Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a ...eprints.icrisat.ac.in/4245/1/AnnualReviewofEnvResources_32_395-419... · Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions

ANRV325-EG32-14 ARI 21 September 2007 17:2

Adaptation toEnvironmental Change:Contributions of aResilience FrameworkDonald R. Nelson,1,4 W. Neil Adger,1,2

and Katrina Brown1,3

1Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, 2School of Environmental Sciences,3School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ,United Kingdom; email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson,Arizona 85721

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007. 32:395–419

First published online as a Review in Advance onJuly 31, 2007

The Annual Review of Environment and Resourcesis online at http://environ.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1543-5938/07/1121-0395$20.00

Key Words

adaptive management, governance, risk, social-ecological systems

AbstractAdaptation is a process of deliberate change in anticipation of or inreaction to external stimuli and stress. The dominant research tradi-tion on adaptation to environmental change primarily takes an actor-centered view, focusing on the agency of social actors to respond tospecific environmental stimuli and emphasizing the reduction of vul-nerabilities. The resilience approach is systems orientated, takes amore dynamic view, and sees adaptive capacity as a core feature ofresilient social-ecological systems. The two approaches converge inidentifying necessary components of adaptation. We argue that re-silience provides a useful framework to analyze adaptation processesand to identify appropriate policy responses. We distinguish betweenincremental adjustments and transformative action and demonstratethat the sources of resilience for taking adaptive action are com-mon across scales. These are the inherent system characteristics thatabsorb perturbations without losing function, networks and socialcapital that allow autonomous action, and resources that promoteinstitutional learning.

395

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Adaptation: thedecision-makingprocess and the set ofactions undertakento maintain thecapacity to deal withcurrent or futurepredicted change

Vulnerability: thesusceptibility of asystem todisturbancesdetermined byexposure toperturbations,sensitivity toperturbations, andthe capacity to adapt

Resilience: theamount of change asystem can undergoand still retain thesame function andstructure whilemaintaining optionsto develop

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396CONCEPTUALIZING

ADAPTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397Adaptation in the Environmental

Change Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398Adaptation within a Resilience

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398Components of Adaptation . . . . . . . 399

CONTRIBUTIONS OF ARESILIENCE FRAMEWORK. . . 401Multiple States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401Adaptive Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402Trade-offs in Resilience and

Adaptedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407Governance and Normative

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

INTRODUCTION

Adaptation involves change. Adaptation is,therefore, standard practice in the humanworld as individuals, communities, and soci-eties adjust their activities, life courses, andlocations to take advantage of new opportu-nities. But adaptation is often imposed on so-cieties and localities because of external un-desirable change. Efforts to respond to thesechanges frequently entail reducing vulnera-bility and enhancing the capacity to adapt, ineffect, to enhance the resilience of people andplaces, localities, and ways of life. Much the-oretical and empirical research on resilience,however, derives from a disciplinary focus dif-ferent than that of adaptation. In this chap-ter, we explore how resilience is related toadaptation in the context of environmentalchange. We review whether resilience of-fers a new or alternative ways of under-standing adaptation and of analyzing strate-gies to promote adaptation to environmentalchange. We propose that adaptation to envi-ronmental change is best formulated as an is-sue of system resilience, drawing on perspec-

tives from newly emerging research on gov-ernance, adaptive capacity, and the robustnessof response strategies.

Presently observed global environmentalchange provides significant challenges that re-quire substantial adaptations and even trans-formations in social organization, resourceuse, and settlement. Adaptation is impera-tive for three reasons. First, many futureenvironmental risks are now more apparentand predictable than ever. We know that de-mographic changes, technological shifts, andland-use change are creating risks that areamenable to adaptation responses. Second,even where risks are not quantifiable, envi-ronmental changes may be hugely significant.Projected future climate change, for exam-ple, is likely to require system transforma-tions as areas and economic activities may beno longer viable in particular places over thenext century. Nevertheless, it is increasinglyrecognized that adaptation to environmentalchange does not take place in isolation; it is in-evitably the result of actions of multiple actorsand usually in response to multiple stressesand stimuli. The idea of multiple stresses iscentral to current research on vulnerabilityto environmental change (1). Third, environ-mental change, although often the outcomeof multiple drivers, has indisputable humancauses. Thus, adaptation and adaptation as-sistance are increasingly demanded by thosemade vulnerable by increased exposure to risk(2). This is most apparent in the arena of cli-mate change where issues of climate justice,compensation, and government responsibil-ity for reducing vulnerabilities through adap-tation are central to policy debates (2–5).

Whatever the demands for adaptation, ac-tions that constitute adaptation are observedat a variety of scales. They may be local orglobal in scale, and they may be spontaneousor the result of deliberate policy processes. Butdespite the diversity of actors, motivations,and institutional arrangements for adaptation,analytically adaptation is most often narrowlyconceptualized as a set of technological ortechnical options to respond to specific risks.

396 Nelson · Adger · Brown

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


The policy focus is on outcomes, which pre-supposes future conditions in order to evalu-ate the value of specific actions. We argue inthis review that formulating adaptation as a setof discrete policy or technology choices lim-its the credence and usefulness of adaptationpolicies because it skews the priorities awayfrom long-term system viability. We believethat conceptual, as well as normative, under-standings of adaptation must be broadened.

Response to environmental change is cap-tured by the concepts of mitigation and adap-tation. Mitigation refers to actions that reduceexposure to changes, for example, throughregulation, location, or technological shifts.Adaptation refers to the adjustments that pop-ulations take in response to current or pre-dicted change. Mitigation, however, is insuf-ficient to fully protect or buffer populationsfrom change, and recent literature is repletewith examples of drastic, often irreversible,changes (see, for example, Reference 6). In re-sponse to the increased awareness of change(6, 7), there has been a corresponding in-crease in documented efforts to amelioraterisk through adaptation actions (3, 6, 8, 9).Researchers and policy makers are workingto identify analytical frameworks that providethe necessary tools for analyzing human adap-tations in light of current and future envi-ronmental change (8). The first step in thisanalysis has often been identification of vul-nerabilities to change (10–12); a key objec-tive of most adaptation actions is the reduc-tion in vulnerability. Much emerging evidenceinevitably shows that adaptation actions con-centrate on where immediate benefits can begained and actors can mobilize resources, butpersistent and intractable vulnerabilities oftenremain despite much adaptation actions.

To explore the central question of what aresilience framework can contribute to grow-ing understanding of adaptation, we beginwith a comparison of how the concepts ofadaptation are currently applied in environ-mental change literature and within a re-silience framework. The rest of the reviewis divided into four sections: multiple states,

Adaptive capacity:the preconditionsnecessary to enableadaptation, includingsocial and physicalelements, and theability to mobilizethese elements

Transformation: afundamentalalteration of thenature of a systemonce the currentecological, social, oreconomic conditionsbecome untenable orare undesirable

adaptive capacity, trade-offs, and the gover-nance of adaptation. These sections repre-sent key aspects of a resilience framework thatprovide insights into the process of adapta-tion in social-ecological systems. Each of thesections discusses contemporary research andhighlights critical research questions.

CONCEPTUALIZINGADAPTATION

We define adaptation as the decision-makingprocess and the set of actions undertakento maintain the capacity to deal with futurechange or perturbations to a social-ecologicalsystem without undergoing significantchanges in function, structural identity, orfeedbacks of that system while maintainingthe option to develop. At the collective level,process and action are predicated on effectivegovernance and management structures.Adaptation can therefore involve buildingadaptive capacity, thereby increasing the abil-ity of individuals, groups, or organizations toadjust to changes and implementing adapta-tion decisions, i.e., transforming that capacityinto action. In this context, adaptive capacityrefers to the preconditions that are necessaryto enable adaptation and includes socialcharacteristics and physical and economicelements (13). Both dimensions of adaptationcan be implemented in preparation for, or inresponse to, impacts generated by environ-mental or other changes. Hence, adaptationis a continuous stream of activities, actions,decisions, and attitudes that inform decisionsabout all aspects of life and that reflectexisting social norms and processes. Thereare many classifications of adaptation options(summarized in Reference 14) categorized bytheir purpose, mode of implementation, oron the institutional form they take.

To date, the literature and research do-mains of adaptation to global environmen-tal change and of adaptation within a social-ecological systems resilience framework havebeen relatively distinct (15). Each strandof research has developed in parallel from

www.annualreviews.org • Adaptation, Resilience, and Change 397

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


historically quite separate disciplinary tra-ditions and with relatively little cross-fertilization. Research on adaptation to en-vironmental change in general, and climatechange in particular, expanded rapidly inthe early 1990s, drawing upon a variety ofmostly social science disciplines, particularlythe early work on hazards and disasters (16).These adaptation studies have tended to fo-cus on process, practices, and governance is-sues. They tend to be prescriptive, norma-tive, and actor based. In contrast, research onthe concept of ecological resilience was firstelaborated in Holling’s 1973 seminal article(17). This perspective developed from popu-lation and landscape ecology and applied re-source management, and it has a strong math-ematical foundation and focus on modeling.The resilience framework is based on com-plex systems theories and bridges social andphysical sciences to understand and identifypossible ecosystem management options (18).Social-ecological resilience offers an analyt-ical framework, which often takes on a nor-mative slant. We briefly highlight the state ofknowledge in each of these two domains priorto a discussion of the contributions a resilienceframework provides for better understandingadaptation.

Adaptation in the EnvironmentalChange Literature

Adaptation to environmental change is definedin the adaptation literature as an adjustmentin ecological, social, or economic systems inresponse to observed or expected changes inenvironmental stimuli and their effects andimpacts in order to alleviate adverse impactsof change (14, 19–22). Emerging key researchareas on adaptation to environmental changeare (a) identifying system thresholds, limits,and barriers to implementing adaptation (3);(b) defining successful or sustainable adapta-tion (reviewed in Reference 8) in promotingappropriate technological options for adapta-tion (23); (c) cognitive processes of risk assess-ment and formulation (24, 25); and (d ) the rel-

ative role of public and private actors in adap-tation (26, 27). Many of these issues are funda-mentally about the governance of adaptation.

Recent studies are providing empirical evi-dence of how actor networks access resources,make actual adjustments, and result in conse-quences for ecological and social resilience atdifferent scales. For example, Vasquez-Leon(28) examines how ethnicity is a factor in de-termining pathways of successful adaptationto drought in southeastern Arizona. Few et al.(29) show how local stakeholders perceivethemselves to be constrained in implement-ing adaptation to climate change on the U.K.coast through complicated multijurisdictionalstructures and lack of precise information onrisks. Yet faced with the same risks, most com-munities in the United Kingdom differ widelyin their perceived resilience and their abilityto govern and shape their own future (30).

According to the environmental changeperspective then, adaptation is about decisionmaking and the power to implement those de-cisions. It is a process in which knowledge,experience, and institutional structures com-bine together to characterize options and de-termine action. The process is negotiated andmediated through social groups, and decisionsare reached through networks of actors thatstruggle to achieve their particular goals (31).Adaptation is concerned with actors, actions,and agency and is recognized as an ongoingprocess. Nevertheless, adaptation is consid-ered in respect to specific risks. Therefore,evaluations of adaptive actions are static in na-ture; they measure levels of risk before andafter adjustments have taken place.

Adaptation within a ResilienceFramework

System resilience refers to the amount ofchange a system can undergo and still retainthe same controls on function and structurewhile maintaining options to develop (32, 33).The resilience approach is founded on the un-derstanding that the natural state of a system isone of change rather than one of equilibrium


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


(17). The type and magnitude of change isnot always predictable, but change will occur.As a result, systems need to be managed forflexibility rather than for maintaining stability.A resilience approach also implies that socialand ecological systems cannot be consideredin absence of one another but must be un-derstood as related, coupled systems. In thissense, a society may be able to cope well withchange from a social perspective (e.g., improv-ing irrigation technology and increasing agri-cultural subsidies), but an evaluation of overallresilience must also include the sustainabilityof the adaptation from an ecological perspec-tive (e.g., the ecological impacts of increasedfarming and groundwater pumping) (34).

The ability to adapt, that is, to maintain aresponse capacity, is predicated on three fun-damental characteristics: the degree to whichthe system is susceptible to change while stillretaining structure and function, the degreeto which it is capable of self-organization,and the capacity for learning. They have beendefined from the ecological resilience schooland refined through increasing empirical ev-idence on coupled social-ecological systems(35). These key characteristics of resiliencefind parallels in a series of studies on adapta-tion and vulnerability to climate change. Thedeterminants of adaptive capacity to cope withclimate change have been assessed in a groupof studies that examine adaptive capacity at thescale of nations, of communities, and of sec-tors of the economy (19, 36–42). These stud-ies find similar patterns and determinants atthese different levels. They find that adaptivecapacity is influenced not only by economicdevelopment and technology, but also by so-cial factors such as human capital and gover-nance structures.

Because system states are understood to besubject to perturbations and disturbances, theconcept of adaptation needs to consider theability not only to respond but to take advan-tage of any opportunities that arise. Althoughdisturbances are often portrayed in a negativelight, they also provide the opportunity forinnovation and development (34). As Smit &

Wandel (21) and Gallopın (43) suggest, adap-tation includes processes that allow societiesto survive, flourish, and maintain their qualityof life. Thus, managing for resilience requiresdirecting a system in a way that provides flex-ibility during times of disturbance and thatallows a way to take advantage of the latentdiversity within the system and the range ofopportunities following release.

The resilience framework has developedto incorporate ideas of complex systems andin so doing emphasizes the functioning of thesocial-ecological system as a whole. The fo-cus is on the relationships between the systemcomponents, not on the functioning of indi-vidual components in isolation. Rather, it isconcerned with context, feedbacks, and con-nectedness of system components (18). This isa fundamental difference with the adaptationto environmental change literature, which isfocused on actors. We argue that reconcilia-tion of actor- and system-oriented approachesrepresents a major challenge in this domain.Actor-based analysis looks at the process ofnegotiation and decisions, and the systems-based analysis examines the implications ofthese processes on the rest of the system. Thesystems perspective also contains a temporalelement that is important to the concept ofadaptation. It considers adaptation not in lightof specific activities but rather in how activitiesfeedback, either positively or negatively, intothe system as a whole through time. Becausethe focus is on maintaining flexibility, currentadaptation today must be evaluated on the ba-sis of how it will affect future flexibility; thishas implications for the sustainability of adap-tations and required trade-offs.

Components of Adaptation

The development of the distinct actor per-spective and the system perspective on adap-tation arise from specific historical evolutionsin trajectories in different disciplines and fromapplication in different contexts. However, allanalysis of adaptation is, we suggest, at itscore concerned with relationships between


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Figure 1Characteristics,processes, andoutcomes ofadaptation actions.

Adaptedness: astate in which asystem is effective inrelating with theenvironment (48)and meets thenormative goals ofstakeholders

characteristics, processes, and outcomes, andour objective here is to explore these relation-ships rather than to make a case for defini-tive meanings or new interpretations. Work-ing definitions of the terms used in this revieware provided in the margins of the text.

These three components, system charac-teristics, adaptation processes, and outcomes,are presented in Figure 1. The ability to adaptis a function of system characteristics, whichare captured by the concept of resilience.Many definitions conflate resilience and adap-tive capacity in part or in whole. Adaptive ca-pacity is a way to describe the preconditionsnecessary for a system to be able to adapt todisturbances. It is represented by the set ofavailable resources and the ability of the sys-tem to respond to disturbances and includesthe capacity to design and implement effec-tive adaptation strategies to cope with currentor future events (13). Resources include eco-nomic capital, technology and infrastructure,information, knowledge, institutions, the ca-pacity to learn, and social capital (38, 40, 44,45). Adaptive capacity also has direct implica-tions for the type and scale of adaptation thatis possible for the system to achieve.

We highlight the capacity to absorb changewithout losing system function to draw atten-tion to a specific resilience characteristic. Thischaracteristic is often referred to as engineer-ing resilience and is distinct from the conceptof adaptive capacity. In fact, these concepts aresometimes held in opposition to each other.For example, there can be highly resilient sys-

tems that reside in undesirable states. Theseresilient systems are often described as being“pathologically” resistant to change and canwithstand efforts to change (46). Thus, in sys-tem transformations, adaptive capacity mayneed to be activated in order to overcome re-silience in a system.

System transformation is a process thatcreates a fundamentally new social-ecologicalsystem (Figure 1) (47). Transformationalchange results from crossing ecological or so-cial thresholds. For example, because of im-pacts of a changing climate, an ecosystem mayno longer be able to support traditional liveli-hood systems such as farming or ranching(47). Social-ecological systems may also trans-form owing to changes in social goals. Forexample, irrigated agriculture may no longerbe a policy goal if groundwater pumping hasnegative effects on maintaining socially de-sirable riparian areas. Through a planningprocess this system may shift to a tourism-based economy. The second type of adap-tation process is system adjustments, whichmay include improving agricultural systems,redesigning the built environment, or imple-menting new management decisions. Theseadjustments are undertaken in order to reducerisk and to improve the level of adaptednessof a system.

The outcome of the adaptation process issystem adaptedness, the level of effectiveness inthe way a system relates with the environment(48) and meets the normative goals of sys-tem managers and stakeholders. Adaptedness


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


is never permanent, and the level of adapted-ness will change on basis of the types, frequen-cies, and magnitudes of system disturbances.A system may be highly adapted to the currentenvironment, although it may be incapable ofresponding to novel or more extreme envi-ronmental variation. Adaptations are seldompermanent (49), rather they should be under-stood to be adjustments to the current systemcontext, which will change and will likely re-quire a new set of responses.

System disturbances not only affect thelevel of adaptedness but also influence sys-tem characteristics and the types of adapta-tion processes that are possible or appropriate.These disturbances represent the uncertain,but inevitable, sources of change in systems.They may be social, biological, or physical innature. But all of them will affect the rela-tionships and the feedbacks within a social-ecological system.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF ARESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

We have discussed the way in which adapta-tion is treated in the environmental changeliterature and within a resilience framework.This section describes how a resilience frame-work can contribute to adaptation studiesin order to better understand the processesof adaptation and the wider implications ofthose processes. The section addresses four is-sues arising from resilience analysis: multiplestates, adaptive capacity, trade-offs, and gov-ernance and normative issues. We discuss thecurrent state of knowledge and also presentkey challenges for environmental change andresilience-oriented adaptation for each ofthese issues. The challenges are intended topromote discussions and to suggest researchareas that continue to explore the relationshipbetween adaptation and resilience.

Multiple States

A fundamental contribution of the resilienceframework is the understanding that most

social-ecological systems can organize arounda number of possible states (18). This ef-fectively increases the range of adaptationoptions beyond simply responding to per-turbations or stresses because it envisionsthe possibility of changing the system stateitself. The following discussion addresses twoaspects of multiple states: desirable states andthresholds.

Desirable states. A system is defined by thearray of existing state variables, and with-out human intervention, ecological controlswould determine the arrangement of the vari-ables and the system state. From an ecologicalperspective, there is no presumption that anystate is more desirable than another. But socialgoals and desires serve as a point of compar-ison for evaluating the desirability of a givenstate. For example, a particular ecological sys-tem may be able to support shrubs, grazing an-imals, and grasses in a variety of combinations(47). Therefore, a given state may be less de-sirable than others. In a ranching community,the desired state may be few shrubs, lots ofgrass, and many cattle. Another community,less dependent on livestock production, mayprefer that the system provide more shrubs,fewer cattle, and less grass. Thus, the types ofservices provided and the state in which thesystem resides are a product of negotiation asindividuals and societies seek to direct and ma-nipulate social-ecological systems on the basisof their knowledge and goals (50).

A changing array of ecological and socialfactors means that this negotiation process isnever complete. State variables may change,and management goals may shift as a result ofcontentious decisions that fall short of the de-sires of all those affected, individuals who mayhave competing values and world views. In-creasing understanding and reducing uncer-tainty also influence changes in managementgoals and decisions.

Thresholds. Thresholds represent theboundaries around a system state, which ifcrossed represent the transition into another


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


system state (18). Complex systems aredefined by nonlinear feedbacks, and thus it isdifficult, if not impossible, to identify the pre-cise location of thresholds. A threshold maybecome apparent only after system transfor-mation has occurred or as it is occurring. Be-cause thresholds are not fully predictable, sys-tem characteristics such as self-organizationand learning are critical to negotiate thechanges brought about through purposefulor inadvertent threshold transgression.Thresholds in ecological systems are difficultto identify, but there has been progresstoward demonstrating tipping points throughphysical, nonlinear changes and locationalshifts in species ranges that represent sig-nificant thresholds in distribution as wellas in physiological process changes leadingto species changes (51–53). Many of thesethreshold changes are associated with climaticchanges and may represent key vulnerabilitiesat the global scale (54).

Janssen et al. (49) suggest that social-ecological systems are vulnerable not only tochanges in the physical environment, but alsoto changes in the policy and institutional en-vironments. In fact, social-ecological systemsalso produce institutional change throughsystem feedbacks. These feedback linkagesmake it difficult to conceptually separate dis-course, institutions, and ecological processes.Social systems are, however, similar to eco-logical systems, in that they are bounded bythresholds that may be triggered by nonlin-ear and abrupt responses to particular eventsor through aggregate change through time(52, 55). There is evidence that similaritiesin public values and attitudes are influencedby focusing events or disturbances as well asby opinion leaders (52, 55). These thresholdchanges are often abrupt and have obviousimplications for adaptation because they rep-resent the shifts in what are socially accept-able management goals (56). In the UnitedKingdom, for example, there is some evidencethat policy responses to flood risk directlyfollowed significant high-profile flood events.These events spurred the public, policy advo-

cacy groups, and policy makers to undertakeregulatory reform and invest in flood protec-tion infrastructure at specific periods duringthe past 50 years (57). These opportunitiesfor change are known as policy “windows.”Although institutional inertia works to main-tain the status quo, changes in policy goals aremade once current strategies are proved to bewrong—either through normative or empiri-cal evaluations (46).

Adaptation actions are seldom one-offactivities; hence systems are only adaptableif their institutional structures are conduciveto maintaining ongoing activities. Publicagendas, however, are notoriously fickle, andlimited space for maneuver or meaningfulchange is available at any given time. Onecritical challenge for research is, therefore, tounderstand how institutions are influencedby, and in turn influence, overarching and of-ten divisive environmental change discoursesand ideologies.

Adaptive Capacity

As we mentioned at the beginning of thischapter, adaptive capacity is the set of re-sources, and the ability to employ those re-sources, that are prerequisites to adapation.In this section, we consider adaptive capacityin light of its relationship to types of poten-tial adaptation processes, the different typesof possible system surprises that warrant re-sponses, and the scale of systems and adaptiveactivities.

Adaptation processes. The relationshipbetween system characteristics and actions,from marginal adjustments to transforma-tion processes, are depicted in Figure 2.In order to activate adaptive capacity andundertake actions, a social or biophysicaltrigger must occur, and the appropriateinstitutional framework must be in place. Wedistinguish between transformation as a di-rected, desirable process and transformationassociated with the effects of inadvertentlycrossing thresholds. The former is a planned,


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Figure 2Examples ofincrementaladjustments andtransformations ofsocial-ecologicalsystems withdifferent levels ofresilience.

deliberate process, whereas the latter is anuncontrolled process, which results frominsufficient system resilience. One would ex-pect that inadvertent transformation is morelikely to lead to undesirable system states withlow productivity and less human well-being.

The upper-left oval represents a system inwhich managers responded to climatic factors.In the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia, wa-ter management groups were alerted to theneed for change by the occurrence of a multi-year drought, supply and demand models forthe region, as well as climate scenarios (58).In response to these triggers, the groups im-plemented a number of system adjustmentsusing water demand management strategies,which included water metering, reclamation,and amalgamation of separate municipal util-ities in the region.

The other two cases are examples of sys-tem transformation, one deliberate and oneinadvertent. The northern Arizona case rep-resents the deliberate transformation from anagricultural economic base to a system relyingon tourism and regional service provision. For

decades the economy of the Show Low com-munity has been based on agricultural pro-duction, which included crops and livestock.This was encouraged by city council policiesthat limited growth and development. Overthe past five years, the council has changed itsstance, in part as a response to the increasingdifficulty of maintaining a viable agriculturallybased economy (59). Incentives, including fi-nancial ones, are used to promote the regionas a major tourism and services hub.

Historical agricultural collapse in Jordan(lower-right oval in Figure 2) represents acase of low system resilience that resultedin an inadvertent transformation. Resourcemanagement or lack thereof, in communitiesin ancient southern Jordan, reduced the re-silience of the social-ecological system, whichprecipitated system collapse (60). The extentof land degradation and fragility of the systemowing to overexploitation of natural resourceswere hidden by the ability of the communitiesto expand the spatial scale of resource use andthrough improvements in agricultural tech-nology. Redman (60) suggests that a series of


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


years with increased climate stress may havetriggered the collapse of the system and theabandonment of the agricultural economy ofJordan.

This third case is an example of a sys-tem that inadvertently crossed a threshold andcollapsed owing to a lack of adaptive capac-ity or the inability to mobilize adaptive ca-pacity in order to respond to changes. Theother two cases present more adaptable sys-tems. In both, the social-ecological systemshave proven resilient to external stressors overthe years. Both also demonstrate high levels ofadaptive capacity, and both were respondingto ongoing stressors (climatic and economic)considered in light of future pressures. Thedifference is that, in the Canadian case, man-agers chose to work within the existing systemstate to prepare for future change. Because of

predicted reduction in rainfall, actors in thesystem chose to mobilize adaptive capacity tomake adjustments in the way in which water ismanaged and used. In contrast, the adaptationin Arizona required overcoming the resilienceof the system to cross into what is believed tobe a system more resilient to future changes.Portions of the community recognized thatclimatic and economic factors were likely toundermine the agriculture base in the yearsto come. Thus, the community mobilized itsadaptive capacity to initiate transformation ofthe system state.

There is not a clear break-off point be-tween incremental adjustments and transfor-mative action. Rather, as the examples inTable 1 demonstrate, the two categories ofaction fall along a continuum. The first ex-ample highlights adjustments that are reactive

Table 1 The sources of resilience and observed adaptive actions to various resource stresses in social-ecologicalsystems

Adaptation to: Adjustments or transformative action Sources of resilienceDrought in Kenya andTanzaniaa

Switching occupation, selling assets, droughtrelief

Social networks, remittances

Drought in northeastBrazilb

Private actions: livelihood diversification, riskmanagement in agriculture, patron-clientrelationships

Public actions: humanitarian relief, cropinsurance, seed distribution, irrigation schemes

Lessons learned from past drought events, e.g.,honed emergency relief mechanism, socialnetworks, social security payments

Coral reef stressassociated withphysical damage,eutrophication, andfisheries decline inTobago, West Indiesc

Development of community-based resourcecomanagement, community monitoring of reefuse, consensus building for future zoning andlimitations on sewage disposal

High diversity in use between tourism andsubsistence activities, heightened awareness ofcritical thresholds and well-defined usercommunities, learning through consensusbuilding

Actual and potentialdisruption fromhurricane risk inCayman Islands, WestIndiesd

Regulatory changes: enhanced building codesand zoning to increase waterfront setback,development of National Hurricane Plan

Organization changes: creation of NationalHurricane Committee and inclusion of diverseinterests within it

Self-efficacy facilitated by high governmentrevenue stability; recent experience ofhurricanes (Hurricane Gilbert 1988, Mitch1998, Michelle 2000, and Ivan 2004) promotedurgent learning from each experienceaccompanied by a willingness to learn from pastmistakesd; strong national and internationalsupport networks

aReference 39.bReferences 62 and 63.cReference 64.dReference 61.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


and short-term in nature, which could betermed coping strategies. The second case of-fers examples of adjustments that are longerterm but still tend to be reactive. The final twocases present situations in which communitiesare making long-term, proactive adjustments.Table 1 highlights the relationship betweenthe types of possible actions and available so-cial sources of resilience. These are neces-sary to respond to change and to facilitateorganization. They include adaptive capacitycharacteristics such as learning and memory,as well as specific actors and the roles theyplay (65). As sources of resilience increaseso does the ability to adapt. In Table 1 thesystems with reactive and limited actions arethose that have the most constrained sourcesof resilience. Similarly, the cases with broader,proactive actions have more expansive sourcesto draw upon. The sources in all four casesare similar (e.g., learning, developing net-works), but the difference is found in the ex-tent and cross-scalar nature of these sources.In the latter two cases, the social networksare larger and scale from local to internationalcommunities.

Key challenges for research in this areaconcern the types of adaptive capacity, orarrangements of adaptive capacity, that arenecessary to prepare for system transforma-tion and renewal and how these comparewith those required for making system ad-justments. Furthermore, are different types ofadaptive capacity required for deliberate andinadvertent transformations? Specific knowl-edge on the degree to which some aspects ofadaptive capacity are generic or transferable(across time, different impacts) would usefullyinform theoretical understandings of adapta-tion and inform policy.

Surprise. Much of the present research onadaptation has an implicit focus on minimiz-ing exposure to specific risks. This entails ac-tion designed to anticipate particular eventsand their impacts. Anticipatory action is ar-gued to be both more equitable and moreeffective than responses after events (8, 66).

However, to be truly effective anticipatory ac-tion must not be concerned solely with themaintaining equilibrium but must also focuson preparing for surprises and system renewal.Surprises refer to any discontinuity betweenecological processes and the processes thatwere expected to occur (67–69). Expectationsare characterized by prior experiences and be-lief systems as well as through shared commu-nication (68, 70).

Surprises have been classified within anumber of related typologies (see, for exam-ple, References 69 and 70). Gunderson (67)refers to a three-part typology. The first is lo-cal surprise, which refers to unexpected dis-crete events at a small scale. The secondis cross-scale surprise, which encompassesdiscontinuities in long-term trends over re-gional and global scales. Novel surprises aredisturbances that are unique or not previ-ously experienced by the social-ecological sys-tem and produce unpredictable consequences.Surprises can result from specific discontinu-ities or through synergistic couplings (70, 71).These synergisms, or emergent properties,are functions of feedbacks between systemcomponents and result in collective systembehaviors that may include abrupt, nonlinearchange (71). Kates & Clark (69) make a furtherdistinction between surprise that arises fromunanticipated events and surprise that resultsfrom unexpected or wrongly attributed con-sequences of an event.

Surprise is a function of uncertainty andunpredictability (72). Uncertainty can causesurprises to be incorrectly labeled as low prob-ability, effectively removing them from dis-cussion (71). However, uncertainty relates notonly to the occurrence of an event but alsoto its timing and intensity. For example, inmany regions of the world drought is an ex-pected event—in the sense that the region dis-plays a history of low-rainfall years. It maybe unpredictable, or considered an anoma-lous event, thus unexpected at any particularpoint in time. Nevertheless, many societieshave adapted to periodic drought events. Achanging climate, however, which is predicted


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


to increase the variability and frequency ofperturbations (7), will introduce new variabil-ity into a system, increasing the possibility ofsurprise.

In semiarid northeast Brazil, for example,rainfall is predicted to become scarcer and theintra-annual dispersal more varied (73, 74).Even with similar levels of rainfall, the higherpredicted temperatures will increase alreadyextreme levels of evapotranspiration (74, 75),making dryland farming even less viable thantoday. Research on social response to natu-ral hazards shows that increased frequency ofevents may erode limited coping ability andreduce the thresholds beyond which losses areirreversible (21, 76, 77). These systems maybecome impoverished through loss of poten-tial and diversity, and the decreased resourcebases limit the possible responses of individ-uals and communities. Thus, even if climatechange precipitates surprise events similar tothose previously experienced, and to which apopulation has learned to cope, the frequencyand magnitude of climate change impacts arelikely to stretch the abilities of systems to copeand recover.

Cross-scale surprises are attributable to in-teractions between variables that operate atdifferent scales (67). Slowly changing vari-ables define system thresholds to the degreethat they control the range of activity of fastervariables (48, 78). There are two types of slowvariables: those that are slow to change andthose with a slow frequency of change. Theseslow variables may include climate, soil, sed-iment concentrations, hydrologic cycles, landuse, and long-lived organisms (32, 79). Younget al. (48) suggest that some of the previ-ously large-scale, slow variables are beginningto reduce their timescales and approximatethe timescales of faster, lower-level processes.Climate, for example, is a slow variable but isbeginning to change within time frames (yearsand decades) that are relevant to humans (80).Historical climate anomalies provide some ex-amples of the destructive cross-scale syner-gisms that will continue to occur in the future(70).

Surprise is not inherently negative, nordoes it always produce undesirable outcomes.Surprises may have mixed consequences,which may become evident only with an evalu-ation that considers all stakeholders over longperiods of time (70). In addition, many sur-prises are considered positive, creating win-dows of opportunity that may be used to in-crease the ability to manage environmentalchanges or to fundamentally transform sys-tems (69, 81). Timmerman (82) distinguishesbetween negative and positive surprise—whathe terms “shocks” or “catastrophes” and“epiphanies.” He suggests that a resilientsocial-ecological system is one that is able tofoster epiphanies and avoid catastrophes.

Scale. Scalar issues permeate adaptation andresilience research. Questions of how to trans-late models and data between scales (upscal-ing and downscaling) and how to characterizethe relationships of different components anddomains across time and space are critical tothe ability to develop assessment tools and tomodel change and impacts (83–85). Similarly,analysis of adaptive capacity confronts issuesof scale. Adaptive capacity is specific to (a) thelength and frequency of perturbations, (b) thespatial scale at which perturbations occur (48),and (c) the organizational scale of focus (86).Therefore, the scale at which adaptive capac-ity is analyzed has implications for evaluatingresilience. There are two scalar issues that wehighlight here. The first relates to identifyingcommensurate scales of change and of adap-tive capacity (a and b, above). The second issuerelates to the boundaries of social-ecologicalsystems and the horizontal and vertical link-ages and networks that are used to capture andmobilize resources (c, above).

Environmental disturbances occur and in-teract with social processes over a vast rangeof spatial and temporal scales. However, en-vironmental and social processes do not al-ways have corresponding time or spatial scales(83). Disturbances may occur at a house-hold, regional, or global scale. Some distur-bances have a quick onset and last a short


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


period of time (e.g., tornados, hurricanes),whereas others have a slow onset, e.g., longwave events that last years or decades (e.g.,drought events, warming periods). Social pro-cesses vary in spatial scale from household-level activities to global-scale demographicand political patterns. They vary in tempo-ral scale from daily processes to those thatcover many years, such as population growth(83). Thus, the composition of adaptive capac-ity necessary to effectively respond to distur-bances will differ in respect to the relation-ship between scales of social and ecologicalprocesses.

Increased global connectivity in terms ofmobility of resource flows, connections be-tween markets for resources and products,and greater penetration of communicationtechnologies, lead to greater cross-scale con-nectedness of systems (87). Although somecommentators suggest that global intercon-nectedness means that some social systems arein effect decoupled from their local ecosys-tems (88), the reality is that no resource sys-tem acts in isolation, and vulnerabilities can be“teleconnected” from one part of the globeto another. Adger and colleagues (89), forexample, demonstrate how coffee expansionin Vietnam, combined with frost events inCentral America, create livelihood vulnerabil-ities among Mexican, Honduran, and othersmallholder coffee-farming communities—vulnerabilities are transferred across levelsand scales.

Janssen et al. (49) provide an example thathighlights the substitutability of local adap-tive capacity. Polynesian islands that experi-ence a low frequency of cyclones have trans-formed their historically diverse agriculturalsystem to a monoculture that caters to aworld market. The transformations in thesocial-ecological systems have made the sys-tems highly vulnerable to cyclones, in contrastwith the islands that maintain the traditionalagricultural and social system. People on thetransformed islands depend on subsidies fromoutside the region to guarantee survival whenhit by cyclones. Local adaptive capacity has

been supplemented, or replaced, by help fromoutside.

Supplementing or subsidizing local sys-tems with inputs from other scales is a com-mon occurrence in human cultural evolution(60). However, the resources in many of thehistorical systems described by Redman (60)were overextended through increasing spatialexpansion, which decreased system resilienceand increased vulnerability, leading to systemcollapse. Similarly, Cumming et al. (86) arguethat when social and ecological scales are outof step with each other there is a correspond-ing loss of adaptive capacity. A research gapconcerns how substituting adaptive capacityat different scales affects the overall resilienceof a system.

Trade-offs in Resilience andAdaptedness

We have argued in this chapter that stan-dard adaptation approaches foster adaptationthat will lead to a state in which the social-ecological system deals effectively with per-ceived risks. Adaptation in a resilience frame-work, by contrast, promotes managing thecapacity of the system to cope with futurechange. It is premised on managing uncer-tainty and on having the right mix of sys-tem characteristics in place to deal with un-certain future events. These differences resultin a tension between achieving high adapt-edness and maintaining sufficient sources ofresilience. Walker et al. (90) highlight threeways in which high adaptedness can under-mine system resilience: Adaptedness in onelocation may decrease resilience in anotherlocation or region, a system may become sotuned to a particular type of shock that it be-comes vulnerable to other unknown shocks, orincreased efficiency through adaptation maylead to loss of response diversity. Therefore,defining adaptation success simply in terms ofthe effectiveness of reducing risk is clearly notsufficient.

Nevertheless, the most frequently citedmeasure of adaptation to environmental


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


change is a reduction in the negative effectsof actual or expected disturbances (14). In ef-fect, the objective is to reduce risk to a toler-able level. However, although an action maybe successful in terms of one stated objective,it may impose externalities at other spatialand temporal scales. Actions that appear suc-cessful in the short term may turn out to beless successful in the longer term. Addition-ally, even though an action may be effectivefor the adapting agent, it may produce nega-tive externalities and spatial spillovers, poten-tially increasing impacts on others within thesame community or reducing their capacity toadapt. Upstream increases in water abstrac-tion or an increase in hard coastal defense inone area threatened with erosion can imposereduced resilience on neighboring or down-stream systems.

It is possible for a social-ecological sys-tem to become highly adapted to a rangeof variability through specialized institutions.However, if the range of variability changes,through social, economical or climatic influ-ences, the social-ecological system may be-come highly vulnerable. In northeast Brazil,risk reduction has been carried to such an ex-treme that the principal government adapta-tion to drought is humanitarian aid (63). Ef-forts to reduce the level of vulnerability or toincrease resilience are overshadowed by thelevels of resources dedicated to maintainingthe food and water supply during droughts.Although drought impacts are significantlylower than in the past, the rural populationcontinues to be exposed and susceptible to fu-ture drought events and remains highly vul-nerable to a range of other shocks (62).

Both adaptedness and the resiliency of asystem are part of a path-dependent trajec-tory of change. The decisions of the past in-fluence the range of options today, and to-day’s decisions have implications for futuremanagement flexibility. Anderies et al. (91)discuss a water catchment in southeasternAustralia that experienced rising water tablesand increasing salinization. For many years,management efforts were directed at promot-

ing efficiency through engineering solutions.Eventually, the investment in technology andinfrastructure eroded the response diversity ofthe system, and it became impossible to con-sider other options to deal with the threats.As a result, the catchment today is highly vul-nerable to any increase in the length of wetperiods. This example highlights the inherenttension in complex systems between increas-ing efficiency and diminishing flexibility (60).

Trade-offs between adaptedness and re-silience have significant implications for man-agement decisions and decision-making pro-cesses. A balance must be negotiated betweenwhat is an acceptable level of risk to currentsystem stressors and the breadth of flexibilitynecessary to respond to future change. Thesedecisions are, in effect, about managing vul-nerability. Vulnerability analyses are designedto identify the most vulnerable populationsand determine adaptive actions to reduce theirvulnerability to stressors while promoting sus-tainability. Yet this is a challenging task in lightof evidence that reducing exposure to currentrisks can adversely affect future vulnerabilityand resilience to future unknown events (49,72, 78, 91). A resilience perspective assumesthat vulnerability is an inherent characteristicof any system. Reducing vulnerability in onearea creates or increases vulnerability in an-other area or time. This does not imply thatit is acceptable to ignore vulnerable popula-tions. Rather, it becomes incumbent on deci-sion makers and citizens to outline acceptablelevels of vulnerability, who will be vulnerable,and to what type of events. The difficultiesinvolved in negotiating these issues place sig-nificant importance on management abilitiesand the role of governance and institutions(47).

Governance and Normative Issues

Resilience presents both practical and norma-tive challenges in addition to the analyticalissues we have so far discussed. On the prac-tical side, there are questions of defining ap-propriate governance structures, taking into


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


account the variety of possible disturbancesand specific contextual factors. Normativediscussions revolve around questions of pro-cedural and outcome equity. Finally in thissection, we consider the challenges associatedwith evaluating adaptation from a resilienceperspective.

Adaptive governance. Successful adapta-tion in effect entails steering processes ofchange through institutions, in their broadestsense. For adaptation to be successful, insti-tutions clearly need to endure and be persis-tent throughout the process of adjustment andchange. But at the same time, they need them-selves to cope with changing conditions. Whatworks and what does not work in the contextof adaptation? There are many formulationsof environmental governance, including hy-brids of the traditional market, state, or civilsociety-based strategies (92). Berkes (87) sug-gests that the balance of evidence in this areashows that “neither purely local-level man-agement nor purely higher level managementworks well by itself” (87, p. 239). He furthermakes the case that lower-level management,and “community self-organisation [tend] to-ward sustainable practice” (87, p. 142). Thus,the strong normative message from resilienceresearch is that shared rights and responsibil-ity for resource management (often known ascomanagement) and decentralization are bestsuited to promoting resilience.

Comanagement proceeds through devolv-ing responsibility for allocating resources andresolving conflicts among multiple partiesand frequently involves multiple stakeholdersamong governments, civil society, groupsrepresenting human and nonhuman interests,and direct resource users. Comanagementregimes are most commonly composed ofparticipants representing divergent interestsinteracting directly over a period of time toresolve a specific conflict and promote adap-tational solutions within the locality or com-munity where they live (93). Multiple benefitsto such collective action are often argued.There is the potential of enhanced efficiency

of decision making, increased trust in gov-ernment, and increased capacity at the localscale to undertake, for example, monitoringand enforcement (93–96). In addition, thereare often underemphasized, less instrumentalbenefits associated with greater participation,namely giving a voice to vulnerable andmarginalized stakeholders, recognition ofdiverse knowledge systems, and increases inthe depth of civil society and citizenship (see,for example, References 48, 97, and 98).

The “pinnacle” of comanagement is theidea that governance systems can themselvesbe adaptable through internal learning—both institutional arrangements and ecologi-cal knowledge should be “tested and revised ina dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process oftrial and error” (99, p. 159) facilitated throughhigh levels of autonomy and decentralization.This idealized situation is rare. And indeed,the ideal has been refuted and critiqued by apragmatic political economy perspective thatsuggests that failure to recognize power im-balances between stakeholders simply movesadaptive governance toward reinforcing exist-ing inequalities and the perpetuation of nar-row interests (100, 101).

Despite shortcomings, there are potentialbenefits from adaptive governance and newchallenges. Demand for increased participa-tion in decision making requires the inclusionof new social actors, which can lead to increas-ing complexity in the negotiation of objec-tives and pathways to achieve those objectives.The global nature of environmental changeincreases the complexity, in part owing to thesimultaneous increase in technical knowledgerelated to possible future scenarios combinedwith large amounts of uncertainty.

Adaptive management is premised on theidea that decisions should be part of an it-erative process; they should be continuallyevaluated, and strategies should be alteredto meet changing parameters (65, 81, 102).This type of learning-based system is depen-dent on continuously updated informationto make evaluations. Such information couldcome from traditional science but also from


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


local knowledge systems that provide insightsinto functioning of local ecosystems and theirlinkages with the social system (93, 103). Re-search by Berkes and colleagues (104, 105)in the North of Canada shows how differentforms of local and traditional knowledge canbe complementary to conventional scientificknowledge, especially in monitoring environ-mental change. Although local observationsof change may not replace scientific measure-ments, they can contribute to an overall un-derstanding of the phenomena of change andits impacts. In seeking locally supported andappropriate responses, notions of resilienceand its cultural significance and meaning arerequired. For example in Brown et al.’s (30)study of coastal communities in the UnitedKingdom, local perceptions of resilience andadaptive capacity to climate change impactswere highly diverse in different communities.

In contrast to regulatory and output-basedmanagement approaches, we suggest thatadaptive management resonates with a re-silience approach and has the potential to pro-duce flexibility and platforms for learning.Yet it is unclear how adaptive managementis more conducive to balancing trade-offs be-tween society and ecology and between short-term costs versus long-term gains. We need tounderstand how more open and participatoryforms of governance deal with issues of futureuncertainty and maintaining flexibility.

Equity. If adaptation to environmentalchange is solely concerned with maintainingfuture flexibility, some people, communities,or ecosystems may incur a heavy price inthe present. This is a fundamental trade-offin resilience and vulnerability. The issues ofequity in process and equity in outcome ofenvironmental decision making are centralquestions of governance. Equity in processrefers to the fairness of the institutions, theirrepresentativeness, and how they incorporatethe diverse values and views of the communityand collective as well as the individual good.Equity in outcome refers to the distribution ofvulnerabilities across stakeholders within a

population. As Lebel (106) points out, it isimportant to ask the questions of who decideswhat should be made resilient to what, forwhom resilience is managed, and to whatpurpose?

Implementation of adaptation actions fo-cused on reducing vulnerability and enhanc-ing resilience, however, requires resolutionof both what constitutes vulnerability and afull account of the authority by which thoseassessments are made. Inclusion of vulner-able sections of society and representationof vulnerable social-ecological systems withindecision-making structures is an importantand highly underresearched area. In otherwords, defining the objectives of adaptationpolicy in terms of protecting the vulnerablerequires confronting issues of distributive jus-tice (who is harmed) and procedural justice(who has say in identifying the vulnerabilities)(see, for example, References 107 and 108).These issues are not well documented in theresilience literature nor comprehensively ad-dressed in existing analytical frameworks.

In many situations and examples, it appearsthat the incidence of vulnerability within thesocial and natural systems is not central to de-cision making and adaptive action. As a result,adaptive actions often reduce the vulnerabilityof those best placed to take advantage of gov-ernance institutions, rather than reduce thevulnerability of the marginalized or the un-dervalued parts of the social-ecological sys-tem. Integrating principles of equity with theidentification of vulnerability is therefore animportant element of adaptational decisionmaking. Dow et al. (108), for example, arguethat Rawlsian principles of justice provide afirm foundation for action to reduce vulner-ability to environmental change, and Adgerand colleagues (109) argue that rights-basedjustice rules can also make avoidance of vul-nerability central to public policy—rights toa safe environment without inherent vulnera-bilities are part of cosmopolitan and universalhuman rights. These issues are discussed indetail by Adger et al. (5), who show that manypresent strategies for adaptation reduce the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


vulnerability of those most able to mobilizecollective action and those with greatest ac-cess to decision making. Most adaptation, inother words, does not necessarily reduce thevulnerability of those most at risk.

Procedural equity in adaptation dependson the ability to participate, to influence, andto have the autonomy to implement adapta-tion decisions. Brown et al. (30) review par-ticipatory mechanisms for adaptation plan-ning in U.K. coastal areas and conclude thatclimate change poses particular challenges.These, as we have outlined, include scale mis-matches between ecosystems and institutionsas well as difficulties in dealing with uncer-tainty and with the public’s view of the long-term future. Although in general stakehold-ers may agree on the goals of adaptation (e.g.,environmental protection, maintaining well-being, equity), tensions become apparent inparticular situations involving decisions thatthreaten lifestyles and culturally importantassets (55).

Even when the people involved agree thata particular value is important, there may besignificant differences in individually assignedlevels of importance. The tensions and trade-offs between the need for long-term strate-gic coordination and the local place-specificshort-term responses are highlighted. Thesedilemmas are features of many aspects of envi-ronmental governance, and they further hin-der the likelihood of adopting more inclu-sionary and deliberative decision making inresponding to environmental change.

Evaluation. Measuring the resilience of asystem is a complex undertaking, but promot-ing resilience-oriented adaptation will requirethe development of tools and metrics that willallow decision makers to assess progress andimplement sustainable governance structuresto facilitate adaptation. From a risk perspec-tive, there are many metrics available for mea-suring changing levels of risk as well as vulner-ability to particular stresses, but measuring thecharacteristics of resilience in the face of mul-tiple slow- and fast-moving stresses is more

difficult. One approach is to measure the con-stituent parts: stability, self-organization, andlearning (32, 110). Carpenter et al. (32) mea-sured the resilience of two social-ecologicalsystems by looking at the stability of the sys-tems, in other words, the capacity of the sys-tems to absorb disturbances before movinginto another regime. Yet, it is unclear howwidely applicable this approach is because ofthe need to be highly specific in definingboth the system configuration being measuredand the type of disturbance considered.

Plummer & Armitage (101) suggest ananalytical framework that divides adaptationprocesses into three components: ecosystemconditions, livelihood outcomes, and processand institutional conditions. This approachhas elements in common with those describedby Carlsson & Berkes (111), who suggest thatevaluation of adaptation management shouldfocus on process rather than results and onfunction rather than structure.

The principles of environmental gover-nance to promote sustainability, resilience,and robust decision making are, indeed, wellknown (see, for example, References 92, 112,and 113). Generic principles of governanceinclude the balancing of actions in terms oftheir effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and le-gitimacy (26) such that their impacts are har-monious with wider sustainability. Althoughthese principles are described straightfor-wardly and evaluated individually, the diver-sity and fluidity of adaptation actions suggestthat adjustments are actually undertaken fordiverse reasons and with diverse outcomes.We need to develop a better understandingof how to evaluate system resilience in viewof multiple stimuli and incremental actions.There is also a need to further explore whetherthe resilience characteristics are fungible, orwhether there is a minimum level for each toassure resilience.

CONCLUSION

Adaptation and resilience studies have evolvedfrom different disciplines and research


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


traditions. Adaptation research is actor basedand focuses on reducing vulnerabilities to spe-cific risks. Resilience is based on complex sys-tems studies with a focus on adaptive capac-ity and maintaining the ability to deal withfuture uncertain change. Nevertheless, bothapproaches are concerned with similar com-ponents of adaptation, i.e., its characteris-tics, processes, and outcomes. This review isan analysis of the relationship between thedistinct approaches in an effort to identifycomplementary attributes. We identify areasin which a resilience framework contributesto a broadened understanding of adaptationand the types of analyses necessary to pro-mote successful adaptation to environmentalchange.

We argue here that a resilience frameworkprovides a dynamic perspective on adaptationprocesses and the effects of these processesat different spatial and temporal scales.This analytical viewpoint reflects the way inwhich specific adaptations are linked throughfeedback mechanisms into larger systems.Adaptive actions not only affect the intendedbeneficiaries but may have repercussions forother regions and times. Thus, adaptation ispart of a path-dependent trajectory of change.Past management decisions influence therange of options today, and today’s decisionshave implication for future managementflexibility. Resilience-based analysis providesthe necessary perspective to evaluate theseimplications.

A key contribution of resilience derivesfrom the core understanding that change isa fundamental aspect of any system. This im-plies that the level of system adaptedness alsochanges as the context changes. In light ofthe transitory nature of adaptedness, a re-

silience framework stresses the importance ofpreparation for surprises and system renewal.Whereas much of the adaptation literatureis focused on reducing vulnerabilities of spe-cific groups to identified risks, a resilience ap-proach is concerned with developing sourcesof resilience in order to create robustness touncertainty and to maintain the flexibility nec-essary to respond to change. Because of thetrade-offs between efficiency and flexibility,a resilience approach recognizes that vulner-abilities are an inherent part of any system.Thus, rather than trying to eliminate vulner-ability, the challenges are to identify accept-able levels of vulnerability and to maintain theability to respond when vulnerable areas aredisturbed.

Resilience is not only concerned withmaintaining the ability to respond to distur-bances, but also considers a distinction be-tween incremental adjustments and systemtransformation. The conceptual implicationsof this difference are that societies, in addi-tion to responding to current or perceived dis-turbances, also have the capability of definingand working to achieve a desired system state.In this sense, resilience broadens the expanseof adaptation while also providing space foragency. This shared space is where the two ap-proaches converge. Actor-based analyses lookat the processes of negotiation, decision mak-ing, and action. Systems-based analyses com-plement this approach by examining the im-plications of these processes on the rest ofthe system. Current and future research willfurther our understanding of decision makingand governance on the one hand and systemresilience on the other, as well as of the impli-cations for appropriate adaptation strategieswithin a continually changing environment.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Change is a fundamental aspect of any system, and the level of system adaptednesschanges as the context changes. Owing to the transitory nature of adaptedness, aresilience framework stresses the importance of preparation for surprises and systemrenewal.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


2. Social-ecological systems can exist in multiple stable states, which are bounded bythresholds. The desirability of a particular state is a normative classification.

3. The governance of adaptation is concerned with issues of procedural equity and equityin outcome of environmental decision making.

4. There is an inherent tension between high adaptedness and system resilience, whichresults in trade-offs between current efficiency and future vulnerabilities.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. How do adaptive capacity requirements differ between those for making incrementalsystem adjustments and those required for making system transformations?

2. How are institutions influenced by, and in turn influence, overarching and oftendivisive environmental change discourses and ideologies?

3. How do diverse, and possibly incommensurable, values mediate societal goals foradaptation?

4. How do more open and participatory forms of governance deal with issues of futureuncertainty and maintaining flexibility in light of present sacrifices?

5. How does resilience-focused adaptation affect individual and collective humansecurity?

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity ofthis review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research for funding. We are also indebtedto the participants of the Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change: Linkages and a newAgenda workshop held at Blakeney, United Kingdom, in April 2007, for their valuable feedbackon an early draft: Marty Anderies, Fikret Berkes, Hallie Eakin, Carl Folke, Kathleen Galvin,Marisa Goulden, Lance Gunderson, Bronwyn Hayward, Mike Hulme, Karen O’Brien, JackRuitenbeek, and Emma Tompkins. We also express our thanks to two referees for helpfulreviews.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16:268–812. Pielke RA Jr, Prins G, Rayner S, Sarewitz D. 2007. Climate change 2007: lifting the taboo

on adaptation. Nature 445:597–983. Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza M, Conde C, O’Brien K, et al. 2007. Assessment of

adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. See Ref. 114, pp. 717–43


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


4. Roberts JT, Parks BC. 2006. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politicsand Climate Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 384 pp.

5. Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ, eds. 2006. Fairness in Adaptation to ClimateChange. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 319 pp.

6. Chopra K, Leemans R, Kumar P, Simons H, eds. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:Responses Assessment. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Island. 621 pp.

7. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change (IPCC), ed. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical ScienceBasis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, ed., S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis M,et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

8. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL. 2005. Successful adaptation to climate changeacross scales. Glob. Environ. Change 15:77–86

9. Bierbaum R, Holdren JP, MacCracken M, Moss RH, Raven PH. 2007. Confronting Cli-mate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. New York: UNFound.

10. Eakin H, Luers AL. 2006. Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:365–94

11. Luers AL. 2005. The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examiningenvironmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 15:214–23

12. Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, et al. 2003. A frameworkfor vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:8074–79

13. Tompkins EL, Adger WN. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resourcesenhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc. 9:10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10

14. Smit B, Pilifosova O. 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainabledevelopment and equity. In Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.IPCC Working Group II, ed. JJ McCarthy, pp. 877–912. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press

15. Janssen MA, Ostrom E. 2006. Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: a cross-cuttingtheme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on global environmentalchange. Glob. Environ. Change 16:237–39

16. Burton I, Kates RW, White GF. 1978. The Environment as Hazard. Oxford: Oxford Univ.Press. 240 pp.

17. Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.4:1–21

18. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, eds. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: BuildingResilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 393 pp.

19. Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann DM. 2006. Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation toclimate change impacts. Clim. Change 78:135–56

20. Janssen MA. 2006. Historical institutional analysis of social-ecological systems. J. Inst.Econ. 2:127–31

21. Smit B, Wandel J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ.Change 16:282–92

22. Pielke RA Jr. 1998. Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Glob. Environ.Change 8:159–70

23. Smit B, Skinner M. 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology.Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 7:85–114

24. Dessai S, Adger WN, Hulme M, Turnpenny J, Kohler J, Warren R. 2004. Defining andexperiencing dangerous climate change. Clim. Change 64:11–25


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


25. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, O’Connor RE. 2005. Dangerous climate change: the role forrisk research. Risk Anal. 25:1387–98

26. Adger WN, Huq S, Brown K, Conway D, Hulme M. 2003. Adaptation to climate changein the developing world. Prog. Dev. Stud. 3:179–95

27. Eakin H, Lemos MC. 2006. Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the challengeof capacity-building under globalization. Glob. Environ. Change 16:7–18

28. Vasquez-Leon M. 2007. Ethnicity and adaptation to climate variability in southeastern Ari-zona. Presented at Soc. Appl. Anthropol., Tampa, FL

29. Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL. 2007. Climate change and coastal management decisions.Coastal Manag. 25:255–70

30. Brown K, Tsimplis M, Tompkins EL, Few R. 2005. Responding to climate change: in-clusive and integrated coastal analysis. Tech. Rep. 24. Tyndall Cent. Clim. Change Res.,Univ. East Anglia, Norwich, UK

31. Brumfiel EM. 1992. Distinguished lecture in archeology: breaking and entering theecosystem—gender, class, and faction steal the show. Am. Anthropol. 94:551–67

32. Carpenter SR, Walker B, Anderies MJ, Abel N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement:resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:756–81

33. Walker B, Carpenter SR, Anderies JM, Abel N, Cumming GS, et al. 2002. Resiliencemanagement in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory ap-proach. Conserv. Ecol. 6:14. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14

34. Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systemsanalyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16:253–67

35. Walker BH, Anderies JM, Kinzig AP, Ryan P, eds. 2006. Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: Comparative Studies and Theory Development. Collingwood, Victoria,Aust.: CSIRO Publ. 240 pp.

36. Næss LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J. 2005. Institutional adaptation to climate change:flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob. Environ. Change 15:125–38

37. Tompkins EL, Adger WN. 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate changepolicy. Environ. Sci. Policy 8:562–71

38. Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptivecapacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change15:151–63

39. Eriksen SH, Brown K, Kelly PM. 2005. The dynamics of vulnerability: locating copingstrategies in Kenya and Tanzania. Geogr. J. 171:287–305

40. Yohe G, Tol RSJ. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving towarda working definition of adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Change 12:25–40

41. Tol RSJ, Yohe G. 2007. The weakest link hypothesis for adaptive capacity: an empiricaltest. Glob. Environ. Change 17:218–27

42. Eriksen SH, Kelly PM. 2007. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climateadaptation policy assessment. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 12:495–524

43. Gallopın GC. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.Glob. Environ. Change 16:293–303

44. Haddad BM. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change whensocio-political goals are explicit. Glob. Environ. Change 15:165–76

45. Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful isthis concept? Environ. Hazards 5:35–45

46. Gunderson LH, Light SS. 2006. Adaptive management and adaptive governance in theEverglades ecosystem. Policy Sci. 39:323–34


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


47. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability andtransformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9:5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

48. Young OR, Berkhout F, Gallopın GC, Janssen MA, Ostrom E, van der Leeuw S. 2006.The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research. Glob.Environ. Change 16:304–16

49. Janssen MA, Anderies JM, Ostrom E. 2007. Robustness of social-ecological systems tospatial and temporal variability. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20:307–22

50. Redman CL, Kinzig AP. 2003. Resilience of past landscapes: resilience theory, society, andthe longue duree. Ecol. Soc. 7:14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss1/art14/

51. Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD. 2005. Climate change and distribution shiftsin marine fishes. Science 308:1912–15

52. Scheffer M, Westley F, Brock WA. 2003. Slow responses of societies to new problems:causes and costs. Ecosystems 6:493–502

53. Vaughan DG, Marshall GJ, Connolley WM, Parkinson C, Mulvaney R, et al. 2003. Recentrapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic Peninsula. Clim. Change 60:243–74

54. Schneider SH, Semenov S, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Magadza C, et al. 2007. Assessingkey vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. See Ref. 114, pp. 779–810

55. Leiserowitz AA, Kates RW, Parris TM. 2006. Sustainability values, attitudes, and behav-iors: a review of multinational and global trends. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:413–44

56. Brock WA. 2004. Tipping points, abrupt opinion changes, and punctuated policy change. Econ.Pap. 28. Soc. Syst. Res. Inst., Univ. Wis., Madison, http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2003-28.pdf

57. Penning-Rowsell E, Johnsona C, Tunstalla S. 2006. ‘Signals’ from precrisis discourse:lessons from UK flooding for global environmental policy change? Glob. Environ. Change16:323–39

58. Shepherd P, Tansey J, Dowlatabadi H. 2006. Context matters: What shapes adaptationto water stress in the Okanagan? Clim. Change 78:31–62

59. Pennesi K. 2007. Competing livelihoods and climate change: institutional adaptation in Arizona’shigh country. Presented at Soc. Appl. Anthropol., Tampa, FL

60. Redman CL. 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press.239 pp.

61. Tompkins EL. 2005. Planning for climate change in small islands: insights from nationalhurricane preparedness in the Cayman Islands. Glob. Environ. Change 15:139–43

62. Finan TJ, Nelson DR. 2001. Making rain, making roads, making do: public and privateadaptations to drought in Ceara, northeast Brazil. Clim. Res. 19:97–108

63. Nelson DR, Finan TJ. 2008. Weak winters: dynamic decision-making and extendeddrought in Northeast Brazil. In The Political Economy of Hazards and Disasters, ed. ECJones, AD Murphy. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. In press

64. Brown K, Tompkins EL, Adger WN. 2002. Making Waves: Integrating Coastal Conservationand Development. London: Earthscan. 164 pp.

65. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecologicalsystems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:441–73

66. Stern N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge Univ. Press. 712 pp.

67. Gunderson LH. 2003. Adaptive dancing: interactions between social resilience and eco-logical crises. See Ref. 18, pp. 33–52

68. Holling CS. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and globalchange. See Ref. 115, pp. 292–317


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


69. Kates RW, Clark WC. 1996. Expecting the unexpected. Environment 38:6–1870. Streets DG, Glantz MH. 2000. Exploring the concept of climate surprise. Glob. Environ.

Change 10:97–10771. Schneider SH. 2004. Abrupt nonlinear climate change, irreversibility and surprise. Glob.

Environ. Change 14:245–5872. Davidson-Hunt IJ, Berkes F. 2003. Nature and society through the lens of resilience:

toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. See Ref. 18, pp. 53–8273. Ruosteenoja K, Carter TR, Jylha K, Tuomenvirta H. 2003. Future Climate in World

Regions: An Intercomparison of Model-Based Projections for the New IPCC Emissions Scenarios.Helsinki: Finn. Environ. Inst.

74. Marengo JA. 2007. Caracterizacao do clima no Seculo XX e cenarios no Brasil e na America doSul para o Seculo XXI derivados dos modelos de clima do IPCC. Minist. Meio Ambient., Secr.Biodivers. Florest., Dir. Conserv. Biodivers., Sao Paulo

75. Marengo JA, Nobre C. 2005. Licoes do Catarina e do Katrina—as mudancas do clima eos fenomenos extremos. Ciencia Hoje 221:22–27

76. Roncoli C, Ingram K, Kirshen P. 2001. The costs and risks of coping with drought:livelihood impacts and farmers’ responses in Burkina Faso. Clim. Res. 19:119–32

77. Jones R. 2001. An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climatechange impact assessments. Nat. Hazards 23:197–230

78. Anderies JM, Walker BH, Kinzig AP. 2006. Fifteen weddings and a funeral: casestudies and resilience-based management. Ecol. Soc. 11:21. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art21/

79. Folke C, Carpenter SR, Elmqvist T, Gunderson LH, Holling CS, et al. 2002. Resilienceand sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations.Rep. 2002:1, Swed. Environ. Advis. Counc., Stockholm

80. Overpeck JT, Cole JE. 2006. Abrupt change in Earth’s climate system. Annu. Rev. Env-iron. Resour. 31:1–31

81. Gunderson LH, Holling CS, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Humanand Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island. 507 pp.

82. Timmerman P. 1986. Nature myths and how systems cope (or fail to cope) with surprise.See Ref. 115, pp. 445–49

83. Clark WC. 1985. Scales of climate impacts. Clim. Change 7:5–2784. Peterson GD. 2000. Scaling ecological dynamics: self-organization, hierarchical struc-

ture, and ecological resilience. Clim. Change 44:291–30985. Wilbanks TJ, Kates RW. 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Clim.

Change 43:601–2886. Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman CL. 2006. Scale mismatches in socio-ecological

systems: causes, consequences and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11:14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/

87. Berkes F. 2002. Cross-scale scale institutional linkages for commons management: per-spectives from the bottom up. In The Drama of the Commons, ed. E Ostrom, T Dietz, NDolsak, PC Stern, S Stonich, EU Weber, pp. 293–321. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.

88. Allison HE, Hobbs RJ. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap”of the western Australian agricultural region. Ecol. Soc. 9:3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3

89. Adger WN, Eakin H, Winkles A. 2008. Nested and networked vulnerabilities in SouthEast Asia. In Global Environmental Change and the South-east Asian Region: An Assessmentof the State of the Science, ed. L Lebel. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Gerakbudaya. In press


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


90. Walker B, Gunderson LH, Kinzig A, Folke C, Carpenter S, Schultz L. 2006. A handful ofheuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems.Ecol. Soc. 11:13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/

91. Anderies JM, Ryan P, Walker B. 2006. Loss of resilience, crisis, and institutional change:lessons from an intensive agricultural system in southeastern Australia. Ecosystems 9:865–78

92. Lemos MC, Agrawal A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.31:297–325

93. Brunner RD, Steelman TM, Coe-Juell L, Cromley CM, Edwards CM, Tucker DW. 2005.Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press. 368 pp.

94. Brosius JP, Tsing AL, Zerner C. 1998. Representing communities: histories and politicsof community-based natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 11:417–34

95. Brown K, Adger WN, Tompkins EL, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K. 2001. Trade-off analysisfor marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 37:417–34

96. Dolsak N, Ostrom E. 2003. The challenge of the commons. In The Commons in the NewMillenium, ed. N Dolsak, E Ostrom, pp. 3–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

97. Dryzek JS. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press. 208 pp.

98. O’Neill J. 2001. Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Env-iron. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 19:483–500

99. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience insocial-ecological systems. Environ. Manag. 34:75–90

100. Adger WN, Brown K, Tompkins EL. 2005. The political economy of cross-scalenetworks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 10:9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/

101. Plummer R, Armitage D. 2007. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptivecomanagement: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecol. Econ.61:62–74

102. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, et al. 2006. Shooting therapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol.Soc. 11:18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/

103. Gadgil M, Olsson P, Berkes F, Folke C. 2003. Exploring the role of local ecologicalknowledge in ecosystem management: three case studies. See Ref. 18, pp. 189–209

104. Berkes F, Berkes MK, Fast H. 2006. Collaborative integrated management in Canada’sNorth: the role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring.Coast. Manag. 35:143–62

105. Berkes F, Huebert R, Fast H, Manseau M, Diduck A, eds. 2006. Breaking Ice: RenewableResource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North. Calgary, Can.: Univ. Calgary Press.496 pp.

106. Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, et al. 2006. Governanceand the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11:9.http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/

107. Paavola J, Adger WN. 2006. Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ. 56:594–609108. Dow K, Kasperson RE, Bohn M. 2006. Exploring the social justice implications of adap-

tation and vulnerability. See Ref. 5, pp. 79–96109. Adger WN. 2004. The right to keep cold. Environ. Plan. A 36:1711–15


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


110. Thomas D, Osbahr H, Twyman C, Adger WN, Hewitson B. 2005. ADAPTIVE: adapta-tions to climate change amongst natural resource-dependant societies in the developingworld: across the Southern African climate gradient. Tech. Rep. 35. Tyndall Cent. Clim.Change Res., Univ. East Anglia, Norwich, UK

111. Carlsson L, Berkes F. 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications.J. Environ. Manag. 75:65–76

112. Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E. 2004. A framework to analyze the robust-ness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 9:18.http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18

113. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 298 pp.

114. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, eds. 2007. ClimateChange 2007: Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge Univ. Press

115. Clark WC, Munn RE, eds. 1986. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR325-FM ARI 21 September 2007 16:39

Annual Review ofEnvironmentand Resources

Volume 32, 2007Contents

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Feedbacks of Terrestrial Ecosystems to Climate ChangeChristopher B. Field, David B. Lobell, Halton A. Peters, and Nona R. Chiariello � � � � � �1

Carbon and Climate System Coupling on Timescales from thePrecambrian to the AnthropoceneScott C. Doney and David S. Schimel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31

The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An OverviewHighlighting Hydrologic ServicesKate A. Brauman, Gretchen C. Daily, T. Ka’eo Duarte, and Harold A. Mooney � � � � � 67

Soils: A Contemporary PerspectiveCheryl Palm, Pedro Sanchez, Sonya Ahamed, and Alex Awiti � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 99

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?Ambuj D. Sagar and Sivan Kartha � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �131

Models of Decision Making and Residential Energy UseCharlie Wilson and Hadi Dowlatabadi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �169

Renewable Energy Futures: Targets, Scenarios, and PathwaysEric Martinot, Carmen Dienst, Liu Weiliang, and Chai Qimin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �205

Shared Waters: Conflict and CooperationAaron T. Wolf � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �241

The Role of Livestock Production in Carbon and Nitrogen CyclesHenning Steinfeld and Tom Wassenaar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �271

Global Environmental Standards for IndustryDavid P. Angel, Trina Hamilton, and Matthew T. Huber � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �295

Industry, Environmental Policy, and Environmental OutcomesDaniel Press � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �317

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR325-FM ARI 21 September 2007 16:39

Population and EnvironmentAlex de Sherbinin, David Carr, Susan Cassels, and Leiwen Jiang � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �345

III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Carbon Trading: A Review of the Kyoto MechanismsCameron Hepburn � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �375

Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributionsof a Resilience FrameworkDonald R. Nelson, W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �395

IV. Integrative Themes

Women, Water, and DevelopmentIsha Ray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �421

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 23–32 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �451

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 23–32 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �455

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articlesmay be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

007.

32:3

95-4

19. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by S

CE

LC

Tri

al o

n 02

/18/

11. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Documents

Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a ...eprints.icrisat.ac.in/4245/1/AnnualReviewofEnvResources_32_395-419... · Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions