The rebound curve is a poor model of resilience.

IF 3.8 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2025-02-13 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf052
Daniel A Eisenberg, Thomas P Seager, David L Alderson
{"title":"The rebound curve is a poor model of resilience.","authors":"Daniel A Eisenberg, Thomas P Seager, David L Alderson","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rebound curve remains the most prevalent model for conceptualizing, measuring, and explaining resilience for engineering and community systems by tracking the functional robustness and recovery of systems over time. (It also goes by many names, including the resilience curve, the resilience triangle, and the system functionality curve, among others.) Despite longstanding recognition that resilience is more than rebound, the curve remains highly used, cited, and taught. In this article, we challenge the efficacy of this model for resilience and identify fundamental shortcomings in how it handles system function, time, dynamics, and decisions - the key elements that make up the curve. These oversimplifications reinforce misconceptions about resilience that are unhelpful for understanding complex systems and are potentially dangerous for guiding decisions. We argue that models of resilience should abandon the use of this curve and instead be reframed to open new lines of inquiry that center on improving adaptive capacity in complex systems, rather than on functional rebound. We provide a list of questions to help future researchers communicate these limitations and address any implications on recommendations derived from its use.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":"4 3","pages":"pgaf052"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880801/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PNAS nexus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rebound curve remains the most prevalent model for conceptualizing, measuring, and explaining resilience for engineering and community systems by tracking the functional robustness and recovery of systems over time. (It also goes by many names, including the resilience curve, the resilience triangle, and the system functionality curve, among others.) Despite longstanding recognition that resilience is more than rebound, the curve remains highly used, cited, and taught. In this article, we challenge the efficacy of this model for resilience and identify fundamental shortcomings in how it handles system function, time, dynamics, and decisions - the key elements that make up the curve. These oversimplifications reinforce misconceptions about resilience that are unhelpful for understanding complex systems and are potentially dangerous for guiding decisions. We argue that models of resilience should abandon the use of this curve and instead be reframed to open new lines of inquiry that center on improving adaptive capacity in complex systems, rather than on functional rebound. We provide a list of questions to help future researchers communicate these limitations and address any implications on recommendations derived from its use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反弹曲线不是一个很好的弹性模型。
随着时间的推移,通过跟踪系统的功能健壮性和恢复,回弹曲线仍然是概念化、测量和解释工程和社区系统弹性的最流行的模型。(它也有很多名字,包括弹性曲线、弹性三角形和系统功能曲线等。)尽管长期以来人们认识到弹性不仅仅是反弹,但这条曲线仍然被大量使用、引用和教授。在本文中,我们对弹性模型的有效性提出了挑战,并确定了它在处理系统功能、时间、动态和决策(构成曲线的关键元素)方面的基本缺陷。这些过度简化强化了对弹性的误解,这对理解复杂系统毫无帮助,而且对指导决策有潜在的危险。我们认为,弹性模型应该放弃使用这条曲线,而是重新定义,以开辟新的探究线,以提高复杂系统的适应能力为中心,而不是功能反弹。我们提供了一个问题列表,以帮助未来的研究人员沟通这些局限性,并解决其使用所产生的建议的任何影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Brain activity reveals how wildlife imagery evokes engagement on social media. Projecting the new body: How body image evolves during learning to walk with a wearable robot. Political censorship in large language models originating from China. Spatial segregation of piriform output neurons toward cognitive and emotional networks. Labeling messages as AI-generated does not reduce their persuasive effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1