Review of selected tools for assessing community

resilience:

Ayyoob SharifiWorkshop on Practice and Research in Urban Sustainability Assessment

August 18, 2016The University of Tokyo

Towards integrating resilience criteria into sustainability assessment tools

Background• Increase in frequency and intensity of disasters• Not all threats can be avoided• Vast literature of urban community resilience• Synthesize the wealth of information• The increasing number of targets (local, national and

international)• Increase in funding available for DRR and resiliency enhancement• Resilience has been defined loosely

Increasing trend in the annual number of climatological, hydrological, and meteorological loss events

The Global Risks Landscape

Economic Environmental Geopolitical Societal Technological

What is resilience? What is community?“The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from and more successfully adapt to

adverse events” (National Academies)

Community is defined as a location-based entity that can be as small as a neighborhood or as large as a county. It is acknowledged that community is not a static entity and dynamic interactions exists

across different scales.

Multiple benefits of measuring resilience

• Reducing vagueness/ operationalizing the concept• Benchmarking performance against peers• Measuring progress in achieving goals• Enhancing accountability of authorities• Identifying gaps and prioritize resource allocation• Functioning as a risk communication tool• Functioning as a planning support system• Lower insurance rates could be rewarded to high-ranked projects • Participatory approaches can enhance social capital• Etc.

36 selected tools

A growing field

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2000 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of tools by release year

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

US

Global

South/SouthEast Asia

Australia

UK

Canada

Japan

Horn of Africa

Korea

Saudi Arabia

Frequency by geographic focus

Who is the target audience?

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Local authorities

NGOs and community members

Aid agencies and donor organizations

Planners

Developers

Insurance companies

Academia

Hazard type

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Method of development

• Expert opinions• Literature review• Stakeholder input• Field testing• A combination of above

22%

6%

28%

44%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

NA Primary Secondary Both

Data sources used for assessment

Major approaches towards assessing resilience• Categories outlined by Cutter (2015):

• Toolkit (Procedures, a combination of others)• Index (single numerical value)• Scorecard• Model (Mathematical)

(Poland, 2009)

6%

39%

6%

50%

Scorecard Index Model Toolkit

Assessment typology

64%

14%

36% 36%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Against baseline Against thresholds Against goodprinciples of

resilience

Against peers Based on recoveryspeed

Presentation of results

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Ongoing communication

Strengths/weaknesses

Changes over time

Illustration techniques

Yes No

Presentation of results

• Only a composite index• Spider diagrams• Indicating progress or decline• Identifying strengths and weaknesses • Identify and prioritize interventions • Provision of functionality maps

(Renschler et al., 2010)

(USIOTWSP, 2007)

(USIOTWSP, 2007)

Major elements of the framework for analysis•Comprehensiveness•Cross-scale relationships•Temporal dynamism•Uncertainties •Participatory approaches•Action plans

Holling et al., (2002)

Cross-scale relationships

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

All three levels Focal and smaller Focal and larger

Temporal dynamism

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

All temporaldimensions

Only past andpresent

Only present andfuture

Only presentconditions

Addressing uncertainties

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Scenario makingand alternate states

Iterativeassessment

Nither scenario noriteration

Both

Participatory approaches and action plans

42%

58%

Yes No

0.00% 5.00% 10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00%

Participatory development

Participatory assessment

Five major themes

•Environmental and resource management•Society and well-being•Economy•Built environment and infrastructure•Governance and institutions

Distribution of criteria across the tools

0

20

40

60

80

100

Environmental Social EconomicBuilt environment Institutional

Dimension

Aver

age

Environmental 6.8Social 23.5Economic 18.8Built environment 21.8Institutional 29.1

The issue of comprehensiveness

Dynamism Inward investment Investment in green jobs and green economy (self-sufficiency, urban farming, etc.) Connections with regional economy Business cooperation (inter and intra) Diverse economic structure and livelihood strategies Openness to micro enterprises and micro-finance services, entrepreneurialism Public-private partnership Private investment Locally owned businesses and employers Balance of local labor market supply and demand

≥ 0 <25% ≥ 25% <50% ≥ 50% <75%

The issue of comprehensivenessSub- Dimension Criteria % Sub- dimension criteria %

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Natural Assets (environment and resources)

Ecosystem monitoring and protection 56

Econ

omic

Insurance (domestic and non-domestic) and social welfare 58

Using local knowledge and native species 11

Financial instruments (Contingency funds, operating funds, capital funds etc.)53

Erosion protection 19 Stability of prices and incomes , property value 17Protection of wetlands and watersheds 25 Dynamism Inward investment 19

Availability and accessibility of resources (air, energy, water, food, soil, etc.)19

Investment in green jobs and green economy (self-sufficiency, urban farming, etc.)17

Reduction of environmental impacts (various types of pollution) 11 Connections with regional economy 8Quality of resources 56 Business cooperation (inter and intra) 8Biodiversity and wildlife conservation 25 Diverse economic structure and livelihood strategies 64

Resource management (production, consumption, conservation, recycling, etc.)28

Openness to micro enterprises and micro-finance services, entrepreneurialism31

Soci

al

Social structure Population composition 39 Public-private partnership 28Language abilities 17 Private investment 8Car ownership, mobility 17 Locally owned businesses and employers 17Land and home ownership 25 Balance of local labor market supply and demand 8Diverse skills (to pool skills at the time of disaster 17

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Robustness & redundancy Redundancy of critical infrastructure, facilities, and stocks 72Community bonds, social support, and social institutions Degree of connectedness across community groups

39Robustness and Fortification (of critical infrastructure, vital assets, ecosystems, etc.)

61

Volunteerism and civic engagement in Social networks89

Spatial distribution of critical infrastructure (measure against cascading effects)8

Collective memories, knowledge, and experience 22 Location of critical infrastructure and facilities 17

Trust, norms of reciprocity44

Consolidation of critical utilities and collaboration between utility providers 11

Shared assets 11 Multi-functionality of spaces and facilities 11Strong international civic organizations 17 Shelter and relief facilities and services 72

Place attachment and sense of community and pride 33

EfficiencyRegular monitoring, maintenance, and upgrade of critical infrastructure

39Existence of conflict resolution mechanisms 6 Retrofit, renewal, and refurbishment of the built environment 22

Empowerment and engagement of vulnerable groups, social safety-net mechanisms25

Promotion of efficient infrastructure17

Safety and wellbeingCrime prevention and reduction

25ICT

Diverse and reliable information and communication technology (ICT) networks58

Security services such as police6

Emergency communication infrastructure (before, during, after disaster)44

Physical and psychological health 64 TransportCapacity, safety, reliability, integratedness (connectivity), and efficiency of transportation

64Preventive health measures 36Responsive health measures 47

Inclusive and multi-modal transport networks and facilities 39Equity and diversity

Gender norms and equality 33

Ethnic equality and involvement of minorities and population with special needs22

Land use & urban designAccessibility of basic needs and services over time (food, water, shelter, energy, health, education)

61Diverse workforce in culturally diverse places 6

Site selection and avoiding risk and habitat areas (floodplain, flood prone; exposed coastal zone)50

Decency, affordability, and fair access to basic needs, infrastructure and services72

Local culture Past experience with disaster recovery; learning from the past 28

Urban form (compact, dispersed, etc., SVF, aspect ratio)11

Cultural and historical preservation; indigenous knowledge and traditions31

Considering and respecting local culture and specificities in the process 11

Mixed-use development 3

Positive social, cultural, and behavioral norms 17 Street connectivity 8

Econ

omic

structure

Employment rate and opportunities 64 Density of development 14

Income (equality, multiple sources, ..), poverty50

Public spaces and communal facilities (for recreation, physical activity, etc.)25

Age structure of working population 11 Green and blue infrastructure 19Qualifications of working age population 11 Amount (percent) of impervious surfaces 6Individuals with high and multiple skills ; literacy (education) 42 Aesthetics , visual qualities 8Job density (housing-work proximity; extent of out commuting) 17 Landscape-based passive cooling 14

securityIndividual and community savings 28 Passive lighting 3Collective ownership of community resources 8 Passive heating 3Business mitigation, response and redevelopment plan 11 Passive cooling 3

Codes

≥ 0 <25% ≥ 25% <50% ≥ 50% <75% ≥ 75% ≤100%

Suitability for addressing the four abilitiesMeasure Prepare/plan for Absorb Recover Adapt

Baseline assessment √ √ √

Monitoring and regular update of baseline conditions √ √

Comprehensiveness and multi-dimensionality √

Forecasting/ scenario making, probabilistic approaches √ √ √ √

Comparing pre- and post-event performance √

Identifying a minimum satisfactory level of post-event functionality

√

Loss estimation models √ √

Speed of recovery √

Efficiency of actions √ √ √ √

Identifying recovery timeline (maximum desirability) √

Tracking recovery status at regular time intervals √

Savings in recovery time and budget attributable to planning and absorption

√ √

Adopting participatory approaches √ √ √ √

Learning from the past events (longitudinal analysis) √

Prioritization √ √

The state of compliance with measures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Baseline assessmentMonitoring & update

Alternative and scenario makingPre- and post-even comparison

Minimum functionalityLoss estimation

Speed of recoveryEfficiency of actions

Recovery timelineTracking recovery status

Saving attributable to planning and absorptionAdopting participatory approaches

Learning from the past eventsPrioritization

The state of CRA tools’ compliance with the suitability measures

Addressed Partially addressed Not addressed

Extent of addressing the four resilience abilities

Shortcomings and Challenges, gaps in knowledge • General enough/flexible enough• Spatial and temporal dynamics• Modelling, simulation and scenario making• Dominance of vulnerability (not resilience) measures• Interlinkages and complex interactions• Can resilience assessment shed more light on the uncertain future?• Data availability for conducting assessment• Cost of assessment• A major challenge would be reducing information to an understandable and

manageable level (optimization) • Developing integrated tools for assessing both sustainability and resilience

Thanks for your attention

For further details please see the original articles