乡村是生态涵养的主体区，良好的生态环境既是乡村的最大优势和宝贵财富，也是新时代乡村振兴全面实现的重要基底。随着现代社会城镇化、工业化快速推进，我国乡村地区正面临着外部不确定性灾害风险与内部空心化、景观破碎、环境污染、生态退化交织叠加的多重挑战，消解乡村生态环境脆弱性、提高风险抵抗能力、实现绿色可持续发展为目标的乡村生态环境治理现代化建设与治理能力提升，成为社会各界普遍关切的议题。
      “韧性”作为物理学领域的概念，本意指物质材料变形但不易发生折断和破裂的特性，后被引入广阔学科视野，并在公共管理学、社会学领域用以探讨社会群体、组织或国家暴露在冲击扰动下的脆弱性，以及在遭受冲击扰动时表现出的应对能力和恢复发展能力。可见，“韧性”内涵与现代复杂变化背景下的乡村生态环境治理所追求的能力提升目标具有内在契合性，而传统意义的乡村生态环境刚性管理模式在复杂风险社会背景下的效能式微，也为韧性治理的发展提供了重要契机。因此，本文基于乡村生态环境问题的复杂性及生态系统脆弱性特征，在乡村生态环境治理场域嵌入韧性能力内涵，进而从理论与实践层面对乡村生态环境韧性治理的概念内涵、发展缘起、现实表征与影响机理进行学术探讨，具有重要理论价值和现实意义。
      本文在深入剖析风险社会理论、自主自治理论、适应性循环理论以及整体性治理理论的核心要义和内在联系基础上，尝试对经典理论进行本土化调适与创新应用，构建起一个“过程—能力—结构”相结合的乡村生态环境韧性治理分析框架，在一定程度上填补已有研究在该问题的理论缺口。在此基础上，文章首先基于历史制度主义分析范式和逻辑框架，从历史与现实相结合的视域，对我国乡村生态环境韧性治理过程维度的发展演进进行全面检视和系统回溯，追踪韧性治理模式的历史缘起及发展动因；然后基于突变级数模型，量化考察乡村生态环境韧性治理能力维度的现实表征和时空分异，并运用定性比较分析方法，深入探究乡村生态环境韧性治理结构维度的多重复杂影响因素及其作用机理；最后在理论分析和现实检验基础上，提炼出乡村生态环境韧性治理体系建构的路径建议，以期为乡村生态环境韧性治理模式创新与治理能力提升提供有益借鉴。
      通过研究，本文作出如下贡献，得出如下研究结论：
      第一，首次将“韧性”运用于乡村生态环境治理。从国内外大量的研究文献梳理中可以看出，本文首次系统地将“韧性”这一概念运用于乡村生态环境治理场域之中。文章认为，乡村生态环境韧性治理是以现代乡村社会生态系统复杂性和内外部冲击扰动为前提，通过整体性的治理结构重塑与调适，全面提升乡村生态环境及其治理系统的风险抵御、恢复和调整适应能力，从而增进乡村生态福祉、实现美丽宜居与生态效益并重的新型复杂适应性治理模式。
      第二，乡村生态环境治理模式从传统管理范式向韧性治理的变迁转型与政治制度背景、经济体制改革等要素构成的宏观历史情境紧密相连，并受到多方利益主体动态博弈以及价值观念确立和渗透等结构性因素共同影响；乡村生态环境治理模式变迁过程中因学习效应、协作效应和适应期效应的交替存在产生路径依赖，使传统管理模式和韧性治理模式在一段时期内走上自我强化的渐进性发展轨迹；乡村生态环境过往政策体系及传统管理模式本身存在的薄弱环节，成为推动制度变革和现代韧性治理模式创新发展的动力来源。
      第三，乡村生态环境韧性治理面临着自然灾害、人类活动及治理系统结构本身层面的内外部冲击扰动影响，本文运用突变级数模型作为分析工具，量化探索乡村生态环境在风险扰动下的非线性连续渐变与跳跃式突变现象，提出乡村生态环境韧性治理的能力表征。研究表明，我国乡村生态环境韧性治理在较为扎实的发展基础下总体上呈现稳中向好趋势，并逐渐迈向高韧性层次，乡村生态环境及其治理系统的抵抗能力、恢复能力以及调整与可持续发展能力均表现出持续上升和突破态势，但内外部冲击扰动的涌现及其对治理成效的威胁依然严峻；乡村生态环境韧性治理在空间格局上呈现由东部向西部的阶梯状分布，并具有不同省份、不同地区之间对韧性治理模式的追赶学习和广泛践行效应。
      第四，乡村生态环境韧性治理在治理结构维度受到经济发展、政治动力、思想文化、多元主体参与格局、治理政策完整性、治理方式多样化以及治理资源整合程度等内外因素深刻影响与形塑。多元主体参与以及由产业发展、生态修复、污染防治、人居环境改善等构成的多措并举的治理方式和路径，在一定程度上可视为推动乡村生态环境韧性治理的必要条件；乡村生态环境韧性治理的多维度影响因素表现出多重并发、耦合互动的协同效应，根据影响因素之间的联系与差异，可具体概括为内生风险治理型、内生综合发展型和内外互动治理型三种典型的乡村生态环境韧性治理组态作用机理。在此基础上，乡村生态环境韧性治理体系构建，应在目标感知层面实现治理动机从回应性到预见性的转变、治理结构从碎片化到整体性的优化，以及治理能力从抵抗力到恢复力、再到适应发展能力的逐层递进；在具体行动中，着力巩固多元主体共治格局，健全正式制度与非正式制度相辅相成、有机统一的乡村生态环境韧性治理制度体系，并创新政策工具，使生产、生活与生态相融合的常态化韧性治理政策体系与风险预测、响应和适应高效协同的非常态化韧性治理路径安排整合贯通。

    A good ecological environment is the greatest advantage and precious wealth of rural areas. However, with the continuous and rapid development of urbanization and industrialization in modern society, China’s rural areas are facing multiple challenges from external uncertainties and potential risks, such as landscape fragmentation, environmental pollution and ecological degradation. In this context, the issue on developing a modern rural ecological environment governance system and improving governance capacity, which aims to eliminate the vulnerability of rural ecological environment, improve risk resistance and achieve sustainable development, has become the general concern of the whole society. 
    “Resilience” as early as in physics, refers to the characteristic of material that deformation but not easy to break off, was introduced into a broad discipline field of vision. In the fields of public management and social science, resilience is used to discuss the vulnerability of social groups, organizations or countries exposed to shocks, as well as the resistance and recoverability from shocks. It can be seen that the connotations of resilience are consistent with the goals pursued by rural ecological environment governance in modern complex risk society, and the declining effectiveness of the traditional rigid governance also provides an important opportunity for the development of resilience government. Therefore, based on the complexity of rural ecological environment problems and the characteristics of ecosystem vulnerability, this paper embedded the connotation of resilience ability into the dimension of rural ecological environment governance, and then discussed the concept definition, development origin, realistic representation and influence mechanism of rural ecological environment resilience governance, which has important theoretical value and practical significance.
    Based on the in-depth analysis of risk society theory, self-Governance theory, adaptive cycle model and holistic governance theory, this paper tries to make adjustment and application of the classical theory, then constructs an “process-ability-structure” integrated framework of rural ecological environment resilience governance, which to some extent realized the theoretical breakthrough of existing research on this issue. On this basis, firstly, on the basis of historical institutionalism analytical paradigm, this paper comprehensively examines the evolution of China’s rural ecological environment governance model, and traces the historical origin and development motivation of resilience governance. Secondly, this paper uses the catastrophe model to quantitatively analyze the realistic representation of rural ecological environment resilience governance in time series and spatial distribution, and uses the fsQCA to deeply explore the multiple and complex influencing factors and their mechanism of rural ecological environmental resilience governance. Finally, combined with theoretical analysis and empirical conclusions, this paper puts forward some suggestions for the construction of rural ecological environment resilience governance system, in order to provide useful reference for the improvement of rural ecological environment resilience governance capabilities. 
    Through the research, this paper makes the following contributions and draws the following research conclusions:
    First, this paper applies “resilience” to rural ecological environment governance for the first time. It can be seen from a large number of research literatures at home and abroad that this paper systematically applies the concept of resilience to rural ecological environment governance for the first time. This paper proposes that the rural ecological environment resilience governance is a new type of complex adaptive governance model. It takes the complexity of the modern rural social ecosystem and the shocks and disturbances it faces as the background, and through the reconstruction and adjustment of the holistic governance structure, so as to improve the ability of rural ecological environment to resist and adapt the risks, and then enhance rural ecological well-being and achieve the goal of paying equal attention to both livability and ecological benefits.
    Second, the transition of the rural ecological environment governance model from the traditional paradigm to the resilience governance is closely related to the macro-historical situation composed of the political background, economic system reform and other elements, and is jointly affected by the dynamic game of multi-stakeholders and the establishment and penetration of values and other structural factors. In the process of rural ecological environment governance model changes, path dependence occurs due to the alternating existence of learning effect, collaboration effect and adaptation period effect, which makes the current governance model embark on a self-reinforcing development trajectory within a period of time, and the vulnerable spots in the traditional governance model of rural ecological environment itself has become the driving force for the innovation and development of the resilience governance model.
    Third, rural ecological environment resilience governance is faced with internal and external shocks and disturbances at the level of natural disasters, human activities, and the governance system itself. In this part, the catastrophe model is used as an analytical tool to quantitatively explore the nonlinear continuous gradual change and jump mutation phenomenon of rural ecological environment under risk disturbance, and to analyze the realistic representation of rural ecological environment resilience governance. The results show that the resilience management of rural ecological environment in China shows a trend of stability and improvement on the whole, and gradually moves to the level of high resilience. The resistance, recovery, adjustment and sustainable development capabilities of the rural ecological environment and its governance system have shown a trend of continuous improvement, but the threat of internal and external shocks and disturbances to governance effectiveness is still severe. In terms of spatial differences, the resilience governance of rural ecological environment presents a ladder-like distribution from the east to the west, and different provinces and regions have shown catch-up learning and extensive practice of resilience governance.
    Fourth, the resilience governance of rural ecological environment is deeply influenced by internal and external factors, such as economic development, political motivation, ideology and culture, participation of multiple subjects, integrity of governance policies, diversification of governance methods and integration of governance resources. To a certain extent, it can be regarded as a necessary condition for promoting resilience governance of rural ecological environment with the participation of multiple subjects or the combination of different methods. And the multi-dimensional influencing factors of rural ecological environment resilience governance showed multiple concurrent, which were summarized as three typical influencing mechanisms named the type of endogenous risk governance, the type of endogenous comprehensive development, and the type of internal and external interactive governance. On this basis, the construction of rural ecological environment resilience governance system should realize the transformation of governance motivation from responsiveness to predictability, the optimization of governance framework from fragmentation to integrality, and the improvement of governance capacity from resistance to resilience. Then, a multi-subject co-governance pattern should be formed, the institutional system in which the formal system and the informal system are complementary should be built up, and it is necessary to innovate policy tools that combine normal rural ecological environment governance with abnormal resilience governance.