The conjoint community resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for emergencies

Cohen, Odeya; Leykin, Dima; Lahad, Mooli; Goldberg, Avishay; Aharonson‐Daniel, Limor

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.009

Cited by 198 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other factors proven to have a strong, positive, and high correlation with community disaster resilience and which should be addressed when building social cohesion and assisting disaster recovery, were identified by Cohen, Leykin, Lahad, Goldberg, and Limor (), who cite leadership, collective efficacy, preparedness, place attachment, and social trust as variables that may influence community disaster resilience Cohen and the other researchers found these factors to correlate consistently with each other, reflecting the community's capability to face a crisis and recover from it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The association between social cohesion and community disaster resilience: A cross‐sectional study

Ludin

Rohaizat

Arbon

2018

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cross‐sectional study design was created, using the Index of Perceived Community Resilience (IPCR) and Buckner's Index of Cohesion (BIC) to survey 386 flood evacuees from six communities in Kelantan, Malaysia, in 2015. The respondents were mostly female (54.7%); lived in basic housing (95.6%); average income (55.9%); secondary level schooling (81.1%); not involved with community organisations (95.1%), volunteering activities (91.2%), or emergency teams (96.9%); inexperience with injury during flooding (94%); experienced the emergency disaster (61.6%); and their mean age was 49 years old. Overall, respondents scored a high level of community disaster resilience (CDR) (mean 3.9) and social cohesion (mean 3.79). Also, respondents’ housing type, event of injury during disaster, volunteering in post‐disaster activities, and emergency team participation were significantly associated with CDR (p = 0.001–0.002), organisational involvement (p = 0.016), and emergency disaster experience (p = 0.028) were significantly associated with social cohesion. The Pearson correlation coefficient results mostly showing a moderate, weak, and one with a strong relationship. There is a strong relationship between community participation (CDR) in events and BIC variables (r = 0.529, p = 0.001). Other analysis shows a moderate but significant relationship with BIC; is open to ideas (r = 0.332, p = 0.001); community has similar values/ideas (r = 0.421, p = 0.001); sense of pride (r = 0.389, p = 0.001); strong leadership (r = 0.339, p = 0.001); positive change (r = 0.484, p = 0.001); and able to handle problems (r = 0.454, p = 0.001). Overall, the results show that respondents had high levels of CDR and social cohesion, while the demographic characteristics show the impact of CDR and social cohesion. In conclusion, the data gives original insight into the level of association between social cohesion and disaster resilience, which could be used as a building block in sustainable disaster recovery. There is a need to explore this further on programmes designed to improve social cohesion across communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The association between social cohesion and community disaster resilience: A cross‐sectional study

Ludin

Rohaizat

Arbon

2018

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Performance indicators cover aspects such as time required for the recovery of the network and the percentage of users not served by the network.SUSBoon et alC, DBronfenbrenner's (, , ) bioecological theory for modelling community resilience to disasters looking at both individual and community elements of resilience.SN/AKafle2012DResilience index composed of 10 process and 25 outcome indicators that measure the progress of a community‐based DRR programme. Outcome indicators reflect five priority areas of the HFA.IIndonesiaMenoni et alDThe ENSURE resilience matrix composed of infrastructure (critical infrastructure repairing capacities) and social system (population, labour and social conditions) evaluations.I, SItalyThompson, Sempier, and SwannDCommunity resilience measurement based on (i) critical infrastructure, (ii) transportation, (iii) community plans and agreements, (iv) mitigation measures, (v) business plans, and (vi) social systems.IN/AUy and ShawC, DEcosystem resilience measurement vis‐à‐vis climate disasters across the (i) ecological, (ii) physical, (iii) economic, (iv) social, and (v) institutional dimensions, with 25 parameters and 125 measures.IPhilippinesCohen et alDThe conjoint community resiliency assessment measure (CCRAM) gauges aspects of community resilience including: (i) leadership, (ii) collective efficacy, (iii) preparedness, (vi) place attachment, (v) social trust, and (vi) social relationship. Also elaborated on in Leykin et al ().IIsraelJacob et alDSocial indicators of vulnerability and resilience of fishing communities across the domains of (i) social, (ii) economic, (iii) ecosystem/natural environment, and (iv) social disruption.SUSMijatović et alCClimate change resilience indicators for agricultural landscapes composed of nine indicators measuring aspects such as species diversity, sustainable resource use, degree of local autonomy, and innovation in management.IN/ARose and KrausmannDA short‐run economic resilience index based on 10 demand‐side and 9 supply‐side resilience strategies to be measured across the micro‐, meso‐, and macro‐economic scales.SN/A<...>…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overdue alignment of risk and resilience? A conceptual contribution to community resilience

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review of literature on community resilience measurement published between 2005 and 2014 revealed that the profound lack of clarity on risk and resilience is one of the main reasons why confusion about terms such as adaptive capacity, resilience, and vulnerability persists, despite the effort spared to operationalise these concepts. Resilience is measured in isolation in some cases, where a shock is perceived to arise external to the system of interest. Problematically, this contradicts the way in which the climate change and disaster communities perceive risk as manifesting itself endogenously as a function of exposure, hazard, and vulnerability. The common conceptualisation of resilience as predominantly positive is problematic as well when, in reality, many undesirable properties of a system are resilient. Consequently, this paper presents an integrative framework that highlights the interactions between risk drivers and coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities, providing an improved conceptual basis for resilience measurement.

show abstract

“…Únicamente se halló que un mayor estrato sociodemográfico se asoció con una mayor percepción de resiliencia comunitaria (r(942) = 0.09, p < 0.01), especialmente, de afrontamiento comunal (r(994) = 0.21, p < 0.001), pero con una menor autoestima colectiva (r(1011) = -0.09, p < 0.01. cumplimiento de normas, el análisis de fuentes de ingreso, por citar algunas (Collier et al, 2013;Syed y Jayant, 2012). También, se ha recurrido a metodologías basadas en informantes clave (Sherrieb, Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum, Diab y Norris, 2012) y el desarrollo de escalas que miden percepciones o actitudes (Cohen et al, 2013;Palomar y Gómez, 2010). Ello en un marco en el que aún el mismo constructor de resiliencia comunitaria es ubicuo y falto de precisión, de acuerdo a Skerrat (2013).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Dentro de este último enfoque, Cohen et al (2013) proponen que la resiliencia es una habilidad o capacidad de la comunidad para tratar con crisis y disrupciones. Se relaciona con la existencia, el desarrollo y el compromiso de los recursos comunitarios para responder a los desafíos de un ambiente caracterizado por el cambio, la incertidumbre, la impredecibilidad y la sorpresa.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Resiliencia comunitaria: propuesta de una escala y su relación con indicadores de violencia criminal

Pérez¹

2015

Pensam. psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenObjetivo. Este trabajo pretendió validar una versión breve de la escala Resiliencia comunitaria (RC), así como explorar las relaciones entre este tipo de resiliencia e indicadores de eficacia colectiva y de violencia criminal. Método. En el estudio participó una muestra no aleatoria de estudiantes de carreras técnicas, tecnológicas y universitarias (n = 965), quienes respondieron a una batería de escalas sobre RC, eficacia colectiva, probabilidad percibida de victimización y aspectos sociodemográficos. Resultados. La escala RC obtuvo una satisfactoria fiabilidad interna (alfa de Cronbach = 0.87) y arrojó dos factores: afrontamiento comunal y autoestima colectiva. La experiencia de victimización se asoció con mayor afrontamiento comunal y menos autoestima colectiva, mientras que una mayor eficacia colectiva se relacionó con más RC. A nivel departamental, más homicidios, secuestros y hurtos, así como un mayor nivel socioeconómico se asociaron con menor autoestima colectiva. Conclusión. La escala RC presenta una alta fiabilidad interna, validez convergente con indicadores de victimización y de eficacia colectiva, así como validez ecológica con indicadores objetivos de criminalidad.Palabras clave. Resiliencia comunitaria, afrontamiento comunal, autoestima colectiva, violencia criminal. Community Resilience: Proposal of a Scale and its Relationship with Criminal Violence Indicators AbstractObjective. The aims of this paper were to both validate a short Community Resilience Scale (CR) and to explore relationships between resilience and collective efficacy and criminal violence indicators. Method. A nonrandomized sample (n = 965) was taken of students from technical programs and universities, who answered a scales pool on CR, collective efficacy, victimization perceived probability and background variables. Results. Results showed that the CR scale had high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87), with two factors: communal coping and collective self-esteem. Victimization experiences were associated with both higher communal coping and lower collective self-esteem, and CR and collective efficacy were directly associated. In a macro level analysis, more homicides, kidnappings, and car thefts were associated with lower collective

show abstract

The conjoint community resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for emergencies

Cited by 198 publications

References 34 publications

The association between social cohesion and community disaster resilience: A cross‐sectional study

The association between social cohesion and community disaster resilience: A cross‐sectional study

An overdue alignment of risk and resilience? A conceptual contribution to community resilience

Resiliencia comunitaria: propuesta de una escala y su relación con indicadores de violencia criminal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About