Abstract

Community resilience is often assessed in disaster risk management (DRM) research and it has been argued that it should be strengthened for more robust DRM. However, the term community is seldom precisely defined and it can be understood in many ways. We argue that it is crucial to explore the concept of community within the context of DRM in more detail. We identify three dominating views of conceptualizing community (place-based community, interaction-based community, community of practice and interest), and discuss the relevance of these conceptualizations. We base this discussion on quantitative and qualitative empirical and policy document data regarding flood and storm risk management in Finland, wildfire risk management in Norway and volcanic risk management Iceland. According to our results, all three conceptualizations of community are visible but in differing situations. Our results emphasize the strong role of public sector in DRM in the studied countries. In disaster preparedness and response, a professionalized community of practice and interest appear to be the most prominent within all three countries. The interaction-based community of informal social networks is of less relevance, although its role is more visible in disaster response and recovery. The place-based (local) community is visible in some of the policy documents, but otherwise its role is rather limited. Finally, we argue that the measured resilience of a community depends on how the community is conceptualized and operationalized, and that the measures to strengthen resilience of a particular community should be different depending on what the focal community is.

Highlights

  • Community resilience is often assessed in disaster risk management (DRM) research and it has been argued that it should be strengthened for more robust DRM

  • If the aim is to develop valid and reliable measures of community resilience, we argue that community must be defined and operationalized so that it is meaningful in light of DRM

  • The objectives and measures for flood risk management (FRM) are listed in six-year FRM plans, which are coordi­ nated at the national level by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and at the regional level by the Regional Councils and the regional environmental administration [61]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

‘Community’ and ‘community resilience’ are widely used concepts in literature addressing policies and strategies to prevent and reduce disaster risks and manage residual risks with preparedness, response and recovery activities [1] In this literature, resilience has been defined in multiple different ways, but it typically denotes how certain actors prepare for, act during, recover from, and mitigate hazards [2,3]; it is a dynamic process that should lead to a desired outcome [2,4,5]. We analyze what roles are assigned to communities in DRM, and discuss how the roles of these communities and perceived resilience vary concerning how the term is conceptualized

Three conceptualizations of community
Finland
Norway
Iceland
Discussion and conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call