Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 703–712 | Cite as

A Mathematical Framework for Resilience: Dynamics, Uncertainties, Strategies, and Recovery Regimes

  • Michel De LaraEmail author
Article
  • 96 Downloads

Abstract

Resilience is a rehashed concept in natural hazard management—resilience of cities to earthquakes, to floods, to fire, etc. In a word, a system is said to be resilient if there exists a strategy that can drive the system state back to “normal” after any perturbation. What formal flesh can we put on such a malleable notion? We propose to frame the concept of resilience in the mathematical garbs of control theory under uncertainty. Our setting covers dynamical systems both in discrete or continuous time, deterministic or subject to uncertainties. We will say that a system state is resilient if there exists an adaptive strategy such that the generated state and control paths, contingent on uncertainties, lay within an acceptable domain of random processes, called recovery regimes. We point out how such recovery regimes can be delineated thanks to so-called risk measures, making the connection with resilience indicators. Our definition of resilience extends others, be they “à la Holling” or rooted in viability theory. Indeed, our definition of resilience is a form of controllability for whole random processes (regimes), whereas others require that the state values must belong to an acceptable subset of the state set.

Keywords

Resilience Control theory Uncertainty Risk measures Recovery regimes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to the editor-in-chief, the advisory editor, and two reviewers. They supplied detailed critique, comments, and inputs which, ultimately, contributed to an improved version of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnoldi, J.-F., Loreau, M., & Haegeman, B. (2016). Resilience, reactivity and variability: a mathematical comparison of ecological stability measures. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 389, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aubin, J.-P. (1991). Viability theory. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carpentier, P., Chancelier, J.-P., Cohen, G., & De Lara, M. (2015). Stochastic multi-stage optimization. At the crossroads between discrete time stochastic control and stochastic programming. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Lara, M., & Doyen, L. (2008). Sustainable management of natural resources. Mathematical models and methods. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doyen, L., & De Lara, M. (2010). Stochastic viability and dynamic programming. Systems and control letters, 59(10), 629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doyen, L., & Saint-Pierre, P. (1997). Scale of viability and minimum time of crisis. Set-valued analysis, 5, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Föllmer, H., & Schied, A. (2002). Stochastic finance. An introduction in discrete time. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, S. (2004). The cost of restoration as a way of defining resilience: a viability approach applied to a model of lake eutrophication. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, S., Deffuant, G., & Calabrese, J. (2011). Defining resilience mathematically: from attractors to viability. Understanding complex systems, (pp. 15–36). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muller, A., & Stoyan, D. (2002). Comparison methods for stochastic models and risk. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rougé, C., Mathias, J.-D., & Deffuant, G. (2013). Extending the viability theory framework of resilience to uncertain dynamics, and application to lake eutrophication. Ecological Indicators, 29(Supplement C), 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rougé, C., Mathias, J.-D., & Vulnerability, G. Deffuant. (2015). From the conceptual to the operational using a dynamical system perspective. Environmental Modelling & Software, 73(Supplement C), 218–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaked, M., & Shanthikumar, J. G. (2007). Stochastic orders. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris-Est, Cermics (ENPC)Marne-la-ValléeFrance

Personalised recommendations