Community Resilience To Natural Hazards And Climate Change Impacts

5th Annual International Workshop & Expo on Sumatra Tsunami Disaster & Recovery 2010

Community Resilience To Natural Hazards And Climate Change Impacts: A Review Of Definitions And Operational Frameworks Riyanti Djalante and Frank Thomalla Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Email: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract - Climate change is increasingly acknowledged to be one of the most important current global challenges. Thus societies and communities vulnerable to climate change urgently need approaches and methods to assess and design strategies for building resilience. A number of reviews of the resilience concept and its applicability in reducing disaster risks and uncertain impacts arising from climate change exist. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of resilience through the systematic review and analysis of existing resilience definitions and frameworks, and the documentation of ‘on-the-ground’ experiences from resilience building initiatives in the context of natural hazards. We contend that a comprehensive and effective disaster resilience framework needs to incorporate fundamental elements of sustainable development, disaster risk reduction and community engagement. In addition, it needs to go beyond the specification of concrete outcomes to describing the process by which the initial resilience status can be identified, and the goals for each element can be established. Conceptualising resilience building as a process is important to enable the monitoring and evaluation of progress towards desired goals. Five of 13 reviewed frameworks include these two important aspects: Climate Resilient Cities of the World Bank, Hyogo Framework for Action of UN/ISDR, Coastal Community Resilience of US/IOTWS, Community and Safety Resilience of IFRC and Characteristics of Disaster Resilient Community of DFID. Keywords: Resilience; definitions, natural hazards, climate change.

1.

frameworks;

INTRODUCTION

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth assessment report stated that the frequency, severity and intensity of climate-induced disasters are likely to increase [1]. Various studies and reports have strongly suggested that the most vulnerable people are those that are least to cope [2], [ 3 ], [ 4 ]. Adaptation, which is closely related to promoting community resilience, is a must rather than an option for these vulnerable communities [2]. However, despite the potential contribution of resilience thinking to reducing risks arising from natural hazards, the theoretical concept of resilience and its operationalisation remain under-explored. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of resilience by examining the insights and lessons learnt

from current resilience building initiatives. The paper addresses two specific aims: The first is to achieve an improved understanding of how resilience is defined and interpreted in the context of natural hazards. Furthering a cross-disciplinary or multi-disciplinary understanding of resilience is important because the concept has only recently gained popularity in studies examining the relationships between humans and the environment (so-called ‘socio-ecological systems’) and remains still less-explored in the field of disaster risk reduction. The second aim is to document and analyse experiences in operationalising community resilience to hazards and to reflect on the insights and lessons learnt to advance resilience theory. While there have been many initiatives by government and nongovernment organisations (NGOs) at all levels to promote resilience to natural hazards, few academic studies have collected and analysed these experiences, and documented the lessons learnt. The paper is organised into five sections: In the first section we introduce our motivation for undertaking this research. In Section 2 we review the relevance of resilience concepts in the context of natural hazards and climate change and discuss recent developments in research and practice. We examine how resilience is defined by different organisations, what resilience frameworks have been developed, and how resilience has been conceptualised both as an outcome and as a process. We examine twelve resilience frameworks and identify the gaps and synergies. These sections address the first aim of the paper. In Section 3 we address the second aim of the paper, which is to discuss the lessons learnt from implementing resilience frameworks in practice and to reflect on how these experiences can further our understanding of resilience. In the concluding section we put forward suggestions how the concept of resilience can be developed further to promote resilience to natural hazards and climatechange impacts.

164


The methodology includes a review of the theoretical advancement of the resilience concept based on literature from ecology, engineering, social science, as well as social-ecological systems. An internet search was conducted using the key words of ‘resilience’, ‘resilience to disasters’, ‘resilient community’, ‘resilience to climate change’, and ‘resilience framework’. We identified a total of thirty-eight resilience frameworks developed by implementing organisations and academic scholars addressing topics from climate-resilient development, resilient organisations, and the resilience of specific development sectors, to the resilience of specific ecosystems. Of the 38 frameworks identified, we eliminated those that did not specifically consider community resilience to natural hazards and climate change. Table 1 shows the twelve frameworks selected for analysis. All of these have been proposed by organisations actively engaged in resilience research and the operational implementation of resilience in disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities. A metaanalysis was applied to deconstruct resilience definitions into attributes, processes, desired outcomes and external drivers affecting communities (Table 2) and to distinguish between resilience as an outcome (Table 3) and resilience as a process (Table 4). A gap analysis (Table 5) was conducted to evaluate which frameworks fulfil the fundamental elements and processes for resilience building and to examine whether any issues remain unresolved and need to be considered in the future. Finally, we examined project implementation reports to identify lessons learnt in operationalising resilience. 2.

Resilience in the Context of Natural Hazards and Climate Change

2.1

Resilience research

Research on vulnerability to natural hazards, climate change and sustainable development requires a consideration of the inter-linkages between socioeconomic and ecological systems [ 5 ]. Many studies have focussed on defining, modelling and measuring vulnerability to natural hazards and on building socioeconomic resilience through reducing vulnerabilities [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The resilience concept has recently been adapted and applied to short-term disasters arising from natural hazards (12), (13), (14), and long-term phenomena, such as climate change [15], [16], [17]. One of the earliest works on disaster resilience is that of Timmerman [15]. He defined resilience as “the capacity of a system to absorb and recover from the occurrence of a hazardous event” (p. 21). Wildavsky [18], [19], [20], [21] examined further

how communities can be more resilient to disasters through various resilience processes - not just by resisting change but also by bouncing back, mitigating and recovering from disasters. Wildavsky [21] noted that common characteristics of a resilient system include redundancy, diversity, efficiency, autonomy, strength, interdependence, adaptability, and collaboration. Geis [ 22 ] suggested that a ‘disasterresilient community’ is ‘the safest possible community that we have the knowledge to design and build in a natural hazard context’. Bruneau et al. [12] focussed on community resilience to specific geological hazards related to earthquakes. There are also a number of studies that examined community resilience or the application of disaster resilience in specific contexts such as coastal areas, urban settings, developing countries or islands. Pelling [ 23 ] examined the vulnerability of cities to climate change and defined resilience as the ability of an actor to cope with or adapt to hazard stress. Vale and Campanella [ 24 ] described how cities recover from disaster, suggesting that multiple networks and redundancies of urban flow and services are key resilience characteristics that can help cities recover quickly following disasters. More recent work on resilience within DRR focus on understanding how and why certain places and people are more or less resilient to disasters. Paton and Douglas [ 25 ] examined resilience as an integrated approach of individual, community, institutional and environmental perspectives. Cutter et al [26] used a Global Information System (GIS) to overlay indicators of social vulnerability, vulnerability of the builtenvironment, and hazard exposure onto hazard mitigation efforts to determine the resilience of a particular place. Zhou et al [ 27 ] defined disaster resilience as the “capacity of hazard-affected bodies (HABs) to resist loss and to regenerate and reorganise after disaster in a specific area in a given period” (p. 30). 2.1.1

Resilience in practice

DRR is the latest paradigm in disaster management and offers a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of disasters [28]. The application of resilience in DRR is seen as a positive approach because it brings new perspectives to the understanding of ecological and socio-economic resilience by moving away from focussing solely on needs and gaps, to focussing on building the capacity of people to help themselves [29], [30]. The ever increasing losses arising from natural hazards have forced governments and organisations engaged in DRR to develop more integrated approaches to reduce 165


disaster vulnerability and to build resilience of the society and the environment [31]. Recent large-scale disasters, particularly the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami became the driving force towards the adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015) (HFA) during the United Nations’ World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in 2005. This paper aims to contribute further to our understanding of resilience to natural hazards. We identified thirty-eight resilience frameworks ranging from climate-resilient development, resilient organisations, the resilience of specific development sectors, to the resilience of specific ecosystems. Of the 38 frameworks collected, we eliminated those that did not specifically focus on community resilience to natural hazards (including hazards arising from climate change). Table 1 shows the twelve selected frameworks proposed by organisations and institutions developed through research or practices in DRR. The table also indicates the scale of implementation of each framework (national (N), local (L) and community (C) level). Table 1: Frameworks for resilience to natural hazards and climate change, and scale of implementation N Code Framework Author(s) / Yea Scale of o Organisatio r implementatio n n N L C 1. HFA Hyogo The United 2005 Framework Nations for Action International 2005-2015: Strategy for Building the Disaster Resilience of Reduction Nations and (UN/ISDR) Communities to Disasters 2. CDR Characteristi Twigg / 2007 C cs of a DFID-UK Disaster Resilient Community 3. CCR Coastal US/IOTWS 2007 Community /ADPC Resilience 4. CSR A IFRC 2008 Framework for Community Safety and Resilience : in the Face of Disaster Risk 5. CRC Climate Prasad, N. et 2009 Resilient al., / The Cities World Bank 6. CDRI Climate and Shaw, R. et 2009 Disaster al., / Kyoto Resilience University Index 7. 4R 4R Bruneau. et 2009

Resilience Framework

8.

CRD

9.

CDR F

Community Resilience to Disaster Community Disaster Resilience Framework

10. CDRCBA

11. CRF

12. DRC

2.1.2

Community Disaster Resilience: A Capital Based Approach Community Resilience Framework Disaster Resilient Cities

al., / MCEER, Buffalo University Buckle, P., et al.

2000

2009

2007

CARRI

2008

Henstra. et al., / Infrastructur e Canada

2004

-

-

Peacock. et al., / Texas A&M University Mayunga, J. S.

Operational definitions of resilience

Klein et al. [17] argued that the transformation of resilience concepts into operational tools for policy and management purposes, especially in managing disasters, has been progressing slowly despite thirty years of the concepts’ evolution. They suggested that resilience is currently ‘too vague’ to be useful in contributing to a greater understanding of the DRR agenda and argued that one of the primary challenges for the application of resilience is to achieve a better understanding of resilience definitions [17], [30]. Addressing this concern, we conducted a meta-analysis of resilience definitions used in each of the twelve frameworks, by deconstructing each definition into its attributes, processes, desired outcomes and external drivers affecting communities (Table 2). In all of these definitions resilience was considered as a positive attribute of communities that enables them to have the capacity or ability to cope with and recover from disasters. It is considered an inherent characteristic of a community in which individual and collective capacity jointly determines the resilience of the whole community. In facing a disaster, communities employ a range of mechanisms that relate to the disaster risk management cycle of preparedness, mitigation, and post-disaster recovery. All twelve frameworks defined a number of activities that contribute to building resilience, but there is no consensus on the procedural steps required to achieve this. For example, the CSR framework developed by the IFRC specifies processes for building resilience that focuses on limiting, reducing, responding and recovering and adapting. In 166


contrast, the CRC framework of the World Bank focuses on building resilience by sustaining and dealing with events. An analysis of the desired outcome of resilience building defined in each framework reveals that only four out of the twelve frameworks specified an expected result for resilience building activities. Most resilience definitions include the ability of a community to bounce back after a disaster and to adapt to adversities in a way that result in a better outcome. Learning from past experiences is used as a mechanism to ensure that communities achieve an increased capacity to face future adversities and disasters. The selected frameworks specify a range of perceived risks and stressors against which resilience needs to be build. For example, the CDRI framework of Kyoto University aims to build resilience against stresses, forces and events, while the CCR framework of UN/IOTWS/ADPC takes a wider approach to more generally include change. This vague description of risks suggests that resilience building is perceived to be a ‘no-regret’ investment that is useful in the context of a range of unspecified risks. However, a better understanding of the risks against which resilience is to be built might be required in order to design more targeted resilience building activities since very different processes might be necessary to address different types of risks. If we don’t define a specific target for resilience building, how de we know we have made progress. Table 2: Definitions of resilience to natural hazards and climate change N Fram Attrib Process Outcom Risk o ewor ute e ks 1 HFA Capac to adapt, to resist, Accepta Hazards ity to change ble level of function s/structu res 2 CD Capac to resist, to Forces, events RC ity manage, to maintain, to recover, to bounce back 3 CCR Capac to adapt, to Change ity influence 4 CSR Chara to limit, to Impacts, damage, cteristi reduce, to disruption, cs, respond, to disturbance Measu recover, to adapt res 5 CRC Capac to sustain, to deal Issues, events ity 6 CD Capac to absorb, to Basic Stress, forces, RI ity recover, to functions events bounce back and structures

7

4R

Capac ity

8

CR D

Abilit y

9

CD RF CD RCB A CRF

-

9

1 1 1 2

DR C

2.1.3

to prevent, to mitigate, to recover to mitigate, to contain, to recover, to mitigate -

-

Losses, damage, impact

Minimal social disruptio n -

Hazards, disasters

Capac ity

to anticipate, to prepare, to recover

-

Disasters

Capac ity

to anticipate, to limit, to bounce back to adapt, to recover

-

-

-

Hazards, impacts

Capac ity

-

Resilience as an outcome versus a process

Ref. [26] and [30] emphasised the significance of considering resilience as an outcome versus a process. Resilience is considered an outcome when it is defined as the ability to bounce-back or cope after a disaster, the ability to survive and cope with a disaster with minimum impact and damage [32] and the capacity to avoid, reduce, minimise impacts of disaster and recover quickly and effectively [12], [26], [36]. Resilience is considered a process when it is defined to be the ability to learn to mitigate future disasters [14], [25], [26]. We observe that frameworks either suggest activities or processes aimed at building resilience, or specify important elements of resilience, or both. i. Resilience as an outcome In this section we closely examine elements and indicators of resilience described by the twelve frameworks. We identify fourteen elements of resilience and group them into three categories: sustainable development, disaster risk reduction and community engagement. Table 3 presents a detailed analysis of the fourteen resilience elements and indicators for each framework and the elements within the three categories.

167

5th Annual International Workshop & Expo on Sumatra Tsunami Disaster & Recovery 2010 Table 3: Fundamental elements of a resilience framework 1. HFA A. Sustainable Development 1. Governance Institutions and & Institutions legal frameworks 2. Training & Training, Education education 3. Social Development 4. Economic Development

Social development Economic and financial policies

5. Built Infrastructure and Environment built environment / Physical infrastructure 6. Natural Environmental Environment / plans include Ecosystem DRR B. Disaster Risk Reduction 7. Disaster Risk assessment Prevention / and VCA Mitigation 8. Disaster Disaster Preparedness preparedness 9. Emergency Management

2. CDRC

3. CCR

4. CSR

5. CRC

Governance

Governance

Governance

Knowledge, education

-

-

Society and economy -

Advocacy, education and awareness -

Governance Departments and and institutions institutions Education -

-

-

6. CDRI

7. 4R

8. CRD

Institutions Education; Knowledge and awareness Social development -

12. DRC

Organization al dimension -

-

-

Institutions

Human capital

Human capital

-

Social dimension Economic dimension

Social and economic development

Social capital Economic capital

Social capital Economic capital

Social

Technical dimension

-

Physical capital

Physical capital

Built environment

-

(Hydrometeorological) disasters

-

-

-

Natural capital

Natural system

-

-

Coastal resource management

-

Risk assessment and VCA Disaster preparedness and response -

-

Risk assessment and identification

Risk assessment and VCA

-

Warning and evacuation

-

Disaster preparedness

-

-

Emergency response

-

-

-

Disaster recovery

-

-

-

Partnerships Community-based disaster preparedness; Early warning and prediction;

-

11. CRF

Community development Economy and financial resources Infrastructure and built environment

Land use, structural design

-

10.CDR-CBA

Social development Economic and financial resources Infrastructure and built environment

-

Response and emergency management 10. Disaster Disaster recovery Disaster Recovery and reconstruction preparedness &Reconstruction and response C. Community Engagement 11. Values /goals Resources to /aspiration implement DRR 12. Partnerships/ Community Collaboration participation and 13. Participation/ decentralisation Networks Public awareness and 14. Knowledge/ outreach Capacity

9.CDRF

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Community of interest; Aspirations; goals; Shared values; Partnerships;Networks Resources and skills.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

168


ii. Resilience as a process Five of the twelve frameworks included concrete activities to build resilience. The Climate Resilient Cities (CRC) framework of the World Bank, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), and the Coastal Community Resilience (CCR) framework all suggest similar activities to build resilience. The other two frameworks, the CSR of the IFRC and DRC of Infrastructure Canada prescribed attributes or characteristics of a resilient community. Table 4: Resilience as a process No Frameworks Resilience as a process 1. HFA Five priorities for actions: 1. To ensure that DRR is a local and national priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation 2. To use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels 3. To reduce the underlying risk factors 4. To identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning 5. To strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels. 2. CDRC Guidance note for CDRC: 1. Section A: Introduction and Background/Key concepts 2. Section B: Tables (Components of resilience; characteristics of a resilient community; characteristics of an enabling environment)

3.

CCR

4.

CSR

5.

CRC

3. Section C: Thematic areas (Governance, Risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management and vulnerability reduction, disaster preparedness and response) Steps to assess CCR: 1. Define purpose, scope, and participants of the assessment 2. Review CCR benchmarks 3. Prepare for the assessment 4. Collect information and data 5. Compile and analyse results 6. Validate and communicate results 7. Provide recommendations to adapt plans and programs for enhanced resilience Characteristics of a Safe and Resilient Community: 1. Community understand, can assess and monitor risks, so that they can protect themselves when disaster strike 2. Community able to sustain their basic community functions and structures due to disasters impacts 3. Continue to build-back after disasters and keep reducing vulnerabilities for future disasters 4. Community understand that building safety and resilience is a long-term and continuous processes 5. Community appreciate that building resilience can help to achieve sustainable development A primer for reducing vulnerabilities to disasters: 1. Understanding the impacts of climate change and disaster risk management (DRM) 2. Explaining climate change impacts and DRM

6.

2.2

DRC

3. Assessment exercise: discovery of a ‘hot spot’ and create City Typology and Risk Characterisation Matrix as well as Local Resilience Action Plan (LRAP) 4. Information exercise: creating a city information base compiled in Climate Change Impacts and Disaster Risk Management Workbook and eventually Framework 5. Examine sound practice of adaptation and mitigation to climate change for lessons learnt Core concepts of DRC: 1. Cultural attitudes must accommodate resilience 2. Disaster resilience is a philosophy, a process and a condition 3. Resilience requires an all-hazard approach 4. Resilience requires an all-vulnerabilities approach 5. Community require greater resistance to hazard stresses 6. Community systems must be flexible 7. Recovery capacity must be enhances 8. Community must develop an adaptive capacity

Evaluation of the frameworks: synergies and gaps

In this section we discuss the results of a gap analysis in which we examined which resilience elements were included or excluded in each of the selected frameworks (Table 5). Each framework was evaluated based on three criteria: 1) does it provide a comprehensive definition, 2) does it consider resilience both as an outcome and as a process, and 3) does it address all important resilience elements across the three categories sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, and community engagement. We first analysed how each assessment criteria was met by each of the frameworks. Four of the twelve frameworks met all requirements of a comprehensive definition of resilience. Five frameworks considered resilience as a process; these are CRC, HFA, CCR, CSR, CDRC and DRC. While the CRC, HFA and CCR frameworks include specific steps to measure and achieve resilience, the CSR and DRC frameworks describe the capacities and attributes of resilient communities. CRC, HFA, CDRC, CCR and CSR suggested indicators to monitor and evaluate progress and outcomes. The majority of the operational resilience frameworks examined fulfil all required elements. These are the HFA, CDRC, CCR, CSR, CRC, CDRI, 4R and CRD, CRC. Those frameworks that have been applied worldwide such as the HFA, CDRC, CCR and CSR exhibit similar elements because they are all based on the HFA. CDRI of Kyoto University and 4R of Buffalo University were developed as part of action researches or consultancies for resilience building activities. The remaining frameworks include some combination of the three categories, e.g., sustainable development 169


and disaster-specific elements, or sustainable development and community-specific elements, or disaster-specific and community-specific elements. Although, there are more combinations of sustainable development and community engagement elements than other elements. Almost all of the frameworks include various aspects of sustainable development as important resilience elements. One exception is the DRC. In this framework, governance and institutional elements, along with social and economic elements are considered most important in this category. Education is considered the next most important issue to achieve resilience within the sustainable development category. Disaster-specific elements of resilience come second in terms of the number of frameworks that included them. Disaster-specific elements consider all stages of disaster management: risk assessment, disaster preparedness, emergency and recovery. The third category is community-specific elements of resilience. These elements are considered by the smallest number of frameworks and include community capacity as the most important, followed by community partnerships and participation. Even though community values and aspirations are considered important in some frameworks, the majority does not include them. Different trends can be observed when we evaluate how different frameworks fulfil all three assessments. First, five frameworks namely the CRC, HFA, CCR, CSR and CDRC can be considered the most comprehensive as they meet all of the requirements. These five frameworks are the most implemented worldwide. However, they exhibit slight differences: while the HFA and CDRC clearly state the desired outcome, the other three do not. The next group consists of three frameworks, the CDRI, 4R and CRD. These meet the requirement of a comprehensive resilience definition and the requirement of addressing all important elements, but they do not consider resilience as a process. The frameworks CDR-CBA and CRF consider resilience elements as combinations of the two categories sustainable development and community engagement, but view resilience only as an outcome. Finally, the CDRF and DRC frameworks are almost opposite to each other in all categories except on the importance of DRR elements.

170


Table 5 : Gap analysis of resilience definitions and elements to natural hazards and climate change Frameworks 1. Definitions Attribute Process Desired outcome (Types) of Drivers 2. Process and/or outcome Outcome Process 3. Resilience elements 3.1 Sustainable development Governance and Institutions Education Social Economics Built Environment Natural Environment 3.2 Disaster risk reduction Disaster Mitigation Disaster Preparedness Emergency Management Disaster Recovery and Reconstructions 3.3 Community engagement Values/aspiration/goals Partnerships/ Collaboration Participation/Networks Knowledge/ Capacity

HFA

CDRC

CCR

CSR

CRC

CDRI

4R

CRD

CDRF

CDRCBA

CRF

DRC

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

171


3. 3.1

Discussion Important elements of resilience to natural hazards

Based on the review of resilience definitions and the gap analysis of the twelve resilience frameworks, we observe that three aspects are considered fundamentally important across all frameworks, namely sustainable development, disaster risk reduction and community development. As Ref. 32 notes resilience is complex and multi-faceted and therefore different characteristics of resilience are needed to cope with different kinds and severities of stresses. A multifaceted approach for resilience building is also proposed by Ref [33] which states that promoting resilience in various elements is essential to reduce risks, accelerate recovery, and adapt to changing conditions. However, Ref [33] also notes that resilience building needs to be undertaken in line with community goals. Figure 1a shows resilience as an outcome and Figure 1b shows resilience as a process, indicating the main actors and drivers for resilience building. 3.1.1

Resilience and sustainable development (SD)

Elements of resilience that address sustainable development include governance and institutions, education, social development, economic development, the built-environment as well as the natural environment. These elements are necessary for resilience building since strengthening these elements can help to create enabling or supporting environments to achieve resilience. Risks from natural hazards are sometimes associated with certain elements of unsustainable development and on the other hand, DRR can help to achieve sustainable development through reducing losses due to disasters [ 33 ]. The nation states have the primary responsibility for DRR and therefore DRR needs to be integrated into and act as essential part of governments’ investment for sustainable development [28]. Ref. [23], [26], [34] suggested that primary dimensions influencing vulnerability and resilience include physical, social, political, economic, institutional, and ecological components. Normandin et al [ 35 ] also argued the necessity to link sustainable development to resilience and vulnerability.

Figure 1: Resilience Framework: a) Resilience as an outcome, b) Resilience as a process

In developing ‘Characteristics of a Resilient Community’, Ref. [27] argued that communities do not exist in isolation but that their capacity to manage disasters is strongly influenced by support from outside the community, such as emergency management, social and administrative services, social-economic and political linkages. He referred to these external supports as the ‘enabling environment’. Ref. [33] noted that the prevention of risks requires the integration of development efforts across sectors such as government, economic, social, and the built-environment. •

The Role of Governance and institutions

According to Ref. [33], there are two ways in which governance can provide an enabling environment for disaster resilience: it can provide an integrated framework for institutions at different levels, and encourage multi-stakeholder participation and engagement in DRR activities. •

Education: Awareness and capacity building

Education for DRR can be in the form of awareness raising and capacity building. OECD [36] ascertained that natural hazards awareness and DRR education are the foundation and pre-requisite for effective disaster risk management strategies. Public awareness activities, which aim to foster changes that lead to a culture of safety and resilience, can involve information, dissemination, education as well as establishment of centers and networks for community participation. UN/ISDR [37] on its website defined capacity building as “efforts aimed at developing human skills or societal infrastructures within a 172


community or organisation needed to reduce the level of risk”. Developing capacity is an important strategy for DRR since it helps to build and maintain the ability of people, organisations and societies to manage risks successfully by themselves. Capacity can be strengthened through sustainable technology transfer, information exchange, network development, management skills, professional linkages and other resources. •

Social development

Social development should aim to reduce social vulnerabilities of communities. Vulnerability is defined as “the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards” [47]. Reducing social vulnerability means increasing social resilience. Vulnerability is a central concept in DRR and has emerged most recently within the discourse on natural hazards. Factors that influence social vulnerability include levels of literacy and education, health service, social equity, provision of peace and security, values and beliefs [47]. •

Economic development

Similarly, economic development should also aim to reduce vulnerabilities of communities. Economic development provides the enabling environment for self-reliance of the community [33]. It should also be geared towards reducing poverty, since it has been shown that it is the poor who are most likely to bear the consequences of disasters [11], [32]. Moreover, a community’s ability to prepare for and recover from disasters is strongly influenced by their economic strength and diversity of livelihoods sources [32]. The key for economic development is the provision of capitals that influence people’s livelihoods, especially of the poor [38], [39]. •

Built environment / physical infrastructure

Reducing risks from natural hazards can also be achieved by better managing the built-environment [32] through the application of structural and nonstructural measures. Structural measures include the development of physical structures or engineering techniques to reduce or avoid disaster impacts [40]. Some examples are the building of dykes, dams, levies, barriers or earthquake-proof buildings. Non-structural measures involve the application of knowledge, practice, and agreement to reduce risks and their translation into laws, codes and policies. •

Natural resources provide goods and services to communities, including food, other resources, and biodiversity [33]. Environmental degradation has strongly contributed to increasing risks from natural hazards by altering the frequency and intensity of climate and water-related hazards and by decreasing the physical buffering capacity of ecosystems [ 41 ]. There has been extensive research on ecological resilience and its role in supporting and influencing social resilience [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

Natural environment / ecosystem

3.1.2

Resilience and disaster risk reduction (DRR)

Elements included in this category are risk knowledge, disaster preparedness, disaster response, and disaster recovery and reconstruction. All of these are elements of the DRR approach which offers a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of disasters [43]. Ref. [32] argues that DRR thinking enables us to view disasters as complex problems that require collective and integrated responses from different agencies and institutions. DRR considerations a crucial component in determining the characteristics of a disaster-resilient community since individual organisations need to prioritise their activities within the DRR approach and engage in partnerships and collaborations with other institutions. •

Risk Knowledge

Risk is defined as “the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences” and disaster risk is defined as “the potential disaster losses, in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur to a particular community or a society over some specified future time period” [37, p. 9]. Risk knowledge is therefore about improving knowledge and awareness of potential hazards and vulnerability to the negative impacts of those hazards. Hazard analysis as well as vulnerability and capacity assessment (VCA) are common methods used to gain comprehensive knowledge about the potential risks to multiple hazards faced by a community, and hence enables communities to design adaptive responses to eliminate or reduce the impacts of hazards. Risk knowledge also allows a community to bounce-back faster after the event [33]. •

Disaster Preparedness

Disaster preparedness is defined by UN/ISDR [37, p. 25] as “activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective response to the impact of hazards, including the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and the temporary evacuation of people and property from threatened locations”. Early warning 173


systems, which include forecasting, dissemination of warnings, preparedness measures and response capacities, provide opportunities to communities to take rapid actions to reduce risks and to learn from experience [33]. Community’s values, capacities and networks are all important factors in preparing communities not only to survive disasters but also to self-organise and recover from disasters [47]. •

Emergency Management

Emergency management, which is sometimes also referred to as disaster management, means that “plans, structures and arrangements are established to engage the normal endeavours of government, voluntary and private agencies in a comprehensive and coordinated way to respond to the whole spectrum of emergency needs” [37, p. 13]. The effective management and coordination of resources is important when developing emergency management plans. Emergency response plans can significantly help communities to bounce back faster after disasters [33]. •

Disaster Recovery & Reconstruction

Disaster recovery, which is the last component of the DRR cycle, involves “the process of restoring and improving basic services, natural resources, and livelihoods in a community affected by a hazard event” (Reference?). Recovery and reconstruction plans influence community resilience in two ways: First, the plan needs to improve living conditions so that the community will be less vulnerable to similar or other types of hazards, and secondly, the plans should aim to ‘build back better’ by developing and better implementing DRR measures and by using the event as an opportunity for learning and adaptation [33], [48]. 3.1.3

Resilience and community engagement

Another way to promote social resilience to natural hazards is by increasing local / community capacities (institutions and mechanisms) that underpin resilience building. This includes building trust, values, partnerships, networks and capacity among them. IFRC [49] state that resilience concepts enable us to shift away from needs and vulnerabilities and to strengthen the capacities for resilience within the community. Ref. [32] argued that focusing on resilience instead of vulnerabilities and needs can help a community to emphasise what they can do for themselves and how they can strengthen their capacity to face hazards. He further suggested that in conventional emergency management, the community is often viewed as group of people living in close proximity exposed to similar risks. This view neglects the most significant

dimensions of a community in terms of its ‘values, partnerships, networks and capacity’. According to Ref [33], understanding the perceptions, beliefs and values of the individual or community at risk is important since this knowledge will help to identify actions to build resilience that are in line with community values. Hence, such actions are more likely to be accepted and sustained in the community. Ref [50] noted that involving the community in the design and implementation of activities helps to ensure that they address the actual needs and vulnerabilities of that specific community. Early involvement also helps to overcome secondary problems when hazards actually occur. Participatory approaches help to integrate existing indigenous knowledge and to strengthen community knowledge and capacities. It also allows for the incorporation of community perspectives into decision-making and hence to more effective institutional processes and policies. 3.2

The Importance of the resilience building process

Lessons learnt from the implementation of some of the selected frameworks in community-based resilience projects confirm the importance of viewing resilience as a process, rather than merely an outcome. At the international level, the mid-term review (MTR) of the HFA undertaken in 2009 enabled countries to demonstrate their progress towards building more disaster resilient societies, and to compare their achievements with those of other countries. The MTR is a useful tool to review processes that require cooperation from multiple stakeholders with different roles for resilience building [50]. Such activities help to obtain insights from a large number of countries. However, since reporting to the MTR is conducted by government institutions responsible for managing disasters at the national level using broad and highly aggregated indicators, insights into resilience building are limited to higher levels of governance. Furthermore, UN/ISDR is currently (2010) holding workshops, in-depth studies and online debates on how the HFA has been implemented by countries. Oxley [51], through the Global Network on Disaster Risk Reduction (GN-DRR) shared experiences from grassroots monitoring of the implementation of the HFA and suggested that this multi-country civil society process has had many benefits in terms of improving downward accountability and opening spaces for dialogue between communities and policy makers. In ‘Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community’, Twigg [52] noted that frameworks are useful tools but 174


that learning processes are also important to ensure that implementation activities are adapted to local contexts. Twigg’s guidance note [32] on implementing this framework acknowledged and highlighted the importance of learning in implementing resilience activities aimed at helping to empower institutions and communities. Resilience characteristics outlined in the framework should be utilised as a starting point to enable continuous learning and practice [62]. He further stated that ‘customizing’ the themes, components and elements of resilience frameworks to the specific context and place is crucial for a framework to be relevant trough participatory processes. This was demonstrated in the application of the framework by Tearfund in Bangladesh [53] and Malawi [ 54 ], and by the Church World Service in Pakistan and Afghanistan [55]. This experience showed that the guidelines needed to be translated into the local languages and that specific resilience goals needed to be established that reflected local conditions. The implementation report from Bangladesh [53] stated that the primary purpose of the exercise was to introduce the characteristics of a disaster resilient community to disaster management partners. However, the exercise went further and became a platform for discussions and learning among the partners. The report also suggested the need to simplify the framework in order to enable the local community to understand the guidance effectively and to identify indicators relevant for the Bangladeshi situation [53]. The implementation report for Malawi stated that the primary purpose of the activity was to examine how Tearfund’s disaster management partners assess their own resilience building capacities. The report acknowledged that the discussions helped to create a new platform for interaction, learning and partnership building among Malawian organisations [54]. The U.S. Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System (USIOTWS) Program, a partnership between U.S. and Southeast Asian agencies and organizations formed in response to the 2004 tsunami, was developed through a series of workshops and discussions with practitioners and specialists from government agencies and NGOs addressing varied aspects of resilience throughout the Indian Ocean region, particularly in the worst affected countries Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Maldives, and Myanmar [56]. The review of lessons learnt report (US/IOTWS, 2008) emphasised the importance of participatory processes to ensure continuity and sustainability of the program. However, the training report for Indonesia [57] stated that challenges to sustaining CCR included an unclear focus on the types of coastal hazards to be addressed and wether the

approach can be effective for multiple and recurring hazards. A recent report on the application of the CCR framework in Cilacap Regency, Indonesia, suggested that the involvement of scientists, policy-makers and local communities was crucial in determining local parameters for community resilience [57]. Six years after the 2004 tsunami, disaster risk reduction and community resilience to disasters are still considered to be relatively new and fairly abstract concepts to many local communities and local governments across the region. The availability of good data and information is fundamental in preparing national and local plans that incorporate resilience thinking. Information sharing between different government agencies and between government agencies and NGOs is crucial since the data are usually collected and managed by different government organisations and entities [66]. US-IOTWS suggested that along with data availability, the level of achievement or resilience benchmark needs to be adapted to the national, sub-national or local contexts. The ‘Climate Resilience Cities’ framework of the World Bank has been implemented in selected cities across East Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. The World Bank lamented a lack of reliable and updated data as well as a lack of capacity of city authorities, which hindered progress in project implementation in some cities. Tiwari [ 58 ] noted a need to develop more specific guidance and assessment parameters targeted at different regions and countries and to translate guidance documents into local languages. The CDRI framework has been implemented in various Asian cities [59] and uses a resilience index to assess resilience based on questionnaires. Answers to these questions depend strongly on data availability and a proper understanding of interviewees of the questions.

175


4.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research

Based on this review of the conceptual development of the resilience concept within DRR, and operational resilience building activities in a number of implementation projects, we are able to draw the following conclusions: 1) More research is needed to strengthen our understanding of the application of the resilience concept to DRR. We have demonstrated in this paper that resilience concepts have been explored extensively in the academic fields of ecology, engineering, and social-ecological (or coupled human and environment) systems. Terms such as vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity dominate the research landscape in these fields. Research on natural hazards and climate change impacts has traditionally focussed on defining, modelling and measuring vulnerability and building resilience through reducing vulnerability. More recent work on resilience within DRR focuses on understanding how and why certain places and people are more or less resilient to disasters. 2) A considerable gap remains between how resilience is defined conceptually and practically in the context of DRR. While the theory of resilience is well understood, resilience is defined differently by different organisations engaged in DRR. Resilience assessment methodologies, indicators, guidelines, procedures and tools for practitioners and decision-makers are largely developed based on practical experiences and knowledge by organisations working in DRR. It is important that more research is conducted to examine how science and practice can inform each other better to enable knowledge integration between the two communities. 3) There is no consensus how resilience should be defined in the context of DRR. The meta-analysis of resilience definitions shows that different organisations utilise a wide range of definitions and processes to build resilience. Further, the desirable outcomes in promoting resilience are rarely clearly articulated. Without a clearly defined and agreed desired resilience state to aspire to, how can progress in building resilience be measured, monitored and evaluated? Another open question is how resilience can be sustained over a longer period of time, considering the long-term nature of some of the hazards arising from climate change. Do we need to develop different resilience building processes to address different drivers of change?

4) Resilience building is seen by some actors more as an outcome, rather than both, an outcome and a process. Only five of the twelve reviewed frameworks (CRC, HFA, CDRC, CCR and CSR) include indicators of progress and outcomes. Viewing resilience as a process is crucial to enable the system to learn from past experience and to measure and evaluate progress in building resilience. Miller et al (2010) raised the need to understand how communities and organisations learn to build resilience in terms of the processes that contribute to coping and recovery. Moreover, the lessons learnt from implementing these resilience frameworks highlight the importance of designing resilience-building processes that reflect the contextual realities of the place in which a particular community is embedded. 5) Resilience building needs to address fundamental elements of sustainable development, DRR and community engagement. This has been recognised by the majority of the resilience frameworks examined in this paper (Climate Resilience Cities, Climate and Disaster Resilience Index, 4R framework, Community Resilience to Disasters, HFA, CCR, CSR, and CDRC. Some frameworks that have been applied worldwide such as the CDRC, CCR and CSR contain similar elements of resilience across the three categories as all of them are based on the HFA (IFRC, 2008; Twigg, J., 2007; 2009; US/IOTWS, 2007). In conclusion, we contend that an effective and comprehensive resilience definition and framework needs to: a) clearly define processes and desired outcomes for resilience building, b) consider resilience as both a process and an outcome, and c) include resilience elements underpinning sustainable development, DRR and community engagement. Based on these considerations, the CRC, HFA, CCR, CSR and CDRC frameworks are the most comprehensive. Indeed, these five frameworks have been implemented worldwide and reflect these respective organisations’ knowledge and experience in promoting resilience to natural hazards.

176


References [1].

[2]. [3]. [4]. [5].

[6].

[7].

[8].

[9].

[10].

[11].

[12].

[13].

[14].

[15]. [16]. [17].

[18]. [19].

[20].

IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22 (2007). Adger, W. N. "Vulnerability." Global Environmental Change 16(3): 268-281 (2006). Bohle, H. G. et al., (1994). Brooks, N. et al., (2005). Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies and N. Abel. "From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What?" Ecosystems 4(8): 765-781 (2001). Birkmann, J.. "Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales:: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications." Environmental Hazards 7(1): 20-31 (2007). Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff and W. L. Shirley (2003). "Social vulnerability to environmental hazards." Social Science Quarterly 84: 242-261. Luers, A. L. (2005). "The surface of vulnerability: An analytical framework for examining environmental change." Global Environmental Change Part A 15(3): 214-223. Thomalla, F., T. Downing, E. Spanger-Siegfried, G. Han and J. Rockström (2006). "Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation." Disasters 30(1): 39-48. Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher and A. Schiller (2003). "A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14): 80748079. Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis (2005). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters (2nd Edition), Routledge. Bruneau, M., S. E. Chang, R. T. Eguchi, G. C. Lee, T. D. O'Rourke, A. M. Reinhorn, M. Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W. A. Wallace and D. Von Winterfeldt (2003). "A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities." Earthquake Spectra 19(4): 733-752. Rose, A. (2007). "Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions." Environmental Hazards 7(4): 383-398. Tierney, K. and M. Bruneau (2007). "Conceptualizing and measuring resilience: A key to disaster loss reduction." TR News(250): 14-17. Timmerman (1981 Dover and Handmer Klein, R. J. T., R. J. Nicholls and F. Thomalla (2003). "Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?" Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 5(1-2): 35-45. Wildavsky, A. (1991). Searching for Safety. New Brunswick, NJ, USA, Transaction Publisher. Miletti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, Joseph Henry Press. Paton, D. and D. Johnston (2001). "Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness." Disaster Prevention & Management 10(4): 270-277.

[21]. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). "Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities." Natural Hazards Review 4(3): 136-143. [22]. Geis (2000) [23]. Pelling, M. (2003). The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disaster and Social Resilience, Earthscan Publications Ltd. [24]. Vale, L. J. and T. J. Campanella (2005). The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster, Earthscan Publications Ltd. [25]. Paton, D. and D. Johnston, Eds. (2006). Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach, Charles C Thomas. [26]. Cutter, S. L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate and J. Webb (2008). "A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters." Global Environmental Change 18(4): 598-606. [27]. Zhou, H., J. a. Wang, J. Wan and H. Jia (2010). "Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective." Natural Hazards 53(1): 21-41. [28]. UN/ISDR (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. [29]. IFRC (2008). A Framework for community safety and resilience: In the face of disaster risk, IFRC. [30]. Manyena, S. B. (2006). "The concept of resilience revisited." Disasters 30(4): 434-450. [31]. (GAR, 2009). [32]. (Berke and Campanella, 2006) [33]. (UNISDR, 2008). [34]. Gaillard, J. C. (2010). "Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: Perspectives for climate and development policy." Journal of International Development 22: 218-232. [35]. Normandin, J. M., M. C. Therrien and G. A. Tanguay (2009). City strength in times of turbulence: strategic resilience indicators. City Futures in a Globalising World: An international conference on globalism and urban change. Madrid. [36]. OECD (2009) [37]. UN/ISDR (2004) http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/terminology-2004eng.html [38]. DFID, 1999; [39]. UNDP, 1995 [40]. UN/ISDR (2009) “UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.” [41]. (MEA, 2005). [42]. Adger, N. (2000). "Social and ecological resilience: are they related?" Progress in Human Geography 24(3): 347-364. [43]. Adger, N., T. Hughes, C. Folke, S. Carpenter and J. Rockström (2005). "Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters." Science 309: 1036. [44]. Folke, C. (2004). "Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems." Ecology And Society 9: 0. [45]. Miller, F., F. Thomalla, T. Downing and M. Chadwick (2006) "Resilient Ecosystems, Healthy Communities: Human Health and Sustainable Ecosystems After the December 2004 Tsunami." Oceanography Volume, DOI: 19 [46]. Walker, B. (1995). "National, regional and local scale priorities in the economic growth versus environment trade-off." Ecological Economics 15(2): 145-147. [47]. DMTP, 2004 [48]. Thomalla et al 2009). [49]. IFRC 2004

177


[50] PreventionWeb. (2010). "HFA Mid-Term Review." Retrieved June 1st, 2010, from http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-mtr/. [51]. Oxley, M. (2009). "Clouds but little rain...” Global Network of civil society organisations for disaster reduction. [52]. Twigg, J. (2009). Identifying partnership needs and opportunities. Disaster studies working paper 18, Aon Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre. [53]. Chadburn, O. (2008). Application of ‘Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community’: Exercise to Introduce the Characteristics to DRR Practitioners working in Rural Bangladesh Villages, Tearfund. [54]. Chadburn, O. (2008). Tearfund Case Study B – Malawi. Application of ‘Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community’: Exercise to Assess the Capacity Skills and Gaps of Tearfund Partners in their ability to design and deliver project activities which will achieve the Characteristics. Malawi, Tearfund. [55]. Zahur, M. (2007). Application of ‘Characteristics of a DisasterResilient Community’ Church World Service Pakistan/Afghanistan Case Study. , Church World Service. [56]. US/IOTWS (2008). Review of lessons learned, U.S. Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System Program. [57]. Hidayat, R. and K. Meguro (2010) "Developing parameter for measuring coastal resilience by using community based perceptions and tsunami run-up modelling." IOC/WESTPAC E-Bulletin Volume, DOI: [58]. Tiwari (2009 [59]. (CDRI, 2009)

178