Whole Community Resilience: An Asset-Based Approach to Enhancing Adaptive Capacity Before a Disruption

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and fi ndings: Conventional hazard mitigation and pre-disaster recovery planning processes typically begin with hazard scenarios that illustrate probable events and analyze their impacts on the built environment. The processes conclude with responses to the hypothetical disruption that focus on "hardening" buildings or structures or removing them from threatened areas. These approaches understate the importance of natural and social sources of adaptive capacity. Three "proof-ofprinciple" exercises designed to strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s Risk MAP (Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning) process in Washington State suggest how better to conduct hazard mitigation and recovery planning. Each begins with workshops where stakeholders identify built, natural, and social assets that contribute to human wellbeing (HWB) before introducing earthquake scenarios that affect HWB. Participants then identify assets that could facilitate adaptation to changed circumstances (a "new normal"). Participants discuss how these assets would achieve the goals of comprehensive community planning as well as hazard mitigation and recovery from disaster. Neighborhood-scale social organization emerges as an important priority. Takeaway for practice: Asset-based approaches enable communities to better recover from disaster and adapt to a postdisaster "new normal." By premising planning discussions on a more holistic set of assets, communities can balance physical recovery goals with qualities that help them to adapt to future change. Furthermore, thinking about recovering before an event W e need stronger neighborhoods, increased walkability, greater sense of place, mixed land uses, closer neighbor and family ties and trust": These were conclusions from tabletop exercises held in the cities of Redmond, Everett, and Neah Bay in Washington State. These outcomes might have been expected if the exercise focused on smart growth, but stakeholders were addressing earthquake risks. Individuals mentioned traditional earthquake mitigation measures such as retrofi tting or strengthening structures, developing redundant energy sources, and improving emergency response, but those did not drive the discussions. This new approach to earthquake risks began with an inventory of community assets-built, natural, and social "capital"-instead of vulnerabilities, and it prompted stakeholders familiar with emergency preparedness to broaden their thinking about how to plan for disasters.The experience of these tabletop exercises demonstrates how both mitigation and recovery planning can benefi t from incorporating general land use and community planning goals for everyday betterment. This could lead to successful integration of mitigation and recovery planning with comprehensive planning, a goal that has proven alluring and elusive to disaster planners (Pearce, 2003; Wamsler, 2006). Progress has been made toward integrating hazards mitigation and recovery planning into other types of planning through " actua...

Exploring the Emerging Evolution Trends of Urban Resilience Research by Scientometric Analysis

“…Some researchers explored the complexity of urban resilience from the perspective of complex systems, especially in networked scenarios, where cities were treated as complex and dynamic multisystem consisting of dynamic links between different components [ 8 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. In addition, many papers published in renowned journals are case studies in urban studies [ 34 , 35 , 36 ] and focused on new themes, such as pathways to urban resilience [ 29 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], urban resilience policies [ 41 , 42 ], urban water resilience [ 43 , 44 ], urban energy resilience [ 45 , 46 ], resilience trade-offs [ 38 ], urban form resilience [ 47 ], the spatial-temporal characteristics of urban resilience [ 48 , 49 , 50 ], the impacts of urban resilience on sustainable development [ 51 , 52 , 53 ] and urban resilience assessment approaches [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. All of these achievements laid a solid foundation for the future urban resilience research.…”

Measuring the Disaster Resilience of an Urban Community Using ANP‐FCE Method from the Perspective of Capitals

“…Another example is the provision of emergency shelters, which can ensure people's lives and improve disaster resilience during an evacuation (Chen et al., ). (3)Natural capital in the community mainly reflects the behavior of a community's energy and resource requests and the waste output in the operation and maintenance phases (Ma and Wang, ). Regarding disasters, however, natural capital emphasizes the ability to use resources and energy, rely on or modify the natural environment to reduce and mitigate the effects of a disaster, and quickly restore the original functions of communities after disasters (Freitag et al., ). For example, drainage renovation of communities—including permeable brick laying, rain gardens, and sunken green spaces—can effectively solve the problem of waterlogging caused by rainstorms, protect lower‐level residents, and ensure the smooth flow of traffic (Jia et al., ).…”

A bottom-up approach to developing a neighbourhood-based resilience measurement framework

“…to help identify local assets that (Freitag et al, 2014, p. 325). This was followed by a discussion about the resources required for community preparedness, response, and recovery (Freitag et al, 2014). By integrating the questions and approaches used in these two earlier studies, this study sought to identify common and contextual disaster resilience themes by asking participants the following questions: How would you describe your neighbourhood?…”