Resilience & Vulnerability
The inherent resilience of a community is intrinsically linked to the impact a natural hazard may have on a community. Within the literature, “vulnerability reflects the characteristics of a person or a group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a hazard.” (Disaster Risk Analysis, 2008, p3). Resilience is outlined as a “process linking the myriad of adaptive capacities such as social capital and economic development to responses and changes after adverse events.” (Cutter et.al., 2010, p2).
Measurement of Resilience
Whilst a number of metrics, standards and indicators exist for gauging resilience, currently, no consensus exists on how to measure resilience (Béné, 2013).
An extensive literature has identified groups of social, economic and demographic indicators that could potentially be used to categorise levels of community vulnerability or resilience. The Victorian Government document; ‘Assessing Resilience and Vulnerability in the Context of Emergencies: Guidelines’ (2000) provides a list of characteristics of vulnerable groups and a list of factors which support resilience. The guidelines focus on a methodology to assess resilience and vulnerability and suggest that a multitude of data sources such as local experts, focus groups, census data, surveys, questionnaires, outreach programs and group surveys be used to acquire information.
Cutter et.al. (2010) focuses on resilience indicators and provides a set of indicators for measuring baseline characteristics of communities that foster resilience. Cutter’s disaster resilience indicators, contains thirty-six variables from within the categories of social resilience, economic resilience, institutional resilience, infrastructural resilience and community capital and is to date the only single set of established indicators for quantifying disaster resilience within the literature on this topic. However, this research paper excludes ecological resilience in its formulation of indicators and therefore does not provide a completely holistic framework.
Kumpulainen (2006) establishes a list of possible indicators for measuring vulnerability. In this system, vulnerability is measured as a combination of coping capacity and damage potential. Coping capacity indicators measure the ability of the region or community to respond and prepare for a hazard, while damage potential indicators measure anything that can be damaged by a hazard (Kumpulainen, 2006). Yet many of these indicators can not be used due to a lack of data or due to difficulties in quantification. Using most of the indicators listed, Kumpulainen (2006) successfully produces an integrated vulnerability map of Europe for the ESPON hazards project. Yet it should be noted that the result does not take into account the specific impact of individual hazards and the system could be enhanced by examining damage potential on the different sectors of the economy.
An extensive literature has identified groups of social, economic and demographic indicators that could potentially be used to categorise levels of community vulnerability or resilience. The Victorian Government document; ‘Assessing Resilience and Vulnerability in the Context of Emergencies: Guidelines’ (2000) provides a list of characteristics of vulnerable groups and a list of factors which support resilience. The guidelines focus on a methodology to assess resilience and vulnerability and suggest that a multitude of data sources such as local experts, focus groups, census data, surveys, questionnaires, outreach programs and group surveys be used to acquire information.
Cutter et.al. (2010) focuses on resilience indicators and provides a set of indicators for measuring baseline characteristics of communities that foster resilience. Cutter’s disaster resilience indicators, contains thirty-six variables from within the categories of social resilience, economic resilience, institutional resilience, infrastructural resilience and community capital and is to date the only single set of established indicators for quantifying disaster resilience within the literature on this topic. However, this research paper excludes ecological resilience in its formulation of indicators and therefore does not provide a completely holistic framework.
Kumpulainen (2006) establishes a list of possible indicators for measuring vulnerability. In this system, vulnerability is measured as a combination of coping capacity and damage potential. Coping capacity indicators measure the ability of the region or community to respond and prepare for a hazard, while damage potential indicators measure anything that can be damaged by a hazard (Kumpulainen, 2006). Yet many of these indicators can not be used due to a lack of data or due to difficulties in quantification. Using most of the indicators listed, Kumpulainen (2006) successfully produces an integrated vulnerability map of Europe for the ESPON hazards project. Yet it should be noted that the result does not take into account the specific impact of individual hazards and the system could be enhanced by examining damage potential on the different sectors of the economy.