Brown Westaway 2011 Agency Capacity and Resilience To Environmental Change Lessons From Human Development Well Being

EG36CH13-Brown ARI 19 September 2011 8:5
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Agency, Capacity, and
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Resilience to Environmental
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles Change: Lessons from Human
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011.36:321-342. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Top downloaded articles

• Our comprehensive search
Development, Well-Being,
Access provided by 103.144.170.170 on 09/20/23. For personal use only.
and Disasters
Katrina Brown and Elizabeth Westaway
School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ,
United Kingdom; email: k.brown@uea.ac.uk
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:321–42 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on adaptive capacity, psychosocial factors, adaptation, transformation
August 23, 2011
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract

is online at environ.annualreviews.org
Human agency is considered a key factor in determining how individuals
This article’s doi: and society respond to environmental change. This article synthesizes
10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905
knowledge on agency, capacity, and resilience across human develop-
Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. ment, well-being, and disasters literature to provide insights to support
All rights reserved
more integrated and human-centered approaches to understanding en-
1543-5938/11/1121-0321$20.00 vironmental change. It draws out the key areas of agreement across these
diverse fields and identifies the main points of contestation and uncer-
tainty. This highlights the need to consider subjective and relational
factors in addition to objective measures of capacity and to view these
as reflexive and dynamic, as well as differentiated socially and tempo-
rally. These findings can help distinguish between coping, adaptation,
and transformation as responses to environmental and other stressors.
321
adaptive capacity, these are seldom integrated

Contents into current models and frameworks. Our anal-
ysis identifies the key insights from broadly de-
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
fined human development that can inform the
AGENCY AND CAPACITY IN THE
role of agency in responding to environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
change. These include individual, family, and
LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
community characteristics that build resilience,
RESILIENCE IN HUMAN
and what characterizes the so-called healthy
DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
functioning adaptive systems that support
WELL-BEING AND
them. These have resonance with the concepts
DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
developed from resilience thinking applied to
DISASTERS AND COMMUNITY
social-ecological systems, not just because of
RESILIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
the terminology, but particularly in relation

CONCLUSION: AGENCY AND
to understanding the dynamics of change, its
CAPACITY AND THE CASE
multi- and cross-scale nature, the potential
FOR TRANSFORMATION . . . . . . 335

role of transitions, and the possibility of crises
providing windows of opportunity. In bringing
together the literature from well-being and de-
velopment, the review presents a more holistic
INTRODUCTION perspective that moves beyond a view of capac-
Capacity: the ability
to generate an In the environmental change literature, human ity or capabilities and well-being as determined
outcome or perform a agency is often highlighted as a critical factor primarily by assets or resources, infrastructure
task and also to learn,
in determining how individuals, households, or outside interventions, and hence poten-
and the potential for
growth and and communities can respond to different types tially overturns simplistic assumptions about
development of environmental stressors. Yet most analyses relationships between poverty and adaptive
Human and certainly most policy approaches put capacity. Insights from the disasters field reveal
development: refers an emphasis on resources and infrastructure the links between individual and community-
to anthropological, to support adaptation and do not unpack scale factors in preparedness, responses, and
sociological, agency. Generally, psychosocial factors and recovery from shocks and, increasingly, the im-
psychological, and
how they affect people’s capacity to respond to pacts of multiple stressors of well-being from a
biological approaches
to examining human environmental stressors are poorly understood human security perspective. These findings il-
development in and are rarely accounted for in integrated luminate the reflexive interplay between differ-
context analyses. However, there is a rich literature ent factors which influence human agency and
Well-being: is more in the fields of child psychology, human its role in responding to environmental change.
than the absence of development, well-being and development
illness or pathology. studies, and disaster studies which documents
It has subjective and
factors affecting people’s ability to cope, adapt, AGENCY AND CAPACITY
objective dimensions IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
and can be measured and transform in response to different types of
changes, including sudden shocks or crises. CHANGE LITERATURE
for individuals or
society This article synthesizes knowledge on re- Agency is generally understood to mean the ca-
Adaptive capacity: silience, adaptation, and coping with risks and pacity of individuals to act independently to
the preconditions contingencies across these fields and links them make their own free choices. A more detailed
necessary to enable with insights on social-ecological systems to definition provided by McLaughlin & Dietz (1,
adaptation to take
advance an understanding of the role of agency p. 105) is “the capacity of individuals and cor-
place, it is a latent
characteristic that in responding to multiple stressors associated porate actors, with the diverse cultural mean-
must be activated to with environmental change. Although research ings that they espouse, to play an independent
effect adaptation and policy highlight the need to understand causal role in history,” which importantly ex-
subjective human factors in determining tends agency to mean collective action. One key
322 Brown · Westaway

argument for emphasizing agency is that it helps tween adaptive capacity and resilience are di-
to overcome the view of people as powerless versely interpreted, as summarized by Gallopı́n
victims of environmental change; it recognizes (7), and some authors equate adaptive capacity
Capabilities: the
that humans are never just passive in the face of with resilience and social resilience. Gunderson alternative
environmental threats (1). Fabricius et al. (2), (8) defines adaptive capacity as system robust- combinations of
for example, provide an analysis of communi- ness to changes in resilience, and Carpenter & functionings a person
ties in ecosystem management in the face of Gunderson (9) use adaptive capacity as a com- is feasibly able to
achieve. A capabilities
rapid change as “powerless spectators,” “cop- ponent of resilience that reflects the learning
approach emphasizes
ing actors,” or “adaptive comanagers” on the aspect of a system of behavior in response to dis- functional capabilities
basis of their adaptive capacity and governance turbance, each of these authors seeing adaptive and understands
capacity. Agency is clearly related to adaptive capacity as a system characteristic. However, poverty as capability
capacity, which is a central focus of literature Walker et al. (10) define adaptability as the col- deprivation
on environmental change. It is also a concept lective capacity of the human actors in a social- Human security: a
that links a number of different fields: social- ecological system to manage resilience, and state that is achieved
when individuals and
ecological systems, sustainability sciences, haz- Chapin et al. (11) view adaptive capacity as the
communities are able

ards and disasters, vulnerability, and resilience. capacity of actors, both individuals and groups, to end, mitigate, or
Adaptive capacity provides a bridge between to respond to, create, and shape variability and adapt to threats to
adaptation literature on environmental change change in the state of the system. These views their human,
and climate change and that concerned more identify adaptive capacity as a characteristic of environmental, and
social rights
centrally with human motivation, behavior, and (usually) human actors and recognize that hu-
responses. mans, uniquely, have the capacity to anticipate
Adaptive capacity comprises the necessary and plan for the future and take reflexive ac-
resources for systems to adapt and learn. Dif- tions, which take account of cause and effect and
ferent fields within environmental change and which consider the impact of one’s own actions.
other literatures emphasize various compo- Thus, the environmental change literature
nents or dimensions of adaptive capacity, and presents adaptive capacity, resilience, and
a number of studies have measured adaptive ca- vulnerability as related and intertwined in a
pacity empirically at a range of scales. Nelson number of key ways (12). Cutter et al. (13)
et al. (3) define adaptive capacity as the pre- illustrate the relationships diagrammatically,
conditions necessary to enable adaptation, in- showing the different conceptualizations
cluding social and physical elements, and the across subfields. Chapin et al. (11) identify
ability to mobilize these elements. Indeed, the four key components of adaptive capacity:
literature on environmental change and social- (a) biological, economic, and cultural diversity;
ecological systems defines adaptive capacity as (b) social learning concerning the system
a source of resilience (4–6). Gallopı́n (7, p. 300) and how it changes; (c) experimentation and
notes that “adaptability (or adaptive capacity) innovation; and (d ) selection, communication,
was originally defined in biology to mean an and implementing appropriate solutions. Folke
ability to become adapted to a certain range et al. (14) identify four key factors that interact
of environmental contingencies.” Adaptedness across temporal and spatial scales as necessary
in human systems includes the viability of so- for social-ecological systems to deal with
cial and economic activities and the quality of dynamics and change. These are shown in
human life. Hence, “adaptability or [the] adap- Table 1. These factors apply to both human
tive capacity of human systems also can be de- and nonhumans in the system, and the factors
fined as the capacity of any human system from provide a good overview of how adaptive
the individual to humankind to increase (or at capacity and resilience are understood in the
least maintain) the quality of life of its individ- environmental change literature.
ual members in a given environment or range This view resonates strongly with the
of environments” (7, p. 300). The relations be- climate change adaptation literature, which
www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 323

Table 1 Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological in the face of a variegated and changing
systems (14, p. 355) environment . . . means more than passive
Learning to live with change and uncertainty adjustment; it also means that the system is
relatively autonomous vis-à-vis its environ-
Evoking disturbance
ment. It has the capacity to change aspects of
Learning from crises
the environment in accordance with needs of
Expecting the unexpected
the system, as well as to adapt to those aspects
Nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal
that it cannot change. (17, pp. 271–72)
Nurturing ecological memory
Sustaining social memory
This definition is directly related to those from
Enhancing social-ecological memory
the environmental change literature outlined in
Combining different types of knowledge for learning
the paragraphs above. But there is no consen-
Combining experimental and experiential knowledge
sus about what constitutes adaptive functioning,

Expanding from knowledge of structure to knowledge of function and definitions of successful adaptation vary
Building process knowledge into institutions in regard to different historical, cultural, and
Fostering complementarity of different knowledge systems developmental contexts (18–21). Some stud-
Creating opportunity for self-organization ies look at the absence of psychopathology,
Recognizing interplay between diversity and disturbance whereas others require more positive stage-
Dealing with cross-scale dynamics salient developmental tasks through the adap-
Matching scales of ecosystems and governance tive use of personal and contextual resources
Accounting for external drivers (20, 22). A “positive adaptation” is one that
is substantially better than what is expected
given exposure to the risk circumstances be-
defines adaptive capacity as a set of latent ing studied (23, p. 515). Hence, the definition
characteristics, or the potential, needed to should also reflect the seriousness of the risks
adapt to climate change and the ability to be under consideration (24–26). Nevertheless,
actively involved in processes of change (15). Masten (20) considers that, in the majority of
Adaptive capacity here is seen as an attribute cases, resilience results from ordinary adaptive
of people: individuals, households, and com- processes rather than extraordinary ones, which
munities. Adaptive capacity depends on both she refers to as “ordinary magic.”
tangible assets, such as financial and natural Depending on the context, these factors may
resources, and less tangible elements, such as be manifest and can potentially be assessed
skills and opportunities to implement changes through a range of indicators. This understand-
in livelihoods or lifestyles. Smit & Wandel’s ing of adaptive capacity leads to a set of ap-
review (16) suggests that the determinants plications, normative policy recommendations,
of adaptive capacity include assets—financial, and measures of adaptive capacity applied to
technological, and informational—and the different phenomena and at different scales.
context in which these are held, meaning the Systems—both ecological and social as well as
infrastructure and institutional environment, linked social-ecological—and individuals, com-
kinship, social networks, and political support. munities, and even nation states can thus be
Within human development literature, seen to have these characteristics, which make
adaptive capacity is defined in different ways. up their adaptive capacity.
In evolutionary theory, adaptive capacity is In summary, adaptive capacity will depend
on the following:
the ability of an organism or a social system 1. recognition of the need to adapt;
to cope with a wide range of environmental 2. a belief that adaptation is possible and
conditions, physical or social . . . it involves desirable;
the capacity of the system to attain its goals 3. the willingness to undertake adaptation;

4. the availability of resources necessary for others suggest that resources alone are of
implementation of adaptation measures; debatable importance (36, 37). Grothmann
5. the ability to deploy resources in an ap- & Patt (33, p. 206) state: “Assessments of
propriate way; and vulnerability to climate change—in most cases
6. external constraints, barriers and enablers conducted on the level of nations—very often
of implementation. take GDP as one or the only determinant of
Adaptive capacity has been examined at mul- adaptive capacity and adaptation.” However,
tiple scales, ranging from the individual to they consider that while GDP is less useful
community, institutional, national, and cross- for understanding the process of adaptation, it
national scales (6, 16, 27–31). Adaptive capac- may be useful to more effectively promote it.
ity is determined by complex interrelationships Structural aspects—factors such as social
of a range of factors at different scales, which class, religion, gender, ethnicity, and customs—
also interact across temporal and spatial scales, are also widely cited, and it is broadly accepted
including the “panarchy of cross-scale dynam- that good governance and institutional struc-
ics and interplay between a set of nested adap- tures are important for adaptive capacity (30).
tive cycles” (6, p. 258). Adaptive capacity and Analysis has also highlighted the role of so-
social vulnerability have been shown to have cial capital and networks in supporting adap-
similar causes and consequences, i.e., a coun- tive capacity (34, 38). But increasingly schol-
try or household having low adaptive capacity ars emphasize the role played by one’s agency
is likely to have high vulnerability. Similarly, in adaptive capacity. Hence, agency refers to
households with a high degree of dependency the capacity of an individual to act indepen-
(i.e., through children, the elderly, or illness) dently and to make one’s own free choices.
are more likely to have less adaptive capacity One’s agency is one’s independent capability
(30). It is important to examine the context and or ability to act on one’s will. This ability is
the ways in which the driving forces of adap- affected by the cognitive belief structure that
tive capacity manifest themselves at different one has formed through one’s experiences, the
scales. For example, work on entitlements and perceptions held by the society and the indi-
food security (32) has demonstrated how the vidual, and the structures and circumstances of
adaptive capacity of individuals or households the environment one is in. Grothmann & Patt
is shaped and constrained by social, political, (33) claim there has been little analysis of these
and economic processes at higher scales. Most psychological dimensions of adaptation. They
indicators of adaptive capacity highlight only observe that “outside of climate change, a large
the potential for adaptation to occur: Whether literature dealing with human decision-making
or not adaptive capacity is drawn upon to bring and action suggests that motivation and per-
about adaptation depends on a further set of ceived abilities are important determinants of
uncertainties (30). human action” (33, p. 208). Hence, they argue
In general, in the environmental change that models of adaptation and adaptive capacity
literature, the multiple components of adaptive ought to include sociocognitive variables. Their
capacity can be seen to correspond to three suggestion of how these variables can be inte-
dimensions that are loosely aligned with re- grated into understanding adaptation and adap-
sources, structure, and agency. Most scholarly tive capacity is shown below in Figure 1. This is
work has identified resource constraints as the based on Protection Motivation Theory, which
most significant determinants of adaptation was originally developed to explain behavior in
(33). Adger (34) argues that the capacity of response to health threats.
individuals to adapt to climate change is a func- However, despite these attempts to better
tion of their access to resources. Some authors integrate social aspects, Grothmann & Patt
note that the influence of resources operates (33, p. 201) claim there is “a failure of commu-
through access to information (35); however, nication between different disciplines: those

Social discourse on climate change risks and adaptation Incentives
Reliance on Climate change

public risk appraisal:
adaptation perceptions of
probability and
Risk severity Avoidant Intention Adaptation
experience maladaptations:
appraisal fatalism,
Adaptation denial,
appraisal: wishful thinking
Cognitive
biases perceptions of
adaptation efficacy,
self-efficacy, and
adaptation costs
Objective adaptive capacity resources such as

time, money, knowledge, and entitlements
Figure 1
A model of private proactive adaptation to climate change. Notes: the gray boxes indicate where issues of
agency are especially important. Adapted with permission from Grothmann & Patt (33).
concerned with climate change adaptation, on literature on resilience, outlined in the follow-
the one hand, and those concerned with human ing section, can inform conceptualizations and
agency and social decision-making processes understandings of adaptive capacity and hence
on the other.” This omission of decision- human and societal responses to environmental
making at the public, private, and individual change.
levels has led to an emphasis on financial,
technical, and institutional constraints as the
primary determinants of adaptive capacity. RESILIENCE IN HUMAN
Although more recent analyses highlight the DEVELOPMENT
role of self-efficacy, articulated with respect to What then can we learn from our understand-
power/powerlessness and self-belief in one’s ings of resilience and adaptation in human
own capacity (39–42) or social identity (43) development to inform the role of agency
in adaptive capacity, agency remains a “black and psychosocial factors in adaptive capacity?
box” in much environmental change literature. The overarching theoretical framework for
Although it is hinted at and suggested that resilience research with children emerged from
issues such as self-efficacy, empowerment, developmental systems theory (44), develop-
optimism, self-esteem, innovative thinking, mental psychopathology (24), and ecological
decision-making, and perceptions may be of systems theory (45, 46). In human development
primary importance in determining which literature, individual resilience is defined as
Self-efficacy: the as well as how and whether people cope the “dynamic process wherein individuals
belief in one’s own
with shock, disturbances, and other types of display positive adaptation despite experiences
ability to perform a
task and to manage stressors or change, there is no systematic of significant adversity or trauma” (47, p. 858).
prospective situations interrogation or analysis of these dimensions. Resilience arises from interactive processes
This is precisely where the human development across multiple levels of functioning, including

Table 2 Attributes of individuals and their contexts associated with resilience (118, p. 13)
Individual differences
Cognitive abilities: IQ scores, attentional skills, executive functioning skills
Self-perceptions of competence, worth, confidence: self-efficacy, self-esteem
Temperament and personality: adaptability, sociability
Self-regulation skills: impulse control, affect and arousal regulation
Positive outlook on life: hopefulness, belief that life has meaning, faith
Relationships
Parenting quality: warmth, structure and monitoring, expectations
Close relationships with competent adults: parents, relatives, mentors
Connections to prosocial and rule-abiding peers (among older children)
Community resources and opportunities
Good schools
Connections to prosocial organizations (such as clubs or religious groups)
Neighborhood quality: public safety, collective supervision, libraries, recreation centers

Quality of social services and health care
social interactions with family, peers, school, accomplished this, to identify mechanisms or
and community systems (48). Risk or adversity processes that might underlie the associations
can comprise biological, psychological, genetic, found (24). Table 2 summarizes the key
environmental, or socioeconomic factors that attributes of individuals and their environment
are associated with an increased probability that have been found to be associated with
of maladjustment/negative outcome (49). Re- resilience.
silience has been used to refer to (a) positive out- As in environmental change and social-
come despite the experience of adversity (beat- ecological systems thinking, human devel-
ing the odds, better than predicted); (b) contin- opment literature portrays resilience as a
ued positive or effective functioning in adverse dynamic, multidimensional, and multiscale
circumstances (stress resistance, coping); and characteristic. Resilience research shows that
(c) recovery after a significant trauma (bounc- children have different vulnerabilities and
ing back, self-righting) or severe deprivation protective systems at different stages in their
(normalization) (50). Recently, the possibility development (49, 53). Protective factors are
of positive transformation following adversity characteristics of the individual, family, and
has been highlighted, which leads to positive community, referred to as the triarchic frame-
reorganization of systems, with adaptive func- work of resilience (18), that modify the effects
tioning being better than it was previously (48, of adversity on child outcomes in a positive
51). This “fourth phase” of resilience (51) con- direction (24, 25), which Werner (54, p. 82)
verges with current thinking in environmental notes “appear to transcend ethnic, social class,
change and social-ecological systems. and geographic boundaries.” This consistency
In human development, resilience is now in findings was first noted by Garmezy (55)
recognized as a dynamic process that results and suggests a common set of broad correlates
from ongoing transactions between a child of better adaptation among children at risk
or individual and the environment (23, 52). for a variety of reasons, which Masten (20)
The central objectives of resilience researchers referred to as “the short list.” These factors are
are to identify vulnerability and protective identified at individual, family, and community
factors that might modify the negative effects scales, reflecting the fundamental adaptive
of adverse life circumstances and, having systems supporting human development.

Findings in relation to individual protective which can affect the child directly (through
factors provide insights into the role of differ- their own experience) or indirectly (through
ent aspects of agency. In high-risk contexts, influences of parents and the family). Also, the
Locus of control: the
extent to which children with high IQs may possess effective effects of neighborhoods are considered to be
individuals believe that information processing and problem-solving particularly significant in inner-city settings
they can control events skills to contend with stresses and challenges characterized by poverty, crime, and violence
that affect them (24). Fullan & Loubser (17) argue that variation (58). Werner (54, p. 83) shows that there “are
in mental processes (e.g., cognitive capacities support systems in the community that rein-
for information retrieval and flexible thinking, force and reward the competencies of resilient
including both originality and range of ideas), children and provide them with positive role
openness to new experiences, and selective models: caring neighbors, teachers, elder men-
retention (i.e., ability to analyze and reason tors, youth workers and peers.” Characteristics
logically) are crucial aspects of adaptive capac- of the school environment also play a signif-
ity to develop individuals as flexible, positive, icant role in fostering adaptive development,
creative, and innovative thinkers. Locus of and positive community forces are important,
control, appraisal, and coping skills have been such as emotional needs for closeness, “support
studied in older children with a range of positive and cohesion among neighbors and a sense of
outcomes. Feeling they have greater control, belonging to the community” (25, p. 14).
children respond less negatively to difficult Indeed, Schoon (25, p. 15) views individual,
situations and are better equipped to problem family, and community protective factors as
solve, such as reaching out for social support psychosocial resources that support or promote
(52). Because resilience is never an “across- adaptive development. Individuals who can
the-board” phenomenon, at-risk children can draw on many, or high levels of personal
display remarkable strengths in one domain but and social, resources are more effective in
at the same time show deficits in others (24). coping with adversity than individuals with
But beyond individual factors, family fewer (or lower-level) resources. However, in
protective factors include the presence of a acknowledging that resilience is a function of
caregiver to provide various resources, such as these protective systems, it is noted that more
nutrition, shelter, love, nurturance, and a sense sophisticated models are required to under-
of safety and security, as well as supervision (20, stand the complex processes involved (53).
56). A high-quality parent-child relationship, An ecological, transactional system approach
characterized by high levels of warmth and has a broader focus encompassing family and
openness and low levels of conflict, is associated community relational networks (51, 59), and
with positive outcomes across levels of risk in a recent review of resilience studies, Luthar
and stages of development (52) and in the (24, p. 780) concludes that “resilience rests,
social, emotional, and academic domains (25). fundamentally, on relationships.” An ecological
There is also a strong link between mother’s transactional system approach more adequately
educational attainment and children’s eventual reflects “individual differences in developmen-
educational attainment, with implications for tal pathways and contextual variation within
opportunity and well-being (57). families, communities, societies, cultures, and
Protective factors from the community have historical periods” (53, p. 26). A transactional
been less extensively studied; however, they model also provides an opportunity to focus on
are important for childhood outcomes, e.g., transitions and turning points in individuals’
neighborhood quality, neighborhood cohe- lives that can shape the nature and course of
sion, youth community organizations, quality future adaptation, such as entering school,
of school environment, and after-school envi- adolescence, or early adulthood (19, 25, 60).
ronment (52). Bronfenbrenner (46) has written However, “there are potentially damaging
on community-level or exosystem factors, consequences of viewing resilience as an

individual trait,” according to O’Dougherty In recent years, resilience research has

et al. (53, p. 29). Particularly when children advanced many models of positive develop-
do not adapt successfully, they are viewed as ment and strength-based models (51), which
personally to blame for not being able to cope acknowledge children as competent social
with adversity (25, 61). Children face many agents and capture their subjective experiences
social stressors and chronic adversities that are (26). Schoon (25) presents a developmental-
contextually determined. O’Dougherty et al. contextual systems model for the empirical
(53, p. 29) note that “adaptation is embedded study of adaptations in context and time, which
within a context of multiple systems of inter- emphasizes multiple interrelated and interde-
actions, such as family, school, neighborhood, pendent spheres of influence, and a life course
community and culture, [so] a child’s resilience theory, shown in Figure 2. The model advo-
is dependent upon other people and other cates a systems view to resilience, incorporating
systems of influence.” They note that often multilevel person-context interactions. Schoon
the same forces that can constrain the child’s (25) suggests that the model also captures the
development—poverty, discrimination, inade- transactional nature of development over time,
quate medical care, or exposure to community including the reciprocal interactions between
violence—also often impact and constrain the risk experiences and individual adjustment
entire family. Ungar (62, p. 446) reports that embedded in the wider sociohistorical context.
“resilience is as much dependent on the struc- The model shows transitions and turning
tural conditions, relationships and access to points, as well as the role of human agency and
social justice that children experience as it is any bounded agency. It thus has close parallels with
individual capacities.” This reflects an ongoing discussions of adaptation from the environ-
discussion of the influence of structure and mental change and social-ecological systems
agency, which we return to in sections below. literature, emphasizing multiscale and dynamic
So, resilience is not simply the sum of a set of processes, feedbacks, and possible transitions
characteristics; the literature reveals a complex and thresholds. It bears a remarkable resem-
set of linkages and relationships across scales blance to ideas of “panarchy” presented by
that have thresholds, cycles, and nonlinear Gunderson & Holling (66).
relationships—similar to the resilience story Other work also stresses these multiple-scale
told in social-ecological systems literature. interactions. Sheridan et al. (67), for example,
The movement away from individually explore family resilience, defined by Patterson
based conceptualizations of resilience toward a (68, p. 352) as “the processes by which families
contextually situated framework has been wel- are able to adapt and function competently
comed by cross-cultural researchers (cf. 21, 63– following exposure to significant adversity or
65). For various cultural/ethnic groups, there crisis.” McCubbin & McCubbin (69) have
can be a great deal of difference in the rela- developed a family resilience framework for the
tive importance placed on individualism, col- study of families of different ethnicities, cul-
lectivism, and familism, and these dimensions tures, and social contexts. The model explores
might mediate resilience in different ways for how ethnic identity and culture, independently
different groups (53). Similarly, how particular or in combination with other moderating or
cultural groups define and manage risk may vary mediating factors, have the greatest impact and
according to whether they attribute outcomes value in promoting recovery, family adaptation
to fate, supernatural forces, or human agency and transformation. Cook & du Toit (70) dis-
(64). Again, this is important for understanding cuss a developmental child rights framework,
adaptive capacity (reflected in the gray boxes in which combines socially grounded research
Figure 1) and the likely responses to different practice in child development, community
types of change, including environmental and empowerment, good governance, and human
climate change. rights with a culturally sensitive approach to

Sociohistorical context
Institutions
Neighborhoods
Family
Adjustment
Individual
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Birth Adulthood
Figure 2
A developmental-contextual model of resilience. Adapted with permission from Schoon (25).
working in the collective African context. This (material welfare and living standards), living
relates directly to the discussion of how well- a good life (values and ideals), and locating
being in different contexts is understood, and one’s life (experience and subjectivity), but
how ideas about agency, resilience, adaptation, researchers note that the terms life satisfaction,
capacity, and capabilities are applied within happiness, quality of life, and well-being are
the context of human, social, and international often used interchangeably (74, 75).
development. In the context of developing countries,
attempts to understand well-being across dif-
ferent languages, cultures, and socioeconomic
WELL-BEING AND contexts have highlighted the need for local un-
DEVELOPMENT derstandings of “the good life” (21, 63–65, 76).
As Camfield et al. (71, p. 398) note, “Well- Camfield et al. (77) claim that these concerns
being has become firmly embedded in academic are part of a paradigm shift within development
and policy discourse in recent years and is and child indicators research, similar to that
increasingly popular as an integrative concept traced in the previous section on human
in diverse fields of social policy, international development, from a deficit view that focuses
development and more recently child devel- on survival to one that acknowledges people’s
opment.” The concept of well-being has roots resources, agency, and pursuit of well-being.
in research on social indicators, quality of life, But Camfield & McGregor (78) found that the
and multidimensional conceptions of poverty concept of life satisfaction can be extremely
(72). However, well-being is a broad, contested culturally specific and has different relevance
concept, and its definitions are variable and in individualist or collectivist societies. Impor-
often confused. White (73) provides an over- tantly, agency is seen as determined not only
arching framework of well-being concepts, by the physical capacity of an individual but
distinguishing between having a good life also by the extent to which that is supported

by relationships with others and their own behind poverty and well-being and to iden-
perceptions of the extent to which they can tify local understandings of the concept by be-
exercise agency, in other words, self-efficacy. ing “experience-near” (77, p. 11). In addition,
Research highlights “the diversity of resources participatory methods can address psychoso-
that people use to maintain resilience and cial and subjective well-being. Hence, the act
the significance of nonmaterial resources in of participating in research enhances children’s
aversive environments” (78, p. 202). competencies, such as self-efficacy, which lead
Again, much of this work on well-being and to a greater sense of control over one’s life and
development has focused on children, linking a greater sense of well-being.
with concepts of resilience and risk exposure An early example of participatory research
reviewed in the previous section. In develop- is the study by Johnson et al. (83), with working
ing countries, children (defined as people un- children growing up in rural communities
der 18 years of age) represent a large propor- of Nepal, to understand children’s roles
tion of the population, and the majority lives within households in the context of changing
in poverty; hence, child well-being is an impor- environments around them. Other important
tant research and policy concern. Furthermore, studies include Woodhead (84) on child labor,
childhood provides opportunities for disrupt- Boyden & de Berry (85) on child combatants,
ing intergenerational transfer of poverty (79), and Ennew & Plateau (86) on physical and
and this is reflected by the inclusion of early emotional punishment. Ungar (21) highlights
childhood health and education in the Millen- a number of participatory studies that look at
nium Development Goals. The “new sociol- child resilience. Cook & du Toit (70) focus
ogy of childhood” has influenced experiences of on a community capacity–building project that
children living in poverty, with agency playing adopts culturally sensitive action research as an
a key role in mitigating the intergenerational intervention supporting child and community
transfer of poverty (80). Ben-Arieh & George resilience within HIV- and AIDS-affected
(81) note the greater emphasis on wider dimen- communities in South Africa. Another par-
sions of well-being and a more positive view of ticipatory study focusing upon resilience is
children’s capacities and resilience, which ac- the International Resilience Project (87),
knowledges people’s resources and agency, and which explores how young people “grow up
how coping with adversity can enhance com- well” in 14 challenging environments, despite
petence and well-being (26, 78). Boyden et al. exposure to atypical levels of risk. The study
(82) propose nine principles of child well-being identifies 32 domains that children from
and development for use when undertaking re- different developed and developing countries
search on child well-being to ensure “best in- consider important for resilience at cultural,
terests.” They emphasize that children’s devel- community, relationship, and individual levels.
opment and well-being is mediated by personal In summary, well-being is a process as well
and environmental factors, such as relationships as an outcome: It is characterized as “a state
and individual capacities, as well as cultural val- of being with others, where human needs are
ues and expectations (82). met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue
Well-being has traditionally been measured one’s goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory
using objective approaches, which are indica- quality of life” (88). Sumner (89, p. 1066)
tor based and include national and international considers that “well-being is 3-dimensional: it
surveys; however, the paradigm shift led to the takes account of material well-being, subjective
development of subjective approaches, using well-being and relational well-being and their
participatory methods, and, more recently, to dynamic and evolving interaction.” Although
the use of integrative approaches within lon- well-being approaches are often accused of
gitudinal research (71). Participatory methods neglecting political economy, Sumner argues
are used to illustrate the complex dynamics that a focus on the perceptual and relational is

Everyday multidimensional analysis of well-being and

particularly children’s well-being to the experi-
ences of different shocks. Scheper-Hughes (93)
in contrast highlights the role of “everyday re-
Getting silience” as a means of coping with the hardship,
Getting by
(back) at violence, and insecurity characterizing poverty
in the shantytowns in northeastern Brazil.
Collective/ Thus, the range of chronic and acute stressors
Personal
citizenship experienced by poor people and their relation
to well-being, adaptation, and resilience can
be understood with respect to individual and
Getting
Getting out collective capacities, agency, and resilience.
organized
Understanding of these dynamics and the

differentiated capacities of individuals, house-
holds, and communities to respond to multiple
Strategic and linked stressors (94) has been strongly in-

Figure 3 fluenced by Sen’s capabilities approach. In De-
A taxonomy of agency. Adapted with permission from Lister (91). velopment as Freedom (95), Sen presents poverty
as deprivation of capabilities, where capabili-
inherently political, as it is about agency. Child ties refer to a set of resources—physical, men-
and adult agency are key determinants of inter- tal, and social—that a person might command,
generational poverty transmission (90). Sumner which give rise to various “functionings”—the
applied Lister’s (91) taxonomy of agency exer- things a person values doing or being. Sen’s
cised by those in poverty; this taxonomy recog- work has informed the evolution of well-being
nizes that adults’ and children’s agency can be debates and their translation into policy, as well
good/progressive and bad/regressive, as shown as understandings of the impacts of famines and
in Figure 3. Hence, the 3D model promoted other disasters in poor countries. A human se-
by Sumner differentiates between actions poor curity approach, based on the concept of free-
people take to improve their situation in both dom from fear and freedom from want, extends
the short- and long-term, such as “getting by,” this reasoning; the definition of human security,
“getting back at,” “getting out,” and “getting developed through the Global Environmental
organized” in Lister’s taxonomy. This model Change and Human Security program (96), fo-
is helpful if we apply it to how agency can be cuses specifically on the freedom to take action
exercised in response to environmental change, on one’s own behalf in response to changing en-
and it may help in distinguishing between vironmental conditions, again making agency
coping, adaptation, and transformative re- and capacity of central importance.
sponses, as discussed in the conclusion section,
below.
A recent Young Lives policy brief addresses DISASTERS AND COMMUNITY
progress toward the Millennium Develop- RESILIENCE
ment Goals and discusses how a range of This section looks at how the literature on
shocks, from economic to environmental, disasters has integrated ideas about agency, re-
affect children in different families and how silience, and capacities, as well as at the interface
they cope (92). It shows clearly that poorer between the individual and collective analysis
households in each country are more likely to of cognition, risk, and decision-making. One
experience such shocks, although other shocks, interesting aspect of this literature concerns the
such as illness and family changes, are more interaction of individual traits with collective
evenly distributed. This explicitly links the or community-based responses; ideas about

community resilience are prevalent in these dis- and effective governance. A core notion in
cussions. Resilience, risk, and vulnerability are the vulnerability literature is that the capacity
the key terms used in interdisciplinary analysis to manage risk and to adapt to changes is
of hazards and disasters. Again we observe that unevenly distributed across nations, regions,
the literature has evolved from a perspective communities, and households. Furthermore,
centering on objective analysis of risk, hazards, the poor are especially vulnerable and liable to
and natural disasters to a more integrated become trapped in vicious cycles of decline as a
and holistic understanding of how subjective result of stressors; the poverty and vulnerability
understandings of risk, and the socially differ- trap means that recovery to predisaster levels
entiated experience of disasters, relate to social of well-being becomes increasingly difficult
vulnerability and to structure and agency (97, (98, 102).
98). Sarewitz et al. (99) discuss this in relation An important strand in the disasters litera-
to the distinction between risk reduction ture focuses on community resilience. Cutter
and vulnerability approaches in public policy et al.’s DROP (Disaster Resilience of Place)
responses to extreme events, arguing that the model (13), for example, emphasizes social re-
two are quite distinct. A vulnerability approach silience as important for disaster preparedness,
provides an alternative perspective that widens response, and postevent learning. “Community
discussion of disasters to consider context, competence” is indicated by local understand-
human rights, and security more centrally. ings of risk, counseling services, absence of psy-
McLaughlin & Dietz (1) provide a synthesis of chopathologies (alcohol, drug, spousal abuse),
five different perspectives on human vulnera- health, wellness, and quality of life. Norris
bility to environmental change; this synthesis et al.’s (103) view of community resilience to
indicates the extent to which different perspec- disasters as a set of capacities is important here
tives relate to metatheoretical and ontological and is shown diagrammatically in Figure 4.
views of the relationship between nature and Their framework is closely allied to perspec-
society and, in turn, how these perspectives tives from public health encompassing two
see the roles of social structure, human agency, dimensions of capacity: The first includes the
and the environment. Their analysis clearly characteristics of communities that affect their
shows how conventional biophysical, human ability to identify, modify, and mobilize; and
ecology and political economy perspectives on the second is the cultivation and use of transfer-
understanding vulnerability underplay agency. able knowledge, skills, systems, and resources
A constructivist approach stresses agency and that affect community and individual changes
culture, for example, in shaping definitions (103). Thus, for Norris et al., capacities become
of an exposure to risk, but in most cases, this adaptive capacities when they are “robust, re-
approach fails to recognize the environment as dundant or rapidly accessible and thus able to
having any causal role. Berkes (100) suggests offset a new stressor, danger or surprise” (103,
that resilience thinking can help to provide a p. 136).
more integrated, dynamic systems approach to There is an increasing emphasis on re-
understanding hazards [see also the distinctions silience rather than vulnerability in the
made by Nelson et al. (3)]. However, Bahadur disasters and hazards literature (104). Manyena
et al.’s review (101) of 16 conceptualizations (105) notes that, in the past decade, work
of resilience, applied to understanding climate on disasters has increasingly focused on the
change and disasters, shows that there is capacity of affected communities to recover,
little consensus in relation to agency and with or without external assistance. However,
capacity. The social dimensions of resilience he cautions that disaster resilience could be
are generally poorly specified: They include viewed as a “new phrase describing the desired
social values and structures, learning, equity, outcome of a disaster risk reduction program;
community involvement, local knowledge, but it does not deal with the unique condition

Level and diversity of Responsible Trusted sources

economic resources media of information
Fairness of risk Equity of Narratives Skills and

and vulnerability resource infrastructure
to hazards distributions
Economic Information and

development communication
Social capital Community

Received competence
(extracted) Attachments to
social support place
Community Political
Perceived action partnerships
Sense of community
(expected) social
support Citizen participation, Collective
Social leadership, and
Critical reflective efficacy,
embeddedness rules (formal ties) and problem- empowerment
(informal ties) Organizational solving skills
linkages and
Flexibility and
cooperation creativity
Figure 4
Community resilience as networked set of capacities. The four circles represent different areas of capacity. Adapted with permission
from Norris et al. (103).
itself” (105, p. 436), concluding that resilience organizations—for example the Red Cross and
is too vague a concept to be useful in informing Red Crescent Movement, Christian Aid, and
the disaster risk reduction agenda. Conversely, Oxfam (107–109). The emphasis on commu-
Masten & Obradovic (48) use the findings from nity resilience is also a focus of disaster risk
research in human development to argue for reduction initiatives related to climate change,
a resilience framework for disaster planning. for example, the Community Resilience Ini-
Here, agency and self-efficacy are seen as tiative [see Community Regional Resilience
important attributes that enable individuals Institute (110)]. Much of this writing resonates
and communities to plan, persist, and adapt with earlier research on social capital (34, 38),
in the face of disasters and other events. assuming positive relationships between social
Almedom (106), from a health and social care capital and resilience. In a review by Rolfe
perspective, charts a progressive paradigm shift (111), community resilience is related to social
from the disease-driven inquiries on risk and cohesion, i.e., in terms of social and support
vulnerability to health-centered approaches to networks, social participation, and community
building disasters and preventing vulnerability engagement; social cohesion is thus a combi-
to disease, social dysfunction, and human and nation of social support and social capital.
environmental resource depletion (106). These This literature thus adds collective and
changes can also be observed in the operations community perspectives to understanding dif-
of major development and humanitarian ferentiated capacities to respond to shocks and

disturbances. Chaskin (112) analyzes com- recognition that dynamic systems approaches—
munity resilience in three different forms— including ecological or social-ecological in its
as regrouping, as redevelopment, and as broadest sense—and cross-scale perspectives
resistance—and relates this to community are necessary. This is exemplified by Schoon’s
capacity that manifests as the interaction multidimensional dynamic model of resilience
of human capital, organizational resources, presented in Figure 3 but also in the social-
and social capital, which can be leveraged to ecological systems concept of panarchy put for-
improve or maintain the well-being of a given ward by Gunderson & Holling (66). Third, in
community. the human development, well-being, and dis-
asters fields, there is a move away from deficit
models to ideas about assets and capacities (e.g.,
CONCLUSION: AGENCY AND 22, 113).
CAPACITY AND THE CASE
This review also identifies some important

FOR TRANSFORMATION areas of uncertainty, where empirical testing or
The literature on human development, well- evidence is lacking and where significant gaps
being, and disasters brings valuable insights in knowledge or contradictions in literature are
into understanding responses to environmen- apparent. There are questions raised about the
tal change. It elucidates issues concerning relationship between resilience and resistance
individual and collective resilience, as well as and how this might reflect the emphasis
the interplay between agency and structure between structure and agency (114). There are
in determining how people might undertake also gaps in understanding how cross-scale dy-
adaptation and other actions. Synthesis of namics between the individual and community
these literatures strengthens and broadens or other groups operate and affect responses to
understanding of linkages between poverty change in different ways and in different con-
and well-being, and also how they relate to texts, as well as in the role of agency in collective
response capacity in different cultural contexts; action (115). These issues have important im-
it highlights the importance of perceived plications for interventions, for example in
adaptive capacity and possible maladaptations, climate change adaptation. Chaskin (112)
questions whose capacity and who is responsi- discusses these issues in relation to community
ble for initiating change, and thus contributes development and capacity building, whether
to defining and shaping governance and pos- efforts are targeted toward people or places,
sibilities for transformation. This knowledge and the dilemmas this raises. Furthermore, if
can help in developing a more human-centered indeed we see agency as important and if we
and integrated analysis of the meanings of, and accept, in contrast to conventional vulnerability
possible actions in response to, environmental and political economy perspectives, that poor
change and how this links to longer-term people are actually resilient and that they have
well-being and poverty alleviation. well-being, then why do anything? Do we need
Three significant parallel movements, or to change structures? In the climate change
evolution, in these diverse fields of knowledge and development arenas, Brown (116) shows
in the social and natural sciences are revealed that resilience is often used to bolster policies
by the review. First, there has been a shift away promoting a business-as-usual approach rather
from the notion that the central concepts— than to challenge existing structures and bring
adaptive capacity, resilience, and well-being— about fundamental changes to systems.
can be objectively measured by a set of quan- Thus, the findings from this review across
tifiable indicators to a much more complex, knowledge domains have implications for
nuanced view that understands them as com- assigning responsibility for managing change
prising subjective, relational as well as objec- to individuals, communities, governments,
tive aspects. Second, in each field, there is or other sets of social actors. This directly

Everyday emphasis on community and individual capac-

ity to adapt detracts from state responsibility to
support mitigation. Once more, it raises ques-
tions about who are the main agents of change,
Coping Self-help the interplay between structure and agency,
and who defines resilience of what and for
whom (22). Bottrell (114, p. 337) notes that “in-
cluding resistances in the conceptualization of
Personal Collective/
resilience suggests the need for change in posi-
citizenship
tioned perspectives, structured inequalities and
the distribution of resources for strengthening
Adaptation Transformation
resilience,” in other words, transformative
change. Applying the conceptualization of

agency presented in Figure 3 could help un-
derstand the distinctions and linkages between
Strategic coping, adaptation, and transformation. We

Figure 5 posit one application in Figure 5. This adds to
A taxonomy of responses to climate change. the environmental change literature by rooting
the distinctions between different responses
addresses a central criticism of how ideas of to climate change according to various forms
resilience are used in the environmental change of agency. In this respect, a greater synthesis
and social-ecological systems literature, i.e., of findings from human development could in
that the analysis is depoliticized and lacks particular help define what constitutes transfor-
consideration of agency. These issues are also mative capacity as opposed to adaptive capacity.
debated in the human development literature. The Future Issues section highlights some
Bottrell (114) provides important insights into potential avenues for further research provided
these contested issues, arguing that mainstream by this review. These include, for example, how
resilience theory may be readily incorporated ideas of resilience relate to the multidimen-
into neoliberal policy with an emphasis on sional concepts of well-being, perhaps with
individual responsibility for coping, compe- regard to emerging field of positive psychology
tence, and success, largely defined in terms of defined by Linley et al. (117, p. 8) as the
enterprise and contribution to economic rather “scientific study of optimal human function-
than social well-being, and thus “may shift the ing”? How do the personal and collective
emphasis from positive adaptation despite ad- dimensions interact in terms of identity? A
versity to positive adaptation to adversity” (114, strong sense of social identity is often assumed
p. 334). Furthermore, “at the policy level there as important for social capital, resilience, and,
needs to be a question of limits—to what extent hence, adaptive capacity. Some scholars, no-
will adversity be tolerated, on the assumption tably Bottrell (114), put forward a “social theory
that resilient individuals can and do cope? How of resilience” and indicate transformational
much adversity should resilient individuals change may require rejection of a prescribed
endure before social arrangements rather than identity. Synthesizing and extending knowl-
individuals are targeted for intervention? In edge at the interface of these diverse fields can
this context there is a need for continuing en- help to develop a more human-centered and
gagement of research and practice with policy integrated analysis of the meanings of, and
and its structuring effects” (114, p. 335). This possible actions in response to, environmental
again finds parallels in discussions in climate change and to identify important areas for
change adaptation literature about whether an further research and action.

SUMMARY POINTS
1. Environmental change analysis, although recognizing the significance of human agency,
tends to aggregate psychosocial factors and rarely unpacks the multiple and diverse di-
mensions of agency and capacity.
2. Knowledge domains across social and natural sciences, including human development
sciences, well-being and development, and disasters and natural hazards, can theoreti-
cally, conceptually, and empirically enrich understandings of the human dimensions of
environmental change.
3. Adaptive capacity can be seen as a meeting point between these knowledge domains, with
related concepts of resilience, well-being, capacity, and capabilities informing a dynamic
and nuanced view of agency in environmental change.

4. Each of these fields has undergone paradigm shifts to integrate the subjective and rela-
tional aspects with more conventional and objective measures of change.

5. These multidisciplinary insights into agency can help distinguish different responses to
environmental change, including coping, adaptation, and transformation.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. How is transformative capacity distinguished from adaptive capacity and coping with
regard to agency?
2. How is resilience defined across different cultures? What is the emphasis given, for
example, to individual and collective responsibility and to agency?
3. How do ideas of resilience relate to the multidimensional concepts of well-being, perhaps
with regard to emerging field of positive psychology?
4. How does social identity affect adaptive capacity and possible transformation?
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partly funded by Katrina Brown’s Economic and Social Research Council
Professorial Fellowship “Resilient Development in Social-Ecological Systems.” All views and
errors remain the responsibility of the authors. The authors wish to thank Charlotte Morgan for
her assistance in drawing diagrams and compiling references.
LITERATURE CITED
1. McLaughlin P, Dietz T. 2008. Structure, agency and environment: toward an integrated perspective on
vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 18:99–111

2. Fabricius C, Folke C, Cundill G, Schultz L. 2007. Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive
co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 12:29
3. Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K. 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a re-
silience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32:395–419
4. Gallopı́n G. 2003. A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development. UN Publ., Santiago,
Chile
5. Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16:268–81
6. Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob.
Environ. Change 16:253–67
7. Gallopı́n GC. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ.
Change 16:293–303
8. Gunderson LH. 2000. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31:425–39
9. Carpenter SR, Gunderson LH. 2001. Coping with collapse: ecological and social dynamics in ecosystem
management. BioScience 51:451–57
10. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter S, Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in
social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9:5
11. Chapin SF, Folke C, Kofinas G. 2009. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource
Management in a Changing World. New York: Springer Verlag
12. Engle N. 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob. Environ. Change. 21:647–56
13. Cutter S, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, et al. 2008. A place-based model for understanding
community resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Change 18:598–606
14. Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-
ecological systems. In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change,
ed. F Berkes, J Colding, C Folke, pp. 352–87. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
15. Ensor J, Berger R. 2009. Understanding Climate Change Adaptation: Lessons from Community-based
Approaches. Rugby, UK: Pract. Action Publ.
16. Smit B, Wandel J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16:282–92
17. Fullan M, Loubser JT. 1973. Education and adaptive capacity. Sociol. Educ. 45:271–87
18. Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. 2000. The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines
for future work. Child Dev. 71:543–62
19. Rutter M. 2000. Resilience reconsidered: conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy impli-
cations. In Handbook of Early Intervention, ed. JP Shonkoff, SJ Meisels, pp. 651–81. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
20. Masten AS. 2001. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am. Psychol. 56:227–38
21. Ungar M, ed. 2005. Handbook for Working with Children and Youth: Pathways to Resilience Across Cultures
and Contexts. Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage Publ.
22. Ungar M. 2004. A constructionist discourse on resilience. Youth Soc. 35:341–65
23. Luthar SS, Zelazo LB. 2003. Research on resilience: an integrative review. See Ref. 119, pp. 510–49
24. Luthar SS. 2006. Resilience in development: a synthesis of research across five decades. In Developmental
Psychopathology. Vol. 3: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation, ed. D Cicchetti, DJ Cohen, pp. 739–95. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley. 2nd ed.
25. Schoon I. 2006. Risk and Resilience: Adaptations in Changing Times. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
26. Boyden J, Cooper E. 2007. Questioning the power of resilience: Are children up to the task of disrupting the
transmission of poverty? CPRC Work. Pap. 73, Dep. Int. Dev., Univ. Oxford
27. Kelly PM, Adger WN. 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and
facilitating adaptation. Clim. Change 47:325–52
28. Adger N, Kelly PM, Nguyen HN. 2001. Living with Environmental Change: Social Vulnerability, Adaptation
and Resilience in Vietnam. London/ New York: Routledge
29. Goulden MC. 2006. Livelihood diversification, social capital and resilience to climate variability amongst natural
resource dependent societies in Uganda. PhD Thesis. School Environ. Sci., Univ. East Anglia, Norwich, UK
30. Vincent K. 2007. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Glob. Environ. Change
17:12–24

31. Gupta J, Termeer C, Klostermann J, Meijerink S, van den Brink M, et al. 2010. The Adaptive Capacity
Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of
society. Environ. Sci. Policy 13:459–71
32. Adger N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24:347–69
33. Grothmann T, Patt A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation
to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 15:199–213
34. Adger N. 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79:387–
404
35. Phillips J. 2003. Determinants of forecast use among communal farmers in Zimbabwe. In Coping with
Variability: The Use of Seasonal Climate Forecasts in Southern Africa, ed. K O’Brien, C Vogel, pp. 110–28.
Farnham, UK: Ashgate
36. Patt A, Gwata C. 2002. Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for sub-
sistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Glob. Environ. Change 12:185–95
37. López-Marrero T. 2010. An integrative approach to study and promote natural hazards adaptive capacity:
a case study of two flood-prone communities in Puerto Rico. Geogr. J. 176:150–63
38. Pelling M, High C. 2005. Understanding adaptation: What can social capital offer assessments of adaptive
capacity? Glob. Environ. Change 15:308–19

39. Aitken C, Chapman R, McClure J. 2011. Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma:
assessing New Zealanders’ preparedness to act. Glob. Environ. Change. 21:752–60
40. Blennow K, Persson J. 2009. Climate change: motivation for taking measure to adapt. Glob. Environ.
Change 19:100–4
41. Kuruppu N, Liverman D. 2011. Mental preparation for climate adaptation: the role of cognition and
culture in enhancing adaptive capacity of water management in Kiribati. Glob. Environ. Change. 21:657–69
42. Marshall NA. 2010. Understanding social resilience to climate variability in primary enterprises and
industries. Glob. Environ. Change 20:36–43
43. Frank E, Eakin H, Lopez-Carr D. 2011. Social identity, perception and motivation in adaptation to
climate risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Glob. Environ. Change 21:66–76
44. Lerner RM. 2006. Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories. In Hand-
book of Child Psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development, ed. W Damon, RM Lerner,
RM Lerner, pp. 1–17. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 6th ed.
45. Bronfenbrenner U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
46. Bronfenbrenner U. 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspec-
tives. Dev. Psychol. 22:723–42
47. Luthar SS, Cicchetti D. 2000. The construct of resilience: implications for interventions and social
policies. Dev. Psychopathol. 12:857–85
48. Masten AS, Obradovic J. 2008. Disaster preparation and recovery: lessons from research on resilience
in human development. Ecol. Soc. 13:9
49. Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N. 1990. Resilience and development: contributions from the study of
children who overcome adversity. Dev. Psychopathol. 2:425–44
50. Masten AS, Hubbard JJ, Gest SD, Tellegen A, Garmezy N, Ramirez M. 1999. Competence in the
context of adversity: pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence.
Dev. Psychopathol. 11:143–69
51. Masten AS. 2007. Resilience in developing systems: progress and promise as the fourth wave rises.
Dev. Psychopathol. 19:921–30
52. Vanderbilt-Adriance E, Shaw DS. 2008. Conceptualizing and re-evaluating resilience across levels of
risk, time, and domains of competence. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 11:30–58
53. O’Dougherty MO, Masten AS, Wright AS. 2005. Resilience processes in development: fostering positive
adaptation in the context of adversity. See Ref. 120, pp. 17–37
54. Werner EE. 1995. Resilience in development. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4:81–84
55. Garmezy N. 1985. Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. Recent Res. Dev.
Psychopathol. 4:213–33

56. Friesen BJ, Brennan E. 2005. Strengthening Families and Communities. See Ref. 21, pp. 295–311
57. Harper C. 2004. Breaking poverty cycles—the importance of action in childhood. CHIP Policy Brief.
8, Child Poverty Res. Policy Cent., London. http://www.childhoodpoverty.org/index.php/action=
documentfeed/doctype=pdf/id=107/
58. Luthar SS. 1999. Poverty and Children’s Adjustment. Thousand Oaks, CA/London/ New Delhi: Sage
59. Roberts JR, Masten AS. 2004. Resilience in context. In Resilience in Children, Families, Communities:
Linking Context to Practice and Policy, ed. R Peters, R McMahon, B Leadbeater, pp. 13–25. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum
60. Masten AS, Reed M. 2002. Resilience in Development. In The Handbook of Positive Psychology, ed.
R Snyder, SJ Lopez, pp. 77–88. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
61. Kaplan HB. 1999. Toward an understanding of resilience. In Resilience and Development: Positive Life
Adaptations, ed. MD Glantz, JL Johnson, pp. 17–83. New York: Kluwer Academic
62. Ungar M. 2005. Resilience among children in child welfare, corrections, mental health and educational
settings: Recommendations for service. Child Youth Care Forum 34:445–64

63. Nsamenang AB, Dawes A. 1998. Developmental psychology as political psychology in sub-Saharan
Africa: The challenge of Africanisation. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 47:73–88
64. Liddell C. 2002. Emic Perspectives on Risk in African Childhood. Dev. Rev. 22:97–116
65. Ungar M. 2008. Resilience across cultures. Br. J. Soc. Work 38:218–35
66. Gunderson L, Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems.
Washington, DC/Corvel, CA/ London: Island
67. Sheridan SM, Eagle JW, Dowd SE. 2005. Families as contexts for children’s adaptation. See Ref. 120,
pp. 165–79
68. Patterson JM. 2002. Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. J. Marriage Fam. 64:349–60
69. McCubbin LD, McCubbin HI. 2005. Culture and ethnic identity in family resilience: dynamic processes
in trauma and transformation of indigenous people. See Ref. 21, pp. 27–44
70. Cook P, du Toit L. 2005. Overcoming adversity with children affected by HIV/AIDS in the indigenous
South African cultural context. See Ref. 21, pp. 247–62
71. Camfield L, Streulia N, Woodhead M. 2010. Children’s well-being in developing countries: a conceptual
and methodological review. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 22:398–416
72. Camfield L, Streuli N, Woodhead M. 2009. What’s the use of ‘well-being’ in contexts of child poverty?
Approaches to research, monitoring and children’s participation. Int. J. Child. Rights 17:65–109
73. White SC. 2008. But what is wellbeing? A framework for analysis in social and development policy and practice.
Presented at Conf. Regen. Wellbeing: Res. into Pract., Univ. Bradford. pp. 24–25
74. McAllister F. 2005. Wellbeing concepts and challenges. Sustain. Dev. Res. Netw. Discuss. pap., Dec., Lond.
http://www.sd-research.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sdrnwellbeingpaper-final_000.pdf
75. Camfield L, Skevington SM. 2008. On subjective well-being and quality of life. J. Health Psychol. 13:764–
75
76. Bevan P. 2007. Researching wellbeing across the disciplines: some key intellectual problems and ways
forward. In Well-Being in Developing Countries: New Approaches and Research Strategies, ed. I Gough, JA
McGregor, pp. 283–315. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
77. Camfield L, Crivello G, Woodhead M. 2009. Wellbeing research in developing countries: reviewing the
role of qualitative methods. Soc. Indic. Res. 90:5–31
78. Camfield L, McGregor A. 2005. Resilience and well-being in developing countries. See Ref. 21, pp. 189–
209
79. Yaqub S. 2002. ‘Poor children grow into poor adults’: harmful mechanisms or over-deterministic theory?
J. Int. Dev. 14:1081–93
80. Moncrieffe J. 2009. Introduction: intergenerational transmissions: cultivating children’s agency? IDS
Bull. 40:1–8
81. Ben-Arieh A, George RM. 2006. Indicators of Children’s Well-Being: Understanding Their Role, Usage and
Policy Influence. New York: Springer Verlag
82. Boyden J, Ling B, Myers W. 1998. What Works for Working Children. Florence: Rädda Barnen/ UNICEF
ICDC

83. Johnson V, Hill J, Ivan-Smith E. 1995. Listening to Smaller Voices: Children in an Environment of Change.
London: Action Aid
84. Woodhead M. 1998. Children’s Perspectives on Their Working Lives: A Participatory Study in Bangladesh,
Ethiopia, The Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Stockholm: Save the Child.
85. Boyden J, de Berry J. 2005. Children and Youth on the Front Line: Ethnography, Armed Conflict and
Displacement. Oxford, UK/New York: Berghahn
86. Ennew J, Plateau DP. 2004. How to Research the Physical and Emotional Punishment of Children. Bangkok:
Save the Child
87. Ungar M, Liebenberg L. 2005. The International Resilience Project: a mixed methods approach to the
study of resilience across cultures. See Ref. 21, pp. 211–26
88. Well-being Dev. Res. Group. 2007. University of Bath research statement. http://www.welldev.org.uk/
research/aims.htm
89. Sumner A. 2010. Child poverty, well-being and agency: What does a ‘3-D well-being’ approach con-
tribute? J. Int. Dev. 22:1064–75

90. Harper C, Marcus R, Moore KR. 2003. Enduring poverty and the conditions of childhood: lifecourse
and intergenerational poverty transmissions. World Dev. 31:535–54
91. Lister R. 2004. Poverty. Cambridge, UK: Polity

92. Brock K. 2010. Progress towards the MDGs? Fragile gains and deep inequalities. Young Lives Policy Brief.
11, Oxford Univ.
93. Scheper-Hughes N. 2008. A talent for life: reflections on human vulnerability and resilience. Ethnos
73:25–56
94. Leichenko RM, O’Brien KL. 2008. Environmental Change and Globalisation: Double Exposures. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
95. Sen A. 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor
96. O’Brien K, St Clair AL, Kristoffersen B, eds. 2010. Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
97. Blaikie PM, Cannon T, Davies I, Wisner B. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and
Disasters. London/New York: Routledge
98. Burton I, Kates RW, White GF. 1993. The Environment as Hazard. New York: Guilford
99. Sarewitz D, Pielke R, Keykhah M. 2003. Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and
policy perspective. Risk Anal. 23:805–10
100. Berkes F. 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking.
Nat. Hazards 41:283–95
101. Bahadur AV, Ibrahim M, Tanner T. 2010. The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling
climate change and disasters. SRC Discuss. Pap. 1, Inst. Dev. Stud. (IDS), Sussex
102. Chambers R. 1989. Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bull. 37:33–40
103. Norris F, Stevens S, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche K, Pfefferbaum R. 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor,
theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 41:127–50
104. Cannon T, Müller-Mahn D. 2010. Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of
climate change. Nat. Hazards 55:621–35
105. Manyena SB. 2006. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 30:433–50
106. Almedom AM. 2008. Resilience research and policy/practice discourse in health, social, behavioral, and
environmental sciences over the last ten years. Afr. Health Sci. 8:S5–13
107. Christenson L. 2008. From trauma to resilience. Afr. Health Sci. 8:S39–40
108. Christian Aid. 2008. Overexposed: Building Disaster-Resilient Communities in a Changing Climate. London:
Christian Aid
109. Oxfam. 2009. People-centered resilience: working with vulnerable farmers towards climate change adaptation
and food security. Brief. Pap. 135, Oxfam Int.
110. Community Reg. Resilience Inst. 2011. Community and Regional Resilience Institute. http://www.
resilientus.org/
111. Rolfe RE. 2006. Social cohesion and community resilience: a multi-disciplinary review of literature for rural
health research. Pap. prepared for RURAL Cent., Univ. Novia Scotia, Can.

112. Chaskin RJ. 2008. Resilience, community, and resilient communities: conditioning contexts and collec-
tive action. Child Care Pract. 14:65–74
113. Almedon AM, Tumwine JK. 2008. Resilience to disasters: a paradigm shift from vulnerability to strength.
Afr. Health Sci. 8:S1–S5
114. Bottrell D. 2009. Understanding ‘marginal’ perspectives: towards a social theory of resilience. Qual. Soc.
Work 8:321–39
115. Cleaver F. 2007. Understanding agency in collective action. J. Hum. Dev. 8:223–44
116. Brown K. 2011. Policy discourses on resilience. In Climate Change and the Crisis of Capitalism: A Chance
to Reclaim Self, Society and Nature, ed. M Pelling, D Manuel-Navarrete, M Redclift. London/New York:
Routledge. In press
117. Linley P, Joseph S, Harrington S, Wood A. 2006. Positive psychology: past, present, and (possible)
future. J. Posit. Psychol. 1:3–16
118. Maston AS, Powell. 2003. A resilience framework for research, policy and practice. See Ref. 119, pp. 1–25
119. Luthar SS, ed. 2003. Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
120. Goldstein S, Brooks R, eds. 2005. Handbook of Resilience in Children. New York: Kluwer Acad./Plenum

EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34
Annual Review of
Environment
and Resources
Volume 36, 2011

Contents
Preface p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pv
Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Improving Societal Outcomes of Extreme Weather in a Changing
Climate: An Integrated Perspective
Rebecca E. Morss, Olga V. Wilhelmi, Gerald A. Meehl, and Lisa Dilling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Ocean Circulations, Heat Budgets, and Future Commitment
to Climate Change
David W. Pierce, Tim P. Barnett, and Peter J. Gleckler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p27
Aerosol Impacts on Climate and Biogeochemistry
Natalie Mahowald, Daniel S. Ward, Silvia Kloster, Mark G. Flanner,
Colette L. Heald, Nicholas G. Heavens, Peter G. Hess, Jean-Francois Lamarque,
and Patrick Y. Chuang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45
State of the World’s Freshwater Ecosystems: Physical, Chemical,
and Biological Changes
Stephen R. Carpenter, Emily H. Stanley, and M. Jake Vander Zanden p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p75
II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy: Connecting the Dots
Ananth P. Chikkatur, Ankur Chaudhary, and Ambuj D. Sagar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Energy Poverty
Lakshman Guruswamy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Water and Energy Interactions
James E. McMahon and Sarah K. Price p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 163
Agroecology: A Review from a Global-Change Perspective
Thomas P. Tomich, Sonja Brodt, Howard Ferris, Ryan Galt, William R. Horwath,
Ermias Kebreab, Johan H.J. Leveau, Daniel Liptzin, Mark Lubell, Pierre Merel,
Richard Michelmore, Todd Rosenstock, Kate Scow, Johan Six, Neal Williams,
and Louie Yang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 193
viii
EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34
Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems

Nathan Pelletier, Eric Audsley, Sonja Brodt, Tara Garnett, Patrik Henriksson,
Alissa Kendall, Klaas Jan Kramer, David Murphy, Thomas Nemecek,
and Max Troell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 223
Transportation and the Environment
David Banister, Karen Anderton, David Bonilla, Moshe Givoni,
and Tim Schwanen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247
Green Chemistry and Green Engineering: A Framework for
Sustainable Technology Development
Martin J. Mulvihill, Evan S. Beach, Julie B. Zimmerman, and Paul T. Anastas p p p p p 271
The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

Elina Andersson, Sara Brogaard, and Lennart Olsson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 295
III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change:
Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters
Katrina Brown and Elizabeth Westaway p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation
Patrick Meyfroidt and Eric F. Lambin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Arun Agrawal, Daniel Nepstad, and Ashwini Chhatre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 373
Tourism and Environment
Ralf Buckley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Literature and Environment
Lawrence Buell, Ursula K. Heise, and Karen Thornber p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417
Religion and Environment
Willis Jenkins and Christopher Key Chapple p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles may
be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org
Contents ix

Brown Westaway 2011 Agency Capacity and Resilience To Environmental Change Lessons From Human Development Well Being

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brown Westaway 2011 Agency Capacity and Resilience To Environmental Change Lessons From Human Development Well Being

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EG36CH13-Brown ARI 19 September 2011 8:5

• Top downloaded articles

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:321–42 Keywords

The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract

adaptive capacity, these are seldom integrated

the terminology, but particularly in relation

FOR TRANSFORMATION . . . . . . 335

322 Brown · Westaway

communities are able

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 323

sus about what constitutes adaptive functioning,

324 Brown · Westaway

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 325

Social discourse on climate change risks and adaptation Incentives

Reliance on Climate change

Objective adaptive capacity resources such as

326 Brown · Westaway

Neighborhood quality: public safety, collective supervision, libraries, recreation centers

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 327

328 Brown · Westaway

individual trait,” according to O’Dougherty In recent years, resilience research has

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 329

330 Brown · Westaway

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 331

Everyday multidimensional analysis of well-being and

Understanding of these dynamics and the

Strategic and linked stressors (94) has been strongly in-

332 Brown · Westaway

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 333

Level and diversity of Responsible Trusted sources

Fairness of risk Equity of Narratives Skills and

Economic Information and

Social capital Community

334 Brown · Westaway

This review also identiﬁes some important

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 335

Everyday emphasis on community and individual capac-

change. Applying the conceptualization of

Strategic coping, adaptation, and transformation. We

336 Brown · Westaway

and nuanced view of agency in environmental change.

tional aspects with more conventional and objective measures of change.

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 337

338 Brown · Westaway

capacity? Glob. Environ. Change 15:308–19

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 339

settings: Recommendations for service. Child Youth Care Forum 34:445–64

340 Brown · Westaway

tribute? J. Int. Dev. 22:1064–75

91. Lister R. 2004. Poverty. Cambridge, UK: Polity

www.annualreviews.org • Agency, Capacity, and Resilience 341

342 Brown · Westaway

Volume 36, 2011

Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems

The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

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

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465

You might also like