How Social And Political Procedures Affects Resilience At Various Spatial Scales

1991 WordsDec 4, 20168 Pages
This paper has demonstrated and examines how series of social and political procedure affects resilience at various spatial scales. Resilience is defined as the ability of individuals or communities to withstand and rebound from sudden natural disaster [earthquake, flood or hurricane] that accounts for the loss of life and properties. However, the definition of resilience is broad as resilience thinkers [Charles Holling and Neil Adger] have argued differently. For example, Holling defines resilience as “the ability of a system to absorb change of state variable, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist”(Holling, 1973), while Adger, defines resilience as “the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change”(Adger, 2000). Understandably, thinker like Adger and Holling as Climate Change thinkers within the academic space have a different opinion to what constitutes the impact of climate change and best possible approaches needed towards building resilience within social and political frameworks. This paper argues prevalently that, resilience is shaped by social and political discourse emphasizing on vulnerability and climate change adaptation methods such as Livelihood and Economic Diversification (LED) and Community-based adaptation (CBA). The essay further argues that resilience is debated at multi-levels [local, state, and global] but global policy makers often dominate the
Open Document