Difference between revisions of "Resilience"
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| − | =Resilience and vulnerability= |
+ | ==Resilience and vulnerability== |
Improving general '''resilience''' levels also requires tackling and understanding [[vulnerability]]. While vulnerability in general is the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards, it should in particular “''involve a predictive quality: it is supposedly a way of conceptualizing what may happen to an identifiable population under conditions of particular risk and hazards''.”; “''Social vulnerability is the complex set of characteristics that include a person’s: initial well-being (health, morale, etc.); self-protection (asset pattern, income, qualifications, etc.); social protection (hazard preparedness by society, building codes, shelters, etc.); social and political networks and institutions (social capital, institutional environment, etc.).''”<ref> T. Cannon et al.: Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters. Report to DFID. Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable Livelihoods Office London, 2003, pp. 4-5.</ref> |
Improving general '''resilience''' levels also requires tackling and understanding [[vulnerability]]. While vulnerability in general is the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards, it should in particular “''involve a predictive quality: it is supposedly a way of conceptualizing what may happen to an identifiable population under conditions of particular risk and hazards''.”; “''Social vulnerability is the complex set of characteristics that include a person’s: initial well-being (health, morale, etc.); self-protection (asset pattern, income, qualifications, etc.); social protection (hazard preparedness by society, building codes, shelters, etc.); social and political networks and institutions (social capital, institutional environment, etc.).''”<ref> T. Cannon et al.: Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters. Report to DFID. Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable Livelihoods Office London, 2003, pp. 4-5.</ref> |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| − | =References= |
+ | ==References== |
<references/> |
<references/> |
||
Revision as of 12:53, 14 May 2012
Contents
Resilience
Introduction
In security research, resilience is an evolving concept. According to scientific evidence, urban planning should contribute to increasing community resilience. In particular with respect to planning for secure systems of different kinds, resilience can be described to be based on the following characteristics:
- It reflects the extent of change that a system can experience while retaining its order, or normative (formal) as well as its dynamic organization.
- It reflects the capability level of a system for self-organization.
- It requires both acceptance by as well as symmetric competences of the citizens.
- It reflects the capability of a system to learn and adapt to changing environments while retaining its characteristics and identity (or, technically, its operational closure).
With a view to building quantitative indicators for resilience to plan for improved systems, resilience can be defined as determined by the degree to which a social system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disruptions and disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.[1]
Resilience and vulnerability
Improving general resilience levels also requires tackling and understanding vulnerability. While vulnerability in general is the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards, it should in particular “involve a predictive quality: it is supposedly a way of conceptualizing what may happen to an identifiable population under conditions of particular risk and hazards.”; “Social vulnerability is the complex set of characteristics that include a person’s: initial well-being (health, morale, etc.); self-protection (asset pattern, income, qualifications, etc.); social protection (hazard preparedness by society, building codes, shelters, etc.); social and political networks and institutions (social capital, institutional environment, etc.).”[2]
By identifying potential vulnerabilities, urban planning can directly contribute to the strengthening of community resilience.
Societal resilience
Definition
Societal resilience is understood to be the ability of people, societies and socio-ecological systems to positively adapt to change, risks, threats and harms. Disaster reduction and mitigation measures the time it takes for a community or society to recover from a natural or man-made hazard[3].
The concept focuses both reactive capabilities to cope with, recover from and adjust to adversities and proactive capacities and action to prepare for and anticipate crisis, create options to response and recover from various kinds of harms and threats. These can comprise
- Governance and management of natural and environmental hazards, of climate change and energy policies;
- Governance and management of demographic challenges and urbanization; development of livelihood, gender and migration concepts;
- Governance and management of public health; development of health programs;
- Governance and management of economical and geopolitical risks;
- Governance and management of external and internal threats.
Societal resilience, urban planning and the comprehensive approach
Applying a comprehensive approach to urban planning can help increase societal resilience, because it acknowledges that an urban system can be confronted with all the phases of the crisis management cycle simultaneously. Hence, the disaster reduction and mitigation principles of resilience building should be followed[4].
Essentially, resilience thinking in the urban planning process should be grounded on a holistic view by incorporating the following five interconnected functional components: social, economic, political, demographic, and environmental.[5]
It follows that planning tools aiming at increasing urban resilience should be sensitive to the social context to which they are applied. Their development and use should be based on an analysis of relevant public security cultures on both the level of government and the level of citizens. In particular, the design and use of tools should be based on citizens’ perception of insecurity, feeling of vulnerability and acceptance of technological solutions for security problems.
Resilience and societal security
Approaches such as “New Urbanism” have been led by the assumption that societal resilience could be increased by informed, progressive architectural design that per se would meliorate human behaviour and reduce insecurity as well as citizens’ feeling thereof, however this physical determinism will not hold. Threat and vulnerability perception by the 'users' of a city/an urban environment has to be taken into account. Urban planning should be sensitive to societal security cultures and in particular be based on citizens’ perception of insecurity, feeling of vulnerability and acceptance of technological solutions for security problems. For example, while the need to provide for sufficient lighting clearly shapes the planning process of urban public space, thorough analysis of the relevant users and user groups are required to better assess how lighting can contribute to heighten individual security perception and to reduce “fear” in public space.
Resilience requirements
While resilience requirements can have to do with the process of urban design itself, they also and inevitably comprise psychological and social aspects. The model of reflective fear for example holds that a person’s (reflective) fear will decrease or increase, depending on the information available concerning personal risk or hazard exposure. In other words, and in case of alerts, this model can describe how reassurance of citizens could contribute to an increase in resilience, while alerts, rather, tend to increase the imbalance of factual and felt (or sensed) fear.
Generally, a “multicultural sensibility for planning” is necessary, that includes considering how cultures, “which prescribe members’ relations with the community, orient their actions, and, among other things, suggest how they might use formal planning processes.”[6]
References
- ↑ Glossary of the Department of Sustainable Development: http://www.oas.org/dsd/Nat-Dis-Proj/Natdesproject/Glossary.htm.
- ↑ T. Cannon et al.: Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters. Report to DFID. Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable Livelihoods Office London, 2003, pp. 4-5.
- ↑ Sapirstein G. (2009): Social Resilience: The Forgotten Element in Disaster Reduction. Organizational Resilience International: Boston. pp: 1-9. Online http://www.oriconsulting.com/social_resilience.pdf [2012-05-11].
- ↑ Sapirstein G. (2009): Social Resilience: The Forgotten Element in Disaster Reduction. Organizational Resilience International: Boston. pp: 1-9. Online http://www.oriconsulting.com/social_resilience.pdf [2012-05-11].
- ↑ M. Pelling: The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London: Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2003, p. 12.
- ↑ H. S. Baum: Culture Matters–But It Shouldn’t Matter Too Much. In: M. A. Burayidi (ed.): Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000, p. 115.
MAP
<websiteFrame>
website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Insert your pagename here
height=1023
width=100%
border=0
scroll=auto
align=middle
</websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
