Suchergebnisse

Urban Planning is often touted as one of the key actions for achieving sustainable and resilient development, and it is seen as a key element for reducing disaster risks in urban areas. It is especially important for managing urban growth and increasing resilience in already built-up urban areas. However, urban planning is a complex process that depends on a number of integrated foundational elements for its functioning, including for example, politics, cadastral management, building control, a host of regulatory and legal mechanisms, financing and environmental management. Additionally, in order to reduce risks to natural and humanmade hazards, good information about potential hazards and existing vulnerabilities are needed. Most low- and middle-income countries struggle to have sufficient foundational systems in place to enable urban planning to address disaster risks, and this is also true across much of the Caribbean region. Yet, in the context of urban growth, land-scarcity, fragile ecosystems, increasing climate-related hazards and informal development, the Caribbean region requires increased attention across the foundational aspects that enable planning. This research addresses the complex and integrated nature of urban planning and looks at the different foundational aspects that urban planning requires to enable it to guide resilient development and reduce disaster risks. It proposes and employs a methodology for examining eight "Building Blocks" of urban planning and applies this to urban planning practices in nine Caribbean countries, to assesses how much disaster risk management is being integrated into planning across the Caribbean. The nine Caribbean countries are: Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St Lucia, St Maarten, and St Vincent.

Management experts agree that business environments around the world are likely to become more volatile, uncertain and complex in coming years. New Zealand organisations are no exception. Sudden market shifts, turmoil in international politics, rapid technological advances, and climate change all combine to create a turbulent and unpredictable business environment. This booklet gives findings from a major, three-year study of New Zealand organisations that have had to cope with major change. It presents a framework for the future that can help your organisation to adapt, survive, and thrive in turbulent environments.

This thesis investigates the application of resilience thinking in different real-world settings and research-practice interfaces, for example in the context of natural resource management, local government planning and food systems. The number of cases of resilience practice are growing, including resilience assessments, planning and action, but there are still few scientific studies and even less synthesis across cases. This thesis describes existing cases of resilience practice, in natural resource management in Australia (Paper I) and across different international cases (Paper II), and experiments with new methods and approaches for improving resilience practice, based on pilot projects of co-production in Sweden (Paper III and Paper IV). The results confirm that resilience practice can contribute to the understanding and adaptive governance of complex social-ecological systems, but is weak in addressing the need for transformations, particularly for the sake of the resilience of Earth systems and global sustainability. The results also highlight practical strategies for engaging with complexity and novel approaches to enhance the potential of local-regional resilience practice to align with global sustainability concerns. The thesis as a whole sheds light on the field of resilience practice, by outlining different approaches, contexts and purposes and contributes to building transdisciplinary networks and relationships in multiple arenas. ; At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.

Coping with the growing impacts of flooding in EU countries, a paradigm shift in flood management can be observed, moving from safety-based towards riskbased approaches and holistic perspectives. Flood resilience is a common denominator of most of the approaches. In this article, we present the 'Flood Resilience Rose' (FRR), a management tool to promote harmonised action towards flood resilience in European regions and beyond. The FRR is a result of a two-step process. First, based on scientific concepts as well as analysis of relevant policy documents, we identified three 'levels of operation'. The first level refers to the EU Floods Directive and an extended multi-layer safety approach, comprising the four different layers of protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery, and related measures to be taken. This level is not independent but depends both on the institutional (second level) and the wider (third level) context. Second, we used surveys, semi-structured interviews and group discussions during workshops with experts from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to validate the definitions and the FRR's practical relevance. The presented FRR is thus the result of rigorous theoretical and practical consideration and provides a tool capable to strengthen flood risk management practice.

Resilience is a "new" term creeping into military directives, but what does it mean and how do we use it to guide decisions?

International audience ; The word "resilience" occupies a growing position in the development aid discourse. It is used by all aid agencies (EU, DFID, USAID.), by many NGOS and by several international organizations (FAO, UNDP, WFP.). It gives opportunities for the creation of new programs and new initiatives like the Global Alliance for Resilience (AGIR) created by ECOWAS, UMOA and CILSS with the support of EU other OECD countries. Employed to define the interventions of these various actors in crisis and post-crisis situation, it is accompanied, in most of the case, by persistent call for a closer coordination ? or even a fusion ? between development project and emergency actions. The growing importance given to resilience in development aid reflects the increasing influence of humanitarian perspective at the expense of developmentalism. Because of the rich expertise produced by paid scientists, consultants and humanitarian organizations fellow travelers, the notion of resilience is disseminated as a tool to think and to act in front of development issues. A technical discourse imported from the medical world takes the lead by focusing the public attention on crisis situation (crisis mediatization and scenarization) and emergency solutions (plumpy nut for example). On food issues it reduces under-development to under-nutrition symptoms, substituting symptomatology of suffering individuals for social and economic analysis. Simultaneously, "evidence based" research method, imported from medical sciences are more and more used by development aid actors. Today, the humanitarian ideology responds to global concerns with resilience program combining the old "industrial" effectiveness with the new care approach. This new generation of technicalist representation is facilitated by the public policies and development aid discredit, by the development thinking crisis but also by the increasing consideration given to crisis and risk in management strategy. Development policy failures and repeated crisis lead some actors to predict or to call for the disappearance of the border between the structural and the urgent, and to propose an institutionalization of emergency actions. The increasing influence of the resilience approach, that illustrates the ground gains by humanitarian standards and medical thinking orientations, raises many problems in relation to the ambitions of the development project. Users of the resilience perspective tend to "naturalize" any "shocks" even price spikes or wars and to reduce development objectives to the survival of populations. Moreover, they individualize problems and solutions. Influenced by neo-liberal thinking, they shift from the targeting of vulnerable groups to a patient oriented approach. Whatever the definition and the economic representations adopted (catching-up, convergence, increased positive freedoms, buen vivir), the level of inequality accepted, the concern for sustainability and its actual achievement, the project named "development" has always included a long term improvement of the common good and individual welfare. These notions are absent of the resilience discourse and the resilience doesn't seem to be articulated to any structural changes policy. There, therefore, an important issue in understanding if the use of the word " resilience" imported from the humanitarian word is gaining ground as a complement or as a substitute of the development thinking and policies. (Texte integral)

International audience ; The word "resilience" occupies a growing position in the development aid discourse. It is used by all aid agencies (EU, DFID, USAID.), by many NGOS and by several international organizations (FAO, UNDP, WFP.). It gives opportunities for the creation of new programs and new initiatives like the Global Alliance for Resilience (AGIR) created by ECOWAS, UMOA and CILSS with the support of EU other OECD countries. Employed to define the interventions of these various actors in crisis and post-crisis situation, it is accompanied, in most of the case, by persistent call for a closer coordination ? or even a fusion ? between development project and emergency actions. The growing importance given to resilience in development aid reflects the increasing influence of humanitarian perspective at the expense of developmentalism. Because of the rich expertise produced by paid scientists, consultants and humanitarian organizations fellow travelers, the notion of resilience is disseminated as a tool to think and to act in front of development issues. A technical discourse imported from the medical world takes the lead by focusing the public attention on crisis situation (crisis mediatization and scenarization) and emergency solutions (plumpy nut for example). On food issues it reduces under-development to under-nutrition symptoms, substituting symptomatology of suffering individuals for social and economic analysis. Simultaneously, "evidence based" research method, imported from medical sciences are more and more used by development aid actors. Today, the humanitarian ideology responds to global concerns with resilience program combining the old "industrial" effectiveness with the new care approach. This new generation of technicalist representation is facilitated by the public policies and development aid discredit, by the development thinking crisis but also by the increasing consideration given to crisis and risk in management strategy. Development policy failures and repeated crisis lead some actors to predict or to call for the disappearance of the border between the structural and the urgent, and to propose an institutionalization of emergency actions. The increasing influence of the resilience approach, that illustrates the ground gains by humanitarian standards and medical thinking orientations, raises many problems in relation to the ambitions of the development project. Users of the resilience perspective tend to "naturalize" any "shocks" even price spikes or wars and to reduce development objectives to the survival of populations. Moreover, they individualize problems and solutions. Influenced by neo-liberal thinking, they shift from the targeting of vulnerable groups to a patient oriented approach. Whatever the definition and the economic representations adopted (catching-up, convergence, increased positive freedoms, buen vivir), the level of inequality accepted, the concern for sustainability and its actual achievement, the project named "development" has always included a long term improvement of the common good and individual welfare. These notions are absent of the resilience discourse and the resilience doesn't seem to be articulated to any structural changes policy. There, therefore, an important issue in understanding if the use of the word " resilience" imported from the humanitarian word is gaining ground as a complement or as a substitute of the development thinking and policies. (Texte integral)

International audience ; The word "resilience" occupies a growing position in the development aid discourse. It is used by all aid agencies (EU, DFID, USAID.), by many NGOS and by several international organizations (FAO, UNDP, WFP.). It gives opportunities for the creation of new programs and new initiatives like the Global Alliance for Resilience (AGIR) created by ECOWAS, UMOA and CILSS with the support of EU other OECD countries. Employed to define the interventions of these various actors in crisis and post-crisis situation, it is accompanied, in most of the case, by persistent call for a closer coordination ? or even a fusion ? between development project and emergency actions. The growing importance given to resilience in development aid reflects the increasing influence of humanitarian perspective at the expense of developmentalism. Because of the rich expertise produced by paid scientists, consultants and humanitarian organizations fellow travelers, the notion of resilience is disseminated as a tool to think and to act in front of development issues. A technical discourse imported from the medical world takes the lead by focusing the public attention on crisis situation (crisis mediatization and scenarization) and emergency solutions (plumpy nut for example). On food issues it reduces under-development to under-nutrition symptoms, substituting symptomatology of suffering individuals for social and economic analysis. Simultaneously, "evidence based" research method, imported from medical sciences are more and more used by development aid actors. Today, the humanitarian ideology responds to global concerns with resilience program combining the old "industrial" effectiveness with the new care approach. This new generation of technicalist representation is facilitated by the public policies and development aid discredit, by the development thinking crisis but also by the increasing consideration given to crisis and risk in management strategy. Development policy failures and repeated crisis lead some actors to predict or to call for the disappearance of the border between the structural and the urgent, and to propose an institutionalization of emergency actions. The increasing influence of the resilience approach, that illustrates the ground gains by humanitarian standards and medical thinking orientations, raises many problems in relation to the ambitions of the development project. Users of the resilience perspective tend to "naturalize" any "shocks" even price spikes or wars and to reduce development objectives to the survival of populations. Moreover, they individualize problems and solutions. Influenced by neo-liberal thinking, they shift from the targeting of vulnerable groups to a patient oriented approach. Whatever the definition and the economic representations adopted (catching-up, convergence, increased positive freedoms, buen vivir), the level of inequality accepted, the concern for sustainability and its actual achievement, the project named "development" has always included a long term improvement of the common good and individual welfare. These notions are absent of the resilience discourse and the resilience doesn't seem to be articulated to any structural changes policy. There, therefore, an important issue in understanding if the use of the word " resilience" imported from the humanitarian word is gaining ground as a complement or as a substitute of the development thinking and policies. (Texte integral)

International audience ; The word "resilience" occupies a growing position in the development aid discourse. It is used by all aid agencies (EU, DFID, USAID.), by many NGOS and by several international organizations (FAO, UNDP, WFP.). It gives opportunities for the creation of new programs and new initiatives like the Global Alliance for Resilience (AGIR) created by ECOWAS, UMOA and CILSS with the support of EU other OECD countries. Employed to define the interventions of these various actors in crisis and post-crisis situation, it is accompanied, in most of the case, by persistent call for a closer coordination ? or even a fusion ? between development project and emergency actions. The growing importance given to resilience in development aid reflects the increasing influence of humanitarian perspective at the expense of developmentalism. Because of the rich expertise produced by paid scientists, consultants and humanitarian organizations fellow travelers, the notion of resilience is disseminated as a tool to think and to act in front of development issues. A technical discourse imported from the medical world takes the lead by focusing the public attention on crisis situation (crisis mediatization and scenarization) and emergency solutions (plumpy nut for example). On food issues it reduces under-development to under-nutrition symptoms, substituting symptomatology of suffering individuals for social and economic analysis. Simultaneously, "evidence based" research method, imported from medical sciences are more and more used by development aid actors. Today, the humanitarian ideology responds to global concerns with resilience program combining the old "industrial" effectiveness with the new care approach. This new generation of technicalist representation is facilitated by the public policies and development aid discredit, by the development thinking crisis but also by the increasing consideration given to crisis and risk in management strategy. Development policy failures and repeated crisis lead some actors to predict or to call for the disappearance of the border between the structural and the urgent, and to propose an institutionalization of emergency actions. The increasing influence of the resilience approach, that illustrates the ground gains by humanitarian standards and medical thinking orientations, raises many problems in relation to the ambitions of the development project. Users of the resilience perspective tend to "naturalize" any "shocks" even price spikes or wars and to reduce development objectives to the survival of populations. Moreover, they individualize problems and solutions. Influenced by neo-liberal thinking, they shift from the targeting of vulnerable groups to a patient oriented approach. Whatever the definition and the economic representations adopted (catching-up, convergence, increased positive freedoms, buen vivir), the level of inequality accepted, the concern for sustainability and its actual achievement, the project named "development" has always included a long term improvement of the common good and individual welfare. These notions are absent of the resilience discourse and the resilience doesn't seem to be articulated to any structural changes policy. There, therefore, an important issue in understanding if the use of the word " resilience" imported from the humanitarian word is gaining ground as a complement or as a substitute of the development thinking and policies. (Texte integral)

This is the first webinar in the CLARITY for Climate Resilience (Clarity4CR) webinar series. It introduces the series as well as the CLARITY project proposition for optimizing the climate change adaptation planning process: the Climate Services Marketplace, standardized workflow for expert studies, automated screening workflows and the climate adaptation data that was produced by the project. Clarity4CR webinar series aims to bring together the climate experts, companies offering the climate adaptation solutions, city/regional planners, project managers and owners of the vulnerable urban and traffic infrastructure. The webinars will be co-organised with other research projects and organisations interested in #climateresilience, #climatechangeimpacts, #climatechangeadaptation and #climateadaptation and cover the following topics: "Climate Services Marketplace" webinars presenting the tools and services for climate change adaptations as well as experience the online portal myclimateservices.eu. "Climate impact check - In my region" webinars presenting the findings of various regional Climate Change studies. "Climate Adaptation Policy & Technology" webinars discussing the Climate Change Adaptation policy and the tools and services that will help addressing the policy requirements in the EU, its member states and regions. Tentative schedule of the CLARITY4CR webinars is weekly, every Thursday 10:00-11:00 CET, starting from June the 11-th 2020. Most webinars will target the participants with professional interest in the Climate Change Adaptation, but we intend to also organise occasional webinars for the general public as well as have webinars for specific audience from companies, municipalities and other organizations.

Purpose Decision-makers, practitioners and community members have a need to assess the disaster resilience of their communities and to understand their own capacities in disaster situations. There is a lack of consensus among researchers as to what resilience means and how it can be measured. This paper proposes a novel technique to achieve consensus among stakeholders on definitions, objectives and indicators for measuring a key dimension of community disaster resilience (CDR), physical infrastructure (PI).Design/methodology/approach This study uses a five-step approach utilizing Q-methods to contextualize a resilience index for PI. Interviews, focus groups and Q-sorting workshops were conducted to develop a tool that ranked measures according to stakeholder preference. A total of 84 participants took part in the workshops across four countries (United Kingdom, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka).Findings The initial set of 317 measures was reduced to 128 and divided into the three community capacities of anticipatory, absorptive and restorative. The physical infrastructure capacity assessment tool (PI-CAT) was then finalized to have 38 indicators that were also ranked in order of importance by the participants.Practical implications The PI-CAT can be useful for local governments and communities to measure their own resilience. The tool allows stakeholders to be confident that the metrics being used are ones that are relevant, important and meet their requirements.Originality/value The Q-method approach helps stakeholders to develop and use a community capacity assessment tool that is appropriate for their context. The PI-CAT can be used to identify effective investments that will enhance CDR.

Governments move away from their roles as providers and take on roles as facilitators and enablers. Such transformations provide opportunities for individuals to play an active role in improving the resilience of their communities. However, the effects of such transformations may not be experienced by all communities equally. In the light of the emerging enabling state, which entails a more proactive type of community, this article examines whether community projects can enhance the resilience of hard-to-reach rural communities. Analysis from 345 interviews with rural residents from six communities shows that successful completion of community projects can positively change perceptions of resilience, whereas uncompleted projects negatively affect perceptions of resilience. We conclude that for some hard-to-reach communities, in order to build their resilience, continuous funding support needs to be in place. To enhance the resilience of rural communities, the state must also create opportunities for effective community participation.