Week 1: Trying to know about resilience

Definition:

There may be many definitions of Resilience.  But from the literature I read this week,  it seems  that Holling's definition is accepted by most researchers in this area.  To use this definition, first of all, the fundamental unstability of social-ecological systems must be acknowledged.   The  equilibrium or stable state can only be maintained near certain points.  In most other areas of the state space, there are only domains of attraction or areas without equilibrium.  Thus, while stability is defined by Holling as "the ability of the system to recover back to the
equilibrium state after disturbance" and is rare and hardly achievable, resilience is defined by him as "a measure of persistence of systems and of their ability of absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables".  The important thing, he said, is the system's ability to maintain relationships and structures within itself in the face of changes.  Systems with more attraction domains and options are more resilient.
His followers developed the concept further.  Carpenter et al. (2001) claims that there are three properties in Holling's resilience definition: (a) the amount of change the system can undergo (and therefore the amount of external force the system can sustain); (b) the degree to which the system is able to self-organise; and (c) the degree to which the system can build the capacity to learn and adapt.

Measurement:

Some years later, Carpenter et al. (2001) suggested a tool for analysis of resilience: the adaptive cycle.  By defining four stages in a cycle of system configuration and services, the key variable influencing the system's ability to provide services and other slow-changing variables which have fundamental and intriguing effect on the system may be identified.

Another useful tool is bifurcation analysis, which serves to identify domains of attraction in the space of parameters (Anderies, 2000).

Combining these tools and social science / ecology study, with the help of stakeholder participation, it is possible to find out resilience of which factor in the system is concerned, how is it affected, and what is the threat, i.e. "resilience of what to what" (Carpenter et al.,2001).  Walker et al. (2002) proposed a 4-step method to assess regional resilience: First, the stakeholders get together to decide the key properties of the study system and the range of trajectories the stakeholders want the system to follow (step 1 and 2);  the information is then used in more specialised, quantitative analysis on where th resilience resides (step 3); finally, an integrated evaluation of management and policy implications is produced by both scientists and
stakeholders (step 4).

Pay attention to:

• Technical uncertainties vs. structural uncertainties.  The former one is unavoidable and often addressed by researches; the latter one comes from unexamined assumptions which may be wrong in certain circumstances, and can lead to wrong discourse and solutions.


• Which configuration of the system is more desirable?  In what time scale should resilience be considered?  If sustainable development is to be considered, resilience at the cost of other area or era's collapse may not be a desirable goal.


• The strategy and institution to achieve resilience are very likely to be very system-specific.  They also tend to change with system conditions and external factors, such as climate, legislation and neighbour systems.


• Difficulties in resilience measurement include (but not limited to): key drivers hard to find and predict; human actions and reactions change system's course in complicated ways, making prediction more difficult; systems may change too fast in sudden events.


• All these researches are based on Western perspective and literature.  How to apply and adapt them to my research area?

Questions:

• If a system achieve Holling's resilience, what is the implication of this?  What will be the effect of such resilience?


• How to address slow-changing variables in limited time for research?


• Among the 3 properties of resilient system, is anyone more desirable or important?  Should all systems have all 3 of them?  Should the 3 be considered together?

CLIMATE CHANGE: Royal Society Takes a Shot at ExxonMobil — Marshall 313 (5795): 1871a — Science

CLIMATE CHANGE: Royal Society Takes a Shot at ExxonMobil -- Marshall 313 (5795): 1871a -- Science

This would be an interesting case in Corporate Citizenship. I wonder if my Environmental Business teachers see this article.

In fact, what ExxonMobil did is not an environmental crime in traditional sense. As itself claims, it had programme to reduce CO2 emission, as well as funding researches on global warming issues. All it did is claiming that the evidence of greenhouse gas (GHG) induced global warming is not solid in its report, which is contrary to scientific consensus. At the very least this is not ``political right''. To examine more deeply, corporate citizenship requires organisations adapt to information they receive. ExxonMobil is really ignoring the information that most scientists and governments acknowledge that GHG is enhancing global warming significantly.

Besides, ExxonMobil this time neglects its duty as an educator. It is the organisation's responsibility to educate its employees and managers, as well as up- and down-stream partners about good and evil. Stating such irresponsible opinion in their report, they surely did something not so good.

Uncertainties? There may be. But ExxonMobil seems forget something called Precautionary Principle. Saying that GHG-led global warming lacks statistical proof gives people an impression that GHG emission reduction is not a pressing and crucial issue, which is a drawback from Montreal and Kyoto.

又发现牛人了

这几天到处找点文献，免得下周见导师的时候没有话说。重新读了一遍 C. S. Holling 在1973年写的文章，Resilience and stability of ecological systems，才发现 resilience 这个概念好像是他首先提出来的。虽然他文章里没什么复杂的公式或定理，但是在所有人都在说生态系统应该稳定的时候，他反其道而行之，提出 stability 和 resilience 之间存在平衡，且平衡的位置随种群所在的环境的变化频率和幅度而变。不知道他当时是如何想到这个概念的，在我看来他的工作非常具有开创性。而且直到近几年他仍然活跃在生态学的研究中，写出了大量充满洞见的论文，实在令人景仰。读他的文章，可以感觉到其内容非常充实，而行文条理清楚，是我等应当学习的。

另外，用了很久 Shannon-Wiener 指数，才发现这个 Shannon 原来正是信息论的创始人，也小小地吃惊了一把。

Determine directions and scopes

I am going to start PhD program soon. However, the proposal I wrote in a haste do not help much in defining my study. I hope the study is ecology-oriented. I also understand that non-natural elements should also be addressed in the study. I just wonder how much social science should be involved in this project.

It is also important to realise that all my theories on sustainability so far are based on western discourse and neo-classical economistic models of rational human behaviour and response (Wynne, 1996). When studying an oriental/tibetan system such theories may not correctly reflect the problem.

9.3 — 9.24

因为做完了论文，又有7天在 Notts 没有房住，想了想干脆买了机票回国。在家里做了几天乖孩子，享受了一下荣华富贵，又到北京去“探亲访友”。

虽然之前决定把通知消息的人数控制在最低水平，但必须承认有人到机场接的感觉还是挺好的，觉得好像回家了一样。之后几天逛了不少地方，也见了不少人。买了几本书，没事的时候就和文盲一起去附近的小店里看书，一呆一整天，3天看完3本书，大概也是我看书最快的速度了。

在北京只呆了一星期，而这一星期的后几天又尤其具有戏剧性。对我来说是一个从失落到欣喜，从怀疑到坚信的过程。虽然最关键的话在最后才说出来，有些遗憾，但我仍然觉得这个过程和随之而来的等待都是美丽的。

台湾清华彭明辉教授的研究生指导手册 « FORM AND MATTER

台湾清华彭明辉教授的研究生指导手册 « FORM AND MATTER

此文很有启发性。特别是对硕士论文的9点要求，感觉自己在平时写作的过程中并未特别注意。而如果这9点均能有意识地做到，论文的水平应该能有更大的提高。

五千英里

“这几天你怎么都不抱我一下呢？”

首都机场的国际出港很不人性化，一进门面前就是海关，而送人的人也就只能走到这里了，连个像样的说话的地方都没有。快到那个门口的时候，我才第一次抱了 Amy，我眼前是她后背在川藏线上晒黑的皮肤，耳边是她这样的低语。我们两个大概阻塞了后面旅客的通路，但已经顾不得那许多了。

为什么没有抱一下呢？很长一段时间我都以为我不再相信爱情了，在拉萨不顾全队大局和强龙不压地头蛇的古训跟司机打架只是出于对队友的关心。但是在挑照片准备带出国的时候，挑的都是她的照片，后来将近一年的时间里，也没有断过联络，以致于每天下午四五点只要没事都在电脑前等着她的 id 蹦出来，聊些土豆白菜的话题。渐渐地不仅仅是朋友而已了吧，我常常这样想，特别是当我们聊到未来，聊到家的时候。

可是溜回国后，不知打电话给她该说些什么，见了面也只想跟她在一起，却想不出除了T大附近的书店，有什么合适的地方可以呆在一起。于是我们在书店和茶室里看书，几个小时也不说一句话，直到该去吃饭了，就去那些她在水木上描述过的各色餐馆。我模模糊糊地觉得，这样的生活，虽然平淡，也是我希求已久而不得的了。

就这么拖宕到要离开了，她把伴她走过川滇藏的护身符送给我。但就是在这时，我也没敢抱她一下。我当时不知道的是，自己相信是不够的，还得让她知道才行……

就这样，拥抱和表白姗姗来迟。十几个小时之后，我在五千英里之外，和她紧握过的左手手心里似乎还传来阵阵暖流。我知道我的心被拴在了她那里。

Global 3 Test Results

Advanced Global Personality Test Results Extraversion 26% Stability 53% Orderliness 76% Accommodation 70% Interdependence 23% Intellectual 56% Mystical 56% Artistic 56% Religious 10% Hedonism 10% Materialism 70% Narcissism 50% Adventurousness 43% Work ethic 36% Self absorbed 56% Conflict seeking 63% Need to dominate 56% Romantic 70% Avoidant 70% Anti-authority 76% Wealth 56% Dependency 56% Change averse 43% Cautiousness 70% Individuality 83% Sexuality 50% Peter pan complex 43% Physical security 83% Physical Fitness 77% Histrionic 23% Paranoia 76% Vanity 43% Hypersensitivity 43% Female cliche 23%

Take Free Advanced Global Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com