Exciting work has been done to develop resilience indicators as a tool for communities to understand their resilience and encourage the practices that strengthen it (E.g. Bioversity, UNU, Satoyama Initiative : you can download the toolkit here).
The Communities Self Assessing Resilience process suggests linking up to these indicators as a fourth stage in the process so that the indicators can be used in order to scale up and share knowledge, and help create baselines for management rather than as starting points. This is one of the main defining features of the CSAR process. This step is an important step for within the community to identify strengths and weaknesses and to create a baseline for action; or for external communication, to be able to compare, and to communicate attributes of resilience with external actors.
Indicators are natural and part of everyone’s life, they don’t have to be technical! Indicators arise from values (we measure what we care about) and they create values (we care about what we measure). Donella Meadow’s describes this beautifully in this great resource ‘Indicators and Informations Systems for Sustainable Development.’
Based on the narrative, participants of the assessment work together to identify attributes of the system they have defined which are sources of resilience, and other attributes they wish to transform.
Based on the different attributes identified, they can be grouped according to categories as suggested by UNU/Satoyama
We have found that based on the unique individual process, one can add more categories as needed, and also add indicators that might be missing and discuss those difference. For example, gender and health are often cross cutting attributes (or indicators) that are incorporated throughout all the others.
Linking the attributes identified in individual stories allows up to abstract small scale narratives to a more global and comparable level.