Learning from the history of disaster vulnerability and resilience research and practice for climate change

Abstract

Humanity has long sought to explain and understand why environmental processes and phenomena contribute to and interfere with development processes, frequently through the terms and concepts of 'vulnerability' and 'resilience'. Many proven ideas and approaches from development and disaster risk reduction literature are not fully considered by contemporary climate change work. This chapter describes the importance of older vulnerability and resilience research for contemporary investigations involving climate change, suggesting ways forward without disciplinary blinkers. Vulnerability and resilience as processes are explored alongside critiques of the post-disaster 'return to normal' paradigm. The importance of learning from already existing literature and experience is demonstrated for ensuring that complete vulnerability and resilience processes are accounted for by placing climate change within other contemporary development concerns.

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

“…Therefore, another of the tensions surrounding the concept of resilience in the context of disaster risk reduction concerns its relation to social change and transformation. A divide is emerging between those that propose resilience as an opportunity for social reform and transformation in the context of uncertainty (Bahadur and Tanner, 2014;Brown, 2014;Olsson et al, 2014;MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013;SudmeierRieux, 2014;Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015;Kelman et al, 2016), and those that argue for a restriction of the term to functional resistance and stability (Smith and Stirling, 2010;Klein et al, 2003). Limiting resilience to narrow interpretations of robust infrastructure would promote local disaster risk reduction that fails to address the need for social change and learning.…”

Where you stand depends on where you sit: qualitative inquiry into notions of fire adaptation

“…As has been demonstrated in the climate adaptation field, the social processes that facilitate adaptation are complex because they involve multiscalar and multisectoral processes. Ultimately, such systemic shifts may result in increased social resilience, imagined as the potential to respond to disruption with a bounce-back to previous conditions or a bounce-forward that takes previous vulnerabilities into account (Tierney 2015, Kelman et al 2016. Temporal and social scale considerations required for short-and long-term responses vary widely, though the fundamental options in response to environmental changes available to society remain within a relatively limited scope.…”

Killing Martin county : resiliency in a central Appalachian community.

“…Resiliency literature suggests marginalized communities adapt to the long-term exposure of environmental stressors (Gilbert 2010;Kelman et al 2016). Research findings support this claim but further suggest managing adaptation is a privilege within a marginalized community.…”

“…Kelman et al (2016) suggest waiting for the next disaster is a chronic normal for many marginalized communities. Thus, adaptive resiliency frameworks consist of strategies developed by marginalized communities to prepare for future disasters, as well as environmental stressors (Gilbert 2010).…”

“…Residents discussed one common resiliency trait concerning both disasters: adaptation. Kelman et al (2016) suggest adaptation is a chronic normal for marginalized communities with environmental stressors and an increased risk of disasters. Thus, individuals develop adaptive frameworks to cope and survive environmental stressors and increased risk of disasters.…”