Response of a Resilient Community to Natural Disasters: The Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal, 2015

Abstract: Introduction How do people deal with difficult events that change their lives? The death of a loved one, loss of a job, serious illness, terrorist attacks and other traumatic events: these are all examples of very challenging life experiences. Many people react to such circumstances with a flood of strong emotions and a sense of uncertainty. Yet people generally adapt well over time to life-changing situations and stressful conditions. What enables them to do so? It involves resilience, an ongoing process that requires time and effort and engages people in taking a number of steps. This brochure is intended to help readers with taking their own road to resilience. The information within describes resilience and some factors that affect how people deal with hardship. Much of the brochure focuses on developing and using a personal strategy for enhancing resilience.

Abstract: Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place THOMAS POWER ISLAND PRESS, WASHINGTON, DC, 1996 295 PP. $35.00 HARDCOVER While this book is firmly based in the rhetoric of academic economics, Powers local economies and popular folklore makes it an excellent text for economic anthropology. Specifically he focuses on the ways in which folklore expresses local economic decision making wisdom with regards to environmental resources. These issues are brought to life through descriptive ethnography of the diversity of political and economic interests in American extractive industries. But this work is not merely descriptive. Power advocates the demystification of two competing modes of thought in local economic behavior. One is the ideological bias of academic economic science that assumes absolute truth. The other is the uncritical bias of naive folk economics that mistrusts expertise external to local communities. This demystification is motivated by his objective of helping local people better understand how they make their decisions so that local economic policies are neither misled nor distorted. Three basic assumptions inform his arguments in the body of the book: 1) popular folk economies that assume natural resource extraction industries are critical to economic development are incomplete and misleading; 2) contrary to popular belief people seek high-quality residential environments over economic opportunities; and 3) business development follows labor, not vice versa. Environmental economic issues (i.e., agriculture, ranching, fishing, mining, and logging) are primarily rural in context, where folk wisdom persists in political and economic decision-making. These extractive activities are centers of economic and environmental conflicts. Power argues that it may be more productive to view these conflicts from the perspective of scientific vs. folk economics rather than as political interest group conflicts. This new perspective, I think, is his main contribution to economic anthropology and environmental scholarship. According to Power, the various interests representing extractive industries and environmental protection are often deadlocked. He proposes a different framework for engaging in civil discourse to examine local realities. Scientific economics can be employed to demystify the significance of the role of extractive industries at local levels. In most cases, argues Power, that role is not as significant as many locals assume. Scientific economics can also identity the significance of protected landscapes on local economies. In most cases protected areas and ecotourism contribute much more to economic vitality than is locally believed. Power argues that it is peoples commitment to local environments that influences local economic agendas. Therefore, environmental protection is not only central to economic decision making, but the most central resources in the local economic base. …

Abstract: For a city to perform successfully, and its citizens to feel safe and comfortable, the health of basic urban components and the overall resilience of the urban system is crucial. As the importance of the resilient urban system has been recognized in the scientific literature, many studies have been done on this topic. Therefore, to find out the gaps in the existing literature and the opportunities for further research, a new systematic literature review has been performed in three stages. Different bibliographic techniques (co-occurrence and co-citation analysis) have been applied and, in the final stage of the analysis, an in-depth study of the content of the selected papers addressing open space in relation to urban seismic resilience has been carried out. The obtained results and trends have shown a lack of research on the potential of open space for enhancing urban seismic resilience, as well as a challenge for its quantitative assessment. The ability of the affected resilient system is to achieve at least a pre-disaster performance level in an acceptable time, which can be gained, among others, by using the restorative potential of open space. Based on the synthesis of these findings the authors’ draft model of an urban system integrating the potential of open space is presented in terms of a complex network theory.

Abstract: There is limited research published on the significance of volunteer tourism in assisting host communities in the recovery of a tourism destination and its industry after a disaster. Our paper addresses this research gap with reference to a case study of Nepal's tourism recovery after the country's 2015 earthquake. We argue that a clear post disaster volunteer tourism framework could validate volunteer tourism's potential role to ensure that communities do not miss out on any form of assistance that may be of use in re-establishing destination or community lifestyle. Our paper provides an initial exploratory understanding of how post disaster volunteer tourism might be effective; it uses a disaster management framework to conceptualise the phenomenon.

Abstract: Building disaster resilience is a stated goal of disaster risk reduction programs. Recent research emphasizes a need for a greater understanding of community disaster response and recovery capacity so that communities can absorb shocks and withstand severe conditions and progress through the recovery period more efficiently. Nepal, which is prone to a multitude of hazards and having recently experienced a large earthquake in 2015, provides a unique opportunity for exploring disaster resilience in the developing world context. To date, no study investigating community disaster resilience across the entire country of Nepal exists. This study quantifies disaster resilience at Nepal's village level, primarily using census data. Guided by the Disaster Resilience of Place (DROP) model, 22 variables were selected as indicators of social, economic, community, infrastructure, and environmental resilience. Community resilience was assessed for 3971 village development communities (VDCs) and municipalities while using a principal component analysis. Additionally, a cluster analysis was performed to distinguish spatial patterns of resilience. Analyses reveal differential community disaster resilience across the country. Communities in the capital city Kathmandu and in the western and far western Hill are relatively resilient. While the entire Tarai region, which holds the greatest proportion of Nepal's population, exhibits relatively low levels of resilience when compared to the rest of the county. The results from this analysis provide empirical evidence with the potential to help decision-makers in the allocation of scarce resources to increase resilience at the local level.

Abstract: Individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. That is one view of the world. But another view of the world concentrates not so much on presence or absence as upon the numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of their numbers. These are two very different ways of viewing the behavior of systems and the usefulness of the view depends very much on the properties of the system concerned. If we are examining a particular device designed by the engineer to perform specific tasks under a rather narrow range of predictable external conditions, we are likely to be more concerned with consistent nonvariable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted. A quantitative view of the behavior of the system is, therefore, essential. With attention focused upon achieving constancy, the critical events seem to be the amplitude and frequency of oscillations. But if we are dealing with a system profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of the relationships. Attention shifts, therefore, to the qualitative and to questions of existence or not. Our traditions of analysis in theoretical and empirical ecology have been largely inherited from developments in classical physics and its applied variants. Inevitably, there has been a tendency to emphasize the quantitative rather than the qualitative, for it is important in this tradition to know not just that a quantity is larger than another quantity, but precisely how much larger. It is similarly important, if a quantity fluctuates, to know its amplitude and period of fluctuation. But this orientation may simply reflect an analytic approach developed in one area because it was useful and then transferred to another where it may not be. Our traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience. There can in some years be more owls and fewer mice and in others, the reverse. Fish populations wax and wane as a natural condition, and insect populations can range over extremes that only logarithmic

Abstract: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social– ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks) has four components—latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance. INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow. Because different groups adopt different interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose, however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development. In what follows, we provide an interpretation and an explanation of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles of complex, multi-scalar SESs. We need a better scientific basis for sustainable development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “sustainability science”). The “Consortium for Sustainable Development” (of the International Council for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of Science), the US National Research Council (1999, 2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), have all focused increasing attention on such notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature emerge from three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. The purpose of this paper is to examine these three attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their implications for our future well-being. There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper. What is new is that it uses established theory of nonlinear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of regional development, regional poverty, and regional CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arizona State University Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 sustainability. These include, among others, the Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These regions provide examples of both successes and failures of development. Some from rich countries have generated several pulses of solutions over a span of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some cases, have been dragged back by higher-level autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as localscale solutions and then developed as transformations across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes were determined by the interplay of their resilience, adaptability, and transformability. There is a major distinction between resilience and adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely related set of systems. Transformability refers to fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing line between “closely related” and “fundamentally altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative set of definitions, without reference to conceptual frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. We then use some examples and the literature on “basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to further refine our definitions. Before giving the definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the concept of adaptive cycles. Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them— a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K phase continues, resources become increasingly locked up and the system becomes progressively less flexible and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and during which, innovation and new opportunities are possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r phase or be significantly different. This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on observed system changes, and does not imply fixed, regular cycling. Systems can move back from K toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”— adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales. These cross-scale effects are of great significance in the dynamics of SESs.

Abstract: This article defines social resilience as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change. This definition highlights social resilience in relation to the concept of ecological resilience which is a characteristic of ecosystems to maintain themselves in the face of disturbance. There is a clear link between social and ecological resilience, particularly for social groups or communities that are dependent on ecological and environmental resources for their livelihoods. But it is not clear whether resilient ecosystems enable resilient communities in such situations. This article examines whether resilience is a useful characteristic for describing the social and economic situation of social groups and explores potential links between social resilience and ecological resilience. The origins of this interdisciplinary study in human ecology, ecological economics and rural sociology are reviewed, and a study of the impacts of ecological change on a resource- dependent community in contemporary coastal Vietnam in terms of the resilience of its institu- tions is outlined. I Introduction The concept of resilience is widely used in ecology but its meaning and measurement are contested. This article argues that it is important to learn from this debate and to explore social resilience, both as an analogy of how societies work, drawing on the ecological concept, and through exploring the direct relationship between the two phenomena of social and ecological resilience. Social resilience is an important component of the circumstances under which individuals and social groups adapt to environmental change. Ecological and social resilience may be linked through the dependence on ecosystems of communities and their economic activities. The question is, then, whether societies dependent on resources and ecosystems are themselves less resilient. In addition, this analysis allows consideration of whether institutions

Abstract: There is considerable research interest on the meaning and measurement of resilience from a variety of research perspectives including those from the hazards/disasters and global change communities. The identification of standards and metrics for measuring disaster resilience is one of the challenges faced by local, state, and federal agencies, especially in the United States. This paper provides a new framework, the disaster resilience of place (DROP) model, designed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the local or community level. A candidate set of variables for implementing the model are also presented as a first step towards its implementation.

Abstract: Resilience thinking addresses the dynamics and development of complex social-ecological systems (SES). Three aspects are central: resilience, adaptability and transformability. These aspects interrelate across multiple scales. Resilience in this context is the capacity of a SES to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds. Adaptability is part of resilience. It represents the capacity to adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and thereby allow for development along the current trajectory (stability domain). Transformability is the capacity to cross thresholds into new development trajectories. Transformational change at smaller scales enables resilience at larger scales. The capacity to transform at smaller scales draws on resilience from multiple scales, making use of crises as windows of opportunity for novelty and innovation, and recombining sources of experience and knowledge to navigate social-ecological transitions. Society must seriously consider ways to foster resilience of smaller more manageable SESs that contribute to Earth System resilience and to explore options for deliberate transformation of SESs that threaten Earth System resilience.