This article was downloaded by: [201.145.180.

253]
On: 22 July 2015, At: 18:51
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Society & Natural Resources: An

International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Community Resilience: An Indicator of

Social Sustainability
a
Kristen Magis
a
Executive Leadership Institute, Mark O. Hatfield School of
Government , College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State
University , Portland, Oregon, USA
Published online: 01 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Kristen Magis (2010) Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social
Sustainability, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 23:5, 401-416, DOI:
10.1080/08941920903305674

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Society and Natural Resources, 23:401416
Copyright # 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online
DOI: 10.1080/08941920903305674

Community Resilience: An Indicator

of Social Sustainability

KRISTEN MAGIS
Executive Leadership Institute, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government,
College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University,
Portland, Oregon, USA

Change is a constant force, in nature and in society. Research suggests that

resilience pertains to the ability of a system to sustain itself through change via
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

adaptation and occasional transformation. This article is based on the premises that
communities can develop resilience by actively building and engaging the capacity to
thrive in an environment characterized by change, and that community resilience is
an important indicator of social sustainability. Community resilience, as defined
herein, is the existence, development, and engagement of community resources
by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncer-
tainty, unpredictability, and surprise. The U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests
commissioned a research project to develop a theoretically and empirically based
definition of community resilience as well as an associated measurement instrument.
In this article, the research is presented, the emergent definition and dimensions
of community resilience are posited, and the Community Resilience Self Assessment
is introduced.

Keywords community resilience, Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators,

social sustainability, social sustainability indicator

In 1995, 12 countries, representing 90% of the worlds temperate and boreal forests,
signed the Santiago Agreement formally endorsing the Montreal Process Criteria
and Indicators (MPC&I).1 The MPC&I is a framework for assessing national
progress toward forest sustainability. In 2006, signators modified the MPC&I to
incorporate resilience of forest dependent communities as an indicator of social sus-
tainability. The contribution of community resilience (CR) to the MPC&I is a deeper
understanding of social sustainability, specifically as it relates to a communitys
ability to thrive in contexts of change. A communitys resilience will determine its
ability to successfully mobilize and respond to stress, making resilience integral to
social sustainability (Beckley 1995; 2000; Doak and Kusel 1996; Harris et al. 2000;
Miller et al. 1999).
The U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests2 (hereafter, the Roundtable) sub-
sequently commissioned a research project to develop a theoretically and empirically
based definition of community resilience and an associated measurement instrument.

Received 25 April 2008; accepted 4 June 2009.

Address correspondence to Kristen Magis, 109 Cherry Street, Silverton, OR 97381, USA.
E-mail: KMagis@aol.com

401
 402 K. Magis

The purposes of this article are to present the study results, to posit the emergent
definition and dimensions of community resilience (CR) and to introduce the
CR Self-Assessment. The definition that emerged from the research is: Community
resilience is the existence, development, and engagement of community resources
by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncer-
tainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Members of resilient communities intention-
ally develop personal and collective capacity that they engage to respond to and
influence change, to sustain and renew the community, and to develop new trajec-
tories for the communities future.
Eight primary characteristics, that is, dimensions that further define and opera-
tionalize community resilience, also emerged from the research. The community
resilience dimensions are community resources, development of community
resources, engagement of community resources, active agents, collective action,
strategic action, equity, and impact (Magis 2010).
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

Methods
The CR definition, dimensions, and self-assessment emerged from a comprehensive
review of literature related to resilience, examination of 13 implementation and
research projects focused on various aspects of resilience, the input of 60 participants
in 10 focus groups, and the expertise of the Community Resilience Workgroup.3 This
section (1) describes the literature and praxis review, (2) presents selected constructs
from the literature review, (3) explicates the focus group process, and (4) presents the
data analysis.

Literature and Praxis Review

The purpose of the literature and praxis review was twofold: to provide a cross-
disciplinary review of the resilience construct, and to catalyze a conversation with
Roundtable focus groups. The review was published and disseminated to Round-
table participants (Magis 2007a). In the review, multiple disciplines are examined,
including mental health, public health, disaster response, community development,
natural resource management, and socialecological systems. Terms essential to
the community resilience construct are examined. Issues critical to the design of a
measurement instrument are explored. Thirteen on-the-ground application and
research projects related to community resilience are presented (Figure 1). Key
points from the review are synthesized to generate a draft framework for the CR
Self-Assessment. Questions are posed to Roundtable participants in preparation
for the Roundtable focus groups. Finally, indicators and metrics from the projects
are catalogued and analyzed.
In this section, topics from the literature and praxis review essential to the
emergent CR definition and dimensions are presented. They include: systems disrup-
tion and response; the paradigmatic shift in understanding resilience; the active
agency of communities in community resilience; and community resources and
the development of community resilience. As part of the presentation, community
capitals are explored, and community resilience is distinguished from community
stability and community capacity.
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 403
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

Figure 1. Research and praxis related to community resilience.

Systems Disruption and Response. Systems disruption and response frame the
resilience discourse. In public health and crisis management, systems disruptions
are referred to as stressors, adversities, or risks and can take physiological, psycho-
social, sociocultural, and environmental forms. These conditions increase the likeli-
hood of violence and injuries (Ahmed et al. 2004). In natural resources, adversity and
change are disruptors (Healy et al. 2003). In human systems, change, not stasis, is a
constant (Harris et al. 2000). The community development literature characterizes
communities by change and uncertainty (Chaskin et al. 2001). Communities are
inhabited by successive waves of people and are utilized for different purposes in
different time periods. The level and kinds of resources invested in them change.
Moreover, they constantly adapt and change in response to threats and opportu-
nities. Finally, a communitys resilience is dynamic, changing with internal con-
ditions, external forces, and a communitys ability to respond and develop (Harris
et al. 2000).
Importantly, communities do not control all the conditions that affect them, for
example, the status of land ownership or the industries influencing the local economy
(Ahmed et al. 2004; Gibbon et al. 2002; Kusel and Fortmann 1991; Labonte and
Laverack 2001). However, community resilience is not about controlling all the con-
ditions that affect communities. Rather, it is about individual and community ability
to respond to change (Ahmed et al. 2004; Gibbon et al. 2002; Healy et al. 2003).
Folke et al. (2003) assert that communities need to accept the inevitability of change
and adapt to live with uncertainty and surprise. This discourse on systems disruption
and response depicts communities as dynamic human systems that remain viable
through constant adaptive responses to change, and development of the ability to
thrive in environments characterized by change. From this foundation in systems,
this author explored the abilities and resources necessary to develop and engage
community resilience.

The Paradigmatic Shift in Understanding Resilience. One aspect of resilience

focuses on a systems capacity to absorb disturbance and reorganize in order
to retain the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks, that is, remain robust
 404 K. Magis

(Anderies et al. 2004; Walker et al. 2004). In the social sciences, this idea was oper-
ationalized into the ability of communities to withstand disturbances so to maintain
their social infrastructures (Adger 2000). In natural resource management, it was
operationalized in policies designed to control variability of resources, for example,
timber, through equilibrium-centered, command-and-control strategies (Folke et al.
2006). Further, it was applied to communityforest relations through policies tied to
community stability. With community stability, the Forest Service endeavored to
maintain of the specific structure and functioning of the community despite the
forces of change. It presumed that natural resource agencies could provide stability
in forest-dependent communities through stable employment in the forestry sector
and with consistent flows of timber products from forest lands (Donoghue and
Sturtevant 2007).
Studies in socio-ecological systems, however, indicate that resilience includes not
only sustenance and renewal, but also occasional transformation. Systems absorb
disturbances, that is, changes, to retain their original structures and processes. They
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

also adapt and change in response to disturbances. Sometimes, however, distur-

bances push systems to thresholds at which minor adaptations are no longer suf-
ficient. Rather, the system must undergo significant transformations. These
transformations are healthy and necessary for the systems continued survival
(Berkes and Seixas 2005; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Smit and Wandel 2006).
The disturbances create opportunities for systems to develop and recombine struc-
tures and processes, thus renewing them and creating conditions for their ongoing
viability (Wheatley 1992). Hence, the notion of system stasis is replaced with the
notion of persistence developed through the adaptive renewal cycle stimulated by
change (Gunderson and Holling 2002). Therefore, the most appropriate response
to systems disruption will vary from maintenance to adaptation to transformation.
This more complete rendering of resilience shifts attention from controlling
change in presumably stable community systems to managing the capacity of
dynamic communities to cope with, adapt to and shape change (Berkes et al.
2003; Smit and Wandel 2006). It reinforces the notion of change as a constant in
communities. Hence, it is resilience, not community stability, that is required for
communities to thrive. Finally, it highlights the need for communities to develop
the capacity to respond to, create, survive in and thrive in change. The definition
and dimensions of community resilience that emerged in this study embrace this
rendering of resilience.

The Active Agency of Communities in Community Resilience. This shift in under-

standing of resilience is paradigmatic, not only in its reorientation to change, but in
its perception of a communitys ability to take planned action and effect change, that
is, its agency. In the community stability paradigm, the burden of responsibility
for community well-being was placed on federal land management agencies, while
communities were relegated to passive roles regarding their own well-being. In the
community resilience paradigm, forest communities are primary and active agents
in their own well-being.
In crisis management and public health, risk and resilience are seen as related
and interactive. Adversity creates vulnerability in communities, exposing them to
potentially harmful effects. When faced with adversity, resilient communities
develop material, physical, sociopolitical, sociocultural, and psychological resources
to cope (Ahmed et al. 2004). The response is twofold. First, communities seek to
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 405

limit risk factors, hence reducing threats to health and safety. Second, they endeavor
to increase resilience factors that can counteract risk factors. Communities that can
limit risk factors and increase resilience factors develop the ability not only to survive
disruptions, but to thrive in and through adversity (Davis et al. 2005).
In socio-ecological literature, community members local and traditional knowl-
edge as well as their experience and understanding of the community confer on them
an important role in the communitys well-being (Berkes et al. 2003; Gunderson and
Pritchard 2002). Their contributions are seen as complementary to those of conven-
tional management and their inclusion in management institutions is advocated
(Folke et al. 2003). Hence, though external forces impact the community, the com-
munity can influence its well-being and take a leadership role in doing so (Ahmed
et al. 2004; Davis et al. 2005; Doak and Kusel 1996; FEMAT 1993; Harris et al.
2000; Jackson et al. 2004). The ability, unique capacity, and important role of com-
munities in developing their communities resilience led to the inclusion of active
agency as a community resilience dimension.
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

Community Resources and the Development of Community Resilience. Commu-

nities have a variety of internal and external resources from which to draw to
respond to change (Fawcett et al. 1995; Kretzmann and McKnight 1993). Economic
resources, albeit important, are one of many resources and cannot alone make a
community resilient (Daniels 2004; Daubon and Saunders 2002; Fey et al. 2006;
Stedman et al. 2004). Additionally, communities need to draw on their social, cul-
tural, human, political, natural, and built resources (Daniels 2004; Donoghue and
Sturtevant 2007; Emery and Flora 2006; Harris et al. 2000; Kusel 2001; Machlis
and Force 1988). Community members collectively and strategically engage these
resources to respond to change (Berkes et al. 2003; Colussi 2000; Harris et al.
2000; Healy et al. 2003; Smit and Wandel 2006).
Communities have the ability to intentionally develop resiliency (Ahmed et al.
2004). Berkes and Seixas (2005) stress the capacity-building element of resilience.
Communities, they assert, need to learn to live with change and uncertainty, and
actively build the capacity to thrive in that context. Developing resilience increases
the communitys ability to develop in dynamic environments that are characterized
by unpredictability and surprises (Adger et al. 2005; Walker et al. 2004). Resilient
communities actively develop community resources (Adger et al. 2005; Berkes and
Seixas 2005; Colussi 2000; Doak and Kusel 1996; Harris et al. 2000; Jackson et al.
2004; Kusel 1996; Walker et al. 2004). They work intentionally to enhance the per-
sonal and collective ability to respond to and influence change (Colussi 2000).
Importantly, however, capacity is necessary, but insufficient, for community
resilience. Community resilience is about action taken, not simply capacity to act
(Costello and Johns 2006; Fawcett et al. 1995; Healy et al. 2003; Kusel 1996).
Resilient communities can also develop resilience through their responses to
crises (Costello and Johns 2006). The responses strengthen community bonds and
resources and develop the communities resilience, even as they address the present-
ing disruption (Chenoweth and Stehlik 2001, cited in Healy et al. 2003). In a
self-reinforcing cycle, the engagement of community resources toward community
objectives addresses the presenting issue and can develop the communitys resilience,
which then can generate adaptive capacity to both sustain and adapt in response to
disturbance and change (Adger et al. 2005; Flora and Flora 2004; Kaufman 1959;
Smit and Wandel 2006; Walker et al. 2004; Wilkinson 1991).
 406 K. Magis

A number of conclusions were drawn from the literature on resilience. First,

communities that learn to live with change and uncertainty and that actively build
and engage the capacity to thrive in that context become resilient. Second, communi-
ties can develop resilience strategically via planning, collective action, innovation,
and learning. Third, community resilience is facilitated through developing and
engaging diverse resources from throughout the community. Fourth, community
members can be active agents in the development of community resilience. Finally,
resilience is developed through engagement of the communitys resources, that is,
taking action, not simply by developing the communitys capacity. The focus on
capacity and resources in the literature led to the exploration of community
resources, that is, community capitals.

Community Capitals. Community capitals are community resources that are

strategically invested in collective endeavors to address shared community objectives
(Flora and Flora 2004). Throughout the process of developing community resilience,
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

community members are working with the communitys resources. The investment
of resources in the community increases the productivity of current resources and
generates new resources. This investment process creates an upward spiral of increas-
ing community ability to respond effectively to change, that is, it creates community
resilience. Resources, thus invested, transform into community capital (Flora and
Flora 2004; Kaufman 1959; Wilkinson 1991). The community capitals construct is
prevalent in recent ecosystem studies, community studies, and rural community
development (Chaskin et al. 2001; Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007; Laverack 2001).
The Community Capitals Framework (Flora et al. 2004; Flora and Flora 2004)
presents a comprehensive description of community capitals. It was developed as a
direct response to the dominant use of the economic paradigm to measure social
well-being and is based on the principle of social justice (Flora 19981999). It is
premised on the fact that communities have many kinds of resources, most of which
are not related to economics, but rather are related to social phenomena, that is,
social, cultural, spiritual, and political resources.
Natural capital is made up of resources and ecosystem services from the natural
world (Constanza et al. 1997; Goodman 2003). Natural capital is influenced by indi-
vidual and collective human action, but also presents opportunities and constraints
on human, social, cultural, and financial capital (Machlis and Force 1997). Human
capital refers to individuals innate and acquired attributes, whether they are latent
or manifest. Human capital metrics address individual capacity, training, skills and
knowledge, health, and leadership (Goodman 2003). Human capital is utilized to
develop and access resources and to develop the community (Chaskin et al. 2001;
Flora and Flora 2004; Harris et al. 2000). Cultural capital refers to people in social
groups, for example, communities. It reflects communities ways of knowing the
world, their values, and their assumptions about how things fit together. It is repre-
sented by symbols in language, art, and customs. Culture creates the perspective from
which people perceive life events, and sets in motion social rules related to power and
influence in the community (Flora and Flora 2004). Facets of culture important to
community resilience include community members belief in their ability to protect
the well-being of the community, their ability to survive and thrive through change,
and their belief in their ability to develop the necessary capacity to become resilient.
Financial capital refers to the financial resources available to be invested in
the community for business development, civic and social enterprise, and wealth
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 407

accumulation. It measures the current financial situation, evaluates how com-

munities utilize external resources, and makes future projections (Fey et al. 2006;
Goodman 2003). Built capital refers to a communitys physical assets and built infra-
structure, for example, machinery, homes, office buildings, schools, roads, sewers,
factories, and water systems. Built capital is generated through application of finan-
cial and human capital (Flora and Flora 2004; Goodman 2003). Political capital
refers to community members ability to access resources, power, and power brokers,
and to impact the rules and regulations that affect the community (Fey et al. 2006;
Flora and Flora 2004). Political capital connects community development with
government resources and private investment. It reflects the peoples capacity to
express themselves and to participate as agents in their community.
Social capital refers to the ability and willingness of community members to par-
ticipate in actions directed to community objectives, and to the processes of engage-
ment, that is, individuals acting alone and collectively in community organizations,
groups, and networks (Williams 2004). Three types of social capital are important
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

for community resilience: bonding, bridging, and linking. Bonding capital represents
the close ties that build cohesion within groups. Bridging capital represents the loose
ties between groups (Granovetter 1973). These loose ties connect people that may
otherwise not interact, exposing them to diversity, enhancing their ability to work
with each other (Woolcock 2000), expanding the resources available to them, and
broadening their identities. All, in turn, facilitate additional bridging (Granovetter
1973). Linking capital focuses on vertical relationships between groups and those
with power or authority (Woolcock 2000). Linking requires heterogeneity of social
ties to enable multiple linkages to multiples sites and people. Linking capital is parti-
cularly important for communities poor in resources (Ahmed et al. 2004). The more
they can link with sources of power and wealth, the greater their access to resources,
the more opportunity they will have to make their voices heard, and the better
situated they will be to take advantage of opportunities (Coleman 19881989).
The CR Self-Assessment incorporates the community capitals, assessing them in
relation to each of the CR dimensions. For example, the CR dimension active agents
queries whether community members believe they can improve the communitys
well-being. This question assesses cultural capital as it relates to peoples beliefs.

Community Resilience and Community Capacity. Community resilience is closely

related to, but distinct from, community capacity. The community development
literature defines community capacity as the communitys ability to engage in collec-
tive action, and to address a variety of circumstances through use of various com-
munity assets. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) define community capacity as a
set of assets that exist within and among communitys members, local associations,
and institutions. Fawcett et al. (1995) focus on collective action, defining community
capacity as the communitys ability to pursue its chosen course of action. Chaskin
et al. (2001) provide this definition: Community capacity is the interaction of
human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given
community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or main-
tain the well-being of a given community (7).
Community resilience emerges from systems theory and socio-ecological studies
regarding systems change. It shares commonalities with community capacity. Both
utilize the notion of developing and utilizing community resources for the commu-
nitys well-being. Both also borrow the concept of collective action from the social
 408 K. Magis

movement literature and utilize the construct of active agency. However, CR

diverges from community capacity in its specific and exclusive focus on community
systems in the context of change. So, while community capacity can be developed
for virtually anything, including stasis in the face of change, CR specifically exists
within and because of change. It recognizes, accepts, builds capacity for, and engages
change.
In natural resources, researchers have used community resilience and community
capacity to refer to the same phenomenon, that is, adapting to change. In the 1990s,
three large-scale ecosystem studies were implemented, the Forest Ecosystem Man-
agement Assessment Team (FEMAT), the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem project (SNEP),
and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)
(Jackson et al. 2004). FEMAT and SNEP utilized the community capacity construct,
while ICBEMP utilized the community resilience construct. The three studies, how-
ever, operationalized community resilience and community capacity very similarly
(Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007). They assigned active agency to communities,
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

presuming community members are active participants in the communities response

to change and in the creation of their futures. Further, they asserted that increased
capacity or resilience is related to the communities increased ability to meet needs
and adapt to change. Finally, both SNEP and IBEMP studied community resilience
and community stability by examining the communities development and utilization
of community capital.
There is overlap between community resilience and community capacity.
For example, both presume the existence of community resources and the necessity
of engaging them toward community ends. They acknowledge the active agency
of community members, the communities ability to develop capacity, and the self-
reinforcing effect of engaging community resources toward community ends.
However, while the constructs share similarities, there is an important difference.
Community capacity focuses generally on all matters related to communities and
community development. Community resilience focuses on the communitys capacity
specifically with regard to change. This distinction is illustrated in the CR definitions
posited in both community development and socio-ecological studies. Colussi (2000)
defines a resilient community as one that takes intentional action to enhance the
personal and collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to respond to, and
influence the course of social and economic change. Gunderson and Holling
(2002) indicate that resilience is persistence born out of change and adaptive renewal
cycles. Berkes and Seixas (2005) stipulate that factors related to resilience include
learning to live with change and uncertainty; nurturing diversity for reorganization
and renewal; combining different kinds of knowledge; and creating opportunity for
self-organization (1). Resilience, simply, is about the capacity to adapt to change.

Roundtable Focus Groups

Roundtable participants represent a variety of organizations that share a commit-
ment to, and expertise in, forest sustainability and the MPC&I, including the USDA
Forest Service, tribes, nonprofit conservation and community organizations, and
universities. These participants were invited to a special session of the Roundtable.
The purposes of the 2007 Roundtable Special Session were to (1) present the litera-
ture and praxis review and the draft framework for the CR measurement instrument,
and (2) conduct focus groups on the community resilience construct and the
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 409

instruments design. At the special session, 60 participants were organized into 10

focus groups to discuss ideas, questions, concerns, and recommendations.
Participants in the special session included academicians, advocates, community
organizers, foresters, physical scientists, social scientists, bureaucrats, and policymakers.
They brought varying levels of expertise and experience with community resilience.
Their expertise and experience grounded discussions on a solid theoretical and empirical
foundation. Further, their breadth and depth of knowledge and experience as well as
their organizations standing commitment to the MPC&I made their input vital, parti-
cularly with regard to identifying key constructs, critical issues, and methodological
considerations within the specific context of forest sustainability and the MPC&I.
The face-to-face discussions enabled clarification and explication of new and different
ideas, and exploration of issues that emerged throughout the course of the discussion.
They also facilitated exploration of various perspectives on several issues of concern.
Focus groups were structured to engage participants in creative brainstorming
on specific questions and to generate clear and detailed suggestions. An affinity dia-
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

gram was utilized to facilitate the discussions (Brassard and Ritter 1994). The tool
facilitates the generation of many ideas in a short time frame among people who
dont typically work together, and organizes the ideas into key themes and associated
data. It balances the input of participants. Finally, it provides a direct transcription
of participants input. Data generated from the session included affinity diagram
data, notes from 10 focus groups, and notes from three plenary sessions. After
the session, data were analyzed to identify higher order themes and categorize
supporting concepts (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The special session and analysis
results were captured in a final report to the Roundtable (Magis 2007b).

Data Analysis
Data gleaned from the focus-group discussions and the literature and practice review
were then analyzed to develop the definition and dimensions of community resili-
ence. A content analysis was conducted on the literature to operationalize the com-
munity resilience construct. The definition and eight dimensions of community
resilience emerged from this analysis. The dimensions operationalize the definition
into actionable, observable, and measurable elements.
Analyses were then completed to select metrics to measure community resilience.
Metrics from the 13 reviewed projects were first analyzed to select those that most
effectively reflected the community resilience dimensions (Magis 2007a). Additional
metrics were then developed to focus on change and to ensure that each dimension
was adequately operationalized. Finally, questions were developed from the metrics
for the CR Self-Assessment. The CR Self-Assessment moved through five iterations
of draft, review, and edits. Twenty people, including the Community Resilience
Workgroup, USDA Forest Service personnel, and community members, provided
the first reviews. Forty-four community members in three communities then com-
pleted the CR Self-Assessment for their communities and provided additional
recommendations for revisions.

Results
This research project makes two primary contributions to the study of community
resilience: a definition and set of dimensions related to community resilience
 410 K. Magis

Figure 2. Community resilience dimensions.

Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

(Figure 2). An additional contribution is the CR Self-Assessment. The CR Self-

Assessment was designed to measure the resilience of communities along each of
the eight CR dimensions. The community resilience dimensions are described herein,
along with examples of associated metrics.

Community Resilience Dimensions

Community Resources. Communities have access to many resources within and
outside the community that can be engaged to respond to change and develop the
communities capacity. Resources exist in the natural world, in the people who live
in the community, in the culture of the people, in the associations between the
people, in the economy and infrastructure of the community, and in the political pro-
cesses in which the community engages. These resources are referred to respectively
as natural, human, cultural, social, financial=built, and political capital. Community
resilience is developed through the engagement of all the capitals.
Examples of metrics include: (1) how well people understand the opportunities
and limitations of the natural environment in and surrounding their community;
(2) to what extent community leaders are networked with resources outside the
community, for example, federal, state, county, businesses; and (3) to what extent
community members believe that change is inevitable and that the community can
adapt successfully to change.
Development of Community Resources. Community resources are dynamic.
They can be developed and expanded, or depleted and destroyed. Their development
contributes to the communitys capacity to respond to stressors, crises, and oppor-
tunities, that is, change. Resources left unused can diminish, and overinvestment
in one can deplete others and cause declines in community capacity. Importantly,
capacity is necessary, but insufficient, for community resilience. Developing
community resilience requires action taken, not simply the capacity to act.
Sample metrics include: (1) new kinds of business and employment opportunities
developed in the community over the last ten years; (2) preparedness of youth with
important work habits (e.g., quality work, timeliness, reliability), and to become
involved citizens (e.g., vote; participate in civic and social organizations; take action
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 411

to make social change; advocate ideas and concerns to government and media); and
(3) the extent to which communities affected by change attempt to keep things the
same or try new ways of doing things.
Engagement of Community Resources. When community resources are engaged
toward a shared community objective, the communitys capacity to reach
that objective can increase. The engagement of the resource can further develop
it, create new resources and increase their productivity. In a self-reinforcing cycle,
engagement of community resources toward community objectives can develop
community resilience, which in turn can generate additional resources and
capacity. Conversely, resources that are utilized only for personal or private
gain may not contribute to community resilience and can, in fact, undermine a
communitys resilience.
Sample metrics include: (1) the effectiveness of community government in
dealing with important problems facing the community; (2) the extent to which
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

community organizations contribute leadership and volunteers to community endea-

vors; and (3) the extent to which communities affected by change generate ideas to
address the change that are new and that involve recombining resources in different
and creative ways.
Active Agents. Community members are active agents in the communitys resili-
ence. Although external forces impact the community, the community can influence
its well-being and take a leadership role in doing so. Further, communities have a
vital stake in the economic, social and environmental impacts of natural resource
management, so need be recognized as key stakeholders and must participate in
the resource management issues that affect them.
Sample metrics include: (1) community members belief in their ability to affect
the communitys well-being; (2) community members involvement in various groups
and events; and (3) the communitys self-reliance in addressing major issues and
changes affecting the community.
Collective Action. Community resilience is developed through collective effort to
accomplish specific community objectives. Collective action requires participation
and leadership from throughout the community. The extraordinary work of a singu-
lar individual or group of individuals is insufficient (Berkes et al. 2003; Colussi 2000;
Harris et al. 2000; Healy et al. 2003). Collective action is more efficacious when
people from diverse and autonomous groups work together, and when people know
what organizations and people are important, as well as how to accomplish their
objective (McAdam et al. 1996; Tarrow 1998).
Sample metrics include: (1) the extent to which community leaders facilitate
collaboration between groups to work on community objectives; (2) the extent to
which community decision-making processes engage diverse perspectives and reflect
cultural differences; and (3) the extent to which people from diverse groups share
supports, resources, knowledge, and expertise when confronted with change.
Strategic Action. Community resilience is developed through conscious deliber-
ation, planning, implementation, and learning. The community develops itself inten-
tionally and moves toward specific strategic visions and objectives. Community
members work intentionally to enhance personal and collective capacity to respond
to and influence change (Colussi 2000). Sample metrics include: (1) the extent to
which information on community resources is used in planning community
 412 K. Magis

endeavors; (2) the extent to which local planning processes generate a community-
wide commitment to a common future; (3) the extent to which community members
look outside the community to find resources to support its endeavors; and (4)
opportunities for people to share lessons, unresolved questions, ideas and innova-
tions from their experiences.

Equity. Equity refers to equal access to and distribution of societys benefits

and costs, and social justice for all economic and social groups, as well as equality
within and between generations (Haq 1999; Magis and Shinn 2009; Polese and
Stren 2000). Particular attention is paid to the needs of minority, disenfranchised,
and non-mainstream groups. Equity ensures open access and equal opportunity,
which enable the development and engagement of resources from throughout the
entire community for the communitys benefit. Sample metrics include: (1) access
of various groups to the communitys natural resources; (2) involvement of various
groups in the planning and leadership of the community; and (3) the extent to which
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

community organizations welcome and include various groups.

Impact. Community resilience is evidenced in the communitys successful

response to crisis=opportunity=change, its successful implementation of plans, its
development of new trajectories and futures for itself, and its adaptation to changes
within and outside the community. Importantly, community resilience is not about
controlling all the conditions that affect it. Rather, it is about thriving in those con-
ditions. Sample metrics include: (1) the changes in participation and collaboration
over time; (2) the changes in number and variety of external contacts over time;
(3) changes in the communitys capacity over time to respond to change, develop
new futures for itself, and develop and implement community-centered plans; and
(4) changes in the communitys resources over time.

Conclusion
The resilience construct has been studied in numerous contexts and from various
disciplinary perspectives. Research suggests that resilience pertains to the ability
of a system to sustain itself through adaptation and occasional transformation.
Resilient communities, hence, learn to cope with, adapt to and shape change. To test
this conception of community resilience and make it accessible to those wishing to
apply it in praxis, this research endeavored to operationalize the construct into
actionable, observable, and measureable elements. The contributions of the study
include a definition of community resilience and eight community resilience dimen-
sions. Additionally, metrics related to each dimension were identified and incorpor-
ated into the CR Self-Assessment.
The path forward includes testing the operationalization of the community
resilience construct, and applying it in praxis. To ensure the dimensions and metrics
provide a valid and reliable portrayal of community resilience, they need to be tested.
The CR Self-Assessment needs to be tested to ensure that it effectively distinguishes
between levels of resilience, and that it accurately predicts resilience. The assessment
also needs to be utilized in communities to generate information that can be mined to
develop community resilience, guide policy development, and provide vital criteria to
evaluate policies and practice. Finally, the link between community resilience and
ecological sustainability needs to be explored as part of a comprehensive endeavor
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 413

to understand the complicated interconnections between sustainability of human and

ecological systems.
Information on a communitys resilience has a number of purposes. It can be
utilized by communities to track and strengthen their resilience. It can be used by
community development organizations in pre- and posttest fashion to test the effi-
cacy of various interventions on improving community resilience. It can be used
by policymakers to inform decision making, and to monitor the impact of policies
on community sustainability. For example, USDA Forest Service personnel can
use the information to discern how to best implement change in forest policy that
will affect communities, and to monitor the impact of those changes on the com-
munity. It can also be used by funding sources to determine how best to invest lim-
ited resources. For example, communities with low resilience may be selected as
grant recipients to systematically develop resilience. Communities with high resili-
ence may be selected to create or test special products, e.g., techniques to develop
resilience. Communities applying for grant dollars can be advised to systematically
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

address the resilience dimensions in which they score low and that are deemed neces-
sary for the projects successful completion. Finally, information on community
resilience can be used by communities and the forest sector to collaboratively deter-
mine their respective relationships in sustaining forests and community well-being.
Communities experience constant change from multiple sources. As change is
constant, no community can presume a future without change. Moreover, as change
is unpredictable, communities cannot have full knowledge of the kind of change to
anticipate or intensity or ultimate impact of those changes. A communitys resilience
will influence its ability to successfully respond to that change, thus making resilience
critically important to community and social sustainability. As community resilience
can be developed, communities are well served to strategically develop it.

Notes
1. For information on the MPC&I and the Santiago Agreement, see http://www.rinya.maff.
go.jp/mpci.
2. The Roundtable spearheads implementation of the MPC&I in the U.S. See http://
www.sustainableforests.net.
3. The Workgroup was comprised of professionals with expertise in natural resources, com-
munities and social sustainability. They provided input, feedback, and ideas throughout
the project.

References
Adger, N. W. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr.
24(3):347364.
Adger, N. W., T. P. Hughes, C. Folk, S. R. Carpenter, and J. Rockstron. 2005.
Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737):10361039.
Ahmed, R., M. Seedat, A. van Niekerk, and S. Bulbulia. 2004. Discerning community resili-
ence in disadvantaged communities in the context of violence and injury prevention.
S. Afr. J. Psychol. 34(3):386408.
Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness
of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 9(1):18.
Beckley, T. 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic and social
well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society Nat. Resources 8(3):261266.
 414 K. Magis

Beckley, T. 2000. Sustainability for whom? Social indicators for forest-dependent communities in
Canada. Edmonton, Canada: Sustainable Forest Management Network, University of
Alberta.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (Eds.). 2003. Navigating socialecological systems:
Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Berkes, F., and C. S. Seixas. 2005. Building resilience in lagoon socialecological systems: A
local-level perspective. Ecosystems 8:967974.
Brassard, M., and D. Ritter. 1994. The memory jogger II: A pocket guide of tools for continuous
improvement & effective planning. Salem, NH: GOAL=QPC.
Chaskin, R., P. Brown, S. Venkatesh, and A. Vidal. 2001. Building community capacity. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Chenoweth, L., and D. Stehlik. 2001. Building resilient communities: Social work practice and
rural Queensland. Austr. Social Work 54(2):4754.
Coleman, J. 19881989. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American J. Sociology
95:95120.
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

Colussi, M. M. 2000. The community resilience manual: A resource for rural recovery
and renewal. http://www.cedworks.com/communityresilience01.html (accessed 1
June 2007).
Constanza, R., R. dArge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg,
S. Naeem, R. V. ONeill, J. Paruelo, et al. 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem
services and natural capital. Nature 387:253260.
Costello, D., and M. Johns. 2006. Understanding and building resilience in the South West.
West Perth, Australia: Injury Control Council of WA, Inc.
Daniels, J. M. 2004. Assessing socioeconomic resiliency in Washington Counties. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-607. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Daubon, R. E., and H. H. Saunders. 2002. Operationalizing social capital: A strategy to
enhance communities capacity to concert. Int. Stud. Perspect. 3:176191.
Davis, R., D. Cook, and L. Cohen. 2005. A community resilience approach to reducing ethnic
and racial disparities in health. Am. J. Public Health 95(12):21682173.
Doak, S. C., and J. Kusel. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part II: A social
assessment focus. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. 2,
Assessments and scientific basis for management options, 375402. Davis, CA: University
of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Donoghue, E., and V. Sturtevant. 2007. Social science constructs in ecosystem assessments:
Revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Society Nat. Resources
20(10):899912.
Emery, M., and C. Flora. 2006. Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with
community capitals framework. J. Commun. Dev. Society 37(1):1935.
Fawcett, S. B., A. Paine-Andrews, V. T. Fransisco, J. A. Schultz, K. P. Richter, R. K. Lewis,
E. L. Williams, K. J. Harris, J. Y. Berkley, J. L. Fisher, et al. 1995. Using empowerment
theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development. Am. J.
Commun. Psychol. 23(5):677.
Fey, S., C. Bregendahl, and C. Flora. 2006. The measurement of community capitals through
research. Online J. Rural Res. Policy 1. http://ojrrp.org/journals/ojrrp/issue/archive
(accessed 1 February 2007).
Flora, C. 19981999. Quality of life versus standard of living. Rural Dev. News, Winter. http://
www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/newsletter/Winter%2098-99/From%20Director.html (accessed 1
February 2007).
Flora, C., C. Bregendahl, S. Fey, L. Chen, and J. Friel. 2004. Rural community and economic
development case study review: A quantitative analysis. Prepared for the Claude Worthington
 Community Resilience: Measuring Social Sustainability 415

Benedum Foundation. Ames: Iowa State University, North Central Regional Center for
Rural Development.
Flora, C., and J. Flora. 2004. Rural communities: Legacy and change (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Folke, C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes. 2003. Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity
in social-ecological systems. In Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for
complexity and Change, eds. F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, 352387. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for socialecological systems
analyses. Global Environ. Change 16:253267.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management:
An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others].
Gibbon, M., R. Labonte, and G. Laverack. 2002. Evaluating community capacity. Health
Social Care Commun. 10(6):485491.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

research. New York: Aldine.

Goodman, N. 2003. Five kinds of capital: Useful concepts for sustainable development. http://
ase.tufts.edu/gdae (accessed 1 September 2005).
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6):13601380.
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling (Eds.). 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gunderson, L. H., and L. Pritchard (Eds.). 2002. Resilience and the behavior of large scale eco-
systems, SCOPE, 60. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Haq, M. 1999. Reflections on human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Harris, C., B. McLaughlin, G. Brown, and D. R. Becker. 2000. Rural communities in
the inland northwest: An assessment of small communities in the interior and
upper Columbia River basins. In Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project: Scientific assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477, ed. T. M. Quigley,
120. Portland, OR: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station.
Healy, K., A. Hampshire, and L. Ayres. 2003. Engaging communities for sustainable change:
Promoting resilience. http://www.bensoc.org.au/research/engaging_communities.html
(accessed 1 June 2007).
Jackson, E. J., R. G. Lee, and P. Sommers. 2004. Monitoring the community impacts of the
Northwest Forest Plan: An alternative to social indicators. Society Nat. Resources
17:223233.
Kaufman, H. 1959. Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces 38:817.
Kretzmann, J. P., and J. L. McKnight. 1993. Building communities from the inside out: A path
toward finding and mobilizing a communitys assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban
Affairs and Policy Research, Neighborhood Innovations Network, Northwestern
University.
Kusel, J., and L. P. Fortmann. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, vol. I.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry Forest and Rangeland Assessment
Program.
Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, Part I: A New approach. Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Berkeley, CA: University of California,
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest-dependent communities. In Understanding
community-based forest ecosystem management, eds. G. J. Gray, M. J. Enzer, and J.
Kusel, 359384. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press.
Labonte, R., and G. Laverack. 2001. Capacity building in health promotion, Part 1: For
whom? And for what purpose? Crit. Public Health 11(2):111127.
 416 K. Magis

Laverack, G. 2001. An identification and interpretation of the organisational aspects of

community empowerment. Commun. Dev. Jo. 36(2):4052.
Machlis, G., and J. E. Force. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent communities.
Rural Sociol. 53(2):220234.
Machlis, G., and J. E. Force. 1997. The human ecosystem, Part II: Social indicators in ecosys-
tem management. Society Nat. Resources 10(4):347368.
Magis, K. 2007a. Community resilience literature and practice review. U.S. Roundtable on Sus-
tainable Forests September 2007 Special Session on Indicator 38: Community Resilience.
http://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.php (accessed 1 March 2007).
Magis, K. 2007b. Final report to the U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests: Special Session on
Indicator 38, Resilience of Forest-Dependent Communities. http://www.sustainableforests.
net/summaries.php (accessed 1 March 2007).
Magis, K. 2010 [Forthcoming]. Indicator 38: The resilience of forest-based communities. Part-
ner Report: 2010 National Report on the Sustainability of the United States Forests.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport
Magis, K., and C. Shinn. 2009. Emergent themes of social sustainability. In Understanding
Downloaded by [201.145.180.253] at 18:51 22 July 2015

the social aspect of sustainability, eds. J. Dillard, V. Dujon, and M. C. King, 1544.
New York: Routledge.
McAdam, D., J. McCarthy, and M. Zald. 1996. Comparative perspectives on social movements:
Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, S., C. Shinn, and W. Bentley. 1994. Rural resource management problemsolving for the
long term. Morrilton, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Polese, M., and R. Stren (Eds.). 2000. The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the
management of change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environ. Change 16(3):282292.
Stedman, R. C., J. R. Parkins, and T. M. Beckley. 2004. Resource dependence and community
well-being in rural Canada. Rural Sociol. 69(2):213234.
Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics, 2nd ed.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, B. H., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. P. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability
and transformability in socialecological systems. Ecol. Society 9(2):5.
Wheatley, M. 1992. Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an
orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Wilkinson, K. P. 1991. The community in rural America. New York: Greenwood Press.
Williams, C. 2004. Community capacity building: A critical evaluation of the third sector
approach. Rev. Policy Res. 21(5):729739.
Woolcock, M. 2000. Social capital and its meanings. Canberra Bull. Public Admin. 98:1719.