Suchergebnisse

PurposeResilience has become a priority of most agendas for disaster risk reduction at different scales leading to an increase demand for measurement of resilience. However, resilience is mostly defined, assessed and measured by outsider experts rather than by those primarily concerned – local people. This article presents the development of people-centred indicators of resilience in New Zealand. It details both the process and outcomes of these indicators.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws from participatory methods to develop a six-step tool kit for people-centred indicators of resilience. The people-centred indicators were implemented with four communities in New Zealand in 2019 and 2020.FindingsThe paper highlights that people are capable at defining and assessing their own resilience. The indicators enabled people identify and measure areas of low resilience and foster dialogue between locals and practitioners to strengthen it.Research limitations/implicationsPeople-centred indicators also have limitations and pose challenges. Their development requires strong facilitation skills; it limitedly enables comparison across communities and implies downward accountability.Practical implicationsThe findings should stimulate discussions about who should measure resilience and for whom such measurement is it for. It provides a tool kit that can be used by practitioners and policy makers to measure and strengthen community resilience.Originality/valueMost resilience indicators is outsider-driven and limitedly involves local people. This study uses a radically different approach placing people at the centre of resilience measurement.

PurposeThis conversation presents the reflections from four inspirational early career disaster scholars on the opportunities and challenges associated with post-disaster research and disaster studies in general.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 15th September 2021.FindingsThe prominent themes in this conversation include representation, power imbalances and research extractivism and reciprocity.Originality/valueThe conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions around how research is conducted immediately following disasters.