Resilience and Vulnerability: Complementary, Not Competing

Resilience and vulnerability are complementary, not competing, concepts. They share “many areas of strong convergence” (Miller et al, 2020) in theory, application, and methodology, and are both thematically concerned with responses to change (Miller et al, 2020).

Resilience studies possesses “significant colloquial and policy appeal” by reason of “its stress on positive and transformative processes”, while “a vulnerability focus can be construed as negative and potentially stigmatizing” (Miller et al, 2020).

While there is a chasm between academia and policy in the application of both concepts, a significant issue with resilience research is the paucity of its explicit incorporation “into practice and policy”; conversely, “vulnerability concepts and assessments have long been incorporated into practice” (Miller et al, 2020).

The most practical pathway toward supporting sustainable change is to integrate both the resilience and vulnerability frameworks. Within the vulnerability approach, amalgamating the outcome- and context-based schools can also result in the examination not only of biophysical and quantifiable climate impacts, but also more subtle sociocultural impacts (O’Brien et al, 2007). This will generate “a more refined understanding of socially differentiated responses to social-ecological change,” and “improve our understanding of the environmental implications of coping and adaptation activities” (Miller et al, 2020).

(200 words)

References: ·

• Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., Walker, B., Birkmann, J., Van der Leeuw, S., Rockström, J., and Hinkel, J. (2010) ‘Resilience and Vulnerability: Complementary or Conflicting Concepts?’ Ecology and Society 15(3) 2010, p.11.

• O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L.P., and Schjolden, A.N.E. (2007) ‘Why Different interpretations of Vulnerability Matter in Climate Change Discourses’. Climate Policy 7(1) 2007, pp.73–88