Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters
12 Aug 2005-Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)-Vol. 309, Iss: 5737, pp 1036-1039
TL;DR: Social and ecological vulnerability to disasters and outcomes of any particular extreme event are influenced by buildup or erosion of resilience both before and after disasters occur.
Abstract: Social and ecological vulnerability to disasters and outcomes of any particular extreme event are influenced by buildup or erosion of resilience both before and after disasters occur. Resilient social-ecological systems incorporate diverse mechanisms for living with, and learning from, change and unexpected shocks. Disaster management requires multilevel governance systems that can enhance the capacity to cope with uncertainty and surprise by mobilizing diverse sources of resilience.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social-ecological systems as mentioned in this paper, which emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales.
Abstract: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social–ecological systems. This article presents the origin of the resilience perspective and provides an overview of its development to date. With roots in one branch of ecology and the discovery of multiple basins of attraction in ecosystems in the 1960–1970s, it inspired social and environmental scientists to challenge the dominant stable equilibrium view. The resilience approach emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales. The history was dominated by empirical observations of ecosystem dynamics interpreted in mathematical models, developing into the adaptive management approach for responding to ecosystem change. Serious attempts to integrate the social dimension is currently taking place in resilience work reflected in the large numbers of sciences involved in explorative studies and new discoveries of linked social–ecological systems. Recent advances include understanding of social processes like, social learning and social memory, mental models and knowledge–system integration, visioning and scenario building, leadership, agents and actor groups, social networks, institutional and organizational inertia and change, adaptive capacity, transformability and systems of adaptive governance that allow for management of essential ecosystem services.
4,899 citations
Cites background from "Social-Ecological Resilience to Coa..."
...It is argued that managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustaining desirable pathways for development in changing environments where the future is unpredictable and surprise is likely (Walker et al., 2004; Adger et al., 2005)....
[...]
Dalhousie University1, University of Wyoming2, Plymouth Marine Laboratory3, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences4, Stockholm University5, University of California, Santa Barbara6, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute7, Scripps Institution of Oceanography8, Stanford University9, University of California, Davis10, University of British Columbia11
TL;DR: The authors analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales, concluding that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations.
Abstract: Human-dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, with largely unknown consequences. We analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity. Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. Yet available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible.
3,672 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the disaster resilience of place (DROP) model is proposed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the local or community level, and a candidate set of variables for implementing the model are also presented as a first step towards its implementation.
Abstract: There is considerable research interest on the meaning and measurement of resilience from a variety of research perspectives including those from the hazards/disasters and global change communities. The identification of standards and metrics for measuring disaster resilience is one of the challenges faced by local, state, and federal agencies, especially in the United States. This paper provides a new framework, the disaster resilience of place (DROP) model, designed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the local or community level. A candidate set of variables for implementing the model are also presented as a first step towards its implementation.
3,119 citations
Cites background from "Social-Ecological Resilience to Coa..."
...The resilience of ecological systems is influenced by factors like biodiversity, redundancies, response diversity, spatiality, and governance and management plans (Adger, 2006; Adger et al., 2005; Folke, 2006; Brenkert and Malone, 2005; Heinz, 2002)....
[...]
...Social learning is defined as ‘‘the diversity of adaptations, and the promotion of strong local social cohesion and mechanisms for collective action’’ (Adger et al., 2005, p. 1038)....
[...]
...It includes not only a system’s capacity to return to the state (or multiple states) that existed before the disturbance, but also to advance the state through learning and adaptation (Adger et al., 2005; Klein et al., 2003; Folke, 2006)....
[...]
TL;DR: Reconstructed time lines, causes, and consequences of change in 12 once diverse and productive estuaries and coastal seas worldwide show similar patterns: Human impacts have depleted >90% of formerly important species, destroyed >65% of seagrass and wetland habitat, degraded water quality, and accelerated species invasions.
Abstract: Estuarine and coastal transformation is as old as civilization yet has dramatically accelerated over the past 150 to 300 years. Reconstructed time lines, causes, and consequences of change in 12 once diverse and productive estuaries and coastal seas worldwide show similar patterns: Human impacts have depleted >90% of formerly important species, destroyed >65% of seagrass and wetland habitat, degraded water quality, and accelerated species invasions. Twentieth-century conservation efforts achieved partial recovery of upper trophic levels but have so far failed to restore former ecosystem structure and function. Our results provide detailed historical baselines and quantitative targets for ecosystem-based management and marine conservation.
2,795 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: Resilience thinking as mentioned in this paper is a new way of understanding the world and a new approach to managing resources, it embraces human and natural systems as complex entities continually adapting through cycles of change and seeks to understand the qualities of a system that must be maintained or enhanced in order to achieve sustainability.
Abstract: Increasingly, cracks are appearing in the capacity of communities, ecosystems, and landscapes to provide the goods and services that sustain our planet's well-being. The response from most quarters has been for "more of the same" that created the situation in the first place: more control, more intensification, and greater efficiency. "Resilience thinking" offers a different way of understanding the world and a new approach to managing resources. It embraces human and natural systems as complex entities continually adapting through cycles of change and seeks to understand the qualities of a system that must be maintained or enhanced in order to achieve sustainability. It explains why greater efficiency by itself cannot solve resource problems and offers a constructive alternative that opens up options rather than closing them down. In "Resilience Thinking", scientist Brian Walker and science writer David Salt present an accessible introduction to the emerging paradigm of resilience. The book arose out of appeals from colleagues in science and industry for a plainly written account of what resilience is all about and how a resilience approach differs from current practices. Rather than complicated theory, the book offers a conceptual overview along with five case studies of resilience thinking in the real world. It is an engaging and important work for anyone interested in managing risk in a complex world.
2,550 citations
Cites background from "Social-Ecological Resilience to Coa..."
...However, none of these interventions actually work at meaningful scales or provide realistic solutions to the increased global threats to coral reefs because they fail to reverse the root-causes of the regional-scale degradation (Adger et al. 2005)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience.
Abstract: Individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. That is one view of the world. But another view of the world concentrates not so much on presence or absence as upon the numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of their numbers. These are two very different ways of viewing the behavior of systems and the usefulness of the view depends very much on the properties of the system concerned. If we are examining a particular device designed by the engineer to perform specific tasks under a rather narrow range of predictable external conditions, we are likely to be more concerned with consistent nonvariable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted. A quantitative view of the behavior of the system is, therefore, essential. With attention focused upon achieving constancy, the critical events seem to be the amplitude and frequency of oscillations. But if we are dealing with a system profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of the relationships. Attention shifts, therefore, to the qualitative and to questions of existence or not. Our traditions of analysis in theoretical and empirical ecology have been largely inherited from developments in classical physics and its applied variants. Inevitably, there has been a tendency to emphasize the quantitative rather than the qualitative, for it is important in this tradition to know not just that a quantity is larger than another quantity, but precisely how much larger. It is similarly important, if a quantity fluctuates, to know its amplitude and period of fluctuation. But this orientation may simply reflect an analytic approach developed in one area because it was useful and then transferred to another where it may not be. Our traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience. There can in some years be more owls and fewer mice and in others, the reverse. Fish populations wax and wane as a natural condition, and insect populations can range over extremes that only logarithmic
13,447 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that the social, political and economic environment is as much a cause of disasters as the natural environment and that the concept of vulnerability is central to an understanding of disasters and their prevention or mitigation, exploring the extent and ways in which people gain access to resources.
Abstract: Many disasters are a complex mix of natural hazards and human action. At Risk argues that the social, political and economic environment is as much a cause of disasters as the natural environment. Published within the International Decade of Natural Hazard Reduction, this book suggests ways in which both the social and natural sciences can be analytically combined through a 'disaster pressure and release' model. Arguing that the concept of vulnerability is central to an understanding of disasters and their prevention or mitigation, the authors explore the extent and ways in which people gain access to resources. Individual chapters apply analytical concepts to famines and drought, biological hazards, floods, coastal storms, and earthquakes, volcanos and landslides - the hazards that become disasters'. Finally, the book draws practical and policy conclusions to promote a safer environment and reduce vulnerability.
6,432 citations
TL;DR: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling's (1973) seminal paper as discussed by the authors and different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion, and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow.
Abstract: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social– ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks) has four components—latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance. INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow. Because different groups adopt different interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose, however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development. In what follows, we provide an interpretation and an explanation of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles of complex, multi-scalar SESs. We need a better scientific basis for sustainable development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “sustainability science”). The “Consortium for Sustainable Development” (of the International Council for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of Science), the US National Research Council (1999, 2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), have all focused increasing attention on such notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature emerge from three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. The purpose of this paper is to examine these three attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their implications for our future well-being. There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper. What is new is that it uses established theory of nonlinear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of regional development, regional poverty, and regional CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arizona State University Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 sustainability. These include, among others, the Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These regions provide examples of both successes and failures of development. Some from rich countries have generated several pulses of solutions over a span of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some cases, have been dragged back by higher-level autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as localscale solutions and then developed as transformations across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes were determined by the interplay of their resilience, adaptability, and transformability. There is a major distinction between resilience and adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely related set of systems. Transformability refers to fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing line between “closely related” and “fundamentally altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative set of definitions, without reference to conceptual frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. We then use some examples and the literature on “basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to further refine our definitions. Before giving the definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the concept of adaptive cycles. Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them— a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K phase continues, resources become increasingly locked up and the system becomes progressively less flexible and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and during which, innovation and new opportunities are possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r phase or be significantly different. This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on observed system changes, and does not imply fixed, regular cycling. Systems can move back from K toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”— adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales. These cross-scale effects are of great significance in the dynamics of SESs.
5,745 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1994
TL;DR: In this paper, the challenge of disasters and their approach are discussed, and a framework and theory for disaster mitigation is presented. But the authors do not address the problem of access to resources and coping in adversarial situations.
Abstract: Part 1: Framework and Theory 1. The Challenge of Disasters and Our Approach 2. Disaster Pressure and Release Model 3. Access to Resources and Coping in Adversity Part 2: Vulnerability and Hazard Types 4. Famine and Natural Hazards 5. Biological Hazards 6. Floods 7. Severe Coastal Storms 8. Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Landslides Part 3: Action for Disaster Reduction 9. Vulnerability, Relief and Reconstruction 10. Towards a Safer Environment
5,190 citations
TL;DR: A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented and it is shown that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards.
Abstract: Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human–environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented.
3,733 citations