Social Ecological Resilience Thinking

Resilience thinking integrates the dynamics and development of complex social-ecological systems (Pisano, 2012). The Social-ecological system considers system thinking as a whole in the study of resilience to food insecurity (Adger, 2000). As it has been already stated, the concept of resilience necessitates to deal with complex systems and focuses on the relationships within the systems (FAO, 2014) because of interdependencies between the human domain and the biophysical domain (Walker and Salt, 2006, cited from Pisano, 2012). In the framework of these domains, resilience is essentially is closely related to theory of systems thinking. As Constas & Barrett (2013) have demonstrated, the concept of resilience makes the most sense when it is

In relation to social-ecological systems, this conceptual understanding incorporates the idea of adaptation, learning, self-organization, and general ability to persist disturbance (Pisano, 2012). This would indicate that social-ecological resilience is all about people and nature as interdependent systems (Folke et al., 2006). Here becomes plausible that it is irrational to separate the ecological and social elements and to try to explain them independently, even for analytical purposes. Resilience has a linking role to understand the factors that enable households to protect their livelihoods from the adverse consequences of change such as climate variability (Speranza et al., 2014). Essentially, social-ecological resilience system captures driving factors that enable functioning of households under adverse conditions. According to Carpenter et al. (2001), resilience can also be described in terms of the social-ecological perspective elements such as absorption capacity; self-organizing capacity, and ability to build resilience. This exposes resilience thinking to embrace systems

One goal of systems thinking (systems dynamic) is to provide tools to transform the perspectives and mental models so that actions lead to real sustainable long-term improvements (Gabriel, 2013). A systemic approach is relevant because many of the various types of shocks that affect households are becoming increasingly covariant, i.e. affecting groups of households even entire communities (Choularton et al., 2015). In situations where the vulnerability of individuals is intensified by their social and economic dependence on others (affected by the same disaster and shocks), system components are particularly