Tainter, J A and Taylor, T G (2014) Complexity, problem-solving, sustainability and resilience. Building Research & Information, 42(2), pp. 168-181. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Societies often solve problems by developing more complex technologies and institutions. Sustainability emerges from success at solving problems. Complexity is a powerful problem-solving tool, but increased complexity requires resources and carries a metabolic cost. Resilience, a condition of vulnerability or the capacity to recover from a setback, helps achieve sustainability goals. Resilient societies must have reserve problem-solving capacity to adjust to major challenges. The abilities of ancient and modern societies to respond to crises at different states of complexity illustrate the relationship between problem-solving capacity and resilience. Increasing complexity, effective at first, seems inexorably to accumulate and to evolve to diminishing returns, undermining the ability to solve future problems. These processes are illustrated through historical case studies, including urban resilience.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; complexity; energy; problem-solving; resilience; sustainability; temporal perspectives |
| Index terms: | society, vulnerability, case study, urban resilience, built environment, complexity |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, communities and social development, environmental hazards, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, sustainability and resilience |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here