Transcript Slide 1

Disasters and Community Resilience:
Urban Lessons from “Peripheral”
Wildfire Communities
Ivan Townshend, University of Lethbridge
Judith Kulig, University of Lethbridge
Bill Reimer, Concordia University
Dana Edge, Queen’s University
Nancy Lightfoot, Laurentian University
Ruralwildfire.ca
IGU Urban Commission
August 2011
Canterbury, UK
Background
• Natural hazards widespread and increasing in
number and intensity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Blizzards
Earthquakes
Floods
Hail
Icebergs, sea ice and fog
Landslides and snow avalanches
Tornadoes
Tsunamis and storm surges
Volcanic eruptions
Forest Fire etc.
Background
• Wildfire disasters increasing in number and
intensity (Walter 2004)
• Fire disasters linked to:
– Climate change
– Insect infestation (e.g. pine beetle)
– Human habitat (e.g. residential development in
wildland-urban interface zones, urban periphery,
etc.)
Background
• Impact of Wildfires
in Canada:
– From 1995 – 2005
over 700,000 people
and over 250
communities have
been threatened by
wildfires (Public Safety &
Emergency Preparedness
Canada, 2005)
– Urban and Rural
impacts
11,231 fires
in LFDB
1959-1999
Background
• Recent Events in Alberta:
– Slave Lake Fire (2011):
• Over 40% of the town destroyed
• Evacuation
• Confusion, anger, despair, etc.
Background
• Significant Human Impacts:
– Health issues
• Physical health
• Mental health
• Community health
• Significant Monetary and Social Costs:
– E.g. $9-12 million cost of health impacts due to poor air
quality related to major wildfires) (Rittmaster, Adamowicz,
Amiro & Pelletier, 2006)
– Social disruption, stress, community viability, loss of
livelihoods, etc.
Key Geographical Issues
•
•
•
•
Variability in disaster impacts
Variability in physical / mental health & well being
Variability in coping strategies
Variability in community capacity to deal with the
issues
• Variability in ability to rebuild, move forward, etc.
• “Geographies” of Resiliency
– How do we better understand this link between
disasters (e.g. Wildfires, Tsunami, Flood, Riots)
and RESILIENCY
Linking Resiliency & Disasters
• Disaster & insurance agencies use resiliency as a
framework to help re-build communities
• Canadian & US governments using resiliency as policy
frameworks (especially post-Katrina / post-911)
• Resiliency as a Social Process and a Community
Process
Mallard Fire, 1999
On the Question of Resiliency
• What is resiliency?
• How can we measure perceptions of resiliency?
• How does perceived resiliency differ within and between
communities?
• How is resiliency linked to health, community engagement,
etc?
• How can we better understand the social / community
dynamics that explain or promote resiliency, or perceived
resiliency?
• What are the links with PSOC / Cohesion etc.
Resiliency and Cohesion
• Numerous studies and conceptual frameworks draw
attention to resiliency-cohesion linkages (or some
features of each).
• Still inconsistencies in definitions / measurements
etc.
– E.g. resiliency or specialized features of resiliency (e.g.
engagement)
– Cohesion vs SOC etc. (sometimes conflated)
• Few have captured the “social” or “community” basis
of resiliency. But there is progress in this area…
Resiliency as a Social Process
Figure 1. Updated Community Resiliency Model Kulig et al (2007)
Our Study Builds Upon these Ideas
3 yr SSHRC project:
Resiliency in Rural Settlements that have experienced Wildfires:
Implications for Disaster Management and Mitigation
McLure Fire, Barriere BC, 2003
The 2003 McLure Fire,
Study Communities
• Barriere, BC
Pop approx 7000
in valley
(McLure Fire 2003)
>3800 evacuated
HHLD survey n=202
• La Ronge, SK
Pop approx 6000
(Mallard Fire 1999)
>1000 evacuated
HHLD survey n=111
• Controls: Coaldale and RMH
HHLD survey n=188
Mixed Methods Study
•Qualitative Interviews (n = 57)
•Community Profiles
•
•Household Survey (over 200
items, evacuation info, resources
used, health, community, social
capital, cohesion, resilience etc. )
•Sampling strategy:
•Electronic phone book
•Geocoding by P Codes
• GIS overlays 1km x 1 km
•n = 313 in participating
communities
•n = 145 in control
communities
McLure Fire, BC
Measuring Perceived Resilience
• Develop an index based on existing conceptual
/ theoretical / empirical work.
• Index should include different facets of
resilience, etc.
+ other approaches
Original 15 Item Perceived Resiliency Scale
Scale = 15 - 75
Original Scale (15 items)
Modified Perceived Resiliency Scale (11 Items)
Modified following external review of item validity
“Health” items
Removed
Scale = 11 - 55
Modified “Perceived Resiliency” Scale (11 Items)
Scale Analysis
Scale = 11 - 55
n=492,
(Barriere,
La Ronge,
Control)
Structure (Subscales)
of the
Index of Perceived Community Resiliency
24.2%
1. Leadership
and
Empowerment
Min communality = 0.4
20.9%
2. Community
Engagement
12.8%
(58%)
3. Non-Adverse
Geography
Peripherality?
Measuring Cohesion
• Buckner’s Index of Cohesion
• Robust 18-item index (5 point Likert scale).
• Replicated in a number of studies (e.g. Wilkinson
2007, Townshend 2002, etc).
• Includes multiple facets of cohesion (e.g.
Neighboring, PSOC, Attachment, etc.)
• Useful measure of cohesion as a socio-spatial
concept.
Buckner’s 18 Item Cohesion Index
Structure (subscales)
of Cohesion.
(Buckner 1988, Wilkinson 2007
etc.)
1. PSOC
2. Nhood
Attraction
3. Neighboring
Empirical Structure (subscales) of
Cohesion from our Study
23.8%
18.5%
14.5%
(57%)
Structure very
similar to
Buckner 1998,
Wilkinson 2007
etc.
1. PSOC
2. Nhood
Attraction
3. Neighboring
Perceived Resilience and Cohesion
amongst Individuals
IPCR
1. Leadership
and
Empowerment
2. Community
Engagement
3. Non-Adverse
Geography
1. PSOC
2. Nhood
Attraction
3. Neighboring
?
linkages
Cohesion
Significant Correlation Bonds
Pearson’s r, p<0.05, n=476
IPCR
.11
.46
1. Leadership
and
Empowerment
.17
.23
1. PSOC
.50
2. Community
Engagement
.50
.13
.15
3. Non-Adverse
Geography
.24
.12
.14
.50
2. Nhood
Attraction
3. Neighboring
.13
Cohesion
Dominant Path
IPCR
1. Leadership
and
Empowerment
2. Community
Engagement
3. Non-Adverse
Geography
1. PSOC
2. Nhood
Attraction
3. Neighboring
Cohesion
Implications
• Perceived Resilience and Cohesion are
both multidimensional constructs
• It may NOT be necessary to deal with
this type of complexity when studying
community resilience (cf. Cutter’s
SOVI index etc.)
• Selected subscales of perceived
resilience and cohesion can be
isolated (simpler explanatory
framework, simpler survey design
etc.)
Going Beyond Resilience and Cohesion
• E.g. Health & Well Being
Going Beyond Resilience and Cohesion
• E.g. Behavior, Cognition, Affect, Social Capital, etc.
Other Findings from this study…
What Enhances
Resiliency?
•Positive, proactive attitude
•Leadership
•Volunteerism
•Sense of belonging , PSOC, etc.
•Affective traits are key.
What Hinders it?
•Lack of personal resources i.e.,
money
•Lack of leadership
•Lack of opportunity to debrief as a
community
Research & Policy Challenges Ahead
• Are there “universal” drivers of resiliency?
– Policies to enhance or promote resiliency.
• Mechanisms for identifying “community-specific” drivers of resiliency.
– Equipping communities to identify these and develop local initiatives to
promote these
• Understanding of how resiliency varies through space and time
(Geographies of resilience).
• Policies that connect the appropriate linkages…e.g.
PSOC > Engagement > Resiliency
• How does perceived resilience translate into actual resilience?
• Problems of governance and coordination from afar, etc.
Urban Lessons to be Learned
from the “periphery”
• Community (rural or urban) matters for
resilience
– (e.g. PSOC > Engagement > Resilience)
• Urban neighbourhoods and communities also
vulnerable to disasters / evacuation, etc.
– Social processes are key to resilience / recovery
– “Local” knowledge / involvement is paramount
• We need “intra-urban” studies of resiliency
potential
Sharing our Findings…
1:3:25 Report
Technical reports
on the household
survey
Digital Stories on
youtube.com: search
for McLure Wildfire
Lessons Learned
Booklets
Ruralwildfire.ca
Additional work…
• Morris, MB
– (Spring 2011 flood evacuation alert).
• Slave Lake, AB
– Special emphasis on social processes of resilience
amongst children
– ACCFCR (Alberta Centre for Child, Family, and
Community Research) + AET (Alberta Gov)
Acknowledgements
•Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (SSHRC)
•Community members
•Research assistants
•Community advisory board members
•Research advisory members
•Provincial agencies (SRD and Ministry of Forests)
Questions?