Search

This paper investigates a discrepancy concerning resilience. International institutions such as ISDR try to promote resilience as a notion useful for preventing disasters. And some searchers, mainly coming from ecology, such as Resilience Alliance group, found the notion relevant enough to promote it as a brand for their studies on disaster prevention. Yet, the second part of the paper will verify how other searchers are still not convinced by the relevance of the notion. Territorial managers are reluctant as well, in line with the poor number of policies trying to bring resilience to reality, be it in Columbia or in France. How can we make sense of this discrepancy? The paper will stress on various political, institutional and cultural conditionings hidden behind the notion. It will also enlighten the contradictions embedded within the notion, because resilience, as disaster, depends on the scales and the actors the analysis relies on first. Which resilience to whom and at what scale? These are critical questions that should be addressed in order to give sense to these contradictions. Resilience has no absolute meaning. However, it helps identifying trends towards future disasters. This is one of the main reasons why it may be found useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existence of contrasting definitions of vulnerability to climate change poses a crucial challenge for the relationship between science and public policy in the context of adaptation to climate change. After reviewing the mainstream conceptualization of vulnerability to climate change, the article criticizes the use of the risk-hazard approach as a conceptual basis for measuring that vulnerability. Using concrete examples, the article illustrates how the resulting concept of vulnerability varies profoundly with respect to the type of knowledge generated and the epistemological approach depending on whether the concept of inherent vulnerability or that of outcome vulnerability is used. The paper concludes that the use of one or the other leads to public policies that are radically different in scope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]