Community Capitals as Community Resilience to Climate Change: Conceptual Connections. — TEI-tagged view

Shaikh KaispersName, Md IslampersName (2016date). “Community Capitals as Community Resilience to Climate Change: Conceptual Connections..” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Healthtitle·j.

Object of study — the conceptual links between community-level climate changeterm·key impacts, community capitalsterm·dom and community resilienceterm·dom

Research question — how collective action and community capitalsterm·dom shape the resilienceterm·dom of a place-based community facing climate changeterm·key

Contribution — the argument that a community's overall resilienceterm·dom sits at the intersection of its resilienceterm·dom dimensions, community capitalsterm·dom and the level of climate disruption

Full text — tagged

The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.

Community Capitalsterm·dom as Community Resilienceterm·dom to Climate Changeterm·key: Conceptual Connections.

Abstract In the last few decades, disaster risk reductionterm·key programs and climate initiatives across the globe have focused largely on the intimate connections between vulnerabilityterm·dom, recovery, adaptationterm·key, and coping mechanisms. Recent focus, however, is increasingly paid to community resilienceterm·dom. Community, placed at the intersection between the household and national levels of social organization, is crucial in addressing economic, social, or environmental disturbances disrupting human security. Resilienceterm·dom measures a community’s capability of bouncing back—restoring the original pre-disaster state, as well as bouncing forward—the capacity to cope with emerging post-disaster situations and changes. Both the ‘bouncing back’ and ‘moving forward’ properties of a community are shaped and reshaped by internal and external shocks such as climate threats, the community’s resilienceterm·dom dimensions, and the intensity of economic, social, and other community capitalsterm·dom. This article reviews (1) the concept of resilienceterm·dom in relation to climate changeterm·key and vulnerabilityterm·dom; and (2) emerging perspectives on community-level impacts of climate changeterm·key, resilienceterm·dom dimensions, and community capitalsterm·dom. It argues that overall resilienceterm·dom of a place-based community is located at the intersection of the community’s resilienceterm·dom dimensions, community capitalsterm·dom, and the level of climate disruptions.

1. Introduction Over the last few decades, community resilienceterm·dom, as one of the buzzwords of the time, has gained increasing academic and programmatic attention from social researchers, planners, community activists, and development practitioners [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Since disaster risk reductionterm·key has gradually moved away from a ’predict and prevent‘ model, in the context of specific hazards, to building community capabilities with regard to a wide range of rapid and slow onset shocks, stresses, and disruptions [ 5 ], resilienceterm·dom has now become one of the most desired paradigms for communities in addressing uncertainties, like oppressive political regimes, military invasions, global economic downturn, globalization threats, environmental disasters, and climate changeterm·key disturbances [ 6 ]. Some authors even argue that the concept of resilienceterm·dom has become a global institution since it has now “emerged as a key driver of reform in disaster management and now underpins how governments and key organizations understand risk, uncertainty, and disaster” [ 6 ]. Although resilienceterm·dom is explored in a wide array of scholarly disciplines, including mathematics, physics, engineering, ecology, geography, economics, psychology, public health, sociology, anthropology, development studies, political science, and disaster management [ 7 , 8 , 9 ], the study of how resilienceterm·dom emerges in a climate-challenged community is scant. Researchers still face difficulties in dealing with the resilienceterm·dom of a community: at the conceptual level, defining and identifying resilient actions; at the operational level, modeling resilient behavior of communities in a single framework; and at the empirical level, collecting and analyzing community resilienceterm·dom data [ 10 ].

Adaptationterm·key and resilienceterm·dom literature has concentrated mostly on large-scale global, regional, national level scenarios of climate changeterm·key and the recommended international-level policy options [ 11 ]. Since observed and future climate changesterm·key have, and will have, spatially- and socially-differentiated impacts experienced primarily at local levels, it is crucial to understand the community-level dynamics of climate disruptions [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Understanding how communities utilize their resources in effective ways to recover from the real and potential damage from climate threats is central to helping people plan for, and rebound from, environmental and climate disasters [ 7 ]. This article aims to contribute to the climate changeterm·key and resilienceterm·dom literature through an in-depth and critical conceptual discussion of the exact mechanisms on how collective action and community capitalsterm·dom shape the degree of resilienceterm·dom of a geographically-bounded community facing both gradual and sudden changes in climate. Mapping the intersections between climate changeterm·key, community resilienceterm·dom, and community capitalsterm·dom could provide essential information for policymakers in helping communities to avoid or withstand losses from climate hazards.

2. Climate Changeterm·key Reality, Community Vulnerabilityterm·dom, and Resilienceterm·dom 2.1. Climate Changeterm·key: Reality of Our Time Climate changeterm·key is no longer a vague and indefinite future problem, but an unavoidable event that is damaging the planet at an alarming pace, an outcome of over 200 years of excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel combustion in energy generation, transport and industry, deforestation, and intensive agriculture [ 14 , 15 ]. For ecological, physical, and social systems and communities, climate changeterm·key implications are intense and unsettling. It impacts human communities in many ways—the majority of which are compound, indirect, and sometimes ambiguous [ 16 ]—thus making scientific exploration of the total dynamics often problematic.

Although climate changeterm·key, through climate variability and extremes, has been a regular phenomenon throughout the history of the Earth, the current strain of global climate changeterm·key is unique on two grounds—first, it is man-made, and secondly, it is happening more speedily than any time in the last fifty million years [ 17 ]. Since climate changeterm·key is a stern global problem that will affect all of humankind within a very short period of time and has already affected several segments of the population in different regions with all its complexity, it is problematized on three main dimensions: climate changeterm·key is highly complex, highly uncertain, and creates an environment of high decision stakes [ 18 , 19 ].

The scientific community is now overwhelmingly unanimous on the existence, causes, and impacts of global climate changeterm·key. If we look at the cases of global warming, for example, we find that an unequivocal warming of the Earth’s climate system has been in operation since the Industrial Revolution began. Indeed, the last decade (2001–2010) was the warmest one in recorded history. Ever since the mid-1970s, the average global temperature has increased about 0.6 °C, almost 0.2 °C per decade [ 20 ]. The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeterm·key (IPCC) predicts that world surface temperature is very likely to rise by 1.8 °C–3.4 °C by 2100, compared with 1980–2000 [ 20 ]. The IPCC in its latest Assessment Report (AR5) declared with 95% certainty that humans are responsible for more than half of the observed global warming between 1951 and 2010 [ 21 ]. Global fossil fuel burning is rising every year and if the trajectory continues, the Earth might become an unlivable planet by the year 2100 because of the consequences of rising global temperatures, which include rising sea levels, frequent heat waves, changed weather and seasonal patterns, frequent and prolonged droughts and floods, more tree deaths and insect damage, ocean acidification or a decrease in pH in ocean water, etc. From the discussion above, it is clear that climate changeterm·key variability and extremes act as external stresses and perturbations to ecological and social systems and communities.

2.2. Defining Community The notion of ‘community’ is fluid and is a social construct that needs to be defined on a case-by-case basis [ 22 , 23 ] focusing on the specific area of interest of investigation. A community can be viewed as “an affective unity of belonging and identity”, “a functional unit of production and exchange”, “a network of relations” among individuals, and “a unit of collective action” [ 24 ]. Communities are composed of compositional (i.e., characteristics of individuals living in an area), contextual (i.e., characteristics of the area where certain group of people live in), and functional (i.e., mechanisms and processes through which a community functions) components [ 22 , 24 ]. In community resilienceterm·dom studies, the term ‘community’ has been defined variously, including the totality of social system interactions, i.e., an affective unit of belonging and identity, and a network of relations, usually within a defined geographical space [ 25 , 26 ]; any group of individuals that share common interests, identify with one another, have a common culture, and participate in shared activities [ 27 , 28 ]; a group of people living within the territorial boundaries of an administrative unit [ 29 ]; and a place-bound neighborhood as well as an interest or kinship-based social unit [ 30 ]. A community’s most significant feature, in the context of resilienceterm·dom to climate changesterm·key, is its capacity “to collectively identify problems, take decisions and act on them and to allocate resources” [ 31 ]. Although it is possible to view communities in various levels of size and length from a tiny area of a village to a global community, generally, social resilienceterm·dom researchers locate community at an intermediary level in terms of a nested hierarchy of geographical scale, in which local community is placed above household level and below regional level [ 26 ].

In this study, community is defined as a place-based geographical entity, located at the intersection of household and regional levels, which displays few distinct functional characteristics of its members that include (1) community members interacting on a somewhat regular basis; (2) this interaction is not significantly mediated by the state; and (3) members have some degree of shared preferences or beliefs [ 32 ]. We base our analysis of community resilienceterm·dom on this conception of community.

2.3. Community Vulnerabilityterm·dom and Resilienceterm·dom A community’s climate risks and coping capacities can be assessed through two essential approaches: social vulnerabilityterm·dom and resilienceterm·dom [ 7 ]. Vulnerabilityterm·dom of a system, primarily from an ecological point of view, is composed of three components: (1) exposure to perturbation—the degree to which a system is in contact with the perturbation; (2) sensitivity to perturbation—the degree to which a system is affected by a disturbance; and (3) capacity to adapt—a system’s ability to adjust to a disturbance [ 33 ]. An intricate range of economic, political, social, and physical factors jointly determines the vulnerabilityterm·dom of a person or community. Scholars have differentiated between human and non-human components and distinguished between human, social, and physical vulnerabilities [ 34 ]. Thus, vulnerabilityterm·dom is the measure of a system’s fragility with regard to environmental and other threats. Only a resilient community (more in the subsequent sections) can successfully overcome stresses including climate disruptions. Resilienceterm·dom is the long-term capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop [ 35 ]. Resilienceterm·dom to climate changeterm·key of a community can be defined as a combination of resistance to frequent and severe disturbances, capacity for recovery and self-organization, and the ability to adapt to new conditions [ 36 ].

Recently, social scientists have examined the relationship between vulnerabilityterm·dom and resilienceterm·dom of a system or community with regard to environmental and social disturbances [ 7 , 12 , 13 ]. We can discern at least three broad streams of the relationships between the two sister concepts: (1) the two are opposite to each other [ 7 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 37 , 38 ]; (2) one is a subset of the other [ 33 , 39 ]; and (3) the two are overlapping, but separate, concepts [ 7 , 13 , 34 , 40 , 41 , 42 ].

The bottom-line of the arguments is that while both approaches can be applied to rapid and gradual hazards and changes, the vulnerabilityterm·dom framework is more appropriate for addressing rapid onset events, like cyclones or earthquakes, whereas the resilienceterm·dom perspective is more suitable for addressing slow onset transformations like drought, famine, long-term temperature shifts, and sea-level riseterm. Similarly, both concepts are overlapping in the sense that although a community can possess characteristics that can determine only its vulnerabilityterm·dom or only its resilienceterm·dom, it can have multiple socio-economic characteristics that influence both its vulnerabilityterm·dom and resilienceterm·dom [ 42 ]. Moreover, central to vulnerability-reducing programs is a top-down manner of service delivery from state organizations to local communities, whereas at the heart of resilienceterm·dom initiatives are the “bottom-up view of individual, organizational, and community capability and capacity” [ 6 ]. Thus, resilienceterm·dom, compared to vulnerabilityterm·dom, has great potential to bring together cumulative, progressive, and dynamic knowledge, insights and works in dealing with and learning from hazards and threats.

Cannon and Muller-Mahn [ 43 ] argue, opposing others, that a paradigm shift from a vulnerabilityterm·dom to a resilienceterm·dom perspective is dangerous. According to them, “vulnerabilityterm·dom involves a clear, economically and politically induced condition that theorizes the way that people are exposed to a lesser or greater degree of risk” [ 43 ]; while resilienceterm·dom, derived from natural or technological sciences and with a focus on systems (or ecosystems) approach, fails to grapple with human society’s socio-economic components. Despite few limitations of the concept of resilienceterm·dom—as delineated by Cannon and Muller-Mahn [ 43 ], for example—academic and policy attentions are now shifting from a vulnerabilityterm·dom approach to a resilienceterm·dom perspective because the latter is viewed as “more proactive and positive expression of community engagement” [ 42 ], especially with regard to slow onset hazard reduction and climate adaptationterm·key. The section below focuses more on this perspective.

3. Resilienceterm·dom: The New Frontier 3.1. Conceptualizing Resilienceterm·dom Resilienceterm·dom is popularly understood as the degree of elasticity in a system, its ability to rebound or bounce back after experiencing some stress or shock. The concept of resilienceterm·dom is unusually “plastic” [ 44 ], “highly ambiguous” [ 45 ], vague and malleable [ 37 ], and often used as a promiscuous approach, like global commodity chains [ 46 , 47 ] incorporating different meanings in different contexts. This is because of a blending of descriptive (what the case is) and normative aspects (what the case should be) within its conceptualization [ 37 ]. Although there are scholarly arguments on the positives and negatives of the ambiguity and plasticity of the concept of resilienceterm·dom [ 34 , 37 , 44 , 45 , 48 ], the positives and the negatives of the malleability of the concept can be offset through a ‘division of labor’ of the resilienceterm·dom scientists. Resilienceterm·dom as a descriptive concept, with precise definition and meaning and operationalized quantitatively, can be applied to hard systems in physical, ecological, and climate hard sciences. Resilienceterm·dom, in this usage, can be dubbed as ecosystem resilienceterm·dom, ecological resilienceterm·dom, engineering resilienceterm·dom, or simply, resilienceterm·dom. Resilienceterm·dom as a normative concept, on the other hand, with inherent vagueness and malleability, and with an opportunity to be operationalized qualitatively, can be applied to trans-disciplinary analyses of soft systems like social, political, and cultural systems. In this usage, resilienceterm·dom can be termed as ‘social resilienceterm·dom’, ‘cultural resilienceterm·dom’, ‘economic resilienceterm·dom’, or ‘community resilienceterm·dom’.

In its basic form, the meaning of resilienceterm·dom incorporates the idea of self-organization after experiencing a shock. Ecologists and social scientists conceptualized ‘resilienceterm·dom’ in various ways. The resilienceterm·dom process of a system has two discrete elements: a significant amount of disturbance that can destroy or disrupt the system, and the system’s resilienceterm·dom capacity to withstand, adapt to, or recover from the traumatic event [ 49 , 50 ].

Resilienceterm·dom of a system (or community) incorporates both static and dynamic properties. On the one hand, resilienceterm·dom is conceptualized as an inherent or antecedent condition or state or ‘outcome’ [ 10 , 42 , 45 , 51 ]. Inherent resilienceterm·dom reflects an ontological definition of resilienceterm·dom which focuses on the system’s ‘being’ [ 52 , 53 ], i.e., its ability to function well under normal circumstances in non-crisis periods and its ability to reinstate the pre-crisis stability (i.e., bounce back) if any catastrophe strikes it. In other words, inherent resilienceterm·dom can be thought of “as a snapshot in time or as a static state” [ 42 ], a system’s latent attributes [ 49 , 50 ]. On the other hand, a system’s resilienceterm·dom is also its adaptive quality during and after a crisis—it is a ‘process’. This dimension is related with the phenomenological view which focuses on ’becoming’ [ 52 ] or ’doing’ [ 53 ]. In this view, resilienceterm·dom is not a fixed property of the system; rather, it incorporates the idea that a resilient system has flexibility in responding to hazards in that the system’s initial structure or function might undergo some necessary changes—resilienceterm·dom is viewed as “a quality, characteristic or result that is generated or developed by the processes that foster or promote it” [ 34 ]. Dovers and Handmer view outcome vs. process dimensions of resilienceterm·dom as reactive and proactive resilienceterm·dom. At the center of reactive resilienceterm·dom is the “quest for constancy or stability” [ 54 ], while proactive resilienceterm·dom “accepts the inevitability of change and tries to create a system that is capable of adapting to new conditions and imperatives” [ 55 ]. Static and dynamic resilienceterm·dom can lead to diverse community resilienceterm·dom programs. For example, outcome-oriented resilienceterm·dom schemes tend to espouse ‘command and control styles’ which aim to retain the social status quo. Process-oriented disaster resilienceterm·dom schemes, on the other hand, focus on the series of actions that enhance a community’s coping capacity over time.

3.2. Evolution of the Concept of Resilienceterm·dom in Academic Discourses The concept of resilienceterm·dom has its origin in the sciences of mathematics and physics [ 9 , 45 , 56 , 57 ], and ecology [ 58 , 59 ]. In its original usage, the concept describes the ability of an object or system “to return to equilibrium after a displacement” [ 9 ]. The English word ‘resilienceterm·dom’ has its origin in Latin ‘resiliens’ and its derivatives ‘resilio’ and ‘resilere’ [ 51 ]. In essence, resilienceterm·dom translates to ‘recoil’ [ 6 ] or ‘to jump back’ [ 34 , 60 , 61 ]. The earliest English usage denoted the repercussive qualities of sound, namely ‘resilienceterm·dom of echoes’ [ 6 ]. Later, the term was used in engineering science to mean the obdurate quality of materials. In the twentieth century ecologists grabbed the concept and during the last half century it has been in use in various disciplines. Thus, ‘resilienceterm·dom’ has now, in its ‘third wave’ [ 56 ], become a hot issue in sociology and other social sciences. Within social and behavioral sciences, developmental psychology was the first discipline in which the study of resilienceterm·dom evolved [ 49 , 50 , 62 , 63 ]. Currently, sociologists are contributing notably in expanding the concept of resilienceterm·dom at social levels.

Wilson [ 25 , 26 ] conceptualized the evolution of the resilienceterm·dom concept in the social sciences in three phases over the last five decades. ‘Ecological resilienceterm·dom’ was the focused notion during the late 1960s and early 1970s with an emphasis on descriptive and non-normative studies on how ecosystems responded to disturbances. Later on, the resilienceterm·dom approach diffused in various social science studies taking an extended ecological resilienceterm·dom definition. During the late 1970s through 1990s, social scientists deployed the resilienceterm·dom concept in ‘social-ecological systemsterm·key’ study. In this phase, the notion of resilienceterm·dom emerged as a ‘boundary object’ between the natural and social sciences [ 26 , 37 ]. Resilienceterm·dom was defined in this stream of research as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize so as to retain essentially the same function, structure, and feedbacks—to have the same identity” [ 64 ]. The conception of ‘social-ecological resilienceterm·dom’ was still burdened by its substantial reliance on “deterministic and positivist natural science-based behavioral assumptions” [ 26 ] which is not always applicable to human communities and systems. Social scientists began to feel discomfort in using this framework for social systems because a social system incorporates structural, as well as agency, variables within it, while an ecological system is primarily built on structural components. Thus, the concept of ‘social-ecological systemterm·dom resilienceterm·dom’ is incapable of conceptualizing the totality of the role of human agency factors in the resilienceterm·dom of a social system.

In order to overcome the inadequacy of ‘social-ecological resilienceterm·dom’, social scientists, after the 1990s, began to use the third strand of research focusing solely on human groups and communities by deploying the new concept of ‘social resilienceterm·dom’ [ 26 ]. Social resilienceterm·dom has been defined as the ability of human communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure, such as environmental variability or social, economic, and political upheaval [ 58 , 59 ]. Traditionally, resilienceterm·dom theorists did not focus on power relations, politics and culture; instead, their emphasis was on the structure and function of a system. Social resilient theorists brought about the question of policy, political, social, economic, psychological, and ethical parameters into the resilienceterm·dom spectrum [ 25 , 26 , 58 , 65 ]. Social scientists now engage a ‘bottom-up’ approach in comprehending human drivers and indicators at the community level, in which human–environment interactions are only one of many constituents. One of the differences between ecological resilienceterm·dom and social resilienceterm·dom is that while the former is linear the latter is non-linear, in the sense that due to social learning processes and social memory social systems can never go back to their original status after a blow (but ecosystems may be able to do that). For a human community, social resilienceterm·dom can be both preventive to shocks through avoiding poor outcomes by developing adaptive mechanisms and curative for recovery after a traumatic or catastrophic disturbance [ 26 ]. Through its anticipatory nature, a social community may develop human adjustment processes that push the after-shock system to a new, and sometimes better, state—hence, at the heart of social resilienceterm·dom is ‘bouncing forward’ or ‘move on’, not ‘bouncing back’ [ 41 , 66 ]. Thus, the goal for adaptive capacity after a disruption would often not be to attempt to restore the original state but to “use learning processes and social memory as a basis for the creation of a qualitatively different more resilient community” [ 26 ]. So, in this view, social resilienceterm·dom is both an outcome, meaning an upgraded coping ability of communities, and a process, referring to community-level dynamic changes and learning to withstand shocks over time and to take responsibility and control of their development trajectories [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 67 ].

3.3. Typology of Resilienceterm·dom Since the concept of resilienceterm·dom has different connotations in different contexts, it can be categorized in multiple ways. In order to comprehend the complex dynamics of resilienceterm·dom, we can classify resilienceterm·dom based on the nature of each of its three components: threat, system, and response.

3.3.1. Nature of the Threat Based on the nature of the disturbance a system or a particular aspect of a system focuses on, Folke and colleagues distinguished between specified and general resilienceterm·dom [ 38 ]. When a system develops coping mechanisms with regard to a specific threat, its adaptive capability is termed as specified resilienceterm·dom. For example, if a climate-challenged human community develops resilienceterm·dom in addressing the problem of salinity intrusion—but does not become resilient to drought, flood, cyclones, and other climate threats—its resilienceterm·dom can be termed as specified resilienceterm·dom. Specified resilienceterm·dom answers the question: “resilienceterm·dom of what to what?” [ 68 ]. Generally, the majority of the adaptationterm·key programs for communities designed by governmental and non-governmental organizations in developing countries focus on specific problems and issues which, in turn, result in developing sector-wise resilienceterm·dom. However, too much focus on a specific event or sectors can possibly lead to new kinds of instability of the system in facing a multitude of challenges. Thus, specified resilienceterm·dom is not holistic in nature. General resilienceterm·dom, on the other hand, is the resilienceterm·dom which a system grows in order to address all sorts of shocks simultaneously. This type of resilienceterm·dom program addresses all of the potential threats that affect the system as a whole or part of it. Thus, general resilienceterm·dom is holistic. Similarly, Begon and colleagues, using the concept of stability synonymously with the current usage of resilienceterm·dom, distinguished between local stability and global stability [ 55 , 69 ]. Local stability means the tendency of a community to reinstate its original state ‘when subjected to small perturbation’ [ 69 ]; global stability is the capability of a system to return to its original state after comparatively large disturbances.

3.3.2. Nature of the System In terms of the nature of the system, resilienceterm·dom can be categorized in a number of ways. Following Checkland and Scholes [ 70 ] and Handmer and Dovers [ 55 ], we can distinguish between resilienceterm·dom of hard, soft, and mixed systems ( Figure 1 ). As mentioned earlier, resilienceterm·dom of hard systems can be characterized as descriptive, non-normative [ 37 ], tangible, precisely defined, and quantitatively measurable [ 55 ]. The major systems that have this type of resilienceterm·dom include physical–mathematical, engineering, and ecological systems. In physical and mathematical sciences, resilienceterm·dom is viewed as a part of stability analysis and synonymously with elasticity. Resilienceterm·dom of a material or system is linked with its dynamic behavior to return to the original point of equilibrium. Resilienceterm·dom can be defined as the speed with which a system returns to equilibrium after displacement, irrespective of the number of oscillations required [ 56 ]. The more a system is resilient, the more displacement force is required to destabilize it. Structural and engineering science borrows the original meaning of resilienceterm·dom from physical–mathematical sciences. Engineering resilienceterm·dom is focused on “efficiency, control, constancy, and predictability—all attributes at the core of desires for fail-safe design and optimal performance” [ 71 ]. In one of its applied levels, engineering resilienceterm·dom, as the concept of seismic resilienceterm·dom of buildings, denotes the following properties of the system: “reduced failure probabilities; reduced consequences from failures, in terms of lives lost, damage, and negative economic and social consequences; and reduced time to recovery” [ 72 ]. While both physical–mathematical and engineering resilienceterm·dom emphasize on a system’s capacity to return to the original state, ecological or ecosystem resilienceterm·dom focuses on the system’s ability to absorb changes. Ecological resilienceterm·dom can be defined as the buffer capacity of ecosystems to absorb externally caused perturbation, maintain robust functions, and survive systemic shocks [ 6 , 73 ]. In this approach, ecosystems are viewed as constantly changing systems and entities. Thus, maintaining ecosystems functions is a dynamic process of renewal and reorganization. In this sense, ecological resilienceterm·dom shifts from the original mathematical-engineering idea of single equilibrium to multiple points of stability of a system [ 45 ].

Contrary to resilienceterm·dom of hard systems, resilienceterm·dom of soft systems can be characterized as vague and malleable, normative, intangible, and hard to be quantitatively measured. The major forms of resilienceterm·dom of human and social systems that fall under this category include psychological, economic, and community resilienceterm·dom. Psychological resilienceterm·dom, developed independently of mathematical or ecological origins, framed resilienceterm·dom as an adaptive capacity of humans. In early psychiatric literature, children who could withstand high-risk circumstances were termed as ‘invulnerable’—and eventually ‘invulnerability’ was replaced by ‘resilienceterm·dom’ in psychology texts [ 6 , 45 , 74 ]. Humanistic psychology defines resilienceterm·dom as an individual’s capacity to thrive and fulfill potential despite or perhaps even because of such stressors resilient individuals seem not only to cope well with unusual strains and stressors but actually to experience such challenges as learning and development opportunities [ 75 ]. Economic resilienceterm·dom refers to the incorporation of the resilienceterm·dom approach into economic activities including “production inputs and outputs, demand- and supply side effects, inherent and adaptive abilities, and levels of the economy” [ 76 ]. Contrary to pre-disaster mitigation efforts, Rose [ 10 , 51 ] defines resilienceterm·dom based on ‘post-disaster conditions and response’. Rose also puts forward that resilienceterm·dom in economic sectors can take place at three levels: “microeconomic—individual behavior of firms, households, or organizations; meso-economic—economic sector, individual market, or cooperative group; and macroeconomic—all individual units and markets combined, including interactive effects” [ 51 ]. The concept of community resilienceterm·dom was first used perhaps by Judith Kulig and colleagues working in health promotion services in Alberta, Canada [ 45 , 77 ]. Community resilienceterm·dom refers to the capacities and capabilities of a human community to ‘prevent, withstand, or mitigate’ any traumatic event [ 49 , 50 ]. Though the challenges to a community are thought of as coming from external stresses like social, political, or environmental changes [ 58 ], the threats may also be the result of a community’s internal evolutionary processes of vulnerabilityterm·dom [ 26 , 67 , 78 ].

In between the hard and the soft systems there is a third category, which we can tag as ‘mixed systems’. Mixed systems resilienceterm·dom is a hybrid concept—a boundary object in which descriptive and normative connotations are intermingled [ 37 , 26 ]. This type of resilienceterm·dom lies at the border between natural and social sciences. We can cite social–ecological resilienceterm·dom and organizational resilienceterm·dom as two examples of mixed systems resilienceterm·dom. The social–ecological systemsterm·dom (SESterm·dom) approach treats humans as part of ecosystems—the nature–culture divide is viewed as arbitrary and artificial. Adger and colleagues [ 12 , 58 ] defined social–ecological resilienceterm·dom as the capacity of linked social–ecological systemsterm·dom to absorb recurrent disturbances so as to retain essential structures, processes, and feedbacks. Organizational resilienceterm·dom of business enterprises is another example of mixed system resilienceterm·dom. As an area of ‘corporate strategy’ [ 79 ], enterprise (or, organizational) resilienceterm·dom incorporates the ideas of risk management and governance processes: enterprise resilienceterm·dom marries risk assessment, information reporting, and governance processes with strategic and business planning to create an enterprise-wide early warning capability that is embedded in the business of the company [ 80 ]. Thus, enterprise resilienceterm·dom puts equal weights on physical-structural aspects and company culture—a combination of both hard and soft systems approaches.

3.3.3. Nature of the Response Based on the nature of the response that a system generates to hazards or disturbances, Handmer and Dovers [ 55 ] suggested a three-way generic classification of resilienceterm·dom: resistance and maintenance; change at the margins; and openness and adaptability. The type 1 resilienceterm·dom, resistance and maintenance, is the most basic form. A social system of this type tries to avoid change, denies the existence of any problem, allocates resources in order to maintain the status quo, and does not question any underlying assumptions or power asymmetries in society. This approach is favored by the elites of society who fear the loss of their authority if any drastic change occurs in the society. Since this type of resilienceterm·dom lacks flexibility, a system containing it cannot adjust to new situations. Having this form of resilienceterm·dom, a system would collapse instead of transform. The type 2 resilienceterm·dom, change at the margins, is the standard approach to address disturbances. A system with this type of resilienceterm·dom admits the existence of a problem; acknowledges its repercussions; acknowledges the non-sustainability of the current system; and advocates reforms in a degree which does not challenge the societal bases or governance regimes. Thus, this approach, dominant in the West, addresses symptoms, not the underlying causes [ 55 ]. Type 3 resilienceterm·dom, openness and adaptability, is the deepest form of resilienceterm·dom which directly addresses the fundamental causes of hazards; and advocates major political and cultural shifts through transformation in over-arching political economy regimes and associated cultural discourses on development, risk, and security.

The above discussion on various approaches to resilienceterm·dom serves as the theoretical base of this study. Since we focus on community resilienceterm·dom, it is now clear that community resilienceterm·dom is soft, social, and one of the most adopted approaches in addressing disasters in societies in recent time. The central strength of a community resilienceterm·dom approach, as a type of social resilienceterm·dom, is its characteristic both as an ‘outcome’ and a ‘process’. Since identifying community resilienceterm·dom is the key purpose of this paper, the following section briefly outlines the major relevant issues.

4. Community Resilienceterm·dom: The Focused Level Every level of human institutions or organizations, from the individual/household to the global, shows resilienceterm·dom characteristics with varying dynamics. In its multi-scalar dimension, resilienceterm·dom is more direct and tangible in the individual/household level, and gradually takes on a more abstract and intangible form at larger spheres [ 25 , 26 ]. Thus, it is imperative for studies to clearly define and characterize resilienceterm·dom, the focused social level, and measuring methods. For example, as a global problem, climate changeterm·key decision-making and initiatives come from the larger global, regional, or national strata, but are tangibly implemented at household or community levels. Communities are particularly important in conceptualizing social resilienceterm·dom because this level is at the intersection of micro-individual-household and macro-national-global levels, which can be downscaled or up-scaled [ 26 , 42 ]. In this section, we will focus on the characteristics of a climate resilient community, and discuss how community capitalsterm·dom create resilienceterm·dom to climate changeterm·key.

4.1. Characterizing a Climate Resilient Community Community resilienceterm·dom, or ‘regional resilienceterm·dom’ [ 81 ] has been defined by social scientists in various ways, including “those features of a community that in general promote the safety of its residents and serve as a specific buffer against injury and violence risks, and more generally, adversity” [ 49 ]; a community’s ability to maintain, renew, or reorganize social system functions and ecological functions [ 50 ]; “a process linking a set of networked adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptationterm·key in constituent populations after a disturbance” [ 9 ]; “the existence, development, and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise” [ 82 ]; and “(a community’s) social capitalterm·key, physical infrastructure, and culturally embedded patterns of interdependence that give it the potential to recover from dramatic change, sustain its adaptability, and support new growth that integrates the lessons learned during a time of crisis” [ 28 ].

In the literatures on community resilienceterm·dom [ 2 , 5 , 9 , 28 , 83 , 84 ], we discern the following characteristics of a resilient or ‘viable’ [ 48 ] community, especially in terms of both rapid and slow onset socio-economic, environmental and climate changesterm·key. A resilient community: Takes intentional action to enhance the personal and collective capacity of its members and institutions to respond to, and influence the course of social and economic change. Is organized. It has the capacity to recognize problems, institute priorities, and act. Fosters the factors that enhance community resilienceterm·dom by improving community members’ capabilities; i.e., by learning to live with change and uncertainty; nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal; combining different kinds of knowledge; and creating opportunity for self-organization. Adapts to constant changes. It does not treat shocks and disturbances only as episodic, but regards many of them as constant and gradual threats. Builds its resilienceterm·dom through cumulative mechanisms and pathways over time. It is knowledgeable and skillful in assessing, managing, and monitoring its risks. It can learn new skills and build on past experiences. Is multi-scalar; it acts at the individual, community, and regional levels, deploying its internal as well externally-networked resources in tackling and coping to adversaries. Assists its members to navigate to resources as well as to negotiate for the resources they need. Is relatively autonomous and self-sufficient in relation to economic decision-making. It has wider economic diversities with a broader range of employment options, income, and financial services (economic capital). It is flexible, resourceful, and has the capacity to accept uncertainty and respond proactively to change. Is rich in community capitalsterm·dom including economic, social, built, political, and environmental capitals. Is capable of clearly identifying its barriers (i.e., pre-disaster vulnerabilities, social class, mistrust, race and ethnicity, gender) and facilitators (i.e., access to community resources, local community civic and faith-based groups, and bonding–bridging–linking social capitalsterm·key). Is connected to external actors (including family friends, religious groups, and government) who deliver a wider supportive environment and supply goods and services when needed (linking social capitalterm·key). Has physical infrastructures and services (built capital) that include resilient housing, transport, and power, water, and sanitation systems. It has the ability to retain, repair, and renovate them. Can manage its natural assets (environmental capital). It recognizes their value and has the ability to protect, enhance, and maintain them.

4.2. How Community Capitalsterm·dom Create Resilienceterm·dom to Climate Changeterm·key From the above discussion it is clear that a climate resilient community has sufficient assets and resources that facilitate its coping capacity with long-term changes. A balanced combination of various ‘community capitalsterm·dom’ [ 82 ]—sometimes variously termed as community resources [ 48 , 53 ], community energy [ 48 ], or community capacities [ 53 ]—enhances resilienceterm·dom of a community to disturbances including climate changeterm·key disruptions. Community capitalsterm·dom are resources of a community that are invested for the collective wellbeing of the entire community. Social scientists frequently mention human capital (i.e., an individual’s innate and acquired personal attributes, such as work skill, education, knowledge, and health, which contribute to the ability to earn a living and strengthening the community), cultural capital (i.e., community’s worldview, values, and norms), financial or economic capital (i.e., material property, wealth, and other financial sources available to be invested for business development, civic, and social enterprises), physical or built capital (i.e., physical infrastructure of a community including machinery, homes, factories, water, roads, transport, shelter, and energy), political capital (i.e., community members’ access to resources, power, and power brokers), environmental or natural capital (i.e., availability and sustainable use of natural resources for human consumption), and social capitalterm·key (i.e., the extent of social networks) [ 9 , 22 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 53 , 82 , 84 , 85 ]. Social capitalterm·key is an ‘umbrella term’ [ 25 , 26 ] that can incorporate cultural and political capitals of a community. Social capitalterm·key may further be divided into bonding capital (i.e., close ‘inward looking’ horizontal ties of social network that build cohesion within a community), bridging capital (referring to loose horizontal ties of ‘outward looking’ social networks across various social and ethnic groups), and linking capital (referring to vertical relationships across power or authority gradients) [ 82 , 85 ].

According to Wilson [ 26 ], a community’s resilienceterm·dom can be conceptualized on the basis of how well the ‘critical triangle’ of three major community capitalsterm·dom—economic, social, and environmental capital—are developed in a certain community and how these capitals interact. A community is strongly resilient when all three capitals are well developed in it, while it is weakly resilient when only one or no capital is well developed in it, and furthermore, a community is moderately resilient when two capitals are well developed.

As noted in an earlier section, the IPCC [ 14 ] points out a number of climate-related drivers that affect the global environment. The drivers include warming trends, extreme temperatures, drying trends, extreme precipitation, damaging cyclones, flooding, storm surges, ocean acidification, temporal shifts in seasonality, and resulting sea-level riseterm (SLRterm) and salinization of water and soil. All of these ‘signatures of climate changeterm·key’ [ 86 ] have devastating repercussions on human livelihoods and communities. Human communities are negatively impacted by recent global warming in numerous ways, such as negative impacts on average crop yields and increases in yield variability; urban risks associated with water supply, housing, and energy systems; decreased access to water for poor people due to water shortage and growing competition for water; displacement, and involuntary and forced migration associated with extreme events; violent conflict arising from deterioration in resource-dependent livelihoods such as agriculture and pastoralism; declining work productivity, increasing morbidity (i.e., dehydration, heat stroke, and heat exhaustion), and mortality from exposure to heat waves. Particular segments of people, including homeless people, children, construction workers, and women, are more vulnerable to increasing morbidity and mortality [ 14 ]. All of these current and projected consequences of climate changeterm·key on human livelihoods have, in turn, negative impacts on overall community capitalsterm·dom—economic, social, physical, natural, and others. A community’s resilienceterm·dom to climate changeterm·key depends on how the community withstands, and recovers from, climate shocks through its economic, social, and other community capitalsterm·dom.

However, community capitalsterm·dom are neither equally distributed among community members nor are they available to a community as group—often some capitals are under the capacity of particular individuals or groups of individuals. For example, human capital varies from individual to individual, and economic and political capitals may vary from class to class. Nevertheless, all of the capitals available to a community can mutually support and enhance each other if they are utilized optimally by the community members. Climate events can have variegated impacts on geographically-bounded communities. They can negatively impact one form of capital but can facilitate other forms. For example, sudden changes like floods can destroy physical infrastructures in a community but they can improve natural capital and are likely to attract a financial influx through governmental, and other, rebuilding and rehabilitation schemes. On the contrary, slow onset changes, such as sea-level riseterm or drought, can destroy financial and environmental capital of a locality, but do not attract support from outside.

As we noted earlier, a resilient community has distinct features with regard to how it utilizes its resources in addressing climate shocks. A community’s resilienceterm·dom depends on how rich the community is in terms of various capitals; how quickly and how well it recovers from the losses through effective use of resources and capitals; how the whole community works as a unified team; how committed and persevering its members are; how well it identifies its barriers and facilitators; how well it is horizontally and vertically connected to other groups and institutions, and how well it uses these connections; and how dynamic and strategic are its community leaders. We can term all of the above characteristics of a community as its resilienceterm·dom dimensions [ 53 ].

Thus, it can be concluded that although climate changeterm·key phenomena can have indirect positive consequences on social, economic, and other community capitalsterm·dom, generally, climate variability and extremes have immediate and direct negative impacts on community resources through destabilizing or destroying them. Community resilienceterm·dom dimensions, on the other hand, have short-term and long-term direct positive influences on community resources and capitals through recovering and reinstating community strength. Community capitalsterm·dom serve as the working ground for both climate changeterm·key impacts and resilienceterm·dom dimensions—either positively or negatively. Figure 2 , adapted from McCrea et al. [ 53 ], presents schematic relations between climate changeterm·key impacts, community capitalsterm·dom, and community resilienceterm·dom. Though this sketch does not imply a rigid flow of events or outcomes, it depicts the main argument of this paper that, in a human community, climate changeterm·key dimensions have overall negative impacts on community capitalsterm·dom and resilienceterm·dom dimensions have positive impacts. The net result of the impacts of these two dimensions on community capitalsterm·dom is indicative of the extent of community resilienceterm·dom to climate changeterm·key.

5. Conclusions Climate changeterm·key generates risk to human society in a multitude of intermingled ways, including long-lasting changes in mean temperatures, precipitation, and other climate parameters, as well as secondary effects, such as sea-level riseterm, temporal shifts in seasonality culminating into extreme and abnormal conditions at local levels, and increased climate extremes that can elicit floods, cyclones, fires and other natural disasters. Resilienceterm·dom to local impacts of global climate changeterm·key requires sensitivity to the local milieu since other social, cultural, economic, political, ethnic, and environmental risks and opportunities define context-specific human well-being [ 87 ]. Community-level resilienceterm·dom is created and re-created through constant organization, disorganization, and reorganization of resources and capitals of the community. This article contributes to disaster and resilienceterm·dom studies by clearly establishing the conceptual connections between community level impacts of climate changeterm·key, community capitalsterm·dom, and community resilienceterm·dom.