Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Framing Community Disaster Resilience [Kõva köide]

Edited by , Edited by , Edited by , Edited by , Edited by , Edited by
  • Formaat: Hardback, 288 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 246x175x20 mm, kaal: 748 g
  • Ilmumisaeg: 18-Jan-2019
  • Kirjastus: Wiley-Blackwell
  • ISBN-10: 1119165962
  • ISBN-13: 9781119165965
Teised raamatud teemal:
Framing Community Disaster ResilienceSuurem pilt
  • Formaat: Hardback, 288 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 246x175x20 mm, kaal: 748 g
  • Ilmumisaeg: 18-Jan-2019
  • Kirjastus: Wiley-Blackwell
  • ISBN-10: 1119165962
  • ISBN-13: 9781119165965
Teised raamatud teemal:
Püsilink: https://www.kriso.ee/db/9781119165965.html
Märksõnad:

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(4)
Hugh Deeming
1.1 Book Content
2(1)
References
3(2)
Section I Conceptual and Theoretical Underpinnings to Community Disaster Resilience 5(72)
2 Understanding Disaster Resilience:The emBRACE Approach
9(18)
Thomas Abeling
Nazmul Huq
Denis Chang-Seng
Jorn Birkmann
Jan Wolfertz
Fabrice Renaud
Matthias Garschagen
2.1 Introduction
9(1)
2.2 Resilience: Concept
9(3)
2.2.1 Resilience in the Social Domain
10(1)
2.2.2 Resilience: An Outcome or a Process?
11(1)
2.2.3 Resilience on Individual and Collective Levels
11(1)
2.3 Resilience: Methodology
12(3)
2.3.1 Social/Political Resilience
12(2)
2.3.2 Linking Biophysical and Social Resilience
14(1)
2.4 Resilience: Indicators
15(2)
2.5 Gaps and Challenges
17(5)
2.5.1 Challenges in the Transition from Ecology to Social Science
17(1)
2.5.2 The Role of Power
18(1)
2.5.3 Representation of Community
19(1)
2.5.4 Transformation
20(1)
2.5.5 Resourcefulness
21(1)
2.6 Conclusion
22(1)
References
22(5)
3 Mobilising Resources for Resilience
27(16)
Cheney Shreve
Maureen Fordham
3.1 Introduction
27(1)
3.2 Background: Origins of Livelihoods Thinking
27(7)
3.2.1 Successes of SLAB: Changing the Way Development was Done
29(1)
3.2.2 Key Criticisms and the Evolution of Livelihoods Thinking
30(1)
3.2.3 A Closer Look at Social Capital: Background and Key Critiques
31(2)
3.2.4 Summary
33(1)
3.3 Resilience and Livelihoods Thinking
34(2)
3.3.1 Why Disasters?
34(1)
3.3.2 Livelihoods and Disaster Vulnerability
35(1)
3.4 Influence of Livelihoods Thinking on Contemporary Disaster Resilience
36(3)
3.4.1 Linking to Sustainable Livelihoods: Resources and Capacities
36(1)
3.4.2 Community Actions
37(1)
3.4.3 Community Learning
38(1)
3.4.4 Summary
38(1)
References
39(4)
4 Social Learning and Resilience Building in the emBRACE Framework
43(18)
Justin Sharpe
Asa Gerger Swartling
Mark Pelling
Lucy Pearson
4.1 Introduction
43(1)
4.2 What is Meant by Social Learning?
44(2)
4.3 Capacities for Social Learning
46(3)
4.4 Social Learning at the Individual Level
49(1)
4.5 Social Learning at the Community Level
49(3)
4.6 Social Learning and Resilience Outcomes in the emBRACE Project
52(2)
4.7 How Social Learning Provides Opportunities for Sharing Adaptive Thinking and Practice
54(2)
4.8 Conclusion
56(1)
References
56(5)
5 Wicked Problems: Resilience, Adaptation, and Complexity
61(16)
John Forrester
Richard Taylor
Lydia Pedoth
Nilufar Matin
5.1 Introduction
61(1)
5.2 A Brief History of Policy 'Mess' and 'Wickedness'
62(2)
5.2.1 'Super-Wicked' Problems
63(1)
5.3 Resilient and Adaptive Responses to Mess
64(2)
5.4 Clumsy Solutions Linking DRR/DRM and CCA: A Mini Case Study
66(3)
5.5 An emBRACE Model of Complex Adaptive Community Resilience
69(2)
5.6 Conclusion
71(1)
References
72(5)
Section II Methods to 'Measure' Resilience - Data and Indicators 77(78)
6 The emBRACE Resilience Framework: Developing an Integrated Framework for Evaluating Community Resilience to Natural Hazards
79(18)
Sylvia Kruse
Thomas Abeling
Hugh Deeming
Maureen Fordham
John Forrester
Sebastian Julich
A. Nuray Karanci
Christian Kuhlicke
Mark Pelling
Lydia Pedoth
Stefan Schneiderbauer
Justin Sharpe
6.1 Introduction
79(2)
6.2 Conceptual Tensions of Community Resilience
81(1)
6.3 Developing the emBRACE Resilience Framework
82(2)
6.3.1 Deductive Framework Development: A Structured Literature Review
82(1)
6.3.2 Inductive Framework Development: Empirical Case Study Research
83(1)
6.3.3 Participatory Assessment Workshops with Stakeholder Groups
83(1)
6.3.4 Synthesis: An Iterative Process of Framework Development
83(1)
6.4 The Conceptual Framework for Characterising Community Resilience
84(7)
6.4.1 Intracommunity Domains of Resilience: Resources and Capacities, Action, and Learning
84(1)
6.4.1.1 Resources and Capacities
84(1)
6.4.1.2 Actions
86(1)
6.4.1.3 Learning
88(1)
6.4.2 Extracommunity Framing of Community Resilience
89(1)
6.4.2.1 Disaster Risk Governance
89(1)
6.4.2.2 Non-Directly Hazard-Related Context, Social-Ecological Change, and Disturbances
90(1)
6.5 Discussion and Conclusion
91(1)
6.5.1 Interlinkages between the Domains and Extracommunity Framing
91(1)
6.5.2 Application and Operationalisation of the Framework in Indicator-Based Assessments
91(1)
6.5.3 Reflections on the Results and emBRACE Methodology and Limits of the Findings
91(1)
References
92(5)
7 Disaster Impact and Land Use Data Analysis in the Context of a Resilience-Relevant Footprint
97(16)
Marco Pregnolato
Marcello Petitta
Stefan Schneiderbauer
7.1 Introduction
97(2)
7.2 Data and Methodology
99(3)
7.2.1 Data
99(1)
7.2.2 Methodology
99(3)
7.3 Results
102(6)
7.3.1 National Scale
102(1)
7.3.2 Regional Scale: Analysis of Landslides that Occurred Near a Change in LULC
103(4)
7.3.3 Subnational Scale: Analysis of HTI Changes
107(1)
7.3.4 Subnational Scale: Analysis of the LULC Changes in Time Domain
108(1)
7.4 Conclusions and Discussions
108(2)
7.4.1 Is There Any Relationship Between LULC and Landslide Events?
108(1)
7.4.2 Is There Any Relationship Between a Change in LULC and a Landslide Event?
109(1)
7.4.3 Is It Possible to Use LULC Data as a Footprint for Landslide Events?
109(1)
7.4.4 Is It Possible to Use Disaster Footprint and Susceptibility for Resilience Research?
109(1)
7.5 Conclusion
110(1)
References
110(3)
8 Development of Quantitative Resilience Indicators for Measuring Resilience at the Local Level
113(12)
Sebastian Julich
8.1 Introduction
113(1)
8.2 Stages of Indicator Operationalisation
114(2)
8.3 Quantitative Indicator Development
116(1)
8.4 Residence Time as Partial Resilience Indicator
117(1)
8.5 Awareness through Past Natural Disasters as Partial Resilience Indicator
118(4)
8.5.1 Single Factor Time
119(1)
8.5.2 Single Factor Intensity
120(1)
8.5.3 Single Factor Distance
121(1)
8.5.4 Combination of the Three Single Factors
121(1)
8.6 Warning Services as Partial Resilience Indicators
122(1)
8.7 Conclusion
123(1)
References
124(1)
9 Managing Complex Systems: The Need to Structure Qualitative Data
125(14)
John Forrester
Nilufar Matin
Richard Taylor
Lydia Pedoth
Belinda Davis
Hugh Deeming
9.1 Introduction
125(2)
9.2 Mapping of Social Networks as a Measure of Community Resilience
127(4)
9.2.1 Assessing Resilience Using Network Maps: The emBRACE Experience
128(3)
9.3 Agent-Based Models
131(3)
9.3.1 Two Case Studies of ABM in emBRACE
132(2)
9.4 Other Qualitative Data-Structuring Methodologies
134(1)
9.5 Discussion
134(2)
9.6 Conclusion
136(1)
References
136(3)
10 Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators for Assessing Community Resilience to Natural Hazards
139(16)
Daniel Becker
Stefan Schneiderbauer
John Forrester
Lydia Pedoth
10.1 Introduction
139(1)
10.2 Current Indicator-Based Approaches for Assessing Community Resilience
140(2)
10.3 From Concept to Assessment: The emBRACE Approach
142(3)
10.3.1 Using Indicators for Assessing Community Resilience within emBRACE
142(1)
10.3.2 The Process of Grounding our Indicators
143(2)
10.4 Systematisation of Indicators
145(3)
10.5 Deriving Key Indicators of Community Resilience
148(3)
10.6 Conclusion
151(1)
References
151(4)
Section III Empirically Grounding the Resilience Concept 155(102)
11 Resilience, the Limits of Adaptation and the Need for Transformation in the Context of Multiple Flood Events in Central Europe
159(18)
Christian Kuhlicke
Anna Kunath
Chloe Begg
Maximilian Beyer
11.1 Introduction
159(2)
11.2 Key Concepts for the Case Study
161(1)
11.3 Insights into the Case Study Settings and Methods
162(3)
11.3.1 Flood Risk Management in Saxony and Bavaria
162(1)
11.3.2 Methods of Case Study Research - Description of Empirical Work
163(1)
11.3.2.1 Interviews
163(1)
11.3.2.2 Household Survey
163(2)
11.4 Results of the Interviews: Resilience, Learning, and Transformation
165(2)
11.5 Results of the Household Survey: Resilience, Limits of Adaptation, and Responsibility
167(5)
11.5.1 Impacts of (Multiple) Flood Experience
167(3)
11.5.2 Perception of Responsibility in Flood Risk Management
170(1)
11.5.3 Attitudes towards Participation
171(1)
11.6 Community Resilience and the Idea of Transformation
172(1)
References
173(4)
12 River and Surface Water Flooding in Northern England: The Civil Protection-Social Protection Nexus
177(20)
Hugh Deeming
Belinda Davis
Maureen Fordham
Simon Taylor
12.1 Introduction
177(2)
12.2 Conceptualising Community
179(2)
12.3 Methods
181(1)
12.4 Results
182(10)
12.4.1 Rural Resilience
182(3)
12.4.2 Urban Resilience
185(1)
12.4.2.1 Keswick
185(1)
12.4.2.2 Cockermouth
189(1)
12.4.2.3 Workington
191(1)
12.5 Discussion and Conclusions
192(2)
References
194(3)
13 The Role of Risk Perception and Community Networks in Preparing for and Responding to Landslides: A Dolomite Case Study
197(24)
Lydia Pedoth
Richard Taylor
Christian Kofler
Agnieszka Elzbieta Stawinoga
John Forrester
Nilufar Matin
Stefan Schneiderbauer
13.1 Introduction
197(1)
13.2 Badia and the Alpine Context
198(3)
13.3 Two Types of Communities and a Mixed Method Approach
201(2)
13.4 Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, and Response Behaviour
203(6)
13.4.1 Risk Behaviour Profiles
204(1)
13.4.1.1 Temporal Variation in People's Perception of Response and Recovery Actions
206(3)
13.5 Community Networks
209(5)
13.6 Conclusions and Discussion
214(3)
References
217(4)
14 The Social Life of Heatwave in London: Recasting the Role of Community and Resilience
221(16)
Sebastien Nobert
Mark Pelling
14.1 Introduction
221(1)
14.2 Methodology
222(9)
14.2.1 Community Resilience or Resilience from Community?
223(1)
14.2.1.1 Community and the Elderly
223(1)
14.2.1.2 Resilience and Community Ties
224(1)
14.2.2 Rethinking the Normatives of Heatwave Management: Family, Social Ties, and the Collectivity
225(1)
14.2.2.1 Loneliness, Social Networks, and Community
226(1)
14.2.2.2 Rethinking Social Network and Social Capital as Vulnerability Factors
227(1)
14.2.2.3 Social Capital, Fragmented Community, and New Vulnerability
230(1)
14.3 Conclusion
231(1)
References
232(2)
Further Reading
234(3)
15 Perceptions of Individual and Community Resilience to Earthquakes: A Case Study from Turkey
237(20)
A. Nuray Karanci
Gozde Ikizer
Canay Dogulu
Dilek Ozceylan-Aubrecht
15.1 Introduction
238(1)
15.2 Context of the Case Study
239(2)
15.2.1 Van: The Earthquakes and Sociodemographic Context
239(1)
15.2.2 Adapazari/Sakarya: The Earthquake and Sociodemographic Context
240(1)
15.2.3 Risk Governance Setting in Turkey
240(1)
15.3 Main Aims and Research Questions
241(1)
15.4 Methodological Approaches
241(1)
15.4.1 In-Depth Interviews
242(1)
15.4.2 Focus Groups
242(1)
15.5 Perceptions of Resilience According to the emBRACE Framework
242(10)
15.5.1 Resources and Capacities
244(6)
15.5.2 Learning
250(2)
15.5.3 Context
252(1)
15.6 Discussion and Conclusions
252(2)
References
254(3)
Conclusions 257(4)
Index 261
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