The multiple-equilibrium resilience framework

The single-equilibrium framework fails to take into account situations where changes occurring in a system’s environment may make a return to a pre-disruption state either impossible or undesirable. The multiple-equilibrium framework acknowledges that: a) a large enough disruption can flip a system from one state to another, and b) a system can adapt to a new equilibrium if changes in the system’s environment necessitate it (Folke et al. 2010; Gunderson 2000; Holling 1996; Pendall, Foster & Cowell 2010). Gunderson (2000) uses the heuristic of a ball and cup to illustrate resilience under the multi- equilibrium framework. As shown in Figure 2.1, the ball represents a system and the cup represents the region where the system can maintain a particular state. When the ball is at the bottom of the cup, it is in a stable state. If disturbed, the ball will tend to roll back to the bottom of the cup. However, if the disturbance is large enough, the ball will roll over

26 the edge of the cup to another cup as shown in Figure 2-1 (a). Another way that the ball can move to a new state is if the shape of the cup changes as shown in Figure 2-1 (b).

Source: Adapted from Gunderson (2000, p. 427) and Bhaskar, Cahoon and Chen (2014, p. 305)

The magnitude of disturbance that a system can absorb before it changes from one state to another has been termed ‘ecological resilience’ (Folke et al. 2010; Gunderson 2000; Holling 1996; Pendall, Foster & Cowell 2010). Holling (1996, p. 33) contrasts ecological resilience with engineering resilience by stating that engineering resilience focuses on ‘maintaining efficiency of function’ whereas ecological resilience focuses on ‘maintaining existence of function’. Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011, p. 7) provide a similar definition based on system function by defining resilience as ‘maintaining system function in the event of a disturbance’ but term it as ‘systems resilience’ rather than ecological resilience.

The definition of ecological resilience does not include the adaptation or change that a system may undergo if the environment (landscape) changes as shown in Figure 2-1 (b). Folke et al. (2010) provide a comprehensive definition of resilience which maintains focus on system function, and in addition, includes the system capacity to change. Folke et al. (2010, p. 3) define resilience as:

…the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and

(a) Transition due to disturbance

(a) Transition due to

(b) Transition due to changed landscape

(b) Transition due to Figure 2-1: Ball and cup heuristic of multi-equilibrium system

27 feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity.

Folke et al.’s (2010) definition highlights the dual capabilities of resilient systems – ability to absorb disturbance and ability to change. These dual capabilities are also highlighted in definitions by Adger (2006), Arsovski et al. (2017), Fiksel (2003) and Madni and Jackson (2009) shown in Table 2-1 which contains a selection of resilience definitions to illustrate variances in conceptualising resilience under the multiple- equilibrium framework.

Table 2-1: Resilience definitions under multiple-equilibrium framework

Author(s) Resilience definition

Adger (2006, p. 268) ‘resilience refers to the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed

before a system changes to a radically different state as well as the capacity to self-organise and the capacity for adaptation to emerging circumstances’

Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom (2004, p. 1)

‘resilience…measures the amount of change or disruption that is required to

transform the maintenance of a system from one set of mutually reinforcing processes and structures to a different set of processes and structures’

Arsovski et al. (2017,

p. 410) ‘the ability of an oas having the capability to adapt to new risk environment’rganisation to withstand systematic discontinuities as well

Burnard and Bhamra

(2011, p. 5595) ‘resilience is an emergent property that relates to the inherent and adaptive qualities that enable an organisation to take a proactive approach to threat

and risk mitigation’

Cumming et al. (2005,

p. 976) ‘the ability of a system to maintain its identity in the face of internal change and external shocks and disturbances’

Fiksel (2003, p. 5332) ‘the capacity to resist disorder…a resilience system through adaptation and evolution…is capable of surviving large perturbations’

Folke et al. (2010, p. 3) ‘the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change’

Hamel and Välikangas (2003, p. 2)

‘the capacity to change before the case for change becomes desperately obvious’

Levin and Lubchenco

(2008, p. 27) ‘the capacity of systems to keep functioning even when disturbed’ Madni and Jackson

(2009, p. 187) ‘resilience is a multiencompasses avoiding, absorbing, adapting to, and recovering from -faceted capability of a complex system that

disruptions’

McManus (2008, p. 5) ‘resilience is a function of an organisation’s situation awareness,

identification and management of keystone vulnerabilities and adaptive

capacity in a complex, dynamic and interconnected environment’

Seville (2017, p.18) ‘resilient organisations understand the need to be able to change and adapt quickly, not just to crises but to any form of change happening in their word’

28 Seville, Opstal and

Vargo (2015, p.6) ‘resilience is…about creating the agility needed to adapt to unexpected challenges’

Sundstrom and Hollnagel (2006, p. 235)

‘an organisation’s ability to adjust successfully to the compound impact of internal and external events over a significant time period’

Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom’s (2004) definition for example follows the definition of ecological resilience while Cumming et al.’s (2005) and Levin and Lubchenco’s (2008) defnitions focus on maintaining function. Burnard and Bhamra (2011), Fiksel (2003), Hamel and Välikangas (2003), McManus (2008), Seville (2017) and Sundstrom and Hollnagel (2006) highlight the ability to adapt as a key system capability for resilience. Madni and Jackson’s (2009) reference to recovery suggests that the ability to withstand disruptions may need to include the capacity for engineering resilience. The above definitions illustrate that despite differences in the manner that resilience is conceptualised under the multi-equilibrium framework, the ability of a system to adapt to changing circumstances is a key aspect of resilience.