Geographical Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utgr20

LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: TOWARD INTEGRATION
OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE APPROACHES OF
ANALYSIS

Amy Quandt & Phevee Paderes

To cite this article: Amy Quandt & Phevee Paderes (2023) LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE
AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: TOWARD INTEGRATION OF OBJECTIVE AND
SUBJECTIVE APPROACHES OF ANALYSIS, Geographical Review, 113:4, 536-553, DOI:
10.1080/00167428.2022.2085104

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2022.2085104

Published online: 21 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 324

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utgr20
LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE: TOWARD INTEGRATION OF OBJECTIVE AND
SUBJECTIVE APPROACHES OF ANALYSIS
AMY QUANDT and PHEVEE PADERES

ABSTRACT. Resilience thinking is a common component in the planning and implementa­

tion of interventions in humanitarian activities, disaster risk reduction, climate change
adaptation, and food security. Attention to the concept of livelihood resilience specifically
has grown in these sectors in order to improve households’ resilience to the impacts of
climate change and other shocks. However, resilience is difficult to empirically measure
and commonly-used approaches are top-down, expert-driven, and suffer from measure­
ment-bias. To address these issues, in this paper we explore the contributions of geogra­
phers to this research, critique top-down objective measurements of resilience, highlight
the benefits of employing subjective conceptualizations of resilience, and outline methods
for measuring subjective resilience with participatory methods. By drawing from both
objective and subjective methods of analysis we can expand upon the normative questions
of “resilience of what, to what, and for whom” to include “resilience as defined and
measured by whom” in future research and policy-making. Keywords: climate change
adaptation, disaster risk reduction, global environmental change, livelihood resilience,
subjective analysis.

S ince the 1970s the cross-disciplinary concept of resilience has been growing in
prominence in various fields, including ecology, psychology, engineering, and
geography, to better understand nature-society relationships (Cote and Nighti­
ngale 2012). Given the ongoing impacts of climate change on communities
globally, the study of resilience—which is broadly defined by Walker and Salt
(2006) as the ability of a system to cope, adapt, and transform from a disturbance
—is increasingly important not only to academics, but also to practitioners and
policy makers working to address some of the most urgent human
problems. Indeed, the expansion of resilience scholarship has altered the way
in which global environmental change is conceptualized (Folke et al. 2021). For
example, resilience is now acknowledged both explicitly and implicitly in a range
of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 (Bahadur et al.
2015). Additionally, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has only increased the
growth of resilience-based projects and investments around the world (Jones
et al. 2021). In the discipline of geography, resilience has been a particular focus
in studies of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (e.g., see T­
immerman 1981; Klein et al. 2003; Gallopín 2006; Gaillard 2008; Weichselgartner
and Kelman 2015). For example, some geographers employ geospatial methods to
analyze resilience at regional or national scales (Mihunov and Lam 2020; Sajjad

AMY QUANDT Department of Geography, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, SH 314, San
Diego, CA; [aquandt@sdsu.edu]. PHEVEE PADERES Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San
Diego, CA; [ppaderes1421@sdsu.edu].

Geographical Review 113(4): 536–553, 2023

DOI: 10.1080/00167428.2022.2085104
Copyright © 2022 by the American Geographical Society of New York
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 537

2021). Importantly, human geographers have played a role in highlighting the

omission of social, political and cultural dynamics from different resilience lit­
eratures (Armitage et al. 2012; Brown 2014; Weichselgartner and
Kelman 2015). For example, Armitage et al. (2012) examines social-ecological
systems and suggests incorporating the concept of well-being when evaluating
the social dimensions of resilience within social-ecological systems.
Resilience thinking is now a common component in the planning and
implementation of interventions in many sectors including humanitarian
activities, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and food security
and nutrition (Béné et al. 2016). National programs, like Resilient America, have
emerged to explore the different approaches for strengthening resilience in
communities (Forrest and Milliken 2019). The international development
community has defined resilience as a key goal in projects addressing sustainable
and equitable use of natural resources (Bollig 2014). Promoting resilience to
climate extremes has particularly emerged as a critical development priority
(Jones et al. 2018). For example, resilience has been adopted by Rockefeller
Foundation’s Building Climate Change Resilience Initiative and the Red Cross/
Red Crescent Climate Center’s Partners for Resilience Project (Woolf et al. 2016).
The World Bank has also been funding projects focused on climate and disaster
resilient development to assist countries that have submitted their National
Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat.
While resilience thinking has been praised by some, it has also attracted
criticism as being difficult to operationalize (Cabell and Oelofse 2012), hard to
measure (Carpenter et al. 2001), not fully integrating the social dimensions
(Folke 2006), a lack of focus on specific adverse events (Béné 2020), not valuing
people’s knowledge and perspectives of their own resilience (Jones 2019), and not
acknowledging the power relationships within social-ecological systems (Peet
and Watts 2004; Lebel et al. 2006; Nelson and Stathers 2009; Shove 2010; Forsyth
2018; Nightingale et al. 2020). Resilience thinking also involves the normative
questions of resilience of what, to what, and for whom, which are often not
addressed in resilience work (Cote and Nightingale 2012). From these critiques,
among others, the sub-field of livelihood resilience has recently emerged.
Tanner et al. (2015, 23) define livelihood resilience as “the capacity of all
people across generations to sustain and improve their livelihood opportunities
and well-being despite environmental, economic, social, and political distur­
bances.” Tanner et al. (2015) argue that the concept of livelihood resilience can
address some critiques of resilience thinking because it places a greater emphasis
on human agency, empowerment, and rights, while still considering both social
and environmental aspects of livelihood systems. Since the 2015 publication of
Tanner et al.’s paper, livelihood resilience has quickly gained prominence in both
538 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

scholarly work and resilience-building projects and policy focused on climate

change adaptation and natural hazards. However, to-date most efforts to empiri­
cally measure livelihood resilience use top-down, objective approaches that rely
on external socio-economic indicators of livelihood resilience (Carpenter et al.
2001, 2005; Leslie and McCabe 2013; Quandt 2018). Indeed, individual’s them­
selves often have a good idea of the factors affecting their ability to anticipate,
buffer, and adapt to disturbance (Jones and Tanner 2017). Alternative to objec­
tive approaches to resilience; subjective approaches aim to understand people’s
perceptions and experiences with their own ability to cope, attitudes toward risk,
and self-confidence (Béné et al. 2016; Tanner et al. 2017)
The main objective of this paper is to argue for moving toward the inclusion
of more subjective measures of livelihood resilience that incorporate perspectives
of natural-resource dependent populations themselves on how to both define
and measure livelihood resilience. In Section 5, we contribute to and build upon
existing work by proposing the addition of two new normative questions in
resilience work—“resilience as defined and measured by whom?” Additionally,
to better integrate subjective measurements of livelihood resilience, in Section 6
we propose the use of methods from psychological resilience, participatory
development methods that emerged during the 1990s, and participatory geo­
graphic information systems (PGIS). However, before diving into our main
objective, it is important to provide some context by discussing the use of
resilience in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (Section 2),
the development of the field of livelihood resilience (Section 3), and drawbacks
from purely objective approaches to measuring livelihood resilience (Section 4).

RESILIENCE LITERATURE IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND DISASTER RISK

REDUCTION
The impacts of natural hazards on society and livelihoods has been an important
field of inquiry in the social sciences for decades (Pelling 2011; Tierney 2014).
Resilience in the context of natural hazards largely stems from the intellectual
disciplines of Geography (Brown 2014; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015),
Anthropology (Leslie and McCabe 2013; Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 2020), and
Sociology (Tierney 2014). This differs from socio-ecological resilience, which
stems from Ecology and has been criticized for placing more focus on the
ecological elements of a socio-ecological system than the socio-cultural elements
(Holling 1972; Adger 2000; Brown 2014). Instead, geographers, anthropologists,
and sociologists have been more concerned with the social, economic, and
cultural elements of what it means to be resilient to natural hazards (Armitage
et al. 2012; Brown 2014; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). More recently in
natural hazards scholarship, resilience has been replacing ‘vulnerability’ and
‘sustainability’ in academic and policy discourses and geographers have been at
the forefront of this work (Klein et al. 2003; Gallopín 2006; Davoudi and Porter
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 539

2012; MacKinnon and Derickson 2013; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015:

Quandt 2018). Geographers are particularly well suited to study questions of
resilience because of their focus on space, time, and society-nature interactions,
and we draw from this work throughout this paper (Weichselgartner and
Kelman 2015).
In climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction fields, ‘resilience to
what’ is often defined as resilience to a specific natural hazard or climate change-
impact (Carpenter et al. 2001; Walker and Salt 2006; Brown 2014). Further,
central to resilience thinking in the context of natural hazards are the coping
and adaptive strategies used by households or individuals during times of natural
hazard-induced shocks or stresses. These coping strategies can be spontaneous,
but often involve planning and preparation for certain shocks. Coping strategies
are specific responses or activities used to adjust to changing conditions, both
short and long-term, and do not only happen during periods of stress but are
often intensified in such events (Adger 2003; Mosberg and Eriksen 2015). The
diversity of responses can have different spatial and temporal distributions and
be seen at multiple scales (Leslie and McCabe 2013). In this context, building
resilience means that a given individual, household, or community is better
prepared to cope and manage the impacts of shocks, navigate uncertainty, and
adapt to change (Marschke and Berkes 2006). For example, Brown and
Westaway (2011) highlight how community resilience has emerged in studies of
natural hazards.
Resilience in the context of natural hazards also differs from other resilience
literatures in that it is rooted in real-world case studies that aim to measure and
increase the resilience of households, communities, and nations to specific
events. As stated by Jones (2019), accurate measurement of resilience can support
more effective, context-specific resilience-building interventions and policies.
Indeed, this differs from earlier resilience work that focused largely on concep­
tual framings of resilience, which were difficult to operationalize in practice
(Cabell and Oelofse 2012).

LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE: EMERGENCE AND APPLICATIONS

Through a combination of critiques of the social-ecological resilience framework
and an increasing focus on natural hazards, the concept of livelihood resilience
emerged and stems from the intellectual traditions of the social sciences (Tanner
et al. 2015). Focusing on livelihood resilience places people in the center of
analysis and highlights the role of human agency, rights, and capacity to prepare
for, and cope with shocks (Tanner et al. 2015). Livelihood resilience focuses on
the coping strategies and adaptation activities utilized by households or indivi­
duals during times of stress. It also addresses the normative questions of
‘resilience of what’ (livelihoods) and ‘resilience of whom’ (households/indivi­
duals) (Quandt et al. 2017; Quandt 2018). A livelihood resilience approach
540 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

expands our understanding of resilience beyond “ . . . technical approaches to

minimizing harm and loss by bringing issues of people’s lives, rights, justice,
politics, and power to the fore” (Tanner et al. 2015, 23). Society’s ability to
manage resilience resides in actors, social networks, and institutions (Lebel
et al. 2006). For example, Carr (2019) frames resilience as an outcome of context-
specific social-ecological projects that result in livelihood outcomes.
Additionally, livelihood resilience does differ from Adger’s (2000) concept of
social resilience in that the scale of analysis is the individual and/or household,
while social resilience focuses more broadly on the ability of communities to
withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure. While understanding
resilience at various scales (individual, household, community, country) is con­
ceptually and practically useful, one advantage of the individual and household
focus of livelihood resilience is the ability to capture intra-community variation
in livelihood resilience between individuals (Quandt 2019). For example, between
men and women or different ethnic groups within the same community (Quandt
2019).
It is also important to note that livelihood resilience, and resilience more
broadly, is inherently neither good nor bad, and often negative, harmful regimes
are very resilient. In the definition of livelihood resilience, Tanner et al. (2015)
state that livelihood opportunities should be “sustained or improved.” This is
important to explicitly acknowledge because some livelihood strategies may
continuously leave people in a cycle of poverty, including erosive coping activ­
ities like charcoal burning (Quandt 2021). Livelihood resilience, instead, leaves
room for improving upon those livelihood opportunities and well-being.
Projects and policies contributing to livelihood resilience aim to ensure that
a household’s or individual’s livelihood strategies and activities are better
prepared to cope and manage the impacts of shocks, navigate uncertainty, and
adapt to changing conditions (Marschke and Berkes 2006). According to Allison
and Ellis (2001), the most robust livelihood system is one displaying high
resilience and low sensitivity, while the most vulnerable displays the opposite.
Shocks to livelihoods can come from the environmental realm, such as climate
change, or from the political-economic system, including crop price fluctuations
or political instability. It is important to situate livelihoods within their broader
social-ecological context in thinking about how to build livelihood resilience as
livelihoods are interconnected to various ecological, political, social, and eco­
nomic processes and scales (local, regional, national, global) (Carpenter et al.
2005; Cote and Nightingale 2012; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015).
Research on the livelihood resilience of natural resource-dependent popula­
tions has been growing in prominence as livelihoods are increasingly caught in
major global transitions in climatic, economic, and social systems. For research­
ers, incorporating a resilience perspective may help understand how these
livelihood systems persist through time (Leslie and McCabe 2013) or help
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 541

evaluate different policy options (Robinson and Berkes 2010). My own work
(Quandt) has focused on how agroforestry is contributing to livelihood resilience
to drought in rural Kenya by providing tree products (fruit, firewood, lumber)
for household consumption, as well as sales (Quandt et al. 2017; Quandt 2018;
2020, 2021). In Vanuatu, Addinsall et al. (2015), in collaboration with local
stakeholders, integrated agroecology into the sustainable livelihood framework
to create the Agricultural Sustainable Rural Livelihood Framework (ASRLF),
which aimed to assess the livelihood resilience of local women.

A CRITIQUE OF OBJECTIVE APPROACHES TO ANALYSIS

Perhaps the most common critique of livelihood resilience, and resilience more
broadly, is that it is difficult to empirically measure. Many researchers have put
forward ideas about how to measure resilience, and these methods largely utilize
objective approaches to analysis through the use of surrogates or indicators of
resilience (Carpenter et al. 2001, 2005; Walker and Salt 2006; Nelson and Stathers
2009; Leslie and McCabe 2013; Quandt 2018). These objective frameworks often
focus on a range of observable socioeconomic variables, levels of income, and/or
the extent of a household’s access to social safety nets (Jones and Tanner 2015).
In practice, the sustainable livelihoods approach’s five types of capital assets
(social, physical, natural, human, financial) have been closely associated with
household resilience in many objective frameworks for resilience (Chambers and
Conway 1992; Carney 1998; Scoones 1998; Johansson 2015; Jones and Tanner 2017;
Quandt 2018). The sustainable livelihoods approach, which stems from interna­
tional development work in the 1990’s, states that livelihoods are made up of an
individual’s access to the capital assets listed above, the ways people combine
these assets to create livelihoods, and how people interact with other actors and
institutions (Chambers and Conway 1992; Carney 1998).
Additionally, recent work has highlighted resilience capacity as a way to look
at measurable resources and assets that may help individuals, households, or
communities prepare for and respond to shocks (Constas et al. 2014; Béné 2020).
The use of objective indicators can be advantageous because it allows for rapid,
quantitative survey analysis of resilience, and allows for easy comparison of
resilience between households, communities, and nations.
However, these objective approaches to measuring resilience suffer from
difficulties in selecting indicators, being context-specific, and are based on
external judgment and verification (Jones et al. 2018). Measurement bias may
also occur through focusing on indicators that are easier to collect or based on
attributes that organizations assume to contribute to resilience (Béné et al. 2016;
Tanner et al. 2017). Measurement bias might also reinforce existing power
structures that affect vulnerable communities (Jones et al. 2020), and not
acknowledge the diverse risk or socio-economic barriers to resilience (Forsyth
2018). For example, organizations might choose goals and objectives that are
542 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

easier to achieve to showcase their success to future donors and partnerships

with private sectors. This behavior demonstrates how those in power, often the
ones providing funding, can influence the demand and type of data to be
measured as a form of “success” so the organization could obtain more funding
instead of focusing the concern on a local level (Eagleton-Pierce 2020). This is
also an example of how resilience measurements and the resulting projects or
policies from practitioners can often be very ‘top down’ and/or laissez-faire
where resilience is obtained through emergent qualities of the system, and not
proactive decision-making from individuals themselves (Turner 2014; Carr 2019).
In the literature on disaster risk reduction, the transition of resilience from
a descriptive concept to a normative agenda has been challenging and needs to
look beyond the quantitative streamlining of resilience into one all-
encompassing index (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). For example, Adger
(2000) proposed that resilience be examined through proxy economic and
demographic indicators such as economic growth, distribution of income, popu­
lation changes, and labor mobility. These proxy indicators have also been used
by geographers to analyze and map resilience levels at the regional scale
(Mihunov and Lam 2020; Sajjad 2021). However, we argue that this streamlining
of resilience into one community index, or even country index, based on proxy
variables and secondary data sources hides far more than it actually reveals.
Many indices do not acknowledge geographic differentiation, cultural hetero­
geneity, and social plurality (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015).
Objective methods of analysis also leave out people’s own knowledge of their
resilience capacity. Indeed, a person’s ability to respond to shocks is not simply
based on quantifiable factors such as socio-economic variables or assets, but is
also determined by more subjective dimensions related to people’s perceptions of
their ability to cope, local knowledge, attitudes to risk, culture, and self-
confidence (Béné et al. 2016; Tanner et al. 2017; Quandt 2019). Indeed, resilience
is heavily shaped by sociocultural and psychological factors (Jones and Tanner
2017; Quandt 2019). It is also increasingly important to acknowledge that resi­
lience is never distributed evenly within and through social groups or geographic
communities. For example, in my own (Quandt) study of livelihood resilience
among smallholder farmers in Kenya, I found that perceptions of livelihood
resilience were lower for female household heads than for male household heads,
and perceptions also varied significantly between members of the four major
ethnic groups in the area (Quandt 2019).
In objective analysis of resilience, power relations and cultural values are
difficult to capture, yet integral to understanding how individuals and house­
holds navigate changing environmental and social dynamics (Cote and
Nightingale 2012). Further, questions of what is ‘normal’ or ‘desirable’ are
inherently subjective and may be socially or culturally constructed (Stedman
2016). Ideally, resilience would capture an individual/household’s capacity to
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 543

adapt to change as well as cultural values, the historical context, and ethical
considerations (Cote and Nightingale 2012). One way to accomplish this is by
including different types and sources of knowledge, as well as experiences, to
create context-appropriate and scientifically-backed resilience building activities
(Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). Hulme (2018) refers to this not as filling
knowledge ‘gaps’ but as ‘knowledge thickening’ by recognizing different sorts of
knowledge important to climate change adaptation. Alternatively, Nightingale
et al. (2020) use the term ‘plurality of knowledges’ and highlight that climate
change knowledges are embedded within politics and issues of social justice.
An example of this type of integration is seen in the Resilient America’s
Roundtable pilot program (Forrest and Milliken 2019), which created a shared
space for people to discuss the challenges they were facing with other stake­
holders. They then were able to collaborate on ways to address resilience issues
and create plans based on community needs, experiences, and knowledges.
Indeed, Weichselgartner and Kelman (2015) propose that resilience-building
programs draw from different knowledges, and should be co-designed by scien­
tists, practitioners, and target communities. While much easier said than done,
acknowledging the ‘plurality of knowledges’ in order to ‘thicken’ our knowledge
about climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction is an important step
in livelihood resilience projects and policies. Therefore, in order to capture these
different knowledges, many argue it is critical to integrate bottom-up subjective
methods of resilience analysis alongside objective methods of measuring resi­
lience (Béné et al. 2016; Jones and Tanner 2017).

TOWARD SUBJECTIVE APPROACHES OF ANALYSIS

It is from the critiques in resilience measurement outlined above, among others,
that the sub-field of subjective resilience has emerged. Subjective resilience stems
from the idea that people have an understanding of the factors that contribute to
their ability to anticipate, buffer, and adapt to disturbance (Jones and Tanner
2017). People are active interpreters of reality, and these interpretations are not
random and individualistic, but instead are made according to social conven­
tions and norms (Stedman 2016). Indeed, what we see is based on who we are,
and who we are is produced at least partially by our social context. For example,
ethnicity is one important factor that also determines an individual’s perceptions
of the impacts of climate variability and natural hazards, as well as necessary
measures to build resilience to such impacts. The perception of climate-related
hazards can vary between members of different ethnic groups due to different
perceptions or worldviews (Soetanto et al. 2016; Quandt 2019).
As outlined in Figure 1, the main objective of this paper is to contribute to
previous resilience-related research by proposing that subjective resilience can
add two new normative questions to resilience study—‘resilience as defined by
whom’ and ‘resilience as measured by whom.’ Subjective resilience aims to
544 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 1—Framework for the integration of subjective and objective methods of analysis to
increase livelihood resilience to the impacts of climate change.

provide space for individuals to define what resilience means to them and
outline how they measure and/or conceptualize their own resilience. These
normative questions are particularly important to practitioners and policy
makers aiming to improve resilience to climate change for natural-resource
dependent populations. For example, even though the impacts of climate change
on livelihoods are often felt at the household or community level (McNamara
and Prasad 2014), these local impacts and priorities are often left out if they don’t
align with external aid agencies agendas (Le Dé et al. 2018). A bottom-up
approach can help capture subjective elements, such as traditional knowledge
and perceptions.
However, despite the potential of subjective approaches, it is not without
shortcomings. One major shortcoming of a subjective approach is that mea­
suring resilience subjectively has been poorly researched to date and little is
known about the merits and limitations of different approaches to measure­
ment (Jones 2019). Further, the validity and reliability of subjective measures
of resilience has yet to be tested (Jones et al. 2021). According to Jones et al.
(2018), little is known about how people evaluate their own resilience using
subjective measures. Further, measuring subjective resilience hinges on under­
standing how people rate their resilience, as well as the resilience of the wider
community of which they are a part (Jones and Tanner 2017). Few large scale
studies of quantitative subjective approaches to resilience measurement have
been conducted (Jones et al. 2018), and there are even fewer examples of
qualitative studies focused on livelihood resilience. It remains to be seen
whether standardized scaled-up subjective approaches to resilience measure­
ment can be used across scales, time, and cultures (Jones et al. 2018). There are
also few existing tools to collect information about subjective resilience, either
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 545

quantitatively or qualitatively (Jones and Tanner 2017). Additionally, Olwig

(2012) argue that it may be difficult to disentangle subjective from objective
approaches to resilience as international organizations and discourse are being
internalized by ‘local’ communities. Lastly, as has been previously seen with
resilience-related work aimed to integrate stakeholder perspectives into setting
project objectives, individuals may prioritize themselves and their own capa­
cities, without much concern for others in their community and the natural
ecosystems upon which they depend (Walker and Salt 2006).
Despite these shortcomings and concerns about measuring subjective resili­
ence, several studies have utilized Likert-scale questions and questionnaires in
order to understand how households have coped with disasters and adverse events.
For example, Béné et al. (2016) conducted a resilience questionnaire that asked
households to assess the degree of recovery they managed to achieve after adverse
events, as well as their perceptions of their ability to handle future adverse events
(through Likert-scale questions). In the context of the coastal United States, Seara
et al. (2016) measured subjective resilience through Likert-scale questions focused
on perceived adaptive capacity of commercial and for-hire fishermen. In a similar
method of measuring subjective resilience used in Kyrgyzstan, respondents were
given a scenario and asked to assess how their household would fare during that
disturbance. For example, “If a drought happens in the next 4 months, how will it
affect your family’s livelihood?” Possible answer choices ranged from, “We will be
totally fine,” to “We might struggle a bit but we’ll get through,” to “We will be
unable to meet our basic needs for surviving.” These types of questions are what
Clare et al. (2018) call shock specific measures of resilience. This varies from
generalized measures of resilience (Clare et al. 2018), which asks respondents to
identify shocks they would face in a ‘typical’ year, and then choose a response from
“We are always fine, regardless of these events,” to “We are unable to meet even our
basic needs for surviving.”
Additionally, in Tanzania, Jones et al. (2018) explored subjective measures of
household resilience to extreme flooding. This study looked at quantitative
Likert-scale resilience-related questions in a national survey focused on three
aspects of resilience: capacity to prepare, capacity to recover, and capacity to
adapt. While this research showed interesting variations in perceptions of sub­
jective resilience based on demographic characteristics (gender, occupation,
rural/urban, education, and wealth) (Jones et al. 2018), it was still based on the
objective, expert opinion that the capacities to prepare, recover, and adapt are
important to resilience. Jones and d’Errico (2019) also developed a new approach
called Subjective Self-Evaluated Resilience Scores (SERs). Their survey is based
on nine resilience related capacities and capitals from their literature review
including adaptive capacity, learning, anticipatory capacity, and political capital.
This was then given to households where they were asked to rate the level of
agreement using a Likert-scale.
546 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

However promising, the approaches used by Clare et al. (2018), Walshe et al.
(2018), Jones et al. (2018), and Jones and d’Errico (2019) still aimed to develop
quantitative indicators of subjective resilience, which has drawbacks of its own.
A different approach for measuring subjective resilience would be to start with
a clean slate and use bottom-up qualitative research to identify questions that
people and communities themselves consider as best representing resilience
(Jones and Tanner 2017; Jones 2019). Indeed, Jones et al. (2021) call for more
rigorous resilience assessments that include mixed-methods approaches, includ­
ing qualitative data collection in order to holistically understand causal mechan­
isms for resilience. These types of qualitative questions and assessments would
allow people to freely reflect on how resilient they perceive their household or
themselves to be (Jones and Tanner 2017). However, very little qualitative
research has been conducted on subjective resilience and resilience more gen­
erally. Human geographers are particularly well positioned to address the messi­
ness of the subjective human experience with resilience, but so far their
contributions have been minor compared to the potential (Stedman 2016).

NEW DIRECTIONS IN ANALYZING SUBJECTIVE RESILIENCE

In order to build upon previous efforts at conceptualizing and measuring sub­
jective resilience, we propose the integration of already-established research
methods from the fields of psychological resilience, participatory development
methods that emerged during the 1990s, and participatory geographic informa­
tion systems (PGIS). There are lessons for analyzing and measuring subjective
resilience related to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the
field of psychological resilience, which aims to understand the ability of indivi­
duals to cope with and adapt positively when confronting loss, hardship, or
adversity (Singh and Yu 2010). In the field of psychological resilience, resilience
is regarded as a defense mechanism which enables people to thrive in the face of
adversity (Bollig 2014). Extending psychological-notions of resilience to other
disciplines, anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes (2008) conducted ethno­
graphic work on humans dealing with extreme impoverishment, torture, and
physical violence in the Brazilian favelas and in Cape Town in the last year of
Apartheid. Scheper-Hughes (2008) identified some strategies used for fostering
psychological resilience including normalization, narrativization where extreme
events are made consistent with one’s world view, and reframing where survi­
vors depict themselves not as victims, but as ‘victorious survivors’ of hardship.
Rodriguez-Llanes et al. (2013) analyzed fifty-three psychological resilience
indicators from six empirical studies pertaining to disasters. Their results
highlighted “social support, female gender, and further probable indicators,
i.e. previous trauma, degree of disaster-exposure, human losses, resource loss,
and physical and mental health” as important indicators of psychological
resilience to disasters (Rodriguez-Llanes et al. 2013). These lessons are useful
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 547

to the study of subjective resilience, and may be particularly relevant when

analyzing subjective resilience to disasters and natural hazards. Additionally,
Windle et al. (2011) reviewed 15 different resilience measurements used in
psychology to help researchers and practitioners choose which methodology
to use for their assessments. Their results indicated that there was a lack of
psychometric information in the reviewed resilience measures and there were
no assessments that could be utilized universally. They also recommend
starting with qualitative data collection before designing the questionnaire to
address the issue of non-responsive and missing data (Windle et al. 2011).
Thus, while promising, much work still needs to be done to successfully assess
and potentially integrate measures of psychological resilience into measuring
livelihood resilience (either objectively or subjectively).
Additionally, we propose that many of the participatory development
research methods that have been utilized since the 1990’s may be useful in
conceptualizing and measuring subjective resilience. Two such participatory
methods include participatory risk mapping (Smith et al. 2000; Baird et al.
2009) and participatory tenables mapping (Lu et al. 2014). Participatory risk
mapping (PRM) is a technique developed by Smith et al. (2000) to assess the
heterogeneity of risk exposure and severity that exists within seemingly homo­
genous populations. In PRM, respondents are asked to: (1) identify risks, (2)
order those risks from most to least severe, and (3) detail each risk in turn
including how they responded and what coping activities they employed.
From this data, both severity and incidence scores can be assigned to each
risk. PRM was used to evaluate the effect of Tarangire National Park in
Tanzania on Maasai perceptions of risk and its influence on behavioral
responses (Baird et al. 2009). Participatory risk mapping (PRM) allows parti­
cipants to identify what they perceived was a risk to their livelihoods and then
asked them to rank those risks. Although Smith et al. (2000) commented that
some of the risks identified by participants felt arbitrary, PRM “allowed
informants to speak for themselves” and brought up issues that might have
been overlooked by outsiders. This subjective method provides insight to what
participants viewed as high risk to their livelihoods and an alternative
approach to objective methods where risks are identified by researchers.
In addition to PRM, a complementary method of participatory tenables
mapping (PTM) was proposed by Lu et al. (2014) as a way to understand
people’s perceived resources. Lu et al. (2014) defined ‘tenables’ as symbolic
and material resources available to help prepare for and cope with risks. PTM
methods are similar to PRM, except instead of risks, research participants
identify and discuss important resources or ‘tenables.’ In PTM, utility and
incidence scores can be created, graphed, and mapped to highlight which
resources are common and useful, uncommon and less useful, or somewhere
in between. Used in combination, PRM and PTM may create a more complete
548 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

picture of an individual’s subjective resilience by understanding both risks and

resources.
Another participatory method that depends on the subjective perspectives of
participants is public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) and
participatory geographic information systems (PGIS). PPGIS and PGIS has been
predominately used by geographers and urban planners to gain insight from
citizens (Dunn 2007). It provides a platform for individuals to share their
experience in their neighborhoods, routes, and places to where they commute.
Emotional mapping, where participants identify safe and unsafe areas in their
neighborhoods, has been useful for government officials and city planners in
decision-making (Panek 2018). While these methods remain untested in measur­
ing subjective resilience, their potential is important to highlight.

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

In this paper we have argued for the integration of subjective and objective
approaches of resilience analysis and highlighted how subjective analysis adds the
normative questions of “resilience as defined and measured by whom?” We have
also proposed the use of established methods from the disciplines of psychology,
international development, and participatory geographic methods for the measure­
ment of subjective resilience. Looking forward, objective and subjective approaches
need to be assessed together to learn how (dis)similar they may be, and how they
may be used for designing resilience-building activities. As suggested by
Weichselgartner and Kelman (2015) it might be best to combine objective and
subjective approaches as this is also the combination of different knowledge types
and experiences. Thus, how resilience is evaluated depends on (1) if it is subjectively
or objectively defined, and (2) if it is subjectively or objectively evaluated.
Geographers are well positioned to explore how to best move toward sub­
jective analysis of livelihood resilience in the face of global environmental
change. While geographers have contributed to resilience work in the context
of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, their contributions
should be expanded and scaled-up to best understand how individuals define,
conceptualize, and measure their own resilience (Stedman 2016). Thus, we urge
more geographers to partake in the study of resilience, and particularly in
exploring how geographic methods could be utilized to understand and measure
subjective resilience. For example, the analytical tools of participatory GIS and
other participatory methods may be appropriate to subjectively conceptualize
resilience across space and within communities.
The need for more research and improved policies and practices will con­
tinue to increase in importance as the global scale and complexity of environ­
mental change continues to grow (Folke et al. 2021; Jones et al. 2021). As human
activities continue to warm the planet at an unprecedented rate, it is critical for
households, communities, and society to prepare, adapt, and become more
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 549

resilient to these critical and urgent human challenges (IPCC 2021). It is our
hope that including subjective assessments of resilience into climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction efforts we can help to address these issues,
even if only in a small way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge San Diego State University’s Department of Geography for
supporting this work. We would also like to acknowledge colleagues J. Terrence McCabe and
Paul Leslie, who provided insight into novel methods for measuring subjective resilience.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

FUNDING
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

ORCID
Amy Quandt http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7434-1500

REFERENCES
Addinsall, C., K. Glencross, P. Scherrer, B. Weiler, and D. Nichols. 2015. Agroecology and
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Conceptual Framework to Guide Development Projects in
the Pacific Islands. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39(6):691–723. doi:10.1080/
21683565.2015.1017785.
Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related? Progress in Human
Geography 24(3):347–364. doi:10.1191/030913200701540465.
Adger, W. N. 2003. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic
Geography 79(4):387–404. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x.
Allison, E. H., and F. Ellis. 2001. The Livelihoods Approach and Management of Small-Scale
Fisheries. Marine Policy 25(5):377–388. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00023-9.
Armitage, D., C. Béné, A. Charles, D. Johnson, and E. H. Allison. 2012. The Interplay of well-being
and Resilience in Applying a Social-Ecological Perspective. Ecology and Society 17(4).
doi:10.5751/ES-04940-170415.
Bahadur, A., E. Lovell, E. Wilkinson, and T. Tanner. 2015. Resilience in the SDGs: Developing an
Indicator for Target 1.5 that Is Fit for Purpose. Overseas Development Institute.
Baird, T. D., P. W. Leslie, and J. T. McCabe. 2009. The Effect of Wildlife Conservation on Local
Perceptions of Risk and Behavioral Response. Human Ecology 37(4):463–474. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/40343988.
Béné, C., R. Al-Hassan, O. Amarasinghe, P. Fong, J. Ocran, E. Onumah, R. Ratuniata, T. Tuyen,
J. Mcgregor, and D. Mills. 2016. Is Resilience Socially Constructed? Empirical Evidence from
Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Global Environmental Change 38:153–170. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2016.03.005.
Béné, C. 2020. Resilience of Local Food Systems and Links to Food Security – A Review of Some
Important Concepts in the Context of COVID-19 and Other Shocks. Food Security 12
(4):805–822. doi:10.1007/s12571-020-01076-1.
Bollig, M. 2014. Resilience – Analytical Tool, Bridging Concept or Development Goal?
Anthropological Perspectives on the Use of a Border Object. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie
139:253–279.
550 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Brown, K., and E. Westaway. 2011. Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change:
Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 36(1):321–342. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905.
Brown, K. 2014. Global Environmental Change 1: A Social Turn for Resilience? Progress in Human
Geography 38(1):107–117. doi:10.1177/0309132513498837.
Cabell, J. F., and M. Oelofse. 2012. An Indicator Framework for Assessing Agroecosystem
Resilience. Ecology and Society 17(1):18. doi:10.5751/ES-04666-170118.
Carney, D. 1998. Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach. Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? D. Carney (Ed.). London: Department for
International Development.
Carpenter, S., B. Walker, M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From Metaphor to Measurement:
Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 4:765–781. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9.
Carpenter, S. R., F. Westley, and M. G. Turner. 2005. Surrogates for Resilience of social-ecological
Systems. Ecosystems 8:941–944. doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0170-y.
Carr, E. R. 2019. Properties and Projects: Reconciling Resilience and Transformation for Adaptation
and Development. World Development 122:70–84. doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2019.05.011.
Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st
Century. Discussion Paper 296, Institute of Development Studies, IDS, Brighton, UK.
Clare, A., L. Sagynbekova, G. Singer, C. Bene, and A. Rahmanberdi. 2018. Can Subjective Resilience
Indicators Predict Future Food Security? Evidence from Three Communities in Rural
Kyrgyzstan. Working Paper No. 342, Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
Constas, M. T., J. Frankenberger, N. Hoddinott, D. Mock, C. Romano, D. Bene, and Maxwell. 2014.
A Common Analytical Model for Resilience Measurement: Causal Framework and Methodological
Options. Technical Series No. 2, World Food Programme, Italy.
Cote, M., and A. J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience Thinking Meets Social Theory: Situating Social
Change in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) Research. Progress in Human Geography 36
(4):475–489. doi:10.1177/0309132511425708.
Davoudi, S., and L. Porter. 2012. Applying the Resilience Perspective to Planning: Critical Thoughts
from Theory and Practice. Planning Theory & Practice 13(2):299–333. doi:10.1080/
14649357.2012.677124.
Dunn, C. E. 2007. Participatory GIS – A people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography 31(5):616–637.
doi:10.1177/0309132507081493.
Eagleton-Pierce, M. 2020. The Rise of Managerialism in International NGOs. Review of
International Political Economy 27(4):970–994. doi:10.1080/09692290.2019.1657478.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses.
Global Environmental Change 16:253–267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and B. Walker. 2021. Resilience: Now More
than Ever: This Article Belongs to Ambio’s 50th Anniversary Collection. Theme:
Anthropocene. Ambio 50(10):1774–1777. doi:10.1007/s13280-020-01487-6.
Forrest, S., and C. Milliken. 2019. Building Resilience to Disaster: From Advice to Action. European
Review 27(1):17–26. doi:10.1017/S1062798718000522.
Forsyth, T. 2018. Is Resilience to Climate Change Socially Inclusive? Investigating Theories of
Change Processes in Myanmar. World Development 111:13–26. doi:10.1016/j.
worlddev.2018.06.023.
Gaillard, J. C. 2008. Alternative Paradigms of Volcanic Risk Perception: The Case of Mt. Pinatubo
in the Philippines. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172:315–328. doi:10.1016/j.
jvolgeores.2007.12.036.
Gallopín, G. C. 2006. Linkages between Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity. Global
Environmental Change 16(3):293–303. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004.
Holling, C. S. 1972. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecological
Systems 4:1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
Hulme, M. 2018. Gaps” in Climate Change Knowledge: Do They Exist? Can They Be Filled?
Environmental Humanities 10(1):330–337. doi:10.1215/22011919-4385599.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate
Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 551

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University

Press. In Press.
Johansson, K. 2015. Barriers and Bridges for Introducing Agroforestry and community-based
Forestry among Food Insecure Households in Eastern Africa. PhD diss., Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences.
Jones, L., and T. Tanner. 2015. Measuring Subjective Resilience: Using People’s Perceptions to
Quantify Household Resilience. Working Paper 423, Overseas Development Institute, UK.
_____ 2017. ‘Subjective Resilience’: Using Perceptions to Quantify Household Resilience to Climate
Extremes and Disasters. Regional Environmental Change 17:229–243. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-
0995-2.
Jones, L., E. Samman, and P. Vinck. 2018. Subjective Measures of Household Resilience to Climate
Variability and Change: Insights from a Nationally Representative Survey in Tanzania. Ecology
and Society 23(1):9. doi:10.5751/ES-09840-230109.
Jones, L. 2019. Resilience Isn’t the Same for All: Comparing Subjective and Objectives Approaches
to Resilience Measurement. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10(1):552.
Jones, L., and M. d’Errico. 2019. Whose Resilience Matters? Like-for-like Comparison of Objective
and Subjective Evaluations of Resilience. World Development 124:104632. doi:10.1016/j.
worlddev.2019.104632.
Jones, L., L. Kuhl, and N. Matthews. 2020. Addressing Power and Scale in Resilience Programming:
A Call to Engage across Funding, Delivery and Evaluation. The Geographical Journal 186
(4):415–423. doi:10.1111/geoj.12362.
Jones, L., M. A. Constas, N. Mathews, and S. Verkaart. 2021. Advancing Resilience Measurement.
Nature Sustainability 1–2.
Klein, R., R. J. Nicholls, and F. Thomalla. 2003. Resilience to Natural Hazards: How Useful Is This
Concept? Environmental Hazards 5(2003):35–45. doi:10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001.
Le Dé, L., T. Rey, F. Leone, and D. Gilbert. 2018. Sustainable Livelihoods and Effectiveness of
Disaster Responses: A Case Study of Tropical Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu. Natural Hazards 91
(3):1203–1221. doi:10.1007/s11069-018-3174-6.
Lebel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke, S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. P. Hughes, and W. James.
2006. Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological
Systems. Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship Paper 52, University of Maine, U.S.
Leslie, P., and J. T. McCabe. 2013. Response Diversity and Resilience in social-ecological Systems.
Current Anthropology 54(2):114–143. doi:10.1086/669563.
Lu, F., N. Silva, K. Villeda, and M. Sorensen. 2014. Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Risks and
Tenables among Native Amazonians in Northeastern Ecuador. Human Organization 73
(4):375–388. doi:10.17730/humo.73.4.c3576xj37743t413.
MacKinnon, D., and K. D. Derickson. 2013. From Resilience to Resourcefulness: A Critique of
Resilience Policy and Activism. Progress in Human Geography 37(2):253–270. doi:10.1177/
0309132512454775.
Marschke, M. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Exploring Strategies that Build Livelihood Resilience: A Case
from Cambodia. Ecology and Society 11(1):42. doi:10.5751/ES-01730-110142.
McNamara, K. E., and S. S. Prasad. 2014. Coping with Extreme Weather: Communities in Fiji and
Vanuatu Share Their Experiences and Knowledge. Climatic Change 123(2):121–132. doi:10.1007/
s10584-013-1047-2.
Mihunov, V. V., and N. S. N. Lam. 2020. Modeling the Dynamics for Drought Resilience in
South-Central United States Using a Bayesian Network. Applied Geography 120:102224.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102224.
Mosberg, M., and S. H. Eriksen. 2015. Responding to Climate Variability and Change in Dryland
Kenya: The Role of Illicit Coping Strategies in the Politics of Adaptation. Global
Environmental Change 35:545–557. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.006.
Nelson, V., and T. Stathers. 2009. Resilience, Power, Culture, and Climate: A Case Study from
semi-arid Tanzania, and New Research Directions. Gender and Development 17(1):81–94.
doi:10.1080/13552070802696946.
Nightingale, A. J., S. Eriksen, M. Taylor, T. Forsyth, M. Pelling, A. Newsham, E. Boyd, K. Brown,
B. Harvey, L. Jones, R. B. Kerr, L. Mehta, L. O. Naess, D. Ockwell, I. Scoones, T. Tanner, and
552 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

S. Whitfield. 2020. Beyond Technical Fixes: Climate Solutions and the Great Derangement.
Climate and Development 12(4):343–352. doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1624495.
Oliver-Smith, A., and S. M. Hoffman, eds. 2020. The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological
Perspective. 2nd ed. New York, U.S.: Routledge.
Olwig, M. F. 2012. Multi-sited Resilience: The Mutual Construction of “Local” and “Global”
Understandings and Practices of Adaptation and Innovation. Applied Geography 33
(1):112–118. doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2011.10.007.
Panek, J. 2018. Emotional Maps: Participatory Crowdsourcing of Citizens’ Perceptions of Their
Urban Environment. Cartographic Perspectives 91:17–29.
Peet, R., and M. Watts. 2004. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements.
Psychology Press.
Pelling, M. 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. New York,
U.S.: Routledge.
Quandt, A. 2018. Measuring Livelihood Resilience: The Household Livelihood Resilience Approach
(HLRA). World Development 107:253–263. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.024.
_____ 2019. Variability in Perceptions of Household Livelihood Resilience and Drought at the
Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity. Climatic Change 152(1):1–15. doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2343-7.
_____ 2020. Contribution of Agroforestry Trees for Climate Change Adaptation: Narratives from
Smallholder Farmers in Isiolo, Kenya. Agroforestry Systems 94(6):2125–2136. doi:10.1007/s10457-
020-00535-0.
_____ 2021. Coping with Drought: Narratives from Smallholder Farmers in semi-arid Kenya.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 57:102168. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102168.
Quandt, A., H. Neufeldt, and J. T. McCabe. 2017. The Role of Agroforestry in Building Livelihood
Resilience to Floods and Droughts in semi-arid Kenya. Ecology and Society 22(3). doi:10.5751/
ES-09461-220310.
_____ 2018. Building Livelihood Resilience: What Role Does Agroforestry Play? Climate and
Development.
Robinson, L., and F. Berkes. 2010. Applying Resilience Thinking to Questions of Policy for
Pastoralist Systems: Lessons from the Gabra of Northern Kenya. Human Ecology 38
(3):335–350. doi:10.1007/s10745-010-9327-1.
Rodriguez-Llanes, J. M., F. Vos, and D. Guha-Sapir. 2013. Measuring Psychological Resilience to
Disasters: Are evidence-based Indicators an Achievable Goal? Environmental Health: A Global
Access Science Source 12(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-115.
Sajjad, M. 2021. Disaster Resilience in Pakistan: A Comprehensive Multi-Dimensional Spatial
Profiling. Applied Geography 126:102367. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102367.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 2008. A Talent for Life: Reflection on Human Vulnerability and Resilience.
Ethnos 73(1):25–56. doi:10.1080/00141840801927525.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.
Seara, T., P. M. Clay, and L. L. Colburn. 2016. Perceived Adaptive Capacity and Natural Disasters:
A Fisheries Case Study. Global Environmental Change 38:49–57. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2016.01.006.
Shove, E. 2010. Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change.
Environment and Planning A 42:1273–1285. doi:10.1068/a42282.
Singh, K., and X. Yu. 2010. Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
(CD-RISC) in a Sample of Indian Students. Journal of Psychology 1:23–30. doi:10.1080/
09764224.2010.11885442.
Smith, K., C. B. Barrett, and P. W. Box. 2000. Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting Research
and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists. World Development 28
(11):1945–1959. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00053-X.
Soetanto, R., A. Mullis, and A. Achour. 2016. The Perceptions of Social Responsibility for
Community Resilience to Flooding: The Impact of past Experience, Age, Gender and
Ethnicity. Natural Hazards 86(3):1105–1126. doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2732-z.
Stedman, R. C. 2016. Subjectivity and social-ecological Systems: A Rigidity Trap (And Sense of
Place as a Way Out). Sustainability Science 11:891–901. doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0388-y.
 LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 553

Tanner, T., D. Lewis, D. Wrathall, R. Bronen, N. Cradock-Henry, S. Huq, C. Lawless et al. 2015.
Livelihood Resilience in the Face of Climate Change. Nature Climate Change 1:23–26.
doi:10.1038/nclimate2431.
Tanner, T., A. Bahadur, and M. Moench. 2017. Challenges for Resilience Policy and Practice.
London: Overseas Development Institute.
Tierney, K. 2014. The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience. USA: Stanford
University Press.
Timmerman, P. 1981. Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models
and Possible Climatic Applications. Institute for Environmental Studies.
Turner, M. D. 2014. Political Ecology I: An Alliance with Resilience? Progress in Human Geography
38(4):616–623. doi:10.1177/0309132513502770.
Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing
World. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Walshe, R. A., S. D. Chang, A. Bumpus, and J. Auffray. 2018. Perceptions of Adaptation, Resilience
and Climate Knowledge in the Pacific: The Cases of Samoa, Fiji and Vanuatu. International
Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 10(2):303–322. doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-03-
2017-0060.
Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman. 2015. Geographies of Resilience: Challenges and Opportunities
of a Descriptive Concept. Progress in Human Geography 39(3):249–267. doi:10.1177/
0309132513518834.
Windle, G., K. M. Bennett, and J. Noyes. 2011. A Methodological Review of Resilience
Measurement Scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 9(8). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-8.
Woolf, S., J. Twigg, P. Parikh, and A. Karaoglou. 2016. Towards Measurable Resilience: A Novel
Framework Tool for the Assessment of Resilience Levels in Slums. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.003.
World Bank. 2019. Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards Project. Report,
The World Bank, June.