This paper advocates the use of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory as a framework to analyse resilience at diverse scales. Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory can be employed to (a) benchmark social resilience, (b) target the priority interventions required and (c) measure progress arising from these interventions to enhance resilience to natural disasters. First, the paper explores resilience to natural disasters in the context of climatic change as building resilience is seen as a way to mitigate impacts of natural disasters. Second, concepts of resilience are systematically examined and documented, outlining resilience as a trait and resilience as a process. Third, issues arising in relation to the measurement of resilience are discussed. Fourth, Bronfenbrenner's bioecological systems theory is described and proffered to model and assess resilience at different scales. Fifth, studies are described which have supported the use of the bioecological systems theory for the study of resilience. Sixth, an example of the use of Bronfenbrenner's theory is offered and the paper concludes with suggestions for future research using Bronfenbrenner's theory.Keywords Resilience · Natural disaster · Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory · Community · Climate change 1 IntroductionThe world's climate is experiencing marked changes (IPCC 2007). These changes are set to be accompanied by an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as floods and droughts and present a need to formulate policy to deal with these predictions (Bosomworth and Handmer 2008;Bosher et al. 2009; COAG 2009;McBean and Rodgers 2010). In Australia, and elsewhere, we need to be prepared for rapid onset events such as wildfires, cyclones and floods and slow onset hazards such as drought.Emergency Management considers resilience essential for safeguarding communities or building safer communities. Disaster resilience is seen as a quality, characteristic or result that is developed by processes that foster or promote it. The ability of an individual, group, community or nation to deal with unique destabilising situations, or disaster resilience, is also seen as the …'shield', 'shock absorber' or buffer that moderates the outcome to ensure benign or small-scale negative consequences. Indeed, the goal of disaster risk management is to guarantee minimal loss of life and livelihoods and to allow the affected community or system to return to 'normal' within the shortest possible time. (Manyena 2006: 438) Prosser and Peters (2010) remind us that to support a disaster-resilient community, studies must focus on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. Current Emer-gency Management policy in Australia (COAG 2009) and internationally (Berkes 2007;Folke et al. 2003; Tompkins and Adger 2004) concurs, asserting that building resilience into communities is essential in order to cope with climate change and concomitant natural disasters. This paper advocates the use of 2 Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory as a framework to analyse com...

Scaling out and up are terms increasingly being used to describe a desired expansion of beneficial impacts from agricultural research and rural development. This paper explores strategies for scaling out production and livelihood impacts from proven technologies. We draw on a case study of forages and livestock production in Laos, a Southeast Asian country undergoing rapid economic and agricultural change. A facilitated learning environment stimulated farmers to adapt forages, livestock housing, and animal health practices to their own situations (scaling out). Regular follow-up visits and on-the-job mentoring for extension staff provided institutional support (scaling up). Within 5 years, the number of villages and households using forages and fattening livestock had increased six fold, with a 50% reduction in the time required for farmers to get significant benefits. The paper concludes that scaling out positive impacts from systems change requires field tested and proven technologies, evidence of significant livelihood impacts, fostering of local innovation, competent field staff, effective peer learning, and ongoing institutional support.

No abstract

No abstract

Few natural resource management (NRM) studies discriminate between trust and trustworthiness. However, this approach, which combines the attitude of one actor with the characteristics of another actor, is common in the organisational management literature. Our case study, set in a wildfire management context in Australia, sought to explore: (1) how community members and NRM staff defined trust and described trustworthiness; (2) how these trust definitions did, or did not, reflect conceptualisations in the literature; and, (3) whether explicitly differentiating between trust and trustworthiness is useful in an NRM context. Our findings suggest that participants defined trust in three main ways: as 'having a good relationship'; as 'being able to rely on others' in a one-way manner; and, as 'a relationship where parties rely on one another' in a reciprocal manner. Our findings also suggest that participants differentiated these trust definitions from trustworthiness, that is, from the characteristics and actions which made an individual or agency worthy of trust. These findings suggest that it is useful to differentiate trust from trustworthiness, because it allows NRM managers and researchers to better understand both the trusting intentions of community members and the characteristics of the agency which contribute to that trust.