Framing Community Disaster Resilience

HUGH DEEMING, Principal Consultant, HD Research, Bentham, UK MAUREEN FORDHAM, Emerita Professor of Gender and Disaster Resilience, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Centre Director, IRDR Centre for Gender and Disaster, UCL, UK CHRISTIAN KUHLICKE, Professor of Environmental Risks and Sustainability, joint appointment Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and University of Potsdam, Germany LYDIA PEDOTH, Senior Researcher, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy STEFAN SCHNEIDERBAUER, Senior Researcher, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy CHENEY SHREVE, Adjunct Researcher, Western Washington University, Resilience Institute, Washington, USA

• List of Contributors xi1 Introduction 1Hugh Deeming1.1 Book Content 2References 3Section I Conceptual and Theoretical Underpinnings to Community Disaster Resilience 52 Understanding Disaster Resilience: The emBRACE Approach 9Thomas Abeling, Nazmul Huq, Denis Chang‐Seng, Jörn Birkmann, Jan Wolfertz, Fabrice Renaud, and Matthias Garschagen2.1 Introduction 92.2 Resilience: Concept 92.2.1 Resilience in the Social Domain 102.2.2 Resilience: An Outcome or a Process? 112.2.3 Resilience on Individual and Collective Levels 112.3 Resilience: Methodology 122.3.1 Social/Political Resilience 122.3.2 Linking Biophysical and Social Resilience 142.4 Resilience: Indicators 152.5 Gaps and Challenges 172.5.1 Challenges in the Transition from Ecology to Social Science 172.5.2 The Role of Power 182.5.3 Representation of Community 192.5.4 Transformation 202.5.5 Resourcefulness 212.6 Conclusion 22References 223 Mobilising Resources for Resilience 27Cheney Shreve and Maureen Fordham3.1 Introduction 273.2 Background: Origins of Livelihoods Thinking 273.2.1 Successes of SLAs: Changing the Way Development was Done 293.2.2 Key Criticisms and the Evolution of Livelihoods Thinking 303.2.3 A Closer Look at Social Capital: Background and Key Critiques 313.2.4 Summary 333.3 Resilience and Livelihoods Thinking 343.3.1 Why Disasters? 343.3.2 Livelihoods and Disaster Vulnerability 353.4 Influence of Livelihoods Thinking on Contemporary Disaster Resilience 363.4.1 Linking to Sustainable Livelihoods: Resources and Capacities 363.4.2 Community Actions 373.4.3 Community Learning 383.4.4 Summary 38References 394 Social Learning and Resilience Building in the emBRACE Framework 43Justin Sharpe, Åsa Gerger Swartling, Mark Pelling, and Lucy Pearson4.1 Introduction 434.2 What is Meant by Social Learning? 444.3 Capacities for Social Learning 464.4 Social Learning at the Individual Level 494.5 Social Learning at the Community Level 494.6 Social Learning and Resilience Outcomes in the emBRACE Project 524.7 How Social Learning Provides Opportunities for Sharing Adaptive Thinking and Practice 544.8 Conclusion 56References 565 Wicked Problems: Resilience, Adaptation, and Complexity 61John Forrester, Richard Taylor, Lydia Pedoth, and Nilufar Matin5.1 Introduction 615.2 A Brief History of Policy ‘Mess’ and ‘Wickedness’ 625.2.1 ‘Super‐Wicked’ Problems 635.3 Resilient and Adaptive Responses to Mess 645.4 Clumsy Solutions Linking DRR/DRM and CCA: A Mini Case Study 665.5 An emBRACE Model of Complex Adaptive Community Resilience 695.6 Conclusion 71References 72Section II Methods to ‘Measure’ Resilience – Data and Indicators 776 The emBRACE Resilience Framework: Developing an Integrated Framework for Evaluating Community Resilience to Natural Hazards 79Sylvia Kruse, Thomas Abeling, Hugh Deeming, Maureen Fordham, John Forrester, Sebastian Jülich, A. Nuray Karanci, Christian Kuhlicke, Mark Pelling, Lydia Pedoth, Stefan Schneiderbauer, and Justin Sharpe6.1 Introduction 796.2 Conceptual Tensions of Community Resilience 86.3 Developing the emBRACE Resilience Framework 826.3.1 Deductive Framework Development: A Structured Literature Review 826.3.2 Inductive Framework Development: Empirical Case Study Research 836.3.3 Participatory Assessment Workshops with Stakeholder Groups 836.3.4 Synthesis: An Iterative Process of Framework Development 836.4 The Conceptual Framework for Characterising Community Resilience 846.4.1 Intracommunity Domains of Resilience: Resources and Capacities, Action, and Learning 846.4.1.1 Resources and Capacities 846.4.1.2 Actions 866.4.1.3 Learning 886.4.2 Extracommunity Framing of Community Resilience 896.4.2.1 Disaster Risk Governance 896.4.2.2 Non‐Directly Hazard‐Related Context, Social‐Ecological Change, and Disturbances 906.5 Discussion and Conclusion 916.5.1 Interlinkages between the Domains and Extracommunity Framing 916.5.2 Application and Operationalisation of the Framework in Indicator‐Based Assessments 916.5.3 Reflections on the Results and emBRACE Methodology and Limits of the Findings 91References 927 Disaster Impact and Land Use Data Analysis in the Context of a Resilience‐Relevant Footprint 97Marco Pregnolato, Marcello Petitta, and Stefan Schneiderbauer7.1 Introduction 977.2 Data and Methodology 997.2.1 Data 997.2.2 Methodology 997.3 Results 1027.3.1 National Scale 1027.3.2 Regional Scale: Analysis of Landslides that Occurred Near a Change in LULC 1037.3.3 Subnational Scale: Analysis of HTI Changes 1077.3.4 Subnational Scale: Analysis of the LULC Changes in Time Domain 1087.4 Conclusions and Discussions 1087.4.1 Is There Any Relationship Between LULC and Landslide Events? 1087.4.2 Is There Any Relationship Between a Change in LULC and a Landslide Event? 1097.4.3 Is It Possible to Use LULC Data as a Footprint for Landslide Events? 1097.4.4 Is It Possible to Use Disaster Footprint and Susceptibility for Resilience Research? 1097.5 Conclusion 110References 1108 Development of Quantitative Resilience Indicators for Measuring Resilience at the Local Level 113Sebastian Jülich8.1 Introduction 1138.2 Stages of Indicator Operationalisation 1148.3 Quantitative Indicator Development 1168.4 Residence Time as Partial Resilience Indicator 1178.5 Awareness through Past Natural Disasters as Partial Resilience Indicator 1188.5.1 Single Factor Time 1198.5.2 Single Factor Intensity 1208.5.3 Single Factor Distance 1218.5.4 Combination of the Three Single Factors 1218.6 Warning Services as Partial Resilience Indicators 1228.7 Conclusion 123References 1249 Managing Complex Systems: The Need to Structure Qualitative Data 125John Forrester, Nilufar Matin, Richard Taylor, Lydia Pedoth, Belinda Davis, and Hugh Deeming9.1 Introduction 1259.2 Mapping of Social Networks as a Measure of Community Resilience 1279.2.1 Assessing Resilience Using Network Maps: The embrace Experience 1289.3 Agent‐ Based Models 1319.3.1 Two Case Studies of ABM in emBRACE 1329.4 Other Qualitative Data‐Structuring Methodologies 1349.5 Discussion 1349.6 Conclusion 136References 13610 Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators for Assessing Community Resilience to Natural Hazards 139Daniel Becker, Stefan Schneiderbauer, John Forrester, and Lydia Pedoth10.1 Introduction 13910.2 Current Indicator‐Based Approaches for Assessing Community Resilience 14010.3 From Concept to Assessment: The emBRACE Approach 14210.3.1 Using Indicators for Assessing Community Resilience within emBRACE 14210.3.2 The Process of Grounding our Indicators 14310.4 Systematisation of Indicators 14510.5 Deriving Key Indicators of Community Resilience 14810.6 Conclusion 151References 151Section III Empirically Grounding the Resilience Concept 15511 Resilience, the Limits of Adaptation and the Need for Transformation in the Context of Multiple Flood Events in Central Europe 159Christian Kuhlicke, Anna Kunath, Chloe Begg, and Maximilian Beyer11.1 Introduction 15911.2 Key Concepts for the Case Study 16111.3 Insights into the Case Study Settings and Methods 16211.3.1 Flood Risk Management in Saxony and Bavaria 16211.3.2 Methods of Case Study Research – Description of Empirical Work 16311.3.2.1 Interviews 16311.3.2.2 Household Survey 16311.4 Results of the Interviews: Resilience, Learning, and Transformation 16511.5 Results of the Household Survey: Resilience, Limits of Adaptation, and Responsibility 16711.5.1 Impacts of (Multiple) Flood Experience 16711.5.2 Perception of Responsibility in Flood Risk Management 17011.5.3 Attitudes towards Participation 17111.6 CommunityResilience and the Idea of Transformation 172References 17312 River and Surface Water Flooding in Northern England: The Civil Protection‐Social Protection Nexus 177Hugh Deeming, Belinda Davis, Maureen Fordham, and Simon Taylor12.1 Introduction 17712.2 Conceptualising Community 17912.3 Methods 18112.4 Results 18212.4.1 Rural Resilience 18212.4.2 Urban Resilience 18512.4.2.1 Keswick 18512.4.2.2 Cockermouth 18912.4.2.3 Workington 19112.5 Discussion and Conclusions 192References 19413 The Role of Risk Perception and Community Networks in Preparing for and Responding to Landslides: A Dolomite Case Study 197Lydia Pedoth, Richard Taylor, Christian Kofler, Agnieszka Elzbieta Stawinoga, John Forrester, Nilufar Matin, and Stefan Schneiderbauer13.1 Introduction 19713.2 Badia and the Alpine Context 19813.3 Two Types of Communities and a Mixed Method Approach 20113.4 Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, and Response Behaviour 20313.4.1 Risk Behaviour Profiles 20413.4.1.1 Temporal Variation in People’s Perception of Response and Recovery Actions 20613.5 Community Networks 20913.6 Conclusions and Discussion 214References 21714 The Social Life of Heatwave in London: Recasting the Role of Community and Resilience 221Sebastien Nobert and Mark Pelling14.1 Introduction 22114.2 Methodology 22214.2.1 Community Resilience or Resilience from Community? 22314.2.1.1 Community and the Elderly 22314.2.1.2 Resilience and Community Ties 22414.2.2 Rethinking the Normatives of Heatwave Management: Family, Social Ties, and the Collectivity 22514.2.2.1 Loneliness, Social Networks, and Community 22614.2.2.2 Rethinking Social Network and Social Capital as Vulnerability Factors 22714.2.2.3 Social Capital, Fragmented Community, and New Vulnerability 23014.3 Conclusion 231References 232Further Reading 23415 Perceptions of Individual and Community Resilience to Earthquakes: A Case Study from Turkey 237A. Nuray Karanci, Gözde Ikizer, Canay Doğulu, and Dilek Ozceylan‐Aubrecht15.1 Introduction 23815.2 Context of the Case Study 23915.2.1 Van: The Earthquakes and Sociodemographic Context 23915.2.2 Adapazarı/Sakarya: The Earthquake and Sociodemographic Context 24015.2.3 Risk Governance Setting in Turkey 24015.3 Main Aims and Research Questions 24115.4 Methodological Approaches 24115.4.1 In‐Depth Interviews 24215.4.2 Focus Groups 24215.5 Perceptions of Resilience According to the emBRACE Framework 24215.5.1 Resources and Capacities 24415.5.2 Learning 25015.5.3 Context 25215.6 Discussion and Conclusions 252References 254Conclusions 257Index 261