Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

21 (c) chaos: the uncertainty about the disturbance affecting the system and complexity of the system itself are perceived so high that it is impossible to identify links between actions (outside or within the system) and their consequences. The solution is unknown. This classification offers a helpful analytical framework to explain how delegates from different stakeholder groups understand the system and the differences in the policies they will propose in further stages. Nonetheless, the agendas and mental models used by stakeholders to construct their own interpretation of resilience are only some of the ingredients for the scope of the resilience analysis. The manifestation of power in the PSP is indeed critical analytical lens to understand complications of resilience ambiguity. In fact, power effect on resilience is one of the most unexplored but most contested characteristics of resilience [14]. Case study research shows that in prescriptive settings, the PSP of resilience is predominantly a negotiation endeavour. For instance, Lebel et al. [37] describe that in many case studies undertaken by the Resilience Alliance, the scope of resilience analysis reflects, to a large extent, the interest of powerful stakeholders, undermining perspectives of ethnic minorities and small-villages (powerless stakeholders). Similarly, Larsen et al. [38] highlight the tensions regarding roles, control and ownerships between powerful stakeholders during the process of building resilience in Thailand tourism-dependent communities. These cases studied in the literature show that during the PSP of resilience, stakeholders will try to persuade the others to join or accept their own interpretation of resilience and to articulate the scope of the resilience analysis accordingly. As illustrated in Figure 3, the scope of analysis is a negotiated outcome of the PSP that reflects not only the interpretations of each stakeholder in the system but also the power relationships between them. Figure 3. Simplified representation of the problem structuring process (PSP) of resilience analysis. 2.3. Results 2.3.1. Strategic Agendas Tabulated results from the interview show that delegates from the same group coincide to a large extent in the answers they provided about their agendas. Table 2 summarizes these tabulated answers. In Table 2, it is noticeable that most of the delegates of the same group agreed on a similar answer. Based on the interviews results, the strategic agenda held by each stakeholder group can be summarized as follow: Central Government (CG): The purpose of the analysis is to identify how to increase the household’s wealth and particularly the money available to buy food so that households can afford enough food even when droughts reduce the yields of maize in the region.