Social Science Constructs in Ecosystem Assessments: Revisiting Community Capacity and Community Resiliency

Forest Management Policy, Amenity Migration, and Community Well-Being in the American West: Reflections from the Northwest Forest Plan

“…Current thinking focuses instead on the concept of community resilience. Researchers have found that the greater the diversity of economic opportunities available in a community, the greater the ability of the community to adapt to change, with positive implications for socioeconomic wellbeing (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007). Managing for multiple forest uses provides diverse economic opportunities for community residents-in the wood products industry, ranching, nontimber forest product harvesting, and the recreation and tourism industries-potentially contributing more to community resilience and socioeconomic well-being than managing for environmental protection to the exclusion of resource extraction.…”

“…The commodity-based model predicts that a shift from timber production to environmental protection on federal lands would have negative social and economic effects on workers in the wood products industry and on their communities. The notion of community stability has now been replaced by the concept of community resilience, recognizing that community well-being is affected by many variables (not just federal timber harvest levels), and that rural communities continually experience change and respond by taking advantage of new opportunities that arise (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007).…”

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range

“…Community capacity, in turn, is a function of a community's physical, financial, human, cultural, and social capitals (see Kusel 2001 for definitions). Put another way, community capacity is a function of a community's foundational assets (e.g., physical infrastructure, natural resources, and other attributes of a community) and mobilizing assets (e.g., civic and organizational infrastructure, social processes and interactions) (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007). Building on these concepts, Beckley et al (2008) defined community capacity as the collective ability of a community to combine various forms of capital within particular institutional and relational contexts to produce desired results or outcomes.…”

From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA

“…This capacity to adapt is partly related to the diversity of social institutions and networks, such as watershed councils and other cross-boundary collaborative partnerships, that can learn, store knowledge and experience, create flexibility in problem solving and balance power among interest groups (Berkes & Folke, 1998;Scheffer et al, 2000;Folke et al, 2002). Communities draw on a constellation of assets to adapt to change, ranging from physical assets such as infrastructure and natural resources to social assets such as leadership and collective action (Donohue & Sturtevant, 2007). Understanding the social structures and processes that affect family forest owners' perceived vulnerabilities and adaptability to environmental problems beyond their property lines can inform models of cross-boundary co-operation.…”