Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9654-y
ORIGINAL PAPER

The diversity of resilience: contributions from a social

science perspective
Daniel F. Lorenz

Received: 10 November 2009 / Accepted: 22 October 2010 / Published online: 23 November 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The paper presents contributions to the widespread resilience paradigm from a
social science perspective. Certain aspects of social systems, especially their symbolic
dimension of meaning, need to be taken into account in the endeavor to research coupled
socialecological systems. Due to the symbolic dimension, disasters are defined as the
failure of future expectations, and social resilience is defined as the social system property
of avoiding or withstanding disasters. In relation to this, three capacities of social systems
(adaptive, coping, and participative) that constitute resilience are presented. The adaptive
capacity is the property of a system in which structures are modified to prevent future
disasters, whereas the coping capacity is the systems property of coping with calamitous
processes that occurred in the past. The participative capacity is a measure of the systems
ability to change its own structures with regard to interventions by other systems,
decreasing the systems resilience. The concept of resilience provides important epistemological and political insights and can help overcome an orientation tied together with
the concept of vulnerability that blocks social capacities for the mitigation of disasters.
Keywords Social resilience
Vulnerability
Adaptive capacity
Coping

Participative capacity

1 Introduction
Resilience has been a prominent topic in various disciplines that aim at conceptualizing
different types of systems. Besides the well-known paradigms of disciplines such as psychology and ecology, varying conceptions have developed in the disciplines of geography,
urban planning, and social science. But given the nature of cross-scale problems that do not
adhere to system boundaries or can even arise from interacting systems, disciplinary
approaches reach their limits. For this reason, approaches that consider the interaction of
social and ecological systems have emerged within the last several years (Holling et al.
D. F. Lorenz (&)
Disaster Research Unit, 24098 Kiel, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

1998). In favor of interdisciplinary approaches, the theoretical outline that stems from
ecology has to be reformulated, reflected upon, and also amended within the context of other
disciplines, in order to be able to contribute to the widespread debate. From a social science
perspective, the ecological resilience concept sensu Holling provides a common basis.
Nevertheless, certain aspects of social systems still need to be regarded. Firstly, the symbolic dimension of meaning that is inherent to social systems needs to be taken into account.
Furthermore, a corresponding conception of disaster is also crucial, since resilience serves
not only the management of coupled systems but, more importantly, the prevention or
mitigation of disasters. Resilient social systems do not only try to encounter disasters by
detailed planning but rather acknowledge uncertainty resulting from increased system
coupling and interaction. Social resilience expresses itself in three capacities (adaptive,
coping, and participative), which are all defined decisively by the symbolic dimension of
meaning. These capacities and their interplay are fundamental for a comprehension of social
resilience and the contribution of social science for interdisciplinary research on resilience.

2 Two concepts of resilience

Even though the concept of resilience has its origins in medical science (Pfeiffer 1929) and
was mainly propagated by psychology (Werner 1971), most references nowadays are
usually to the ecological research of C.S. Holling. In his research, done since the 1970s,
Holling analyzed the non-linear complexity and multidimensional stability of ecological
systems. His research culminates in the concept that non-linear factors of influence interact
dynamically and (re)produce a complex and multi-stable system that has not just one, but
various dynamic states of equilibrium, or a so-called steady-state equilibrium. Hollings
concept of ecological resilience or ecosystem resilience differs from Stuart L. Pimms
concept of engineering resilience, which posits that resilience is the ability of systems to
resist against external influences and themselves return to a well-defined state of equilibrium (Holling and Gunderson 2002; Folke 2006). Due to its well-defined stable
equilibrium, engineering resilience qualifies as an operationalization, but it does not,
however, capture the complexity, permanent change, and dynamic of systems. In contrast
to the engineering resilience paradigm, Holling takes the fact for granted that systems are
subject to change and fluctuations, whereas for Pimm (1991), changes and fluctuations
have to be avoided for the interest of the system since stability is understood as an
inflexible and well-defined state. A highly resilient system in Hollings view can be of low
stability and find itself in permanent flux (Handmer and Dovers 1996). Resilience
determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability
of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters and
still persist (Holling 1973, p. 17). Thus, resilience as a system property is not just a
determinant of fluctuations beyond balanced states but rather decisive for the persistence of
the system or its capacity for absorption in cases of disturbances.

3 Resilience and social systems

Holling developed his understanding solely with regard to ecological systems. Current
research on resilience has drawn attention to the systemic interaction of social systems and
ecological systems with non-linear feedback, due to the fact that the nature of existing
and evolving problems cannot be analyzed by any single discipline. Interacting social and

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

ecological systems have therefore been conceptualized under the terms humanenvironment systems (Turner et al. 2003), socio-ecological systems (Gallopn 2006), and social
ecological systems (Berkes et al. 2003). Following Holling et al. (1998) a panarchic
dynamic is the result of interacting hierarchies among different systems. The possibility of
such an interaction is dependent on the likeness of the interacting systemscoupling being
otherwise impossible. The similarities of Hollings ecological system theory and social
system theory have been stressed in different contexts (Scheffer et al. 2002). Varying
approaches to the social system theory have also been discussed: Westley et al. (2002)
refer to Talcott Parsons highlighting the fact that social systems must serve the so-called
AGIL paradigm, consisting of the functions: adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and
latency. Other authors, like Japp (1990), point out the similarities of the ecological resilience paradigm and the concept of general social systems by Niklas Luhmann with respect
to self-organization.
Both systemic types are characterized by the scales of time and space (Westley et al.
2002). And, like ecological systems, sensu Holling, social systems are regarded as
dynamic, discontinuously changing, complex, multi-stable, self-organizing, and adaptive.
The fact that social systems are influenced by the variations of change is considered to be
the theoretical basis in social scienceregardless of the trigger that can have a wide
rangee.g., the conflict of the material productive forces and the relations of production
(Marx 1977), the circulation of elites (Pareto 1968), or technology and technological
development (Ogburn 1950). Furthermore, it is undisputed that change cannot be continuously broad and radical if a system is not to become entropic, and the system itself
therefore be preserved (Luhmann 2005). From a social science perspective, the assumption
of a return to one single state of equilibrium and social stabilityin the sense of engineering resilienceis a misjudgement that underestimates social complexity as well as the
adaptive evolution of systems and relates therefore with the fallacy that social systems can
be managed in terms of linear and single-stable systems. That social systems are single
stable is not only wrong but above all allows high potential for the disregarding of the
necessity for adaptation in untenable situations.
In contrast to the given similarities, some significant differences between social and
ecological systems need to be acknowledged. They feature different scales of time followed by different action and response times when they are challenged (Holling 1986;
Young et al. 2006). The dynamic of social systems can be of a higher degree and change
can be significantly faster compared to ecological systems (Scheffer et al. 2002). But the
most important, not only gradual, difference that needs to be pointed out is the fact that
social systems exhibit a symbolic dimension of meaning (Luhmann 2005) or so-called
structures of signification that enable a higher level of self-organization (Westley et al.
2002). Intentionality and interpretation play decisive roles in social systems (Holling and
Sanderson 1996) that can manifest themselves in time and space and also interpret change
in terms of causality (Clausen 1992). Thus, social systems are aware of being within an
environment with a given history and with certain expectations of the future and are able to
learn and act forward-looking in anticipation of future states (Young et al. 2006), using this
reflexivity for their (future) interest (Westley et al. 2002). Social systems are even capable
of replacing the complexity within their environment with internal complexity, in order to
increase their degree of freedom (Young et al. 2006). Prominently illustrated by the social
phenomena of globalization that brings with it certain developments, such as spacetime
compression (Harvey 1990), the significance of the dimensions of space and time can be
altered: by means of reflexivity, time and space can be transcended and suspended to some
extent, while ecological systems do not posses such an ability (Westley et al. 2002).

123

10

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

In regard to coupled socialecological systems, these characteristics of social systems that

enable specific capacities (see paragraph 6) should be taken into account, especially in
cases of social resilience that cannot be understood in detail if the ecological resilience
paradigm is not widened.
Neil W. Adger (2000b, p. 361) defined social resilience as the ability of communities
to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure. It is useful to substitute
communities with social systems in the given quotation because social systems cover
a wide range of systems, from families to whole societies (Westley et al. 2002). The focus
on communities ignores the fact that other social systems might have different forms or
sources of social resilience, which should not be disregarded (Berkes and Folke 1998;
Bankoff 2003). Answering the two questions that were endeavored for systematization in
the discourse by Carpenter et al. (2001)Resilience of What? and Resilience to What?
social resilience can, prima facie, be perceived as the ability of social systems to cope with
external stress or changewhich can be rapid or steady as well as widespread or on a small
scaleand persist as a system, even if a modified internal structure is necessary (Adger
2000a). In this context, social resilience does not mean that the system changes as fast as
possible or perpetuates its structure under any circumstances, but that the new structure in
the case of change involves sustainable variances that enable the system to persist into the
future under any given terms. The two questions point to the fact that resilience can only be
understood with regard to a specific (systemic) entity and its external environment.
Resilience is a relational concept that saliently marks the importance of a balanced relation
between a system and its environment, as well as their seminal adjustment with regard to
the systems persistence in the future. Environment in the given context does not necessarily mean ecological environment. Different social systems also form an environment for
each othera fact that has been neglected in the discussion of social resilience so far.
Given this relational nature, it is irrelevant whether the external shock on the social system
results from ecological (socialecological systems) or social environmental (socialsocial
systems) change (Gallopn 2006). Even internal social change can cause stress on the social
system: the rapid evolution of system structures can lead to incompatible structures that
might place a system under stress if they cannot be fulfilled by the environment, whereas
the impact on the social system structure is highly relevant. Quoting the terminology of the
resilience approach in the tradition of Holling, the basin of attraction is determined by
the services of organization and reproduction of the specific social system with regard to its
environment. Due to the symbolic dimension and its necessity of meaning and order,
concepts of the social system itself are formed and lead to expectations (Holling 1986) that
can even be consolidated into policies in some cases (Gunderson et al. 1995). What is
expected by a social system in terms of organization and reproduction dependsin sharp
contrast to ecological systemson the (self-)conception of the system that cannot be
defined finally and irrevocably cause its subject to change. Historical and cultural
expectations differ and change. Within a culture, various outcomes are expected from
different social systems: families, for example, provide different capacities and services
than organizations or societies. Moreover, these expectations are not always constant. And
among varying cultures, more differences between expectations can be found. Depending
on the specific social system, its point in time, and its location, various expectations are
formed. Even though different social systems with different structures of expectation exist,
the conditions of their desired realisation differ less. Since the required resources are
transcendental they are applicable for the realisation of various desired states (see paragraph 6).

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

11

4 Disasters and social resilience

Social change is not itself tenuous for a system but can be essential for the future persistence of the system. Social change becomes problematic when expectations of a social
system are not fulfilled due to changing expectations or a changing environment that does
not provide the required resources. Thus, critical interdependencies exist between systems
and their expectations that can be catastrophe-prone in extreme cases (Clausen 1994).
Within this paradigm, disasters are the result of a breakdown of the expected organizational and reproductive services in the social system. Allen Barton (1970, p. 38) defined a
disaster as a collective stress situation that occurs when many members of a social system
fail to receive expected conditions of life. It is not important whether the collective stress
has its origins inside or outside the social system but rather the challenge to the structural
coupling of the system with its environment. Whether changes in the environment or the
system itself exert influence on a social system that can be categorized as a disaster
depends on the expected organizational and reproductive services. This is due to the fact
that the structural coupling between the system and its environment, as the essential base
for its services, is composed of producing structures of expectation. Fundamentally, the
question is raised whether environmental change challenges the expectation structures of a
social entity: the burst of stock market bubbles and the annihilation of bank money can be a
disaster for a future-orientated, capitalistic society but will not on the other hand be
detrimental for a present-orientated tribal community that lives on farm subsistence. Just as
risk perception is a social process that selects certain risks corresponding to the predominant social structure (Douglas and Wildavsky 1983), predominant social expectations
framed by the given social structure select possible disruptions that are in conflict with the
prevalent structure of expectations. The failure of expectationssurprises as discrepancies
between reality and expectation sensu Holling et al. (1998)might be a disaster for one
system but does not necessarily have to be for another. Disasters are not just the destruction
of somethingaccording to Joseph Schumpeters concept of creative destruction, it is even
necessary for novelty (Schumpeter 1943)but rather the disturbance or destruction of
expected organizational and reproductive services that are considered fundamental for a
certain system (Douglas and Wildavsky 1983). The occurrence of change is not a disaster
but simply a petty alteration of state (Folke et al. 2003). Due to the fact that every system
depends on selected structural coupling with its environment, only specific change puts the
persistence of the system at risk. If change does not affect a system in terms of its
expectations and, therefore, future, that change will be irrelevant for the system. In such
cases, social systems tend and need to mask this kind of change to produce blindspots since
complexity has to be reduced, in order to focus on the fundamental services (Luhmann
2005). Only the structures that ensure the reproduction of the system (autopoiesis) are
likewise sources of possible disturbances. Change becomes a crisis when fundamental
expectations addressed to the present or future are at stake, and a disaster ensues if and
only if these expectations can presently be no longer fulfilled. Hence, a disaster is the
factual falsification of these expectations wherein the diachronic coupling of time (past
expectations and present or future realization) is no longer assured (Dombrowsky 1987a).
Therefore, disasters are likewise relational and the result of a misguided interaction of two
systems (Dombrowsky 2001; Felgentreff and Dombrowsky 2008; Kroll-Smith and Couch
1991; Bankoff 2003). Grasping disasters in this vein inhibits the still frequently encountered demonization that deprives a disaster of the human fields of operation and helps
overcome the belief that technology alone is able to dodge and mitigate (Clausen 1994;
Hilhorst and Bankoff 2004; Voss 2006). Taking the misguided interaction of systems into

123

12

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

account, the social origin of disaster becomes apparent, and non-technological potentials
for disaster prevention can emerge. In this regard, the concept of social resilience can be
considered a part of a comprehensive disaster culture that describes the ability to cope with
failure or prevent such failure (Felgentreff and Dombrowsky 2008). Social resilience is the
internal ability of the social system to counteract events described as the failure of
expectation toward its environment. Therefore, it manifests not only in times of disasters
but also in crises and emergencies, thus in times of danger and uncertainty.

5 Resilience and uncertainty

Given the rising uncertainty as a result of the non-linearity of interacting systems (Berkes
et al. 2003) and increase as well as compression of linkages in the globalization, surprises are
inescapable, increasing the possibility of the failure of expectations (Holling et al. 1998;
Young et al. 2006). Rigid adherence to a static concept of stability in terms of a single-stable
state or the fallacy of a future that can be anticipated in detail can decrease resilience. On the
contrary, the acknowledgement and confrontation of uncertainty are a first step in increasing
social resilience (Michael 1995; Gunderson 2003). Social science and especially sociology
understood as the analysis of the unexpected (Portes 2000) can provide important insights
of dealing with uncertainty. The specific connection of resilience and uncertainty was
prominently highlighted by Aaron B. Wildavsky. He refers to Hollings concept of resilience
and compares anticipation as an approach of confronting hazards with Hollings pejorative
description of stability (Douglas and Wildavsky 1983); notwithstanding, he did not conceptualize resilience as the property of systemsor, to be more precise, social systems, but
rather a general form of coping with uncertainty. Wildavsky criticizes the anticipated handling of hazards as well as the alleged increased safety within high-risk technologies and
emphasizes the necessity of resilience as an alternative approach (Krohn and Krucken 1993)
that, for him, is superior to conventional safety efforts (Wildavsky 1988). Resilience is
outlined as the ability to learn how to cope with unanticipated hazards through a positive
attitude toward failure (Wildavsky 1988; Weizsacker and Weizsacker 1984) or embracing
error (Michael 1995). For Wildavskyin contrast to successive authors like Barnett
(Barnett 2006)the resilience approach is not a provisional arrangement of change that will
be replaced by a better concept of anticipation when adequate knowledge is attained. Apart
from a few exceptions, for Wildavsky, resilience is a superior counter concept. In contrast to
anticipative, precaution-orientated concepts, resilience tries not to focus on well-known
hazards and make plans to dodge them. Solely under the severe restrictions of known causalities, known boundary conditions, and spacetime coordinates, the aim of anticipation is a
promising strategy (Wildavsky 1988). As these conditions are hardly ever at hand and
moreover deviations cannot be subsumed under general rulesas Robert K. Merton (1936)
revealed in the 1930sthe attempt of anticipation can be a cause of reduced resilience. The
system itself is a moving target that cannot be predicted (Holling 1995, p. 13), since every
prediction undermines its own conditions of emergence (Clausen 1994). Anticipation uses up
resources for the prevention and defense of certain hazards and reduces their potential
damage further disabling the used resources form application to the defense or attenuation of
other hazards (Douglas and Wildavsky 1983). Ultimately, the increase in the potential
damage of unexpected hazards is the result. Additionally, an attempt to protect against all
imaginable risks carries with it costs that no society can afford (Wildavsky 1993). Furthermore, the illusion of safety increases with more detailed planning and anticipation (Weick and
Sutcliffe 2007), as the fortuity achieves more impact when planning gets more detailed: the

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

13

more well-planned people proceed, the more they become prone to chance (Durrenmatt
1998). The majority believing in manageability combined with risk analyses that do not take
the complexity of systems into account, creating a loop of newly planned arrangements.
Through anticipating action for the enhancement of safety, time and again new safety
arrangements that require resources become indispensable and bind them to the defense and
mitigation of defined hazards. These new safety arrangements increase the complexity of the
system, and thereby, new hazards eventually become possible (Wildavsky 1988; Weick and
Sutcliffe 2007; Bechmann 1993). These limits of anticipation in contrast to resilience and the
constraints of both concepts are, for instance, illustrated by Kuhlicke and Kruse (2009) and
their research on adaptation strategies in the case of the Elbe flood in 2002.
Therefore, and also due to the differences of a precaution system based on anticipation,
the concept of resilience is open to change in the environment that is still inconceivable and
undefined (Voss 2006). The concept of resilience does not even attempt to encounter known
and specific hazards with anticipating action. It is rather an all-hazards approach, opposed to
exterior and interior hazards in general (Berkes 2007). But not only known and potential but
also (still) unknown hazards should be taken on through the promotion of resilience. The
social system is not just resilient to ignorance and non-knowledge but also to nescience, thus
hazards that are not imaginable because they are beyond the systems horizon of expectations (Gross 2007). This notion stands in opposition to authors like Haimes (2009), who
argue for a limitation to clear-cut and known hazards for the sake of measurement. But
given the fact that many disasters are not obviated and new systemic and system interaction
hazards with cross-scale impacts are evolving, different approaches for coping with
unpredictable hazards and change are needed (Berkes 2007; Yorque et al. 2002).

6 Adaptive capacity, coping capacity, and participative capacity

Given the similarities and differences of social and ecological systems in the endeavor to
broach the issue of social resilience, the symbolic dimension of social systems comes to the
fore. With regard to an understanding of disasters that sees them as the failure of fundamental structures of expectation in uncertain environments and toward an uncertain future,
social resilience is framed as the internal ability of social systems to prevent and mitigate
disastrous change. Within the social resilience approach, importance has been attached to
three components that are shaped by the preeminent role of the symbolic dimension of
social systems: the adaptive capacity, the coping capacity, and recently the participative
capacity. The research on social resilience, including coupled social and ecological systemsfollowing Holling and the approach of Wildavskyhas focused on adaptive
capacitycoping and participative capacity have been almost wholly neglected. Adaptive
capacity and coping capacity are distinguished by the reference of modification and time
frame they provide. In contrast, participative capacity is a measure of the extent to which a
social system is able to use its adaptive and coping capacity or to which extent a social
system is pawn of outer interest (Table 1).
The relationship of adaptive capacity and resilience is contended in the academic debate,
since a multiplicity of interpretations primarily of the adaptive capacity exists. Some authors
put resilience on the same level as adaptive capacity (Smit and Wandel 2006), others define
the robustness of the system to change by way of adaptive capacity (Gunderson 2000), while
others again argue that adaptive capacity is an element of resilience that manifests itself in the
ability to reflect on change-driven learning processes and make them useful in the future
(Carpenter et al. 2001). In this paper, adaptive capacity shall be understood in the sense of

123

14

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

Table 1 Different notions of adaptive, coping, and participative capacity

Adaptive capacity

Coping capacity

Participative
capacity

Adaptability

Short-term response in crises and emergencies

Transformability

Proleptic creation of new expectation

structures to prevent future disasters

Comprehensive coping with

meaning

Assuring the continuity and identity

of the system

Coping with meaning in terms of a

historico-philosophical narrative

Disaster is construed as meaningful

but remains calamitous

Other symbolic forms of coping:

Grief rituals, unification, sense
of humor, etc.

Cultural altering of loss and devastation

Measure of the ability to self-organize and use adaptive and coping capacity

Walker et al. (2004), who also speak about adaptability as the social ability of a system to
establish new structure relationshipsunderstood as a change in the so-called basin of
attractionthat subserve the persistence of the system (Gallopn 2006) in the case of major
environmental change or incompatible system structures. These relationships cover shortterm interventions to mitigate disastrous events as well as long-term orientation to deal with
future hazards. Folke (2006) refers to both orientations with the terms of adaptability:
responding resiliently in short term and transformability: the creation of fundamentally new
system structures if the existing ones become untenable. The capacities of adaptability and
transformability in social systems both dependin sharp contrast to ecological systemson
the possibility to reflect on the state of the system and being able to imagine new, worthwhile
structures (Westley et al. 2002; Young et al. 2006).
Due to the fact that in every case of disaster, the continuity of the specific system within
a specific environment is at risk, the adaptive capacity turns out to be a system- and
context-dependent capacity. Certain contexts support the adaptive capacity, others do not.
For example, the adaptive capacity of smaller social systems like families or local communities is linked to and depends on larger and inclusive social systems like societies, its
resources, and its capacities (Smit and Wandel 2006). Thus, the enhancement of adaptive
capacity involves mainly a decrease in resource dependence. A strong dependency on
system-sustaining resources and critical infrastructures should be avoided, since strong
coupling of a system to its environment creates immediate pressure to adapt in the case of
environmental change. Diversity of resources and structures as well as economic variability are key elements for resilience (Folke et al. 2003). Loose coupling, flexibility, and
redundancy prove to be better principles for the provision of resources than mere efficiency
(Orton and Weick 1990). But, above all, the willingness for institutional change is the
defining factor in this context.
Different types of knowledgelocal, indigenous, and traditional (ecological) knowledge (TEK) on the one hand, and (Western) scientific knowledge on the otherrest upon
different time scales of observation and experience (Berkes 1999; Berkes et al. 2003).
Whereas the first knowledge type that can be considered as social memory (Olick and
Robbins 1998; Folke et al. 2003) is based on diachronic long-term observations, scientific
knowledge has its roots in synchronic short-term observations. Bringing the social memory
of past events together with the orientation of scientific knowledge promises to be a
sustainable strategy of learning to live with uncertainty and events whose recurrent
appearance exceeds individual lifespan and memory (Berkes 2007; Berkes et al. 1995).

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

15

Furthermore, learning aptitude and willingness are significant influence factors of adaptive
capacity (Oliver-Smith 1996).
On a basic level, the comprehension of inevitable uncertainty, unpredictability, and
permanent changes in general (Holling 1978; 2001) and on another level, the manipulation
of social change that includes the processes of modernization and globalization, as well as
disastrous processes in a narrower sense, depend on the ability to reflect on these processes
(Brauner and Dombrowsky 1996). The knowledge of dependencies of the social system
and therefore possible failures of expectation as they manifest in times of crisis can initiate
learning processes related to the misguided developments (Michael 1995; Folke et al.
1998) and increase the willingness to amend these developments (Folke et al. 2003). Social
systems opposed to ecological systems have the unique property of developing novelties
and innovations with respect to their memory and experience (Gunderson 2003) that are
key to dealing with surprises and crises (Westley et al. 2002; Gunderson et al. 2002). For
the purpose of an approach that tries to foster adaptation by means of reflected learning,
different kinds of learning like deutero-learning (Bateson 1972) and organizational
learning (Agyris and Schon 1978; Voss and Wagner 2010) need to be considered. The
promotion of adaptive capacity and its expansion therefore become part of the learning
processes and the adaptive capacity itself (Gunther et al. 2007).
Similar to the adaptive capacity, it is essential to point out that different social systems
display different coping capacities (Turner et al. 2003). Folke et al. (1998) differentiate
between adaptation and coping as different ways of responding under stress with regard to
the time scale of response, the level of vulnerability, and the type of risk involved. For
Folke et al., coping is characterized by a short-term adaptive response in situations that set
a social system under stress. In this paper, conceptualizing social systems with regard to
their symbolic dimension of meaning, coping is understood to be a way of dealing with the
failure of expectations in terms of meaning. Coping capacity is therefore a unique property
of social systems that cannot be found in ecological systems. It has been widely disregarded in the concept of social resilience and can be captured neither by the time of
response nor by the level of vulnerability nor by the risk type. Contrary to adaptive
capacity, coping capacity does not serve the adaptation of the structure relationships to
environmental change but rather the coping with failed expectations and the securing of the
connectivity to the structures of expectation that have been evolved by the system (Voss
2008). If system structures are understood in terms of expectation structures, the difference
between adaptive and coping capacity disappears: both comprise the modification of the
expectations structure. However, one important difference with regard to the reference of
modification remains: adaptive capacity changes proleptic and with respect to exterior
environmental change or inner friction the structures of expectation. In contrast, coping
capacity tries to assure the connectivity to structures from the past with regard to the
systems inner continuity and therefore identity in the case of failed expectations. Hence,
coping becomes obvious when a calamitous development takes its course or has already
occurred. If disasters are seen as a breakdown of the expected organizational and reproductive services of a social system and coping as the property of the system to modify the
old structures of expectations or to imagine new worthwhile structures, importance needs
to be attached to this property: does a social entity succeed in integrating a disaster in its
Sinnhorizont or structures of signification (Westley et al. 2002) and therefore in
reconstituting the connectivity to the past? Is a social system able to eliminate the
disastrousness as an attributed character of a pretended calamitous process by construing
changes in the fundamental services of organization and reproduction as meaningful? Wolf
R. Dombrowsky (1987b) defined the significance of a disaster by the amount of work in

123

16

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

terms of endowing meaning (sinnkonstituierende Arbeit) that is needed to overcome the

disaster. But does a disaster remain a disaster when it is construed as meaningful? At
this point, we are somehow confronted with the limits of our language that tries to capture
disasters as materialized, reified entities. But such reification masks the relational nature of
disasters. Without the hiatus of structures of expectation and the absence of their realization, devastation is not grasped as a disaster. There are two ways of coping with disasters
in terms of meaning: the first is so comprehensive that processes that would have been
disastrous in the past will not anymore be so in the future because they become part of the
expectation. Given the close linkage of coping and adaptive capacity, the first triggered by
a past event enables the adaptive capacity to establish new structures of expectation that
modify the systems expectation of the future: Social systems can become adjusted to
disasters so comprehensively that disasters even become ordering elements (Bankoff
1999). Greg Bankoff (2007a, p. 107), for example, describes an Asian way of coping
that takes place for example in China, Japan, and India: the construction of ephemeral
cities, where people accepted the periodic loss of their dwellings and allowed for easy
dismantling and removal of costly interior features that could be reused in cheaply constructed new structures. In the case of the ephemeral cities, coping with periodical
devastation enables adaptation in terms of a new expectation structure that does not regard
periodical devastation as a disaster. Nonetheless, other expectation structures might still
regard specific change as a disaster when devastation ensues. The existence of different
expectation cultures is also illustrated by Elsio Macamo (2003), who demonstrated on the
basis of the flooding in Mozambique 2000 that devastation and death do not make a
disaster if they are expected and that the attribution of disaster from the exterior might
differ from the view of the people who are affected.
The second way to cope in terms of meaning is to construe meaning by placing the
disastrous event in a teleological inevitable chain of events, whereby a former event is
needed to achieve later stages of evolution. Similar to teleological conceptions of philosophy of history, coping mechanisms are also salient in the case of disasters, which are
interpreted as necessary events to prevent an even bigger disaster or as retribution for
human arrogance (Sloterdijk 1987). In other words, a disastrous event is embedded in a
historico-philosophical narrative. In this second approach, the disastrousness remains but is
diminished by the meaningfulness of the event. Meaning is an important requirement for
recovery on the one hand (Westley et al. 2002) and the collapse of sense making an integral
part of disaster on the other hand (Weick 1993). Besides coping with meaning in terms of a
historico-philosophical narrative, other social forms of coping that culturally alter the loss
and failure of expectations can be named. Every culture has specific forms of coping, such
as grief rituals (Eyre 2006), unification (Pfister 2003), even a certain sense of humor
(Bankoff 2007c) that help overcome the failure and assures the connectivity to the past by
passed-on social practices. The existing cultural and religious patterns of interpretation and
traditional knowledge about disastrous change that are at a cultures disposal determine the
possibilities of integrating the development and (re-)connecting to the past. As in the case
of adaptive capacity education, the ability to learn and the willingness to change play a
decisive role in the coping capacity. Without the comprehension of the necessity to change
and the processes that form its basis, change is experienced as calamitous. Coping relies on
the legitimacy of political institutions and trust in these. Both legitimacy and trust can have
great influence on whether an event is classified as a disaster (Rodrguez et al. 2006).
Further, coping depends on the cohesion of a social entity: grief rituals and unification
during and in the aftermath of disasters need specific circumstances. Emergent social
systems with special coping properties do not appear out of nowhere (Quarantelli and

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

17

Stallings 1985) but need a specific social cohesion as a precondition (Eyre 2006). This
cohesion needs to exist before a disastrous event occurs: coping is only possible if the
social disruptions and cleavages are not too great and the horrors of the calamity do not
exceed the social cohesion which is prominently illustrated by Kai T. Erikson (1976) in his
study about the loss of communality in the Buffalo Creek Flood 1972.
The concept of participative capacity (Voss 2008) is just emerging within the discourse
of social resilience. The concept tries to place emphasis on the difference between interpretative and normative power among various social systems, since these differences
determine the effectiveness of adaptive and coping capacity. Participative capacity is
therefore a unique property of social systems: it manifests within social systems and
between them (socialsocial systems). Broaching the issue of social resilience, it is first of
all epistemologically necessary to take different perspectives and expectation structures
into account to eliminate blindspots resulting from selected coupling with the environment.
Secondly, there is no Habermasian non-coercive communication that grants equal rights to
everybody in a negotiation process: stakeholders with communicative assertiveness have
greater prospects to bias the discourse and hence to assert their claims. Because every
social system is part of the environment of other social systems and the ability to become
widely accepted exists within a zero-sum game, the enhancement of one systems participative capacity comes at the cost of the diminution of another systems participative
capacity. Diminution of participative capacity blocks the ability of social systems to use
their adaptive and coping capacities. Thus, the unequal distribution of power is a significant source of reduced social resilience. Participative capacity is therefore an integral part
of a social entitys resilience that is decisive to whether a social system can use its own
adaptive and coping capacities. Self-organization plays a significant role in the attempt to
adapt or to cope in changing environments (Folke et al. 2003; Holling 2001; Berkes 2007)
and participative capacity can be described as a measure of the ability to self-organize.
Great importance is attached to the political system and the legal system. As a result, some
authors argue for a political system based on the principles of the Rawlsian Theory of
Justice (Dow et al. 2006), others argue for a rights-based system of justice (Adger 2004).
Both speak concertedly against a greater influence of economic elites. Even within a
democratic system that legally protects the freedom of expression and political decision
making of all people concerned, intense distortions arise from social drivers. Factors such
as the unequal distribution of power and resources (Adger 2000b), the existence and value
of weak and strong ties in social networks (Blaikie et al. 2007; Hurlbert et al. 2006;
Granovetter 1973), expert cultures (Clausen 1992), mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion
(Cutter et al. 2003), mobility (Adger 2000b), conventions and customs (Oxfam 2005;
Krishnaraj 1997), language, but also role systems, property rights (Berkes and Folke 1998),
and education (Brauner and Dombrowsky 1996) interfere and distribute interpretative and
normative power unequally. These factors can be totalized in the extended concept of
capital provided by Pierre Bourdieu that does not only take economic capital into account
but also social, cultural and symbolic capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). The concepts
of social capital (Scheffer et al. 2002; Bankoff 2007b; Murphy 2007) and cultural capital
(Berkes and Folke 1992) are applied in the discussion of social resilience with regard to
adaptation.
But at present, the dimension of power that exists in participative capacity and Bourdieus symbolic capital is as far as possible neglected in the discussion of social resilience.
How an unequal distribution of participative capacity leads to the diminution of social
resilience is described by Greg Bankoff (2003), who criticizes the symbolic violence that is
inherent to the concept of vulnerability. The concepts of resilience and vulnerability are not

123

18

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

just scientific antonyms or inversions (Adger 2000b; Sapirstein 2006). Epistemic restraints,
linked with the concept of vulnerability, not only lead to certain aspects being ignored but
furthermore become manifest in social structures (Hewitt 1986). As the concept of vulnerability puts a strong emphasis on damages and casualties, parts of the world are rendered unsafe, as Greg Bankoff (2003) bluntly puts it. Due to an asymmetrical distribution
of participative capacity, the local social capacities that avoid damages and casualties are
disdained and regions are labeled as poor, weak, and passive as the relevant people are
commodified by (foreign) planningor in the words of James Midgley (1983) Professional Imperialismand become justified objects of interventions in opportunistic
interest (Hewitt 1997; Delica-Willision and Willision 2004; Bankoff 2003). In lieu of this,
the import of external beliefs and the intervention in local system structures reduce social
resilience by reducing participative capacity of the local system (Delica-Willision and
Willision 2004). The import of a vulnerability concept that deprives the local resilience by
producing the mirror image of the helpless that need external relief is fostered in one of the
weakest moments of the relevant people. This image of the all-time helpless and needy is
perpetuated and shapes reality (Bankoff 2003; Hewitt 1997). Due to risk perception as an
expression of the predominant social system structure, it is necessary to take the specific
local perception into account to access the social resilience and vulnerability (Adger 2010;
Heijmans 2004). On the one hand, interventions produce incompatible system structures
and thus disparate expectation structures that increase the possibility of failure (Sanderson
1995; Holling et al. 1998). On the other hand, interventions by developed countries often
lead to a short-time rise of expectations that can be experienced as disastrous if their
fulfillment fails. The starting point of development cooperation and foreign emergency aid
must be the local factors of adaptive and coping capacity and the aim should be their
improvement (Bankoff 2007c; Delica-Willision and Willision 2004). But against the
backdrop of globalization and a global economy, the talk of local sources of social
resilience and self-determination of local communities is often not more than lip service
(Bankoff 2004). Not only the import of external believes can be a source of reduced social
resilience: within one social system, resilience can be abridged as well. Even though the
case of external intervention in developing countries might be more salient, reduced social
resilience can actually be found in developed countries if minorities are rendered unsafe
or if the whole population is not seen as an integral part but rather as interference in civil
protection (Brauner and Dombrowsky 1996). In the end, resilient acting in disasters or in
the front end of a disaster is rendered impossible. Due to unequal participative capacities,
alien structures manifest in social systems whose structures are somehow incompatible and
social resilience will be weakened. Decreased social resilience is nothing other than the
blockage, erosion or devaluation of local knowledge and coping practices (Wisner 2004;
Anderson and Woodrow 1989) caused by unequal participative capacity.

7 Conclusion
Social resilience expresses itself in the three given capacities. In conceptualizing social
resilience, the time frame is widened; not only short-term interventions with the objective
of rebuilding are considered, but also factors fostering social structures that effect the nonoccurrence of disasters: factors that support the immune system of social systems, so to
say. Aaron Antonovskys theory of salutogenesis might provide analogies that can help in
understanding why social resilience should be regarded even though it should not be
overestimated. (1) As Antonovsky attaches great importance to the factors that prevent

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

19

diseases instead of highlighting the factors that are pathogenic, social resilience also puts
emphasis on the factors that prevent and mitigate disasters (Berkes 2007). Thus, the
concept of social resilience breaks the deadlock of vulnerability and its katastrogenetic
orientation on deviance (Antonovsky 1979). Notwithstanding, the concept of vulnerability
was an important advancement but still has its blindspots. Social resilience, framed as a
theoretical and heuristic concept, goes beyond vulnerability and allows inspections and
sheds light on so far neglected epistemological and political aspects within the concept of
vulnerability (Bankoff 2003). An increase in vulnerability might be a product of a katastrogenetic orientation that underestimates the capacities of the potentially affected and
produces vulnerable social structures through single interventions in comprehensive social
systems. The concept of social resilience focuses on the fact that disasters have to be
understood in terms of social change and that they can only be captured if non-disastrous
change is understood, for reason of that being where disastrous change has its roots
(Clausen et al. 1978). Once it is comprehended how change is a normal part of the
persistence of systems and how dealing with change can be managed successfully, abilities
to adapt and to cope can be fostered by reflexive learning processes.
Another important aspect (2) is that there is no dichotomy of resilient and vulnerable
structures but rather a continuum between both. The factors that capacitate social systems
to act resiliently and to attune to changing terms of the environment are very broadthey
are strongly context and system-dependent and they can, to date, often only be identified
ex post (Gunther et al. 2007). Calamitous processes do not happen ceteris paribus
otherwise anticipation would have a greater chance of success. The social resilience
concept is a theoretical construct and remains abstract and refuses well-defined operationalization if it tries to display the complex interplay of factors within a multi-stable
system (Carpenter et al. 2001). Therefore, it is controversial whether a detailed operationalization is possible (Adger et al. 2004; Staber and Sydow 2002). But given the concept
of social resilience as a heuristic outline, aspects can come to the fore that are not taken
into account when other concepts, like vulnerability, are applied and future research on the
topic can be addressed.
Antonovkys so-called sense of coherence (3) characterizes a perception of the environment in terms of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness (Antonovsky
1979). Likewise, the paradigm of social resilience is a way of understanding processes of
change in terms of meaning (coping capacity) and even frame them (adaptive and participative capacity). Therefore, (4) all three capacities and their sources can be understood
as general resistance resources (GRR) which provide a strong sense of coherence. The
latter can be seen as an expression of a resilient social system that can only be understood
if the symbolic dimension of meaning is not dismissed, since the symbolic dimension is
significant in grasping disasters as the failure of fundamental expectations. Due to this
conception, new aspects in the interaction of coupled social and ecological systems arise,
butand even more importantlyso far, idle potentials to conceive and avoid, or at least
mitigate, disasters still abound.
Acknowledgments This paper is based on a presentation at the workshop Can resilience be planned?,
hosted by the German Geographical Societys working group Natural Hazards and Natural Risks, March
2009, Leipzig. I would like to thank Gerard Hutter (Dresden) and Christian Kuhlicke (Leipzig) for the
organization of the workshop. I also want express my gratitude to Gerard Hutter, Christian Kuhlicke and two
anonymous reviewers who gave constructive suggestions in improving the clarity and quality of the
manuscript.

123

20

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

References
Adger NW (2000a) Indicators of social and economic vulnerability to climate change in Vietnam.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/gec/gec_1998_02.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2010
Adger NW (2000b) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24:347364
Adger NW (2004) The right to keep cold. Environ Plan A 36:17111715
Adger NW (2010) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. In: Voss M (ed) Der
Klimawandel. Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven. VS, Wiesbaden, pp 327345
Adger NW, Brooks N, Bentham G et al. (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/it1_11.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2010
Agyris C, Schon DA (1978) Organizational learning. A theory of action perspective. Addison-Westley,
Reading
Anderson MB, Woodrow PJ (1989) Rising from the ashes. Development strategies in times of disaster.
Westview Press, Boulder
Antonovsky A (1979) Health Stress and coping. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Bankoff G (1999) A history of poverty. The politics of natural disasters in the Phillipines 19851995. Pac
Rev 12:381420
Bankoff G (2003) Cultures of disaster. Society and natural hazards in the Philippines. Routledge, London
Bankoff G (2004) The historical geography of disaster: Vulnerability and local knowledge in western
discourse. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping vulnerability. Disasters development,
and people. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 2537
Bankoff G (2007a) Comparing vulnerabilities. Toward charting an historical trajectory of disasters. Hist Soc
Res 32:103114
Bankoff G (2007b) Dangers to going it alone. Social capital and the origins of community resilience in the
Philippines. Contin Chang 22:327355
Bankoff G (2007c) Living with risk; coping with disasters. Hazard as a frequent life experience in the
Philippines. Educ Asia 12:2629
Barnett J (2006) Adapting to climate change in pacific island countries. The problem of uncertainty.
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/BH3RL7BJJK5B4TTPNS5NC7U8MYRJ6C6I31I851NUFPVUAQ3MI301656?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=67062&local_base=GEN01&pds_handle=GUEST. Accessed
29 June 2010
Barton AH (1970) Communities in disaster. A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. Doubleday, NY
Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. Collected essays in anthropology psychiatry evolution and
epistemology. Chandler, San Francisco
Bechmann G (1993) Einleitung: Risikoein neues Forschungsfeld? In: Bechmann G (ed) Risiko und
Gesellschaft. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse interdisziplinarer Risikoforschung. Westdeutscher, Opladen,
pp viixxix
Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology. Taylor & Francis, New York
Berkes F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat
Hazards 41:283295. doi:10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7
Berkes F, Folke C (1992) A systems perspective on the interrelations between natural, human-made and
cultural capital. Ecol Econ 5:18
Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In: Berkes
F, Folke C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms
for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 125
Berkes F, Folke C, Gadgil M (1995) Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. In: Perrings CA, Maler KG, Folke C et al (eds) Biodiversity conservation. Problems and
policies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 281299
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Introduction. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating socialecological systems. Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 129
Blaikie PM, Cannon T, Wisner B (2007) At risk. Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability and disasters.
Routledge, London
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago
Brauner C, Dombrowsky WR (1996) Defizite der Katastrophenvorsorge in Industriegesellschaften am
Beispiel Deutschlands. Untersuchungen und Empfehlungen zu methodischen und inhaltlichen Grundsatzfragen. http://www.kfs.uni-kiel.de/download/doc/Defizite.doc. Accessed 29 June 2010

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

21

Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM et al (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to

what? Ecosystems 4:765781
Clausen L (1992) Social differentiation and the long-term origin of disasters. Nat Hazards 6:181190. doi:
10.1007/BF00124622
Clausen L (1994) Krasser sozialer Wandel. Leske und Budrich, Opladen
Clausen L, Conlon P, Jager W et al (1978) New aspects of the sociology of disaster. A theoretical note. Mass
Emerg 3:6165
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Quart
84:242261
Delica-Willision Z, Willision R (2004) Vulnerability reduction. A task for the vulnerable people themselves.
In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping vulnerability. Disasters development, and people.
Earthscan Publications, London, pp 145158
Dombrowsky WR (1987a) Critical theory in sociological disaster research. In: Dynes RR, Marchi B, de
Pelanda C (eds) Sociology of disasters. Contribution of sociology to disaster research. Franco Angeli,
Milano, pp 331356
Dombrowsky WR (1987b) Das Tschernobyl-Syndrom. Katastrophen als verhaltensandernde Ereignisse. In:
Friedrichs J (ed) Deutscher Soziologentag 1986, vol 23. Westdeutscher, Opladen, p 806
Dombrowsky WR (2001) Die globale Dimension von Katastrophen. In: Plate EJ, Merz B (eds) Naturkatastrophen. UrsachenAuswirkungenVorsorge. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, pp 229246
Douglas M, Wildavsky AB (1983) Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and
environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley
Dow K, Kasperson RE, Bohn M (2006) Explorig the social justice implications of adaptation and vulnerability. In: Adger NW, Paavola J, Huq S et al (eds) Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT
Press, Cambridge, pp 7996
Durrenmatt F (1998) Die Physiker. Anhang: 21 Punkte zu den Physikern. Diogenes, Zurich
Erikson KT (1976) Everyting in its path. Destruction of community in the buffalo creek flood. Simon and
Schuster, New York
Eyre A (2006) Remembering. Community commemoration after disaster. In: Rodrguez H, Quarantelli EL,
Dynes R (eds) Handbook of disaster research. Springer, New York, pp 441455
Felgentreff C, Dombrowsky WR (2008) Hazard-, Risiko- und Katastrophenforschung. In: Felgentreff C,
Glade T (eds) Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Spektrum Akademischer, Berlin, pp 1329
Folke C (2006) Resilience. The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob
Environ Change 16:253267
Folke C, Berkes F, Colding J (1998) Ecological practices and social mechanisms for building resilience and
sustainability. In: Berkes F, Folke C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems. Management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 414436
Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F (2003) Synthesis. Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems. Building
resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 352387
Gallopn GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ
Change 16:293303
Granovetter M (1973) The strengths of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:13601380
Gross M (2007) The unknown in process. Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related
concepts. Curr Sociol 55:742759
Gunderson LH (2000) Ecological resiliencein theory and application. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:425439.
doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425
Gunderson LH (2003) 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, Cambridge, pp 3352
Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (1995) Barriers broken and bridges built. A synthesis. In: Gunderson
LH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecological systems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 489532
Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Peterson GD (2002) Surprises and sustainability: cycles of renewal in the
everglades. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy. Understanding transformations in human
and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, pp 315332
Gunther E, Kirchgeorg M, Winn MI (2007) Resilience management. Konzeptentwurf zum Umgang mit
Auswirkungen des Klimawandels. UmweltWirtschaftsForum 15:175182
Haimes YY (2009) On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Anal 29:498501. doi:
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01216.x

123

22

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

Handmer JW, Dovers SR (1996) A typology of resilience. Rethinking institutions for sustainable development. Organ Environ 9:482511
Harvey D (1990) The condition of postmodernity. An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell,
Cambridge
Heijmans A (2004) From vulnerability to empowerment. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping
vulnerability. Disasters development, and people. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 115127
Hewitt K (1986) The idea of disaster in a technocratic age and natural hazards reseach. In: Dahlberg KA,
Bennett JW (eds) Natural resources and people. Conceptual issues in interdisciplinary research.
Westview Press, Boulder, pp 303342
Hewitt K (1997) Regions of risk. A geographical introduction to disasters. Longman, Harlow
Hilhorst D, Bankoff G (2004) Introduction: mapping vulnerability. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds)
mapping vulnerability. Disasters development, and people. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 1024
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1973:123
Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, Chichester
Holling CS (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems. Local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC,
Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 292317
Holling CS (1995) What barriers? What Bridges. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds) Barriers and
bridges to the renewal of ecological systems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York,
pp 334
Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems
4:390405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
Holling CS, Gunderson LH (2002) Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds)
Panarchy. Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington,
pp 2562
Holling CS, Sanderson S (1996) Dynamics of (dis)harmony in ecological systems. In: Hanna SS, Folke C,
Maler KG (eds) Rights to nature. Ecological economic, cultural, and political principles of institutions
for the environment. Island Press, Washington, pp 5785
Holling CS, Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Science, sustainability and resource management. In: Berkes F, Folke
C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for
building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 342362
Hurlbert JS, Beggs JJ, Haines VA (2006) Bridges over troubled waters. What are the optimal networks for
katrinas victims? http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Hurlbert_Beggs_Haines/ Accessed 29 June
2010
Japp KP (1990) Komplexitat und Kopplung. Zum Verhaltnis von okologischer Forschung und Risikosoziologie. In: Halfmann J, Japp KP (eds) Riskante Entscheidungen und Kastastrophenpotentiale. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 176195
Krishnaraj M (1997) Gender issues in disaster management: the Latur earthquake. Gend Technol Dev
1:395411
Krohn W, Krucken G (1993) Risiko als Konstruktion und Wirklichkeit. Eine Einfuhrung in die sozialwissenschaftliche Risikoforschung. In: Krohn W, Krucken G (eds) Riskante Technologien. Reflexion
und Regulation. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, pp 944
Kroll-Smith JS, Couch SR (1991) Technological hazards, adaptation and social change. In: Couch SR,
Kroll-Smith JS (eds) Communities at risk. Collective responses to technological hazards. Lang, New
York, pp 293320
Kuhlicke C, Kruse S (2009) Nichtwissen und Resilienz in der lokalen Klimaanpassung. Widerspruche
zwischen theoriegeleiteten Handlungsempfehlungen und empirischen Befunden am Beispiel des
Sommerhochwassers 2002. Gaia 18:247254
Luhmann N (2005) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford
berschwemmung in der dorflichen
Macamo E (2003) Nach der Katastrophe ist die Katastrophe. Die 2000er U
Wahrnehmung in Mosambik. In: Clausen L, Geenen E, Macamo E (eds) Entsetzliche soziale Prozesse.
Theorie und Empirie der Katastrophen. Lit, Munster, pp 167184
Marx K (1977) A contribution to the critique of political economy. Progress Publishers, Moscow
Merton RK (1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. Am Sociol Rev 1:894904
Michael DN (1995) Barriers and bridges to learning in turbulent human ecology. In: Gunderson LH, Holling
CS, Light SS (eds) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecological systems and institutions. Columbia
University Press, New York, pp 461485
Midgley J (1983) Professional imperialism. Social work in the third world. Heinemann, London
Murphy BL (2007) Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management. Nat
Hazards 41:297315. doi:10.1007/s11069-006-9036-6

123

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

23

Ogburn WF (1950) Social change: with respect to culture and original nature. Smith, Gloucester
Olick JK, Robbins J (1998) Social memory studies. From collective memory to the historical sociology of
mnemonic practices. Annu Rev Social 24:77103
Oliver-Smith A (1996) Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annu Rev Anthropol 25:303328
Orton JD, Weick KE (1990) Loosely coupled systems. A reconceptualization. Acad Manage Rev
15:203223
Oxfam (2005) The tsunamis impact on women. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/conflict_
disasters/downloads/bn_tsunami_women.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2010
Pareto V (1968) The rise and fall of elites. An application of theoretical sociology. Bedminster Press,
Totowa
Pfeiffer K (1929) Untersuchungen uber die Resilienz der durch die Prothesen beanspruchten Gewebe und
ihre Bedeutung fur die Okklusion der Prothesen. Berichthaus, Zurich
Pfister C (2003) Naturkatastrophen als nationale Mobilisierungsereignisse in der Schweiz des 19. Jahrhunderts. In: Groh D (ed) Naturkatastrophen. Beitrage zu ihrer Deutung, Wahrnehmung und Darstellung in Text und Bild von der Antike bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Narr, Tubingen, pp 283297
Pimm SL (1991) The balance of nature? Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Portes A (2000) The hidden abode: sociology as analysis of the unexpected. Am Sociol Rev 65:118
Quarantelli EL, Stallings RA (1985) Emergent citizen groups and emergency management. Public Adm Rev
45:93100
Rodrguez H, Daz W, Santos JM et al (2006) Communicating risk and uncertainty. Science, technology and
disasters at the crossroads. In: Rodrguez H, Quarantelli EL, Dynes R (eds) Handbook of disaster
research. Springer, New York, pp 476488
Sanderson SE (1995) Ten theses on the promise and problems of creative ecosystem management in
devolping countries. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds) Barriers and bridges to the renewal
of ecological systems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 375390
Sapirstein G (2006) Social resilience. The forgotten element in disaster reduction. http://www.oriconsulting.
com/social_resilience.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2010
Scheffer M, Westley F, Brock WA et al (2002) Dynamic interaction of societies and ecosystemslinking
theories form ecology, economy, and sociology. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy.
Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, pp 195240
Schumpeter JA (1943) Capitalism. socialism and democracy. Allen & Unwin, London
Sloterdijk P (1987) Wieviel Katastrophe braucht der Mensch? In: Ernst H (ed) Wieviel Katastrophe braucht
der Mensch? Beltz, Weinheim
Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:282292
Staber U, Sydow J (2002) Organizational adaptive capacity: a structuration perspective. J Manag Inq
11:408424
Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matsone PA et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability
science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:80748079
Voss M (2006) Symbolische Formen. Grundlagen und Elemente einer Soziologie der Katastrophe. Transcript, Bielefeld
Voss M (2008) The vulnerable cant speak. An integrative vulnerability approach to disaster and climate
change research. Behemoth J Civilis 1:3956
Voss M, Wagner K (2010) Learning from (small) disasters. Nat Hazards Online First. http://www.springer
link.com/content/36k1300085616280/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2010
Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR et al. (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in socialecological systems. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/print.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2010
Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations. The mann gulch disaster. Adm Sci Q
38:628652
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing the unexpected. Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Weizsacker C, Weizsacker EU (1984) Fehlerfreundlichkeit. In: Kornwachs K (ed) OffenheitZeitlichkeit
Komplexitat. Zur Theorie der offenen Systeme. Campus, Frankfurt, pp 167201
Werner E (1971) The children of kauai. A longitudinal study from the prenatal period to age ten. University
of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
Westley F, Carpenter SR, Brock WA et al (2002) Why systems of people and nature are not just social and
ecological systems. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy. Understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, pp 103120
Wildavsky AB (1988) Searching for safety. Transaction Books, New Brunswick

123

24

Nat Hazards (2013) 67:724

Wildavsky AB (1993) Die Suche nach einer fehlerlosen Risikominderungsstrategie. In: Krohn W, Krucken
G (eds) Riskante Technologien. Reflexion und Regulation. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, pp 305319
Wisner B (2004) Assessment of capability and vulnerabilty. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds)
Mapping vulnerability. Disasters development, and people. Earthscan Publications, London,
pp 183193
Yorque R, Walker B, Holling CS (2002) Toward an integrative synthesis. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS
(eds) Panarchy. Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, pp 419438
Young OR, Berkhout F, Gallopin GC et al (2006) The globalization of socio-ecological systems. An agenda
for scientific research. Glob Environ Change 16:304316

123