This article was downloaded by: [University of California-Irvine ] On: 18 October 2012, At: 15:07 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability

Kristen Magis
a a

Executive Leadership Institute, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA Version of record first published: 01 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Kristen Magis (2010): Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 23:5, 401-416 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Society and Natural Resources, 23:401416 Copyright # 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941920903305674

Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability

KRISTEN MAGIS
Executive Leadership Institute, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA
Change is a constant force, in nature and in society. Research suggests that resilience pertains to the ability of a system to sustain itself through change via adaptation and occasional transformation. This article is based on the premises that communities can develop resilience by actively building and engaging the capacity to thrive in an environment characterized by change, and that community resilience is an important indicator of social sustainability. Community resilience, as defined herein, is the existence, development, and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. The U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests commissioned a research project to develop a theoretically and empirically based definition of community resilience as well as an associated measurement instrument. In this article, the research is presented, the emergent definition and dimensions of community resilience are posited, and the Community Resilience Self Assessment is introduced. Keywords community resilience, Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators, social sustainability, social sustainability indicator

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

In 1995, 12 countries, representing 90% of the worlds temperate and boreal forests, signed the Santiago Agreement formally endorsing the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators (MPC&I).1 The MPC&I is a framework for assessing national progress toward forest sustainability. In 2006, signators modified the MPC&I to incorporate resilience of forest dependent communities as an indicator of social sustainability. The contribution of community resilience (CR) to the MPC&I is a deeper understanding of social sustainability, specifically as it relates to a communitys ability to thrive in contexts of change. A communitys resilience will determine its ability to successfully mobilize and respond to stress, making resilience integral to social sustainability (Beckley 1995; 2000; Doak and Kusel 1996; Harris et al. 2000; Miller et al. 1999). The U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests2 (hereafter, the Roundtable) subsequently commissioned a research project to develop a theoretically and empirically based definition of community resilience and an associated measurement instrument.

Received 25 April 2008; accepted 4 June 2009. Address correspondence to Kristen Magis, 109 Cherry Street, Silverton, OR 97381, USA. E-mail: KMagis@aol.com

401

402

K. Magis

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

The purposes of this article are to present the study results, to posit the emergent definition and dimensions of community resilience (CR) and to introduce the CR Self-Assessment. The definition that emerged from the research is: Community resilience is the existence, development, and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Members of resilient communities intentionally develop personal and collective capacity that they engage to respond to and influence change, to sustain and renew the community, and to develop new trajectories for the communities future. Eight primary characteristics, that is, dimensions that further define and operationalize community resilience, also emerged from the research. The community resilience dimensions are community resources, development of community resources, engagement of community resources, active agents, collective action, strategic action, equity, and impact (Magis 2010).

Methods
The CR definition, dimensions, and self-assessment emerged from a comprehensive review of literature related to resilience, examination of 13 implementation and research projects focused on various aspects of resilience, the input of 60 participants in 10 focus groups, and the expertise of the Community Resilience Workgroup.3 This section (1) describes the literature and praxis review, (2) presents selected constructs from the literature review, (3) explicates the focus group process, and (4) presents the data analysis.

Literature and Praxis Review The purpose of the literature and praxis review was twofold: to provide a crossdisciplinary review of the resilience construct, and to catalyze a conversation with Roundtable focus groups. The review was published and disseminated to Roundtable participants (Magis 2007a). In the review, multiple disciplines are examined, including mental health, public health, disaster response, community development, natural resource management, and socialecological systems. Terms essential to the community resilience construct are examined. Issues critical to the design of a measurement instrument are explored. Thirteen on-the-ground application and research projects related to community resilience are presented (Figure 1). Key points from the review are synthesized to generate a draft framework for the CR Self-Assessment. Questions are posed to Roundtable participants in preparation for the Roundtable focus groups. Finally, indicators and metrics from the projects are catalogued and analyzed. In this section, topics from the literature and praxis review essential to the emergent CR definition and dimensions are presented. They include: systems disruption and response; the paradigmatic shift in understanding resilience; the active agency of communities in community resilience; and community resources and the development of community resilience. As part of the presentation, community capitals are explored, and community resilience is distinguished from community stability and community capacity.

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

403

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Figure 1. Research and praxis related to community resilience.

Systems Disruption and Response. Systems disruption and response frame the resilience discourse. In public health and crisis management, systems disruptions are referred to as stressors, adversities, or risks and can take physiological, psychosocial, sociocultural, and environmental forms. These conditions increase the likelihood of violence and injuries (Ahmed et al. 2004). In natural resources, adversity and change are disruptors (Healy et al. 2003). In human systems, change, not stasis, is a constant (Harris et al. 2000). The community development literature characterizes communities by change and uncertainty (Chaskin et al. 2001). Communities are inhabited by successive waves of people and are utilized for different purposes in different time periods. The level and kinds of resources invested in them change. Moreover, they constantly adapt and change in response to threats and opportunities. Finally, a communitys resilience is dynamic, changing with internal conditions, external forces, and a communitys ability to respond and develop (Harris et al. 2000). Importantly, communities do not control all the conditions that affect them, for example, the status of land ownership or the industries influencing the local economy (Ahmed et al. 2004; Gibbon et al. 2002; Kusel and Fortmann 1991; Labonte and Laverack 2001). However, community resilience is not about controlling all the conditions that affect communities. Rather, it is about individual and community ability to respond to change (Ahmed et al. 2004; Gibbon et al. 2002; Healy et al. 2003). Folke et al. (2003) assert that communities need to accept the inevitability of change and adapt to live with uncertainty and surprise. This discourse on systems disruption and response depicts communities as dynamic human systems that remain viable through constant adaptive responses to change, and development of the ability to thrive in environments characterized by change. From this foundation in systems, this author explored the abilities and resources necessary to develop and engage community resilience. The Paradigmatic Shift in Understanding Resilience. One aspect of resilience focuses on a systems capacity to absorb disturbance and reorganize in order to retain the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks, that is, remain robust

404

K. Magis

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

(Anderies et al. 2004; Walker et al. 2004). In the social sciences, this idea was operationalized into the ability of communities to withstand disturbances so to maintain their social infrastructures (Adger 2000). In natural resource management, it was operationalized in policies designed to control variability of resources, for example, timber, through equilibrium-centered, command-and-control strategies (Folke et al. 2006). Further, it was applied to communityforest relations through policies tied to community stability. With community stability, the Forest Service endeavored to maintain of the specific structure and functioning of the community despite the forces of change. It presumed that natural resource agencies could provide stability in forest-dependent communities through stable employment in the forestry sector and with consistent flows of timber products from forest lands (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007). Studies in socio-ecological systems, however, indicate that resilience includes not only sustenance and renewal, but also occasional transformation. Systems absorb disturbances, that is, changes, to retain their original structures and processes. They also adapt and change in response to disturbances. Sometimes, however, disturbances push systems to thresholds at which minor adaptations are no longer sufficient. Rather, the system must undergo significant transformations. These transformations are healthy and necessary for the systems continued survival (Berkes and Seixas 2005; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Smit and Wandel 2006). The disturbances create opportunities for systems to develop and recombine structures and processes, thus renewing them and creating conditions for their ongoing viability (Wheatley 1992). Hence, the notion of system stasis is replaced with the notion of persistence developed through the adaptive renewal cycle stimulated by change (Gunderson and Holling 2002). Therefore, the most appropriate response to systems disruption will vary from maintenance to adaptation to transformation. This more complete rendering of resilience shifts attention from controlling change in presumably stable community systems to managing the capacity of dynamic communities to cope with, adapt to and shape change (Berkes et al. 2003; Smit and Wandel 2006). It reinforces the notion of change as a constant in communities. Hence, it is resilience, not community stability, that is required for communities to thrive. Finally, it highlights the need for communities to develop the capacity to respond to, create, survive in and thrive in change. The definition and dimensions of community resilience that emerged in this study embrace this rendering of resilience. The Active Agency of Communities in Community Resilience. This shift in understanding of resilience is paradigmatic, not only in its reorientation to change, but in its perception of a communitys ability to take planned action and effect change, that is, its agency. In the community stability paradigm, the burden of responsibility for community well-being was placed on federal land management agencies, while communities were relegated to passive roles regarding their own well-being. In the community resilience paradigm, forest communities are primary and active agents in their own well-being. In crisis management and public health, risk and resilience are seen as related and interactive. Adversity creates vulnerability in communities, exposing them to potentially harmful effects. When faced with adversity, resilient communities develop material, physical, sociopolitical, sociocultural, and psychological resources to cope (Ahmed et al. 2004). The response is twofold. First, communities seek to

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

405

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

limit risk factors, hence reducing threats to health and safety. Second, they endeavor to increase resilience factors that can counteract risk factors. Communities that can limit risk factors and increase resilience factors develop the ability not only to survive disruptions, but to thrive in and through adversity (Davis et al. 2005). In socio-ecological literature, community members local and traditional knowledge as well as their experience and understanding of the community confer on them an important role in the communitys well-being (Berkes et al. 2003; Gunderson and Pritchard 2002). Their contributions are seen as complementary to those of conventional management and their inclusion in management institutions is advocated (Folke et al. 2003). Hence, though external forces impact the community, the community can influence its well-being and take a leadership role in doing so (Ahmed et al. 2004; Davis et al. 2005; Doak and Kusel 1996; FEMAT 1993; Harris et al. 2000; Jackson et al. 2004). The ability, unique capacity, and important role of communities in developing their communities resilience led to the inclusion of active agency as a community resilience dimension. Community Resources and the Development of Community Resilience. Communities have a variety of internal and external resources from which to draw to respond to change (Fawcett et al. 1995; Kretzmann and McKnight 1993). Economic resources, albeit important, are one of many resources and cannot alone make a community resilient (Daniels 2004; Daubon and Saunders 2002; Fey et al. 2006; Stedman et al. 2004). Additionally, communities need to draw on their social, cultural, human, political, natural, and built resources (Daniels 2004; Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007; Emery and Flora 2006; Harris et al. 2000; Kusel 2001; Machlis and Force 1988). Community members collectively and strategically engage these resources to respond to change (Berkes et al. 2003; Colussi 2000; Harris et al. 2000; Healy et al. 2003; Smit and Wandel 2006). Communities have the ability to intentionally develop resiliency (Ahmed et al. 2004). Berkes and Seixas (2005) stress the capacity-building element of resilience. Communities, they assert, need to learn to live with change and uncertainty, and actively build the capacity to thrive in that context. Developing resilience increases the communitys ability to develop in dynamic environments that are characterized by unpredictability and surprises (Adger et al. 2005; Walker et al. 2004). Resilient communities actively develop community resources (Adger et al. 2005; Berkes and Seixas 2005; Colussi 2000; Doak and Kusel 1996; Harris et al. 2000; Jackson et al. 2004; Kusel 1996; Walker et al. 2004). They work intentionally to enhance the personal and collective ability to respond to and influence change (Colussi 2000). Importantly, however, capacity is necessary, but insufficient, for community resilience. Community resilience is about action taken, not simply capacity to act (Costello and Johns 2006; Fawcett et al. 1995; Healy et al. 2003; Kusel 1996). Resilient communities can also develop resilience through their responses to crises (Costello and Johns 2006). The responses strengthen community bonds and resources and develop the communities resilience, even as they address the presenting disruption (Chenoweth and Stehlik 2001, cited in Healy et al. 2003). In a self-reinforcing cycle, the engagement of community resources toward community objectives addresses the presenting issue and can develop the communitys resilience, which then can generate adaptive capacity to both sustain and adapt in response to disturbance and change (Adger et al. 2005; Flora and Flora 2004; Kaufman 1959; Smit and Wandel 2006; Walker et al. 2004; Wilkinson 1991).

406

K. Magis

A number of conclusions were drawn from the literature on resilience. First, communities that learn to live with change and uncertainty and that actively build and engage the capacity to thrive in that context become resilient. Second, communities can develop resilience strategically via planning, collective action, innovation, and learning. Third, community resilience is facilitated through developing and engaging diverse resources from throughout the community. Fourth, community members can be active agents in the development of community resilience. Finally, resilience is developed through engagement of the communitys resources, that is, taking action, not simply by developing the communitys capacity. The focus on capacity and resources in the literature led to the exploration of community resources, that is, community capitals.

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Community Capitals. Community capitals are community resources that are strategically invested in collective endeavors to address shared community objectives (Flora and Flora 2004). Throughout the process of developing community resilience, community members are working with the communitys resources. The investment of resources in the community increases the productivity of current resources and generates new resources. This investment process creates an upward spiral of increasing community ability to respond effectively to change, that is, it creates community resilience. Resources, thus invested, transform into community capital (Flora and Flora 2004; Kaufman 1959; Wilkinson 1991). The community capitals construct is prevalent in recent ecosystem studies, community studies, and rural community development (Chaskin et al. 2001; Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007; Laverack 2001). The Community Capitals Framework (Flora et al. 2004; Flora and Flora 2004) presents a comprehensive description of community capitals. It was developed as a direct response to the dominant use of the economic paradigm to measure social well-being and is based on the principle of social justice (Flora 19981999). It is premised on the fact that communities have many kinds of resources, most of which are not related to economics, but rather are related to social phenomena, that is, social, cultural, spiritual, and political resources. Natural capital is made up of resources and ecosystem services from the natural world (Constanza et al. 1997; Goodman 2003). Natural capital is influenced by individual and collective human action, but also presents opportunities and constraints on human, social, cultural, and financial capital (Machlis and Force 1997). Human capital refers to individuals innate and acquired attributes, whether they are latent or manifest. Human capital metrics address individual capacity, training, skills and knowledge, health, and leadership (Goodman 2003). Human capital is utilized to develop and access resources and to develop the community (Chaskin et al. 2001; Flora and Flora 2004; Harris et al. 2000). Cultural capital refers to people in social groups, for example, communities. It reflects communities ways of knowing the world, their values, and their assumptions about how things fit together. It is represented by symbols in language, art, and customs. Culture creates the perspective from which people perceive life events, and sets in motion social rules related to power and influence in the community (Flora and Flora 2004). Facets of culture important to community resilience include community members belief in their ability to protect the well-being of the community, their ability to survive and thrive through change, and their belief in their ability to develop the necessary capacity to become resilient. Financial capital refers to the financial resources available to be invested in the community for business development, civic and social enterprise, and wealth

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

407

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

accumulation. It measures the current financial situation, evaluates how communities utilize external resources, and makes future projections (Fey et al. 2006; Goodman 2003). Built capital refers to a communitys physical assets and built infrastructure, for example, machinery, homes, office buildings, schools, roads, sewers, factories, and water systems. Built capital is generated through application of financial and human capital (Flora and Flora 2004; Goodman 2003). Political capital refers to community members ability to access resources, power, and power brokers, and to impact the rules and regulations that affect the community (Fey et al. 2006; Flora and Flora 2004). Political capital connects community development with government resources and private investment. It reflects the peoples capacity to express themselves and to participate as agents in their community. Social capital refers to the ability and willingness of community members to participate in actions directed to community objectives, and to the processes of engagement, that is, individuals acting alone and collectively in community organizations, groups, and networks (Williams 2004). Three types of social capital are important for community resilience: bonding, bridging, and linking. Bonding capital represents the close ties that build cohesion within groups. Bridging capital represents the loose ties between groups (Granovetter 1973). These loose ties connect people that may otherwise not interact, exposing them to diversity, enhancing their ability to work with each other (Woolcock 2000), expanding the resources available to them, and broadening their identities. All, in turn, facilitate additional bridging (Granovetter 1973). Linking capital focuses on vertical relationships between groups and those with power or authority (Woolcock 2000). Linking requires heterogeneity of social ties to enable multiple linkages to multiples sites and people. Linking capital is particularly important for communities poor in resources (Ahmed et al. 2004). The more they can link with sources of power and wealth, the greater their access to resources, the more opportunity they will have to make their voices heard, and the better situated they will be to take advantage of opportunities (Coleman 19881989). The CR Self-Assessment incorporates the community capitals, assessing them in relation to each of the CR dimensions. For example, the CR dimension active agents queries whether community members believe they can improve the communitys well-being. This question assesses cultural capital as it relates to peoples beliefs. Community Resilience and Community Capacity. Community resilience is closely related to, but distinct from, community capacity. The community development literature defines community capacity as the communitys ability to engage in collective action, and to address a variety of circumstances through use of various community assets. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) define community capacity as a set of assets that exist within and among communitys members, local associations, and institutions. Fawcett et al. (1995) focus on collective action, defining community capacity as the communitys ability to pursue its chosen course of action. Chaskin et al. (2001) provide this definition: Community capacity is the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community (7). Community resilience emerges from systems theory and socio-ecological studies regarding systems change. It shares commonalities with community capacity. Both utilize the notion of developing and utilizing community resources for the communitys well-being. Both also borrow the concept of collective action from the social

408

K. Magis

movement literature and utilize the construct of active agency. However, CR diverges from community capacity in its specific and exclusive focus on community systems in the context of change. So, while community capacity can be developed for virtually anything, including stasis in the face of change, CR specifically exists within and because of change. It recognizes, accepts, builds capacity for, and engages change. In natural resources, researchers have used community resilience and community capacity to refer to the same phenomenon, that is, adapting to change. In the 1990s, three large-scale ecosystem studies were implemented, the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem project (SNEP), and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) (Jackson et al. 2004). FEMAT and SNEP utilized the community capacity construct, while ICBEMP utilized the community resilience construct. The three studies, however, operationalized community resilience and community capacity very similarly (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007). They assigned active agency to communities, presuming community members are active participants in the communities response to change and in the creation of their futures. Further, they asserted that increased capacity or resilience is related to the communities increased ability to meet needs and adapt to change. Finally, both SNEP and IBEMP studied community resilience and community stability by examining the communities development and utilization of community capital. There is overlap between community resilience and community capacity. For example, both presume the existence of community resources and the necessity of engaging them toward community ends. They acknowledge the active agency of community members, the communities ability to develop capacity, and the selfreinforcing effect of engaging community resources toward community ends. However, while the constructs share similarities, there is an important difference. Community capacity focuses generally on all matters related to communities and community development. Community resilience focuses on the communitys capacity specifically with regard to change. This distinction is illustrated in the CR definitions posited in both community development and socio-ecological studies. Colussi (2000) defines a resilient community as one that takes intentional action to enhance the personal and collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to respond to, and influence the course of social and economic change. Gunderson and Holling (2002) indicate that resilience is persistence born out of change and adaptive renewal cycles. Berkes and Seixas (2005) stipulate that factors related to resilience include learning to live with change and uncertainty; nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal; combining different kinds of knowledge; and creating opportunity for self-organization (1). Resilience, simply, is about the capacity to adapt to change. Roundtable Focus Groups Roundtable participants represent a variety of organizations that share a commitment to, and expertise in, forest sustainability and the MPC&I, including the USDA Forest Service, tribes, nonprofit conservation and community organizations, and universities. These participants were invited to a special session of the Roundtable. The purposes of the 2007 Roundtable Special Session were to (1) present the literature and praxis review and the draft framework for the CR measurement instrument, and (2) conduct focus groups on the community resilience construct and the

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

409

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

instruments design. At the special session, 60 participants were organized into 10 focus groups to discuss ideas, questions, concerns, and recommendations. Participants in the special session included academicians, advocates, community organizers, foresters, physical scientists, social scientists, bureaucrats, and policymakers. They brought varying levels of expertise and experience with community resilience. Their expertise and experience grounded discussions on a solid theoretical and empirical foundation. Further, their breadth and depth of knowledge and experience as well as their organizations standing commitment to the MPC&I made their input vital, particularly with regard to identifying key constructs, critical issues, and methodological considerations within the specific context of forest sustainability and the MPC&I. The face-to-face discussions enabled clarification and explication of new and different ideas, and exploration of issues that emerged throughout the course of the discussion. They also facilitated exploration of various perspectives on several issues of concern. Focus groups were structured to engage participants in creative brainstorming on specific questions and to generate clear and detailed suggestions. An affinity diagram was utilized to facilitate the discussions (Brassard and Ritter 1994). The tool facilitates the generation of many ideas in a short time frame among people who dont typically work together, and organizes the ideas into key themes and associated data. It balances the input of participants. Finally, it provides a direct transcription of participants input. Data generated from the session included affinity diagram data, notes from 10 focus groups, and notes from three plenary sessions. After the session, data were analyzed to identify higher order themes and categorize supporting concepts (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The special session and analysis results were captured in a final report to the Roundtable (Magis 2007b). Data Analysis Data gleaned from the focus-group discussions and the literature and practice review were then analyzed to develop the definition and dimensions of community resilience. A content analysis was conducted on the literature to operationalize the community resilience construct. The definition and eight dimensions of community resilience emerged from this analysis. The dimensions operationalize the definition into actionable, observable, and measurable elements. Analyses were then completed to select metrics to measure community resilience. Metrics from the 13 reviewed projects were first analyzed to select those that most effectively reflected the community resilience dimensions (Magis 2007a). Additional metrics were then developed to focus on change and to ensure that each dimension was adequately operationalized. Finally, questions were developed from the metrics for the CR Self-Assessment. The CR Self-Assessment moved through five iterations of draft, review, and edits. Twenty people, including the Community Resilience Workgroup, USDA Forest Service personnel, and community members, provided the first reviews. Forty-four community members in three communities then completed the CR Self-Assessment for their communities and provided additional recommendations for revisions.

Results
This research project makes two primary contributions to the study of community resilience: a definition and set of dimensions related to community resilience

410

K. Magis

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Figure 2. Community resilience dimensions.

(Figure 2). An additional contribution is the CR Self-Assessment. The CR SelfAssessment was designed to measure the resilience of communities along each of the eight CR dimensions. The community resilience dimensions are described herein, along with examples of associated metrics.

Community Resilience Dimensions Community Resources. Communities have access to many resources within and outside the community that can be engaged to respond to change and develop the communities capacity. Resources exist in the natural world, in the people who live in the community, in the culture of the people, in the associations between the people, in the economy and infrastructure of the community, and in the political processes in which the community engages. These resources are referred to respectively as natural, human, cultural, social, financial=built, and political capital. Community resilience is developed through the engagement of all the capitals. Examples of metrics include: (1) how well people understand the opportunities and limitations of the natural environment in and surrounding their community; (2) to what extent community leaders are networked with resources outside the community, for example, federal, state, county, businesses; and (3) to what extent community members believe that change is inevitable and that the community can adapt successfully to change. Development of Community Resources. Community resources are dynamic. They can be developed and expanded, or depleted and destroyed. Their development contributes to the communitys capacity to respond to stressors, crises, and opportunities, that is, change. Resources left unused can diminish, and overinvestment in one can deplete others and cause declines in community capacity. Importantly, capacity is necessary, but insufficient, for community resilience. Developing community resilience requires action taken, not simply the capacity to act. Sample metrics include: (1) new kinds of business and employment opportunities developed in the community over the last ten years; (2) preparedness of youth with important work habits (e.g., quality work, timeliness, reliability), and to become involved citizens (e.g., vote; participate in civic and social organizations; take action

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

411

to make social change; advocate ideas and concerns to government and media); and (3) the extent to which communities affected by change attempt to keep things the same or try new ways of doing things. Engagement of Community Resources. When community resources are engaged toward a shared community objective, the communitys capacity to reach that objective can increase. The engagement of the resource can further develop it, create new resources and increase their productivity. In a self-reinforcing cycle, engagement of community resources toward community objectives can develop community resilience, which in turn can generate additional resources and capacity. Conversely, resources that are utilized only for personal or private gain may not contribute to community resilience and can, in fact, undermine a communitys resilience. Sample metrics include: (1) the effectiveness of community government in dealing with important problems facing the community; (2) the extent to which community organizations contribute leadership and volunteers to community endeavors; and (3) the extent to which communities affected by change generate ideas to address the change that are new and that involve recombining resources in different and creative ways. Active Agents. Community members are active agents in the communitys resilience. Although external forces impact the community, the community can influence its well-being and take a leadership role in doing so. Further, communities have a vital stake in the economic, social and environmental impacts of natural resource management, so need be recognized as key stakeholders and must participate in the resource management issues that affect them. Sample metrics include: (1) community members belief in their ability to affect the communitys well-being; (2) community members involvement in various groups and events; and (3) the communitys self-reliance in addressing major issues and changes affecting the community. Collective Action. Community resilience is developed through collective effort to accomplish specific community objectives. Collective action requires participation and leadership from throughout the community. The extraordinary work of a singular individual or group of individuals is insufficient (Berkes et al. 2003; Colussi 2000; Harris et al. 2000; Healy et al. 2003). Collective action is more efficacious when people from diverse and autonomous groups work together, and when people know what organizations and people are important, as well as how to accomplish their objective (McAdam et al. 1996; Tarrow 1998). Sample metrics include: (1) the extent to which community leaders facilitate collaboration between groups to work on community objectives; (2) the extent to which community decision-making processes engage diverse perspectives and reflect cultural differences; and (3) the extent to which people from diverse groups share supports, resources, knowledge, and expertise when confronted with change. Strategic Action. Community resilience is developed through conscious deliberation, planning, implementation, and learning. The community develops itself intentionally and moves toward specific strategic visions and objectives. Community members work intentionally to enhance personal and collective capacity to respond to and influence change (Colussi 2000). Sample metrics include: (1) the extent to which information on community resources is used in planning community

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

412

K. Magis

endeavors; (2) the extent to which local planning processes generate a communitywide commitment to a common future; (3) the extent to which community members look outside the community to find resources to support its endeavors; and (4) opportunities for people to share lessons, unresolved questions, ideas and innovations from their experiences. Equity. Equity refers to equal access to and distribution of societys benefits and costs, and social justice for all economic and social groups, as well as equality within and between generations (Haq 1999; Magis and Shinn 2009; Polese and Stren 2000). Particular attention is paid to the needs of minority, disenfranchised, and non-mainstream groups. Equity ensures open access and equal opportunity, which enable the development and engagement of resources from throughout the entire community for the communitys benefit. Sample metrics include: (1) access of various groups to the communitys natural resources; (2) involvement of various groups in the planning and leadership of the community; and (3) the extent to which community organizations welcome and include various groups. Impact. Community resilience is evidenced in the communitys successful response to crisis=opportunity=change, its successful implementation of plans, its development of new trajectories and futures for itself, and its adaptation to changes within and outside the community. Importantly, community resilience is not about controlling all the conditions that affect it. Rather, it is about thriving in those conditions. Sample metrics include: (1) the changes in participation and collaboration over time; (2) the changes in number and variety of external contacts over time; (3) changes in the communitys capacity over time to respond to change, develop new futures for itself, and develop and implement community-centered plans; and (4) changes in the communitys resources over time.

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Conclusion
The resilience construct has been studied in numerous contexts and from various disciplinary perspectives. Research suggests that resilience pertains to the ability of a system to sustain itself through adaptation and occasional transformation. Resilient communities, hence, learn to cope with, adapt to and shape change. To test this conception of community resilience and make it accessible to those wishing to apply it in praxis, this research endeavored to operationalize the construct into actionable, observable, and measureable elements. The contributions of the study include a definition of community resilience and eight community resilience dimensions. Additionally, metrics related to each dimension were identified and incorporated into the CR Self-Assessment. The path forward includes testing the operationalization of the community resilience construct, and applying it in praxis. To ensure the dimensions and metrics provide a valid and reliable portrayal of community resilience, they need to be tested. The CR Self-Assessment needs to be tested to ensure that it effectively distinguishes between levels of resilience, and that it accurately predicts resilience. The assessment also needs to be utilized in communities to generate information that can be mined to develop community resilience, guide policy development, and provide vital criteria to evaluate policies and practice. Finally, the link between community resilience and ecological sustainability needs to be explored as part of a comprehensive endeavor

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

413

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

to understand the complicated interconnections between sustainability of human and ecological systems. Information on a communitys resilience has a number of purposes. It can be utilized by communities to track and strengthen their resilience. It can be used by community development organizations in pre- and posttest fashion to test the efficacy of various interventions on improving community resilience. It can be used by policymakers to inform decision making, and to monitor the impact of policies on community sustainability. For example, USDA Forest Service personnel can use the information to discern how to best implement change in forest policy that will affect communities, and to monitor the impact of those changes on the community. It can also be used by funding sources to determine how best to invest limited resources. For example, communities with low resilience may be selected as grant recipients to systematically develop resilience. Communities with high resilience may be selected to create or test special products, e.g., techniques to develop resilience. Communities applying for grant dollars can be advised to systematically address the resilience dimensions in which they score low and that are deemed necessary for the projects successful completion. Finally, information on community resilience can be used by communities and the forest sector to collaboratively determine their respective relationships in sustaining forests and community well-being. Communities experience constant change from multiple sources. As change is constant, no community can presume a future without change. Moreover, as change is unpredictable, communities cannot have full knowledge of the kind of change to anticipate or intensity or ultimate impact of those changes. A communitys resilience will influence its ability to successfully respond to that change, thus making resilience critically important to community and social sustainability. As community resilience can be developed, communities are well served to strategically develop it.

Notes
1. For information on the MPC&I and the Santiago Agreement, see http://www.rinya.maff. go.jp/mpci. 2. The Roundtable spearheads implementation of the MPC&I in the U.S. See http:// www.sustainableforests.net. 3. The Workgroup was comprised of professionals with expertise in natural resources, communities and social sustainability. They provided input, feedback, and ideas throughout the project.

References
Adger, N. W. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24(3):347364. Adger, N. W., T. P. Hughes, C. Folk, S. R. Carpenter, and J. Rockstron. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737):10361039. Ahmed, R., M. Seedat, A. van Niekerk, and S. Bulbulia. 2004. Discerning community resilience in disadvantaged communities in the context of violence and injury prevention. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 34(3):386408. Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 9(1):18. Beckley, T. 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society Nat. Resources 8(3):261266.

414

K. Magis

Beckley, T. 2000. Sustainability for whom? Social indicators for forest-dependent communities in Canada. Edmonton, Canada: Sustainable Forest Management Network, University of Alberta. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (Eds.). 2003. Navigating socialecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., and C. S. Seixas. 2005. Building resilience in lagoon socialecological systems: A local-level perspective. Ecosystems 8:967974. Brassard, M., and D. Ritter. 1994. The memory jogger II: A pocket guide of tools for continuous improvement & effective planning. Salem, NH: GOAL=QPC. Chaskin, R., P. Brown, S. Venkatesh, and A. Vidal. 2001. Building community capacity. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Chenoweth, L., and D. Stehlik. 2001. Building resilient communities: Social work practice and rural Queensland. Austr. Social Work 54(2):4754. Coleman, J. 19881989. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American J. Sociology 95:95120. Colussi, M. M. 2000. The community resilience manual: A resource for rural recovery and renewal. http://www.cedworks.com/communityresilience01.html (accessed 1 June 2007). Constanza, R., R. dArge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. ONeill, J. Paruelo, et al. 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253260. Costello, D., and M. Johns. 2006. Understanding and building resilience in the South West. West Perth, Australia: Injury Control Council of WA, Inc. Daniels, J. M. 2004. Assessing socioeconomic resiliency in Washington Counties. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-607. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Daubon, R. E., and H. H. Saunders. 2002. Operationalizing social capital: A strategy to enhance communities capacity to concert. Int. Stud. Perspect. 3:176191. Davis, R., D. Cook, and L. Cohen. 2005. A community resilience approach to reducing ethnic and racial disparities in health. Am. J. Public Health 95(12):21682173. Doak, S. C., and J. Kusel. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part II: A social assessment focus. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. 2, Assessments and scientific basis for management options, 375402. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Donoghue, E., and V. Sturtevant. 2007. Social science constructs in ecosystem assessments: Revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Society Nat. Resources 20(10):899912. Emery, M., and C. Flora. 2006. Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. J. Commun. Dev. Society 37(1):1935. Fawcett, S. B., A. Paine-Andrews, V. T. Fransisco, J. A. Schultz, K. P. Richter, R. K. Lewis, E. L. Williams, K. J. Harris, J. Y. Berkley, J. L. Fisher, et al. 1995. Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 23(5):677. Fey, S., C. Bregendahl, and C. Flora. 2006. The measurement of community capitals through research. Online J. Rural Res. Policy 1. http://ojrrp.org/journals/ojrrp/issue/archive (accessed 1 February 2007). Flora, C. 19981999. Quality of life versus standard of living. Rural Dev. News, Winter. http:// www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/newsletter/Winter%2098-99/From%20Director.html (accessed 1 February 2007). Flora, C., C. Bregendahl, S. Fey, L. Chen, and J. Friel. 2004. Rural community and economic development case study review: A quantitative analysis. Prepared for the Claude Worthington

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability

415

Benedum Foundation. Ames: Iowa State University, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Flora, C., and J. Flora. 2004. Rural communities: Legacy and change (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Folke, C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes. 2003. Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and Change, eds. F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, 352387. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for socialecological systems analyses. Global Environ. Change 16:253267. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. Gibbon, M., R. Labonte, and G. Laverack. 2002. Evaluating community capacity. Health Social Care Commun. 10(6):485491. Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Goodman, N. 2003. Five kinds of capital: Useful concepts for sustainable development. http:// ase.tufts.edu/gdae (accessed 1 September 2005). Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6):13601380. Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling (Eds.). 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gunderson, L. H., and L. Pritchard (Eds.). 2002. Resilience and the behavior of large scale ecosystems, SCOPE, 60. Washington, DC: Island Press. Haq, M. 1999. Reflections on human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Harris, C., B. McLaughlin, G. Brown, and D. R. Becker. 2000. Rural communities in the inland northwest: An assessment of small communities in the interior and upper Columbia River basins. In Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477, ed. T. M. Quigley, 120. Portland, OR: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Healy, K., A. Hampshire, and L. Ayres. 2003. Engaging communities for sustainable change: Promoting resilience. http://www.bensoc.org.au/research/engaging_communities.html (accessed 1 June 2007). Jackson, E. J., R. G. Lee, and P. Sommers. 2004. Monitoring the community impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan: An alternative to social indicators. Society Nat. Resources 17:223233. Kaufman, H. 1959. Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces 38:817. Kretzmann, J. P., and J. L. McKnight. 1993. Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a communitys assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Neighborhood Innovations Network, Northwestern University. Kusel, J., and L. P. Fortmann. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, vol. I. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry Forest and Rangeland Assessment Program. Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part I: A New approach. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest-dependent communities. In Understanding community-based forest ecosystem management, eds. G. J. Gray, M. J. Enzer, and J. Kusel, 359384. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. Labonte, R., and G. Laverack. 2001. Capacity building in health promotion, Part 1: For whom? And for what purpose? Crit. Public Health 11(2):111127.

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

416

K. Magis

Downloaded by [University of California-Irvine ] at 15:07 18 October 2012

Laverack, G. 2001. An identification and interpretation of the organisational aspects of community empowerment. Commun. Dev. Jo. 36(2):4052. Machlis, G., and J. E. Force. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent communities. Rural Sociol. 53(2):220234. Machlis, G., and J. E. Force. 1997. The human ecosystem, Part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society Nat. Resources 10(4):347368. Magis, K. 2007a. Community resilience literature and practice review. U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests September 2007 Special Session on Indicator 38: Community Resilience. http://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.php (accessed 1 March 2007). Magis, K. 2007b. Final report to the U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests: Special Session on Indicator 38, Resilience of Forest-Dependent Communities. http://www.sustainableforests. net/summaries.php (accessed 1 March 2007). Magis, K. 2010 [Forthcoming]. Indicator 38: The resilience of forest-based communities. Partner Report: 2010 National Report on the Sustainability of the United States Forests. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport Magis, K., and C. Shinn. 2009. Emergent themes of social sustainability. In Understanding the social aspect of sustainability, eds. J. Dillard, V. Dujon, and M. C. King, 1544. New York: Routledge. McAdam, D., J. McCarthy, and M. Zald. 1996. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Miller, S., C. Shinn, and W. Bentley. 1994. Rural resource management problemsolving for the long term. Morrilton, IA: Iowa State University Press. Polese, M., and R. Stren (Eds.). 2000. The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the management of change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environ. Change 16(3):282292. Stedman, R. C., J. R. Parkins, and T. M. Beckley. 2004. Resource dependence and community well-being in rural Canada. Rural Sociol. 69(2):213234. Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Walker, B. H., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. P. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in socialecological systems. Ecol. Society 9(2):5. Wheatley, M. 1992. Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Wilkinson, K. P. 1991. The community in rural America. New York: Greenwood Press. Williams, C. 2004. Community capacity building: A critical evaluation of the third sector approach. Rev. Policy Res. 21(5):729739. Woolcock, M. 2000. Social capital and its meanings. Canberra Bull. Public Admin. 98:1719.