Mendis - Building Community Capacity

BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO ADAPT TO
CLIMATE CHANGE IN RESOURCE-BASED COMMUNITIES
Sharmalene Mendis1, Suzanne Mills1 and Jennifer Yantz2
Prepared for the Prince Albert Model Forest
August 2003
Correspondence:
1
Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan
2
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Tim Williamson and John Parkins of the Canadian
Forest Service who provided support and direction on the multi-faceted socio-economic aspects
of climate change in resource-based communities, and to the Prince Albert Model Forest
Association for providing reference materials for this report. In addition, we appreciate the
funding received from the Climate Change Action Fund. Finally, we acknowledge the assistance
of Dr. Maureen Reed of the Department of Geography University of Saskatchewan in the
planning and editing stages of writing this report.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS__________________________________________________
Acknowledgements i
Table of Contents ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
Executive Summary v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Elements of climate change research 2
1.2 Issues facing resource-based communities 4
1.3 Climate change research experiences in resource-based
communities 6
2.0 FOREST-BASED COMMUNITY ASSESSEMENTS:

BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTS 12
2.1 A glance at the past: previous assessment approaches 13
2.1.1 Community stability 14
2.1.2 Community well-being 14
2.2 Community capacity 16
3.0 SOCIAL CONCEPTS IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 24

3.1 Vulnerability and Resilience 24
3.1.1 Vulnerability 24
3.1.2 Resilience 26
3.1.3 Special considerations for forest-based communities 27
3.2 Adaptive capacity 28
3.2.1 Definition and determining factors 28
3.2.2 Reconciling community capacity and adaptive capacity 29
3.3 Relationship of vulnerability and resilience to adaptive capacity 30
3.4 Key factors of the capacity to adapt to climate change 34
3.4.1 Economic capital 34
3.4.1.1 Economic wealth and diversity 34
3.4.1.2 Infrastructure 35
3.4.1.3 Technology 36
3.4.2 Human capital 36
3.4.2.1 Information, skills and education 36
3.4.2.2 Health 37
3.4.3 Social capital 38
3.4.4 Equity 39
ii
3.5 Management and decision making 41
3.5.1 Adaptive management 41
3.5.2 Community participation 41
3.5.3 Preparedness 42
3.6 Concluding comments 43
4.0 APPLYING COMMUNITY ASSESSMENTS IN FOREST-BASED

COMMUNITIES 45
4.1 Methodological issues 46
4.1.1 Scale: community-level research 46
4.1.2 Quantitative and qualitative methods: towards a mixed-
methods strategy 47
4.1.3 Social indicators 49
4.1.3.1 Definition and use of social indicators 49
4.1.3.2 Selecting and employing social indicators 50
4.2 Examples of assessments 53
4.2.1 Well-being 53
4.2.2 Community capacity 55
4.2.3 Vulnerability and resilience 57
4.2.3.1 Vulnerability 57
4.2.3.2 Resilience 58
4.2.4 Adaptive capacity 60
4.3 Study community characteristics 60
4.4 Adaptive capacity: proposed measures and assessment strategies 62
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 65
5.1 Assessment strategy 65
5.2 Conducting an adaptive capacity assessment 65
5.3 Defining the context 69
5.4 Exercise for an adaptive capacity assessment 69
5.5 Developing and selecting indicators 71
5.6 Further issues for consideration 72
5.6.1 Examining linkages 72
5.6.2 Linkages across scales 75
5.6.3 Future research needs 75
5.7 Conclusion 76
REFERENCES 77
Endnotes 89
iii
LIST OF FIGURES_______________________________________________________
Figure 1: Socio-Economic-Biophysical Linkages 5

Figure 2: Conceptual framework of community capacity 19
Figure 3: A model of community capacity 21
Figure 4: Community capacity: a synthesis of conceptual frameworks 23
Figure 5: Relationships between key concepts in social climate change research 31
Figure 6: The relationship of vulnerability and resilience, to adaptive capacity 31
Figure 7: Reconciliation of community capacity and adaptive capacity 44
Figure 8: Climate change adaptation cycle 70
Figure 9: Suggested exercise for adaptive capacity assessment 74
LIST OF TABLES___________________________________________________________
Table 1: Climate change research case studies 10

Table 2: Concepts and their determining factors 32
Table 3: The dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative methods 48
Table 4: Concepts and assessment approaches 54
Table 5: Social Indicators of Adaptive Capacity 63
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“What we measure reflects what we subsequently do” (Flora 1999: 401).
Climate change is an issue of growing importance to people because its effects pose a threat to
how we live our lives. Forecasts estimate that global temperatures will rise between 1.5 and 4.5
degrees Celsius over the next century, with the rate and extent of change being greater in more
northern regions (IPCC 1998; Nelson & Serafin 1996). Increasing knowledge and awareness of
the potential implications of climate change may enable us to better prepare for changes that our
future generations will face. Since the earth’s biophysical components are so dependent on
climatic variables for their survival, they will be the first to exhibit the implications of climate
change. The issue of climate change is particularly pertinent to resource-dependent communities
because they are more susceptible to the impacts of biophysical changes.
Forest-based communities are considered to be among the most susceptible to changes in climate
because the forestry sector is dependent on climate-controlled biological processes and both
biological and social systems take decades to adjust. So what can communities do to prepare for
future effects and impacts of climate change? This paper addresses this question for the study
communities of Montreal Lake First Nation, Prince Albert and Candle Lake, by providing a
guide to assess their ability to adapt to climate change using indicator sets defined by the socio-
economic environment of resource-based communities.
An overview of past climate change research in the context of Canadian resource-based

communities is highlighted. Major issues experienced by these communities that have
implications for adapting to climate change include the sustainable use of resources, losses in
social services and infrastructure, and demographic restructuring. Past climate change research
has relied on instrumental, documentary and proxy data to establish historical records of change
and predict future climate-related implications. The importance of integrating data types is
illustrated, and it is noted that linking biophysical and socio-economic assessments of climate
change is critical to developing effective adaptation strategies.
v
A paradigm shift occurred in resource management during the 1980s towards adaptive
management strategies that redefined our role in the environment as members of the ecosystem
rather than members of a separate system. Uncertainty was accepted as part of the learning
process, and management goals were refocused towards balancing social, economic and
ecological factors for the long-term health of ecosystems. Changing environmental values over
the past few decades prompted a proliferation of work on sustainable communities that was
reinvigorated by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit’s focus on sustainability. As a result, assessing a
community’s progress towards sustainability and increasing well-being were and continue to be
developed.
Assessing communities in terms of community stability and well-being are illustrated to highlight
methods, strengths and shortcomings of previous community assessments in forest-based
communities. The overall well-being of a community is inherently linked to the community’s
capacity. Traditionally, statistical social and economic indicators have been used to assess a
community with the assumption that social well-being is closely linked to economic well-being.
Greater understandings of the complex relationships that exist between society and the
environment have prompted new assessment approaches, such as community capacity, that take
human values and other non-quantifiable aspects into account.
Community capacity is defined as the collective ability of community members to: respond to
external and internal stresses; create and take advantage of opportunities; and meet the diverse
needs of members. It is the mobilization of ecological, economic/built, human and social
capitals for a particular purpose. Assessing community capacity is an attempt to determine the
collective ability to work towards a common goal, which in the context of climate change is the
ability to adapt to real and potential impacts. The goal is to reduce a community’s vulnerability
while increasing its resilience to climate change effects. In this context, vulnerability is the
susceptibility of a community to detriment as a result of climate change, while resilience is the
amount of change a community can handle. Communities can increase their resilience to the
adverse impacts of, as well as take advantage of opportunities that may result from, climate
change by preparing for the future in a locally meaningful and policy-relevant way.
vi
Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability to cope with and adapt specifically to climate change.
We present a framework of adaptive capacity using capitals, with the determining factors as:
economic wealth and diversity, infrastructure, and technology (economic/built capital);
information, skills, education, health (human capital); and culture, community cooperation,
institutions and institutional linkages, and equity (social capital). To build adaptive capacity,
determining factors are mobilized within management strategies that call for civic participation,
with the goal to prepare for future climate change implications. The availability of and access to
resources related to the determining factors is key to shaping a community’s adaptive capacity.
Ideally, policy and associated assessments should be directed to increase overall well-being and
community capacity to deal with a multitude of stresses and changes, including climate change.
However, a community can focus on assessing and building its adaptive capacity to aid the
development of planned adaptations in anticipation of climate change impacts. This would be
a precautionary and efficient strategy compared with solely relying on the alternative
autonomous or reactive adaptations that would be made in response to change.
Carrying out assessments at regular intervals over time would help monitor a community’s
progress of preparation and adaptation ability. In addition, the capacity-building aspect of
conducting an assessment improves the community’s ability to monitor long-term trends and
changes. To clearly delineate assessment boundaries, a geographical, as opposed to interest-
based, definition of ‘community’ is advised. Different assessment applications are discussed,
along with methodological issues of scale, the benefits of combining both quantitative and
qualitative methods in a mixed-methods strategy for assessments, and the use of social indicators.
Social indicators are an integrated set of social, economic and ecological statistics reflecting a
broad range of social concerns that are collected over time to inform policy and decision-making.
They are useful in systematically comparing social aspects across space and time and can be
effective in communicating information to the general public. The data generated is quantitative,
useful in describing a community’s status at a given time but not in explaining why changes
occur over time. Objective indicators refer to those drawn from secondary sources such as
Statistics Canada data, while subjective indicators use self-assessments through surveys or
vii
structured interviews. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type. Criteria for
selecting indicators include the following requirements; they should be representative, reliable,
feasible (readily obtainable), relevant, understandable and useable. Examples of social indicators
are given of community capacity, resiliency, and vulnerability. As well, possible indicators of
each determining factor of adaptive capacity are listed.
A proposed process for conducting adaptive capacity assessments is outlined in four phases:
developing the research strategy; developing a community-based set of indicators; data
collection and analysis; and dissemination of results and policy incorporation. We suggest that
the initial step be to identify and communicate with contacts in the community, followed by the
completion of background research to compile a list of potential effects and associated impacts
of climate change specific to the community along with possible community-level indicators
applicable to adaptive capacity. Public meetings should follow to accomplish several purposes,
including proposing and gaining approval for the assessments from the community, and
identifying potential stakeholders to participate in a series of focus groups to develop a set of
indicators of local adaptive capacity. As well, developing a shared understanding of what
adaptive capacity is specific to the community would be imperative, since the definition will
affect what is subsequently measured as well as the purpose of such assessments.
Interviews could be conducted to gather local observations of climate change. A set of indicators
would then be selected in focus group sessions according to issues of concern in the community
pertaining to climate change, which would aid in developing planned adaptations. Indicators
should be culturally and geographically appropriate. Public meetings and external expert
reviews would be used to verify the indicators; subjective indicators should be field-tested before
use. After the data is collected and analyzed, the results of the assessment should be presented in
formats as requested by the community. To translate research results into informed policy, the
adaptive capacity assessments should be incorporated into decision-making processes aimed at
addressing climate change issues. An exercise is suggested to help assess the ability of a
community to carry out planned adaptations associated with specific climate change impacts.
Through the process outlined in this paper, planned adaptations may be developed and refined.
viii
Involving community members throughout an assessment requires consistent individual and time
commitments, yet the approach can of great advantage and is recommended. Coordination
between communities is required if a regional assessment is desired. Several purposes are served
by assessing adaptive capacity as proposed here that takes a community-based approach and
employs multiple methods. This strategy helps address issues that are of concern to the
community, making the research process meaningful to residents while encouraging them to take
responsibility for preparing for climate change by developing adaptations. As well, not only can
gaps in need of attention be identified, but also the data collected from such an assessment
generates baseline data useful for monitoring changes and uncovers varying perspectives to build
a more comprehensive understanding of the status of and influences on a community’s adaptive
capacity. Finally, community involvement throughout the research process can increase shared
knowledge and learning, building both human and social capital and, in turn, not only assess but
also strengthen a community’s adaptive capacity.
Human and biophysical systems are inextricably linked. Biophysical systems will experience
autonomous adaptations in response to changes in climate, which will in turn affect human
systems that will adapt to the changes through both autonomous and planned adaptations. In the
face of uncertainty, adaptive capacity assessments can aid in understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of a community’s ability to adapt to climate change. But these assessments must be
conducted with deliberation, for the results of the assessments will directly affect decisions made
and actions taken.
ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 1992 Rio Earth Summit spurred a drive towards creating sustainable communities that
reflected changing environmental values and increased ecological knowledge (Robinson et al.
1997; Shindler et al. 1993). As there has been a keen interest in the sustainability of forest-based
communities, the question of how management practices affect sustainability has been a focus of
research, prompting a shift towards achieving sustainable forest management. In an effort to
assess progress towards this goal, community assessments are being developed. These
assessments can be applied to communities facing impacts of climate change.
Climate change forecasts estimate that global temperatures will rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees
Celsius over the next century, and that the rate and extent of change will be greater in more
northern regions (IPCC 1998; Nelson & Serafin 1996). Rising temperatures will likely have
profound impacts on biophysical and social systems. It is important to understand the changes
that are and will be taking place as well as to identify the thresholds of human and ecological
systems to adapt to those changes (Smit 1993). Communities can examine how impacts of
biophysical changes will affect social systems and explore their ability to adapt to climate change
by acknowledging and documenting local expertise, building climate histories, forming research
hypotheses, developing adaptation strategies, and establishing community based monitoring of
weather and weather-related impacts (Riedlinger & Berkes 2001). By identifying indicators and
measurements of community capacity to adapt to climate change, communities and government
leaders will be able to develop strategies to cope with and adapt to climate change.
The objectives of this paper are to:

• Discuss the social significance of climate-related impacts in resource-based communities;
• Discuss the concepts of well-being, community capacity, vulnerability, resilience, and
adaptive capacity, and how they apply to climate change;
• Identify social indicators and measurement criteria of adaptive capacity, community capacity,
resiliency, and vulnerability;
• Provide recommendations for how to conduct adaptive capacity assessments, with specific
reference to Montreal Lake First Nation, Candle Lake and Prince Albert.
1
This paper aims to provide direction for the resource-based communities of Montreal Lake First
Nation, Prince Albert and Candle Lake in the Prince Albert Model Forest (PAMF) to assess their
ability to adapt to climate change. Section 1.0 briefly reviews climate change research
experiences in other resource-based communities. An overview of a few previous approaches to
assessing forest-based communities is provided before presenting a conceptual framework of
community capacity in section 2.0. Section 3.0 discusses social concepts that have been
developed in the context of climate change. Methods used to carry out community assessments
of these concepts are given in section 4.0 along with examples of indicators of adaptive capacity.
Finally, a guide to assessing a community’s ability to adapt to climate change is suggested in
section 5.0 along with issues for consideration.
1.1 Elements of climate change research
There are two main streams of climate change research: a) establishing a historical record of
change, and b) predicting future changes. Both allow human societies to better understand the
nature and distribution of climate change effects and to build adaptive strategies to deal with
change.
Establishing historical records of change involves three data sources: instrumental, documentary
and proxy data. Instrumental data include meteorological data gathered through weather stations
and written records gathered where weather stations do not exist. This type of data includes
temperature, wind directions and speed, cloud cover, precipitation and extreme weather.
Documentary data include information gathered through historical archives, oral histories and
other historical text about the timing, intensity, and duration of weather events such as fog,
storms, clear weather, and extreme weather. Proxy data include reconstructions of climate
history through ice core samples, lake sediment records, observations related to ice freeze-up and
thaw, snow cover, wildlife migration seasons, abundance or scarcity of wildlife, forest harvest
and condition, impacts of weather events on human activities and health, and archeological
evidence correlated with human occupancy (Riedlinger & Berkes 2001; Wilson 1982).
Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 2

The standard models used to predict future changes in climate are scenario-based global
circulation models (GCMs). Scenario-based studies develop possible future scenarios using
historical records of quantitative data and projecting future scenarios based on patterns and
trends. The use of GCMs have provided a foundation for biophysical analysis of human impacts
in forestry and agriculture, particularly in estimating expected changes in yield, forest fire
occurrence, and pests and disease impacts (Smit 1993). However, using GCMs reduces the
potential for analysis of variability and focuses on temperature (Smit 1993). This does not give
socio-economic systems adequate representation. Building on GCMs through qualitative
inference, and adding econometric models, economic input-output models, and cost-benefit
analysis assists in integrating biophysical systems with socio-economic systems (Smit 1993) to
generate more realistic future scenarios. Building in qualitative inferences to future predictions
and historical records reduces risk involved in developing and implementing adaptive strategies
and government policies by addressing the net effect of climate-related stress and bridging the
gap between biophysical and socio-economic impacts and adaptations (Cohen 1995).
The phenomenon of climate change is happening on a global scale while its affects are
experienced by people as changes in local weather patterns and events. The integration of socio-
economic assessments with biophysical assessments links daily weather conditions to human
societies and how climate affects the land and resource base on a larger scale. While biophysical
assessments are necessary to understand the implications of changing weather conditions, it is
also necessary to assess how human populations have adapted in the past and present to develop
strategies for the future. Assessing future changes to build adaptive strategies requires a
comprehensive review of the interactions between climate and society (IPCC 1995). Such a
treatment is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) as an integrated
assessment, where computer-based models and joint scientist - stakeholder assessments combine
the biophysical and socio-economic aspects of community and regional/watershed-based
assessments (Cohen 1995).

1.2 Issues facing resource-based communities
The dependency of resource-based communities on natural resources for their livelihood

increases their susceptibility to biophysical changes resulting from climate change. Thus,
linkages between biophysical and socio-economic impacts of climate change may be stronger in
these communities. Further, resource-based communities may be facing economic stresses from
broad scale restructuring or social stresses arising from income inequity.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) identifies five issues facing
resource-based communities: sustainable use and management of resources, shared
responsibilities and understanding between communities and other stakeholders, public
participation in land use and resource management, integrated decision-making and planning,
and innovation in defining community values of land use and resource management (Parry
2000). Community involvement in managing resources is a priority issue and is resultant from
the socio-economic concerns of resource-based communities. Economic development, education
and training, wage economy options and conditions, subsistence harvesting rights and practices,
trapper and outfitter compensation, recreation and tourism, roads and infrastructure, economic
diversity, community leadership and effectiveness of community government, resource
dependence, and community services are all attributes of community well-being. In addition to
issues of community participation and involvement in resource management, biophysical
characteristics of the environment such as wildlife habitat availability and wildlife populations,
environmental hazards caused by human developments, pollutants leaching into soils and
waterbodies, precipitation levels, growing degree days, and air quality all affect forestry harvest
yields, ecosystem health and community well-being. Community well-being is directly affected
by, and in some cases reliant on, the well-being of the biophysical environment and resource
sectors such as forestry, mining and agriculture. As depicted in Figure 1, biophysical, social and
economic systems are interrelated.
Changes in local weather conditions may bring with them social implications related to
employment availability, subsistence harvesting practices, nature-based tourism and recreation
(Armstrong 1994; Cohen 1995; Smit 1993). For example, two implications of climate change in

the boreal forest region include longer growing seasons and decreased moisture conditions.
Increased forest yields resulting from longer growing seasons will provide potential for
economic growth in the forestry sector. Reduced moisture conditions increase the possibility of
forest fires thereby endangering the economic potential of harvest areas and increasing fire
fighting costs. Thus, the socio-economic impacts of climate change in forest-based communities
are indirect impacts and their uncertainty is tied to the uncertainty of biophysical changes.
Canadian resource-based communities in particular have been and are presently grappling with
issues that threaten their way of life and livelihood. Demographic restructuring, globalization,
low commodity prices, changing or loss of job opportunities, political disaffection, technological
changes, and losses in social services and infrastructure, are just some examples (Beckley et al.
2002c; Flora 1999). In the past few decades, the recognition that forest-based communities face
such stresses was followed by the need for research and community assessments to integrate
social and economic aspects of forest dependency, not just evaluations of sustainable yields of
timber, to inform policy and decisions (Nadeau 2002). Some assessment approaches to address
this need are outlined in this paper.
Ecosystem
Health
Community Sustainable
Well-Being Resource
Economies
Figure 1: Socio-Economic-Biophysical Linkages

1.3 Climate Change Research Experiences in Resource-based Communities
The rate and extent of climate-related changes are compounded by issues facing resource-based
communities (Kassi 1992; Riedlinger & Berkes 2001). From scenario-based modelling to
documenting peoples perspectives, there is a wide range of approaches to conducting community
assessments of how people adapt to changes in weather. A case study review is presented in
Table 1 that highlights examples of biophysical, integrated and community assessments of
change. Selected case studies are discussed further in this section. The case study review is not
comprehensive, rather it provides an overview of the wealth of possibilities available to address
community needs and develop adaptive strategies. The strength of some case studies lies in the
fact that data was retrieved from a variety of sources. A distinctive challenge apparent in the
case studies presented in Table 1 is the lack of community involvement in conducting
assessments. Except where the involvement of resource-based communities is the primary
objective of the study, a divide is evident between qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Combining these two assessment approaches would help to build, transmit and share knowledge.
The relationship between resources and resource users provides an observational standpoint
unparalleled in computer-generated scenarios or models. Indeed, the dynamic nature of both
traditional ecological knowledge and naturalized knowledge provides a baseline for changes
which deviate from 'normal' conditions (Riedlinger & Berkes 2001). Here, we make a distinction
between Aboriginal traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which is cumulative knowledge
passed on through generations about the land and peoples relationships to the land (Berkes et al.
2001); and naturalized knowledge, which is held by any person with an interest in the land that
requires them to have a detailed knowledge about the land, regardless of cultural background
(Naturalized Knowledge Workshop Group 1999). The integration of different forms of
knowledge to assess climate-related implications demonstrates complementarity and provides a
means of 'ground-truthing' different research methods in climate change research.
For example, Elders sharing traditional ecological knowledge in Sachs Harbour described how
there has always been change in the timing of seasons, ice freeze-up and break-up, and wildlife
migrations, but that there has been a difference in recent years where the weather is not the same

as it used to be. They observe that the changes experienced today exceed the expected range of
variability, making weather difficult to predict (Riedlinger & Berkes 2001). In contrast,
naturalized knowledge can be exemplified in biophysical research conducted using western
scientific instrumentation. The specialization of western scientists in a scientific framework
demonstrates their interest as defined by their profession, such as a biologist with an interest in
wildlife. Changes related to climate are revealed in research conducted on the Porcupine caribou
herd (Russell 1992), which identifies herd sensitivity to snow cover, timing of ice melt for spring
calving, food availability, and changes in insect populations as negative impacts that changes in
weather have on the caribou herd.
The Hudson Bay Bioregion Project gathered Inuit and Cree knowledge through twenty-eight
community assessments of regional environmental changes from six regions. Assessments of
more northerly communities indicated that the weather was becoming less predictable, and there
was a general cooling trend of year-round temperatures, later snow melt, less rainfall, fewer
thunderstorms, faster sea-ice freeze-up, poor quality sea-ice, weakening sea currents, decreased
inland water levels and river flow, and changing fish and wildlife populations. More southern
communities described warmer winters, earlier and faster snow melts, colder spring
temperatures, several wind shifts a day during spring, increased erosion and mudslides,
decreased inland water levels, less spawning habitat, and a decrease in fish and wildlife habitat.
It is also interesting to note that peoples of all regions participating in the project reported a
change in the sky color within their lifespan, while two regions described haze in the sky that
blocked the sun's heat as an observation within their lifetime (McDonald et al. 1997). Changes
noted by communities who participated in the regional assessment are especially significant
considering they are resource-based communities which depend on a subsistence lifestyle to
maintain individual and community well-being. One example of complementarity in the Hudson
Bay bioregion relates to the population of common eiders (a species of duck). Sanikiluaq
hunters observed changes in sea ice, currents and winterkill of common eiders which was
corroborated in biological studies of Robertson and Gilchrist (1998) related to eider winterkill
(Berkes et al. 2001).

Traditional ecological knowledge from Old Crow, Yukon Territory presented implications of
climate-related changes that include warmer year-round temperatures, less snow, earlier snow
melt, flooding, depleting wetlands, and changes in wildlife habitat. In presenting a Gwich’in
perspective, Kassi (1993) described the flood of 1992 in Old Crow where the community had to
be evacuated because the snow melted too early in the spring causing the community to flood.
Not only were people affected, but over the years wildlife have also to moved to safer habitats.
Cumulative observations from Old Crow mirror results from the modelling and scenario-based
approaches of the MacKenzie Basin Impact Study (1995), which delivered a regional
assessment of climate-related impacts on a large spatial scale. The assessment identifies
projected impacts such as "…longer growing seasons, greater productivity for forestry, longer
ice-free season, reduced energy demand, longer tourist season, reduced cold weather stress on
infrastructure, increased erosion due to permafrost thaw, increased frequency and severity of
forest fires, extension of pest ranges, altered use of the land for subsistence hunting and trapping,
changes in the modes of winter transportation, and changes in composition and structure of fish
and wildlife habitats" (Cohen 1995: Study Perspective). The identification of these impacts is
particularly significant to climate sensitive transition zones such as discontinuous permafrost,
tree line, northern limit of agriculture and commercial forestry, and wildlife migration routes
(Cohen 1994).
The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin Project is a regional assessment involving stakeholder
consultation. Four themes define climate change and variability impacts within the study:
human health, ecosystem health, land use and management, and water use and management. The
project was designed "to better understand the complex interactions between climate and society,
so that informed regional adaptation strategies can be developed in response to potential climate
change and variability" (Mortsch & Quinn 1998: 52). Projected impacts in the human health
theme projects include more high temperature days in the summer, which will increase heat-
related morbidity. Ecosystem health will be impacted by phosphorous loading capabilities in
some regions, higher water temperatures, increased water levels, and depleting wetlands. The
impacts on agriculture include decreased yields due to earlier crop maturation and moisture
stress. The study concludes that, given gradual changes, impacts depend on a farmer's

naturalized knowledge as input to decision-making and adaptive management strategies.
Finally, with an anticipated decrease in water levels throughout the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence
region, harbours and shipping channels may need to be dredged, less snow and more rain
increase winter flooding potential, drinking water supplies will become more uncertain, and
institutions involved in water management will be challenged with more conflict between water
users (Mortsch & Quinn 1998). The integrated approach of this study attempted to draw together
stakeholders and used a variety of approaches in documenting climate change impacts and the
socio-economic concerns of climate change on community well-being.
These case studies highlight a few approaches to climate change research: community
assessments, traditional ecological knowledge research, regional assessments through scenario-
based modelling, and stakeholder consultation. Linking biophysical and socio-economic
assessment approaches is critical to effectively build adaptation strategies. How can we assess a
community’s ability to adapt to change? What is needed for communities to adapt specifically to
climate change? The next two sections address these questions.

Table 1: Climate change research case studies
Project Objectives Methods Accomplishments Challenges References
Hudson's Bay -Directive delivered -Instrumental data, -Recognition of possible uses -Study not completed due to Wilson 1982
Company in 1814 to record documentary and proxy of climatic information improvement of social, economic
Directive climatic information observations and political environment in the UK
concerning the food -Directive cancelled with 1821
producing potential amalgamation with NorthWest
of their local Trading Company
environment.
Sample Study -To calibrate -Uses historical instrumental -Provides insight to the -Difficult to check the uniformity of Wilson 1982
of Small- instrumental data for data to set confidence limits history of meteorological statistical treatment methods used at
Scale 1814 - 1821 -Uses instrumental, thought and the calibration of the time instrumental data was
Historical -To construct a documentary, and proxy data to historical instrumental data taken
Climatology climatology for the describe climate characteristics, -Provides a benchmark for a -Micro-climate effects of weather
east coast of impacts on HBC communities time period where climatic station location affects instrumental
Hudson's Bay during and company policies data is discontinuous data
that time period -Using non-instrumental and -Extensive archival research
-To interpret a proxy data to describe seasonal required to obtain documentary and
climatic time series weather characteristics and proxy data and to interpret social
establish a climatic benchmark settings of climate observations
for the century
Nanisivik -To determine how -Using global circulation -Study concludes that climate -Paleo analogues would decrease Etkin 1999
Mines Study climate change models warming no significant to uncertainty of the long time frame,
affects a permafrost affect reliability of however it is difficult to obtain the
dyke containing mine permafrost dyke detail of paleo data required
tailings
MacKenzie -To produce an -Using input-output modelling, -Identification of impacts -MBIS does not include Cohen 1995
Basin Impact integrated regional land assessment, review of including permafrost, water technological and institutional Cohen 1994
Study assessment of climate water policy instruments and supply, Peace River ice change scenarios
change for the entire their adaptive capability, cover, agricultural soil -Maintaining links between
Mackenzie Basin settlement patterns and their capability, Pine weevil researchers and stakeholders
watershed adaptive capability to landscape hazard, increased fire difficult due to long-term nature of
change weather index, shifting research
-Uses population and economic peatlands, tourism impacts, -Substantial data requirements
growth scenarios significance of landscape necessary for input-output
-Conducted public impacts on community modelling and land assessments
consultations to direct the -Identification of research
project gaps
10
Project Objectives Methods Accomplishments Challenges References
Great Lakes - -To better understand -Climate, hydrologic, and -Introduced the concept of - Need to Include stakeholders Mortsch &
St. Lawrence the complex socio-economic scenario adaptation into climate impacts in the design and research to Quinn 1998
Basin Project interactions between development research in the project area increases knowledge exchange
climate and society, so -Background research to -Provided Quantitative and -Need to ‘ground truth’
that informed regional develop an information base, qualitative climate impact climate scenarios with a
adaptation strategies identify knowledge gaps and assessment information provided historical record of change
can be developed in identify climate-sensitive input to policy-making and - Important to communicate
response to potential issues through consultative decision-making processes assessment strategies
climate change and workshops -Directed research towards Great -Assessment of economic
variability -Adaptation research on Lakes Water Quality Agreement activity should use economic
applications and assessment and other policy targets input-output models rather
methodology -Developed comprehensive than wealth or well-being
research design and models assessments
Pacific -To evaluate the -Using semi-structured -Formulated research questions -Climate change not pressing Jones et al.
Northwest usefulness of climate interviews to quantify links between salmon issue for populations 1999
Salmon change research for -Using an integrated habitat and climate change threatened by overuse
Management pending policy assessment model of how -Examines the integration of -Incompatibility of climate
Study decisions related to salmon are affected by climate change research with change research with policy-
salmon management environmental conditions policy-making processes based making processes
on relevance, compatibility, and
research accessibility
Sachs -To document -Planning workshops -Describes increasing -Traditional knowledge does Riedlinger
Harbour Inuvialuit traditional -Map biographies and semi- unpredictability of weather not necessarily fit with all 2001
knowledge about directive interviews -Identifies the dynamic scientific models or research Riedlinger &
changes in weather in -Historical research relationship between northern frameworks due to differences Berkes 2001
the western Arctic -Photographs communities and ecosystems in world views
Wrigley, -Using scenarios -Determines that climate change Cohen 1995
NWT Project would increase oil and gas
development, producing some
economic benefits
Hudson Bay -To document -Using interviews to document -Climate change viewed as a -More research needed on Berkes et al
Bioregion traditional knowledge traditional ecological regional environmental impact traditional values for land and 2001
Project of Inuit and Cree in knowledge -Resulted in 8 technical papers resource management Cohen et al
the Hudson Bay -Setup a digital text and map -First time Cree and Inuit came -Need to share project results 1994
Bioregion database for future use together to record cultural with young people McDonald et
knowledge - Working with 8 dialects and al 1997
-Participants decided storage and 3 languages
handling conditions and use of -Intellectual property rights
original data may impede participation
11
2.0 FOREST-BASED COMMUNITY ASSESSEMENTS: BACKGROUND AND
CONCEPTS
The need for community assessments to help discern the socio-economic impacts of climate
change has been established. Traditionally, economic indicators have been used to assess
communities. More recently, researchers have pointed to the broader relationship that exists
between humans and forests, one that extends beyond simple economic dependency (Nadeau
2002). Now it is understood that a complete community assessment must consider economic,
social and environmental factors. Drawing from natural resource management literature, this
section provides a background of community-based assessment approaches.
The issue of pending climate change with its multiple uncertainties and uneven impacts on both
natural and social systems threaten to exacerbate problems already faced by forest-based
communities. Forest-based communities are considered to be among the most susceptible
sectors to changes in climate for two main reasons: the biological processes that determine
ecological distribution, composition and production are climate-controlled; and the time scale
required for both biological and socio-economic systems to adjust to changes in climate is in the
order of decades (IPCC 2001). Smaller communities that rely on limited resources for their
economic base are more susceptible, with less capacity to adapt, to change than larger centers
(Cross 2001; FEMAT 1993; Harris et al. 1998).
Environmental changes resulting from climate change present new and unknown risks for forest-
based communities already stressed from fluctuating commodity prices and natural
environmental variation. Thus, there is an urgent need to understand how people will be affected
by both non-climatic and climate-related changes to their environment, and the ability of a
community to adapt to the compounded effect of these changes. Research that addresses these
issues must be integrated, interdisciplinary, and inclusive of both ecological and socio-economic
factors (IPCC 2001).
Adaptive management strategies, such as ecosystem-based and community-based management,

also signal a need to account for environmental and social factors to effectively manage

resources for present and future generations (Gunter & Jodway 2000; Slocombe 1998). These
approaches reflect a paradigm shift in natural resource management, wherein the goal to
maintain long-term ecosystem health and integrity by balancing social, economic, and ecological
considerations has replaced anthropogenic resource management (Cortner & Moote 1999). As
such, there has been a growing interest and accompanying literature that is concerned with
assessing the ability of rural communities to manage their resources, meet their needs, and
respond to changes by implementing such management regimes.
This interest has led to various conceptual frameworks and assessment approaches that have
been applied for different purposes in different contexts. These developments are useful in
informing the climate change literature. In particular, the recent concept of community capacity
provides key insights into what constitutes and how to assess adaptive capacity, the ability to
adapt specifically to climate change.
The intent of this section is to ascertain what can be learned from previous approaches to
community assessments to inform understandings of a community’s ability to adapt to climate
change. First, a cursory overview is provided of two evolving concepts that illustrate
developments in understanding interrelationships between forests, residents and resource policies
in North American forest-based communities: community stability and well-being. A more
developed discussion is given of a third and emergent concept, community capacity, and several
conceptual frameworks are presented. The discussion of community capacity provides a context
and framework for a more holistic understanding of concepts related to the social elements of
climate change: vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
2.1 A glance at the past: previous assessment approaches
Community stability and community well-being are two conceptual frameworks for assessing
communities. Community capacity is built on these concepts and addresses their shortcomings.

2.1.1 Community stability
Determining community stability was the first attempt at conducting community assessments
that explicitly recognized the relationship between forests and human communities (Drielsma
1984; Humphrey 1990; Machlis et al. 1990). It has been approached in different ways but is
usually measured with economic indicators on the assumption that economic and social well-
being are closely linked (Beckley 1995; Daniels et al. 1991). The concept has mainly been
associated with the belief that a sustained yield of timber production is an effective means of
achieving and maintaining the stability of forest communities; in other words, sustained
production ensures employment opportunities that lead to community security and stability
(Nadeau et al. 1999). There are several criticisms to this approach. Diverse factors such as
cyclical changes in demand for forest products, changes in technology, population fluctuation,
and employment patterns also affect community stability (Bowles 1992; Freudenburg 1992;
Kromm 1972; Waggener 1977). The main limitation of how community stability has been
approached is the lack of recognition that the impacts of forestry on people involve more than
economic stability (Nadeau 2002). As Beckley (1995) notes, if the “desired end is healthy,
prosperous, interesting and vital communities” then “stability, in and of itself, is not a
meaningful or sufficient end” (265).
2.1.2 Community well-being
The quest for sustainability of human and ecological life has led to different assessment
approaches of well-being of both human and natural systems. Human well-being has been
defined as “a condition in which all members of society are able to determine and meet their
needs while having a large range of choices to meet their potential” (Prescott-Allen 2001: 5).
Ecosystem well-being has been defined as “a condition in which the ecosystem maintains its
diversity and quality - and thus its capacity to support people and the rest of life - its potential to
adapt to change and provide a wide range of choices and opportunities for the future (Prescott-
Allen 2001: 5).

Community well-being is a complex concept that, according to Wilkinson (1991), takes the
social, cultural and psychological needs of people, their families, communities, and institutions
into consideration (Nadeau et al. 1999). It addresses what is lacking in the previous approach as
in taking various community aspects into account, such as quality of life and social structures
(Bliss et al. 1998; Marchak 1990). Well-being, along with resilience and community capacity,
are replacing the term community stability (Nadeau et al. 1999). Well-being is also considered
“the most far-reaching concept” (Nadeau 2002: 25) as it concerns not only the aforementioned
factors but also the capacity to adapt to changes, or community capacity. Doak & Kusel (1996)
support the idea that community capacity and socio-economic status represent different
dimensions of well-being. Because of this, an analysis of the well-being of a community is
“likely to lead to a more comprehensive description of a community than an analysis based
solely on community capacity” (Nadeau 2002: 25).
However, there are drawbacks to this community assessment framework. Well-being has been
approached and applied in so many different ways that the concept has become muddled.
Further, some approaches rely on social and economic indicators to address issues of poverty or
economic development, such as Kirshner Cook (1995) and Overdevest & Green (1995).
Individual well-being does not necessarily translate into well-being of the community, yet most
indicators target the individual (Nadeau et al. 1999). Approaches that equate well-being with
socio-economic status rely on statistics of individual wealth and social status with the
assumption that people with higher socio-economic status have the resources (time, money,
power) to contribute to the improvement of their community. However, the exact opposite may
be the case if other assessment approaches to well-being are considered, which rely on a mixture
of social indicators, historical information, and residents’ self evaluations (Bliss et al. 1998;
Doak & Kusel 1996; Kusel & Fortmann 1991). For example, a wealthy person may not share
their economic and social resources to aid others while people living in poverty may be more
likely to help each other as part of a survival strategy that relies on reciprocal arrangements
(Doak & Kusel 1996, Nadeau et al. 1999). As Beckley (1995) asserts, “social well-being goes
well beyond easily quantifiable economic statistics and…social well-being and economic well-
being [have] become uncoupled in many instances” (264). This greater understanding of the
complexities of social systems is revealed with assessments of well-being that combine an

analysis of socio-economic status with that of community capacity, as demonstrated by Doak &
Kusel (1996). Thus, it is with this mixed-methods approach to assessment that the concept of
well-being can be best discerned and utilized.
Since statistical indicators have been traditionally employed for community assessments, and as
these do not take human values and non-quantifiable aspects of a community into account, other
approaches to assessing communities reflect the need for more comprehensive frameworks of
resource management. Some well-being assessments have followed this direction. However,
how to sufficiently capture broader aspects of a community - such as the ability to work towards
a common goal or participate in visioning exercises - have not been established (Kusel 1996).
The evolving frameworks of community capacity assessments attempt to address this issue.
2.2 Community capacity
Community capacity literature draws upon traditions in community development, sociology, and
health sciences; the concept has only surfaced in environmental management research within the
last decade and is still at an early stage of conceptual development. Several definitions below
the breadth of the concept.
Definition of Community capacity
Community capacity is the collective ability of residents to:

• -respond to external and internal stresses;
• -create and take advantage of opportunities; and
• -meet the needs of residents, diversely defined.
(Kusel 1996: 369)
It is “the collective ability of a group (the community) to combine various forms

of capital within institutional and relational contexts to produce desired results
or outcomes.” (Beckley et al. 2002a: 7)

There are two common approaches to understanding community capacity. The first focuses on
taking an inventory of community assets that describe community capacity using key community
characteristics; these characteristics are typically grouped into ‘capitals’. The second approach
examines the actions and factors that mobilize these resources through social relations, revealing
not so much what capacity is and what enhances and restricts it, but how to build it (Beckley et
al. 2002a). Simply put, as a community assessment strategy, “the concept of community
capacity attempts to capture the capability of community members to collectively affect
opportunities" (Kusel 2001: 374) when facing change.
Community-level managers and policy-makers can use community capacity assessments to a)

diagnose their assets (broadly defined), and b) select appropriate actions to address social needs
in the context of certain objectives. Community capacity can be viewed as a process as well as
an outcome; it is a complex, multidimensional concept that operates at the individual, group,
organizational, community, and policy levels (Goodman et al. 1998). Moreover, capacity can be
developed to assess a community’s ability to adapt to climate change. Three conceptual
frameworks of community capacity demonstrate a progression in understanding and provide a
basis for assessment.
The first framework was designed for the ecosystem management context. A variation was used
for a community capacity assessment by Doak & Kusel (1996) for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project. It asserts that community capacity depends on certain aspects and resources of the
community, conceptualized as capitalsi. Adapted from Kusel 2001,1996; Doak & Kusel 1996;
Nadeau et al. 1999; Beckley et al. 2002a; and Gottret & White 2001, the capitals of community
capacity are:
• Ecological capital - the natural endowments and resources of a region (Collados & Duane
1999; Deutsch et al. 2000; Power 1996; Roseland 1999; Schiller et al. 2001).
o stock of natural resources - forests, clean air, water, arable land, soil, genetic
resources; and
o environmental services - hydrological cycle, carbon sequestration.

• Economic/Physical capital - the financial resources of a community along with the built
infrastructure of a community (Berkes et al. 1994; Deutsch et al.2000; Flora 1999).
o Financial capital (liquid assets) - municipal budgets, individual and household
savings, and operating funds.
o Infrastructure (fixed assets) – utilities such as transportation, water, institutional
buildings; business property including stores, factories, productive machinery,
trucks, equipment; and technology.
• Human capital - the skills, education, experiences, and general abilities of individuals (Côté
2001; Flora 1994; Johnson & Stallman 1994).
o Formal and informal education, job experience, health, entrepreneurship,
leadership, traditional and naturalized knowledge.
• Social capital - the informal social networks and associational life of a community,
influencing the ability and willingness of residents to work together for community goalsii;
the norms and networks that facilitate collective action. It can be both a capital stock and a
mobilizing force, and can be viewed as closely related to cultural capital (Putnam 2001;
Roseland 1999; Woolcock 2001).
o Bonding social capital - relations among family, close friends and neighbours;
o Bridging social capital - relations between loosely connected but demographically
similar individuals; and
o Linking social capital - alliances with sympathetic individuals in positions of
power beyond the community (Beckley et al. 2002a: 10, from Woolcock 2001).
Mendis & Reed (2002) developed a second working model of community capacity for assessing
the ability of two Canadian Biosphere Reserves to achieve their goals, depicted in Figure 2. It is
viewed as a combination and interrelation of resource capitals and mobilizers of action. The
mobilizing forces have the potential to affect all capitals, which in turn affect one another as well
as the mobilizers.

Figure 2: Conceptual framework of community capacity. Adapted by Mendis & Reed 2002
from Kusel 1996; Doak and Kusel 1996; Nadeau et al. 1999; and Goodman et al. 1998.
The addition of mobilizers to understanding community capacity was inspired by the work of
Goodman et al. (1998), who presented an alternative conceptual framework for community
capacity in the context of determining an appropriate assessment strategy for health promotion
and disease prevention programs. They identified the dimensions of community capacity as:
citizen participation, leadership, skills, resources, social and inter-organisational networks, sense
of community, understanding of community history, community power, community values, and
critical reflection. These dimensions are incorporated into the framework as components of
capital or mobilizing factors (Mendis & Reed 2002).
Beckley et al. (2002a) present a third conceptual framework for this discussion. They assert that
community capacity encompasses a wide range of assets and outcomes, using feedback

mechanisms to articulate its processes, how it is exhibited, and how it is reproduced. Figure 3
identifies and assesses community capacity by identifying what capacity is and the processes that
shape it. In their model, community capacity is comprised of three key elements: capital stocks
(as in the previous two frameworks), relational processes (similar to Mendis & Reed’s 2002
mobilizing forces) and capacity outcomes. The framework illustrates the process of how
resource capitals are used and transformed within established social relations to create and
manage the capacity to produce desired outcomes. This provides the context for how people
accomplish tasks, legitimize their actions, distribute resources, and structure their institutions.
Their work focuses on producing outcomes with an emphasis on the question, the capacity to do
what?
Four outcomes are given by Beckley et al. (2002a); these are the capacity to:
• maintain or enhance economic vitality;
• access resources from the state;
• create or maintain a vital civic culture; and
• subsist or persist.
At first glance, one may conclude that the last outcome is most relevant to the issue of adapting
to climate change. However, we posit that all outcomes are necessary to increase the well-being
of a community that will lead to an increased capacity to cope with any change. A sole
concentration on persistence narrows the scope of inquiry and could shift the focus of concern
from long-term, holistic adaptation strategies to short-term reactive responses.

Resources/Capital Processes Outcomes
Economic Capital
Financial Infrastructure
The capacity to...
Tax revenue
Personal Savings
Schools
Hospitals Market
Transfer payments Churches Market
Transportation
Community Centres
…access
Social Capital …maintain resources
Volunatry sector
Churches
Diversity
Sports Groups
Bureaucratic economic from the
Bureaucratic vitality State
Networks/Trust Kinship networks
Associative
Natural Capital …create a …subsist or
Tillable land/Soil Landscapes
Wildlife Water Associative vital civic persist
Climate (wind, sun, rain) Forests culture
Minerals Fossil Fuel Stocks
Communal
Human Capital
Entreprenurialism Leadership
Knowledge Healthy population
Teachers Clergy
Doctors Civil service
Figure 3: A model of community capacity. Source: Beckley et al. 2002a
The work of Nadeau (2002) offers further insight. She states that adopting a historical
perspective and examining attitudes towards community capacity not only deepens the
understanding of capacity development, but also uncovers the influencing factors of how people
contribute or do not contribute to it. These two approaches add to community capacity
assessments by revealing a) the dynamics that produced and sustain a certain capacity; and b) the
extent that concerns about specific issues vary throughout a community that may affect the
ability of population segments to contribute to capacity. The historical perspective is useful in a
climate change context as lessons can be learned from how communities coped with previous
unexpected climate changes. As Nadeau (2002) posits, “such events might even produce a chain
reaction and induce major changes in several components, thus profoundly reshaping overall
capacity” (38). Attitudes towards community capacity may reveal vulnerabilities that exist
within and between populations and thus speak to issues of equity. Vulnerabilities, as well as
issues of equity and empowerment, play a key role in highlighting barriers to building adaptive
capacity.

Nadeau (2002) found that in documenting the historical development of community capacity, it
is imperative that the condition, and not just the presence, of an element of capacity be assessed
to ascertain “its potential to contribute to community capacity in the future” (102). She also
concluded that the historical perspective reveals the richness and complexity of the relationship
between forests and communities. Gathering differences in attitudes towards issues of concern
uncovered important aspects of the community capacity of Haut-St-Maurice, such as economic
diversity and networks of civic organizations (74). How “differences noticed between diverse
groups within the community point to weak areas that may impair the community’s capacity to
adapt to change” (92) is also revealed. This signals the need to determine the distribution of costs
and benefits within communities, which may expose barriers to building capacity that require
attention from policymakers if capacity building strategies are to be effective and reduce
vulnerabilities.
Two bioregional studies that included assessments of forest-based communities offer a few final
insights into the capacity to adapt to change. Both the Forest Ecosystem Management Team
(FEMAT) and the Interior and Upper Columbia Basins Ecosystem Management Project
(ICBEMP) suggest that a small, rural community’s ability to adapt is constrained by: limited
infrastructure, limited economic diversity, low active leadership, dependence on nearby
communities, and weaker links to centers of political and economic influence (Harris et al.
1998). Further, Harris et al. (1998) identified critical dimensions of community character and
conditions, one being community preparedness for the future. Others include economic
diversity, community leadership, effectiveness of community government, resource dependence,
and community services. All affect a community’s capacity to adapt and respond to change.
There are different approaches to understanding what community capacity is and how to build it.
Insights from various streams of thought can be used to piece together a comprehensive view of
this concept.
Figure 4 illustrates a synthesis of the concepts presented here, which provides a comprehensive
framework useful to policymakers both as a tool for discussion and as a means to organizing
information. It provides a platform upon which to assess communities in the face of change.
The primary objective is to examine the ability of a community to cope with and adapt to the

potential impacts of climate change. A discussion of social concepts relating to climate change -
resilience, vulnerability and adaptive capacity – is necessary to understand the determinants of
and processes by which this ability can be achieved.
Figure 4: Community capacity: a synthesis of conceptual frameworks

3.0 SOCIAL CONCEPTS IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Growing concern over the affects of climate change has prompted the evolution of concepts
aiming to understand the ability of social groupings to resist or adapt to environmental change.
Although the application of the concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity to
communities facing climate change is in its infancy, these concepts are able to bridge the social
biophysical interface between community assessments and biophysical changes. Understanding
the concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity inform community assessments
by emphasizing key factors of community capacity that will increase a community’s ability to
adapt to change.
3.1 Vulnerability and Resilience
Evolving from ecological and environmental hazards literature, vulnerability and resilience are
often used concurrently to describe community susceptibility to change. Much of climate change
research involves minimizing risk through predicting effects of change. Barnett (2001) considers
that, with the great deal of uncertainty surrounding climate change, effective policy approaches
to decrease the vulnerability of communities and increase their resilience are needed. Some
authors also argue that there is little utility in examining either, social, or ecological vulnerability
and resilience in isolation since social and biophysical systems are linked and mutually produced
by one another (Adger 2000; Barnett 2001; Shiva 1993). Their reasoning is that if an
environment is less vulnerable and more resilient to climate change, there will be less need for
the community to adapt, and consequently, a lower need for social resilience.
3.1.1 Vulnerability
Much of the literature on vulnerability is applied to natural hazards; for examples, see Alexander
1997, Cross 2001 and Flax et al. 2002. Although hazards examined in this literature include
floods, earthquakes and chemical spills, the literature is relevant to climate change research since
preparations for climate change must also include preparations for fluctuating weather patterns.

The main difference between climate change and catastrophic hazards is the time span over
which they occur (Barnett 2001).
Definition of Vulnerability
Degree to which a system is susceptible to injury, damage, or harm

(one part—the problematic or detrimental part—of sensitivity)
(IPCC 2000: Section 18.5)
Determinants of social vulnerability include: exposure to environmental

threat, such as spatial location and frequency of disturbance; and the
ability to cope with change through social networks, community
planning, equity, institutions, and leadership.
Dow (1992)
Vulnerability has been defined in a number of ways, with most definitions based on the notion of
susceptibility to loss or damage (Alexander 1997; Cutter 1996). Characteristics of vulnerability
may be biophysical or social and include: exposure to stress resulting from environmental
change (Adger 2000); susceptibility to damage; and the capacity to recover (Barnett 2001).
Pelling and Uitto (2001) attempt to determine whether a community is ‘susceptible’ or ‘able to
recover’, viewing vulnerability as the “product of access to economic, political, social,
environmental and geographical assets” (51). Dow (1992) categorizes the multiple perspectives
on the meaning of vulnerability into two dominant groups, exposure and the ability to cope. The
first aims to measure a community’s exposure to biophysical changes in the environment due to
physical location. For example, a community close to the coast would be more vulnerable to
anticipated sea level rise as a result of climate change than one farther away. The ability to cope
perspective examines how resilient a community is by defining vulnerability as a community’s
ability to absorb the impact of changes, continue to function and recover losses. We will term
the exposure perspective as ‘biophysical vulnerability’ and the coping perspective as ‘social
vulnerability,’ and will limit our discussion here to social vulnerability.

Forest-based communities may have higher social vulnerability than other communities.
Studies examining losses due to natural disasters have found that social vulnerability is
heightened by: poverty; high economic dependence on external imports and exports; remoteness;
a low degree of economic and social flexibility; poor infrastructure; poor access to resources and
low levels of health and education (Dow 1992, Easter 1999, Flax et al. 2002). Forest-based
communities are often remote small economies dependent on outside resources and relying on
exports.
3.1.2 Resilience
Unlike vulnerability, the concept of social resilience originated from ecological literature.
Holling (1973) first defined ecological resilience as an alternative to stability, as “…the ability of
…[a system]… to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters and still
persist.” (17). Whereas a stable ecosystem is able to return to equilibrium after disturbance, a
resilient ecosystem may fluctuate or change as long as the relationships comprising the system
Definition of Resilience
Amount of change a system can undergo without changing state.

(IPCC 2001)
Three aspects of social resilience:

• The amount of change a system can undergo and still retain the same
controls on function and structure;
• The degree to which a system is capable of self-organisation; and
• The degree to which the system expresses capacity for learning and
adaptation.
(Walker et al. 2002)
persist (Holling 1973). With this paper, Holling (1973) was trying to shift the focus in ecology
away from a desire for stable ecological systems, less variable and more homogeneous, towards
the concept of ecosystem resilience, a property embodying flexibility, which allowed for the idea
of ecosystems persisting in the face of fluctuating external conditions. This conceptual
framework was later adopted by researchers who found it useful when examining community

adaptation to change. Although the concept of social resilience is now commonly found in
hazard, climate change, and environmental management literature, it is used predominantly for
theoretical analysis rather than as an empirical measure (Carpenter et al. 2001).
Social resilience can be viewed as a reciprocal concept to vulnerability, and can be seen as the
ability to cope with change or stress rather than to avoid change (Pelling & Uitto 2001). Adger
(2000) proposed that the term resilience be used to discuss the ability of communities to adapt to
change, defining 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”
(347). Although some definitions of resilience define resilience as a community’s ability to
adapt other definitions also include a community’s ability to persist or resist change and to self
organize.
Last, most definitions do not differentiate between resilience due to adaptation or coping and
resilience that represents community decline (that is, reverting back to a state with less desirable
characteristics). The IPCC defines resilience as the “amount of change a system can undergo
without changing state” (IPCC 2001), which leaves ambiguity as to what constitutes a change in
state. Walker et al. (2002) propose that the term ‘state’ be replaced with ‘desirable
configuration,’ recognizing that in order to achieve a desirable state certain criteria must be met.
Because of the ambiguity with how resilience is presently defined it is important that the term
resilience be contextualized by specifying resilience “from what to what” (Carpenter et al. 2002).
3.1.3 Special considerations for forest-based communities
The ability of a community to resist and adapt to shocks is especially pertinent to communities
dependent on primary resources where prices are subject to fluctuating external markets and
impacted to a greater extent by environmental variability (Adger 2000). Resource dependency, a
community’s reliance on resources for its economic base, may cause a community to have
greater social and economic stresses (Adger 2000). Further, the strong link between biophysical
and social systems in resource-based communities connects social resilience to ecological
resilience. If ecological resilience to environmental change is low and a resource is depleted,

there will be a greater impact on the well-being of a resource-based community than on a
community with a diversified economy.
Communities that have high subsistence resource use are also affected by ecological resilience.
If the ecological system is vulnerable to environmental change and system patterns shift to the
detriment of subsistent resource use, social resilience will decrease. However, subsistence
resource use can also increase social resilience by providing a buffer to fluctuations in the wage
economy (Adger 2000). Fluctuating commodity prices or reduced availability of resources affect
the rate of subsistence resource use in a community.
3.2 Adaptive capacity
“…through a process of envisioning a future and asking what work needs to be performed
or action taken, people can learn to anticipate the future and deal effectively with it.”
(Littrell & Littrell 1991: 199-200)
3.2.1 Definition and determining factors
Adaptive capacity is the ability to cope with and adapt specifically to climate change. It has been
viewed as a function of economic wealth, technology, infrastructure, institutions, information,
skills, equity, and empowerment (IPCC 2001). More specifically, it refers to the ability to:
• prepare for change by developing anticipatory adaptation measures, and
• respond to or cope with the effects and impacts through reactive adaptation
strategies (IPCC 2001).
The literature on adaptive capacity in the context of climate change is limited yet emerging.
Thus, understandings of societal adaptability to environmental change can be drawn from the
fields of hazards, resource management and sustainable development. Berkes et al. (2001) view
the capacity to adapt as a requirement for sustainability in dealing with change in resilient social-
ecological systems. Further, Crabbe et al. (1995) outline three steps to determine community
sustainability including the assessment of resilience and adaptive capacity of a community to

change. The capacity to take action is related to a community’s ability to make choices,
according to Beckley (1995). He suggests that factors of community adaptability include “levels
of human capital, the imagination of community leaders, the ability to access information, and
the availability of a flexible, diverse resource base,” (Beckley 1995: 265).
Definition of Adaptive capacity
“Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including

climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of
opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.”
(IPCC 2001: Section 2.3, Box SPM-1)
It is also viewed as the “potential, capability, or ability of a system to adapt to climate

change stimuli, their effects or impacts.”
(IPCC 2001: Section 18.5.1)
Like community capacity, adaptive capacity varies spatially and temporally, differing
considerably between sectors and systems. Adaptive capacity also varies depending on the
climate change-related stress. For example, adapting to gradual changes in mean temperature is
different than adapting to changes in frequency and magnitude of extreme events (Appendi &
Liverman 1996). Community capacity, which stems from well-being literature, has not been
applied to the issue of climate change, yet many of its variables overlap those associated with
adaptive capacity.
3.2.2 Reconciling community capacity and adaptive capacity
Adaptive capacity can be viewed as a specific application of community capacity to achieve a

certain outcome, addressing the question of ‘what is the capacity needed to adapt to climate
change?’ By reconciling it with community capacity, the understanding of adaptive capacity
extends beyond the specific issue of adapting to climate change towards the notion that the
ability to adapt is dependent on the overall community capacity and well-being of human and
natural systems. Before communities are able to focus time, energy and resources on specific

issues such as climate change, the well-being of all population segments and the community
capacity to face external stresses must be increased. Human systems that have historically
demonstrated and/or currently hold high levels of capacity to cope with stresses and change can
be expected to have a high adaptive capacity to face stresses and consequences related to future
climate change (Ausubel 1991). As human well-being will be impacted positively and
negatively by climate change (IPCC 2001), it is imperative to consider communities through a
holistic and comprehensive view, with well-being and community capacity as overarching
frameworks. (See section 3.6 for a diagram that illustrates how adaptive capacity fits within
community capacity.)
Elements of community capacity, such as social capital are critical to assessments of well-being;
these elements can inform an understanding of adaptive capacity (Doak & Kusel 1996). Social
capital is seen not only as a stock resource, but also as a strong mobilizing force to bring about
change (Mendis & Reed 2002). This highlights the importance of networks and linkages
between different stakeholders and levels of governance. Second, community capacity
emphasizes the ability to create and not just take opportunities, which relates to the need for a
proactive approach to effectively face potential climate change impacts. Third, meeting the
diverse needs of residents is a requirement for community capacity to address the need to
consider collaborative decision making processes to ensure that processes and outcomes are
equitable. In doing so, the vulnerabilities of marginalized peoples should decrease.
3.3 The relationship of vulnerability and resilience to adaptive capacity
Due to the variability and breadth with which vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity
have been defined, there is considerable overlap and redundancy among concepts. Some authors
equate resilience directly with the ability to adapt to change (Adger 2000), while in other
contexts resiliency is seen as an encompassing concept of which adaptive capacity is a
component (Berkes et al. 2001; Walker et al. 2002). As illustrated in Figure 5, social
vulnerability may be understood as concept that is inversely proportional to adaptive capacity,
well-being, community capacity and resilience.

Well-being
Community capacity
Adaptive capacity ∝ Resilience
______________________
Vulnerability
Figure 5: Relationships between key concepts in social climate change research
A second way of conceptualizing the relationship among these concepts is to view resilience and
vulnerability as concepts that bridge descriptors of community response to climate change, and
adaptive capacity as the mechanism for increasing resilience and reducing vulnerability (Figure
6). Although definitions of resilience sometimes include the ability to resist change and to self-
organize, we argue that adaptive capacity is crucial to building the resilience of a community.
Walker et al. (2002) supports this by stating, “adaptive capacity is an aspect of resilience that
reflects learning, flexibility to experiment and adopt novel solutions, and development of
generalised responses to broad classes of challenges” (7). In short, resilience is the ability of a
BIOPHYSICAL SOCIAL
Ability to
Potential self-organise
Resilience /Vulnerability
Scale and scope of impacts Community capacity

change
Adaptive
capacity • Natural capital
ENVIRONMENTAL • Social capital
CHANGE Exposure • Economic capital
• Human capital
Biophysical risks Ability to
resist
change
Figure 6: The relationship of vulnerability and resilience to adaptive capacity

community to persist in a changing environment whereas adaptive capacity is the ability to adapt
to change. Recall however that resilience is not necessarily desirable; a community may persist
in an undesirable configuration. Thus the predominant way that communities can thrive, or in
other words attain a desirable configuration, in the face of climate change is through adaptation
(Tompkins & Adger 2003).
Table 2: Concepts and their determining factors
Concept Determining factors References
Adaptive Economic wealth IPCC 2001

capacity Technology
Education
Information
Skills
Infrastructure
Human institutions
Access to resources
Management capabilities
Contingency measures in place
Networks in place
Community Ecological capital Kusel & Doak 1996

capacity Economic capital Nadeau et al. 1999
Built/Physical capital
Human capital
Social capital
Resource capitals (as above) Mendis & Reed 2002

Mobilizers: i.e. Sense of place; community pride;
Enablers: i.e. Access to resources and linkages extending beyond
locality
Resource capitals (as above) Beckley et al. 2002a

Relational processes -bureaucratic, market, associative, communal
Outcomes: the capacity to…maintain economic vitality, access
resources from the State, subsist or persist, create a vital civic
culture
Vulnerability Biophysical – Range of tolerable conditions Dow 1992

Demographic – Age, ability and health
Individual perception and decision making – experience,
education, socio-economic status
Social relations – class, gender, ethnicity
Economics – debt, market dependency, assets
Technology – centralization, diversity, flexibility
Institutions – scope of activities, accessibility of institutions

Concept Determining factors References
Vulnerability Exposure to changes in climate IPCC 2001

(continued) Variability of changes in climate
Magnitude of climate change
Rate of climate change
Adaptive capacity
Exposure Tobin 1999

Equity
Planning initiatives
Political leaders and agencies
Partnerships across scales
Social networks
Resilience Ability to buffer disturbance Tompkins & Adger

Ability to self organize 2003
Capacity for learning and adaptation
Community engagement
Adaptive management
Social networks
Flexibility in management
Income equality Adger et al. 2002
Flexible social organization Fratkin 1986

Mobility of labour force
Diversity of resources used for subsistence
General knowledge rather than specialist knowledge
Lack of ritual hierarchy
Less rigid division of labour
Capacity to adapt to change Harris et al. 1998
Well-being All people able to meet their needs Prescott-Allen 2001

Have range of choices to meet potential
Quality of life Marchak 1990

Social structures Bliss et al. 1998
Economic wealth Kirshner Cook 1995;

Economic development Overdevest & Green
1995
Quality of employment
Social cohesion Beckley 1995
Local empowerment
Socio-economic status Doak & Kusel 1996

Community capacity

Community capacity holds an underlying “assumption that communities rely on their capacity to
persist over time” (Beckley et al. 2002a). Thus for a community to adapt and persist in the face
of change in a desirable configuration it is necessary for it to build up its community capacity.
Thus the determining factors of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity can be found
amidst determining factors of community capacity (Table 2).
3.4 Key factors of the capacity to adapt to climate change
Though vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity each emphasize different components of
community capacity, the majority of characteristics identified as increasing adaptive capacity are
also those said to increase resilience and decrease vulnerability. We combine these with
additional key factors found in the literature as determinants of vulnerability, resilience, and
adaptive capacity. These factors are: economic wealth, economic diversity, infrastructure,
technology, information, skills, education, health, social capital (culture, community cooperation,
institutions and institutional linkages), and equity. All are components of one or more of the
following capitals: economic, human and social.
3.4.1 Economic capital
3.4.1.1 Economic wealth and diversity
The economic condition of a population is a strong determinant of adaptive capacity (Burton et

al. 1998; Kates 2000). Economic wealth at all scales, from the individual to the nation, affects a
community’s ability to adapt and respond to climate change. At the individual level, if people
are struggling to make a livelihood they most likely lack the financial resources to adopt certain
adaptation strategies. Poverty is directly related to vulnerability (Chan & Parker 1996;
Fankhauser & Tol 1997; Rayner & Malone 1998) since it may “encompass(ing) several
dimensions of economic stress” (Dow 1992: 425). Thus economically disadvantaged
individuals, communities and nations are especially vulnerable to environmental change (IPCC
2001 from Banuri 1998; Munasinghe 2000).

At the municipal level, the financial means available to address climate change can affect most
aspects of adaptive capacity. Every aspect of community adaptation to climate change, from
gathering scientific data for integrated impact assessments to holding public consultations and
subsequently implementing adaptations, requires funding. Anticipatory, or planned, adaptations
(as opposed to autonomous or expected adaptations that occur as a reaction to change) may
require technologically advanced modifications to infrastructure that would diminish potential
impacts of climate change impacts. At a national scale, the overall wealth of a nation will
influence national level monitoring, adaptation strategies and resources to respond to
environmental changes.
Economic diversity increases adaptive capacity by providing people with choices. Diversity has
been linked to resilience in both social and ecological systems. In a study comparing the
Rendille and the Ariaal peoples of Northern Kenya, Fratkin (1986) found that the Ariaal were
more resilient to environmental change than the Rendille because of greater diversity in their
labour force, herd size, and resources they used. Economic diversity is especially important for
resource dependent communities as the resources, such as forests, are climate-sensitive and are
therefore likely to undergo changes. A complete reliance on one type of industry may be
detrimental to a community and limits the capacity to adapt to change.
3.4.1.2 Infrastructure
Adaptive capacity is viewed by some as a function of the availability of and access to resources
for decision makers and vulnerable populations (Kelly & Adger 1999). Moreover, the existence
of institutions and infrastructure is often seen as central to building social resilience (Flora 1999).
Flora (1999) sees entrepreneurial social infrastructure as increasing resilience, thereby
facilitating the ability of communities to adapt to change by providing options and alternatives.
Various resources, from financial capital to physical materials, are required to build the
environment within which we live – an environment that is susceptible to potential impacts of
climate change such as an increased magnitude and variability of extreme weather events. Lack
of flexibility in infrastructure, or the built environment, can reduce the capacity to respond to

such environmental conditions. Housing structures with drainage designed for limited climatic
conditions (IPCC 2001 from Pelling 1997) or a complete reliance on hydroelectric power, a
power source that could be threatened by drought (Tiglao 1992), are two examples of planning
that either did not take climatic changes into consideration or lacked the resources or forethought
to produce alternatives. Thus, adaptive capacity varies with social infrastructure (Toman &
Bierbaum 1996).
3.4.1.3 Technology
Adaptive capacity also depends on the availability of and access to technology, in all sectors
from the local to the national scale (Burton 1996). Adaptive strategies such as early warning
systems, protective structures, settlement and relocation or redesign, and crop irrigation, require
some form of technology (IPCC 2001). Lack of technology is a strong barrier to implementing
adaptation options by limiting the range of choices available for preparation and response
(Scheraga & Grambsch 1998). A key to building adaptive capacity is the openness and ability to
develop innovative and new technologies; this is especially important for resource-based
communities that heavily rely on the natural environment for their livelihood. Technology can
offset some of the negative impacts of climate change on natural resources and also harness the
potential of positive impacts.
3.4.2 Human capital
3.4.2.1 Information, skills and education
Various aspects of human capital are necessary for building adaptive capacity. First, the
acquisition and dissemination of relevant and current information is crucial for successful
adaptation. A range of knowledge is needed for making decisions on the potential effects and
subsequent impacts of climate change, the range of options for adaptation, what is required to
implement them, and what methods should be used to assess their effectiveness.
Second, a variety of skilled and trained personnel also enhance adaptive capacity because of the
expertise they hold. Illiteracy, along with poverty, has been identified as a key determinant of
low adaptive capacity (Magalhães 1996). As well, input is needed from not only the scientific

community but also from a diverse set of local peoples, since lived and observational experience
can contribute to greater understandings. As mentioned in section 1.3, various forms of
knowledge should be incorporated into decision-making processes. Thus, it is imperative that
forums for discussion and innovation of adaptation strategies at various levels (locally,
regionally, nationally) be in place (Gupta & Hisschemöller 1997).
Third, education may influence the ability of communities to adapt to a changing natural
environment by increasing the potential for economic diversification as well as the basis of
knowledge to inform community planning (Tobin 1999). In addition, oral and written
knowledge transmission increases the ability of subsistence resource users to adapt to changing
biophysical conditions and new technologies, as well as to implement adaptation strategies.
Further, it is also important that all decision makers and stakeholders can share information and
ideas, educating one another to better understand what climate change is, what it means, what
adaptations are possible, and what can build and maintain the capacity to adapt. For better
communication and progress, they must come to an agreement of what terms such as adaptive
capacity, resilience, and vulnerability mean to the community. “Developing shared language to
communicate system metaphors, ecological processes, and community vision is a gradual
process that occurs hand in hand with developing relationships and understanding” (Blann et al.
2001:229). Thus, the process of acquiring a shared language can break down barriers between
societal groups and build social capital.
3.4.2.2 Health
The overall health of individuals and communities is affected by changes in the environment.
Health is also affected by the socio-economic well-being of a community and hence on
ecosystem well-being, as in the case of resource-based communities. The status of individual and
community well-being has the potential to increase the vulnerability of individuals and
communities to environmental change by reducing mobility and compounding health risks due
changes in environmental conditions (Dow 1992). Adaptation strategies need to consider
responding to the possible impacts on human health associated with climate change. This

includes direct risks such as changes in water quality, food availability, and air quality as well as
indirect risks associated with socio-economic well-being.
3.4.3 Social capital
Social capital has been recognized as necessary to build community capacity for a sustainable
future (Hall 1999) in that it speaks to the ability of residents to work together towards common
goals (Doak & Kusel 1996). There is an extensive and growing literature on social capital, a
myriad of debates as to how to define and measure it, as well as what affects it has on social
outcomes (Burt 1998; Falk & Kilpatrick 2000; Flora 1998; Glaeser 2001; Lochner et al. 1999;
Pennington & Rydin 1999; Putnam 2001; Veenstra 2001; Wall et al. 1998; Willms 2001;
Woolcock 2001).
One definition of social capital that is widely accepted is “the mutual relations, interactions, and
networks that emerge among human groups, as well as the level of trust (seen as the outcome of
obligations and norms which adhere to the social structure) found within a particular group or
community” (Wall et al. 1998). Another useful definition of social capital in the context of
resource management is “those features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that
facilitate citizen association and enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue
shared objectives” (Cortner & Moote 1999: 92). Social capital enhances other features in
society, such as economic growth, education levels, literacy levels, and community vitality (Wall
et al. 1998; Willms 2001). Social capital encompasses the following: level of trust; extent of
networks; density of relationships within networks; knowledge of relationships; obligations and
expectations about relationships leading to reciprocity; forms of local knowledge; and operating
norms; existence and use of sanctions (Pennington & Rydin 2000). Culture, community
cooperation, institutions, and equity are components of social capital that will be highlighted in
the context of climate change in section 4.4.
In the context of climate change, social capital is a critical component of adaptive capacity for
several reasons. One, the networks and partnerships between stakeholders and agencies within
communities allow for collaboration in developing integrated and multi-faceted adaptation

strategies. Second, the bonds formed between individuals through friendships and memberships
of organizations are essential for coping with adversity and change. The trust and sense of
reciprocity built through such connections becomes invaluable when people are in need of help,
such as in the midst of an extreme climatic event or in the boom and bust cycle of a resource-
based economy. Social networks are also important to retaining “…resilience to disaster [that]
comes often from dependence upon, and reciprocity within, small and changing networks of
individuals… …within and between varying social groups” (Fordham 1999:16). Third, the
linkages between local, provincial and national governments are necessary for dealing with
global problems that require direction and strategies at different scales (Adger 2001).
Institutional resilience refers to how well institutions can respond to stress. Characteristics of
institutions that determine their resiliency include their legitimacy, how well they maintain social
capital and whether their agenda is in line with environmental risks (Adger 2000). According to
O’Riordan and Jordan (1999), institutions hold society together, give it sense and purpose, and
enable it to adapt. Communities with well-developed and well-functioning institutions are
considered to have a greater capacity to adapt to change than those with less effective institutions
or those in transition (Adger 2001; Smith & Lenhart 1996). Well-established institutions can
offer the institutional capacity to face current and future climate-related risks (IPCC 2001).
Inadequate institutional support hinders adaptation (IPCC 2001) and can limit access to
resources, which increases vulnerability (Kelly & Adger 1999) and, in turn, decreases adaptive
capacity.
3.4.4 Equity
As mentioned previously, poverty is a rough indicator of vulnerability (Chan & Parker 1996;
Fankhauser & Tol 1997; Rayner & Malone 1998). The principal way that poverty affects
vulnerability is by reducing individual and/or community access to resources necessary for them
to cope with climate change (Kelly & Adger 1999).
Social vulnerability is not equally distributed in a society. Individuals of different ages, genders,
socio-economic and cultural groups face different amounts of risk in their every day lives and

will face different amounts of additional risk as a result of environmental change. Alexander
(1997) identifies total vulnerability and technocratic vulnerability as two salient categories of
vulnerability studies. The first, total vulnerability, is the notion that some societal groups face a
high degree of risk on a daily basis. High daily risk may preclude the significance of
environmental change to people’s lives. Alternatively, risks may be additive, and environmental
risk may increase the vulnerability of already vulnerable groups. Technocratic vulnerability is
the vulnerability incurred by the privileged in terms of capital losses that do not threaten human
survival.
Studies examining community responses to environmental hazards have demonstrated that

individuals from marginalized social groups are often more vulnerable to hazards than
individuals from privileged groups (Dow 1992). Since access to resources often dictates whether
people are able to recover from disaster, less wealthy groups may find it difficult to deal with
hazards. “Often they have lost virtually everything and their ability to recover is seriously
impaired by lack of resources. These represent social and economic traps from which many
individuals find it difficult to escape.” (Tobin 1999:20). People of colour, women and the
elderly may also be disproportionately economically disadvantaged (Fordham 1999; Tobin
1999).
Access to economic resources is not the only axis of disadvantage faced by marginalized groups.
Incidents of domestic violence often increase times of environmental stress due to the increased
isolation of women from normal societal interactions and people of colour may experience
increased incidents of racism during crisis (Fordham 1999; Tobin 1999). The elderly have less
ability to cope with stress than younger individuals and have higher needs for medical services
which may be hampered during environment-related stress (Tobin 1999). Tobin (1999) poses
the intriguing question “What exactly would constitute a ‘return to a stable community’ for such
people?”(20). The underlying message Tobin implies is that allowing certain individuals to live
with high vulnerability on a day to day basis is not compatible with the definition of resilient
communities.

3.5 Management and decision making
Some authors have held to the premise that managed ecosystems, given sufficient resources, are
more likely to have higher adaptive capacity than less/unmanaged ecosystems (IPCC 2001 from
Burton 1996; Strzepek & Smith 1995; Toman & Bierbaum 1996). However, it is not only the
amount of management but also the type of management regime employed in building and
maintaining adaptive capacity that matters. As well, the institutional characteristics and
decision-making processes involved play significant roles. Here, three issues related to
management are mentioned: adaptive management, community participation and preparedness.
3.5.1 Adaptive management
Adaptive management stems from the admission that humans do not know enough about
ecosystems to manage them (Lee 1999). Given the many uncertainties inherent in climate
change research, adaptive management can be an effective regime to follow, allowing for
flexible and experimental management practices. Key to adaptive (as well as participatory and
indigenous) resource management is a focus on learning-by-doing (Blann et al. 2001 after Allen
et al. 1998; Berkes 1998; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000; Bawden 1992; Walters & Holling
1990). A patience with, and openness to, perceived failures are necessary for learning and
improving. Even if adaptive management is not formally adopted for managing resources with
climate change as a concern, its principles can still guide management on a philosophical basis.
3.5.2 Community participation
Involving the public and all stakeholders throughout the process of developing strategies for
adapting to climate change builds community and adaptive capacity by bringing people together
to develop common goals, providing the opportunity to build social capital. It also facilitates
knowledge exchange between all concerned, building human capital. If people feel part of the
process, they will assume more responsibility over decisions made and start making the
necessary changes early enough to be prepared for eventual changes.

3.5.3 Preparedness
Human and ecological systems have evolved to cope within a range of environmental conditions,
and collapse or adjust when ranges are exceeded (Smit 1993). Individuals and societies also
have the capacity to change and to adapt to changing circumstances by applying lessons learned
from the past to the present and future (Clark 2001). A community’s level of preparedness, in
terms of having adaptation strategies and contingency plans in place, indicates how prepared a
community is to face change.
Berkes et al. (in press) propose that both ecological and social systems are cyclic, with renewal
being an important component of resilience. They further suggest that resilience can be built
through disturbance; in other words, the experience of change may make a community better
able to adapt to future changes. Empirical support for this includes Harris et al.’s (1998) study
of agricultural and forest-based communities, which found that communities that experienced
changes were more resilient than those who had not experienced change.
Examining the circumstances surrounding past extreme events and the consequent impacts on all
segments of society is one way of preparing for future potential impacts of climate change. It
can reveal what segments of the population were most vulnerable to the impacts of the event and
why, as well as how all aspects of the community were affected. Towards this, forecasting by
analogy is one useful method of identifying and assessing adaptation measures (Burton et al.
1998). It is based on examining past events to compare and predict likely impacts of future
events, and assumes that lessons can be learned from past experience and be applied to future
situations (Glantz 1988). This historical analysis is useful in considering what changes need to
be made to increase resiliency for the future, keeping in mind that past experience may not repeat
itself because of societal changes or adaptations in the interim period.

3.6 Concluding comments
Several themes are of key significance within this discussion:

• The availability of and access to resources and options increases adaptive capacity, which
increases a community’s resilience and decreases its vulnerability;
• To be prepared, communities should learn from past experiences to forecast possible future
scenarios and projected needs;
• Poverty is an indicator of vulnerability;
• The ideal strategy is to direct policy to increase overall well-being and community capacity
to deal with a wide range of stresses and changes, including impending climate change; and
• A focus on building adaptive capacity (and thereby on increasing resilience and decreasing
vulnerability) requires specific attention to the following factors: economic wealth, economic
diversity, infrastructure, technology, information, skills, education, health, social capital
(culture, community cooperation, institutions and institutional linkages), and equity.
A comprehensive assessment of communities must be made to increase overall well-being and

build community capacity to face stresses and change. There are main determining factors and
considerations that are of particular importance in building adaptive capacity: economic wealth
and diversity, infrastructure, technology, knowledge, skills, education, health, culture,
community cooperation, institutions and institutional linkages, and equity. Several of these are
applicable to all concepts (vulnerability, resilience, adaptive capacity) while others only emerged
in association with one or two. Figure 7 illustrates the key elements of adaptive capacity as
couched within the conceptual framework of community capacity (as given in section 3.2.2).
These factors are also deemed important in vulnerability and resilience literature. They provide
us with a basis from which to assess adaptive capacity, as they bridge interdependent concepts
discussed to this point. In the following section we discuss indicators pertaining to each factor
that can be developed to create an overall index of adaptive capacity.

Figure 7: Reconciliation of community capacity and adaptive capacity

4.0 APPLYING COMMUNITY ASSESSMENTS IN FOREST-BASED COMMUNITIES
Community assessments offer a means for policymakers to organize information and, in some
cases, engage residents in the process of decision making to formulate and affect appropriate
policies. As discussed in section 1.0, in the face of climate change it is important to assess the
ability of socio-economic systems to respond to biophysical changes. Ideally, knowledge gained
from these assessments will be iterative such that these assessments will inform future
understandings and assessments of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. As the
literature on adaptive capacity is recent and emerging, past community assessments in the
context of resource management will be discussed as a basis for constructing a framework for
adaptive capacity assessments. This section discusses different assessment approaches that have
been applied to or suggested for the concepts of well-being, community capacity, vulnerability,
resilience, and adaptive capacity. Please refer to Table 4 for examples of assessments made
using these concepts.
Our discussion of assessment methodology is meant to aid policymakers, stakeholders and

communities in choosing appropriate methods to assess communities facing climate change.
We will first address methodological issues pertaining to scale, the use of quantitative and
qualitative methods, and the specific employment of social indicators. This section will outline
issues that should be considered in the development of measures and indicators. We provide
examples of assessments done in previous studies in section 4.2. This is followed by a brief
outline of the characteristics of the study communities of Montreal Lake First Nation, Prince
Albert and Candle Lake to inform the selection of assessment methodology. Finally, we propose
indicators and assessment strategies that can be used to examine the adaptive capacity of the
three study communities.

4.1 Methodological issues
4.1.1 Scale: community-level research
Scale impacts the definition and measurement of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity
(Carpenter et al. 2001; Walker et al. 2002). Defining the boundaries of the population of interest
clarifies what variables can be used as indicators and how a community is perceived in terms of
these characteristics. For example, a community that is in decline may be vulnerable at the local
scale, while at the national scale the community’s decline may be attributed to labour mobility
that provides economic flexibility (Carpenter et al. 2001). Scale is also an important concern for
the implementation of planning strategies. Though climate change is occurring at a global scale,
the impacts are felt at the local scale; responses and adaptations are often developed and
implemented at local, regional and national scales simultaneously. The dual global and local
nature of climate change creates a need for indicators and other ways of assessing vulnerability,
resilience, and adaptive capacity that are appropriate to scale (Wilbanks & Kates 1999).
Measurements at different scales require different methods. The methods mentioned here focus
on the community-level scale.
The term community is complex since it has been widely interpreted and may have multiple
meanings in different contexts (Flora et al. 1992; Liepins 2000). The variations have been
exacerbated by the influence of feminist and postmodern theories, which recognize that people
hold multiple identities and multiple versions of what they consider as their community, which
are also subject to temporal change (Kusel 2001). To provide clear boundaries for well-being
and other assessments, community is defined here as the “geographic associations of people who
share some social, political, historical, and economic interests” (Hempel 1999: 45). Hempel’s
(1999) conception of community corresponds with Kusel’s (2001) definition that applies to well-
being assessments, that of a geographically “place-based shared identity” (369).
Once community boundaries are defined, community type is another factor to take into
consideration before designing and conducting an assessment. This helps focus and provides a
context for research. Beckley (1998) suggests that the following dimensions should be addressed

in defining forest communities: scale of the unit of analysis (from individual to region); type of
dependence (timber, forest service, tourism/recreation, non-timber products, subsistence, or
ecological); and degree of dependence (high, moderate, or low).
Once factors of scale are considered, methods of assessment must be chosen. In designing a
research methodology, a variety of options are available. These can be categorized as being
either qualitative or quantitative. Both categories of methods have their strengths and
limitations. The next section provides a general overview of both qualitative methods and argues
for using a mixture of both types for comprehensive community assessments.
4.1.2 Qualitative and quantitative methods: towards a mixed-methods strategy
This section first outlines the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative
method types and concludes with some benefits of multi-method strategies. Table 3 provides an
overview of some general distinctions between qualitative and quantitative methods.
There are many different approaches to undertaking qualitative research, but its methods can be
divided into three main types: oral (primarily interview-based), textual (creative, documentary
and landscape) and observational. Qualitative methods are used to explain individual
experiences, social processes and social structures (social, cultural, economic, political, or
environmental) (Winchester 2000: 24). Advantages of using qualitative methods include the
ability to reveal what was previously viewed as being unknowable, such as feelings, emotions,
attitudes, perceptions and cognitions. As well, marginalized voices are deliberately sought as it
is recognized that multiple and conflicting realities coexist (Winchester 2000). Disadvantages
include subjectivity of the research, interview results influenced by the relationship between
researcher and an interviewee, the interviewing skills of the researcher, and the researcher’s
interpretation of the data. In addition, studies are difficult to replicate and the findings are
invariably unique to one region or circumstance, therefore they cannot be generalized to the
general population (Bryman 2001).

Quantitative methods involve hypothesis testing and statistical analysis. They are mainly
concerned with measurement, causality, prediction, generalization and replication (Bryman
2001). Hay (2000) describes them as using “statistical and mathematical modeling
approaches…to understand social and physical relationships” (194). The advantages of
quantitative methods include their ability to accommodate larger sample sizes, to gather and
assemble large amounts of data quickly and to have higher objectivity (Bryman 2001).
Disadvantages of quantitative methods are that they may undermine an insider’s knowledge and
perspective and not be capable of dealing with complex variables that are interwoven and
difficult to measure.
Quantitative data is useful for community profiling, providing rough ‘snapshots’ of community
characteristics at a point in time. This data can then be used to monitor trends. Qualitative data,
on the other hand, can be used to explain the processes and reasons behind the observations and
changes revealed by quantitative data. As found in Doak and Kusel’s (1996) community well-
being assessment using a multi-method strategy, the generation and use of both types of data
would provide a richer and more policy-relevant understanding of adaptive capacity. This
employment of mixed methodologies would better inform decisions that aimed at increasing the
level of preparedness a community’s level of preparedness for climate change.
Table 3: The dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative methods

Qualitative methods Quantitative methods
Qualitative data (words, themes) Quantitative data (numbers, fixed categories)
Natural settings Experimental settings (artificial, contrived)
Search for meaning of behaviour, actions Identification of behaviour, actions
Contextual understanding Seeks generalization and replicability
Inductive approaches (theory emergent) Deductive approaches (theory testing)
Identification of cultural patterns Pursuance of scientific laws
Concern: small scale aspects of social reality Concern: large scale social trends
Researcher may be involved with participants Researcher distant, detached from participants
Less structured Highly structured
Subjective Objective
Adapted from Winchester (2000), after Mostyn (1985), Hammersley (1992) and Bryman (2001).

4.1.3 Social indicators
4.1.3.1 Definition and use of social indicators
Indicator studies traditionally fall within the realm of development and economics, measuring
social aspects such as income level, employment, and literacy. The definitions and consequent
applications of social indicators have progressed during the last four decades. One of the first
definitions was provided by Raymond Bauer in 1966, who was a pioneer in these studies; he
defines them as “…statistics, statistical series and all other forms of evidence that enable us to
assess where we stand and are going with respect to our values and goals and to evaluate
programmes and their impact” (cited in Horn 1978: 169).
Recent interpretations of social indicators place an emphasis on their accessibility to the public
and usefulness to decision makers. Social indicators have recently been defined as “a…set of
specific indices covering a broad range of social concerns. Their purpose is to yield a concrete,
comprehensive picture of individual living conditions that can be easily understood by the
general public” (Vogel 1997 from Parkins 1999). They are statistics that, collected over time are
used to inform policy and decision-making (Parkins et al. 2001b). Force & Machlis (1997)
define them as “…an integrated set of social, economic, and ecological measures available to be
collected over time and primarily derived from available data sources, grounded in theory and
useful to ecosystem management and decision making” (Force & Machlis 1997: 371). Although
this definition is specific to ecosystem management, it applies to other contemporary
management regimes such as adaptive and participatory management.
There are several advantages to using social indicators, as outlined by Force and Machlis (1997).
If developed with policy relevancy in mind, they provide a means for systematic comparison
across spatial units and over time, describe socio-economic conditions, are accessible and easily
interpretable, and aid in the decision making process. They also facilitate the communication of
information to a wider audience. Thus, there is widespread support for the use of indicators in
assessing communities for resource management purposes. However, one should be aware of
the issues that must be considered when employing them.

4.1.3.2 Selecting and employing social indicators
One concern relates to the selection of indicators, as numerous criteria have been offered in the
literature (For an overview, see Beckley & Burkosky 1999; Parkins, et al. 2000a). According to
Prescott-Allen (2001: 7) ideal indicators should be:
• Representative – covering the most important aspects of the element of study and revealing
temporal trends and differences between places and groups of people;
• Reliable – directly reflecting how far the objective concerned is met; well-founded; accurate;
measured in a standardized way with sound and consistent sampling procedures; and
• Feasible – depends on data that are readily available or obtainable at reasonable cost.
Although quantitative indicators may be an objective means of evaluating some forms of capital
and capacity, they neglect other non-tangible aspects of community such as a community’s
vision, self-perception and aesthetic attractiveness. Further, it is important that individuals in the
community have ownership of the management process so that their values are reflected in
decision making. Parry (2000) proposes appreciative inquiry as a method of incorporating the
values of aboriginal communities into decision-making. This method “…seeks to locate,
highlight and illuminate the ‘life-giving’ forces in a community. Its aim is to generate
knowledge by focusing on community strengths, expanding ‘the realm of the possible’ and
helping community members first visualize and then implement a collectively desired future”
(Parry 2000: http://www.iisd.org/ai/waterhen.htm).
In this vein, recently, there has been a move toward developing indicators with community
members instead of for them. This type of exercise, focused on facing issues of climate change,
would prove extremely beneficial in helping communities prepare for future changes while
increasing adaptive capacity through building and drawing upon human and social capital.
Locally determined indicators may be especially pertinent to forest-based communities. Reed
(2002) asserts that indicators developed in rural settings may require distinctive features that are
not needed for indicators in urban research. These are a) definitions of rurality and community
that are consistent with social circumstances of rural residents; and b) processes that empower
communities by providing locally-relevant data by establishing civic processes of engagement

with rural residents. It is necessary to situate indicator exercises in the particular circumstances
of local communities.
In their rigorous study aimed at developing community-specific indicators in the Prince Albert
Model Forest (PAMF), Parkins et al. (2001a; 2001b) provide a framework for how to involve a
community in choosing and prioritizing indicators for sustainability. First, they evaluated
indicator effectiveness by the following criteria (Parkins et al. 2001a: 9):
• understandability (do we know what the measure is telling us?)
• relevance (does the measure speak directly to the indicator?)
• accessibility of data (does the data exist and is it retrievable?)
• reliability of data (is the source of data trustworthy and scientifically valid?)
They then adapted the following assessment criteria from Hart (2000), whereby indicators were
judged against their relevance to sustainability. Indicators had to (Parkins et al. 2001: 10):
• be understandable and useable by the community
• take a long-term view of progress
• address economic, social or biological diversity
• address intra- and inter-generational equity
• show linkages between social, economic and environmental factors
• monitor use of natural resources
• address the state of ecological services
• address beauty and life affirming qualities of nature
• address social, built and financial capital
• not come at the expense of other communities
Even with such guidelines, selecting indicators is a difficult process. Data necessary for
indicators at certain scales of inquiry may not be available; for example, census data may not
correspond with the boundaries of a study community. As well, there is the assumption that a
chosen indicator is meaningful and corresponds with the variable in question; this may or may
not be the case. Finally, the data collection process and the data itself may be inconsistent, and

some social conditions may be difficult to define and track such as social tensions within
political units or ethical values. Gottret and White (2001) identify further problems:
• chosen indicators are likely to change over time as the external environment changes and as
the project objectives are adjusted;
• stakeholders select indicators based on different cultural values, priorities, information needs
and expectations;
• indicators are only proxy measures of more complex realities required for empirical analysis;
and
• indicators, even when they are relevant and accurate, are influenced by practicality and cost
concerns related to data collection and analysis.
Another issue to consider involves employing objective and/or subjective indicators. All
indicators may be considered subjective since they reflect the needs, interests and biases of those
who chose them. Objective indicators are drawn from secondary sources such as statistical data,
including income and population below the poverty line; whereas subjective measures refer to
self-assessments as exemplified through structured interviews with key contacts or community
surveys (Beckley & Burkosky 1999). Both types of indicators have their shortcomings.
Objective, socio-economic measures may mask distributions within communities, and while they
report what resources a community may have, they do not indicate how effectively individuals
use these resources to improve their socio-economic status or quality of life. Subjective
indicators are difficult to use in comparison studies because they are person and place-specific.
For example, the perception of happiness is very personal, and individuals may set their
standards according to what they believe they can achieve. Given that neither approach is
satisfactory on its own, recent scholarship advocates utilizing both objective and subjective
approaches (Beckley & Murray 1997; Crabbe, et al. 1996; Kusel 1996).
To conclude, although social indicators can only describe, not explain, why changes occur or
what influences those change (Force & Machlis 1997: 379), they can be useful to forest-based
communities facing climate change. By allowing trends to be monitored over time, indicators
can aid with historical analyses of how communities have responded to climate change in the
past. Further, indicators may be a useful mechanism to measure a community’s economic capital

by providing easily communicable descriptors of socio-economic status. Relying solely on
indicators for community assessment however, is problematic. Indicators are insufficient in and
of themselves, to assess the extent to which communities will and can cohere to achieve common
objectives. Ideally, qualitative methods, as described previously, should be used in conjunction
with indicators for a comprehensive assessment of a community.
4.2 Examples of assessments
This section provides examples of how communities have been assessed using the following
frameworks: well-being, community capacity, vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Table 4 provides a brief overview of these community assessments, barring well-being and
vulnerability.
4.2.1 Well-being
Well-being assessments can encompass both human and ecological well-being (Prescott-Allen
2001). Human well-being can be broken down into economic and social assessments, the
former being more easily assessed with quantitative indicators. Beckley (1995) compares social
well-being to icebergs, in that “it is the hidden, or submerged, aspects that are more difficult to
assess” (262). Although social well-being encompasses many intangible variables not easily
quantifiable, it is possible to make useful and insightful qualitative assessments of these
variables. This may be accomplished with an ethnographic approach by living in a community,
talking with people, observing how people act and interact, and learning the history of the place
(Beckley 1995).

Table 4: Concepts and assessment approaches
Assessment
Concept Study goals Indicators Other measures References
approach
Adaptive To develop indicators of Indicators Forthcoming Information and Adger & Brooks
capacity adaptive capacity at the knowledge forthcoming
national level Management culture
and capabilities
To measure the adaptive Comparative case studies Forthcoming Resources Berkhout 2003
capacity of businesses Scenario modeling Coping mechanisms
Indicators Adaptation options and
plans
Market, regulations
Community To assess the community Community-based Subjective indicator of community capacity Natural, economic/built, Doak & Kusel
capacity capacity of the Sierra Nevada qualitative assessment (rating from 1-7) human, social capitals 1996
Ecosystem Project
To assess the community Qualitative assessment: Historical context Nadeau 2002

capacity to adapt to change in interviews, survey Attitudes towards issues
Haut-St.-Maurice that affect capacity to
face change
Resilience Examine impacts of economic Community self- Aesthetic attraction Preparedness for the Harris et al. 1998
and policy changes on assessment Proximity to outdoor amenities future
agriculture and forest-based Economic profiling Level of civic involvement
communities. Effectiveness of leaders
Social cohesion
Economic diversity
To examine utility of resilience Indicators Economic indicators Adger et al 2002

using the example of a Economic growth and stability and
resource-based community in distribution of income
rural Vietnam. Link between environmental variability and
economy
Demographic change
Migration
Coping strategies present
54
As it is difficult to directly measure human or ecosystem well-being since the processes are so
complex, assessments tend to rely on a selection of indicators of key features of well-being
(Prescott-Allen 2001). Some indicators of well-being include: good health and stable
populations (with a balance of age groups); individual, corporate and societal wealth; knowledge
(education, communication of); culture (belief, links between spirit and nature, expression);
community freedom; governance; peace; order; solidarity; and equity (gender and group)
(Prescott-Allen 2002). Examples relevant to forest-dependent communities include: education
attainment, economic diversity, in-migration (related to the transience of rural towns), and (low
levels of) poverty (Parkins et al. 2003). Measures of social capital and of social pathologies
(divorce, suicide rates) may also be useful (Parkins et al. 2003).
4.2.2 Community capacity
There are no well established practical assessment methods to discern community capacity. The
concept of community capacity expands upon traditional assessment approaches that rely heavily
on economic stability and social indicators. Assessment of this concept is difficult since the
theoretical base of community capacity is broad including non-tangible, value-based aspects of
community’s perspectives previously unrecognized in community research in addition to socio-
economic factors. Intangible characteristics are not readily measured by employing quantitative
measures such as objective indicators. But what value-based community aspects should be
included? The literature addressing this question is still developing. As Nadeau et al. (1999)
assert, the “major challenge of community capacity assessment…is to identify certain attributes
of a community that facilitate or impede its ability to [respond] to change” (750).
Nevertheless, the following examples of community capacity assessments offer methodological

guidance. The Simon Fraser University Community Economic Development Centre has
developed strategies for community capacity assessments for community economic development
(CED). Ameyaw (2000) outlines several methods for this purpose: advisory or working
committee, attitude survey, group discussion, resident interviews, key informant request,
aggregate quantitative analysis, profile document, and questionnaire. He provides a contingency

model to evaluate each method according to the following criteria: resident involvement,
community leadership involvement, time required, cost, and relevance of qualitative data.
Many studies have been and are devoted to creating a suite of indicators that reflect the
community capacity for community sustainability in rural regions of Canada and the US (Copus
& Crabtree 1996; Force & Machlis 1997; Henderson 1994; Parkins 1999; Parkins et al. 2001a;
2001b). Other examples include the Criteria and Indicators Initiative by the Canadian Council
for Forest Ministers, State of Sustainability (SOS) reporting by The Sustainable Communities
Initiative (University of Victoria), and The United Nations Department for Policy Coordination
(Beckley & Burkosky 1999).
Yet, to date, no studies have created a set community capacity indicators though attempts are
underway. Maxim et al. (2001) are developing a community capacity index for assessing the
ability to accept and implement the transfer of programs to First Nations communities. Beckley
et al. (2002a) are developing process indicators to explain how ecological, economic and social
factors produce different outcomes, complementing profile indicators that illustrate current
community conditions. Examples of process indicators include: leadership (quality and
quantity), volunteerism, social capital (number and strength of ties), entrepreneurship, and sense
of place.
As for deriving qualitative data from community capacity assessments, several studies provide
examples. In the Canadian rural context, Nadeau (2002) conducted interviews in Haut-St-
Maurice, a forestry region in Quebec, to uncover aspects deemed important for creating and
maintaining capacity over time. She found that while natural resources were crucial for building
initial capacity, over time community capacity declined and improved due to such factors as
change of industry ownership and industry downsizing.
Doak and Kusel (1996) employed a community-based self-assessment strategy for the Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project in the United States. Workshops were conducted with ‘local experts’
who were charged with appraising their community capacity quantitatively on a numerical scale
(from 1 to 7). As well, they identified the critical components of their community’s capacity

qualitatively in written (on an assessment worksheet) and oral formats (through discussion).
They found that social capital played a critical role in determining overall community capacity.
Finally, Mendis (forthcoming), assessed the community capacity of two Canadian Biosphere
Reserves, one forest- and tourism-based and one agriculturally-based, by holding focus groups
with Biosphere Reserve management, the public and youth (grades 10-12). Building on the work
of Kusel and Doak (1996), locals assessed not only their community capacity but also the state of
their capital resources by rating all the capitals and overall community capacity from 1-7. They
were then asked to rank the capitals in order of importance for building and maintaining their
community capacity. Preliminary findings reveal that elements of community capacity perform
different roles in the different social and geographic contexts. For instance, financial capital is
both a contributor and barrier to the creation of capacity.
4.2.3 Vulnerability and resilience
4.2.3.1 Vulnerability
Most studies involving indicators of vulnerability measure vulnerability at the national rather
than local level (Easter 1999; Pelling & Uitto 2001; Flax et al. 2002). Although indicators
designed for nation states may not be directly transferable to the local scale, some elements of
these indicators are applicable at various scales. In addition, studies at the community level that
discuss (rather than directly measure) vulnerability may also prove useful when designing
assessment methods.
Indicators of vulnerability have been developed at an international level with the purpose of
minimizing losses from disasters in small island states. Indicators used to assess vulnerability of
different nation states have included the Human Development Index, the Debt Service Ratio,
public health expenditures as a percent of GDP, adult literacy, and GDP per capita (Pelling &
Uitto 2001). Easter (1999) proposed the creation of an index of vulnerability to measure a
country’s vulnerability. This index was comprised of 30 variables representing economic

features, remoteness, and susceptibility of islands to natural disasters. Economic growth
volatility was used as a proxy of vulnerability in this study.
Other vulnerability indices for islands in response to natural disasters are presently being
developed by the Geoscience Commission (United Nations Department for Economic and Social
Affairs’ Environmental Vulnerability Index, http://www.sopac.org/index.html) and the European
Commission Humanitarian Office (Composite Vulnerability Index
http://www.disaster.info.desastres.net/dipecho/). As well, the Community Vulnerability
Assessment Tool is available at: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm and provides a
seven step risk and vulnerability assessment. Steps that are relevant to forest-based communities
facing climate change include: the identification of the hazard and areas that will be most
affected; examining the population to identify sectors of special consideration (these may include
the elderly, those on social assistance, minority populations, single parent households);
identifying the industries that will be most affected by climate change; and conducting
environmental analysis that examines where secondary risk will occur (Flax et al. 2002).
At the local scale, Dow (1992) identifies factors that may contribute to the vulnerability of a
community. These factors, which may be transferable into indicators include measures of
exposure, demographics, individual perception and decision-making, equity, social relations,
economics, technology and institutions. Further, Fordham’s (1999) discussion of equity as the
key determinant of vulnerability suggests that effort should be made to consider how elements of
difference such as gender, nationality, class and ethnicity might affect the vulnerability of a
community.
4.2.3.2 Resilience
Because of the wide scope of the concept of resilience, it is difficult to develop indicators that
address all of its components. As mentioned in section 3.0, in order to develop indicators for
resilience, it is essential to define what is meant by resilience (Carpenter et al. 2001). According
to Walker et al. (2002), the first step to understanding what resilience will mean for a community
should involve identifying the spatial boundaries of the system, the ecosystem services important

to people, the stakeholders, the historical profile of the community and the drivers of ecosystem
goods and services (Walker et al. 2002). This preliminary assessment should also identify which
factors are controllable and how current institutional arrangements and the distribution of wealth
influence formal and informal decision-making (Walker et al. 2002).
This initial step, which may be driven by community members, is important since most
indicators of resilience are system specific (Carpenter et al. 2001). Typically measures include
some quantification of the flexibility of individuals to change their livelihoods, which draws
heavily on community capital (Carpenter et al. 2001). This may include the economic and
human capital to change careers, networks to facilitate community action, and the balance of
power across interest groups. Adger (2000) and others emphasize the stability and distribution
of income among populations as important indicators of community capital that translates to
resilience.
Harris et al. (1998) measured resilience (defined as a community’s capacity to adapt) using
community-based assessment and economic profiles of agriculture and forest-based communities
in the US Northwest. A numerical index of resiliency was comprised based on a self assessment
of each community using the indicators: aesthetic attractiveness, proximity of outdoor amenities
of communities, level of civic involvement, community leadership, diversity of economy, and
social cohesion. They found that larger communities, communities with a higher degree of
preparedness for the future, and forest-based versus agricultural based communities had
proportionately higher resilience since they had greater potential for economic diversification
through tourism development. Donaghue and Haynes (2002) also found population size to be
directly related to communtiy resilience.
Berkes et al. (2000) suggest that TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE promotes

both ecological and social resilience and that it shares many properties with adaptive
management. Elements of traditional ecological knowledge that Berkes et al. (2000) identify as
promoting resiliency are: bottom-up management using “locally crafted rules (1259)”, flexible
management, such as harvest rotations; users with traditional ecological knowledge that could be
used as a feedback response; the use of a diversity of resources to minimise risk; and the use of

qualitative information that could provide more rapid information on resource management
directions. In the context of subsistence resource use, traditional ecological knowledge may also
be considered an indicator of resilience.
4.2.4 Adaptive capacity
Models of adaptive capacity have yet to be put forth as the literature is still developing, but
several international projects are underway to develop a means for assessing adaptive capacity.
Neil Adger and Neil Brooks, from the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global
Environment (CSERGE), are currently taking an interdisciplinary approach to develop robust
indicators of adaptive capacity at the national level for all countries of the world for which data
are available (Adger & Brooks forthcoming).
Frans Berkhout, funded by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (also based in the
UK), is conducting research on how to measure and evaluate the adaptive capacity of businesses;
although this is not specifically ‘community’ research, it could nonetheless provide insight into
the characteristics and measurement of adaptive capacity. He suggests that adaptive capacity of
firms is comprised of five factors: information and knowledge (about potential risks and losses);
management culture and capabilities; resources and coping mechanisms; adaptation options and
plans (availability of opportunities for change); and market and regulatory context (incentives or
barriers to change). His research methods involve comparative case studies, scenario modeling
of response pathways, and proxy indicators (Berkhout 2003).
Berkhout’s factors are in agreement with the key factors of the capacity to adapt to climate
change that we have identified (see section 3.4). The assessment of these factors in communities
of study, however, will differ according to community characteristics.
4.3 Study community characteristics
The focus communities of Prince Albert, Montreal Lake First Nation, and Candle Lake are
located in the boreal transition and boreal forest zone of Saskatchewan. The communities all lie

within the Churchill River watershed and the landscape is dotted with lakes providing a rich
habitat for fish and wildlife.
Agriculture and resource-based industries are the most highly represented industries of Prince
Albert. The City of Prince Albert and Rural Municipality of Prince Albert (461) is located on the
banks of the North Saskatchewan River just below the confluence of the North and South
Saskatchewan River. The population of Prince Albert in 2001 was 41,460 with a population
density of 22 persons per square kilometer over 1,885.79 square kilometers (Statistics Canada
2001). Approximately 79% of the population is over the age of 15 with the average age being 34
years. Approximately 25% of the population is of Aboriginal identity. Education levels in this
community are slightly lower than the provincial average.
The total population of Montreal Lake First Nation (106 and 106B) is 1208 persons. The total
land area of 106 and 106B is 8270.7 hectares (INAC 2000). Resource-based industry is the most
highly represented although the employment rate in the resource sector is low. In 1991,
Montreal Lake First Nation was designated as a mineral reliant community (Natural Resources
Canada 2003). It is important to note, that involvement in resource-based industry does not
include subsistence harvesting activities (hunting, fishing, trapping) (Statistics Canada 2001).
Formal education levels and mean incomes in Montreal Lake are much lower than the provincial
average (Statistics Canada 2001). In Montreal Lake First Nation, traditional ecological
knowledge should be considered when examining community capacity to adapt to climate
change.
The total population of the Resort Village of Candle Lake in 2001 was 503 persons at a
population density of 7.9 persons per square kilometer. Resource-based industry is the most
highly represented industry though employment rates in the resource sector are low. As a Resort
Village, Candle Lake experiences a large increase of temporary visitors due to the proximity of
the Candle Lake Recreation Site operated by Saskatchewan Environment.

4.4 Adaptive capacity: proposed measures and assessment strategies
We suggest adopting a broad, functional definition of adaptive capacity, such as the collective
ability of a group to adapt to and cope with climate change over time in a way that maximizes
well-being. Assessing a community’s adaptive capacity should involve examining its past
experiences of coping and adapting to change, as well as its present level of well-being and
community capacity. This may be facilitated with the use of indicators and measures.
Though there are no well-developed indicators for adaptive capacity, indicators have been
developed for components of community well-being and community capacity to describe
community sustainability (Beckley et al. 2002c). Because adaptive capacity is contingent on
well-being and community capacity, these indicators could be used to create indices of adaptive
capacity. Though choosing appropriate indicators for these concepts is a process that is presently
being defined in the literature and that should also be undertaken with community involvement,
in Table 5 we propose indicators derived from the key factors of adaptive capacity as found in
work pertaining to vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. These indicators fall into the
categories of economic wealth and diversity, infrastructure, technology, knowledge, information
and skills, education, health, culture, and community cooperation (these are associated with
different forms of ‘capital’, as illustrated in Figure 7).
Besides the use of indicators, other assessment methods should be used to assess a community’s
adaptive capacity. These include interviews, focus groups and community meetings to determine
community perceptions of their ability to adapt and their level of well-being.
Because of their small size and their unique circumstances, Montreal Lake First Nation and
Candle Lake in particular need to ensure community involvement in the development of
community-specific assessment methods. For Montreal Lake First Nation, assessments may
involve traditional ecological knowledge to define indicators, individual and community cultural
identity, as well as people’s relationship with the land. Candle Lake assessments may place a
greater emphasis on aesthetics and the flexibility of recreational user opportunities.

Table 5: Social Indicators of Adaptive Capacity (AC)
Key Factors of AC Indicators References

ECONOMIC CAPITAL
Economic wealth -access to capital assets -Beckley 2000
-financial capital -Markey & Roseland 2000
-Markey and Vodden 1997
-funding availability -Parkins 1999
-labour force participation and unemployment rates -Parkins et al. 2001b
-income distribution
Economic diversity -industry diversity -Beckley 2000

-Beckley et al. 2002b
-industry perception -Maxim 2001
-resource dependence -Markey & Roseland 2000
-access and proximity to nature-based tourism -Parkins et al. 2001b
-opportunities in the resource sector
-participation in subsistence and wage economies
Infrastructure -rate of local taxation -Beckley et al. 2002b

-Hawkins (Stovel) & Varghese
-availability of appropriate housing 2002
-access and maintenance of services to meet basic -Markey and Vodden 1997
needs -Parkins et al. 2001b
-availability of affordable transport
Technology -investment in technology -IPCC 2001

-Parkins et al. 2001b
-access to technology
-ability to develop technology
-current level of technology
HUMAN CAPITAL
Information and Skills -access to traditional knowledge -Aslaksen et al. 1999
-library and information services usage -Beckley et al. 2002c
-illiteracy: exclusion from knowledge -CCSD 2000
-scientific understanding of problems -Markey & Roseland 2000
-leadership capabilities -Hancock et al. 1999
-Parkins et al. 2001b
-entrepreneurship
Education -access to informal and informal education -Beckley et al. 2002b
-CCSD 2000
-education levels of the population -Maxim 2001
-availability of apprenticeship programs -Markey and Vodden 1997
-Parkins 2001b
-Parkins et al. 2001a
Health -stable home life -Beckley 2000

-drinking water quality and quantity -CCSD 2000
-expenditures on health -Hancock et al. 1999
-physical, mental, and spiritual health of individuals -Markey & Roseland 2000
-population growth and change -Markey and Vodden 1997
-Parkins 1999
-appropriate and affordable health services, accessible -Parkins et al. 2001b
to all

Key Factors of AC Indicators References
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Culture -Treaty and Aboriginal rights -Beckley et al. 2002b
-Beckley et al. 2002c
-world views and perspectives -Markey & Roseland 2000
-relationship to land -Markey and Vodden 1997
-cultural identity -Parkins et al. 2001b
-access to traditional knowledge -Stedman 1999
-governmental relations
-resource availability
-language retention
-cultural identity and sense of place
Community Cooperation -stakeholder and public participation in planning -Adger 2001
-knowledge exchange -Beckley et al. 2002c
-knowledge relevant to decision-making -CCSD 2000
networking density -Hawkins (Stovel) & Varghese
-social cohesion (strong community ties) 2002
-Markey & Roseland 2000
-ability to build trust -Markey and Vodden 1997
-community associations, volunteer agencies, and -Parkins et al. 2001b
hobby groups
-reciprocal feasting and gift giving
-volunteerism
-church attendance, library usage
-visiting friends
-social contact
-organizational membership
-political participation
Institutions and Institutional -existence and density of networks -Adger 2001
-CCSD 2000
Linkages -political freedom to create local institutions -Markey & Roseland 2000
-enforcement and compliance of policies and -Markey and Vodden 1997
regulations -Parkins et al. 2001b
-institutional capacity
-communication of information
-level of isolation and linkages to communities
-confidence in institutions
-strategic planning
-cooperation and partnership development
Equity -presence of low income populations (poverty) -Beckley 2000
-Beckley et al 2002b
-socio-economic status of susceptible populations -Hancock et al. 1999
-presence of female political leaders -Parkins et al. 2001b
-percentage of women in the labour force
-income distribution by ethnic group
-access to basic services
-housing affordability

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Assessment strategy
Community self-assessments as part of community preparation and planning for climate change
may at once measure and increase resilience and adaptive capacity while reducing vulnerability.
A community self-assessment of resiliency in the Columbia Basin suggested that communities
with substantial preparedness for the future, described as “the degree to which a community is
looking toward the future and preparing for its future” (Harris et al. 1998: 14), had high
resiliency scores. Following these conclusions, we recommend that adaptive capacity
assessments strategies implemented in Montreal Lake First Nation, Candle Lake and Prince
Albert be carried out with community-based and multiple method approaches. Employing
multiple methods yields different types of data that, when considered together, provides a more
comprehensive assessment.
Involving the community in their own assessment is important makes the research useful and
meaningful while gaining an accurate and in-depth understanding of the community’s status and
the processes that affect it to stimulate discussion and visioning around the topic of climate
change. Early and sustained public involvement in activities addressing climate change issues
would encourage people, through education, to take responsibility for developing and
implementing adaptation strategies. We outline a preliminary strategy that can be used to
implement community assessments in the three study communities.
5.2 Conducting an adaptive capacity assessment
The development and implementation of adaptive capacity assessments as well as the subsequent
development of planned adaptations requires ongoing, consistent individual commitment and
public participation. Strong coordination between communities is required if a regional
approach is taken. It can be an extensive process but worthwhile if the process results in
increasing preparedness for the potential impacts of climate change.

We recommend the following steps for undertaking an adaptive capacity assessment using
multiple methods. This guide is not exhaustive but describes four phases of the research process.
PHASE I: Developing the research strategy
1. Identify and communicate with contacts in the community to propose developing an

adaptation strategy beginning with an assessment of adaptive capacity. Gain consultation
and feedback regarding the development of the research plan as well as the timing and
logistics of holding an initial public meeting in the community.
2. Complete background research (if possible, use community members as researchers to build
human capital):
a. Complete a case study synthesis of indicator studies with particular attention paid to
studies in resource-based and rural communities, and compile a list of indicators that
have already been developed/used in the study community (e.g. for locally-level
indicators developed with and for Montreal Lake First Nation, Candle Lake and
Waskesiu Lake, see Parkins et al. 2001a; 2001b).
b. Compile a list of expected impacts of climate change for the local region and
examples of associated planned adaptations.
3. Hold one or a series public meeting(s) to: present and obtain feedback on the research goals
and plan; gain approval of the assessment process; educate community members about the
potential impacts of climate change specific to their locale; invite sharing of observations and
traditional ecological knowledge of climate change; present definitions of key concepts in the
climate change literature to develop shared understandings; identify potential stakeholders
and community members interested in participating in one or more focus groups to develop a
set of adaptive capacity community-relevant indicators; discuss the merits and challenges of
different options for selecting focus group participants; and determine who would be
responsible for data collection, storage and access.

Such public consultation could be used to identify issues related to climate change. It would be
useful not only to disseminate information but also to exchange knowledge with community
members through interviews on the impacts and observations of climate change to gain insight
into local conditions. Feedback could also be received on how to develop the assessment
strategy be developed from persons who are unable or unwilling to take part in focus group work
(i.e. due to time commitment or lack of resources to participate).
As for how participants should be selected for the focus groups, the decision would have to be
made with community consultation given that there are many options available. One is to
identify stakeholders in the community and have a representative from each organization present
at the table to discuss all of the indicators. Community leaders and other stakeholders who have
decision-making powers and who would ultimately develop and implement adaptations should
be involved. However a community may want to hold additional focus groups targeted at certain
segments of the general population.
PHASE II: Developing a community-based suite of social indicators
4. Hold a day-long or series of focus groups/workshops to evaluate and choose a set of locally-
relevant and attainable indicators of adaptive capacity with invited participants. Ideally the
group should consist of 8-12 people; hold additional sessions to accommodate more people.
Identify key impacts and issues the community is likely to face to guide the indicator
selection (see Figure 8, section 5.1.2). Determine how each indicator would be measured.
The focus group should address issues identified through the public meetings as well as
additional issues raised by stakeholders unable to represent themselves at the meeting or focus
group. For instance, special interest groups from other communities or regions, academic
institutions, or potential industry partners may want to give their input. No changes or deletions
should be made in order to represent the perspectives of all individuals. Once a comprehensive
list of issues and potential planned adaptations (from the background research, interviews, and
focus group discussions) is compiled, appropriate indicators should be chosen to correlate

community issues with community needs. These could be used to develop local adaptations
necessary to respond to climate change.
5. Verify the set of indicators by:

a. holding public meetings for review and feedback;
b. requesting external expert reviews and feedback from specialists in the field of
indicatorsiii. Readjust the set of indicators by incorporating all feedback.
6. Field test subjective indicators requiring a completion of a survey by members of the public
(i.e. for such indicators as ‘ perceived gaps in local services’ or ‘perception of connectedness
to reserve among different social groups’ (Parkins et al. 2001b)). Make note of any
difficulties encountered (e.g. poor wording of a question) and make changes to the indicators
accordingly.
PHASE III: Data collection and analysis
7. Collect the data on each indicator as specified by the focus group participants.
8. Analyse the data.
PHASE IV: Dissemination of results and policy incorporation
9. Present results back to the community and stakeholders in community-desired formats.
10. Incorporate the results of the adaptive capacity assessment into policy and decision-making
processes so that planned adaptations may be developed/refined.
Repeat phases III and IV on a regular basis as determined by the community (e.g. yearly, bi-
annually) to track progress towards the goal of increasing the community’s ability to adapt to
climate change.

5.3 Defining the context
It is important that stakeholders and community participants agree on the definition of adaptive
capacity. People often will not act purposely toward something until it has a name and meaning
for them (Mead 1934; Baldwin 1986). Since there are varied understandings of the term, as well
as of resiliency and vulnerability, they should be clearly defined within a specific context. This
would include defining the spatial and temporal boundaries of the community to be assessed,
which may involve asking questions such as: Over what period of time should we be planning
adaptation strategies for? Should our community assess its adaptive capacity over the next 10
years or over the next 100 years? What are the spatial boundaries of the community to be
assessed? Consistent use of the term adaptive capacity in the focus group work is imperative
since its definition will have bearing on the choice of indicators and other assessment measures.
5.4 Exercise for an adaptive capacity assessment
Policymakers developing adaptation strategies for a variety of potential impacts of climate

change may find Figure 8 useful. This exercise may be used to assess adaptive capacity by:
• listing the predicted impacts (both positive and negative) of each effect,
• outlining anticipatory adaptations needed for each impact, and
• listing what is required for each adaptation to be implemented and effective, using the key
factors of adaptive capacity as an organizational framework.
Though not all factors will be relevant in every case, these lists may be helpful as a way to
identify available resources and as a way to highlight areas (of adaptive capacity) that may be in
need of attention. Using this exercise, an assessment of the ability of a community to adapt to a
specific impact can be made using the indicators developed in section 4.4. It follows that if all
known effects of climate change are listed along with their associated impacts, adaptation
strategies, and resources needed for implementation of adaptations, policymakers would have an
assessment of their community’s ability to face climate change – its adaptive capacity - as well
as a way to identify capacity areas that are weak.

Anticipatory
Biophysical impacts adaptation Needed capital for adaptation Checklist
strategy
(1) Increased magnitude Economic capital - financial Resources

and frequency of drought
Economic capital – infrastructure
Economic capital – technology
Human capital – information
Human capital - skills/expertise
Social capital -
networks within community
Social capital -
networks outside community
ETC.
Economic capital - financial Resources

(2) Increased occurrence
of tornados
Economic capital – infrastructure
Economic capital – technology
Human capital – information
Human capital - skills/expertise
Social capital -
networks within community
Social capital -
networks external to the community
ETC.
Figure 8: Suggested exercise for adaptive capacity assessment

5.5 Developing and selecting indicators
The choice of indicators in each community will differ according to their specific circumstances.
It is important to note that while most indicators target the individual, the well-being of
individuals does not necessarily equate with community well-being. Here, community
involvement is key as individuals represent community interests and needs in the scope of focus
group participation. Focus groups should identify indicators that may represent more
vulnerability with respect to climate change than others and refine those indicators with specific
community needs and interests. Criteria for defining indicators should be understandable,
relevant, and usable with accessible, reliable data sources (Parkins et al. 2001a). Indicators
should represent the key factors of adaptive capacity: economic wealth, economic diversity,
infrastructure, technology, information, skills, education, health, culture, community
cooperation, institutions and institutional linkages, and equity. Potential indicators may be
drawn from Table 5 or from studies of community capacity and well-being.
In developing indicators to represent economic capital, dominant industries and employers,

economic development plans, and existing market analysis reports should be consulted. A
primary consideration should be given to the differing community lifestyles represented by
subsistence and wage economies. For example, in Montreal Lake First Nation, assessing the
existing wage economy with wage economy potential must give equal consideration to
maintaining the subsistence economy.
When developing indicators of human and social capital, it is important that they are culturally
appropriate. This demands equity in giving a diversity of information sources consideration, both
in forming an indicator set and in assessing the adaptive capacity of the community. In addition,
culturally sensitive assessments will build trust and reciprocity between stakeholders and within
communities. In turn, planned adaptations and long-term monitoring of trends related to social
and biophysical implications of climate change are more likely to be implemented, with a greater
likelihood of that information being shared in the future. Establishing culturally appropriate
assessment strategies built on trust and reciprocity essentially strengthens both formal and
informal institutions to assist communities in implementing planned adaptations.

5.6 Further issues for consideration
5.6.1 Examining linkages
The effects of climate-related and non-climate related changes on a human community depend
on its linkages to biophysical vulnerability and resilience. The assessment methodology chosen
should identify linkages between social and biophysical systems. An example of a linkage is an
increase in tree productivity from longer, wetter growing seasons that increases the economic
potential of forestry. Alternatively, changing fish and animal movements as a result of changing
temperatures may affect hunting. Identifying where changes are likely to be noticed first and
those changes that are likely to have the greatest impact on livelihoods will aid in defining an
indicator set while increasing community preparedness. In addition, clearly identified linkages
ease the process of monitoring trends over time.
A policy-relevant overview that illustrates linkages between the natural and human system
within the climate change adaptation cycle is given in Figure 9. It demonstrates the relationship
between vulnerability and resilience in the natural system to vulnerability, resilience, and
adaptive capacity in the human system, where changes experienced within the natural system are
absorbed through autonomous and reactive adaptations at various scales. The adaptations that
occur within the natural system result in direct and indirect impacts that may or may not be
observable or measurable by human societies. Examples of biophysical adaptations mentioned
in section 1.0 may include changes in: forest fire occurrence; type and distribution of pests and
disease; habitat availability; wildlife population size and distribution; vegetation yield; growing
conditions; species; and distribution of vegetation species, soil moisture conditions, surface and
subsurface water levels and quality, ice thickness, precipitation levels, and air temperatures.
Adaptations within the biophysical systems thereby affect human systems that depend on natural
capital for local livelihoods and larger scale economies.
The vulnerability and resilience of biophysical systems are inherently linked to human systems.
Subsequently, human systems experience autonomous and reactive adaptations that present
short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts on human societies. These impacts are socio-

economic and include changes in: industry representation and distribution; demography of
communities; economic well-being of individuals, communities, and regions; individual and
community identity; health of individuals, families, and communities; existence and purpose of
social organizations and institutions such as hospitals, schools, social welfare, market services,
churches, and outside agencies to support community well-being. The vulnerability and
resilience of human systems is directly linked to its capacity to adapt to socio-economic impacts
resulting from biophysical impacts. Hence, the capacity of human systems to form planned and
anticipatory adaptation strategies depends on its capacity to adapt to change.
Following the climate change adaptation cycle in Figure 9, climate impact assessments represent
an integrated, multi-method process to develop and implement adaptation strategies to address
climate related impacts. An assessment of likely climate change effects would define the
problem and lead to selecting methods to assess possible impacts. Referring to section 1.0,
methods could include scenario-based global circulation models; qualitative inference-based
econometric models, economic input-output models, and cost-benefit analysis; traditional
knowledge research; and socio-economic assessments through the use of indicators. Using these
methods to assess impacts would lead to the development and refinement of planned adaptation
strategies. Once those strategies are implemented, the cycle begins again. Existing strategies
may be refined or new ones created to help human systems adapt to predicted or unexpected
biophysical and socio-economic impacts, keeping in mind that adaptation strategies may shift the
effects and impacts within the biophysical-human system. Finally, it is important to note that a
community can build its adaptive capacity by going through an assessment process if people are
involved.

Planned/ Anticipatory Climate Non-
Adaptations Forcing Climate
Forcing
Adaptive Capacity
Assessment
NATURAL
SYSTEM
Climate Impact Assessment
(Modified from Vulnerability
Mortch & Couter et al. 1994)
Resilience
Define the Problem
Autonomous and Reactive

Adaptations
Select Methods
Biophysical Impacts
Develop Scenarios
Assess Impacts HUMAN SYSTEM

Builds
• Ecological Linked to
• Physical/ Built
• Economic Adaptive Vulnerability Adaptive
• Social Capacity Resilience Capacity
Develop Adaptation
Strategies Autonomous and Reactive
Adaptations
Socio-economic Impacts
Figure 9: Climate change adaptation cycle; Adapted from IPCC 2001: Figure 6-2; IPCC
2001:TS-1; and Mortsch and Quinn 1998: 53 (Figure 2.12)

5.6.2 Linkages across scales
In addition to conducting community-level assessments of adaptive capacity to respond to

climate change, a larger scale regional assessment would allow the focus communities to work
together to address issues beyond the local scale. Particularly with large scale issues such as
climate change where the impacts will be felt by a large number of peoples and any potential
benefits need to be shared equitably, conducting an integrated regional assessment would be a
comprehensive means to develop adaptive strategies in response to climate change. Integrated
regional assessments would also allow a melding of biophysical and socio-economic assessments
to develop a more complete picture of climate change and how it has affected communities from
the past and into the future.
Just as with community-level assessments, developing an integrated regional assessment requires

community and other stakeholder participation from the outset. This will help to ensure the
needs of individuals and stakeholders across communities are represented. Aspects of climate
change research that would be useful in conducting an integrated assessment include: a)
establishing a historical record of change; b) using modeling techniques to forecast future
changes in weather; c) conducting qualitative surveys to gather peoples’ knowledge of changes
in weather and how it has affected them; d) carrying out community assessments to define needs
and visions to build community capacity in response to real and potential changes in climate; and
e) a regional collaboration to develop a vision of an adaptive strategy that will help the
communities help each other to adapt to changing climatic conditions.
5.6.3 Future research needs
Although this report identifies some indicators to assess adaptive capacity, more research is
needed to not only determine the effectiveness and relevance of these indicators for forest-based
communities but also to ascertain additional appropriate indicators. Other research needs include
testing the adaptive capacity assessment presented here, exploring the implications of estimated
socio-economic impacts of climate change, as well as determining what adaptation strategies
would be most effective for a locale.

5.7 Conclusion
A review of the literature on community assessments and how they can be applied to climate
change illustrates the importance of context and community participation in the development of
assessment methods and indicators of community ability to adapt to change. This research is
meant to be a stepping-stone for forest-based communities interested in facing the issue of
climate change. Conducting focus groups and interviews in a detailed research plan to assess the
study communities would support a comprehensive assessment of the community. The
assessment framework proposed is a mixed-method, bottom-up approach to selecting and
developing indicators based on identified key factors of adaptive capacity. A community’s
involvement in the development of indicators will likely also serve to increase their adaptive
capacity by beginning a process of planning for adaptations to meet the challenges of a globally
changing climate. The benefit of the recommended mixed–method approach is that the use of
indicators is complemented with qualitative methods, such as conducting interviews and focus
groups. Informed planning is the best way that forest-based communities may increase their
adaptive capacity and resilience and decrease their vulnerability in the face of climate change.

REFERENCES
Adger, W.N. & N. Brooks. Forthcoming. New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity.
The Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE)
and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. [Online:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/research/biodiversity_cc.htm#adaptive_capacity.]
Adger, W.N. 2001. Social capital and climate change. Working Paper 8. Norwich, UK: Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research.
Adger, W.N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human
Geography 24(3): 347-364.
Alexander, D. 1997. The study of natural disasters 1977-1997: some reflections on a changing
field of knowledge. Disasters 21(4): 284-304.
Allen, L.R., Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R. & S. Kieselbach. 1998. The impact of tourism development
on ‘citizens’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research 27(1): 16-21.
Ameyaw, S. 2000. (Downloaded March 2003.) Presenting a contingency model for CED
decision making: selecting CED Capacity Assessment Methods. Burnaby, BC: Simon
Fraser University Community Economic Development Centre.
Appendi, IK. & D. Liverman. 1996. Agricultural policy and climate change in Mexico. In:
Downing, T.E. (ed.), Climate Change and World Food Security, Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag, p.525-50.
Armstrong, G. 1994. Timber supply impacts of climate change in the MacKenzie Basin. In:
Cohen, S. (ed.), MacKenzie Basin Impact Study Interim Report #2. p 447-452.
Aslaksen, I., Flaatten, A. & C. Koren. 1999. Introduction: quality of life indicators: In
Exploration. Feminist Economics, 5(2): 79-82.
Ausubel, J. 1991. A second look at the impacts of climate change. American Scientist, 79: 211-
221.
Auty, R.M. 1995. Patterns of development: resources, policy and economic growth. London and
New York: Edward Arnold.
Baldwin, J.D. 1986. George Herbert Mead: A unifying theory for sociology. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Banuri, T. 1998. Human and environmental security. Policy Matters 3: 196-205.
Barnes, T., & D. Gregory. 1997. Readings in human geography. New York: Arnold.
Barnett, Jon. 2001. Adapting to climate change in pacific island countries: the problem of
uncertainty. World development 29(6): 977-993.
Bawden, R. 1992. Creating learning systems: a metaphor for institutional reform for
development. Paper for joint IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge,
Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Conference, October 27-29, Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. London: IIED.

Beckley, T.M. 2000. Sustainability for whom? social indicators for forest-dependent
communities in Canada. Final Project Report 2000-34. Edmonton, AB: Sustainable
Forest Management Network, University of Alberta.
Beckley, T. M. 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic and social
well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society and Natural Resources, 8:261-266.
Beckley, T.M., Nadeau. S., Wall, E. & D. Martz. 2002a. Multiple capacities, multiple outcomes:
delving deeper into the meaning of community capacity. Draft paper, presented at the
annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society.
Beckley, T.M., Parkins, J. & R. Stedman. 2002b. Indicators of forest-dependent community
sustainability: The evolution of research. The Forestry Chronicle, 78(5): 626-632.
Beckley, T.M., Parkins, J. & R. Stedman. 2002c. Measuring sustainability in forest-based
communities: Social indicators research in the Canadian Model Forest Program.
Submitted to Forestry Chronicle. Special Issue on the Canadian Model Forest Program.
New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick.
Beckley, T. M. & T.M. Burkosky. 1999. Social indicator approaches to assessing and monitoring
forest community sustainability. Canadian Forest Service Northern Forestry Centre
Information Report, NOR-X-360.
Beckley, T.M. & E.C. Murray. 1997. Sustainability for whom? social indicators for forest-
dependent communities in Canada. Edmonton, AB: Sustainable Forest Management
Network Centre of Excellence. Research proposal.
Berkes, F., Colding, J. & C. Folke, (eds). In press. Navigating social-ecological systems:
building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as
adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1251-1262.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. & M. Gadgil. 1994. Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity,
resilience, and sustainability. In: Perrings, C., Mäler, G., Folke, C., Hollings, C.S. & B.O.
Janson (eds), Biodiversity Conservation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publications p 269-87.
Berkes, F. Mathias, J., Kislalioglu, M. & H. Fast. 2001. The Canadian arctic and the oceans act:
the development of participatory environmental research and management. Ocean &
coastal management 44: 451-469.
Berkhout, F. (downloaded March) 2003. Business and climate change: measuring and enhancing
adaptive capacity. Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU) and the Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change. [Online:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/environment/research/adaptive.html.]
Blann, K., Light, S. & J.A. Musumeci. 2003. Facing the adaptive challenge: practitioners’
insights from negotiating resource crises in Minnesota. In Navigating social-ecological
systems: building resilience for complexity and change, F. Berkes, J. Colding and C.
Folke (eds.), 210-240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bliss, J. C., Walkingstick, T. L., & Bailey, C. 1998. Development or dependency? Sustaining
Alabama's forest communities. Journal of Forestry, 98(3):24-30.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M.T., Nguinguiri, J.C., & Ndangang, V.A. 2000. Co-
management of natural resources: organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing.
Heidelberg: GTZ and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag.
Bowles, R.T. 1992. Single-industry resource communities in Canada’s north. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Bradhaw, M. & Stratford, E. 2000. Qualitative research design and rigour. In: Hay, I. (ed.)
Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press, p 37-49.
Bryman, A. 2001. Social research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burt, R.S. 1998. The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society 10(1): 5-46.
Burton, I. 1996. Vulnerability and adaptive response in the context of climate change. Climate
Change 36: 185-196.
Burton, I., Smith, J.B., & S. Lenhart. 1998. (Downloaded March 2003.) Adaptation to climate
change: theory and assessment. In: Feenstra, J.F., Burton, I., Smith, J.B. and R.S.J. Tol
(eds.). Handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation
strategies, Version 2.0, United Nations Environment Programme. [Online:
http://130.37.129.100/english/o_o/instituten/IVM/pdf/handbook_adapt.pdf.]
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M. & N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4: 765-781.
CCSD. [Canadian Council on Social Development.] 2000. Social cohesion in Canada: possible
indicators. Highlights. Reference SRA-542. Jackson, A., Fawcett, G., Milan, A., Roberts,
P., Schetagne, S., Scott, K., and S. Tsoukalas. For the Social Cohesion Network,
Department of Canadian Heritage, Department of Justice.
Chan, N. & D. Parker. 1996. Response to dynamic flood hazard factgors in peninsular Malaysia.
The Geographic Journal 162(3): 313-325.
Cohen, S. 1995. The potential effects of climate change in the Peace, Athabasca and Slave River
basins: A discussion paper. Northern river basins study project report No. 65. Edmonton,
Alberta.
___. 1994. Development of the MBIS Program. (Ed) Cohen, S. MacKenzie basin impact study
Interim Report #2: 35-38.
___, Agnew, T., Headley, A., Louie, P., Reycraft, J. & W. Skinner. 1994. Climate variability,
climatic change, and implications for the future of the Hudson Bay Bioregion. Canadian
Arctic Resources Committee.
Collados, C. & T.P. Duane. 1999. Natural capital- quality of life: a model for evaluating the
sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecol. Econ. 30: 441-460.
Common, M. 1995. Sustainability and policy: limits to economics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool CD-ROM and web site – NOAA Coastal Services
Centre, North Hanover County North Carolina Case Study
[http://www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/step4.htm] Retrieved March 11, 2003.
Copus, A.K. & J.R. Crabtree. 1996. Indicators of socio-economic sustainability: An application
to remote rural Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 12(1): 41-54.
Cortner, H. J. & M.A. Moote. 1999. The Politics of ecosystem management. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Crabbe, P., Lagarec, D., & Winslow, D. 1995. Developing indicators of forest community
sustainability in relation to forestry. Sustainable Forest Management Network Centre of
Excellence, Edmonton, Alberta (Research proposal).
Cross, J.A. 2001. Megacities and small towns: different perspectives on hazard vulnerability.
Environmental Hazards 3:63-83.
Cutter, S.L. 1996. Vulnerability to natural disasters. Progress in Human Geography 20(4):529-
539.
Daniels, S.E., Hyde, W.F. & D. Wear. 1991. Distributive affects of Forest Service attempts to
maintain community stability. Forest Science 37(1): 245-260.
Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Koehler, J. Turnpenny, J. & R. Warren. 2003. Defining and
experiencing dangerous climate change. Working Paper 28. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research.
Deutch, L., Folke, C. & K. Skånberg. 2000. The critical natural capital of ecosystem
performance as insurance for well-being. Working Paper II, Final Paper. In the context
of a CRITINC project funded by DGXII, ‘Making Sustainability Operational: Critical
Natural Capital and the Implications of a Strong Sustainability Criterion (CRITINC). For
EU Environment and Climate RTD Programme – Theme 4: Human Dimensions of
Environmental Change.
Doak, S. & J. Kusel. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part II: A social
assessment focus. In: Davis, C.A. (ed.) Sierra nevada ecosystem project: final report to
congress, vol. II, assessments and scientifc basis for management options, University of
California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Donoghue, E.M. & Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the viability and adaptability of Oregon
communities. General Technical Report. United States Dept. of Agriculture. Portland,
Oregon: Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Dow, K. 1992. Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to
global environmental change. Geoforum 23(3):417-436.
Drielsma, J.H. 1984. The Influence of Forest-based Industries on Rural Communities. PhD
dissertation. Yale University, School of Environmental Studies and Natural Resources.
Easter, C. 1999. Small states development: a commonwealth vulnerability index. The Round
Table 351:403-422.

Etkin, D. 1993. Planning in a climate of change: Choices under uncertainty. In Impacts of
climate change on resource management in the north, G. Wall (ed.). Waterloo, ON:
Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.
Falk, I. & S. Kilpatrick. 2000. What is social capital? A study of interaction in a rural
community. Sociologia Ruralis 40(1):87-110.
Fankhauser, S. & R.S. Tol. 1997. The social costs of climate change: The IPCC second
assessment report and beyond. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change
1:385-403.
FEMAT. [Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.] 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Flax, L.K., Jackson, R.W. & Stein, D.N. 2000. Community vulnerability assessment tool
methodology. Natural Hazards Review 3(4):163-176.
Flora, C.B. 1999. Sustainability of human communities in prairie grasslands. Great Plains
Research, 9:397-419.
_____., Flora, J.L., Spears, J., Swanson, L., Weinberg, M. & M. Lapping. 1992. Rural
communities: legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Force, J. E. & Machlis, G. E. 1997. The human ecosystem part II: social indicators in ecosystem
management. Society and Natural Resources, 10:369-382.
Fordham, M. 1999. The intersection of gender and social class in disaster: balancing reilience
and vulnerability. International journal of mass emergencies and disasters 17(1): 15-36.
Freudenburg, W.R. 1992. Addictive economies: extractive industries and vulnerable localities in
a changing world economy. Rural Sociology 57(3):305-332.
Fratkin, E. 1986. Stability and resilience in East African pastoralism: the Rendille and the
Ariaal of northern Kenya. Human Ecology 14(3):269-286.
Glaeser, E.L. 2001. The formation of social capital. Isuma (Spring):34-40.
Glantz, M.H. 1988. Societal responses to climate change: forecasting by analogy. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., Smith, S. R.,
Sterling, T. D., & N. Wallerstein. 1998. Identifying and defining the dimensions of
community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior,
25(3):258-278.
Gottret, M.V. & D. White. 2001. Assessing the impact of integrated natural resource
management: challenges and experiences. Conservation Ecology, 5(2):17. [Online:
http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art17.]
Gunter, J. & S. Jodway. 2000. Community-based natural resource management. Burnaby, BC:
Simon Fraser University community Economic Development Centre.
Gupta, J. & M. Hisschemöller. 1997. Issue linkage as a global strategy toward sustainable
development: a comparative case study of climate change. International Environmental
Affairs 9(4):289-308.

Hall, C.M. 1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy perspective. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 7(3&4):274-289.
Hammersley, M. 1992. ‘Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide.’ In: Brannen, J. (ed.)
Mixing qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot Avebury.
Hancock, T., Labonté, R. & R. Edwards. 2000. [Retrieved March 2003] Indicators That Count!
Measuring Population Health at the Community Level. Performance indicator
frameworks for population health. Report on workshop, March 16, 2000. Melbourn.
Harris, C.C., McLaughlin, W. J., & Brown, G. 1998. Rural communities in the interior Columbia
basin: how resilient are they? Journal of Forestry, 96(3): 11-15.
Hawkins, J. (Stovel) and J. Varghese. 2002. State of Local-Level Community sustainability for
two communities within the Prince Albert Model Forest. A report submitted to PAMF
Ecosystem Health/Local Levels Indicator Working Group, Prince Albert Model Forest
Association.
Hay, I. (ed.) 2000. Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hempel, L.C. 1999. Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable communities
In: Mazmanian, D.A. & M.K. Kraft (eds.), Toward sustainable communities: transition
and transformations in environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press p. 43-74.
Hodge, T. 1997. Toward a conceptual framework for assessing progress toward sustainability.
Social Indicators Research, 40:5-97.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 4:1-23.
Horn, R.V. 1978. Assessment of living levels-the social indicator approach. International
Journal of Social Economics, 5: 169-178.
Humphrey, C. R. 1990. Timber-dependent communities. In: Lullof, A.E. & L.E. Swanson (eds.)
Boulder, CO: Westview Press p. 34-61.
INAC. [Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.] 2000. (Downloaded April 2003.) Montreal Lake
First Nation Profile. [Online: http://esd.inac.gc.ca/fnprofiles.]
IPCC. [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.] 1998. The regional impacts of climate
change: an assessment of vulnerability: a special report of IPCC working group II for the
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. (Eds) Watson, R., Zinyowera, M., & Moss,
R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_____. 1995. Climate Change 1995: Impacts, adaptations, and mitigation of climate change:
scientific-technical analyses. pp. 823-834. (Eds) Carter. T., Parry, M., Harasawa, H. & S.
Nishioka. Cambridge University Press.
_____. 2001. (Retrieved March 2003). Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. [Online:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm.]
Johnson, T.G & J.I. Stallman. 1994. Human capital investment in resource dominated
economies. Society and Natural Resources 7:221-233.

Jones, S., Fischoff, B. & D. Lach. 1999. Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate
change research. Climatic Change 43:581-599.
Kassi, N. 1992. Native perspective on climate change. In: Wall, G. (ed.), Impacts of Climate
Change on Resource Management in the North.. Department of Geography: University of
Waterloo.
Kelly, P. & W.N. Adger. 1999. Assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating
adaptation. Working Paper GEC 99-07. Centre for Social and Economic Research on
the Global Environment. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
Kitchin, R. & Tate, N.J. 2000. Producing data for qualitative analysis. In: Kitchin, R. & N.J. Tate
(eds). Conducting Research into Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice,
p.211-228.
Kirshner Cook, A. 1995. Increasing poverty in timber-dependent areas in western Washington.
Society and Natural Resources 8:97-109.
Kromm, D.E. 1972. Limitations on the role of forestry in regional economic development.
Journal of Forestry, 70(10):630-633.
Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest dependent communities in Gray, G.J., Enzer, M.J.
& J. Kusel (eds.), Understanding Community-Based Forest Ecosystem Management,
New York, London and Oxford: The Haworth Press. p.359-382.
Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part I: a new approach. In Davis,
C.A. Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. II, Assessments and
scientific basis for management options. Centre of Water and Wildland Resources,
University of California p. 361-373.
_____., & L.P. Fortmann. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities (Volume I). Davis,
CA: University of California Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program and
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Lee, K.N. 1999. (Retrieved August 2001.) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation
Ecology 3(2): 3. [Online: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3.]
Liepins, R. 2000. New energies for an old idea: reworking approaches to ‘community’ in
contemporary rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies, 16: 23-35.
Littrell, D.W. & D.P. Littrell. 1991. Civic education, rural development, and the land grant
institutions. In: Pigg, Kenneth E., ed. The future of rural America: anticipating policies
for constructive change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lochner, K., Kawachi, I. & B.P. Kennedy. 1999. Social capital: a guide to its measurement.
Health & Place, 5: 259-270.
Machlis, G. E., Force, J. E. & R.G. Balice. 1990. Timber, minerals, and social change: An
exploratroy test of two resource dependent communities. Rural Sociology, 55(3):441-
424.
Magalhães, A.R. 1996. Adapting to climate variations in developing regions: a planning
framework. In: Smith, J., Bhatti, N., Menzhulin, G., Benioff, R., Budyko, M.I., Campos,

M., Jallow, B. & F. Rijsberman. (eds.). Adapting to Climate Change: An international
Perspective, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag p. 44-54.
Marchak, P. 1990. Forest industry towns in British Columbia. In: Lee, R. G., Field, D. R., &
W.R. Burch Jr. (eds.) Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural
Resources. Bourlder CO: Westview Press p. 95-106.
Markey, S. & M. Roseland. 2000. Community capacity assessment for sustainable community
economic development. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University Community Economic
Development Centre.
Markey, S. & K. Vodden. 1997. (Retrieved 2003.) Promoting community economic development
for forest-based communities: the process of community capacity assessment.
Mostyn, B. 1985. The content analysis of qualitative research data: a dynamic approach. In:
Brown, M., Brown, J. & D. Canter. (eds.). The Research Interview: Uses and
Approaches. London, UK: Academic Press.
Munasinghe, M. 2000. Development, equity and sustainability (DES) in the context of climate
change. In: Munasinghe, M. & R. Swart (eds.). Climate Change and Its Linkages with
Development, Equity and Sustainability: Proceedings of the IPCC Expert Meeting held in
Colombo, Sri Lanka, 27-29 April, 1999. LIFE, Colombo, Sri Lanka; RIVM, Bilthoven,
The Netherlands; and the World Bank. Washington, DC: 13-66.
Maxim, P.S., White, J.P. & P.C. Whitehead. 2001. Toward an index of community capacity:
predicting community potential for successful program transfer. Discussion Paper No.
01-3. First Nations Social Cohesion Project. London, ON: Population Studies Centre,
University of Western Ontario. [Online:
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/sociology/popstudies/dp/dp01-2.pdf.]
Mazmanian, D. A. & M.K. Kraft. 1999. The three epoch of the environmental movement. In:
Mazmanian, D.A. & M.K. Kraft (eds.). Toward sustainable communities: transition and
transformations in environmental policy, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p.3-42.
McDonald, M., Arragutainaq, L. & Z. Novalinga. 1997. Voices from the bay: traditional
ecological knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the Hudson Bay bioregion. Canadian Arctic
Resources Committee & Environmental Committee of Municipality of Sanikiluaq.
Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mendis, S. Forthcoming. Assessing community capacity in biosphere reserves. Master’s thesis.
Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.
_____. & M.G. Reed. 2002. A framework for assessing community capacity for ecosystem
management. Paper given at the Environmental Studies Association of Canada (ESAC)
conference, May 31, 2002, Toronto, ON.
Mortsch, L. & F. Quinn. 1998. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin Project: what have we learned?
In: Adapting to Climate Change and Varaibility in the Great Lakes-St. Larence Basin;
Proceedings of a Binational Symposium, May 13-15, 1997. L.D. Mortsch, S. Quon, L.
Craig, B. Mills and B. Wrenn (eds.), Environmental Adaptation Research Group
(EARG), Environment Canada.

Nadeau, S. 2002. Characterization of community capacity in a forest-dependent community: the
case of the Haut-St.-Maurice. Ph.D. dissertation, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
_____., Schindler, B., & C. Kakoyannis. 1999. Forest communities: new frameworks for
assessing sustainability. Forestry Chronicle, 75(5):747-754.
Natural Resources Canada. 2003. [Retrieved March 2003] The Atlas of Canada, mineral reliant
index. Ottawa [Online:
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/economic/resourcereliant/energy/relianceindex]
Nelson, J. & R. Serafin. 1996. Environmental and resource planning and decision making in
Canada: A human ecological approach and a civics approach. In: Vogelsang, R (ed.)
Canada in transition: results of environmental and human geographical research.
Brockmeyer University.
NKWG. [Naturalized Knowledge Working Group.] 1999. Criteria and indicators for naturalized
knowledge: framework and workshop proceedings. Prince Albert Model Forest
Association, Northern Lights Heritage Service & L. Larcombe Archaeological
Consulting Ltd.
O’Riordan, T. & A. Jordan. 1999. Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: towards a
common analytical framework. Global Environmental Change 9:81-93.
Overdevest, C.A. & G.P. Green. 1995. Forest dependence and community well-being: a
segmented market approach. Society and Natural Resources 8:111-131.
Parkins, J. 1999. Enhancing social indicators research in a forest-dependent community. The
Forestry Chronicle, 75(5):771-780.
_____., Stedman, R.C. & T.M. Beckley. 2003. Forest sector dependence and community well
being: A structural equation model for New Brunswick and British Columbia. Accepted
for publication in Rural Sociology.
_____., Stedman, R. C., & J. Varghese. 2001a. Moving towards local-level indicators of
sustainability in forest-based communities: a mixed-method approach. Social Indicators
Research, Author’s Proof:1-23.
_____., Varghese, J., & R. Stedman. 2001b. Locally defined indicators of community
sustainability in the Prince Albert Model Forest. Information Report NOR-X-379.
Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre.
Parry, J. 2000. Skownan First Nation community values project integrating Aboriginal values
into land use and resource management. International Institute for Sustainable
Development. [Online: http://www.iisd.org/ai/waterhen.htm.] Retrieved March 2003.
Pelling, M. 1997. What determines vulnerability to floods; a case study in Georgetown, Guyana.
Environment and Urbanization 9(1):203-226.
Pelling, M. & J.I. Uittto. 2001. Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability and
global change. Environmental hazards 3:49-62.
Pennington, M. & Y. Rydin. 2000. Researching social capital in local environmental policy
contexts. Policy and Politics 28(2): 33-49.

Power, T.M. 1996. Lost landscapes and failed economies: the search for a value of a place.
covels. CA: Island Press.
Prescott-Allen, R. 2001. The wellbeing of nations: a country-by-county index of quality of life
and the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Prescott-Allen, R. 2002. (Retrieved March 2003.) Assessing the Wellbeing of the Central and
North Coast of British Columbia. For the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management, BC Coast Sustainability Strategy. [Online:
http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/coaststrategy/docs/infoteam/SEA_by_Robert_Prescott_All
en.doc.]
Putnam, R. 2001. Social capital: measurement and consequences. Isuma, Spring:41-51.
Rayner, S. & E.L. Malone. 1999. Climate change, poverty and intragenerational equity: the
national level. In: Munasinghe, M. & R. Swart. (eds.) Climate change and its linkages
with development, equity and sustainability: proceedings of the IPCC expert meeting held
in Colombo, Sri Lanka, April 27-29. LIFE, Colombo, Sri Lanka; RIVM, Bilthoven, The
Netherlands; and World Bank. Washington, DC, pp. 215-242.
Reed, M.G. 2002. Situating indicators of social well-being in rural communities of
Saskatchewan. A report to the Community-University Institute for Social Research.
Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.
Riedlinger, D. & F. Berkes. 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding
climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record 37 (203):315-328.
Riedlinger, D. 2001. Community-based assessments of change: Contributions of Inuvialuit
knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Winnipeg, MA:
Natural Resources Institute.
Robertson, G. & H. Gilchrist. 1998. Evidence of population declines among common eiders
breeding in the Belcher Islands, Northwest Territories. Arctic 51: 378-385.
Robinson, D., Hawley, A. & M. Robson. 1997. Social valuation of the McGregor Model Forest.
Assessing Canadian public opinion on forest and forest management: results of the 1996
Canadian Forest Survey. Prince George, BC: McGregor Model Forest Association.
Roseland, M. 1999. Natural capital and social capital: Implications for sustainable community
development. In: Dale, A. & J. Pierce (eds.) Communities, Development, and
Sustainability across Canada. p.190-207.
Russell, D. 1993. Effects of global warming on the biology and management of the Porcupine
Caribou Herd. In: Wall, G. (ed). Impacts of Climate Change on Resource Management
in the North. Department of Geography: University of Waterloo.
Scheraga, J. & A. Grambsch. 1998. Risks, opportunities, and adaptation to climate change.
Climate Research 10: 85-95.
Schindler, B., List, P. & B.S. Steel. 1993. Managing federal forests: public attitudes in Oregon
and nationwide. Journal of Forestry 91(7): 36-42.
Slocombe, D. S. 1998. Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management.
Environmental Management, 22(4):483-493.

Smit, B. 1993. Methodologies for assessing socio-economic impacts of climate change. In:
Wall, G. (ed.), Impacts of climate change on resource management in the North.
Waterloo, ON: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.
Smith, J.B. & S.S. Lenhart. 1996. Climate change adaptation policy options. Climate Research
6(3):193-201.
Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profile – Candle Lake, 2001. Statistics Canada.
[http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01] Retrieved March 2003.
Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profile – Montreal Lake, 2001. Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profile – Prince Albert, 2001. Statistics Canada.
Stedman, R.C. 1999. Sense of place as an indicator of community sustainability. The Forestry
Chronicle, 75(5):765-770.
Stern, A. 1997. Captial theory approaches to sustainability: A critique. Journal of Economic
Issues, March: n/a.
Strzepek, K.M. & J.B. Smith (eds.). 1995. As Climate Changes, International Impacts and
Implications. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tiglao, R. 1992. Grinding to a halt. Far east economic review 16:50.
Tobin, G.A. 1999. Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning?
Environmental hazards 1:13-25.
Tompkins, E.L. & W.N. Adger 2003. Building resilience to climate change through adaptive
management of natural resources. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Working Paper 27.
Toman M. & R. Bierbaum. 1996. An overview of adaptation to climate change. In: Smith, J.
Bhatti, N., Menzhulin, G., Benioff, R., Budyko, M.I., Campos, M., Jallow, B. & F.
Rijsberman. Adapting to Climate Change: An International Perspective. New York NY:
Springer-Verlag p.5-15.
Turner, K.R. 1995. Environmental economics and management. In: O’Riorden (ed.)
Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Harlow: Longman Scientific and
Technical p.30-44.
Veenstra, G. 2001. Social capital and health. Isuma (Spring):72-81.
Vogel, J. 1997. The future direction of social indicator research. Social Indicators Research 42:
102-116.
Waggener, T.R. 1977. Community stability as a forest management objective. Journal of
Forestry 75(11):710-714.
Wall, E., Ferrazzi, G., & F.Schryer. 1998. Getting the goods on social capital. Rural Sociology,
63(2):300-322.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., & G.S. Cumming. 2002. (Retrieved February
2003) Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a

participatory approach. Conservation ecology 16(1):20 [Online:
http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol16/iss1/art14.]
Walters, C.J. & C.S. Holling. 1990. Large scale management experiments and learning by doing.
Ecology 71(6): 2060-2068.
Wilbanks, T. & R. Kates. 1999. Global change in local places: How scale matters. Climatic
Change 43: 601-628.
Wildinson, K.P. 1991. The Community in Rural America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Willms, J.D. 2001. Hypothesis about community effects on social outcomes. Isuma (Spring): 53-
62.
Wilson, C. 1982. The summer season along the east coast of Hudson Bay during the nineteenth
century: A sample study of small-scale historical climatology based on the Hudson's Bay
Company and Royal Society Archives. Unpublished Manuscript: Canadian Atmospheric
Environment Service.
Winchester, H. 2000. Qualitative research and its place in human geography. In: Hay, I. (ed.)
Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press p 1-19.
Woolcock, M. 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes.
Isuma (summer):11-17.

ENDNOTES
i
This has allowed for the use of established accounting schemes to permit measurement of environmental and
community assets for the purposes of environmental management with the aim of sustainability (Hempel 1999).
Cost-benefit analysis is one such application (Auty 1995). Capital theory, as conventionally applied to the concept
of sustainability, asserts that the same or more stock of capital must be left for future generations to compensate
those in the future for damage that present activities may cause (Turner 1995). This application to resource
management, however, is problematic in that it assumes that non-material aspects of a community may be
adequately valued in monetary terms, and also presumes that one capital may replace another; such issues have been
contested (Stern, 1997; Common, 1995). This application of capital theory is not the intention here; instead, the
concept of 'capital' is used to break down the components of a community as a framework for assessment.
ii
Different combinations of capitals are referred to in the literature. For instance, Kusel (1996) identifies three
capitals (physical, human and social), and five in his later work (2001) (physical, financial, human, cultural, and
social), whereas Nadeau et al. (1999) identify four (physical/financial infrastructures, social, human, and
environmental). For this study, I have chosen to combine economic and physical, or built, capital because the two
concepts overlap considerably; the built environment can be seen as a composition of commodities, it can be
considered equal to having monetary value and is exchanged and traded as such. As for 'cultural capital', "which is
the myths, beliefs, and norms that organize groups and facilitate survival", it is excluded here as these aspects will
be evident in the examination of social capital, which encompasses norms and relationships that both facilitate and
influence decisions and actions.
iii
For example, methodologists from Statistics Canada and academics gave their feedback on a questionnaire of
indicators was developed in a study by GPI Atlantic (GPI Atlantic 2000: 260).

Mendis - Building Community Capacity

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mendis - Building Community Capacity

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO ADAPT TO

CLIMATE CHANGE IN RESOURCE-BASED COMMUNITIES

Sharmalene Mendis1, Suzanne Mills1 and Jennifer Yantz2

Prepared for the Prince Albert Model Forest

2.0 FOREST-BASED COMMUNITY ASSESSEMENTS:

3.0 SOCIAL CONCEPTS IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 24

4.0 APPLYING COMMUNITY ASSESSMENTS IN FOREST-BASED

Figure 1: Socio-Economic-Biophysical Linkages 5

Table 1: Climate change research case studies 10

“What we measure reflects what we subsequently do” (Flora 1999: 401).

An overview of past climate change research in the context of Canadian resource-based

The objectives of this paper are to:

1.1 Elements of climate change research

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 2

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 3

The dependency of resource-based communities on natural resources for their livelihood

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 4

Figure 1: Socio-Economic-Biophysical Linkages

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 5

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 6

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 7

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 8

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 9

Adaptive management strategies, such as ecosystem-based and community-based management,

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 12

2.1 A glance at the past: previous assessment approaches

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 13

2.1.2 Community well-being

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 14

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 15

2.2 Community capacity

Definition of Community capacity

Community capacity is the collective ability of residents to:

It is “the collective ability of a group (the community) to combine various forms

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 16

Community-level managers and policy-makers can use community capacity assessments to a)

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 17

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 18

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 19

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 20

Figure 3: A model of community capacity. Source: Beckley et al. 2002a

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 21

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 22

Figure 4: Community capacity: a synthesis of conceptual frameworks

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 23

3.1 Vulnerability and Resilience

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 24

Degree to which a system is susceptible to injury, damage, or harm

Determinants of social vulnerability include: exposure to environmental

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 25

Amount of change a system can undergo without changing state.

Three aspects of social resilience:

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 26

3.1.3 Special considerations for forest-based communities

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 27

3.2 Adaptive capacity

3.2.1 Definition and determining factors

Building community capacity to adapt to climate change in resource-based communities 28

Definition of Adaptive capacity

“Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including

It is also viewed as the “potential, capability, or ability of a system to adapt to climate

3.2.2 Reconciling community capacity and adaptive capacity

Adaptive capacity can be viewed as a specific application of community capacity to achieve a