Vulnerability and resilience of remote rural communities to shocks and global changes: Empirical analysis from Solomon Islands Anne-Maree Schwarz a, *, Christophe Be ´ne ´ b,1 , Gregory Bennett c , Delvene Boso a , Zelda Hilly c , Chris Paul a , Ronnie Posala c , Stephen Sibiti c , Neil Andrew b a The WorldFish Center, P.O. Box 438, Honiara, Solomon Islands b The WorldFish Center, P.O. Box 500 GPO, 10670 Penang, Malaysia c The WorldFish Center, P.O. Box 77, Gizo, Solomon Islands 1. Introduction It is now widely recognized that shocks, uncertainty, and local and global changes are inherent in the dynamics of social- ecological systems. In that context, a new consensus has emerged in the literature which highlights the importance of concepts such as resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation for the understanding of these socio-ecological systems (e.g. Walker et al., 2002; Janssen and Ostrom, 2006; Miller et al., 2010). It is suggested, in particular, that ‘managing for resilience’ might become a central objective for planning and management, since it is expected to enhance the likelihood of sustaining desirable pathways for development in an environment where the future is recognized to be unpredictable and surprises are expected to occur (Walker et al., 2004, 2010; Adger et al., 2005). In that context, ‘‘the integration of activities geared towards the improvement of community resilience is [becoming] of utmost priority’’ (FAO, 2009, p. 1). This research agenda is not, however, without challenge (see Adger (2006) and Folke (2006) for reviews of the theoretical literature on vulnerability and resilience). Many definitions and frameworks have been proposed (Janssen and Ostrom, 2006) and even within specific fields or disciplines, competing definitions and approaches have often made the situation relatively complex. Cutter (1996), for example, identified more than 18 definitions of ‘vulnerability’ in the hazards literature alone. This situation has slowed the development of common methods and as a result there are too few empirical studies to provide a solid foundation for further theoretical work. Beyond these conceptual challenges of language and generic definitions, vulnerability, resilience and adaptation are notoriously difficult to measure quantitatively. Resilience for instance is recognized to be complex, context specific, and highly dynamic – qualities that make it hard to measure through simple proxies (Berkes and Folke, 1998; Walker et al., 2002; Kallstrom and Ljung, 2005). As a result, despite the apparent appeal of resilience and vulnerability as useful concepts to better understand human- environment relations (Holling, 1973; Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Smit and Wandel, 2006), natural resource managers have found it difficult to define and use these concepts on the ground (Adger, 2000; Folke, 2003; Colding et al., 2003; Olsson et al., 2005; Mills et al., 2011). The danger is that these concepts remain largely academic and theoretical, and not of a great help in improving the way natural resources are managed. In order to avoid this shortfall, more and different research is needed to develop and field-test Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 1128–1140 A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 29 October 2010 Received in revised form 28 April 2011 Accepted 28 April 2011 Available online 8 June 2011 Keywords: Adaptation Climate change Perception Social cohesion Governance Fishing community A B S T R A C T Successful management of socio-ecological systems not only requires the development and field-testing of robust and measurable indices of vulnerability and resilience but also improved understanding of the contextual factors that influence societal capacity to adapt to change. We present the results of an analysis conducted in three coastal communities in Solomon Islands. An integrated assessment map was used to systematically scan the communities’ multiple dimensions of vulnerability and to identify factors affecting households’ perception about their capacity to cope with shocks (resilience). A multivariate probit approach was used to explore relationships amongst factors. Social processes such as community cohesion, good leadership, and individual support to collective action were critical factors influencing the perception that people had about their community’s ability to build resilience and cope with change. The analysis also suggests a growing concern for a combination of local (internal) and more global (external) contingencies and shocks, such as the erosion of social values and fear of climate change. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +677 25090; fax: +677 23296. E-mail address: a.schwarz@cgiar.org (A.-M. Schwarz). 1 Present address: The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, United Kingdom. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Environmental Change jo ur n al h o mep ag e: www .elsevier .co m /loc ate/g lo envc h a 0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.011