Communities self-assessing resilience

Interested in resilience assessment? By and for communities? The Agricultural Biodiversity Community has been developing a tool to help communities self assess resilience (CSAR). Check out the new website which includes information on the suggested process, a list of available resilience assessment resources and a few case examples from around the world.

The CSAR is not a new tool!! It is simply a suggested process which brings together various assessment methodologies. Important and unique about the CSAR is that is starts with narrative, and then moves to assessment and maybe in some cases measurement, starting with self-defined indicators and in a co-productive way drawing on existing resources such as the Social-ecological production landscapes and seascapes indicators.

Please check out our website here, and get in touch if you’d like to know more or get involved with a case study trial.

Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 20.01.36

I’ve reflected (and struggled) a bit with my involvement in this initiative, as a young Northern scientist, here:

New Paper: The power problematic: exploring the uncertain terrains of political ecology and the resilience framework

Authors: Micah Ingalls and Richard Stedman

Our colleagues from the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University, have just published their paper in Ecology and Society! The paper tackles the gaps between the resilience framework and political ecology with a focus on the power problematic.  Happy reading!

Follow this link to the full paper:

ABSTRACT. Significant and growing concerns relating to global social and environmental conditions and processes have raised deep questions relating to the ability of traditional governance regimes to manage for the complexities of social-ecological systems. The resilience framework provides a more dynamic approach to system analysis and management, emphasizing nonlinearity, feedbacks, and multiscalar engagement along the social-ecological nexus. In recent years, however, a number of scholars and practitioners have noted various insufficiencies in the formulation of the resilience framework, including its lack of engagement with the dimensions of power within social-ecological systems, which blunt the analytical potential of resilience and run the risk of undermining resilience based management objectives. In this analysis, we engage with this power problematic by drawing on key insights from the scholarly tradition of political ecology, suggesting that a more appreciative, thorough going engagement between resilience scholarship and political ecology may allow not only a deeper treatment of power within the resilience framework but also address several important critiques of political ecology itself. We explore the shared intellectual spaces of these traditions and suggest some ways in which a critical engagement between resilience and political ecology on the subject of power better informs our understanding of socio-political dynamics within complex systems. In closing, we train the critical light backward on political ecology to suggest that an appreciative engagement with the resilience framework may assist by reasserting a more serious treatment of ecology within political ecological analyses and support the formulation of more elegant, politically tractable counter narratives to address global environmental crises.

Key Words: political ecology; power; resilience; social-ecological systems

Measuring and assessing resilience: broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives

Allyson E Quinlan, Marta Berbés-BlázquezL. Jamila Haider and Garry D. Peterson


  1. Increased interest in managing resilience has led to efforts to develop standardized tools for assessments and quantitative measures. Resilience, however, as a property of complex adaptive systems, does not lend itself easily to measurement. Whereas assessment approaches tend to focus on deepening understanding of system dynamics, resilience measurement aims to capture and quantify resilience in a rigorous and repeatable way.
  2. We discuss the strengths, limitations and trade-offs involved in both assessing and measuring resilience, as well as the relationship between the two. We use a range of disciplinary perspectives to draw lessons on distilling complex concepts into useful metrics.
  3. Measuring and monitoring a narrow set of indicators or reducing resilience to a single unit of measurement may block the deeper understanding of system dynamics needed to apply resilience thinking and inform management actions.
  4. Synthesis and applications. Resilience assessment and measurement can be complementary. In both cases it is important that: (i) the approach aligns with how resilience is being defined, (ii) the application suits the specific context and (iii) understanding of system dynamics is increased. Ongoing efforts to measure resilience would benefit from the integration of key principles that have been identified for building resilience.

Read the paper here:

Or Access full pdf through research gate here:

Beyond Divides: Prospects for Synergy Between Resilience and Pathways Approaches to Sustainability

In the context of rapid social, ecological and technological change,there is rising global demand from private, public and civic interests for trans-disciplinary sustainability research. This demand is fuelled by an increasing recognition that transitions toward sustainability require new modes of knowledge production that incorporate social and natural sciences and the humanities.

The STEPS Centre’s ‘pathways approach’ and the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s (SRC) ‘resilience approach’ are two distinct trans-disciplinary frameworks for understanding and responding to sustainability challenges. However, the varieties of trans-disciplinarity pursued by the SRC and STEPS each have distinct origins and implications. Therefore, by selecting either the ‘resilience’ or ‘pathways’ approach, or indeed any distinct approach to sustainability, the researcher must contend with a range of foundational ontological and epistemological commitments that profoundly affect the definition of problems, generation of knowledge and prescriptions for action. What does an (un)sustainable world look like? How might we ‘know’ and research (un)sustainability? How should sustainability researchers position themselves in relation to civil society, policy, business and academic communities?

In this paper we explore how resilience and pathways address these questions, identifying points of overlap and friction with the aim of generating new research questions and illuminating areas of potential synergy.

Read the full article, written by a group of young SES scholars, here.