Annals of Valahia University of Targoviste.

Geographical Series (2017), 17(2): 198-205

DOI: 10.1515/avutgs-2017-0018
ISSN (Print): 2393-1485, ISSN (Online): 2393-1493
© Copyright by Department of Geography. Valahia University of Targoviste

CONCEPTUAL DELIMITATIONS BETWEEN RESILIENCE,

VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY TO EXTREME EVENTS
AND GLOBAL CHANGE

Andra Costache
Valahia University of Târgoviște, Department of Geography Lt. Stancu Ion, no. 34-36, Târgoviște,
Dâmbovița, 0245206105 Email: andra_cost@yahoo.com

Abstract
While extensively employed in the mainstream literature focused on earth system science and sustainable
development, the concepts of resilience, vulnerability and adaptation are still difficult to operationalize given
the different conceptual frameworks proposed in various scientific fields, such as ecology, disaster reduction
and global change. Although multiple points of view are, to a certain degree, beneficial to an in-depth
understanding of the dynamics of the coupled human-environmental systems, there is a need to correlate the
theoretical frameworks of the two sustainability pillars, resilience and vulnerability, in a coherent and efficient
manner.
Keywords: resilience, vulnerability, multiple conceptual frameworks

1 INTRODUCTION

The concept of resilience is not a recent one; it was mentioned in various scientific fields
beginning with the 19th century and, more than four decades ago, it was introduced in the field of
ecology (Holling, 1973). Since then, its use has become widespread, especially in literature on
development and sustainability, global change and natural disasters.
After a period when the two major trends in the global change and extreme events literature
(the study of vulnerability and the study of resilience) developed in parallel and even, at sometimes,
seemingly in competition, there is currently a tendency of specialists in the field of vulnerability to
global change and natural hazards to integrate the concept of resilience into their research.
In this context, some clarifications are required on the definition and usefulness of the
concept of resilience, as well as on the vulnerability-adaptive capacity-resilience relationship in the
human communities exposed to natural hazards and environmental changes. From the very
beginning, it should be mentioned that there are multiple conceptual frameworks of resilience
assessment, which is a challenge for the concept's operationalization.

2 RESILIENCE: ONE WORD, MULTIPLE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

The first use of the resilience in the sense of being able to resist to a natural hazard
(earthquake) dates back to 1857 (Alexander, 2013), but the concept has experienced a long
evolution in mechanics, social sciences, psychology, ecology, adaptive management, disasters and
global changes (there are partial transitions of meanings between different scientific fields) – table
1.
A first important step in understanding the concept of resilience was achieved by Holling,
which defines the behavior of ecological systems through two distinct properties, resilience and

198 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
stability. The introduction of the concept of resilience brings a change of perspective in ecosystem
management, namely the acceptance of uncertainties and of the need to have multiple options, as
well as the focus on "capacity to devise systems that can absorb and accommodate future events in
whatever unexpected form they may take"(Holling, 1973).
In the field of ecology, the concept of resilience was developed during the following
decades, the approaches ranging from the idea of resilience as a metaphor or theoretical construct
related with sustainable development, to understanding resilience as measurable property, which
can be quantitatively determined (Carpenter et al., 2001). Over time, resilience has been associated
with, but not assimilated to concepts such as stability, sustainability, resistance, adaptability,
adaptive cycle, transformation capacity (table 2). In the analysis of the integrated, interdependent
evolution of natural and human systems, resilience stands out as a concept reflecting the systems’
ability to change and adapt continuously, without exceeding critical thresholds.
In the last decade, there is a need in the ecological literature to distinguish between specific
resilience and general resilience. While exclusive focus on specific resilience can have undesirable
effects (by limiting options and capacity to cope with different perturbations), changing the
paradigm and addressing general resilience at multiple spatial scales has the benefit of making
transformation possible.

Table 1. Definitions of resilience

Scientific Definition Source
field
Ecology The capacity of a system to absorb and utilize or even benefit from Holling, 1973
perturbations and changes that attain it, and so to persist without a
qualitative change in the system structure.
The capacity of a system to undergo disturbance and maintain its Gunderson
functions and controls. and Holling
(2001)
The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize Folke et al.,
while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same 2010
function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is,
the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity.
Specified resilience is the resilience “of what, to what”; resilience
of some particular part of a system, related to a particular control
variable, to one or more identified kinds of shocks. General
resilience is the resilience of any and all parts of a system to all
kinds of shocks, including novel ones.
Natural Resilience is the ability of a social system to respond and recover Cutter et al.,
hazards and from disasters and includes those inherent conditions that allow 2008
disaster the system to absorb impacts and cope with an event, as well as
reduction post-event, adaptive processes that facilitate the ability of the
social system to re-organize, change, and learn in response to a
threat.
The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards ISDR, 2009
to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the
preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and
functions.
Global The amount of change a given system can undergo (e.g., how Turner et al.,
change much disturbance or stress it can handle) and still remain within 2003
the set of natural or desirable states (i.e., remain within the same
‘‘configuration’’ of states, rather than maintain a single state).

199 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
 The capacity of social, economic and environmental systems to IPCC, 2014
cope with a hazardous event or trend or disturbance, responding or
reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity
and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation,
learning and transformation.

Thus, the original meaning of the concept of resilience (maintaining the initial state after a
disturbance) is expanded, including the mobilization of resources, the evaluation and re-evaluation
of alternatives and, where necessary, the possibility of transition to new directions of development.
The transition of the resilience concept from natural ecology to human ecology was
achieved in the late 1990s, keeping its meaning of returning to the initial state after a disturbance.
The introduction of the resilience concept in the natural hazards literature was
accompanied by the recommendation of some authors to only use the concept in a strict sense, in
order to describe the specific attributes of the system related to: i) the amount of perturbation the
system can absorb, whilst remaining in the same state; and ii) the extent to which the system is
capable of self-organization (Klein, Nicholls and Thomalla, 2003). Resilience was seen as a
systems’ characteristic which contributes to sustainable development and which reduces
vulnerability to natural hazards, but it was unclear how these will occur, the more so as the concept
of adaptive capacity was also extensively employed, while its relationship with resilience was no
longer as clear as in ecology. For example, Klein, Nicholls and Thomalla (2003) consider resilience
as a factor influencing adaptability (even a component thereof), while Cutter et al. (2008) include
adaptability in the structure of resilience. In fact, the latter approach is rather frequent in the
literature on disaster reduction (Hufschmidt, 2011).
The ISDR terminology (2009) does not establish a link between the two concepts, defining
adaptation as “the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (definition also
applies for non-climatic factors).

Table 2. Resilience and related concepts

Concept Definition Conceptual linkage with
resilience
Stability The ability of a system to return to a state of Stability is a property of the
equilibrium after a temporary disturbance systems, distinct from resilience.
(Holling, 1973).
Resistance The amount of external pressure needed to Resilience and resistance are
bring about a given amount of disturbance in complementary characteristics
the system. (Carpenter et al., 2001). of the social-ecological sistems;
both must be considered, in
order to assess the long-term
persistence of the systems.
Sustainability A sustainable system is one which survives or Unlike sustainability, resilience
persists. (Costanza şi Patten, 1995). can be desirable or undesirable.
For example, system states that
decrease social welfare (such
as polluted water supplies), can
be highly resilient. (Carpenter et
al., 2001).
Adaptability Adaptability captures the capacity of a social- Adaptability is the capacity of
ecological system to learn, combine actors in a system to influence
experience and knowledge, adjust its resilience (Folke et al., 2010).
responses to changing external drivers and

200 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
 internal processes, and continue developing
within the current stability domain or basin of
attraction (Berkes, Colding and Folke 2003).
Adaptive The concept illustrates the systems’ dynamics A system’s resilience
cycle in which long periods of aggregation and experiences changes over the
transformation of resources alternate with adaptive cycle and different
short periods that create opportunities for aspects of resilience are pre-
innovation. It comprises four phases: growth eminent in different phases of
(exploitation), conservation, collapse, the cycle (Gunderson and
reorganization (RA, 2016). Holling, 2001).
Trasformability The capacity to create a fundamentally new Circular relationship:
system when ecological, economic, or social transformability derives from
structures make the existing system untenable resilience and builds resilience.
(Walker et al. 2004). Turns crises into
windows of opportunity for innovation,
recombining experiences and knowledge from
multiple sources to navigate through socio-
ecological transitions (Folke et al., 2010).

Despite the recent attempts to develop a resilience paradigm and the impressive growth in
the number of publications in the field, it should be noted that there is no consensus on the
definition and adequacy of the resilience concept in the study of natural hazards and disaster
reduction, as some of the skeptics pointed out (Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). A consensus on the
definitions of resilience might not be possible, and MacAskill and Guthrie (2014) underline that it is
even necessary to accept the idea of having several valid interpretations of the concept, which could
facilitate transdisciplinary understanding of resilience in risk management. By questioning the
extent to which the introduction of a new concept can improve the understanding and addressing of
issues such as vulnerability or risk, Alexander (2013) stresses that resilience can be used
successfully as an explanatory concept, as long as its possibilities of modeling and insight are not
overestimated.
At present, the definitions of resilience to natural hazard are slightly nuanced in comparison
with the original meaning of the concept, referring to the ability of the study units to prepare for the
impact with extreme events, to respond, to absorb the impact, to recover or to adapt to actual or
potential adverse events (NRC, 2012). The definitions apply to various study units, ranging from
the individual level (e.g. individuals or structures), to groups (social units, such as households or
social groups) or to systems, such as economic sectors or infrastructure (Cutter et al., 2016). The
scale of analysis varies from local (district, community, city) to regional (e.g. sub-national
administrative units) or national level.
Defining the vulnerability to extreme events by those pre-event characteristics or
circumstances of the system (i.e. exposure and sensitivity) that make it susceptible to the damaging
effects of a hazard (Cutter et al., 2008; ISDR, 2009) provide a necessary clarification on the
relationship between the two concepts (vulnerability and resilience). Thus, the need to assess
resilience to natural hazards is also understood, as a measure of the post-event response capability
of the system.
In the global change literature, resilience is associated with the concepts of sustainability
and vulnerability. It is noteworthy that the concept has been extensively used in the recent years (as
well as in disaster reduction), whilst the ambiguities about its significance are still persistent. If
initially resilience had a rather static significance, i.e. preservation of an initial (prior to
perturbation) or desirable state (Turner et al., 2003), now the concept of resilience to global change
incorporates a dynamic dimension, i.e. transformation through learning and adaptation (IPCC,
2014).

201 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
 In the field of global change, vulnerability and resilience have different but complementary
conceptual frameworks (Fig. 1). Thus, the assessment of vulnerability to global change tends to
highlight those systems or systems’ components that are highly affected by disturbances, while the
resilience assessment focuses on those features of the systems that make them more robust in the
context of a disturbance. Turner (2010) considers both vulnerability and resilience as pillars of
sustainability, highlighting the need to merge the two theoretical frameworks to better understand
the dynamics of human-environmental systems.

Figure 1. Different approaches on the relationship between vulnerability, adaptive capacity and
resilience in the fields of global change and hazard reduction (Cutter et al., 2008)

3 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

Multiple dimensions of resilience must be considered in establishing the assessment criteria

and related indicators. In line with the ecological approach of resilience, Carpenter et al. (2001)
distinguish three aspects of resilience:
a. The amount of change that the system can experience, retaining its control over its
structure and functions;
b. The extent to which the system is capable of self-organization (versus lack of
organization or organization forced by external factors);
c. The extent to which the system can build up its ability to learn and adapt.
Among the approaches focused on resilience to disasters, it is noteworthy the resilience
model developed by Cutter, Burton and Emrich (2010), which includes multiple facets of resilience,
described by 36 variables:
1. Social resilience (with variables focused on: fair access to education, population under
60 y.o., access to transportation networks, access to communication networks, people
with special needs, access to medical services);
2. Economic resilience (e.g. housing ownership, unemployed population, GINI
coefficient, dependence on a particular economic sector);
3. Institutional resilience (e.g. existence of disaster mitigation plans, housing insurance);

202 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
 4. Infrastructural resilience (e.g. housing characteristics, evacuation capacity and access
to evacuation infrastructure, shelters);
5. Community capital, a resilience component focused on the psychological dimension of
resilience (attachment to a certain space, civic involvement, social capital - religiosity,
involvement in civic organizations).
The model has the advantage of using a large number of variables and indicators, that can be
adjusted to other geographical contexts and spatial scales, but it also has the disadvantage of
overlapping a large number of indicators with those commonly used in the vulnerability assessment.
In assessing resilience to global change, USAID (2013) uses a model with three categories
of variables that highlight the adaptation and transformation potential of the systems exposed to
climate change:
1. Sustainable economic well being (e.g. income level and income security, access to food,
asset ownership status, livelihood diversity, gender equality);
2. Governance and institutions (e.g. social capital and support networks, efficiency of
institutions and policies in the field of natural resource management and disaster
management);
3. Health and nutrition status (e.g. health status of the population, indicators of
morbidity).
Recently, the comparative analysis and the synthesis of multiple resilience approaches
emphasize specific dimensions and criteria that allow a better differentiation from vulnerability
assessments. Schipper and Langston (2015) propose a model which aggregates the resilience
variables in three large criteria, which they identified as common to a number of 17 resilience
assessment models from different scientific fields:
1. Learning. The criterion refers to the resilience of social systems. It assumes the ability to
have information and to act on their basis, but also to be aware of the changes occurred in different
sectors (social, economic, ecological, political, cultural). It also refers to the understanding of
strengths and weaknesses, at individual and collective level, and to the knowledge of the response
options and their limits.
2. Options. Awareness does not necessarily imply that the systems has the required
resources to overcome its limitations, so avalability of various options is fundamental in building
resilience.
3. Flexibility. It is an essential dimension of resilience, determined by the ability to
overcome disturbances without the system collapsing. Flexibility also includes the systems’ ability
to recover (without high material costs and in a timely manner) and to self-regulation.

4 CONCLUSIONS

To summarize, despite the multiple approaches of the concept of resilience and its relations
with vulnerability and adaptability, there are some convergent ideas, namely:
a. The transition from the original meaning of the concept (restricted to the capacity of the
systems to maintain unaltered their structure and functions, after a contact with various
perturbations), to a more comprehensive one, which focused learning, adaptation and
transformation;
b. The necessity to corelate the previous parallel frameworks of vulnerability and resilience.
E.g. vulnerability and resilience can be understood as distinct, related properties of a system,
having in common the attributes that define the system’s adaptive capacity.

203 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The current study was conducted in the framework of the project “Vulnerability of the environment
and human settlements to floods in the context of Global Environmental Change (VULMIN)”
(PN‐ II‐ PT‐ PCCA‐ 2011‐ 3.1‐ 1587) funded by the Ministry of National Education for the
period 2012-2016 (http://www.igar-vulmin.ro).

REFERENCES

Alexander, D. E. 2013, Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural
hazards and earth system sciences, 13(11), 2707-2716.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, Folke, C. (edit.) 2003, Navigating social–ecological systems: building
resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., Abel, N. 2001, From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765-781.
Costanza, R., Patten, B. C. 1995, Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological economics,
15(3), 193-196.
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., Webb, J. (2008), A place-based
model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental
change, 18(4), 598-606.
Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., Emrich, C. T. 2010, Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking
baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1), article 51
Cutter, S. L. 2016, The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA. Natural hazards,
80(2), 741-758.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, Rockström, J. 2010, Resilience
thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20.
[online] URL: http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/
Gunderson L, Holling CS, (editors) 2001, Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and
natural systems. Washington (DC): Island Press.
Holling, C. S. 1973, Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and
systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
Hufschmidt, G. 2011, A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts. Natural hazards,
58(2), 621-643.
ISDR 2009, UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland, 35 p.
IPCC 2014, Annex II: Glossary [Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow (edit.)] in: Climate
Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team,
R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (edit.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 117-130.
Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R. J., Thomalla, F. 2003, Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this
concept?. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35-45.
MacAskill, K., Guthrie, P. 2014, Multiple interpretations of resilience in disaster risk management.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 667-674.
National Research Council (NRC) (2012, Disaster resilience: a national imperative. The National
Academies Press, Washington
Reghezza-Zitt, M., Rufat, S., Djament-Tran, G., Le Blanc, A., Lhomme, S. 2012, What resilience is
not: uses and abuses. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography,
http://cybergeo.revues.org/25554, accessed on 30.11.2016
Schipper, E. L. F., Langston, L. 2015, A comparative overview of resilience measurement
frameworks: analysing indicators and approaches. Overseas Development Institute—Working
Paper, 422.

204 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley,
N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., Schiller, A. 2003, A
framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the national
academy of sciences 100(14):8074–8079.
Turner, B. L. 2010, Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for
sustainability science? Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 570-576.
Resilience Alliance 2016, Adaptive cycle, https://www.resalliance.org/adaptive-cycle, accessed on
30.11.2016
USAID 2013, The Resilience Agenda: Measuring Resilience in USAID,
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/Technical%20Note_Measuring%20Re
silience%20in%20USAID_June%202013.pdf, accessed on 30.11.2016
Walker, B.H, Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A. 2004, Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5, http://w
ww.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5, accessed on 30.11.2016

205 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/14/18 9:57 AM