Talk:Climate resilience

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erg223.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope of article "Climate resilience" vs "Adaptation to global warming"

Kudos for collecting a lot of great information.

In terms of how we present this information, would someone please explain why this is not in worst case a WP:POVFORK and in best case a redundancy of Adaptation to global warming ?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are similarities, while adaptation is the broader scope of adjusting/adapting to climate change, resilience defines the outcome/summary/target of adaptation? Btw, the article adaptation to global warming may be renamed to climate change adaptation, to be in line with the naming of climate change mitigation? You can also see that the term resilience is used without referring to adaptation, for instance here. I think we should keep all three articles and should mention the other terms in the lede. prokaryotes (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@NAEG - I honestly hadn't seen the article about adaptation previously, but in any case, climate resilience is an incredibly widely used term that had previously redirected to Resilience (ecology). There's certainly some redundancy between this and Adaptation to global warming, but I don't think the redundancy is broad enough to warrant a merge, and even if it were, this would probably be the article that should be kept - it's a far more frequently used term. There are some broad differences between the articles though; climate resilience refers to a property of an ecosystem, and adaptation generally refers to strategies used to increase that property. As they're currently framed, the article about adaptation also refers exclusively to global warming currently, whereas climate resilience isn't limited to resilience to warming (though honestly, the adaptation article should probably just be renamed "climate change adaptation.") The article about adaptation also talks about some stuff like the creation of artificial snow which I certainly wouldn't consider methods of increasing climate resilience (though that may just be an oddity in the adaptation article that should be taken out.)

It also looks like the students who wrote this actually explicitly tried to address the difference between resilience and adaptation, although it's buried kind of far down in the article, quoting - "The fact that climate resilience encompasses a dual function, to absorb shock as well as to self-renew, is the primary means by which it can be differentiated from the concept of climate adaptation. In general, adaptation is viewed as a group of processes and actions that help a system absorb changes that have already occurred, or may be predicted to occur in the future. For the specific case of environmental change and climate adaptation, it is argued by many that adaptation should be defined strictly as encompassing only active decision-making processes and actions - in other words, deliberate changes made in response to climate change" - a quick glance at the citation suggests that it does support that text.

There is definitely some redundancy between the two articles currently which should be cut down - I'll work on it at least a bit myself once the term is over, but am mostly trying to avoid making large edits to articles my students wrote while the term isn't entirely done with. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

After quick review of some sources initial impressions are

(A) "climate resilience" (and its variations) is a current buzzword looking for a stable definition

(B) Commonly appears in association with "adaptation" where the sources themselves bandy about the terms but without clear distinction

(C) Some sources explicitly add the notion that "resilience" means ability to absorb external stresses while going on as before. "Going on as before" strikes me as key.

(D) Take home msg (your mileage after reviewing RS may vary).....

1) All natural and human systems have an inherent "climate resilience" (whether they know it or not)

2) Some sources are implicitly bandying about poorly defined terms for subsets of past overall term "climate adaptation"

• Subset #1 - What these systems do in order to go on as before (adaptations that build resilience, e.g. develop salt-tolerant rice varieties)
• Subset #2 - How we redesign these systems when climate change causes a breakdown in what we did before (coping adaptations, e.g., mass migration)

Although sources seem to be talking this way implicitly, I haven't any that slice and dice well enough for citations.

Also, whereas "climate mitigation" and "climate adaptation" are nouns that also have verb forms (mitigate and adapt), "climate resilience" seems to be a noun only.

Comments?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a buzz word, because there are 2900 studies cited by Google Scholar, prokaryotes (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Scorecards don't impress me. A literature review claiming that the experts are settling on some definitions, and then illustrating the dominant view by comparing/contrasting to climate adaptation.... now that wouldmight be pesuasive. Anyone know of one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This article should just be merged with climate change adaptation. In some cases (like infrastructure projects to prevent or tolerate flooding) these are used as synonyms. Resilience is simply the capacity to tolerate climate change, which is the same as adapting to it, or the ability to bounce back quickly, which is simply a form of adaptation. There's not really anything on one phrase that couldn't be covered under the other. -- Beland (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate resilience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140409072046/http://adaptoakland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2PageLongProjectBrief- to http://adaptoakland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2PageLongProjectBrief-
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p84.asp%26xgt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001158/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research/library/The%20Response%20of%20China%20India%20and%20Brazil%20to%20Climate%20Change_%20A%20perspective%20for%20South%20Africa.pdf to http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research/library/The%20Response%20of%20China%20India%20and%20Brazil%20to%20Climate%20Change_%20A%20perspective%20for%20South%20Africa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Case studies section

I've just shortened the section on "Case studies" by moving some of the very detailed and older content to the respective climate change country articles. I am wondering if further culling is required for the section called "case studies". I don't think such a section is even needed but this kind of information can be woven into other sections of the article where it fits? EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now moved the India case study to Climate change in India. Now the only "case study" that remains is the one for the United States. I think we should also move that one because otherwise it feels again like the US is in the focus of most articles... EMsmile (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Merging climate resilience and climate change vulnerability?

I am wondering if we should move the section called "Vulnerability and equity: environmental justice and climate justice" to climate change vulnerability? It seems to be more about vulnerability than about resilience. However, the two concepts overlap with each other (one being the opposite of the other) so it's also hard to split it neatly across two articles. Maybe the same content is at climate justice, or should be moved to "climate justice" to reduce overlap and repetition across articles. EMsmile (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

One option is to merge the two articles into Climate vulnerability and resilience or Climate resilience and vulnerability. I know it would be a lot of work :-) but it seems these concepts in the abstract don't just overlap—they are complementary expressions of essentially the same concept, like heat and cold ("cold" merely being "less heat"). —RCraig09 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I was also pondering whether that's the best solution. However, one drawback would be that the word "climate vulnerability" is used in a lot of other articles and then is wikilinked to that article. Would it be confusing to people if such a wikilink took them to a combined article on resilience and vulnerability? Is there more merit to keeping them separate? I am adding a ping to ASRASR who has some experience in resilience issues but might not have this page on his watchlist. Also a ping to sadads who created the article climate vulnerability in December 2020 and who put in the edit summary that "bringing content from climate resilience, Economics_of_climate_change and some new content". I actually think that currently, the article climate vulnerability is in better shape than climate resilience. If we could improve both of them (either separately or combined) that would be awesome. EMsmile (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to this question from a year ago. What do people think now about a possible merger? They both have similarly low pageviews at present. Resilience is the opposite of vulnerability (right?) so they could be tackled in one article, rather than two? RCraig09, sadads, Femkemilene, Dtetta, Chidgk1. EMsmile (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Support merge Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

My proposal would be to keep climate change vulnerability as the main article and to include in it a sub-heading called climate resilience as it's a concept to combat vulnerability. The term "climate resilience" would in future redirect to climate change vulnerability#Resilience. Would that work? EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I prefer climate resilience as it has more of a positive feelgood feel as a title - but as that was an unencyclopedic comment it does not count here I guess Chidgk1 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't want people to feel good, we want them to take action and be worried! ;-) This was also not an encyclopedic comment though. :-) Resilience is a concept to reduce vulnerability, right? EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just done a major cull on climate resilience removing a lot of essay-type content, tangential content, outdated content, poorly sourced content, stuff that was more about climate change adaptation. Now it's a bit easier to see what is still in this article that is of substance. EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that there is a lot to talk about in this section. There is definitely room for a sub-articles on vulnerability for this subject. Chewydog19 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is some feedback I received from User:Jonathanlynn: "I can see the logic of merging the climate resilience and climate vulnerability articles. To me they are flip sides of the same thing. Hope the authors agree! Perhaps worth checking with some of them. In any case in the climate resilience article, it would be important to reference "climate-resilient development" which was an important topic to emerge from the new report that came out at the end of February.

But I am now having second thoughts about my own proposal of a merger, just because the term (or adjective) "climate-resilient" seems to be up and coming. Perhaps once both articles are decluttered it will emerge that they can co-exist as separate articles that refer to each other. If we were to place "climate resilience" as a sub-heading within climate change vulnerability some people might be surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "climate resilience". EMsmile (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Vulnerability literature goes back further than does resilience literature. Vulnerability and risk need to be assessed in order to prescribe actions to increase adaptation and resilience. If the two articles were to be merged the title would have to include both terms. I wouldn't be happy putting resilience in as a sub-heading in an article on and titled vulnerability. ASRASR (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely not in favor of a merge in that they are increasingly differentiated concepts. Now, what is in the article could probably use better disambiguation, Sadads (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I have now removed the merger tag. What kind of better disambiguation do you have in mind, Sadads? Could you propose some wording and refs? Do you mean some sentences that explain explicitly that resilience is not simply the opposite of vulnerability? EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

The "Our World in Data, 18 September 2020" link under the references doesn't take you to the correct link. Jime7878 (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Jime7878(talk) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC).

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasminezapple (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jasminezapple (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)