Assessing Community Disaster Resilience in Flood-Prone Areas of Bangladesh: From a Gender Lens

The main purpose of this study was to assess the level of community flood resilience with a special focus on gender. A gender perspective ensures the representation of diversified voices in the study. From concept development to data representation, all the steps were completed ensuring gender-based inclusion. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to conduct the study. A total of 402 responses were analyzed as the sample. A linear structured questionnaire was developed by using a five-point Likert scale to collect quantitative data. As part of the qualitative tool, in-depth observation was used in the study. The study found that female members of the community lag in terms of disaster resilience comparing to their male counterparts. The scores in different components of resilience assessment framework indicate that there are gaps in terms of level of resilience from the gender perspective. The same disaster can create a disproportionate level of impact on women and men due to an unequal level of resilience. The study indicates that assessing community disaster resilience and introducing resilience enhancement interventions should focus on a gender-based approach.

Quantifying Component Importance for Disaster Resilience of Communities with Interdependent Civil Infrastructure Systems

Communities and their supporting civil infrastructure systems can be viewed as an assembly of, often numerous, interacting components. Tools that can identify components relevant for community disaster resilience can help to efficiently allocate limited resources to reach community resilience goals. We use Sobol’ indices to measure the importance of vulnerability and recoverability of components for disaster resilience of communities with interdependent civil infrastructure systems. The initial component importance analysis requires no prior knowledge regarding component’s vulnerability and recoverability. We first rank components based on their importance, using their Sobol’ indices. Secondly, we illustrate how the results of the component importance analysis can be used to improve community disaster resilience. Finally, we use component importance to show how model complexity can be reduced by abstracting less important components.

A systematic literature review of community disaster resilience: main and related research areas and agendas

PurposeThis study aims to characterize the main research areas of published works, identify the disciplines that associated with the works and propose research agendas for future inquiries, based on a systematic literature review that encompasses 89 research papers from 2010 to 2020.Design/methodology/approachThis review commenced with the definition of the three research questions, and subsequently three steps were followed: (1) defining criteria for research paper selection; (2) specifying the data bases and selecting the papers based on the criteria and (3) data analysis, conclusion and discussion of selected papers. The search was limited to the selection of research papers in English, focusing on “community disaster resilience” which is the subject of this review and referred to as keywords which were used for the online search for papers. All these three words must be present in the title of the selected papers.FindingsThe area “resilience management” and “disaster resilience assessment” accounted for 43% of the studies, and it indicates that research has emphasized the description of how community disaster resilience has been managed and assessed. Three disciplines relating to disaster resilience are disaster risk science, public health and environment, and it indicates that research has fostered core areas of community disaster resilience. Three key research agenda include a growing trend to describe successful efforts to avert a potentially catastrophic disaster through solution-based case studies; a paradigmatic shift and implementation of how communities could help the disaster victims recuperate from disasters.Research limitations/implicationsThis review is limited to the numbers of chosen papers, as only full papers were chosen. However, in order to establish more rigorous and inclusive results of the study, the numbers of citations of published papers to be chosen for future inquiry should be taken into account.Originality/valueThis present review originally investigated how the concept of disaster resilience has been applied at the community level and in related areas. As resilience is a multidisciplinary concept that has been investigated by several different disciplines, such as sustainability, psychology, economy and sociology, this study looked into how disciplines related to community disaster resilience to provide agenda for future inquiries. This study therefore characterized the main research areas of published works, identified the disciplines that associated with the works and proposed a research agenda for future inquiries.

Measuring community disaster resilience using Q-methods: a physical resilience perspective

PurposeDecision-makers, practitioners and community members have a need to assess the disaster resilience of their communities and to understand their own capacities in disaster situations. There is a lack of consensus among researchers as to what resilience means and how it can be measured. This paper proposes a novel technique to achieve consensus among stakeholders on definitions, objectives and indicators for measuring a key dimension of community disaster resilience (CDR), physical infrastructure (PI).Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a five-step approach utilizing Q-methods to contextualize a resilience index for PI. Interviews, focus groups and Q-sorting workshops were conducted to develop a tool that ranked measures according to stakeholder preference. A total of 84 participants took part in the workshops across four countries (United Kingdom, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka).FindingsThe initial set of 317 measures was reduced to 128 and divided into the three community capacities of anticipatory, absorptive and restorative. The physical infrastructure capacity assessment tool (PI-CAT) was then finalized to have 38 indicators that were also ranked in order of importance by the participants.Practical implicationsThe PI-CAT can be useful for local governments and communities to measure their own resilience. The tool allows stakeholders to be confident that the metrics being used are ones that are relevant, important and meet their requirements.Originality/valueThe Q-method approach helps stakeholders to develop and use a community capacity assessment tool that is appropriate for their context. The PI-CAT can be used to identify effective investments that will enhance CDR.