Skip to main content

Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking

Abstract

Vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards alone; it also resides in the resilience of the system experiencing the hazard. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb recurrent disturbances, such as natural disasters, so as to retain essential structures, processes and feedbacks) is important for the discussion of vulnerability for three reasons: (1) it helps evaluate hazards holistically in coupled human–environment systems, (2) it puts the emphasis on the ability of a system to deal with a hazard, absorbing the disturbance or adapting to it, and (3) it is forward-looking and helps explore policy options for dealing with uncertainty and future change. Building resilience into human–environment systems is an effective way to cope with change characterized by surprises and unknowable risks. There seem to be four clusters of factors relevant to building resilience: (1) learning to live with change and uncertainty, (2) nurturing various types of ecological, social and political diversity for increasing options and reducing risks, (3) increasing the range of knowledge for learning and problem-solving, and (4) creating opportunities for␣self-organization, including strengthening of local institutions and building cross-scale linkages and problem-solving networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke Carpenter SR, Rockstrom J (2005) Social–ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309:1036–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1975) Platform for change. London and New York, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2002) Epilogue: making sense of Arctic environmental change? In: Krupnik I, Jolly D (eds) The earth is faster now: indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (ARCUS), Fairbanks, AK, pp 335–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) (2003) Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (1998) Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ Change 10:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Community Enterprise (2004) The community resilience manual. A resource for rural recovery and renewal. Centre for Community Enterprise. http://www.cedworks.com

  • Etkin D, Haque E, Bellisario L, Burton I (2004) An assessment of natural hazards and disasters in Canada. The Canadian natural hazards assessment project. Public safety and emergency preparedness Canada and environment Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B et al (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. International Council for Science, ICSU Series on science for sustainable development No. 3. http://www.sou.gov.se/mvb/pdf/resiliens.pdf

  • Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F (2003) Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social–ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 352–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg N (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haque CE (1994) Flood prevention and mitigation in Bangladesh: the need for sustainable floodplain development. In: Goodland R, Edmundson V (eds) Environmental assessment and development. The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque CE (1998) Hazards in a fickle environment: Bangladesh. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque CE, Zaman MQ (1993) Human responses to riverine hazards in Bangladesh: a proposal for sustainable floodplain development. World Dev 21:93–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt K (2004) A synthesis of the symposium and reflection on reducing risk through partnerships. Paper presented at the conference of the Canadian Risk and Hazards Network (CRHNet), November 2004, Winnipeg

  • Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 292–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (2004) From complex regions to complex worlds. Ecology and society 9(1):11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art11/

  • Huang GH, Loucks DP (2000) An inexact two-stage stochasitic programming model for water resources management under uncertainty. Civ Eng Environ Syst 17:95–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington HP, Fox S, Berkes F, Krupnik I et al (2005) The changing Arctic: indigenous perspectives. Chapter 3, Arctic climate change impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 61–98

  • Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig AP, Antle J, Ascher W et al (2000) Nature and society: an imperative for integrated environmental research. A report prepared for the National Science Foundation of the United States

  • Lee K (1993) Compass and the gyroscope. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees SH, Bates DG (1990) The ecology of cumulative change. In: Moran EF (ed) The ecosystem approach in anthropology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 247–277

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2003) Ecosystems and well-being: a framework for assessment. millennium ecosystem assessment, Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell K (2004) An expanded perspective on partnerships for the reduction of hazards and disasters. Paper presented at the conference of the Canadian Risk and Hazards Network (CRHNet), November 2004, Winnipeg

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environ Manage 34:75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D (eds) (2006) Bridging scales and knowledge systems. Millennium ecosystem assessment and Island Press, Washington, DC

  • Scheffer M, Carpenter SR (2003). Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecology Evol 18:648–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins EL, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and society 9(2):10. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL II, Kasperson RE, Matson PA et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:8074–8079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullsten O, Speth JG, Chapin FS (2004) Options for enhancing the resilience of northern countries to rapid social and environmental change. Ambio 33:343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society 9(2):5. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

  • Walker B, Meyers JA (2004) Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a developing database. Ecology and society 9(2):3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3/

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a presentation at the Conference of the Canadian Risk and Hazards Network (CRHNet), November 2004, Winnipeg. I thank E. Haque, President of CRHNet, for encouraging me to make a foray into the field of vulnerability and hazards. I am grateful to Thomas Elmqvist (Stockholm University), Madhav Gadgil (Indian Institute of Science), and Apurba Deb, Melissa Marschke and Tad Murty (all of University of Manitoba) for some of the information cited in this paper. I thank three anonymous reviewers for detailed comments. Particularly insightful material from one of them has been incorporated into the paper. My work is supported by the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fikret Berkes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berkes, F. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazards 41, 283–295 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7

Keywords

  • Resilience
  • Vulnerability
  • Ecosystems
  • Complex adaptive systems
  • Communities
  • Adaptation
  • Learning
  • Institutions
  • Cross-scale linkages