Differences in the dynamics of community disaster resilience across the globe

Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler,Karen Campbell,Reinhard Mechler,Adriana Keating,Jeffrey Czajkowski,Finn Laurien,Stefan Velev

doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96763-0

Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler, Karen Campbell + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96763-0

Copy DOI

Abstract

The consideration of disaster resilience as a multidimensional concept provides a viable and promising way forward for reducing risk and minimizing impacts today and in the future. What is missing is the understanding of the actual dynamics of resilience over time based on empirical evidence. This empirical understanding requires a consistent measure of resilience. To that end, a Technical Resilience Grading Standard for community flood resilience, was applied in a longitudinal study from 2016 to 2018 in 68 communities across the globe. We analyse the dynamics of disaster resilience using an advanced boosted regression tree modelling framework. The main outcome of our analysis is twofold: first, we found empirical evidence that the dynamics of resilience build on a typology of communities and that different community clusters experience different dynamics; and second, the dynamics of resilience follows transitional behaviour rather than a linear or continuous process. These are empirical insights that can provide ways forward, theoretically as well as practically, in the understanding of resilience as well as in regard to effective policy guidance to enhance disaster resilience.

Highlights

Measurements and assessments of resilience which can be used across the globe are still lacking[17]
The main outcome of our analysis is twofold: first, we find empirical evidence that the dynamics of disaster resilience shows similar patterns based on the typology of communities and second, the dynamics of resilience can follow a non-linear behaviour pattern rather than a linear and continuous process
The outcome of the framework design resulted in the operationalized tool (FRMT)—an integrated, web-based and mobile device platform for creating questionnaires based on a flexible combination of data collection methods for each of the 88 indicators, assigning data collection work, collecting data, undertaking grading ranging from A to D for each source, generating outputs, and storing data on a central database

Summary

Introduction

Measurements and assessments of resilience which can be used across the globe are still lacking[17]. The definition of resilience underlying the FRMC is: “The ability of a system, community, or society to pursue its social, ecological, and economic development and growth objectives, while managing its disaster risk over time in a mutually reinforcing way”[18] Central to this concept is the distinction between five key capitals which holistically make up the socio-economic system of communities. Across these capitals are 88 indicators of sources of resilience (sources) as they contribute to a community’s capacity to reduce risk, prepare for, withstand and recover better from a flood disaster These sources were measured at baseline and endline of the project, and a post-flood study impact assessment taken after a flood event within selected communities across the globe. The outcome of the framework design resulted in the operationalized tool (FRMT)—an integrated, web-based and mobile device platform for creating questionnaires based on a flexible combination of data collection methods for each of the 88 indicators (sources of resilience), assigning data collection work, collecting data, undertaking grading ranging from A to D for each source, generating outputs, and storing data on a (protected) central database (see Fig. 1)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion