Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

32 Resilience in Theory Underpinning all present discussions about resilience and related goals are theories; conceptual frameworks which have shaped our general understanding of what the word really means. You may feel that these conceptions should be the intellectual domain of academics and scholars, particularly if you are interested in a more practical, applied approach to urban climate change resilience. However, we suggest that even the most practice-oriented student can benefit from understanding a few of these basic theoretical genealogies. Resilience theory may help you understand what is meant when the word appears in an urban development or climate adaptation plan. Furthermore, these theoretical conceptions may provide clarity to your own ideas about what a resilient city, society, or system actually looks like. One of the reasons that a universal conception of resilience has been so elusive is that it appears across a broad range of disciplines, each offering its own framing and interpretation of the term. These disciplines include, but are not limited to engineering, ecology, psychology, sociology, disaster management, and economics [1]. A theoretical conception is more than a simple definition, and also includes the boundaries, characteristics, and appropriate applications of the concept in question. For the purpose of this course, we will focus on conceptions of resilience which are commonly applied to the subject of climate change resilience, including both formative and more recent theoretical framings. Engineering resilience is one of those early formative concepts, which defines resilience as the ability for a system to withstand change, to bounce back quickly from disturbance, and to retain its status quo. This definition assumes that the systems of interest are stable, linear, and predictable [2]. Although this conception is better suited to machines than fluid human and natural systems, its influence re- mains. Many people still think of resilience in these terms (“bounce back,” “status quo”), regardless of the subject. Tenets of engineering resilience still appear in practice, particularly regarding physical infrastructure and the built environment [3]. Another formative concept is that of ecological resilience, introduced by C.S. Holling in the 1970s. Unlike engineering resilience, the ecological conception focuses on natural system dynamics which are constantly exposed to disturbance, unpredictable and liable to change. According to Holling, resilience is the amount of disturbance that an ecosystem can withstand before losing function and switching to an alternative state (a forest becoming a desert, for example). While certainly relevant to the effects of climate change on ecosystem function and change, ecological resilience does not quite address all of the complex problems faced by people and cities. Recent literature often frames climate change issues in terms of socio-ecological resilience. This perspective retains ideas of disturbance and flux found in ecological resilience, but further acknowledges the feedbacks that exist between human and natural systems. Human dependence and influence on natural processes (“ecosystem services”) are at the core of this theoretical conception, and a key point is that humans continue to get what they need to survive and/or thrive [4]. Unlike both engineering and ecological resilience which favor persistence, socio-ecologically resilient systems are encouraged to work with change in order to make survival possible. This perspective, which includes not only the ability to withstand disturbance, but also to adapt and transform as needed, is known as resilience thinking [5]. Adaptability and many other features which have been theorized to enhance socio-ecological systems may alternatively be characterized as general resilience [6]. Literature Cited 1. Quinlan, A. E., Berbés-Blázquez, M., Haider, L. J., & Peterson, G. D. (2016). Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 677–687. 2. Holling, C.S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In P. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints (pp. 31-43). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 3. Rajkovich, N. B., & Okour, Y. (2019). Climate change resilience strategies for the building sector: Examining existing domains of resilience utilized by design professionals. Sustainability, 11(10), 2888. https:/ doi.org/10.3390/su11102888 4. Biggs, R., Schluter, M., & Schoon, M.L. (2015). Chapter 1: An introduction to the resilience approach and principles to sustain ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. In R. Biggs, M. Schluter, & M.L. Schoon (Eds.), Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem services in social- ecological systems (pp.1-31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 5. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Chapter 2: The system rules: Creating a mind space for resilience thinking. In Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world (pp. 28-38). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 6. Carpenter, S., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Biggs, R., Brock, W., Crépin, A.-S., … Zeeuw, A. (2012). General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability, 4(12), 3248–3259. https: /doi.org/10.3390/su4123248