Understanding Disaster Risk

A Multidimensional Approach

Pedro Pinto Santos, Ksenia Chmutina, Jason Von Meding, Emmanuel Raju

• Publisher: Elsevier
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780128190487
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Environmental Science
• Index: Biological Sciences

Understanding Disaster Risk: A Multidimensional Approach presents the first principle from the UNISDR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015-2030. The framework includes a discussion of risk and resilience from both a theoretical and governance perspective in light of ideas that are shaping our common future. In addition, it presents innovative tools and best practices in reducing risk and building resilience. Combining the applications of social, financial, technological, design, engineering and nature-based approaches, the volume addresses rising global priorities and focuses on strengthening the global understanding of vulnerability, displaced communities, cultural heritages and cultural identity.

Readers will gain a multifaceted understanding of disaster, addressing both historic and contemporary issues. Focusing on the various dimensions of disaster risk, the book details natural and social components of risk and the challenges posed to risk assessment models under the climate change paradigm.

• Addresses the current challenges in policy and practice for building resilience strategies
• Follows the global frameworks for disaster risk reduction and sustainability, specifically the UNISDR Sendai Framework for DRR, 2015-2030
• Aids in understanding the natural and social components of risk in a diverse and globalized world
• Presents the challenges posed to risk assessment models under the climate change paradigm

Chapter 0.1: Resilience in the Anthropocene

Fronika de Wit^a; Astrid Catharina Mangnus^b; Carolina Giraldo Nohra^{c a} Institute of Social Science, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal
^b Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
^c Department Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

Abstract

The Anthropocene emphasizes an epoch of increased human impact on our planet. It is filled with uncertainty and complexity and asks for a transformative and interdisciplinary response. The objective of this study is to bridge the gap between disciplines working on resilience and draw lessons for improved governance of vulnerable communities. We use a systematic literature review to examine how the Anthropocene and resilience are conceptualized in the fields of human geography, futures studies, and systemic design. In human geography, the focus is on increasing cultural understanding and exploring how explanations coexist in complex ways within and across cultures. The futures field uses the concept as an opportunity to push for sustainability transformations, by inviting communities to futures workshops where they can develop scenarios rooted in their own practices. The field of systemic design emphasizes the need for systemic solutions to build new relations among territorial entities, visualize hidden potentialities, and boost proactive collaboration among local actors. These disciplinary insights show that, although they all hold different perspectives, combining them brings insightful lessons for resilience thinking. We conclude that the Anthropocene needs transformative resilience that combines knowledge from different scientific disciplines with local knowledge and experiences, in a transdisciplinary way.

Keywords

Anthropocene; Adaptive capacity; Transdisciplinarity; Multilevel governance; Resilience

Chapter outline

• 0.1.1 Introduction
• 0.1.2 Methodology
• 0.1.3 Results
  • 0.1.3.1 Insights from human geography
  • 0.1.3.2 Insights from systemic design
  • 0.1.3.3 Insights from futures studies
• 0.1.4 Discussion
• 0.1.5 Final considerations
• References

0.1.1: Introduction

High anthropogenic pressures on the earth system are exceeding the planetary boundaries on various scales. We are hitting the planetary ceiling: research shows that if humanity continues living the way it is doing, human well-being is at risk (Rockstrom, 2009) and irreversible changes to the earth system are impending (Lenton et al., 2008; Schellnhuber, 2009). The Great Acceleration has led us to a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000), in which humans are the dominating force that hold the future in their hands.

The main complicating factors to living in the Anthropocene are that all of its issues are interconnected and that there is a high level of uncertainty, which demands planetary stewardship: an alteration of the relationship between people and planet (Steffen et al., 2011). With the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN in 2015, we have a universal plan for people and planet—a roadmap for planetary stewardship. However, in order to achieve the SDGs and become planetary stewards, we need a completely new way of thinking that fits the turbulent context of the Anthropocene. Current governance approaches are failing to promote resilience, because of their disciplinary and top-down approach, in which the decision makers are not aware of the complexity of systems and do not take stakeholders’ views into account. Folke (2016), “father” of modern resilience thinking, highlights that being resilient means having strategies and policies in place to deal with the unknown, which is a promising answer to the Anthropocene’s main complicating factors.

Resilience thinking emerged in the 1970s from two different traditions: child psychology and ecosystem ecology. It developed into research streams like community resilience, climate resilience, disaster resilience, and development resilience. Folke et al. (2010) and Folke (2016) describe three forms of resilience: (1) Persistence, or “bouncing back,” which includes continual change and adaptation, but remaining on the same pathways; (2) Adaptability, which is about innovation and change, but also remaining on the same pathways; and (3) Transformability, which is about shifting pathways. Where disaster resilience was more about bouncing back and climate resilience was about adapting to change, the “new” resilience thinking is about transformation: a reconfiguration of systems, values, and beliefs.

An important component of resilience thinking is the features and dynamics of complex systems. Research (Simonsen et al., 2014; Biggs et al., 2015) has provided seven building blocks for applying resilience thinking in order to increase the capacity to deal with unexpected change in complex social-ecological systems. These building blocks are: (1) maintaining diversity and redundancy; (2) managing connectivity; (3) managing slow variables and feedback; (4) treating social-ecological systems as complex systems; (5) encouraging learning; (6) broadening participation; and (7) polycentric governance systems.

This chapter looks at the potential of resilience thinking for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene by outlining and synthesizing lessons learned in three different academic disciplines: human geography, futures studies, and design studies. How can we combine the insights of these different disciplines and rethink the concept of resilience outside of the “disciplinary box”? By looking at resilience thinking as a dynamic concept, we bring a transdisciplinary and holistic approach for resilience in the Anthropocene and show how this can be applied in practice to decision-making processes. The next section of the chapter outlines the methodology for the multidisciplinary literature review. The third section gives an overview of the results for each of the three disciplines. The fourth section discusses these findings and their relevance for the challenges of the Anthropocene, after which the chapter closes with a conclusion.

0.1.2: Methodology

When discussing a methodology for research that connects the knowledge contained in multiple disciplines, it is of importance to distinguish between three approaches to research: (1) multidisciplinary research; (2) interdisciplinary research; and (3) transdisciplinary research. According to Ramadier (2004), both mult...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Contributors
• Preface
• Chapter 0.1: Resilience in the Anthropocene
• Section 1: Risk Assessment
• Section 2: Prevention
• Section 3: Mitigation
• Section 4: Preparedness
• Section 5: Response
• Index