Resilience

Ulrik Ekman

Related terms: ecological system, resources, energy, metabolism, fragility, vulnerability, disturbance, stability, resistance, flexibility, sustainability, adaptation, tipping point, complexity

When reading the news, you may come across a formulation like ‘the flood destroyed thousands of people’s lives but I was struck by the incredible resilience of the survivors,’ This calls to mind an old sense of ‘resilience’: an ability to cope and recover, bouncing back from trauma and adversity. Even today, one can hear the echoes in the English language of the import in the 17^th Century of the Latin verb resilire, meaning to rebound or to recoil. ‘Resilience’ is a term that reemerges with increasing frequency in everyday discourse today but also notably across the discourses in the sciences. For instance, it increased dramatically in everyday usage due to the need to recover from the traumatic experiences relating to the COVID-19 pandemic (Forrester 2025). ‘Resilience’ here also points more scientifically towards the complex interactions at stake in such an ability, something that calls upon cultural collective systems of belief and practices along with neurobiological contributions from genes, neural circuitry, the immune system, and stress-response systems (Kaye-Kauderer et al. 2021).

In the context of climate change in the Anthropocene and the discourses evolving in the environmental humanities, its usage is increasing and expanding. However, since its ascribed meanings are multiplying, its emergent and polysemantic character can make it difficult to grasp just as it can seem to risk being discarded because its relevance and specificity are watered down over time, not unlike the related term ‘sustainability’ (Caradonna 2018). Nonetheless, in the first two decades of the 21^st Century it remains a pregnant, thought-provoking term with whose ascriptions of meanings certain critical and creative efforts can be pursued.

In environmental humanities usage, the term appears as a key part of attempts to address pressing environmental problems in humanist but also transdisciplinary ways. This often concerns investigating questions of the meanings, cultures, values, and power relations at stake in how environments and humans interrelate in more or less changing and lasting manners.

In such contexts, the term retains echoes of its senses in physics. Here, the term hints at a capacity for resistance that has changed bounce or makes it ricochet off. It notably also points to a capacity for robust ‘bouncing back,’ in the sense of being able to return to its shape in the way that rubber would after being pressed, bent, pulled, or stretched. Ceramics display significantly less resilience in this sense, due to its lower elasticity. Materials science since the 19^th Century thus considers resilience the ability of a material to absorb energy when it is deformed elastically, and then to release that energy in a return to its original state. Proof resilience is the elastic limit or the maximum energy that can be absorbed without generating a lasting distortion or break due to stress and strain (Gere and Goodno 2013).

Moreover, environmental humanities usage often echoes biologically or ecologically inflected discourse by pointing towards a type of adaptive ‘bouncing back’ often ascribed to complex dynamic and living entities and systems. Notions of biological resilience still typically draw on insights from ecosystem studies and define it as ‘the mechanisms and processes across biological levels that enable systems to resist disturbance and/or recover over time back to a steady state after perturbations’ (Thorogood et al. 2023). In ecological discourse, ‘resilience’ means to have the capacity to secure continued existence by way of having the flexibility to adapt to new environmental situations and circumstances. C. B. Holling’s early work introduced the concept of ecology and environmental studies (Holling 1973). He defined the resilience of an ecosystem as the measure of its ability to absorb changes and still exist, contrasting resilience and stability as two key traits of an ecological system.

On this path, ‘resilience’ can mean being capable of adjusting in interactions with other entities within holobionts, which are usually thought of as assemblages of a host and many other species living in or around it to form an ecological unit through symbiosis and parasitism. This kind of definition points towards the ability of an ecosystem to persist by adapting, maintaining or recovering its structures and functions of nutrient cycling and biomass reproduction also when confronted by disturbance or perturbation.

The ecologically inflected use of the term includes the recognition of a multivalence often left silent in other fields. Most often, ‘resilience’ is simply assumed to be a positive feature of an entity or a system, but some environmental humanities work is akin to ecological studies by explicitly pointing out that this is not always so. An ecosystem can be resilient in the sense of remaining locked in an undesirable state or on a negative transition path. An ecological example would be a eutrophic lake where an excess of nutrients leads to hypoxia or depleted oxygen levels, loss of fish, and an increase in pests. Another example would be the self-destruction of a species due to overabundant reproduction, i.e., due to the overpopulation and depletion of the resources in its environmental niche.

Often, environmental humanities work considerably extends adaptively inflected definitions of the term, so that ‘resilience’ also encompasses a lifeform’s capacity for perceiving, understanding, reflecting critically upon, and behaviorally changing how holobiontic entities, including the lifeform itself, interact and exchange resources. This kind of definition brings the term much closer to the kind of ‘resilience’ often connected with intelligent and perhaps specifically human forms of life and thus with more anthropological, sociological, and psychological senses of the term.

This is the case in everyday discursive usages concerning climate anxiety, for example. Here, ‘resilience’ very often comes with connotations of an individual, a group, a generation, or a society having the mental, emotional, and behavioral resources and the skills to cultivate and practice coping strategies qua adapting to adversity or challenging life experiences, such as anthropogenically forced climate change. The term is associated with the development of flexible adaptation to external and internal conditions and demands. It concerns the ability to ‘bounce back’ by successfully adapting to stressors, crises, and trauma (Bonanno 2004), i.e., maintaining existence and well-being in the face of climate adversity (Norris, Tracy, and Galea 2009).

The use of ‘resilience’ in the environmental humanities is overdetermined by 75 years of systems-theoretical developments. In recent influential treatments, ‘resilience’ is defined in contrast to rigidity and brittleness: a system’s ability to persist or survive in a variable environment (Meadows and Wright 2008). In this context, ‘resilience’ is considered to arise from a rich structure of feedback loops that can operate in various re-balancing ways to restore a system after some considerable perturbation. Such loops provide ‘resilience’ by working at different time scales and with redundancies. It follows that ‘resilience’ is different from being static or permanent over time. Resilient systems are complexly dynamic, and the kinds of states being restored can include short oscillations, periodic breaks, long succession cycles, and points of climax or collapse.

Nonetheless, sustainability science discourses often retain echoes of earlier notions of systemic robustness and balancing qua operative homeostasis, especially when climate change is supposed to be a development that can be technologically and scientifically mitigated by existing and relatively stable systems that can return to balance after disturbances. This echoes technological and engineering notions of systemic ‘resilience,’ i.e., the stability that characterizes a machine or a device that operates in a narrow range of circumstances.

If this remains a preferred and relatively dominant usage in everyday practice, it has increasingly been challenged and replaced by notions of ‘resilience’ informed by less reductive and more complexity-oriented research concerning systemic adaptation. If the early work by Holling assumed that ecosystems exist in an equilibrium to which they can return after disturbance, later work tends to point towards ecosystems as always already dynamic and continually evolving in response to niche or environmental influences over time. This leads to different definitions of ‘resilience’; e.g., a self-organizing capacity to preserve actual and potential structures and functions under constantly changing circumstances (Klein, Nicholls, and Thomalla 2003; B.H. Walker and Salt 2006). For example, the resilience of a coastal zone in the Anthropocene might well be regarded as a very complex dynamics of processual interrelationships among ecological, biological, socio-technical and political-economic processes. Such processes generate a coastal system that does not have an origin or equilibrium state but remains continually varying. Moreover, here changes are not isolated events from which the coastal system may or may not recover but are rather co-generators of adaptations occurring in different ways and at different times.

Systems theory has recently been coloured in particular by transition theory (Grin, Schot, and Rotmans 2010; Rotmans and Loorbach 2009) and variants of complex adaptive systems theory (Holland 2006; Lansing 2003; Preiser et al. 2018). These types of systems theoretical developments can be said to enjoy a certain privileged status in the sciences, sustainability science in the early 21^st Century in particular, and contribute to a complexity-theoretical turn. In more specific operative terms, food-web research, for example, has demonstrated that ecosystem stability increased as the complexity, or number of interactions among species, increased. Ecological studies have also shown that holobionts qua communities of species are more robust when more diverse and complex, although this means more unstable numbers of members among the species involved. Here, ecosystemic resilience qua robustness is found to be augmented by nodal flexibility: elasticity, or a lack of fixity and rigidity, on the plane of its components makes for more overall resilience.

Insights such as these have gradually led to significantly more departures from the more homeostatic notions. It has increased focus on the capacity for adaptation in ‘resilience,’ at the level of the overall systemic type, and on the embrace of a wider range of changing factors or circumstances. It has permitted recognition of more complex and more flexibility- and instability-oriented definitions of ‘resilience’ (Folke 2006; Folke et al. 2010; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Rockström et al. 2014).

Here, the term is not so much associated with robustness or the capability of rebounding from perturbation to return to equilibrium in a systemic landscape whose regimes are oriented towards a single attractor. ‘Resilience’ is instead typically used with a wider reference across Earth system science to more uncertain, dynamic, longer-term flexibility in a complex adaptive sense. It is considerably closer to the notion of systemic non-brittleness: being capable of ‘graceful’ or flexible extensibility of a system type when surprise events challenge existing systemic boundaries. It is close to the notion of a whole set of dynamic systemic network architectures that can maintain the ability to adapt their structures and functions to future surprises as climatic and environmental conditions evolve.

When deploying and operationalizing such notions of ‘resilience’ in environmental humanities contexts, it is noteworthy that the term often comes freighted with both descriptive and normative goals, mixed and ambiguous because only partially explicit and partially left implicit (Carpenter et al. 2001). The term typically refers descriptively to the deep processual and structural capacity for adaptive change in complex social, ecological, and technological systems, but it typically does so by granting different normative weights to these classes of systems. When considering everyday discourse as well as research discourse in the environmental humanities, it might be particularly important to observe whether it will continue to hold that hegemonic usage tends to grant primary normative value to social systems, secondary value to technological systems, and tertiary value to environmental systems. This is a systemic normative tendency to reaffirm anthropocentrism along with modern Western goals of development and progress that were also operative in earlier attempts to define the closely related term ‘sustainability.’ A good example is the Brundtland report for the United Nations that defined ‘sustainability’ as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, 16).

The more recent key work done under the aegis of the United Nations is also a case in point. Here, the general understanding of ‘resilience’ points towards the ability of a human society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management. The specific definition operative in the work of the UN Sustainable Development Group remains closely aligned with the key human values of earlier reports: “Resilience is the ability of individuals, households, communities, cities, institutions, systems and societies to prevent, resist, absorb, adapt, respond and recover positively, efficiently and effectively when faced with a wide range of risks while maintaining an acceptable level of functioning without compromising long-term prospects for sustainable development, peace and security, human rights and well-being for all” (United Nations 2020, 11).

The very influential work undertaken in the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) treats ‘resilience’ under the rubric of adaptation. Here, the term refers to the earlier homeostatic notion of bouncing back and returning to a previous state after a disturbance, to the later notion of an ability to maintain essential function, identity and structure, but also to the more complex notion of having a capacity for transformative transitions (IPCC 2022, 7).

The definitions from the UN and the IPCC agree on emphasizing an anthropocentric line of approach. The transitions at stake are aimed at making possible the adaptation required for high levels of human health and well-being, economic and social resilience, ecosystem health, and planetary health, perhaps in that order.

This type of approach holds also for many ascriptions of meaning found in the environmental humanities subfields. A sociocultural theoretical line of work would tend to reproduce an anthropocentric weighted definition of ‘resilience’ is defined as ‘the capacity of a community or social group to overcome challenges and perhaps improve conditions, drawing on a shared socioeconomic and historical background, institutions, and the cultural resources qua a set of beliefs, ideals, attitudes, and values.’ Anthropocentrism is also implicitly assumed if cultural studies work on ‘resilience’ assumes it to mean ‘the capacity for adaptive transformation of a normative cultural community collaborating creatively once the physical environment changes.’ Something similar can be the case for research in environmental aesthetics confronting experiences of climate guilt, shame, and sadness, along with estrangement and uncertainty, but also awe, beauty, and perhaps hopeful wonder. Such environmental aesthetics work will reiterate an anthropocentric normative bias if ‘resilience’ is used in the sense of ‘our capacity to bounce back from the experience of the uncertain and uncontrollable entanglement of human and natural forces, responding in such ways that our aesthetic attitudes might improve future treatment of the environment.’

For everyday discourse as well as for usage in environmental humanities research concerned with the relations between humans and milieux it might be important to inquire and discuss whether and then how ‘resilience’ is and should be defined anthropocentrically over and above biocentrically or ecocentrically.

In the middle of the second decade of the 21^st Century, the hegemonic approach to resilience in research mirrors work on sustainability and appears to favour a late modern, anthropocentric, and weak notion of resilience rather than a strong and more-than human-centric one that questions the implications and consequences for life forms and ecosystems of the great acceleration in modernity. On the one hand, recent weak resilience approaches tend to privilege adaptive human management of risk and choose to view systemic societal perturbations as occasions for human learning as well as progressive and profitable innovation (green growth, sustainable development). It is assumed that anthropogenically generated capital, energy, technology, and resources can replace most if not all of what is found environmentally. On the other hand, recent strong resilience approaches tend to emphasize that the environment generates and offers processes and functions that human initiatives and technologies cannot replace (e.g., biodiversity, pollination, fertile soil, clean air, clean water, and climate regulation are considered irreplaceable). Strong resilience approaches thus consider systemic climate change perturbations as occasions for seeking alternatives to late modern acceleration and for securing ecological integrity.

Often, the hegemonic weak reliance approaches are accompanied by a refusal of the limits of growth (Meadows and Rome 1972) and by ascriptions of value following the liberal politics and economics that have held sway since the rise of economics as a modern science towards the end of the 19^th Century and notably since the rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s, in parallel with the dawn of the ecological movement. The genealogy of the concept ‘resilience’ can be shown to intensify and universalize such a refusal of limits, even within the work of a single influential researcher such as Holling who coined the term (J. Walker 2020). The early 1973 work by Holling did much to complex ecosystemic research and displayed quite some emphasis on conservation and on attempts to work with ‘resilience’ in terms of probabilities of extinction. The later work since the mid-1990s (Gunderson and Holling 2002) subordinates this to an agenda of global adaptive resource management whose learning and ‘thriving’ innovation actions naturalize neoliberal strategies and implicitly work to normalize a variant of ‘creative environmental destruction.’

Debates concerning whether to displace values and descriptive approaches from weak to strong resilience, from anthropocentrism via biocentrism to ecocentrism, appear to oscillate between preemptive and precautionary positions. The debates not least turn around the issues of (ir)reversibility and (in)finitude. It is as if many disciplines in the sciences are still debating while weighing ‘resilience’ in the 21^st Century, having trouble deciding between two main ways of seeing adaptation. The debates appear to leave it one option to tend towards seeing ‘resilience’ in a ‘weak’ fashion as if adaptation concerns a general systemic process in which the quantity of energy and matter is infinite and permits endless transformations or conversions, presumably profitably and for the better. However, the strong resilience parts of the debates keep problematizing this by drawing, often implicitly, on the 2^nd law of thermodynamics (1865) which states that the entropy of a closed system will increase irreversibly over systemic transformations in time. Here, adaptation plays out on a historical plane of finitude as a dissipative trajectory for any one system, involving systemic waste, disorder, depletion, and eventual unavailability of energy to do work.

Proponents of weak resilience approaches appear to take for granted that material resources, energy, technological innovation, social and economic growth and progress are infinite, de jure and de facto. Proponents of strong resilience appear to assume that the limits to the resilience of planet Earth are both ideal and very real. In this latter view, climate change is a major and growing driver of biodiversity loss and ecosystemic collapses, both of which are necessary to avoid contributing to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (Ross 2009).

The debate over this distinction currently appears suspended, quite asymmetrically in favour of the more humanly comfortable weak resilience approaches. This is so although existing strong work on complexity theory, dissipative systems, ecosystems, life, and economics might well point towards the need for a descriptive and normative alteration and inversion of the current kind of asymmetry (Bonaiuti 2011; Capra and Luisi 2014; Georgescu-Roegen 1971; Nicolis and Prigogine 1977; Odum 1983; Prigogine 1980; Prigogine and Stengers 1984).

Perhaps early insights from within systems theory can point the debate towards the emergence of a more complex approach to resilience than an oppositional deadlock. The continued existence of complex interdependent systems has been shown to call for the prevention of the maximization of any variable. Continued increases in any one variable will result in and will be limited by irreversible changes in the system. In such systems, it remains key to allow certain variables to alter (Ashby 1945; Bateson 2000, 124). It appears likely that variables such as ‘human,’ ‘profit,’  ‘growth,’ and ‘progress’ are candidates for alteration, along with ‘extracted resources,’  ‘fossil fuel,’ and ‘technology.’ The complexly open question of alteration is: how, and with what sense of justice?

References

Ashby, W. R. 1945. “Effect of Controls on Stability.” Nature 155 (3930): 242–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/155242b0.

Bateson, Gregory. 2000. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bonaiuti, Mauro. 2011. From Bioeconomics to Degrowth: Georgescu-Roegen's 'New Economics' in Eight Essays.Routledge Studies in Ecological Economics. New York: Routledge.

Bonanno, G. A. 2004. “Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive after Extremely Aversive Events?” Am Psychol 59 (1): 20–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.20.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Capra, Fritjof, and Pier Luigi Luisi. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caradonna, Jeremy L. 2018. Routledge Handbook of the History of Sustainability. London: Routledge.

Carpenter, Steve, Brian Walker, J. Marty Anderies, and Nick Abel. 2001. “From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What?” Ecosystems (New York) 4 (8): 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9.

Folke, Carl. 2006. “Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social–Ecological Systems Analyses.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253–267. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Folke, Carl, Stephen Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, and Johan Rockström. 2010. “Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.” Ecology and Society 15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420.

Forrester, Megan. 2025. “5 Years since Covid Declared Public Health Emergency in Us, Still Killing Thousands.” ABC News, January 31, 2025, 2025. Accessed 2025/02/19/09:14:23. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/5-years-covid-declared-public-health-emergency-killing/story?id=118316756.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gere, James M., and Barry J. Goodno. 2013. Mechanics of Materials. 8th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Grin, John, Johan Schot, and Jan Rotmans. 2010. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. London: Routledge.

Gunderson, Lance H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Holland, John H. 2006. “Studying Complex Adaptive Systems.” Journal of systems science and complexity 19 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z.

Holling, C. S. 1973. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual review of ecology and systematics 4 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.

IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Edited by H. O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama.Contribution of Working Group Ii to the Sixth Assessment Report. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaye-Kauderer, Halley, Jordyn H. Feingold, Adriana Feder, Steven Southwick, and Dennis Charney. 2021. “Resilience in the Age of Covid-19.” BJPsych Advances 27 (3): 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2021.5.

Klein, Richard J. T., Robert J. Nicholls, and Frank Thomalla. 2003. “Resilience to Natural Hazards: How Useful Is This Concept?” Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 5 (1): 35–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001.

Lansing, J. Stephen. 2003. “Complex Adaptive Systems.” Annual review of anthropology 32 (1): 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093440.

Meadows, Donella H., and Club of Rome. 1972. The Limits to Growth; a Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.

Meadows, Donella H., and Diana Wright. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub.

Nicolis, G., and I. Prigogine. 1977. Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. New York: Wiley.

Norris, Fran H., Melissa Tracy, and Sandro Galea. 2009. “Looking for Resilience: Understanding the Longitudinal Trajectories of Responses to Stress.” Social Science & Medicine 68 (12): 2190–2198. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.043.

Odum, Howard T. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. New York: Wiley.

Preiser, Rika, Reinette Biggs, Alta De Vos, and Carl Folke. 2018. “Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Organizing Principles for Advancing Research Methods and Approaches.” Ecology and society 23 (4): 46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446.

Prigogine, I. 1980. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I., and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order out of Chaos. 1st ed. Boulder, CO: New Science Library.

Rockström, J., M. Falkenmark, T. Allan, C. Folke, L. Gordon, A. Jägerskog, M. Kummu, M. Lannerstad, M. Meybeck, D. Molden, S. Postel, H. H. G. Savenije, U. Svedin, A. Turton, and O. Varis. 2014. “The Unfolding Water Drama in the Anthropocene: Towards a Resilience-Based Perspective on Water for Global Sustainability.” Ecohydrology 7 (5): 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1562.

Ross, Andrea. 2009. “Modern Interpretations of Sustainable Development.” Journal of Law and Society 36 (1): 32–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00455.x.

Rotmans, Jan, and Derk Loorbach. 2009. “Complexity and Transition Management.” Journal of industrial ecology 13 (2): 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x.

Thorogood, Rose, Ville Mustonen, Alexandre Aleixo, Pedro J. Aphalo, Fred O. Asiegbu, Mar Cabeza, Johannes Cairns, Ulrika Candolin, Pedro Cardoso, Jussi T. Eronen, Maria Hällfors, Iiris Hovatta, Aino Juslén, Andriy Kovalchuk, Jonna Kulmuni, Liisa Kuula, Raisa Mäkipää, Otso Ovaskainen, Anu-Katriina Pesonen, Craig R. Primmer, Marjo Saastamoinen, Alan H. Schulman, Leif Schulman, Giovanni Strona, and Jarno Vanhatalo. 2023. “Understanding and Applying Biological Resilience, from Genes to Ecosystems.” npj Biodiversity 2 (1): 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00022-6.

United Nations, UN. 2020. United Nations Common Guidance on Helping Build Resilient Societies. New York: UN.

Walker, B. H., and David Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Walker, Jeremy. 2020. “Genealogies of Resilience: From Conservation to Disaster Adaptation.” More Heat than Life: The Tangled Roots of Ecology, Energy, and Economics, 311–339. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3936-7.