Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

167 Due to the wide variety of interpretations of resilience, the appropriate analytical framework should clarify what is actually meant by “resilience”—including resilience by whom or of what—and how it may be enhanced. The framework has value when it helps break down and analyze a social narrative of resilience, much as a literary critic might assess the key elements of a novel. In the context of human resilience, if an adverse event is the conflict, a useful analytical framework helps us investigate the factors that influence the characters’ abilities to cope or adapt. While some resilience-promoting or “salutogenic” traits or characteristics (Antonovsky 1996), such as genetic traits, aremore or less fixed and cannot be changed, others, such as child-rearing practices, social support, cognitive interventions, coping self-efficacy (Southwick 2012), and social cohesion or connection (Zraly and Nyirazinyoye 2010), may have prescriptive value for shaping interventions and possibly public education. It is this latter category, of what could be termed malleable or transferable factors, that captures the interest of practitioners in the health and development community. By understanding salient factors that promote resilience in a particular context, we gain ideas about which ones might help promote resilience in other groups, locations, circumstances, or adversities. If, for instance, we want to examine the examples of community resilience narratives mentioned above to find insights that might be relevant elsewhere, selecting a suitable analytical framework is a critical first step. One useful construct is the notion of “resilience pivots” that was introduced by Rotarangi and Stephenson (2014) to highlight elements of a particular community or group that remain constant through an adverse event. If we were to apply this lens to the Senegal example, we could investigatewhether the continuity, and perhaps even reinforcement, of the Diola cultural identity as an independent, egalitarian community in the Casamance region helped that population cope with the long-term separatist conflict. Similarly, the resilience pivot concept may also help describe how the incorporation of the traditional cultural practice of taboo in temporarily banning fishing in certain areas of Fiji is currently helping the country respond to and prevent the depletion of its marine resources from overfishing. Folke et al. (2010) articulated how “transformational change” at a local or specific level can contribute to resilience at a larger scale or in a broader context. Looking at the resilience narrative from Benin, this view might support the idea that the decision of the Tofinu to move their home into a lake was a transformational change that ultimately allowed them to survive as a group. Similarly the Haitians completely redefined their religious icons during the French colonial period in order to retain their ability to openly practice their faith, while an increasing number of Maasai pastoralists reinvented their livelihood from herding livestock in the countryside to guarding homes and offices in a major urban center in order to continue to survive and provide for their families in a changing environment. In each example we see a glimpse of how the right analytical framework and research questions may help guide practitioners in building resilience, especially when preparing for similar types of adverse events. The question is whether the insights from this type of analytical research can be effectively applied to strengthen resilience in individuals, communities, and populations. If so, the magnitude of the potential benefits creates an ethical imperative to do so. In this respect a quote from Leonardo DaVinci is fitting: “I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do” (Suh 2005). OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY ANALYTICAL RESILIENCE RESEARCH ARE GROWING GLOBALLY It is encouraging to see that many governments and organizations have taken such an interest in resilience in recent years and have raised its priority on the social agenda, both in terms of domestic efforts and development aid for other countries. This increased focus on resilience is especially visible in initiatives to help communities prepare for natural disasters and climate change. A Google search in August 2014 with depersonalized results for the words “resilience” plus the name of each of the countries listed above—one at a time—yielded references to climate- or disaster-related initiatives in at least eight out of the top ten search results for each country. For Senegal and Fiji, it was all of the top ten search results. In monetary terms, climate-change-related initiatives in these same five countries account for nearly US$300 million in approved development assistance funds since 2003. This is according to the database compiled by Climate Funds Update (http:/www. climatefundsupdate.org) , a joint initiative of the Overseas Development Institute and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, two independent think tanks based in the UK and Germany, respectively. Of note, all of the associated funding sources list resilience promotion as a key objective or priority on their respective websites. According to the same database, the top ten country funding sources have collectively invested nearly US$31 billion on climate change worldwide through development assistance initiatives since 2003—and again, each one of the listed funding sources includes explicit references to resilience promotion on their websites. Although these projects and investments represent only a subset of the myriad initiatives worldwide for promoting resilience as part of efforts to help communities and societies adapt to climate change, there are several valuable takeaway points, including: (1) climate