Supplemental readings from Cambridge students

Adger. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 347-364.

This article defines social resilience as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change. This definition highlights social resilience in relation to the concept of ecological resilience which is a characteristic of ecosystems to maintain themselves in the face of disturbance. There is a clear link between social and ecological resilience, particularly for social groups or communities that are dependent on ecological and environmental resources for their livelihoods. But it is not clear whether resilient ecosystems enable resilient communities in such situations. This article examines whether resilience is a useful characteristic for describing the social and economic situation of social groups and explores potential links between social resilience and ecological resilience. The origins of this interdisciplinary study in human ecology, ecological economics and rural sociology are reviewed, and a study of the impacts of ecological change on a resourcedependent community in contemporary coastal Vietnam in terms of the resilience of its institutions is outlined.

Adger et al. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change 93: 335-354.

While there is a recognised need to adapt to changing climatic conditions, there is an emerging discourse of limits to such adaptation. Limits are traditionally analysed as a set of immutable thresholds in biological, economic or technological parameters. This paper contends that limits to adaptation are endogenous to society and hence contingent on ethics, knowledge, attitudes to risk and culture. We review insights from history, sociology and psychology of risk, economics and political science to develop four propositions concerning limits to adaptation. First, any limits to adaptation depend on the ultimate goals of adaptation underpinned by diverse values. Second, adaptation need not be limited by uncertainty around future foresight of risk. Third, social and individual factors limit adaptation action. Fourth, systematic undervaluation of loss of places and culture disguises real, experienced but subjective limits to adaptation. We conclude that these issues of values and ethics, risk, knowledge and culture construct societal limits to adaptation, but that these limits are mutable.

Brock, W.A., Carpenter, S.R. 2006. Variance as a Leading Indicator of Regime Shift in Ecosystem Services. Ecology and Society 11(2): 9.

Many environmental conflicts involve pollutants such as greenhouse gas emissions that are dispersed through space and cause losses of ecosystem services. As pollutant emissions rise in one place, a spatial cascade of declining ecosystem services can spread across a larger landscape because of the dispersion of the pollutant. This paper considers the problem of anticipating such spatial regime shifts by monitoring time series of the pollutant or associated ecosystem services. Using such data, it is possible to construct indicators that rise sharply in advance of regime shifts. Specifically, the maximum eigenvalue of the variance-covariance matrix of the multivariate time series of pollutants and ecosystem services rises prior to the regime shift. No specific knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the regime shift is needed to construct the indicator. Such leading indicators of regime shifts could provide useful signals to management agencies or to investors in ecosystem service markets.

Scheffer_et_al_2009_Early_warning_signals.pdf