Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in...

17
1 Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A majority of the literature discussing human adaptation to climate change in social- ecological systems has not been quantitative in nature; discussions of adaptation are typically based on theory or anecdotal case studies. It is, however, important to analytically identify which factors lead to successful adaptation to climate change, in order to better determine how communities can cope with climate shocks. This paper reviews the most highly cited studies that empirically identify the drivers of adaptation to climate change, from the fields of human ecology, anthropology, psychology, and economics. The primary factors that are cited are 1) strong institutions and networks, 2) social memory and previous exposure to disturbance, 3) access to capital, 4) cognitive factors, such as perceived risk and ability to adapt, and 5) diversification of livelihoods. While these studies offer insights into the possible drivers of adaptation, there are several ways in which future studies should be improved: new studies should consider 1) biophysical factors that may constrain communities’ ability to adapt, 2) multiple factors within the same multivariate analysis, and 3) the spatial and temporal scale at which these factors may influence adaptation. Based on these considerations, a new analytical framework for identifying the drivers of successful adaptation is outlined. Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Social-ecological systems, or systems where ecosystems and humans are inextricably linked, are facing unpredictable pressures and shocks due to global change and unsustainable human use of resources (Chapin et al., 2010). These shocks may be internal to the system, such as overuse of a particular natural resource, or external, such as possible impacts of climate change. It is difficult to predict the effects of these shocks on social-ecological systems, given that there are often thresholds and non-linearities in the system’s response to disturbance (Liu et al, 2007; Burkett et al, 2005). This inability to predict and respond to future shocks is problematic since it may result in the irreparable loss of ecosystem functions and services, and a subsequent collapse of dependent human livelihoods (Olson, 2003). Scholars and policy makers have called to make social-ecological systems more resilient to change (Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; Box 1). This will enhance the system’s capacity to respond to a wide range of shocks, and ensure that the fundamental ecological and societal functions of the system are not compromised. Although building resilience appears to be a possible strategy to cope with shocks, a clear analytical framework to quantify which factors increase the resilience of a system does not currently exist. Without knowing which system variables to measure or ensure are resilient to shocks, it is almost impossible to determine how to best manage a social-ecological system for

Transcript of Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in...

Page 1: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

1

Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for

Adapting to Change

Meha Jain

Abstract

A majority of the literature discussing human adaptation to climate change in social-

ecological systems has not been quantitative in nature; discussions of adaptation are typically

based on theory or anecdotal case studies. It is, however, important to analytically identify which

factors lead to successful adaptation to climate change, in order to better determine how

communities can cope with climate shocks. This paper reviews the most highly cited studies that

empirically identify the drivers of adaptation to climate change, from the fields of human

ecology, anthropology, psychology, and economics. The primary factors that are cited are 1)

strong institutions and networks, 2) social memory and previous exposure to disturbance, 3)

access to capital, 4) cognitive factors, such as perceived risk and ability to adapt, and 5)

diversification of livelihoods. While these studies offer insights into the possible drivers of

adaptation, there are several ways in which future studies should be improved: new studies

should consider 1) biophysical factors that may constrain communities’ ability to adapt, 2)

multiple factors within the same multivariate analysis, and 3) the spatial and temporal scale at

which these factors may influence adaptation. Based on these considerations, a new analytical

framework for identifying the drivers of successful adaptation is outlined.

Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems

Social-ecological systems, or systems where ecosystems and humans are inextricably

linked, are facing unpredictable pressures and shocks due to global change and unsustainable

human use of resources (Chapin et al., 2010). These shocks may be internal to the system, such

as overuse of a particular natural resource, or external, such as possible impacts of climate

change. It is difficult to predict the effects of these shocks on social-ecological systems, given

that there are often thresholds and non-linearities in the system’s response to disturbance (Liu et

al, 2007; Burkett et al, 2005). This inability to predict and respond to future shocks is

problematic since it may result in the irreparable loss of ecosystem functions and services, and a

subsequent collapse of dependent human livelihoods (Olson, 2003). Scholars and policy makers

have called to make social-ecological systems more resilient to change (Smit and Pilifosova,

2001; Box 1). This will enhance the system’s capacity to respond to a wide range of shocks, and

ensure that the fundamental ecological and societal functions of the system are not compromised.

Although building resilience appears to be a possible strategy to cope with shocks, a clear

analytical framework to quantify which factors increase the resilience of a system does not

currently exist. Without knowing which system variables to measure or ensure are resilient to

shocks, it is almost impossible to determine how to best manage a social-ecological system for

Page 2: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

2

resilience. A new quantifiable framework, therefore, should be created that is based on the

empirical work that has been done to date on social-ecological resilience. This framework should

be inter-disciplinary, given that building resilience in social-ecological systems is an inter-

disciplinary problem (Liu et al, 2007). For example, studies have suggested that the stability of

small-holder agricultural systems to climate variability depends on 1) biophysical (i.e. soil and

climate), 2) social (i.e. community institutions), 3) economic (i.e. market prices for crops), and 4)

ecological (i.e. pest control) factors (Morton, 2007; Howden et al., 2007). Studying resilience in

these complex coupled human and natural systems requires a new sustainability science that is

inherently cross-disciplinary and team-based (Folke et al, 2002).

To help elucidate a possible analytical framework, this paper reviews studies that have

examined resilience to climate change in social-ecological systems from the disciplines of human

ecology, anthropology, economics, and psychology. The review specifically focuses on climate

change given that previous empirical resilience literature is predominately focused on climate

change. It is also important to understand resilience to climate change because climate shocks are

predicted to affect many communities worldwide. This paper will identify which factors may

increase communities’ resilience to climate change. Doing this will help determine which factors

should be considered in future inter-disciplinary studies of resilience, and possible ways to

quantify and consider these variables within a broader framework. This is necessary given that

few if any reviews have simultaneously considered the different disciplinary works on resilience.

It is also timely to create a new analytical framework given that many social-ecological systems

are being used unsustainably and are threatened by new, unpredictable shocks such as climate

change.

Linking Resilience, Adaptive Capacity, and Vulnerability

Although there is a growing body of literature examining the factors that contribute to

resilience in social-ecological systems, many of these studies use different terminology to

describe similar processes. The terms resilience, adaptation, maladaptation, adaptive capacity,

and vulnerability (Box 1) are often used interchangeably, since a universally-accepted

framework for defining these terms and their relationships to one another does not exist

(Gallopin, 2006). Figure 1 describes how these terms are related within a social-ecological

framework.

Page 3: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

3

Consider an agricultural system. Climate variables, such as precipitation, vary from year

to year. Precipitation impacts human livelihoods, since agricultural production is tied to the

amount of water available in a system. If a farmer is entirely dependent on rainfall for his crop

production, he may have high income and yields during ideal precipitation years but low income

and yields when the precipitation is too high (i.e. floods) or too low (i.e. droughts). This farmer is

said to be vulnerable to changes in climate, since his livelihood is very dependent on the

variability in climate. However, a farmer could become less vulnerable to climate by adapting

his livelihood strategies; he could adapt by switching to less climate-dependent livelihoods such

as salaried professions, gaining access to irrigation, or altering cropping strategies to suit current

climate patterns. Adaptation ensures that the farmer maximizes his income despite the variability

in climate. This farmer, whose income is not as heavily dependent on climate, is said to be

resilient to climate change. On the other hand, a farmer may also undergo maladaptation if he

alters his livelihood strategies in a way that make him less resilient to climate change. Certain

farmers are better able to adapt to climate change than others. For instance, a wealthy farmer

who can afford irrigation is better able to adapt to climate change than a poor rain-fed farmer.

This wealthy farmer who has an increased ability to adapt is defined as having increased

adaptive capacity.

Considering this framework, adaptive capacity is seen as one of the primary factors that

promotes the resilience of a system: a system with higher adaptive capacity will be more resilient

to disturbance (Nelson et al., 2007). On the other hand, systems are considered to be vulnerable

if they have low resilience and are greatly impacted by variable climates (Smit and Wandel,

2006). By reviewing studies that identify which factors enhance resilience or decrease

vulnerability, I will modify Figure 1 to create an analytical framework for identifying these

factors and their relative importance.

Factors Facilitating Resilience

I reviewed the most cited literature on adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability to

climate change to identify common drivers that are predicted to enhance adaptive capacity and

limit vulnerability. Specifically, I conducted three different searches in the ISI Web of

Knowledge database using the terms “human adaptation climate change”, “human vulnerability

climate change”, and “adaptive capacity climate change” respectively. Each of these searches

returned between 300 to 500 journal articles. I then read through each article’s title and abstract

Page 4: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

4

to determine whether the paper actually empirically identified factors associated with adaptation

and resilience using either case studies or regional-scale analyses. In addition, this review only

considers papers that were cited ten or more times to control for quality. In sum, over one-

hundred papers that match the above criteria are considered in this review.

To determine what factors may be important for adaptation and resilience, I read through

each paper and identified what drivers were considered to be important for resilience based on

observations in case studies or statistical analyses in multivariate studies. I considered a factor to

be highly cited if it was mentioned in more than five studies. Each of the most cited factors are

described in detail below.

Institutions

One of the most highly cited factors that enhances adaptive capacity is the presence of

local institutions. It is argued that institutions can aid adaptive capacity in two ways: 1)

institutions result in the sustainable use of natural resources, which makes systems more resilient

to climate change; and 2) institutions can increase adaptive capacity by creating both horizontal

and vertical networks (Adger, 2003; Tompkins and Adger, 2004; Folke et al., 2005).

First, many case studies have suggested that certain institutions improve the sustainability

of resource use in community-managed landscapes (Ostrom et al., 1999, Nagendra, 2007, Adger

and Vincent, 2007). Scholars have argued that systems that conserve natural resources and their

supporting ecosystem processes are more resilient to perturbations than degraded ecosystems

with no sustainable use policies (Adger, 2003; Tompkins and Adger, 2004; Folke et al., 2004).

However, the empirical evidence showing this benefit to adaptive capacity is currently weak and

must be better established. This is because these previous studies have not quantified resilience

of the system, and how resilience changes with the presence of institutions.

Second, horizontal networks within and between institutions are thought to enhance

adaptive capacity (Armitage, 2005). Horizontal networks are relationships between people and

groups at the same political scale (e.g. between individuals or village governing bodies). Local

institutions encourage communication among decision-makers, which allow them to adapt

management strategies and be more flexible during times of uncertainty (Berkes et al., 2003;

Ford et al., 2006). Horizontal networks, such as inter-community trade of resources, have been

found to increase resilience to climate variability; inter-community trade between Inuit

communities in Arctic Canada ensured that if one community’s resources were negatively

Page 5: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

5

impacted by climate shocks, necessary resources could still be obtained through trade (Berkes

and Jolly, 2001). Institutions that form vertical networks have also been shown to increase the

adaptive capacity of a system (Adger et al., 2005; Folke et al., 2005). Unlike horizontal

networks, vertical networks form relationships between actors at different political scales (e.g.

between a village governing body and national political leaders). Specifically, case studies in

Trinidad and Tabago suggest that vertical networks between state and government officials as

well as local institutions help with disaster planning for hurricanes. These studies argue that, if a

hurricane were to occur, the strong relationship between the local institution and those in charge

of disaster planning would reduce the negative impacts of the hurricane on the community

(Tompkins and Adger, 2004).

Previous Exposure to Climate Variability and Social Memory

Several economic as well as anthropological case studies have suggested that exposure to

previous climate variability results in communities that are better able to adapt to future change.

Using a Ricardian approach (Box 2), Polsky and Easterling (2001) suggest that districts in the

United States that were historically exposed to climate variability better mitigated the negative

effects of climate shocks on crop yields. Ricardian analyses do not quantify adaptation

specifically, instead they use impact assessments on land value as a proxy for adaptation

(Smithers and Smit, 1997); in this case, land values were used as a proxy for agricultural

adaptation (Mendelsohn et al., 1994). While impressive in spatial scale, these broad-scale

analyses are unable to determine the mechanisms behind why exposure to variability enhances

adaptive capacity. One way to identify mechanisms would be to conduct finer scale mechanistic

case studies within the context of these broad regional patterns (Figure 2).

Several anthropological studies have also stated that exposure to previous climate

variability results in increased adaptive capacity to future change. Case studies qualitatively

suggest possible mechanisms for why exposure to previous variability enhances adaptive

capacity. Experience with previous climate shocks and subsequent effects may result in

increased social memory that better allows communities to adapt to future shocks. For example,

fishing communities in Southeast Asia who had experienced frequent tsunamis in the past were

better able to prepare for and survive the large tsunami that hit in 2004. This is because the

community had social memory in the form of inherited local knowledge of tsunamis as well as

institutional memory allowing for better preparedness (Folke et al., 2005). In addition, farmers in

Page 6: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

6

Southern Canada are more likely to adapt their cropping strategies if they have experienced

drought conditions multiple times over the past several years (Smit et al, 1996). These case

studies suggest that previous variability in climate leads to social memory of adaptation

strategies and their benefits.

Access to Capital and Development

Small-scale case studies and broad-scale analyses examining vulnerability suggest that

access to capital and increased development result in enhanced adaptive capacity (Ziervogel and

Bharwani, 2006; Brooks et al, 2007). Access to capital gives individuals more options to adapt

their use of natural resources in a way that reduces the impacts of climate shocks on their

livelihoods.

Small-scale studies examining the impacts of climate variability on small-holder

agricultural communities in South Africa suggest that poorer farmers have less access to inputs

and opportunities that may ameliorate negative impacts of climate variability (Ziervogel and

Bharwani, 2006). Poorer farmers cannot afford fertilizer or irrigation inputs, making them more

susceptible to present ecological conditions and climate fluctuations. Furthermore, poorer

farmers have less access to other forms of livelihoods that are not dependent on climate

variability, such as business opportunities outside of the agricultural sector.

In addition, broad-scale, national-level studies that consider how a variety of socio-

economic and biophysical factors influence vulnerability suggest that the development level of a

community, measured by increased access to healthcare, higher literacy rates, and increased per

capita income, is a good predictor variable. Specifically, these studies use nation-wide

mortalities and displacements caused after a climatic disturbance, such as a flood or a hurricane,

as a measure of vulnerability. Brooks et al (2007) found that health and education indicators,

which are associated with development, are the best predictors of total deaths after a disaster.

Income has also been shown to be a positive indicator of resilience in communities susceptible to

displacement after flooding (Yohe and Tol, 2002). Therefore, these studies suggest that regional

to global studies of adaptive capacity should consider the overall health, educational, and

economic development of a community as factors in their analyses.

Cognitive Factors

Page 7: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

7

While there are not enough case studies to draw broad-scale conclusions, several

psychology and behavioral economics studies have identified cognitive factors that are

associated with enhanced adaptive capacity. An individual’s risk perception of the likelihood of a

disturbance event has been shown to affect one’s decision to adapt to a disturbance. Perceived

adaptive capacity, coupled with risk perception, also has been shown to play a strong role in

whether an individual adapts to climate change. For example, even if someone believes a

disturbance may occur (i.e. risk perception), he still may not adapt because he believes that there

is nothing he can do to reduce the negative impacts of the disturbance. These perceptions of risk

and adaptive capacity have been found to be positively correlated with decisions to adapt; socio-

cognitive models considering perceived risk and adaptive capacity have explained up to forty

percent of the variance in people’s decisions to adapt to a disturbance (Grothmann and Patt,

2005).

Finally, agent-based models have also been used to determine what factors result in

decisions to adapt to disturbance (Box 2). Specifically, agent-based models have been used to

determine the cause and effect of farmers’ responses to climate variability in Limpopo district,

South Africa (Bharwani et al., 2005). Studies have found that whether a farmer adapts his

cropping strategies based on climate variability depends on the amount of trust that he has in

local climate forecasts. This once again emphasizes the role of cognitive measures in adaptation;

it is possible that accurate climate forecasts will go unused because farmers believe that they are

inaccurate and untrustworthy.

Diversification

Several anecdotal case studies have also suggested that communities enhance their

adaptive capacity by diversifying their livelihood strategies (Howden et al, 2007). This may take

place in two different ways. A community may diversify their primary source of livelihood, by

increasing the range of their livelihood practices (Ziervogel and Bharwani, 2006). For example,

traditional hunting communities in the Arctic diversify the type and amount of animals they hunt

to minimize risk and uncertainty (Berkes and Jolly, 2001). Similarly, farmers in Indian

communities often plant a variety of crops, ranging from those that do well with large amounts

of rain to more drought tolerant crops; this increases the chance of at least one crop succeeding

under unpredictable climate (Saxena et al., 2005). On the other hand, a community may more

broadly diversify their livelihoods by practicing at least two or more livelihoods. For example,

Page 8: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

8

due to increasing climate variability, pastoralists in Kenya are starting to shift towards mixed

agro-pastoral systems (Little, 2000). Added income from agriculture helps ameliorate the

possible loss of income due to climate impacts on pastoralism. On the other hand, agricultural

communities are shifting towards pastoralism in South Africa because they believe agricultural

yields are much more tied to climate shocks than livestock (Thomas et al., 2007). Therefore, by

diversifying their livelihood portfolio, agro-pastoralists minimize risk associated with climate

variability.

Future Directions for Resilience Studies

Although there is a growing body of empirical literature examining the factors that

enhance adaptive capacity, there are several improvements that future studies should make.

Studies should consider how biophysical variables may facilitate or constrain adaptive capacity.

Future studies should also consider multiple drivers of adaptive capacity within the same

analysis. It is also important to consider both the spatial and temporal scale of the factors

identified to enhance adaptive capacity. Based on these considerations, a new empirical

framework for examining resilience to climate change in social-ecological systems is postulated.

Biophysical Variables

To date, most empirical work that examines resilience of social-ecological systems has

overlooked possible biophysical drivers. While scholars may overlook biophysical factors

because they are hesitant to argue for environmental determinism of social processes, it has been

shown that biophysical factors can affect and constrain social processes. Considering biophysical

drivers is necessary given that several factors have been theorized to play a role in constraining

adaptive capacity specifically (Gajbhiye and Mandal, 2009). Soil type may constrain a farmer’s

ability to adapt to climate variability (Luers, 2005); poor soils may not allow particular crops to

thrive, even if they are the ideal crop for a given climate.

Biophysical factors have also been shown to play an important role in influencing the

effectiveness of social institutions. Tucker et al (2007) found that soil nitrogen content, annual

rainfall, and annual temperature were all positively correlated with improved forest conditions,

and these improved forest conditions resulted in stronger institutions. The authors argue that

better forest quality give institutions more incentive to protect forest cover, which make their

Page 9: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

9

institutions stronger and more effective. While this study was not analyzing adaptive capacity

specifically, it suggests that biophysical factors can influence and constrain social processes.

Multi-factor Analyses

Despite the wide variety of factors thought to contribute to adaptive capacity, few studies

have considered multiple factors within the same analysis. Doing so is important to understand

the relative importance and strength of each factor on adaptive capacity. As noted in the section

above, studies have found that cognitive factors of risk as well as exposure to previous

disturbance both enhance adaptive capacity. It is, however, possible that these two factors are

highly correlated; communities that have been historically exposed to disturbance may be better

able to adapt because they have both increased risk perception as well as perceived adaptive

capacity. Exposure to previous disturbance may make it seem more likely that an additional

disturbance will take place (i.e. increased perceived risk) and it may also provide experience with

adapting to a disturbance (i.e. increased perceived adaptive capacity). Therefore, only

considering one factor without the other may exaggerate the real influence of each factor on

adaptive capacity.

It is also important to consider what other factors may be driving people’s actions other

than climate variables. Many studies often attribute changes in agricultural cropping strategies to

changes in climate, when in reality they may simultaneously occur due to a variety of other

factors, including changes in crop prices (Smit et al., 1996). Variability in cropping decisions and

yields has also been attributed to labor supply as well as groundwater quality (Gregory et al.,

2005). Therefore, future studies should collect data on possible non-climate related drivers that

are thought to also influence people’s behavior.

Issues of Scale

The spatial and temporal scale at which each hypothesized driver contributes to adaptive

capacity and resilience must also be examined (Turner et al., 2003; Vincent, 2007). Considering

spatial scale, cognitive factors may act on the individual whereas institutional factors may

influence the community or region more broadly. Considering temporal scale, an individual’s

perceived risk may influence adaptive capacity on a relatively short-term basis; however, longer-

scale processes such as biophysical processes will influence a community’s adaptive capacity on

relatively longer time-scales (Allison and Hobbs, 2004). Studies have also suggested that current

Page 10: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

10

adaptations may be adequate for short-term climate shocks, but are inadequate to ameliorate

long-term climate change. Canadian farmers are currently resilient to climate shocks due to

successful adaptation strategies and technologies (e.g. irrigation), however it is unclear how

these communities will cope with future increased unpredictability in climate (Bryant et al.,

2000). It is clearly important to account for the spatial and temporal scale at which each factor

may have influence on adaptive capacity.

Considering the spatial and temporal limitations of each driver suggests that a

hierarchical study design is needed to understand the drivers of adaptive capacity at different

scales. For instance, broad-scale Ricardian analyses can be conducted to understand which

social, biophysical, and economic factors lead to increased adaptive capacity at the regional-

scale. Smaller nested case studies should then be conducted that examine the effects of finer

scale drivers, such as individual cognitive processes, on local adaptive capacity. While doing this

may not allow different-scale processes to be compared with one another, it will allow for a

detailed understanding of finer-scale processes within the context of broader phenomena.

New Framework

Given the considerations outlined above, a new framework should 1) consider methods to

measure the possible inter-disciplinary drivers currently thought to enhance adaptive capacity, 2)

include biophysical variables, which are often overlooked in current empirical resilience studies,

3) consider the spatial and temporal scales of each factor’s influence on adaptive capacity, and 4)

conduct nested studies to understand finer-scale processes within the context of broader

phenomena. Figure 2 outlines one possible framework.

This new framework provides a more comprehensive method to indentify which factors

contribute to adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. Applying this framework to

agricultural adaptation to climate shocks, analyses should be conducted at both regional and

individual farmer decision-making scales. Considering regional scale processes, networks with

other farming communities may increase a community’s adaptive capacity through trade; during

a dry year, farmers may obtain more drought-resistant seeds from other neighboring

communities. Soil fertility at a regional-scale may also affect adaptive capacity since

communities with higher soil fertility may obtain higher yields even during years with extreme

climate events. A more developed community may have higher adaptive capacity due to

increased infrastructure that helps communities cope with climate shocks, such as wells to

Page 11: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

11

increase access to irrigation. The importance of these regional-scale processes on the resilience

of a community to climate change should be assessed within the same multivariate analysis (e.g.

Ricardian analysis).

After conducting these broader scale analyses, it is important to conduct nested case

studies to determine how these regional processes affect farmers at the individual level. For

example, previous exposure to regional-scale climate variability may influence how an

individual farmer perceives risk and adaptive capacity. The amount of livelihood options

available at the regional scale will also influence the ability of a farmer to adapt his livelihood

strategies at the local level; if a village is not connected to the market, a farmer’s options to

diversify will be limited to local village professions. The regional networks that a village has

with other nearby villages will also influence the decision-making process of an individual

farmer; no matter how well networked a farmer is, he will not have access to new seeds from

other villages if no social or economic networks link his village with other villages. By carefully

selecting case studies within a broader regional analysis, scholars can better determine how

regional processes affect individuals at the local scale.

Case studies should also be selected to highlight possible mechanisms for regional-scale

patterns. For example, if a Ricardian model suggests that social networks are important for

successful adaptation, it is important to select case studies that represent areas with good social

networks and areas with weak social networks to determine how the presence of strong social

networks influences adaptation. Although it will be difficult to select enough villages to gain a

statistical understanding of why social networks are important for adaptive capacity at the

regional level, case studies can offer important qualitative insights into possible mechanisms.

These examples highlight the importance of studying both broad-scale processes and

finer-scale decision-making within the same experimental design. One proposed method to do

this is to use a regional-scale model (e.g. Ricardian model) to determine which variables impact

resilience and their relative strength at the regional level. Researchers should then select case

study regions based on the results of this broad-scale analysis to determine how regional

processes affect decisions at the individual level and to also identify possible mechanisms for the

factor’s importance. Finally, scholars should also use individual-level models (e.g. agent-based

model) to assess what factors influence decision-making and its effects on resilience at the

individual level. This hierarchical, nested approach will elucidate which factors are important for

Page 12: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

12

resilience at a regional level, possible mechanisms for why these regional-scale factors are

important, and which factors are important for resilience at the individual decision-making level.

Conclusions

Given that social-ecological systems are facing unpredictable pressures and disturbances

due to global change and unsustainable use of resources, it is important to understand what

factors may make these systems more resilient to climate change. By doing so, we may be able

to manage systems to cope with a wide range of climate shocks, ensuring that the fundamental

ecological and societal functions of the system are not compromised.

There is a growing body of literature that empirically determines which factors enhance

the adaptive capacity and resilience of social-ecological systems. Here I review these empirical

studies to determine which factors are most cited as drivers of adaptive capacity. In summary, 1)

strong institutions and networks, 2) social memory and previous exposure to disturbance, 3)

access to capital, 4) cognitive factors, such as perceived risk and adaptive capacity, and 5)

diversification of livelihoods are thought to influence adaptive capacity. Current studies are

limited because they 1) neglect biophysical drivers that may constrain adaptive capacity, 2) do

not consider multiple drivers within the same analysis, and 3) often ignore the spatial and

temporal scale of each driver’s effect on adaptive capacity. Based on these considerations, a new

framework is postulated that considers multiple socio-economic and biophysical drivers of

adaptive capacity at local and regional scales. This hierarchical framework should be used to

design new, empirical studies that examine which factors are associated with increased adaptive

capacity; doing so will help determine how social-ecological systems can be made more resilient

to unpredictable climate shocks and future change.

Page 13: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

13

Boxes and Figures

Figure 1. This figure depicts a social-ecological system, where human use of ecosystems results in livelihood

benefits. Individuals or communities are said to be more vulnerable to climate if their livelihoods are directly

dependent on climate patterns. For instance, vulnerable individual’s income fluctuates with changes in precipitation.

Individuals or communities are more resilient to climate if their livelihoods are less dependent on climate patterns.

For instance, individuals may adapt their livelihood strategies in a way where they obtain high incomes even during

extreme climate years (e.g. droughts and floods). The higher the individual or community’s income is across climate

variable years, the more resilient it is to climate change. An individual’s ability to adapt to climate change is defined

as adaptive capacity.

Box 1. Definitions of Vulnerability, Resilience, Adaptation, Maladaptation, and Adaptive Capacity

Related to Climate Change

Vulnerability – Outcome of interest is extremely influenced by climate.

Resilience – Outcome if interest is not influenced by climate. Resilience is increased when the outcome of

interest is maximized across climate variable years.

Adaptation – Alteration of livelihood or management strategies to become more resilient to climate.

Maladaptation – Alteration of livelihood or management strategies that leads to decreased resilience to climate.

Adaptive Capacity – The ability of an individual or communities to adapt to climate change.

Box 2. Analytical Methods to Study Factors that Facilitate Adaptive Capacity and Resilience

Ricardian Models – Land values are used as a proxy for agricultural adaptation. If land values remain high even

during times of unfavorable climates, this suggests that agricultural production is adapted to be resilient to

climate shocks

Agent-based Models – Models that simulate the actions of individuals to determine their effects on the system

as a whole

Socio-cognitive Models – Models that consider the social and cognitive decision-making of individuals to

determine their actions within a system

Vulnerability Studies – These studies typically use multivariate statistics to determine which socio-economic

and biophysical factors lead to the least loss in life or infrastructure after a disturbance at a regional scale

Page 14: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

14

Figure 2. This figure builds on the original framework for analyzing resilience and adaptive capacity outlined in

Figure 1. Both individual and regional-scale factors that may contribute to adaptive capacity are outlined. The figure

suggests that a hierarchical approach should be taken to understand the drivers of adaptive capacity at regional

scales and finer individual decision-making at local scales. Finer scale analyses should be understood within the

broader regional context.

Page 15: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

15

Bibliography Adger, W. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography , 79 (4),

387-404.

Adger, W., & Vincent, K. (2005). Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geosciences , 337 (4), 399-

410.

Adger, W., Hughes, T., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Rockstrom, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal

disasters. Science , 309 (5737), 1036.

Allison, H., & Hobbs, R. (2004). Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the" Lock-in Trap" of the Western Australian

agricultural region. Ecology And Society , 9 (1), 3.

Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental

Management , 35 (6), 703-715.

Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2002). Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic

community. Conservation Ecology , 5 (2), 18.

Bharwani, S., Bithell, M., Downing, T., New, M., Washington, R., & Ziervogel, G. (2005). Multi-agent modelling

of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 360 (1463), 2183.

Brooks, N., Neil Adger, W., & Mick Kelly, P. (2005). The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the

national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change Part A , 15 (2), 151-163.

Bryant, C., Smit, B., Brklachic, M., Johnston, T., Smithers, J., Chiotti, Q., & Singh, B (2000). Adaptation in

Canadian Agriculture to Climatic Variability and Change. Climatic Change 45. 181-201.

Burkett, V., Wilcox, D., Stottlemyer, R., Barrow, W., Fagre, D., Baron, J., et al. (2005). Nonlinear dynamics in

ecosystem response to climatic change: case studies and policy implications. Ecological Complexity , 2 (4), 357-394.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable

development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Journal Information , 31 (5).

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., et al. (2004). Regime shifts,

resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual

Review Of Environment And Resources , 30 (1), 441.

Gajbhiye, K., & Mandal, C. (2009). Agro-ecological zones, their soil resource and cropping systems. Status of Farm

Mechanization in India, CED Documentation. Accessed November .

Ford, J., Smit, B., & Wandel, J (2006). Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay,

Canada. Global Environmental Change 16; 145-160.

Gallopín, G. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental

Change , 16 (3), 293-303.

Gregory, P., Ingram, J., Brklacich, M. (2005), Climate Change and Food Security. Philosophical Transactions:

Biological Sciences. 360 (1463); 2139 - 2148.

Grothmann, T., & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to

climate change. Global Environmental Change Part A , 15 (3), 199-213.

Page 16: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

16

Howden, S., Soussana, J., Tubiello, F., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., & Meinke, H. (2007). Adapting agriculture to

climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104 (50), 19691.

Chapin, S., Carpenter, S., Kofinas, G., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W., et al. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship:

sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 25 (4), 241-249.

Little, P., Smith, K., Cellarius, B., Coppock, D., & Barrett, C. (2001). Avoiding disaster: diversification and risk

management among East African herders. Development and Change , 32 (3), 401-433.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al. (2007). Complexity of

coupled human and natural systems. Science , 317 (5844), 1513.

Luers, A. (2005). The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examining environmental change.

Global Environmental Change Part A , 15 (3), 214-223.

Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W., & Shaw, D. (1994). The impact of global warming on agriculture: a Ricardian

analysis. The American Economic Review , 84 (4), 753-771.

Morton, J. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences , 104 (50), 19680.

Nagendra, H. (2007). Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences , 104 (39), 15218.

Nelson, D., Adger, W., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience

framework.

Olsson, P. (2003). Building capacity for resilience in social-ecological systems. Ph.D Dissertation. Stolkhom

University.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: local lessons,

global challenges. Science , 284 (5412), 278.

Polsky, C., & Easterling, W. (2001). Adaptation to climate variability and change in the US Great Plains: A multi-

scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities. Agriculture .

Saxena, K., Maikhuri, R., & Rao, K. (2005). Changes in agricultural biodiversity: implications for sustainable

livelihood in the Himalaya. Journal of Mountain Science , 2 (1), 23-31.

Smit, B., McNabb, D., & Smithers, J (1996). Agricultural Adaptation to Climatic Variation. Climatic Change, 33. 7-

29.

Smit, B., & Pilifosova, O. (2003). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and

equity. Sustainable Development , 8 (9), 9–28.

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global

Environmental Change , 16 (3), 282-292.

Smithers, J., & Smit, B. (1997). Human adaptation to climatic variability and change. Global Environmental Change

, 7 (2), 129-146.

Tompkins, E., & Adger, W. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate

change? Ecology And Society , 9 (2), 10.

Thomas, D., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H., Hewitson, B (2007). Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer

responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Climatic Change 83; 301-322.

Page 17: Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A ... · Enhancing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: A Quantifiable Framework for Adapting to Change Meha Jain Abstract A

17

Tucker, C., Randolph, J., & Castellanos, E. (2007). Institutions, biophysical factors and history: an integrative

analysis of private and common property forests in Guatemala and Honduras. Human Ecology , 35 (3), 259-274.

Turner, B., Kasperson, R., Matson, P., McCarthy, J., Corell, R., Christensen, L, Eckley, N., Kasperson, J., Luers, A.,

Martello, M., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A, & Schiller, A (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability

science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 (14), 8074-8079.

Vincent, K. (2007). Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global Environmental Change ,

17 (1), 12-24.

Yohe, G., & Tol, R. (2002). Indicators for social and economic coping capacity--moving toward a working

definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change , 12 (1), 25-40.

Ziervogel, G., & Bharwani, S. (2006). Adapting to climate variability: pumpkins, people and policy. Natural

Resources