Framework of Community Resilience to Flood Disaster

The concept of community resilience is increasingly being embraced as a framework for enhancing disaster readiness and response capability (Kathleen Sherrieb 2012). Assessing community resilience is a complicated process due to the dynamic interaction of populations, communities, societies as well as the environment. There are number of models and frameworks developed in order to assess community resilience (Table 4).

Resilience Vulnerability

23 Table 4 Community Resilience Frameworks

Author/Year Type of Framework Dimensions of Framework of Community Resilience (Wilson 2012) Community Resilience and

Environmental Transitions Economic capital, Social Capital, and Environment Capital.

(Cutter, Barnes et al.

2008)

A Place-based community

Resilience Model Ecological, Social, Economic, Instructional, Infrastructure, Community Competence.

(Cutter, Burton et al.

2010)

Disaster resilience Indicators for benchmarking Baseline Conditions

Social, Economic, Intuitional, Infrastructure, and Community capital.

(Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning Program 2007)

Coastal community

resilience Governance, Society and economy,

Coastal resources management, Land use and structure design, Risk knowledge, Warning and evacuation, Emergency response, Disaster recovery.

(Magis 2010) Community resilience Community resources, Development of Community resources, Engagement of Community Resources, Active agent, Collective action, Strategic action, Equity, Impact.

(Norris, Stevens et al.

2008)

Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness

Economic Development, Social Capital, Information and Communication, and Community Competence.

(Mayunga

2007) A capital based approach on Community Disaster Resilience

Social Capital, Economic Capital, Human Capital, Physical Capital, Natural Capital.

Such dimensions include economic capital, social capital, environmental capital, community capital, natural capital, physical capital, human capital. Although these frameworks are conceptualized the dimensions of community resilience in a relatively different expression, they seem to focus on the community capitals that could reduce vulnerability and enhance the community resilience. There was a relatively high agree on conceptualizing community resilience linked with social, economic and environmental capital (Bourdieu 1987, Adger 2000, Stimson, Western et al. 2003, Cutter, Barnes et al. 2008, Magis 2010) and clearly explained in community resilience framework of Wilson (2012).

The primary focus of this research is community resilience as it applies to climate-related disaster, particularly here is flood disaster. The resilience of a system to

24 floods is referred to the potential of this system to recover from perturbations caused by flood hazard events for reducing the long-term negative consequences of them (Eleitério 2012). This paper utilized the inherent community resilience framework given by Wilson (2012) as its conceptual basic. This model presented the interaction between 3 pillars of resilience including economic capital, social capital and environmental capital. Figure 4 depicts the conceptual framework on how 3 capitals of resilience can contribute to the community resilience.

Figure 4 Conceptual framework on the interaction between environmental, social and economic capital of Community Resilience

Source: Modified from Wilson 2010

• Economic capital:

Economic capital is the key foundation of financial and economic well-being of a community (Adger 2000). It is defined as monetary income and financial assets (Bourdieu 1987) or the financial resources available to be invested in the community for business development, civic and social enterprise, and wealth accumulation (Magis 2010). Economic capital contributes for increasing the ability and capacity of individuals, groups and community to absorb disaster impacts as well as accelerate the recovery process. It is also considered as an important

25 determinant of community resilience (Mayunga 2007). Factors such as availability of funding, high levels of community or household income, well-developed community infrastructure or well-established trade flows, are usually associated with strong economic capital (Bardhan 2006). The proposed indicators for measuring economic capital include income, employment status, economic sector, dependence on external funds, housing status, accessibility, poverty status, and financial and savings.

• Social capital:

Social capital is one of the key sociological foundations for community survival and generally describes how well social, political and culture network are developed in a community (Coleman 1988, Stimson, Western et al. 2003). The concept of social capital here is relatively wide including human capital (often used in the context of skills and knowledge available in community), political capital (the inclusiveness of the political process and the extent of institutional processes) as well as culture capital (ideological standpoints of a community) (Bourdieu 1987, Wilson 2012). It is defined as capital mobilized through social network and relations, the ability and willingness of community members to participate in actions directed to community object and process of engagement (Bourdieu 1987, Magis 2010). Social capital consists of norm, values, social network and trust that foster cooperation among people and its well-developed is seen as the key ingredient for resilient communities, especially the context of bonding (group cohesion), bridging (ties between groups), linking (vertical relationships) and capitals (Pretty and Ward 2001, Bhandari and Yasunobu 2009, Magis 2010). The factors are generally seen as key ingredients for strong social capital such as strong social ties, well-established trust and participatory, inclusive and democratic process (Beierle and Cayford 2002). Social capital here can be measured through population, education and knowledge, community cohesiveness, participating in community activities, community preparation during disaster, institutional, quality of life.

• Environmental capital:

Environment capital is the most recent type for any community relies on

“healthy” environment for survival (Magis 2010). Environment capital is seen encompass both natural capital and bio-capacity that seeks to assess demand and supply of natural resources available to a community (Ekins, Simon et al. 2003,

26 Ostrom 2009, Wilson 2010). Natural capital is also considered the capacity of natural processes and components to provide resources and services that directly or indirectly satisfy human needs (Groot 1992). Natural capital which made up of resources (such as water, mineral land, soil) and ecosystem services from the natural world (that maintain clean water, air and a stable climate) is influenced by individual and collective human action, but also presents opportunities and constraints on human, social, culture and financial capital (Costanza, d’Arge et al.

1997, Force and Machlis 1997, Goodwin 2003). Indicators for strong environmental capital linked to human survival needs such as healthy soils, water or resource available or well managed land and environmental resources (Folke, Carpenter et al. 2002, Folke 2006). The indicators for measured environmental capital are collected through intensity of natural hazards, frequency of natural hazards, and sustainability of resources.

The conversion of environmental and economic capital into social capital highly depends on power relations within community including power as a resource mobilized to achieve desired objectives and power as an inscribed capacity to control or direct the actions of other. Environmental, economic, and social capital are seen as the glue to hold the society/community together. Therefore, community resilience and vulnerability can be better conceptualized on the basic how well the critical triangle of economic, social and environmental capital are developed in a given community and how these capitals interact (Wilson 2010).

Figure 4 shows the conceptual model of how interaction of economic, social, and environmental capital creates different spaces of resilience with the strongest form of community resilience can be found at the intersection between strong economic, social and environmental capital. Community where only two capitals are well developed can be characterized as only moderately resilience, or indeed as moderately vulnerability, while community that have only one (or no) well-developed capital are generally characterized by weak resilience/high vulnerability.

Community resilience can be seen as the balance between economic, environment and social needs of communities through the robustness, the rapidity, the redundancy and resourcefulness to find ways to address the internal and external challenges threatening (Wilson 2010).

27