to climate change associated risk is to be reduced. Pelling presents a framework for making sense of the range of choices facing humanity, structured around resilience (stability), transition (incremental social change and the exercising of existing rights) and transformation (new rights claims and changes in political regimes).


Conclusions and policy implications of 32

4 Conclusions and policy implications The purpose of the review and analysis of the use of concept of resilience in the context of RECREATE is to give a preliminary assessment of what kind of resilience related issues may arise from the analyses of these economic approaches for various parts of the RECREATE framework, and whether the resilience analysis could benefit to and be further developed in the entire RECREATE project. The literature overview indicates that resilience is a complex issue and the existing State-of-the-Art of the concept in the literature is controversial. This section considers the ways to integrate and analyse resilience concept to the conceptual framework of RECREATE project and raises the question what kind of consequences the resilience analysis has on various parts of the RECREATE project. This section concludes by asking should corresponding analysis of resilience be executed in all parts of RECREATE project, for example in RECREATE scenario analysis. The scenario analysis, as other parts of the RECREATE project, is multidimensional in nature and cross-disciplinary scientifically, raising the question whether resilience should be discussed in each RECREATE scenario on the level of ecological systems like harvesting and using raw-materials and environmental resources and causing climate change as well as on the level of socio-economic systems like in RTDI and other relevant policies and policy options thinking of their possible impacts On a basis of the previous sections the following conclusions can be drawn for discussion in the coming research work of the RECREATE project. First, the sections, although analysing the notion of resilience only in the literature of the environmental and resource economics (the environmental economics and management, and the ecological economics, as agreed in Working Package 5 participants) conclude that the resilience concept which is beneficial for the RECREATE project, may be both ecological and cross-disciplinary as the RECREATE project itself. Various parts of the project lean much on cross-disciplinary approach and cross-disciplinary nature is also among in-built approaches of Work Programmes of H2020 in general. This means that that the corresponding analysis of resilience as in the conceptual framework could be included in appropriate and cost-effective ways in various parts of RECREATE project. Accordingly resilience could be introduced to and discussed in the context of RTDI and other relevant policies and consequent policy options thinking of their interactive ecological and socio-economic impacts in the use of raw-materials and environmental resources and causing climate change. For example, reduced emissions to water and soils have positive impacts on the resilience of ecosystems and decreased use of material (e.g. metal ores in products) reduces pressure on depletion of natural resources. This development again has changes on the social and economic conditions of the mankind and this analysis could benefit from corresponding socio-economic resilience analysis. On European policy agenda of sustainability the concept of resilience is so far discussed mainly in the context of the role of adaptation in the climate change policies. The suggestion arising from this report is to broaden the scope of the approach of climate actions to raw materials and resource efficiency according to the agenda of the RECREATE project. The concept of resilience is both the issue to be taken into account in related European policy-making as well as an important theme of underlying cross-disciplinary research efforts on the European RDTI agenda supporting policy-making. In addition to the conceptual analysis of resilience, the previous sections considered also shortly the contribution of the environmental and ecological economics to environmental and natural resource management. Economic analysis may give support to planning and decision-making, for example, by empirical studies related to the valuation of the environment, benefit-cost analysis and the analysis of economic instruments in environmental control and regulation, giving alternative suggestions of measures and instruments for decision-makers in various stages of policy-making. In conclusion, the analysis of the resilience vis-à-vis the conceptual framework of RECREATE project raises many interesting and relevant aspects which could be of benefit and be further developed in the RECREATE project. As Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) argue, although each frameworks with respect to the notion of resilience in the literature have their historical roots in particular disciplines, the frameworks themselves can be applied to any domain with following examples: Engineering Resilience is utilized in some child development studies; Systems Resilience is often used in governance and management; and


Conclusions and policy implications of 32

the Complex Adaptive Systems approach has been applied to economics, innovation in technology, history, and urban planning. Thus different frameworks along the spectrum offer a choice of perspective. The acceptability of trade-offs between them and not subject matter will ultimately determine which perspective is chosen (2011).


References of 32

5 References Adger, W. N. (2003) Building resilience to promote sustainability: an agenda for coping with globalisation and promoting justice. International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) Newsletter 2, Bonn, Germany.

Adger, W. N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24(3) pp. 347-364.

Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström (2005) Socialecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309, pp. 1036-1039.

Ahern, J.F. (2011) From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world, Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Landscape and Urban Planning, Manuscript Draft 4-1-2011.

Allison, H. E., and R. J. Hobbs. (2004) Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “Lock-in Trap” of the Western Australian agricultural region. Ecology and Society 9(1):3.

Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., (2004) A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9 (1)

Anderies, J.M., Walker, B.H., Kinzig, A.P. (2006) Fifteen weddings and a funeral: case studies and resilience-based management. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 21

Armitage, D., and D. Johnson (2006) Can resilience be reconciled with globalization and the increasingly complex conditions of resource degradation in Asian coastal regions? Ecology and Society 11(1):2.

Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, B.-O. Jansson, S. Levin, K.-G. Mäler, C. Perrings, and D. Pimental (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268 pp. 520-521.

Batabyal, A. A. (1998) The concept of resilience: retrospect and prospect. Environment and Development Economics 3, pp. 235-239.

Berkes, F. (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18 (3), pp. 621–630.

Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.) (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 437 pp.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.) (2003) Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 393 pp.

Bhambra, R., S. Dani and K. Burnard et al. (2011) Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions, International Journal of Production Research, Volume: 49, Issue: 18, pp. 5375-5393.

Bijker, W.E. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs: Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England.

Brand, F. and K. Jax (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object, Ecology and Society 132(1).

Brock, W. A., K.-G. Mäler, and C. Perrings. (2002) Resilience and sustainability: the economic analysis of nonlinear dynamic systems. Pages 261-289 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. USA.

Brown (2014) Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience? Progress in Human Geography 2014, 38(1), pp. 107–117

Carayannis, E.G., and Campbell, D.F.J. (2009) 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46(3), pp. 201-234.

Carlsson, L., Berkes, F. (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of


References of 32

Environmental Management 75, pp. 65–76.

Carpenter, S.R., Westley, F., Turner, M., 2005. Surrogates for resilience of social–ecological systems. Ecosystems 8, pp. 941–944.

Cumming, G. S., and J. Collier. 2005. Change and identity in complex systems. Ecology and Society 10(1):29.

Dosi, G. (1991) Perspectives on Evolutionary Theory, Science and Public Policy 18, pp. 353-361.

Eerola, A., and Loikkanen, T. (2009) Governance and Research of Nordic Energy System Transition. Summary Report of the GoReNEST project.

Ernstson, H., van der Leeuw, S., Redman, C., Meffert, D., Davis, G., Alfsen, C., and Elmqvist, T. (2010) Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, pp. 1–15.

Farber, S. (1995) Economic resilience and economic policy. Ecological Economics 15, pp. 105-107.

Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3), pp. 253–267.

Folke, C. (2003) Freshwater for resilience: a shift in thinking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 358, pp.2027-2036.

Folke, C., C. S. Holling, and C. Perrings (1996) Biological diversity, ecosystems, and the human scale. Ecological Applications 6(4), pp. 1018-1024.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources 30, pp. 441–473.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Moberg, M., Gordon, L., Kaspersson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S.A., Mäler, K.-G., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockstöm, J., Savenije, S., Svedin, U., (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government Scientific Background Paper.

Foxon, T. J., Hammond, G.P. and Pearson, P.J.G. (2010) Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77(8), pp. 1203-1213.

Geels, F.W. (2002) "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study", Research policy 31(8), pp. 1257-1274.

Geels, F. and Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36, pp. 399–417.

Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Gunderson, L.H. (2003) Adaptive dancing: interactions between social resilience and ecological crises. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–52.

Hagelaar, G. and van der Vorst, J. (2001) Environmental supply chain management: using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 4(4), pp. 399-412.

Holling, C.S. (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, pp. 1–23.

Holling, C.S. (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Pages 31-44 in P. C. Schulze, editor. Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Inayatullah, S. (2006) "Anticipatory action learning: Theory and practice", Futures 38(6), pp. 656-666.

Keck, M. and P. Sakdapolrak (2013) What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward, ERDKUNDE 67(1), pp. 5-19.


References of 32

Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) An overview of innovation. In The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth.

Kuosa, T. (2012) The evolution of strategic foresight: navigating public policy making, Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Levin, S. A., S. Barrett, S. Aniyar, W. Baumol, C. Bliss, B. Bolin, P. Dasgupta, P. Ehrlich, C. Folke, I.-M. Gren, C. S. Holling, A. Jansson, B.-O. Jansson, K.-G. Mäler, D. Martin, C. Perrings, and E. Sheshinski (1998) Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems. Environment and Development Economics 3:221-235.

Martin-Breen, P. and J.M. Anderies (2011) Resilience: A Literature Review, Draft, The Bellagio Initiative, IDS, the resource alliance, The Rockefeller Foundation, November 2011.

Matos, S. and Hall, J. (2007) Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Operations Management 25(6), pp. 1083-1102.

Miedzinski, M. (Ed.) (2015) Guidebook on impact assessment of environmental impacts of research and innovation policy, by the ERAWATCH NETWORK ASBL. Brussels, July 2, 2015.

Moore, J.F. (1993) Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review 71(3), pp. 75-86.

Mudgal, S., Tan, A., Lockwood, S., Eisenmenger, N., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Giljum, S. and Brucker, M. (2012) Assessment of Resource Efficiency Indicators and Targets. Final Report. European Commission - DG Environment, BIO Intelligence Service.

Mäler, K-G. (2008) Sustainable Development and Resilience in Ecosystems, Environmental and Resource Economics 39, pp 17–24.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Nidumolu, R, Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami M.R. (2009) Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard business review vol. 87 no. 9, pp. 56-64. Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):18.

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34 (1), pp. 75-90.

Ott, K. 2003. The case for strong sustainability. Pages 59-64 in K. Ott, and P. P. Thapa, editors. Greifswald’s environmental ethics. Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose, Greifswald, Germany.

Ott, K., and R. Döring. 2004. Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis, Marburg, Germany.

Pearce, D. and B. Barbier (2000) Blueprint for A Sustainable Economy, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.

Pelling, M. (2011) Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation, Routledge.

Perrings, C. A. 2006. Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and Development Economics 11, pp. 417-427.

Perrings, C. A., and D. I. Stern. 2000. Modelling Loss of Resilience in Agroecosystems: Rangelands in Botswana. Environmental and Resource Economics 16, pp. 185-210.

Perrings, C. A., K.-G. Mäler, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, and B.-O. Jansson, (Editors) (1995). Biodiversity conservation, problems and policies. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Pickett, S. T. A., M. L. Cadenasso, and J. M. Grove. 2004. Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socioeconomic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, pp. 369-384.

Plummer, R. and D. Armitage (2007) A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world, Ecological Economics 61, pp. 62-74.


References of 32

Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance.

Quaas, M.F., van Soest, D. and S. Baumgärtner (2013) Complementarity, impatience, and the resilience of natural-resource-dependent economies, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 66, pp. 15–32.

Raven, R., & Verbong, G. (2007) Multi-regime interactions in the Dutch energy sector: The case of combined heat and power technologies in the Netherlands 1970–2000. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19(4), pp. 491-507.

Reggiani, A., T. de Graaff and P. Nijkamp (2002) Resilience: Evolutionary Approach to Spatial Economic Systems, Networks and Spatial Economics 2, pp. 211 -229.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. Foley, C. Folke and B. Walker, Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems, Nature 413, pp. 591–596.

Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of cleaner production 16(15), pp. 1699-1710.

Swarr TE & Hunkeler D & Klöpffer W & Pesonen H-L & Ciroth A & Alan C. Brent AC & Robert Pagan R (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, pp. 389–391.

Walker, B.H., Anderies, J.M., Kinzig, A.P., Ryan, P. (2006) Exploring resilience in social–ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: Introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society 11 (1)

Van Den Bergh, J. C., & Gowdy, J. M. (2000). Evolutionary theories in environmental and resource economics: approaches and applications. Environmental and Resource Economics, 17(1), pp. 37-57.

06/2015

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 603860.

Resilience in the conceptual framework of RECREATE · Resilience in the conceptual framework of...

Documents

Transcript of Resilience in the conceptual framework of RECREATE · Resilience in the conceptual framework of...