Skip to main content

Framing Community Disaster Resilience



Framing Community Disaster Resilience

Download Product Flyer

Download Product Flyer

Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description. Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description. Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description. Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description.


An essential guide to the foundations, research and practices of community disaster resilience 

Framing Community Disaster Resilience offers a guide to the theories, research and approaches for addressing the complexity of community resilience towards hazardous events or disasters. The text draws on the activities and achievements of the project emBRACE: Building Resilience Amongst Communities in Europe. The authors identify the key dimensions of resilience across a range of disciplines and domains and present an analysis of community characteristics, networks, behaviour and practices in specific test cases.

The text contains an in-depth exploration of five test cases whose communities are facing impacts triggered by different hazards, namely: river floods in Germany, earthquakes in Turkey, landslides in South Tyrol, Italy, heat-waves in London and combined fluvial and pluvial floods in Northumberland and Cumbria. The authors examine the data and indicators of past events in order to assess current situations and to tackle the dynamics of community resilience. In addition, they put the focus on empirical analysis to explore the resilience concept and to test the usage of indicators for describing community resilience. This important text:

  • Merges the forces of research knowledge, networking and practices in order to understand community disaster resilience
  • Contains the results of the acclaimed project Building Resilience Amongst Communities in Europe - emBRACE
  • Explores the key dimensions of community resilience
  • Includes five illustrative case studies from European communities that face various hazards

Written for undergraduate students, postgraduates and researchers of social science, and policymakers, Framing Community Disaster Resilience reports on the findings of an important study to reveal the most effective approaches to enhancing community resilience.

The emBRACE research received funding from the European Community‘s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n° 283201. The European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained in this publication.

List of Contributors xi

1 Introduction 1
Hugh Deeming

1.1 Book Content 2

References 3

Section I Conceptual and Theoretical Underpinnings to Community Disaster Resilience 5

2 Understanding Disaster Resilience: The emBRACE Approach 9
Thomas Abeling, Nazmul Huq, Denis ChangSeng, Jörn Birkmann, Jan Wolfertz, Fabrice Renaud, and Matthias Garschagen

2.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Resilience: Concept 9

2.2.1 Resilience in the Social Domain 10

2.2.2 Resilience: An Outcome or a Process? 11

2.2.3 Resilience on Individual and Collective Levels 11

2.3 Resilience: Methodology 12

2.3.1 Social/Political Resilience 12

2.3.2 Linking Biophysical and Social Resilience 14

2.4 Resilience: Indicators 15

2.5 Gaps and Challenges 17

2.5.1 Challenges in the Transition from Ecology to Social Science 17

2.5.2 The Role of Power 18

2.5.3 Representation of Community 19

2.5.4 Transformation 20

2.5.5 Resourcefulness 21

2.6 Conclusion 22

References 22

3 Mobilising Resources for Resilience 27
Cheney Shreve and Maureen Fordham

3.1 Introduction 27

3.2 Background: Origins of Livelihoods Thinking 27

3.2.1 Successes of SLAs: Changing the Way Development was Done 29

3.2.2 Key Criticisms and the Evolution of Livelihoods Thinking 30

3.2.3 A Closer Look at Social Capital: Background and Key Critiques 31

3.2.4 Summary 33

3.3 Resilience and Livelihoods Thinking 34

3.3.1 Why Disasters? 34

3.3.2 Livelihoods and Disaster Vulnerability 35

3.4 Influence of Livelihoods Thinking on Contemporary Disaster Resilience 36

3.4.1 Linking to Sustainable Livelihoods: Resources and Capacities 36

3.4.2 Community Actions 37

3.4.3 Community Learning 38

3.4.4 Summary 38

References 39

4 Social Learning and Resilience Building in the emBRACE Framework 43
Justin Sharpe, Åsa Gerger Swartling, Mark Pelling, and Lucy Pearson

4.1 Introduction 43

4.2 What is Meant by Social Learning? 44

4.3 Capacities for Social Learning 46

4.4 Social Learning at the Individual Level 49

4.5 Social Learning at the Community Level 49

4.6 Social Learning and Resilience Outcomes in the emBRACE Project 52

4.7 How Social Learning Provides Opportunities for Sharing Adaptive Thinking and Practice 54

4.8 Conclusion 56

References 56

5 Wicked Problems: Resilience, Adaptation, and Complexity 61
John Forrester, Richard Taylor, Lydia Pedoth, and Nilufar Matin

5.1 Introduction 61

5.2 A Brief History of Policy ‘Mess’ and ‘Wickedness’ 62

5.2.1 ‘Super‐Wicked’ Problems 63

5.3 Resilient and Adaptive Responses to Mess 64

5.4 Clumsy Solutions Linking DRR/DRM and CCA: A Mini Case Study 66

5.5 An emBRACE Model of Complex Adaptive Community Resilience 69

5.6 Conclusion 71

References 72

Section II Methods to ‘Measure’ Resilience – Data and Indicators 77

6 The emBRACE Resilience Framework: Developing an Integrated Framework for Evaluating Community Resilience to Natural Hazards 79
Sylvia Kruse, Thomas Abeling, Hugh Deeming, Maureen Fordham, John Forrester, Sebastian Jülich, A. Nuray Karanci, Christian Kuhlicke, Mark Pelling, Lydia Pedoth, Stefan Schneiderbauer, and Justin Sharpe

6.1 Introduction 79

6.2 Conceptual Tensions of Community Resilience 8

6.3 Developing the emBRACE Resilience Framework 82

6.3.1 Deductive Framework Development: A Structured Literature Review 82

6.3.2 Inductive Framework Development: Empirical Case Study Research 83

6.3.3 Participatory Assessment Workshops with Stakeholder Groups 83

6.3.4 Synthesis: An Iterative Process of Framework Development 83

6.4 The Conceptual Framework for Characterising Community Resilience 84

6.4.1 Intracommunity Domains of Resilience: Resources and Capacities, Action, and Learning 84 Resources and Capacities 84 Actions 86 Learning 88

6.4.2 Extracommunity Framing of Community Resilience 89 Disaster Risk Governance 89 Non‐Directly Hazard‐Related Context, Social‐Ecological Change, and Disturbances 90

6.5 Discussion and Conclusion 91

6.5.1 Interlinkages between the Domains and Extracommunity Framing 91

6.5.2 Application and Operationalisation of the Framework in Indicator‐Based Assessments 91

6.5.3 Reflections on the Results and emBRACE Methodology and Limits of the Findings 91

References 92

7 Disaster Impact and Land Use Data Analysis in the Context of a ResilienceRelevant Footprint 97
Marco Pregnolato, Marcello Petitta, and Stefan Schneiderbauer

7.1 Introduction 97

7.2 Data and Methodology 99

7.2.1 Data 99

7.2.2 Methodology 99

7.3 Results 102

7.3.1 National Scale 102

7.3.2 Regional Scale: Analysis of Landslides that Occurred Near a Change in LULC 103

7.3.3 Subnational Scale: Analysis of HTI Changes 107

7.3.4 Subnational Scale: Analysis of the LULC Changes in Time Domain 108

7.4 Conclusions and Discussions 108

7.4.1 Is There Any Relationship Between LULC and Landslide Events? 108

7.4.2 Is There Any Relationship Between a Change in LULC and a Landslide Event? 109

7.4.3 Is It Possible to Use LULC Data as a Footprint for Landslide Events? 109

7.4.4 Is It Possible to Use Disaster Footprint and Susceptibility for Resilience Research? 109

7.5 Conclusion 110

References 110

8 Development of Quantitative Resilience Indicators for Measuring Resilience at the Local Level 113
Sebastian Jülich

8.1 Introduction 113

8.2 Stages of Indicator Operationalisation 114

8.3 Quantitative Indicator Development 116

8.4 Residence Time as Partial Resilience Indicator 117

8.5 Awareness through Past Natural Disasters as Partial Resilience Indicator 118

8.5.1 Single Factor Time 119

8.5.2 Single Factor Intensity 120

8.5.3 Single Factor Distance 121

8.5.4 Combination of the Three Single Factors 121

8.6 Warning Services as Partial Resilience Indicators 122

8.7 Conclusion 123

References 124

9 Managing Complex Systems: The Need to Structure Qualitative Data 125
John Forrester, Nilufar Matin, Richard Taylor, Lydia Pedoth, Belinda Davis, and Hugh Deeming

9.1 Introduction 125

9.2 Mapping of Social Networks as a Measure of Community Resilience 127

9.2.1 Assessing Resilience Using Network Maps: The embrace Experience 128

9.3 Agent‐ Based Models 131

9.3.1 Two Case Studies of ABM in emBRACE 132

9.4 Other Qualitative Data‐Structuring Methodologies 134

9.5 Discussion 134

9.6 Conclusion 136

References 136

10 Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators for Assessing Community Resilience to Natural Hazards 139
Daniel Becker, Stefan Schneiderbauer, John Forrester, and Lydia Pedoth

10.1 Introduction 139

10.2 Current Indicator‐Based Approaches for Assessing Community Resilience 140

10.3 From Concept to Assessment: The emBRACE Approach 142

10.3.1 Using Indicators for Assessing Community Resilience within emBRACE 142

10.3.2 The Process of Grounding our Indicators 143

10.4 Systematisation of Indicators 145

10.5 Deriving Key Indicators of Community Resilience 148

10.6 Conclusion 151

References 151

Section III Empirically Grounding the Resilience Concept 155

11 Resilience, the Limits of Adaptation and the Need for Transformation in the Context of Multiple Flood Events in Central Europe 159
Christian Kuhlicke, Anna Kunath, Chloe Begg, and Maximilian Beyer

11.1 Introduction 159

11.2 Key Concepts for the Case Study 161

11.3 Insights into the Case Study Settings and Methods 162

11.3.1 Flood Risk Management in Saxony and Bavaria 162

11.3.2 Methods of Case Study Research – Description of Empirical Work 163 Interviews 163 Household Survey 163

11.4 Results of the Interviews: Resilience, Learning, and Transformation 165

11.5 Results of the Household Survey: Resilience, Limits of Adaptation, and Responsibility 167

11.5.1 Impacts of (Multiple) Flood Experience 167

11.5.2 Perception of Responsibility in Flood Risk Management 170

11.5.3 Attitudes towards Participation 171

11.6 Community

Resilience and the Idea of Transformation 172

References 173

12 River and Surface Water Flooding in Northern England: The Civil ProtectionSocial Protection Nexus 177
Hugh Deeming, Belinda Davis, Maureen Fordham, and Simon Taylor

12.1 Introduction 177

12.2 Conceptualising Community 179

12.3 Methods 181

12.4 Results 182

12.4.1 Rural Resilience 182

12.4.2 Urban Resilience 185 Keswick 185 Cockermouth 189 Workington 191

12.5 Discussion and Conclusions 192

References 194

13 The Role of Risk Perception and Community Networks in Preparing for and Responding to Landslides: A Dolomite Case Study 197
Lydia Pedoth, Richard Taylor, Christian Kofler, Agnieszka Elzbieta Stawinoga, John Forrester, Nilufar Matin, and Stefan Schneiderbauer

13.1 Introduction 197

13.2 Badia and the Alpine Context 198

13.3 Two Types of Communities and a Mixed Method Approach 201

13.4 Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, and Response Behaviour 203

13.4.1 Risk Behaviour Profiles 204 Temporal Variation in People’s Perception of Response and Recovery Actions 206

13.5 Community Networks 209

13.6 Conclusions and Discussion 214

References 217

14 The Social Life of Heatwave in London: Recasting the Role of Community and Resilience 221
Sebastien Nobert and Mark Pelling

14.1 Introduction 221

14.2 Methodology 222

14.2.1 Community Resilience or Resilience from Community? 223 Community and the Elderly 223 Resilience and Community Ties 224

14.2.2 Rethinking the Normatives of Heatwave Management: Family, Social Ties, and the Collectivity 225 Loneliness, Social Networks, and Community 226 Rethinking Social Network and Social Capital as Vulnerability Factors 227 Social Capital, Fragmented Community, and New Vulnerability 230

14.3 Conclusion 231

References 232

Further Reading 234

15 Perceptions of Individual and Community Resilience to Earthquakes: A Case Study from Turkey 237
A. Nuray Karanci, Gözde Ikizer, Canay Doğulu, and Dilek OzceylanAubrecht

15.1 Introduction 238

15.2 Context of the Case Study 239

15.2.1 Van: The Earthquakes and Sociodemographic Context 239

15.2.2 Adapazarı/Sakarya: The Earthquake and Sociodemographic Context 240

15.2.3 Risk Governance Setting in Turkey 240

15.3 Main Aims and Research Questions 241

15.4 Methodological Approaches 241

15.4.1 In‐Depth Interviews 242

15.4.2 Focus Groups 242

15.5 Perceptions of Resilience According to the emBRACE Framework 242

15.5.1 Resources and Capacities 244

15.5.2 Learning 250

15.5.3 Context 252

15.6 Discussion and Conclusions 252

References 254

Conclusions 257

Index 261