Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

162 Resilience in Practice Aspreviouslynoted, agoal of resiliencehasbecomeubiquitousacrossplanningandpolicydocuments, organizationalmissionstatements, natural resource management strategies, and conversations about climate change. At times, resilience is barely interpreted by those who call for it; it is offered only as a nebulous antidote to human and ecological suffering. When clearly defined but in a way that is too discipline-specific, the invocation of resilience may alienate outsiders and limit practical partnerships. In other cases, city bureaus and community groups may be participating in work that very much aligns with resilience thinking, but are not using the normative language and thus go unrecognized. Part of engaging with climate change adaptation and resilience solutions is taking stock of what is out there: how cities have previously presented or framed resilience (or not) in practice; what kinds of solutions or partnerships have been attempted; and what lessons have been learned. While theory provides us a view of the ideal scenario, only practice can teach us what works, what does not, and what we might do differently within real-world constraints. In this section, you will review existing urban and/or climate adaptation plans that address the need for resilience, either explicitly or implicitly. This should reveal the extent to which some of the major theoretical concepts and evaluative indicators have been taken up in practice. Furthermore, some practical interventions and outcomes are explored through case study research. Finally, an article by Douglas Glandon [1] calls for a common language of resilience to facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners. While not directly addressing climate change issues, this sentiment has meaningful implications for resilience advocates broadly.