An Exploratory Framework for the Empirical Measurement of Resilience

Cumming, Graeme S.; Barnes, Grenville; Perz, Stephen G.; Schmink, Marianne; Sieving, Kathryn E.; Southworth, Jane; Binford, Michael W.; Holt, Robert D.; Stickler, C.; Holt, Tracy Van

doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z

Cited by 495 publications

(332 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

292

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We can also consider ecological resilience as the ability of a system to maintain its identity in the face of both internal and external drivers (Cumming et al 2005). This represents an insurance against potentially adverse changes in the delivery of ecosystem goods and services.…”

Section: Defining Resilience and Regime Shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting the limits of resilience: integrating empirical research with theory

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the increasing evidence of drastic and profound changes in many ecosystems, often referred to as regime shifts, we have little ability to understand the processes that provide insurance against such change (resilience). Modelling studies have suggested that increased variance may foreshadow a regime shift, but this requires long-term data and knowledge of the functional links between key processes. Field-based research and ground-truthing is an essential part of the heuristic that marries theoretical and empirical research, but experimental studies of resilience are lagging behind theory, management and policy requirements. Empirically, ecological resilience must be understood in terms of community dynamics and the potential for small shifts in environmental forcing to break the feedbacks that support resilience. Here, we integrate recent theory and empirical data to identify ways we might define and understand potential thresholds in the resilience of nature, and thus the potential for regime shifts, by focusing on the roles of strong and weak interactions, linkages in meta-communities, and positive feedbacks between these and environmental drivers. The challenge to theoretical and field ecologists is to make the shift from hindsight to a more predictive science that is able to assist in the implementation of ecosystem-based management.

show abstract

Section: Defining Resilience and Regime Shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting the limits of resilience: integrating empirical research with theory

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[14]. Because this can be a complicated question, the resilience approach requires interdisciplinary analysis and syntheses [7,18].…”

Section: Resilience Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is an involved and difficult step in resilience-based management. Cumming et al [18] propose a research design for studying resilience which includes defining the current system, defining possible future systems, clarifying change trajectories, assessing likelihoods of alternate futures, and identifying mechanisms for change. In all these steps, understanding the system and its boundaries is incredibly important.…”

Section: Defining the Social-ecology Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Integrating Political Ecology into Resilience-Based Management

Quandt

2016

Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:One of the biggest challenges faced today is how to sustainably manage social-ecological systems for both ecological conservation and human wellbeing. This paper explores two approaches to understanding such systems: resilience thinking and political ecology. Resilience thinking is a framework that emerged over the last 40 years as a management strategy for social-ecological systems, and a resilient social-ecological system is capable of absorbing disturbances and still retaining its basic function and structure. Political ecology is derived from cultural ecology and political economy and aims to critically examine how human-environment interactions are linked to environmental problems while exploring issues of power. Drawing from debates and theoretical issues both within and between these two theories, this paper proposes three main arguments for integrating political ecology into managing for resilience. First, political ecology could help fill in understanding gaps in resilience with its focus on society and politics, while resilience thinking's focus on ecology can ensure that political ecology engages with ecology. Second, the multiple lenses of political ecology may help define the system for resilience management. Third, political ecology's explanatory power may assist in identifying surrogates of resilience for indirectly measuring social-ecological resilience.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the assessment of resilience is fraught with complexity: both the definition of resilience and the methodologies used to measure it are heavily contested (Cumming et al 2005). Confounding factors, such as what Editor: Shuaib Lwasa. mix of indicators to choose, which systems and scale of analysis to apply, and how to recognise the context-specific nature of resilience each muddy the waters (Béné et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Subjective resilience’: using perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate extremes and disasters

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How should we measure a household's resilience to climate extremes, climate change or other evolving threats? As resilience gathers momentum on the international stage, interest in this question continues to grow. So far, efforts to measure resilience have largely focused on the use of 'objective' frameworks and methods of indicator selection. These typically depend on a range of observable socio-economic variables, such as levels of income, the extent of a household's social capital or its access to social safety nets. Yet while objective methods have their uses, they suffer from well-documented weaknesses. This paper advocates for the use of an alternative but complementary method: the measurement of 'subjective' resilience at the household level. The concept of subjective resilience stems from the premise that people have an understanding of the factors that contribute to their ability to anticipate, buffer and adapt to disturbance and change. Subjective household resilience therefore relates to an individual's cognitive and affective self-evaluation of their household's capabilities and capacities in responding to risk. We discuss the advantages and limitations of measuring subjective household resilience and highlight its relationships with other concepts such as perceived adaptive capacity, subjective well-being and psychological resilience. We then put forward different options for the design and delivery of survey questions on subjective household resilience. While the approach we describe is focused at the household level, we show how it has the potential to be aggregated to inform sub-national or national resilience metrics and indicators. Lastly, we highlight how subjective methods of resilience assessment could be used to improve policy and decision-making. Above all, we argue that, alongside traditional objective measures and indicators, efforts to measure resilience should take into account subjective aspects of household resilience in order to ensure a more holistic understanding of resilience to climate extremes and disasters.

show abstract

An Exploratory Framework for the Empirical Measurement of Resilience

Cited by 495 publications

References 25 publications

Forecasting the limits of resilience: integrating empirical research with theory

Forecasting the limits of resilience: integrating empirical research with theory

Towards Integrating Political Ecology into Resilience-Based Management

‘Subjective resilience’: using perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate extremes and disasters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About