Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
pacity to adapt is partly related to biological diversity (i.e., the diversity in genetic and
species composition as well as in stand and landscape structure) (Wilson 1988). It is
also related to the diversity of social institutions and networks that can learn, store
knowledge and experience, create flexibility in problem solving, and balance power
among interest groups (Berkes and Folke 1998; Scheffer, Brock, and Westley 2000;
Folke et al. 2002).
Integrating the concepts of capital, community, and resilience may yield a useful
conceptual framework for restoration. This integrated socioecological framework con-
siders the stocks of social and natural capital that foster socioecological systems' adap-
tive capacity. Numerous works provide context and foundation for integrating these
concepts (e.g., Adger 2000; Carpenter et al. 2001; Folke at al. 2002; Gunderson and
Holling 2002; Janssen et al. 2006; Olsson et al. 2006; Brand 2009). However, despite
their usefulness as theoretical constructs, the concepts of resilience and capital have
proved difficult to operationalize. Even though the terms sound positive, as concepts
they are value neutral; polluted water and dictatorships may be highly resilient (Car-
penter et al. 2001), and abhorrent social movements, such as the Ku Klux Klan, may
be rich in social capital. Resistance, an aspect of resilience referring to the amount of
external pressure needed to bring about a given amount of disturbance (Carpenter at
al. 2001), can be found in weedy lots. Measurement of social resilience and social
capital is also unrefined. Is resilience also determined by the amount of disturbance a
social system can absorb while still self-organizing and functioning? Can social capital
be quantified like economic capital (i.e., number of networks, membership in net-
works, strength of networks) (Fukuyama 2002)? Donoghue and Sturtevant (2007) de-
scribe several ways large-scale assessments of ecosystems have measured social capital
and resilience using expert opinion and self-evaluations by community members.
They point out that communities draw on a constellation of assets in order to adapt to
change, assets that are difficult to quantify with single scores or ratings. Furthermore,
some physical assets, such as infrastructure and natural resources, can only contribute
to resilience if they are mobilized through social capital, that is, through leadership
and collective action.
Although relationships between social and ecological resilience have been exam-
ined empirically in natural resource-dependent communities (e.g., Blaikie and
Brookfield 1987; Peluso, Humphrey, and Fortmann 1994), the nature of these rela-
tionships is far from understood. Just as ecological systems that rely on single niches
and processes can easily be undermined by drastic change, social systems that rely on
single resources may be undermined by exogenous perturbations (e.g., collapses in
commodity markets, blights in monoculture cash crops) (Adger 2000). But do systems
that are more ecologically resilient foster social resilience and vice versa? For exam-
ple, coastal regions support multiple ecological niches and processes that increase
their self-regulating regenerative and absorptive capacity. Many also support multiple
social and economic niches (e.g., fishing, tourism, shipping, transportation). These
niches may facilitate stable socioeconomic conditions that foster technological inno-
vation and long-term investment in institutions (Adger 2000). However, it is unknown
whether the resulting social structures that result foster learning and adaptation.
