The resilience concept requires greater attention to human livelihoods if it is to address the limits to adaptation strategies and the development needs of the planet's poorest and most vulnerable people. Although the concept of resilience is increasingly informing research and policy, its transfer from ecological theory to social systems leads to weak engagement with normative, social and political dimensions of climate change adaptation. A livelihood perspective helps strengthen resilience thinking by placing greater emphasis on human needs and their agency, empowerment and human rights, and considering adaptive livelihood systems in the context of wider transformational changes. Navigating the resilience renaissance Resilience has become a popular research and policy concept within climate change adaptation and development contexts 1. Emerging from a wide range of disciplines 2 , resilience in policy-making has often been based on the property of systems to bounce back to normality, drawing on engineering concepts 3. This implies the return of the functions of an individual, household, community or ecosystem to previous conditions, with as little damage and disruption as possible following shocks and stresses. This stable-equilibrium view has been challenged by research on linked social-ecological systems (SES), which emphasizes non-linear change, the inevitability of uncertainty and surprise (which may destabilize attempts to manage the capacity of systems to cope with change), and interrelationships and dynamism of multiple cross-scale systems 4. Crucially, resilience is increasingly providing an integrative 'boundary concept' that brings together those interested in tackling a range of shocks and stresses, including food security, social protection, conflict and disasters 5. This perspective article argues that three key areas linked to livelihood approaches can help to overcome the challenges of employing resilience thinking in order to inform improved

Climate change research is at an impasse. The transformation of economies and everyday practices is more urgent, and yet appears ever more daunting as attempts at behaviour change, regulations, and global agreements confront material and social-political infrastructures that support the status quo. Effective action requires new ways of conceptualizing society, climate and environment and yet current research struggles to break free of established categories. In response, this contribution revisits important insights from the social sciences and humanities on the co-production of political economies, cultures, societies and biophysical relations and shows the possibilities for ontological pluralism to open up for new imaginations. Its intention is to help generate a different framing of socionatural change that goes beyond the current science-policy-behavioural change pathway. It puts forward several moments of inadvertent concealment in contemporary debates that stem directly from the way issues are framed and imagined in contemporary discourses. By placing values, normative commitments, and experiential and plural ways of knowing from around the world at the centre of climate knowledge, we confront climate change with contested politics and the everyday foundations of action rather than just data.

How should we measure a household's resilience to climate extremes, climate change or other evolving threats? As resilience gathers momentum on the international stage, interest in this question continues to grow. So far, efforts to measure resilience have largely focused on the use of 'objective' frameworks and methods of indicator selection. These typically depend on a range of observable socio-economic variables, such as levels of income, the extent of a household's social capital or its access to social safety nets. Yet while objective methods have their uses, they suffer from well-documented weaknesses. This paper advocates for the use of an alternative but complementary method: the measurement of 'subjective' resilience at the household level. The concept of subjective resilience stems from the premise that people have an understanding of the factors that contribute to their ability to anticipate, buffer and adapt to disturbance and change. Subjective household resilience therefore relates to an individual's cognitive and affective self-evaluation of their household's capabilities and capacities in responding to risk. We discuss the advantages and limitations of measuring subjective household resilience and highlight its relationships with other concepts such as perceived adaptive capacity, subjective well-being and psychological resilience. We then put forward different options for the design and delivery of survey questions on subjective household resilience. While the approach we describe is focused at the household level, we show how it has the potential to be aggregated to inform sub-national or national resilience metrics and indicators. Lastly, we highlight how subjective methods of resilience assessment could be used to improve policy and decision-making. Above all, we argue that, alongside traditional objective measures and indicators, efforts to measure resilience should take into account subjective aspects of household resilience in order to ensure a more holistic understanding of resilience to climate extremes and disasters.

Reliance on subsistence agriculture means the impact of stresses and shocks (such as droughts or floods) are felt keenly by rural poor people, who depend directly on food system outcomes for their survival, with profound implications for the security of their livelihoods and welfare. However, such stresses and shocks will not necessarily lead to negative impacts, as risks and uncertainties, often associated with seasonality, are embedded in the practice of agriculture and there is considerable experience of coping and risk management strategies among people working in this sector. With climate change, the magnitude and frequency of stresses and shocks is changing and approaches such as social protection, disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) will be needed to bolster local resilience and supplement people's experience. This study examines the opportunities for linking social protection, CCA and DRR in the context of agriculture and rural growth, exploring whether linking these three approaches together will help enhance resilience to shocks and stresses in agriculture-dependent rural communities. The study does this by (i) reviewing conceptual and policy-related similarities and differences between the three disciplines, by (ii) collecting evidence from case studies where climate change-resilient social protection approaches have been trialled and by (iii) developing an adaptive social protection framework that highlight opportunities better coordination. This paper suggests social protection and DRR measures designed to limit damages from shocks and stresses may not be sufficient in the longer term. For social protection to be resilient to climate change impacts, it will need to consider how reducing dependence on climate sensitive livelihood activities can be part of adaptive strategies. Similarly, CCA and DRR cannot effectively address the root causes of poverty and vulnerability without taking a differentiated view of poverty, something that further integration with social protection can help with.

Young people regularly face great hurdles to get their voices heard, while research and practice in the disaster and climate change community commonly represent young people as passive victims requiring protection. Consequently, their capacities to inform decision-making processes, communicate risks to their communities and take direct action to reduce risks have been neglected. This paper presents empirical data from participatory video (PV) methods with groups of young people in three communities in Eastern Samar, the Philippines. Producing these videos enabled groups to research, document and raise awareness of disaster risk, and use screening events to mobilise and advocate for risk reduction measures in their communities. The results suggest that the PV process was an effective tool for empowering young people to raise important issues with decision-makers and advocate change on behalf of their communities.

The term 'resilience' is increasingly used in the context of discussion, policies and programming around climate change adaptation 1 ('adaptation') and disaster risk reduction 2 . It has become particularly popular to describe the intersection between these two fields and those of poverty and development, and 'climate resilient development' is rapidly becoming a catch-all for tackling climate change impacts in a development context. This paper reviews academic use of the concept of 'resilience' in social, ecological and socio-ecological systems and its application to the climate, disaster and development nexus. From this review, we distil 10 key characteristics of resilience: high diversity; effective governance and institutions; the ability to work with uncertainty and change; community involvement and the inclusion of local knowledge; preparedness and planning for disturbances; high social and economic equity; robust social values and structures, acknowledging non-equilibrium dynamics, continual and effective learning and the adoption of a cross-scalar perspective. Finally, we highlight knowledge gaps and suggest directions for further research.

SummaryRapidly expanding urban settlements in the developing world face severe climatic risks in light of climate change. Urban populations will increasingly be forced to cope with increased incidents of flooding, air and water pollution, heat stress and vector-borne diseases. This research, undertaken with a set of partner research institutes, examines how to manage climate-related impacts in an urban context by promoting planned and autonomous adaptation in order to by improve resilience in a changing climate. It investigates the linkages between the characteristics of propoor good urban governance, climate adaptation and resilience, and poverty and sustainable development concerns. The paper develops an analytical framework by combining governance literature with rapid climate resilience assessments conducted in ten Asian cities. Based on this empirical data, we argue that a number of key characteristics can be identified to assess and build urban resilience to climate change in a way that reduces the vulnerability of the citizens most at risk from climate shocks and stresses. These characteristics form the basis of a climate resilient urban governance assessment framework, and include (1) decentralisation and autonomy, (2) accountability and transparency, (3) responsiveness and flexibility, (4) participation and inclusion and (5) experience and support. This framework can help to assist in the planning, design and implementation of urban climate change resilience-building programmes in the future.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; urban governance; resilience; Asia. IDS WORKING PAPER 315 04Thomas Tanner is a Research Fellow at IDS specialising in climate change adaptation and its relation to development theory, policy and practice. His work focuses on international climate policy, linking poverty and climate change; childcentred approaches to disaster risk reduction and adaptation; organisational responses to climate change; and networks and knowledge services for adaptation. He has previously worked for the UK Department for International Development and the United Nations Development Programme on climate change adaptation policy and programmes, and has been a negotiator for the UN conventions on climate change and desertification.

The need to mainstream adaptation to climate change into development planning and ongoing sectoral decision-making is increasingly recognised, and several bilateral and multilateral development agencies are starting to take an interest. Over the past years at least six development agencies have screened their project portfolios, generally with two goals in mind: (1) to ascertain the extent to which existing development projects already consider climate risks or address vulnerability to climate variability and change, and (2) to identify opportunities for incorporating climate change explicitly into future projects. As each portfolio screening was conducted independently, the broader lessons emerging from the screenings have not been systematically analysed. In this paper we assess the screening activities to date, focusing on both the results and the methods applied. Based on this assessment we identify opportunities for development agencies to expand their current focus on the links between climate and development. Most agencies already consider climate change as a real but uncertain threat to future development, but they have given less thought to how different development patterns might affect vulnerability to climate change. The screenings undertaken have shown the need to take a comprehensive approach to adaptation and its integration into development planning and sectoral decision-making, and a number of policy initiatives have been taken to promote such integration. We provide some initial guidance as to how portfolio screening can be carried out in a way that would allow agencies to assess systematically the relevance of climate change to their ongoing and planned development projects.