114
individual perceptions rather than third-party evaluation. This locally specific nature
of the assessment process was seen as a strength as well as a disadvantage by users,
due to the fact that the factors contributing to resilience themselves have been found
to be highly context-specific (Saito et al. 2018) and therefore are difficult to assess
using common indicators that may not be relevant to local circumstances. In other
words, a locally specific integrated assessment model can help understand resilience
better, but only at the expense of generalizability across different communities.
While the indicators cannot provide comparison between geographical areas, they
can be used to capture changes within a community over time through repeated
assessment, particularly if the same group of participants can do the assessments.
This can be valuable for adaptive management of the landscape or seascape, as
highlighted in Sect. 6.3.1 above.
Work already done with the indicators as described above has indicated some
directions for future work. For one, this approach’s potential role in monitoring and
evaluation of project results was identified as an area that has not yet been sufficiently explored, and where there seems to be some future potential. Another is
further investigation of the use of the indicators in developing- versus developedcountry contexts. To date, the assessments included in this chapter from Japan are
the only ones that were done in countries classified as developed countries. Finally,
users stress that there is further work to do in scaling-up the indicators and assessment activities to capture the implications of local-level resilience for larger governance and ecological scales. If this avenue is pursued, “Indicators of Resilience in
Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes” could have further potential relevance for national and international conservation and development targets,
such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, and the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals.
References
Antwi E, Otsuki K, Saito O, Obeng FK, Awere Gyekye K, Boakye-Danquah J, Boafo Y, Kusakari
Y, Yiran G, Owusu A, Asubonteng K, Dzivenu T, Avornyo V, Abagale F, Jasaw G, Lolig V,
Ganiyu S, Donkoh S, Yeboah R, Takeuchi K (2014) Developing a community-based resilience
assessment model with reference to Northern Ghana. J Integr Disaster Risk Manage 4. https://
doi.org/10.5595/idrim.2014.0066
Bergamini N, Blasiak R, Eyzaguirre P, Ichikawa K, Mijatovic D, Nakao F, Subramanian SM
(2013) Indicators of resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs). United
Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo
Catley A, Burns J, Abebe D, Suji O (2008) Participatory impact assessment. A guide for practitioners. Feinstein International Center, Boston
W. Dunbar et al.
individual perceptions rather than third-party evaluation. This locally specific nature
of the assessment process was seen as a strength as well as a disadvantage by users,
due to the fact that the factors contributing to resilience themselves have been found
to be highly context-specific (Saito et al. 2018) and therefore are difficult to assess
using common indicators that may not be relevant to local circumstances. In other
words, a locally specific integrated assessment model can help understand resilience
better, but only at the expense of generalizability across different communities.
While the indicators cannot provide comparison between geographical areas, they
can be used to capture changes within a community over time through repeated
assessment, particularly if the same group of participants can do the assessments.
This can be valuable for adaptive management of the landscape or seascape, as
highlighted in Sect. 6.3.1 above.
Work already done with the indicators as described above has indicated some
directions for future work. For one, this approach’s potential role in monitoring and
evaluation of project results was identified as an area that has not yet been sufficiently explored, and where there seems to be some future potential. Another is
further investigation of the use of the indicators in developing- versus developedcountry contexts. To date, the assessments included in this chapter from Japan are
the only ones that were done in countries classified as developed countries. Finally,
users stress that there is further work to do in scaling-up the indicators and assessment activities to capture the implications of local-level resilience for larger governance and ecological scales. If this avenue is pursued, “Indicators of Resilience in
Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes” could have further potential relevance for national and international conservation and development targets,
such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, and the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals.
References
Antwi E, Otsuki K, Saito O, Obeng FK, Awere Gyekye K, Boakye-Danquah J, Boafo Y, Kusakari
Y, Yiran G, Owusu A, Asubonteng K, Dzivenu T, Avornyo V, Abagale F, Jasaw G, Lolig V,
Ganiyu S, Donkoh S, Yeboah R, Takeuchi K (2014) Developing a community-based resilience
assessment model with reference to Northern Ghana. J Integr Disaster Risk Manage 4. https://
doi.org/10.5595/idrim.2014.0066
Bergamini N, Blasiak R, Eyzaguirre P, Ichikawa K, Mijatovic D, Nakao F, Subramanian SM
(2013) Indicators of resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs). United
Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo
Catley A, Burns J, Abebe D, Suji O (2008) Participatory impact assessment. A guide for practitioners. Feinstein International Center, Boston
W. Dunbar et al.