ENHANCING RESILIENCE AT
THE COMMUNITY AND
INDIVIDUAL LEVELS
Margaret Reams, Ph.D.
Louisiana State University
The Starting Point: The Adaptive Cycle



The model of the adaptive cycle was derived from the
comparative study of the dynamics of ecosystems.
Meant to be a tool for thought: focuses attention upon
processes of destruction and reorganization, which are
often neglected in favor of growth and conservation.
Including these processes provides a more complete
view of system dynamics that links together system
organization, resilience, and dynamics.
Adaptive Cycle
Resilience allows Adaptation


Are there elements that sustain adaptive capacity
of social-ecological systems in a world that is
constantly changing?
Addressing how people respond to periods of
change, how society reorganizes following change,
is the most neglected and the least understood
aspect in conventional resource management and
science (Gunderson and Holling, 2002).
4 Factors of Adaptability
Folke et al. (2002) identify and expand on four critical
factors that interact across temporal and spatial scales
and that seem to be required for dealing with natural
resource dynamics during periods of change and
reorganization:
 learning to live with change and uncertainty;
 nurturing diversity for resilience;
 combining different types of knowledge for learning;
and
 creating opportunity for self-organization towards
social-ecological sustainability.
Human Communities


For an economic or social system, the accumulating
potential could as well be from the skills, networks
of human relationships, and mutual trust that are
incrementally developed and tested during the
progression from r to K.
Those also represent a potential developed and
used in one setting, that could be available in
transformed ones.
Adaptive Management


Adaptive management seeks to aggressively use
management intervention as a tool to strategically
probe the functioning of an ecosystem.
Interventions are designed to test key hypotheses
about the functioning of the ecosystem.
Adaptive Management
This approach is very different from a typical
management approach of 'informed trial-and-error'
which uses the best available knowledge to
generate a risk-averse, 'best guess' management
strategy, which is then changed as new information
modifies the 'best guess'.
“Cost of Ignorance”



Adaptive Management identifies uncertainties, and then
establishes methodologies to test hypotheses concerning
those uncertainties.
It uses management as a tool not only to change the
system, but as a tool to learn about the system.
It is concerned with the need to learn and the cost of
ignorance, while traditional management is focused on
the need to preserve and the cost of knowledge.
Necessary Scientific and Social
Components for Adaptive Mgt.




Management is linked to appropriate temporal and
spatial scales
Management retains a focus on statistical power
and controls
Use of embodied ecological consensus to evaluate
strategic alternatives
Communication of alternatives to political arena for
negotiation of a selection
Achievement of Adaptive Management
Objectives Requires



An open management process which seeks to include
past, present and future stakeholders.
Adaptive Management (AM) needs to at least maintain
political openness, but usually it needs to create it.
Consequently, AM must be a social as well as scientific
process.
It must focus on the development of new institutions and
institutional strategies just as much as it must focus upon
scientific hypotheses
Adaptive Co-Management



Adaptive co-management is an emerging approach for
governance of social-ecological systems.
Novelty of adaptive co-management comes from
combining the iterative learning dimension of Adaptive
Management and the linkage dimension of
Collaborative Management in which rights and
responsibilities are jointly shared.
Complementarities among the two concepts provide an
approach to governance that encompasses complexity
and cross-scale linkages, and the process of dynamic
learning.
Key Features of Adaptive CoManagement
1) A focus on learning-by-doing
2) Synthesis of different knowledge systems
3) Collaboration and power-sharing among
community, regional and national levels
4) Management flexibility
Practical Implications

These features can promote an evolving, placespecific governance approach in which strategies
are sensitive to feedback (both social and
ecological) and oriented towards system resilience
and sustainability.
Practical Implications

Such strategies include dialogue among interested
groups and actors (local-national), the development
of complex, redundant and layered institutions, and
a combination of institutional types, designs and
strategies that facilitate experimentation and
learning through change.
Practical Implications


Other important themes in adaptive comanagement include improving evaluation of
process and outcomes, additional emphasis on social
capital, and meaningful interactions and trust
building as the basis for governance in socialecological systems.
U.S. examples include: Watershed Councils and
National Estuary Program (NEP) groups.
In Human Communities


When the management of a resource is shared by a
diverse group of stakeholders (e.g., local resource users,
research scientists, community members with traditional
knowledge, government representatives, etc.), decisionmaking is better informed and more options exist for
testing policies.
Active adaptive management whereby management
actions are designed as experiments encourages
learning and novelty, thus increasing resilience in socialecological systems.
How Public Agency Efforts May
Enhance Community Resilience
Outreach Supports
ATTRIBUTES OF STRONGER
COMMUNITIES







Leading to Realization of
KEY DIMENSIONS OF RESILIENCE
Social Networks
Stable Relationships
Information Sharing
Access to Sound Science
Historic Local Knowledge
Knowledge of Mitigation Tools
Stakeholder Participation in
Public Decision Making
Self-Organizational Ability
Scientific Treatment of Risks
Adaptive Ability
Self-Organization
Opportunities
Provide Scientific
Information
Social Capital Building
Exposure Risks
Local Knowledge Shared
Residents’ Experiences and
Questions are Gathered
Interactions
Residents/Officials
Encourage Individual
& Collective
Adaptations
Selected References




Carpenter,S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From
metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems
4:765-781.
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems.
Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1-23.
Holling, C. S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological
resilience. Pages 31-44 in P. Schulze , editor. Engineering within
ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker.
2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.
Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. Cumming, M.
Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002.
Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working
hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1):
14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14
Evidence of Adaptive Governance




Expanded “Learning Environments” – More data
from more sources, widely shared
More stakeholder inclusion in collective decisions
Collective and individual adaptations to changing
risks, based on sound science
Innovative partnerships and institutions emerge
Observations from Louisiana
Collective Adaptive Actions Include:
*More Integrative County-level Hazard Mitigation
Plans among coastal communities post 2005
(Bowers, MS Thesis, 2012.)
* Greater adoption of comprehensive land use plans
to protect wetlands and avoid new development in
flood-prone areas (Paille, MS Thesis, 2012.)
Next We will Examine




Local land-use plans, ordinances and hazardmitigation efforts
Collective actions to preserve coastal wetlands
Policy instruments applied
Administrative and funding approaches used by
local governments within the study area
Also, Household-level Adaptations



Resilient communities require both collective and
individual actions to mitigate risks
As a first step, we conducted a pilot study of Baton
Rouge residents and a random sample of residents
of the greater New Orleans area, both south and
north of Lake Pontchartrain
What are their beliefs and attitudes about
environmental conditions in their communities, and
are they taking steps to reduce their risks?
Household Level Observations
Examples of Adaptive Behaviors for Risk Reduction in
North Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Adoption of a household emergency plan in the event
of an environmental hazard in one’s neighborhood
Examples include:
* Flooding of hazardous waste sites
* Transportation accidents, chemical spills
Possible Influences On
Household – Level Adaptive Behaviors
“Resilience” = f(exposure, vulnerability, adaptive capacity)
Exposure: Total TRI emissions by zip code; past environmental
emergencies; number of facilities in neighborhood, etc.
Vulnerability: Income; education; young children
Adaptive Capacity: Membership in local groups; confidence in
own knowledge and ability to reduce risks; adoption of
other risk-reducing practices
Preliminary Survey of Residents
Interviews with 64 attendees of public meetings of the East
Baton Rouge Parish Metro City Council to determine
activities and attitudes concerning several exposurereducing behaviors.
Also: Questions to indicate exposure (zip code of residence);
socio-economic vulnerability; capacity to take steps to
reduce exposure risks.
Initial analysis to determine statistically significant associations
among variables (Cross-tabs, Chi Sq.; Difference of Means
testing)
Preliminary Analysis of 64 Interviews
Roughly 22% have adopted household emergency plans
 What factors are associated with plan adoption?
Exposure:
Experienced environmental emergency within the past 5
years within one’s neighborhood
Capacity to Adapt:
* Confidence in ability to cope with emergencies
* Adoption of other exposure-reducing behaviors
Other Preliminary Associations
Socioeconomic Vulnerability?
* Surprisingly, educational attainment was
inversely associated with plan adoption;
* No significant association found with measures
of household income.
Expanded Survey
North
South
(mapped by Wang F.)
What are residents most concerned about?
Environmental Pollution
Air Quality
Don't know
0%
Very concerned
39%
Not at all
concerned
13%
Refused
0%
Water Quality
Don't know Not at all
concerned
0%
10%
Not at all
concerned
10%
Don't know
0%
Not very
concerned
8%
Not very
concerned
9%
Not very
concerned
12%
Very concerned
44%
Moderately
concerned
20%
Somewhat
concerned
16%
Moderately
concerned
10%
Very concerned
60%
Moderately
concerned
17%
Somewhat
concerned
12%
Somewhat
concerned
20%
Natrual Disasters (Hurricanes)
Soil Quality
Refused
0%
Don't know
0%
Don't Not at all
know concerned
0%
3%
Not at all
concerned
20%
Very concerned
34%
Somewhat
concerned
17%
Not very
concerned
3%
Climate Change
Moderately
concerned
6%
Refused
0%
Somewhat
concerned
12%
Not very
concerned
12%
Moderately
concerned
17%
Very concerned
76%
Not at all
concerned
19%
Very concerned
35%
Somewhat
concerned
18%
Don't know
1%
Not very
concerned
11%
Moderately
concerned
16%
How knowledgeable do residents feel?
350
300
250
200
314 = 57%
235 = 42%
150
100
50
0
Do you know whom to contact in the
event of an environmental hazard
Yes
No
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
141
100
102
25%
37%
108
98
37%
How knowledgeable do you feel you are about
actions to take in the event of an
environmental hazard?
Not at all knowledgeable
Not very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Very knowledgable
Average
Positive Correlation between Knowledge and
Emergency Planning
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
141
100
102
37%
25%
98
108
37%
How knowledgeable do you feel you are
about actions to take in the event of an
environmental hazard?
Not at all knowledgeable
Average
Very knowledgable
Not very knowledgeable
Somewhat knowledgeable
Does your household
have an emergency
plan in the event of an
environmental hazard
356
193
0
No
50
Yes
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Conclusion: Encouraging Implications
for Public Education Efforts


Knowledge and Confidence in one’s ability to reduce
exposure risks appear to be associated with the
adaptive behavior
Agency program efforts should be able to help build
capacity for community resilience through encouraging
self-organization among residents, providing scientific
information concerning risks; and sharing information
about specific adaptive strategies to reduce exposure
risks.
Social-Ecological Resilience Sources

Folke C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes, 2002. Building
resilience for adaptive capacity in social-ecological
systems. In: Berkes F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (eds).
Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Additional Selected References




Gunderson, L.H. C.S. Holling and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers and
Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Holling, C. S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystems; local surprise and
global change. pp. 292-317 in Sustainable Development of the
Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, editors. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Holling, C. S., L. Gunderson, and G. Peterson. 2002. Sustainability
and Panarchies. P.63-102 in: Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. L.H. Gunderson and
C.S. Holling, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Holling, C. S., L. Gunderson, and D. Ludwig. 2002. In Quest of a
Theory of Adaptive Change. P. 3-24 in: Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. L.H. Gunderson and
C.S. Holling, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Selected References

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and P. Stern. 2003. The Struggle to Govern the
Commons. Science. 302(5652): 1907-1912. Folke, C., Hahn, T.,
Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
30:8.1-8.33. Olsson, P., Folke, C. and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in socio-ecological systems.
Environmental Management. 34: 75-90. Plummer, R. and D.
Armitage. 2006. A resilience-based framework for evaluating
adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economy and society.
Ecological Economics. Online: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon.
Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 2001. The Invisible Wand: Adaptive
Co-Management as an Emergent Strategy in Complex Bio-economic
Systems. Occasional Paper No. 34. Centre for International Forestry
Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Thank you very much!

Questions?