The rebound curve is a poor model of resilience

The rebound curve remains the most prevalent model for conceptualizing, measuring, and explaining resilience for engineering and community systems by tracking the functional robustness and recovery of systems over time. (It also goes by many names, including the resilience curve, the resilience triangle, and the system functionality curve, among others.) Despite longstanding recognition that resilience is more than rebound, the curve remains highly used, cited, and taught. In this article, we challenge the efficacy of this model for resilience and identify fundamental shortcomings in how it handles system function, time, dynamics, and decisions - the key elements that make up the curve. These oversimplifications reinforce misconceptions about resilience that are unhelpful for understanding complex systems and are potentially dangerous for guiding decisions. We argue that models of resilience should abandon the use of this curve and instead be reframed to open new lines of inquiry that center on improving adaptive capacity in complex systems, rather than on functional rebound. We provide a list of questions to help future researchers communicate these limitations and address any implications on recommendations derived from its use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PNAS Nexus
Published
2025-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf052
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.67

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The rebound curve is a poor model of resilience

David Alderson, Daniel A. Eisenberg, Thomas P. Seager
7 citations
PNAS Nexus
Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
6.67
article

The rebound curve is a poor model of resilience

David Alderson, Daniel A. Eisenberg, Thomas P. Seager
article en
7 citations

Abstract

The rebound curve remains the most prevalent model for conceptualizing, measuring, and explaining resilience for engineering and community systems by tracking the functional robustness and recovery of systems over time. (It also goes by many names, including the resilience curve, the resilience triangle, and the system functionality curve, among others.) Despite longstanding recognition that resilience is more than rebound, the curve remains highly used, cited, and taught. In this article, we challenge the efficacy of this model for resilience and identify fundamental shortcomings in how it handles system function, time, dynamics, and decisions - the key elements that make up the curve. These oversimplifications reinforce misconceptions about resilience that are unhelpful for understanding complex systems and are potentially dangerous for guiding decisions. We argue that models of resilience should abandon the use of this curve and instead be reframed to open new lines of inquiry that center on improving adaptive capacity in complex systems, rather than on functional rebound. We provide a list of questions to help future researchers communicate these limitations and address any implications on recommendations derived from its use.

PNAS NexusVol. 4(3)
Naval Postgraduate School (US), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté (FR), Arizona State University (US)
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
6.67
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.