From the blooming literature on resilience and its modelling, perhaps we can say resilience study is becoming more mature and practical in recent years. There seems to be some patterns to follow when one is doing resilience study: identify the actors, drivers, limiting factors and pressures, then establish the conceptual model, then build mathematical models, and then see what happens when you get the data. However, I cannot find many articles questioning the validity of this mode of research. One possible solution to the situation, is to study the same area with two independent modelling process, preferably by two researchers, and see if the results are comparable. I would like to invite anyone interested in this topic to do this with me after I get my PhD in three years.
I have encountered some excellent models of resilience focusing on various ecosystems. What interested me most is of course those of rangeland resilience. Apparently they all select the output capacity of the system as their objective and indicator of resilience, though the measures are different among models. I agree with this idea. However, most models only measure ecological variables such as water availability and nutrient flux. I believe that in the coming years we will see more attempts to incorporate socio-economic factors into the model. Mathematically this is not too difficult. The real labourous work is to identify these factors and evaluate them.
The modelling of Tibetan pastoralism resilience must have something different from that in other rangeland ecosystems. Perhaps I can expect more limiting factors, more sensitive system, and some factors imposed by the cultural, political and economic environment, which cannot simply appear in other places of the world.
没有评论:
发表评论