Next Article in Journal
Accuracy of Fetal Biacromial Diameter and Derived Ultrasonographic Parameters to Predict Shoulder Dystocia: A Prospective Observational Study
Previous Article in Journal
Quality of Life in Women over 65 Years of Age Diagnosed with Osteoporosis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph19095746
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

An Approach to the Unified Conceptualization, Definition, and Characterization of Social Resilience

by
Jorge Moya
1,* and
María Goenechea
2
1
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
2
Facultad de Derecho, Empresa y Gobierno, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(9), 5746; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095746
Submission received: 15 March 2022 / Revised: 26 April 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 9 May 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this article is to offer a synthesis of the characteristics of social resilience, integrating the different approaches received from the social sciences. We propose to focus this conceptual framework as a previous and necessary step for the later study of the possible ways of promotion of this social resilience, that will help to strengthen the welfare and public health systems. The paper explores the difficulties in defining these characteristics, identifying their constituent elements. After this, the paper study the challenges to the future development of resilience models, showing the ways that offer some advances. Finally, we conclude that the social resilience must be conceived as a dynamic, multi-level, and evolutionary process if we are to help societies not only cope with adversity but also to adapt and transform themselves.

1. Introduction and Methodology

The concept of resilience is now predominately related to the study of how individuals and groups respond to adversity, dealing with shocks and disturbances to adapt and evolve to return to a former state of equilibrium. The notion is useful in analyzing why certain individuals and groups respond better than others to adverse circumstances and has become a key characteristic in the sustainability and socio–health progress of both individuals and whole societies. Resilience refers to the ability to successfully overcome challenges and deal with changes, which offer experience and opportunities for learning and growth. Its development at the community level has very important implications for the public health variables and the health care services of individuals and societies [1,2].
The relationship between social resilience and public health runs in both directions. On the one hand, improving social resilience offers value to public health in coping with illness, and under emergency scenarios [3]. On the other hand, the daily practice of the professionals of public health services can be guided by practical programs that, similar to those that promote the safety and the general health of the population, improve the resilience of the community. The main support of this social resilience to the public health systems has traditionally focused on preparing our societies for the arrival of disasters, and on the risk reductions. However, recently, policies are beginning to focus their interests on the assets that societies already have, for strengthening these assets and reducing the threats and costs of the public health services in the long term [4,5]. The development of social and family support networks, the policies focused on improving social cohesion, the promotion of social services for the generation of interpersonal connections, and other participation in organizations connected to the public health services are some examples of this approach where social well-being is linked with public health [3,6,7].
The promotion of this social resilience has, in many cases, become a goal of the government agencies associated to the public health systems. In the United States, the 21st Homeland Security Presidential Directive of 2008 [8] had already identified the social resilience as one of the four critical components for the public health and medical care. In the same country, community resilience appeared in the National Health Security Strategy of 2009, and in the National Disaster Recovery Framework of 2010, to repeat its presence in the Presidential Policy Directive of 2011. In the following years, the importance of social resilience for safety and health has been increasingly recognized [2,5,9].
However, the current challenge is still to know how this social resilience can be developed, which programs should be used in public health, and how to measure their results. Due to the multifaceted nature of the concept and the large number of multilevel variables involved in this social resilience, it is not easy to implement practices that support its development [10]. The basic problem for this is that it is necessary to achieve a consensus on a previous definition and theoretical conceptualization that will allow the further implementation of applied public health programs that really increase the social resilience [11]. This lack of definition does not allow identifying and distinguishing the assets that truly generate community resilience and not simply social well-being. We have to distinguish a generally well-prepared society from a resilient society. For this, the conceptualization on social resilience would be the first step to later studying the processes that will help for developing it [12,13], and this is the purpose of this paper.
Although the original term comes from materials engineering studies, from the 1970s it began to be used also in ecology and psychology, and finally it has since been expanded to the study of complex adaptive systems more generally [14]. In recent years, the term has served to offer an approach towards understanding social dynamics in the event of stresses caused by political, social, or economic change. Thus, the concept has gradually extended its reach to refer not only to individual resilience but social resilience, more broadly in the understanding processes of human adaptation [15] and the advantages and opportunities change may bring [16,17,18,19], always in connection with the sociosanitary improvements resulting from its improvement [4].
The use of this term has grown in recent decades and there are several disciplines that use it, so there is a certain diversity of approaches associated with this initial definition [20]. Up to thirty different definitions have been made for the term resilience [21]. For this reason, this paper examines the characteristics that this social resilience must have in order to become a useful tool for the management of social change. For this purpose, this article offers a rigorous review of those articles dealing with the concept of social resilience in order to analyze the state of the studies published about this issue, specifically regarding the concept of resilience, the factors that increase it, the relationship between individual and social resilience, and examples of models of resilience.
The methodology for the study was conducted through several steps. As a first step, when we became interested in this issue, we analyzed some articles and studied their references, identifying twenty papers widely cited in these articles published in recent years. They were considered important papers on the concept and characterization of the term social resilience.
In order to delve deeper into the study of this issue, a search was then conducted on the Journal of Citations Reports (JCR) database for the term “social resilience” in the last decade. The results were cross-referenced with these initial twenty selected articles, twelve of which were found to appear in the search results. The other eight articles were added to the sample for a total of 583 references.
The next step consisted of reading the abstracts of those articles to eliminate those which had a different focus, often referring exclusively to the fields of individual psychology or natural ecology. Successive filters were applied to narrow the search, reduced exclusively to articles centered on the definition and characterization of social resilience. The final result was a total of 151 useful references which were then analyzed in detail, and a summary of their content allowed for the elimination of articles which were very closely matched or repetitive. Finally, the review found 98 references that were classified according to the main focus of the papers.
Finally, only 51 of them have been included in this paper, among other references. They are presented in Table 1, organized by the main focus offered in each of these papers.
A PRISMA flowchart [72] of this revision process is provided in Figure 1.
This was the total number of articles examined in detail in order to extract the elements of social resilience that allow us to establish the defining characteristics of the concept. The interest of this study is precisely to focus the current dispersion of approaches to social resilience by achieving a consensus on the main characteristics of the notion. Thus, in the future, it will be easier to seek improvements in the resilience of societies. This would be difficult to achieve without knowing exactly what characteristics and elements are involved in its definition.

2. Origin, Definition, and Evolution of the Term “Resilience”

The word “resilience” originates from the Latin “resalire”, meaning “to spring back” or “rebound”. Although many studies point out that the notion of resilience was initially introduced by C. S. Holling in a paper of 1973 on Ecology [73], it has been shown that the term originally comes from the studies of strength of materials [20,74,75] (Alexander 2013; Brown and Williams, 2015; Pushpalal and Suzuki 2020). Here, in engineering, resilience refers to the capacity of materials to return to their original form when subjected to certain external forces [76,77] Therefore, resilience basically focuses here on the elasticity of materials, beyond the study of the classic properties of resistance of materials, determining the point beyond which materials or systems will be unable to return to their original state [78]. In ecology, the term is used for referring to the capacity of an ecosystem to sustain itself and recover after disruptions or disturbances. The coining of this term led to numerous subsequent works in the field of ecology [79] focused on the manner in which the ecosystems absorb or adapt to alterations (earthquakes, fire, floods, infestations, and human-induced alterations of the environment). Thus, resilience was understood as the capacity to react to changes while maintaining the essential elements of an original state [22,24,80]. In its sense, resilience was associated with the capacity to resist external shocks [81], and the capacity to overcome, recover, and adapt [82]. In the field of ecology, the term resilience has improved the term sustainability, which refers to the capacity of an ecosystem to perpetuate itself, but resilience goes further, considering the notion of adaptability; that is, considering the disturbances or changes an ecosystem may absorb before being entirely reconstituted in a manner completely different from its original state.
The term resilience was adopted in psychology. Here, the concept of resilience arose from studies on children who did not develop psychological problems despite being exposed to conditions which were predicted to lead to psychological disorders. Here, resilience is referred to as an individual’s capacity to adapt, not only for resisting the adversity by invulnerability, even leading to greater strength and fortitude [83]. Studies into psychologically resistant character traits were followed by further studies based on the interaction between an individual and their environment which favors healthy psychological adaptation [7,84,85,86]. Although the term would become further nuanced in the field of psychology [87], certain traces of its original meaning within the field of ecology persist. The latest extension of the term has entered to field of urban planning and development, where the conceptualization of the city as a social ecosystem raises the notion of creating resilient spaces [88,89,90] able to endure future changes, particularly in the face of climate change.
In each of these three fields, ecology, engineering, and psychology, the notion of resilience offered greater scope for understanding than the terms previously used in these fields. In ecology, the notion of resilience goes beyond sustainability, referring to the disturbances an ecosystem can withstand before being entirely reconstituted in a manner completely different from its original state. This is similar to developments in the field of psychology, where the term “resilience” superseded the notion of invulnerability, given that the former could be developed within the individual [91] while invulnerability was considered as an intrinsic trait of the agent [92]. Finally, in engineering, resilience focuses on the properties of elasticity of a specific material, enabling it to be deformed and return to its original state [80] differentiated from the classic properties of resistance of materials, focusing on the capacity of materials to resist compression, tension, torsion, or sheer [78].

3. From Individual Resilience to Social Resilience

After engineering, the ecological focus of the notion of resilience was long predominant, but the advance of the research in social sciences incorporated a new relative notion, called socioecological resilience [93,94]. Of course, with this approach, the initial ecological viewpoint remained prominent while incorporating other aspects of a sanitary and social nature [18,95,96] related to resilience. Of course, is possible to find an overlap in the concepts, perspectives, and focus. For example, there is important academic literature on disaster resilience, focusing on responses of social structures to disasters or natural hazards, with connections with the social–ecological resilience [97].
The study of the way in which individuals overcome the tensions and stresses of adversity and traumatic events demonstrated through this new socioecological focus of resilience that certain networks or resources within one’s environment, such as social or cultural, serve as support and help build the capacity for resilience within individuals. Logically, the individual does not exist alone, but rather within a community which offers resources which may serve to strengthen the resilience of the individual [30,52,98], based on relations and values such as inclusion, trust, mutual support, or cooperation [99]. This set of values for social support constitute something that in sociology is referred to as social capital, which was soon associated with the development of resilience [56,71]. This inclusion of environmental or social elements, constituting social capital, should not be confused with social resilience. There is no doubt that social capital can lead to the development of social resilience [53,69], and a number of authors have signaled that both capacities may be mutually reinforcing [23,29]. However, the relation between the two concepts is more complex and less linear than they may appear [57]. In any case, the notion of individual resilience gradually extends to that of social resilience [100] via the intermediate concept we may call “socioecological resilience” [40,41,48,59,101], which incorporates aspects of this social capital.
From the review of the literature, it is important to understand that social resilience is not simply an aggregation of resilient individuals, but the manner in which a community responds, as a whole, to stresses and tensions that impact them as a group [65], also that it is an adaptive phenomenon. Depending on the resilience not only of individuals but of the community and its social systems, the community can come up with responses to disturbances, adapting and evolving in a process that may give rise to new opportunities for change without renouncing the core essence of its origins [102]. A true understanding of social resilience involves considering it as a dynamic [103] and multi-disciplinary process [20,23,60,68,104], with a multitude of interdependent aspects (economic, psychological, social, etc.) and levels (for example, between individuals and their socioeconomic environment) [31,51,105]. To date, there has been little research with this multi-level approach to analysis [106]. This is largely because this type of analysis requires an understanding of how social resilience emerges from the individual resilience, identifying those aspects which facilitate this process. It is precisely this linkage which has received scant analysis [102].
The possible interactions of all these processes, at different levels, contributes to the multiplication of components which determine social resilience. A multi-level approach increases the number of possible strategies of adaptation, resistance, and transformation to deal with shocks and disturbances [42], making it difficult to establish the precise relationship between individual resilience and social resilience [26,32,49,64]. There is no doubt that studies into individual resilience can offer clues as to the elements which may further the development of strengths within the entire society, and vice versa [68], achieving public health improvements. This leads to the next section of this work, which finally explores the features that characterize social resilience.

4. Principal Characteristic of Social Resilience

There are many characteristics and elements that appear in the articles studied on social resilience. Of course, it is interesting to group them meaningfully in order to offer solutions in their conceptualization. A great deal of the examined literature refers to three principal characteristics of social resilience [28,92,93,107,108]. These are the same terms referred to by the Resilience Alliance, a multidisciplinary association for the study of socioecological resilience. Although terminology varies, these are habitually designated as resistance, adaptability, and transformability. In fact, these three aspects of resilience largely concur with the chronological development of the term and study into resilience.
The first of these characteristics, resistance, has also been expressed as persistence [69,73,81] and refers to the degree of change or transformation a complex system can withstand while preserving its functional and structural characteristics. This is not simply the stability of the system, nor the capacity to return to a previous state of equilibrium, but rather refers to the capacity of resistance of the system itself to disturbances before reaching the point where its principal features, functions, and processes collapse.
The second characteristic of resilience, adaptability, refers to the capacity of a system to absorb the disturbances while retaining those features which are part of its original identity [95]. Adaptability is not the capacity for adapting to change, but the capacity for absorbing the changes. This was primarily the focus of so-called socioecological resilience, highlighting the capacity of agents to learn from experience, accumulate knowledge, and respond by adapting to changing conditions. Adaptability thus refers to the possibilities of an individual or system to redesign its structures, its capacity for self-organization and reorganization to meet the challenges of external disturbances and change [19,62,82,109,110]. The notion of adaptability emphasizes the evolutional or dynamic connotations of resilience rather than the idea of returning to a prior state of equilibrium [96,111,112,113].
Finally, the third characteristic of social resilience extracted from the study of all the academic papers is transformability. It refers to the capacity of a system to evolve from its original state towards alternatives which are compatible with survival under new conditions [17,81]. Here, it is implicitly assumed that stresses and disturbances may make the exact original system unsustainable and there are a multitude of potential states into which the society may evolve and mutate. This transformability should be understood as functional, referring to the structure of the system itself. Social resilience includes, as it has been said, the capacity of a society to adapt to change, learning and acquiring the right knowledge and capabilities to address new challenges, now transforming its internal dynamics in ways that ensure survival and sustainability [18,82,111,113,114]. This is an important aspect of the social resilience because it has attracted the interest of researchers in determining the learning capacity of a social system [15,115,116,117,118,119].
Then, the true social resilience should involve these three characteristics [28], from the mitigation of disturbances (resistance) to the reorganization of the system to absorb the external shocks (adaptability) and the development of learning ways for allowing for systemic transformation in the face of new conditions (transformability). The integration of these three characteristics points towards a more precise definition of resilience. Therefore, this social resilience is now the capacity of a system, society, or group to resist and absorb the hazards, preserving its essential basic structures and transforming itself in a manner that better ensures it survival in the future. This characterization of resilience assumes a dynamic process, as noted above, and not merely a specific trait that facilitates the stability [82,111,113]. The Figure 2 provides a useful overview.

5. First Steps for Developing Social Resilience

There are many studies on resilience discussing policies implemented in different sectors, but they offer, in the majority of the cases, very specific and partial results that cannot properly consolidate explanations that allow the development of global models. However, there are groups of studies using applied work on social resilience that allow to show some trends. From the study of the most relevant bibliography about this, two main groups of works have been found. On the one hand, there are interventions oriented towards sustaining and amplifying the emotional factors through social resilience strategies based on interrelationships between the actors. On the other hand, there are policies for the governance of resilient communities based on the promotion of the social learning and on the development of resilient social capital. Both lines are important for promoting socio–health improvements in the society as a whole. Note that the first way is focused on resistance (reactive), while the second way points towards the adaptability and the transformability (proactive), following the three characteristics described above (Obrist et al., 2010).
In the first point, on policies based on emotional factors, it is important to see that operational interventions usually focus on the capacity to promote the so-called social networks of supporters. These structures for supporting the individuals determine the emotional sustainability of the agents in a society [58]. These networks are, in a general sense, all the networks that promote trusting relationships in a society, such as friendship or family [120]. The density of the social interactions between the members of this kind of groups has a positive influence for the social resilience [43]. These social support networks favor the social cohesion through the establishment of strong relationships. Support from family and friends has been shown to be a significant predictor of a society’s resilience [39,50,52]. These supportive relationships between the members of a family generate social resilience, especially in the case of unemployed people [44,54]. Some papers have referred to this support to help to overcome tensions in the family level [46], or in the case of medical problems [47], or with complicated states typical of the elderly, helping them by having inclusive community organizations [70,121]. The resilience of young people increases when they are feeling supported by their social and family environment [45,122]. In general, the quality of relationships between the individual and the social groups is an important point because this increases the chances of the policies becoming successful [36], which should be taken into consideration in the health provision programs.
In addition, the moderating role of the conciliatory elements in the field of the relationships, even in scenarios where a situation of prolonged conflict has occurred, help in the development of the community resilience [25]. On the contrary, factors that contribute to the deterioration of relationships between individuals, such as violence, insecurity, or social confrontation, are a threat for the individual well-being and they are the main destructive element of the social resilience.
Finally, concerning the importance of the relationships and the social support networks for the development of social resilience, we emphasize two points. First, that social support is more conducive to the development of resilience in people than those other individual factors that, such as self-esteem, can be stimulated by the agents themselves [67], and, secondly, that this social and family support can also be promoted ex-post, for instance, in the necessary recovery after a disaster [123].
The second category cited on applied research on social resilience is connected with the promotion of the knowledge and the social learning of the capacities of transformation in a social innovation context. This is encouraged by the promotion of an executive social intelligence and a target-oriented mentality towards the transformation. The main point here is called the social memory, which helps to establish pathways for the development of this community resilience. The idea is to understand how the past has influenced the knowledge that we have today, in order to provide answers to the current risks that will promote a social resilience [66], improving the socio–health level of a society. This includes having a previous knowledge of the weaknesses of a society before potential disasters [124]. On the contrary, members of a society that are not prepared by their past to understand the new problems will live in a state of continuous threat and uncertainty that gradually undermines their capacity for resilience [61]. It is possible to improve the social resilience in this direction also by the civic participation [55] by the strengthening of the relationships among the social community and its institutions [6]. The collaborative approaches may be the most appropriate ways to promote the social and institutional learning for this kind of transformational social resilience, as several studies have shown [7,11,125].
This social resilience which is acquired through knowledge and social learning can be obtained also by the communication of the risks that a society may face, for a correct perception of them, in contrast with a sweet ignorance of these potential risks [7]. Of course, during a disaster it is mandatory to provide the best information to the population about the relief works, possible help-points, and the consequences of the impacts received. However, here, the studies refer to the provision of information in advance, also in the health service units [126]. These strategies for communicating potential risks allow the incorporation of the information, helping to achieve the conceptualization and internalization of the potential impacts, improving social resilience [34]. On the contrary, the ignorance of the risks generates uncertainty and a low responsiveness in the people and in the societies.
These policies create an executive social intelligence that, in addition with the promotion of the individual adaptive capacity, provides, at the social level, the cognitive and emotional tools needed to enhance social resilience [33]. In general, the governance for building this social resilience is not easily compatible with policies of rigid responses to the changes. The reason for this is that the construction of social resilience is a process of gradual assimilation of information, where the flexibility allows the emergence of progressive elements of resilience that will help the control and the governance [127]. Studies suggest that this social resilience can also be increased by ways of meta-flexibility in dynamics of groups, by flexible positions that allow movements from a state to another state, as the best and most appropriate response in complicated scenarios [27].
Of course, the review of the cited literature shows that there are more studies on specific applied policies in some sectors, but they do not offer specific results, making impossible the establishment of relationships that would allow us to build general models for the development of the social resilience and the improvement of public health systems. It is necessary to wait for further studies that, in the future, are able to provide more consolidated policies.

6. Conclusions and Suggestions for the Future Research into Social Resilience

The majority of articles on resilience have focused on those factors which promote individual resilience, especially researching in the psychosocial and neurobiological elements. However, regarding social resilience, while the research has intuited that it will be a key element in the future development of the health and welfare of our societies, the novelty of this construct is so recent that it has been difficult to properly concrete its real nature and depth. The main purpose of this article is to contribute to reaching a consensus on a definitive definition based on previous research, which will allow the generation of models for its development.
Related to this first problem of general lack of definition, the majority of the studies have been focused on specific problems, using the operativity of this social resilience, but they have not performed a complete theorization of the concept. The reason is because, in these studies, there are not many valid conclusions for the development of an applied technique or model for the improvement of this social resilience. Therefore, the studies on social resilience have generally failed to bridge the gap between theoretical research and practical, and applicable models do not exist [60]. The problem is that social resilience depends on a multitude of often disparate variables that do not allow themselves concrete or practical interventions. Of course, it is important to identify how the alteration of certain variables related to this resilience have implications in other variables, and in the public health of the community, but the problem is not only to establish the relation between the variables. It is necessary to measure not only the impact that a specific problem with one variable will have on other variables, but mainly on the adaptive capacity of an entire community and its welfare, too [38]. Therefore, the problems, ultimately, impact not only the directly connected variables, but all other variables and levels as well, gradually undermining the flexibility necessary to adapt or change. This is the real risk for the society and its health system, because the connected and growing problems weaken the flexibility and the capacity for learning and reorganization of the society [35]. Thus, the main obstacle to the growth of resilience and social welfare is the lack of knowledge about the relationships between variables, and the multilevel implications of each of these variables.
In addition, the complexity of the cause–effect dynamics of these processes [49], especially in the relationships between individual resilience and social resilience [64], does not make matters easier. Clearly, there is a feedback loop or bidirectional relation between the two resiliencies, individual and social [26]. The studies into individual resilience can offer insights into the factors which can strengthen, or weaken, the resilience of communities and systems [68]. There remains, however, a great deal of research to be carried out in understanding these relations, and there are not enough works about this point [26].
The main important conclusion is that a deeper understanding of social resilience requires multi-level (individual, group, and social) and multi-factor analysis, which remains lacking. Future research should take a multi-relational approach, incorporating factors associated with the environment and aspects related to the varying levels of association between individuals in the communities. This will permit the development of dynamic models [68] that show the possible relations between the variables and levels, and subsequent study of the specific elements which stimulate the potential of a socio–health system of the society to resist, adapt, or transform itself in the face of adversity [118], with independence of the origin of the disturbances, either economic, political, or environmental [62].
For this, the first part of the challenge is to further develop the conceptual aspects of resilience as we have intended in this work, for incorporating data to better measure the levels of current social resilience [128]. The integration of transversal research will help gain a deeper understanding of the possible natural cycles of adaptation of our societies once the accelerating elements of social resilience have been clearly identified. Just as the aforementioned studies here that have been made to identify these elements, it would be fruitful to conduct an in-depth evaluation of contextual factors such as inequality, uncertainty, violence, the lack of integration and social cohesion, etc., which may impair social resilience [37,63].
The cited difficulties in the understanding of the cause–effect relationships also affect the development of an effective governance system that facilitates the improvement of the social resilience [49,129]. Much work remains to be carried out in creating accurate causal models which can help establish valid guidelines for government health action in boosting social resilience. Of course, these models must also consider the important role of institutions in building healthy and resilient societies and their actions in political, social, sanitary, and economic spheres. It is suggested that it will be an important help to model scenarios using simulation techniques based on communities and agents, as well as global structural models that serve to improve our understanding of social resilience, creating accurate indicators over the factors involved in the growth of the social resilience.
It will be necessary to obtain an adaptive approach to resilience in order to understand the complex dynamics and equilibrium between resistance, adaptation, and transformation. There is no doubt that a minimum degree of stability is necessary to establish the basic outlines of models to identify the sources of adaptability. In terms of social capital, we are far from understanding its true relation to resilience, except in very short-term situations. However, we do know there are certain prior minimum conditions upon which social resilience depends and without which social resilience is impossible. The identification and measurement of these minimum conditions is an inviting field of future research. These conditions can be revealed by the study of societies under chronic conditions of adversity and stress [65] that are failing to develop social resilience.
Finally, practical research in the future must offer models which, accepting the characterization of social resilience and the factors which condition its development and that are provided here, serve as effective tools to facilitate the emergence of more resilient societies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.; methodology, M.G.; resources and literature review, M.G.; data analysis, J.M.; first original draft preparation, J.M. and M.G.; writing and editing, J.M.; supervision, J.M. and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aldhahi, M.; Akil, S.; Zaidi, U.; Mortada, E.; Awad, S.; Al Awaji, N. Effect of Resilience on Health-Related Quality of Life during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Morton, M.; Lurie, N. Community resilience and public health practice. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 1158–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Davis, R.; Cook, D.; Cohen, L. A community resilience approach to reducing ethnic and racial disparities in health. Am. J. Public Health 2005, 95, 2168–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Allmark, P.; Bhanbhro, S.; Chrisp, T. An argument against the focus on Community Resilience in Public Health. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Plough, A.; Fielding, J.; Chandra, A.; Williams, M.; Eisenman, D.; Wells, K.; Law, G.; Fogleman, S.; Magaña, A. Building community disaster resilience: Perspectives from a large urban county department of public health. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 1190–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Poland, B.; Gloger, A.; Morgan, G.; Lach, N.; Jackson, S.; Urban, R.; Rolston, I. A Connected Community Approach: Citizens and Formal Institutions Working Together to Build Community-Centred Resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Norris, F.; Stevens, S.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.; Pfefferbaum, R. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schoch-Spana, M.; Courtney, B.; Franco, C.; Norwood, A.; Nuzzo, J. Community resilience roundtable on the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 21 (HSPD-21). Biosecurity Bioterrorism Biodefense Strategy Pract. Sci. 2008, 6, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Chandra, A.; Williams, M.; Plough, A.; Stayton, A.; Wells, K.; Horta, M.; Tang, J. Getting actionable about community resilience: The Los Angeles County community disaster resilience project. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 1181–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saja, A.; Goonetilleke, A.; Teo, M.; Ziyath, A. A critical review of social resilience assessment frameworks in disaster management. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 35, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chandra, A.; Acosta, J.; Howard, S.; Uscher-Pines, L.; Williams, M.; Yeung, D.; Garnett, J.; Meredith, L. Building community resilience to disasters: A way forward to enhance national health security. Rand Health Q. 2011, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kantabutra, S.; Ketprapakorn, N. Toward an Organizational Theory of Resilience: An Interim Struggle. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Manyena, S. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 2006, 30, 434–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Edson, M. A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2012, 29, 499–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davidson-Hunt, I.; Berkes, F. Nature and society through the lens of resilience: Toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Colding, J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  19. Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brown, E.; Williams, B. Resilience and Resoruce Management. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 1416–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; Wan, J.; Huicong, J. Resilience to natural hazards: A geographic perspective. Nat. Hazards 2010, 53, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Berardi, G.; Green, R.; Hammond, B. Stability, sustainability and catastrophe: Applying resilience thinking to U.S agriculture. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2011, 18, 115–125. [Google Scholar]
  23. Maclean, K.; Cuthill, M.; Ross, H. Six attributes of social resilience. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Elinwa, U.; Moyo, N. Post-disaster housing: A complex systems approach to social resilience. Open House Int. 2018, 43, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Taylor, L.; Merrilees, C.; Cairns, E.; Shirlow, P.; Goeke-Morey, M.; Cummings, M. Risk and resilience: The moderating role of social coping for maternal mental health in a setting of political conflict. Int. J. Psichol. 2013, 48, 591–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Sippel, L.; Pietrzak, R.; Charney, D.; Mayes, L.; Southwick, S. How does social support enhance resilience in the trauma-exposed individual? Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pincus, D. One bad apple: Experimental effects of psychological conflict on social resilience. Interface Focus 2014, 4, 20140003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Keck, M.; Sakdapolrak, P. What is Social Resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde 2013, 67, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Johnson, N.; Elliot, D.; Drake, P. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating supply chain resilience. Supply Chain. Manag.-Int. J. 2013, 18, 324–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ungar, M. Community resilience for youth and families: Facilitative physical and social capital in contexts of adversity. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2011, 33, 1742–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Obrist, B.; Pfeiffer, C.; Henley, R. Multi-layered social resilience: A new approach in mitigation research. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2010, 10, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Santos, E.; Santos, E.; Korah, J.; Thompson, J.; Zhao, Y.; Murugappan, V.; Russell, J. Modelling Social Resilience in Communities. Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2018, 5, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marshall, N.; Smajgl, A. Understanding variability in adaptive capacity on rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 66, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bradford, R.; O’sullivan, J.; Van der Craats, I.; Krywkow, J.; Rotko, P.; Aaltonen, J.; Bonaiuto, M.; De Dominicis, S.; Waylen, K.; Schelfaut, K. Risk perception–issues for flood management in Europe. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 12, 2299–2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Desjardine, M.; Bansa, L.P.; Yang, Y. Bouncing Back: Building Resilience Through Social and Environmental Practices in the Context of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 1434–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Therrien, M.; Jutras, M.; Usher, S. Including quality in Social network analysis to foster dialogue in urban resilience and adaptation policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 93, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Markolf, S.; Chester, M.; Eisenberg, D.; Iwaniec, D.; Davidson, C.; Zimmerman, R.; Miller, T.; Ruddell, B.; Chang, H. Interdependent Infrastructure as Linked Social, Ecologican and Technological Systems (SETSs) to Address Lock-in and Enhance Resilience. Earths Future 2018, 6, 1638–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kim, H.; Marcouiller, D.; Woosnam, K. Rescaling social dynamics in climate change: The implications of cumulative exposure, climate justice and community resilience. Geoforum 2018, 96, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pejicic, M.; Ristic, M.; Andelkovic, V. The mediating effect of cognitive emotion regulation strategies in the relationship between perceived social support and resilience in postwar youth. J. Community Psychol. 2018, 46, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liebenberg, L.; Moore, J. A Social Ecological Measure of Resilience for Adults: The RRC-ARM. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 136, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Delgado-Serrano, M.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Calvo-Boyero, D.; Ortiz-Guerrero, C.; Escalante-Semerena, R.; Corbera, E. Influence of community-baed natural resource management-strategiesin the resilience of social-ecological systems. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 18, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mulrennan, M.; Bussieres, V. Social-ecological resilience in indigenous coastal edge contexts. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Giannoccaro, I.; Massari, G.; Carbone, G. Team Resilience in Complex and Turbulent Envieronments: The Effects of Size and Density of Social Interactions. Complexity 2018, 2018, 1923216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Oh, S.; Jun, J. Structural relationships between careers barriers, social support levels, ego-ressilience, job search efficay, and career preparation behavior of middle-aged unemployed men. Kedi J. Educ. Policy 2018, 15, 21–42. [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Der Wal, W.; George, A. Social support-oriented coping and resilience for self-harm protection among adolescents. J. Psychol. Afr. 2018, 28, 237–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Onyedibe, M.; Ugwu, L.; Mefoh, P.; Onuiri, C. Parents of children with Down Syndrome: Do resilience and social support matter to their experience of carerstress? J. Psychol. Afr. 2018, 28, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kong, L.; Fang, M.; Ma, T.; Li, G.; Yang, F.; Meng, Q.; Li, Y.; Li, P. Positive affect mediates the relationships between resilience, social support and posttraumatic growth of women with infertility. Psichol. Health Med. 2018, 23, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Galappaththi, I.; Galappathti, E.; Kodithuwakku, S. Can start-up motives influence social-ecological resilience in community-based entrepreneurship setting? Case of coastal shrimp farmers in Sri Lanka. Mar. Policy 2017, 86, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Biesbroek, R.; Dupuis, J.; Wellstead, A. Explaining through causa mechanisms: Resilience and governance of social-ecological syistems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Piel, M.; Geiger, J.; Julien-Chinn, F.; Lietz, C. An ecological systems approach to understanding social support in foster family resilience. Child Fam. Soc. Work. 2017, 22, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Daellenbach, K.; Dalgliesh-Waugh, C.; Smith, K. Community resilience and the multiple leves of social change. J. Soc. Mark. 2016, 6, 240–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tilt, B.; Gerkey, D. Dams and population displacement on China’s Upper Mekong River: Implications for social capital and social-ecological resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang.-Hum. Policy 2016, 36, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Lu, F.; Lee, W.; Chang, Y.; Chou, C.; Hsu, Y.; Lin, J.; Gill, D. Interaction of athletes’ resilience and coaches’ social support on the stresss-burnout relationship: A conjunctive moderation perspective. Psichol. Sport Exerc. 2016, 22, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Distelberg, B.; Taylor, S. The roles of social support and family resilience in accesing healthcare and employment resources among families living in traditional public housing communities. Child Fam. Soc. Work. 2015, 20, 494–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Greene, G.; Paranjothy, S.; Palmer, S. Resilience and vulnerability to the psychological harm from flooding: The role of social cohesion. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 1792–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dageid, W.; Gronlie, A. Measuring Resilience and its association to social capital among HIV-positive South Africans living in a context of adversity. J. Community Psychol. 2015, 43, 832–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jordan, J. Swimming alone? The role of social capital in enhancing local resilience to climate stress: A case study from Bangladesh. Clim. Dev. 2015, 7, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wolfe, T.; Ray, S. The role of event centrality, coping and social support in resilience and posttraumatic growth among women and men. Int. J. Ment. Health Promot. 2015, 17, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Boyd, E.; Nykvist, B.; Borgströme, S.; Stacewicz, I. Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. Ambio 2015, 44, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Abramson, D.; Lynn, M.; Grattan, B.; Mayer, C.; Colten, F.; Arosemena, A.; Lichtveld, M. The resilience Activation Framework: A Conceptual Model of How Access to Social Resources Promotes Adaptation and Rapid Recovery in post-disaster Settings. J. Behav. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 42, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Wilson, G. Community resilience, social memory and the post-2010 Christchurch (New Zealand) earthquakes. Area 2013, 45, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Holladay, P.; Powell, R. Resident perception of social-ecological resilience and the sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth of Dominica. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1188–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bunch, M.; Morrison, K.; Parkes, M.; Venema, H. Promoting Health and Well-Being by Managing for Social-Ecological Resilience: The Potential of Integrating Ecohealth and Water Resources Management Approaches. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Lee, J.; Blackmon, B.; Lee, J.; Cochran, D.; Rehner, T. An exploration of posttraumatic growth, loneliness, depression, resilience, and social capital among survivors of Hurrican Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. J. Community Psichol. 2019, 47, 356–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Bolzan, N.; Gale, F. Social resilience: Transformation in two Australian comminities facing chronic adversity. Int. Soc. Work. 2018, 61, 843–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Soetanto, R.; Mullins, A.; Achour, N. The perceptions of social responsability for community resilience to flooding: The impact of past experience, age, gender and ethnicity. Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 1105–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Stumblingbear-Riddle, G.; Romans, J. Resilience among urban americanindian adolescents: Exploration into the role of culture, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and social support. Am. Indian Alsk. Nativ. Ment. Health Res. 2012, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Maclean, K.; Ross, H.; Cuthill, M.; Witt, B. Converging disciplinary understandings of social aspects of resilience. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Carpenter, A. Resilience in the social and phisical realms: Lessons from the Gulf Coast. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 14, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bennet, R.; Chepngeno-Langat, G.; Evandrou, M.; Falkingham, J. Resilience in the face of post-election violence in Kenya: The mediating role of social networks on wellbeing among older people in the Korogocho informal settlemente, Nairobi. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 128, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Aldrich, D. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rethlefsen, M.; Kirtley, S.; Waffenschmidt, S.; Ayala, A.; Moher, D.; Page, M.; Koffel, J. PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Holling, C. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Alexander, D.E. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 2707–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Pushpalal, D.; Suzuki, A. New Methodology for Measuring Tsunami Resilience Using Theory of Springs. Geosciences 2020, 10, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gere, J.; Goodno, B. Mechanics of Materials; Cengage Learning: Stamford, CT, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hosseini, S.; Barker, K.; Ramírez-Márquez, J. A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2016, 145, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cely, O. Propiedades que definen los materiales resilientes en arquitectura. Rev. Tecnol. 2015, 14, 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  79. Odum, E.; Barrett, G.; Brewer, R. Fundamentals of Ecology; Cole: California, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  80. Pimm, S. The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  81. Walker, B.; Holling, C.; Carpenter, S.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 81–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pendell, R.; Foster, K.; Cowell, M. Resilience and Regions: Building Understanding of the Metaphor. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Rutter, M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 1987, 57, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fergus, S.; Zimmerman, M. Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2005, 26, 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Bonanno, G. Prospective patterns of resilience and maladjustment during widowhood. Psychol. Aging 2004, 19, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Luthar, S. Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Luthar, S.; Dante, C.; Bronwyn, B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gutiérrez, M.; Benavides, D. Análisis crítico del concepto de Ecología urbana. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Basicas 2012, 8, 134–149. [Google Scholar]
  89. Sanchez, A.; van der Heijden, J.; Osmond, P. The city politics of an urban age: Urban resilience conceptualisations and policies. Palgrave Commun. 2018, 4, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rutter, M. Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. J. Adolesc. Health 1993, 14, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. García-Vesga, M.; Domínguez de la Ossa, E. Desarrollo teórico de la Resiliencia y su aplicación en situaciones adversas: Una revisión analítica. Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Soc. Niñez Juv. 2013, 11, 63–77. [Google Scholar]
  93. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  94. Norberg, J.; Wilson, J.; Walkery, B.; Ostrom, E. Diversity and resilience of social-ecological systems. In Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future; Norberg, J., Cumming, G.S., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  95. Folke, C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Levin, S.; Barrett, S.; Aniyar, S.; Baumol, W.; Bliss, C.; Bolin, B.; Dasgupta, P.; Ehrlich, P.; Folke, C.; Gren, I.; et al. Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems. Environment and development economics. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1998, 3, 222–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cutter, S.L.; Barnes, L.; Berry, M.; Burton, C.; Evans, E.; Tate, E.; Webb, J. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 598–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. O’brien, K.; Hayward, B.; Berkes, F. Rethinking social contracts: Building resilience in a changing climate. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Portes, A. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998, 24, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Common, M.; Perings, C. Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 1992, 6, 7–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lebel, L.; Anderies, J.; Campbell, B.; Folke, C.; Hatfield-Dodds, S.; Hughes, T.; Wilson, J. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Adger, N. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2000, 24, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cutter, S.L. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? Geogr. J. 2016, 182, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Fraccascia, L.; Giannoccaro, I.; Albino, V. Resilience of Complex Systems: State of the Art and Directions for Future Research. Complexity 2018, 2018, 3421529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cacioppo, J.; Reis, H.; Zautra, A. Social Resilience: The Value of Social Fitness With an Application to the Military. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Dahlberg, R.; Johannessen-Henry, C.; Raju, E.; Tulsiani, S. Resilience in disaster research: Three versions. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2015, 32, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jüttner, U.; Maklan, S. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain. Manag. 2011, 16, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Oliveira, A.; Morais, N. Resiliencia Comunitaria: Un estudio de Revisión Integradora de la Literatura. Trends Psychol. 2018, 26, 1731–1745. [Google Scholar]
  109. Gunderson, L.; Holling, C. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  110. Vert, M.; Sharpanskykh, A.; Curran, R. Adaptive Resilience of Complex Safety-Critical Sociotechnical Systems: Toward a Unified Conceptual Framework and Its Formalization. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hassink, R. Regional resilience: A promising concept to explain differences in regional economic adaptability? Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Holland, J. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity; Addison–Wesley: Reading, PA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  113. Pike, A.; Dawley, S.; Tomaney, J. Resilience, adaptation and adaptability. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Young, O. Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Abel, T.; Stepp, J. A new ecosystems ecology for anthropology. Conserv. Ecol. 2003, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hollnagel, E.; Pariès, J.; Wood, D.; Wreathall, J. RAG-The Resilience Analysis Grid: Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  117. Hollnagel, E. Disaster management, control, and resilience. In Disaster Management: Enabling Resilience; Masys, A., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Moberg, F.; Galaz, V. Resilience Compatibility. Swedish Water House Policy Brief 3; Stockholm International Water Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  119. Trosper, R. Policy transformations in the US forest sector, 1970–2000: Implications for sustainable use and resilience. In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Berkes, F., Folke, J.C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 328–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Asghar, M.; Arif, S.; Barbera, E.; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P.; Kocayoruk, E. Support through Social Media and Online Class Participation to Enhance Psychological Resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Chang, P.; Yarnal, C. The effect of social support on resilience growth among women in the Red Hat Society. J. Posit. Psychol. 2018, 13, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hall, B.; Tol, W.; Jordans, M.; Bass, J.; DeJong, J. Understanding resilience in armed conflict: Social resources and mental health of children in Burundi. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 114, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Islam, R.; Walkerden, G. How do links between households and NGOs promote disaster resilience and recovery? A case study of linking social networks on the Bangladeshi coast. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 1707–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kenedy, G.; Richards, M.; Chicarelli, M.; Ernst, A.; Harrell, A.; Stites, D. Disaster mitigation: Initial response. South. Med. J. 2013, 106, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Dawes, S.; Cresswell, A.; Cahan, B. Learning from crisis: Lessons in human and information infrastructure from the World Trade Center response. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2004, 22, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Țăran, A.; Mustea, L.; Vătavu, S.; Lobonț, O.; Luca, M. Challenges and Drawbacks of the EU Medical System Generated by the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Field of Health Systems’ Digitalization. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hutter, G.; Kuhlicke, C. Resilience, talk and action: Exploring the meanings of resilience in the context of planning and institutions. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013, 28, 294–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Huang, X.; Song, Y.; Hu, X. Deploying spatial data for coastal community resilience: A review from the managerial perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Bolaños-Guerra, B.; Calderón-Contreras, R. Desafíos de resiliencia para disminuir la migración inducida por causas ambientales desde Centroamérica. Rev. De Estud. Soc. 2021, 76, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 05746 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the bibliographical selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the bibliographical selection process.
Ijerph 19 05746 g001
Ijerph 19 05746 g002 550
Figure 2. Relationship diagram and characteristics process. Each of these three characteristics also have a specific temporal frame of reference. The first, resistance, the capacity to withstand change, is strongly rooted in the past; adaptability refers to the present while transformability is oriented towards the future of the system and society. These aspects are summarized in Table 2.
Figure 2. Relationship diagram and characteristics process. Each of these three characteristics also have a specific temporal frame of reference. The first, resistance, the capacity to withstand change, is strongly rooted in the past; adaptability refers to the present while transformability is oriented towards the future of the system and society. These aspects are summarized in Table 2.
Ijerph 19 05746 g002
Table
Table 1. Summary of main aspects of resilience analyzed in these articles referred.
Table 1. Summary of main aspects of resilience analyzed in these articles referred.
FieldArticles Analyzed that Study This Issue
Definition of resilience[20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]
Factors that increase resilience[27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]
From individual to social resilience[58,59,60,64,65,66,67,68]
Models of resilience[27,29,31,51,52,56,57,59]
Examples of resilience[29,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,61,62,69,70,71]
Table
Table 2. Summary of aspects of resilience and its principal characteristics.
Table 2. Summary of aspects of resilience and its principal characteristics.
FieldFormer FocusPrincipal AspectsPrincipal FocusEquilibrium
EngineeringResistance of materialsTime to return, recovery, efficiencyResistanceProximity and the return to a state of equilibrium
EcologySustainabilityImpact mitigation, maintenance of functions in the face of shockResistance
Adaptability		Possible alternative equilibriums, stability of the original environment
PsychologyInvulnerabilityOvercoming, strength and fortitude in the face of adversityResistanceMultiple possible equilibriums in overcoming adversity
Social ResilienceStatic resilience on the same level Durability, capacity to adapt, transformability, learning and innovationResistance
Adaptability
Transformability		Multiple dynamic and evolutionary equilibriums
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moya, J.; Goenechea, M. An Approach to the Unified Conceptualization, Definition, and Characterization of Social Resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095746

AMA Style

Moya J, Goenechea M. An Approach to the Unified Conceptualization, Definition, and Characterization of Social Resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):5746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095746

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moya, Jorge, and María Goenechea. 2022. "An Approach to the Unified Conceptualization, Definition, and Characterization of Social Resilience" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095746

APA Style

Moya, J., & Goenechea, M. (2022). An Approach to the Unified Conceptualization, Definition, and Characterization of Social Resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095746

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop