Community-Based Organisations in Post-Disaster Transformative Adaptation: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ishmael Adams
,
,
Ali Asgary
,
Patrick Tang

Disasters result where hazards and vulnerabilities intersect. The concept of vulnerability itself is mainly a social construct and the extent to which this can be overcome while transforming disaster-prone systems has often been emphasised in the critical hazard literature. However, the extent to which community-based organisations contribute to post-disaster transformation at the community level remains unexamined. 

  • disasters
  • transformative-adaptation
  • community-based organisations

1. Vulnerability, Hazards and Transformative Adaptation

It is important to contextualise important terms that are applied in this research. An important concept in urban literature is vulnerability, which is used in a variety of ways. For instance, climate change-related literature such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007, p. 883) conceive vulnerability by focusing on the source, to include the nature, intensity, and frequency of the impact of climate change to which a community is exposed and its capacity to effectively adapt [1]. Related to this view is the concept of sensitivity, which is the extent to which the community is affected by the adverse impacts of climate change [1]. From this perspective, vulnerability has been viewed as also socially constructed, and “… represents the system or the community’s physical, economic, social or political susceptibility to damage” ([2], p. 4) caused by an earthquake.
Adaptation is another concept that is applied in a variety of ways in the literature on climate change and hazards. Notable literature such as IPCC (2007) for instance suggests adaptation as: “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploit beneficial opportunities” ([1], p. 60).
Discussions on adaptation also show distinctions between planned and unplanned or autonomous adaptation based on whether the adaptive responses are planned interventions [3][4]. Adaptation actions are also categorised based on their objectives, with those aimed at the benefit of the public referred to as public adaptation, whereas those meant for private benefits of the initiator are referred to as private adaptation [4]. There are also categories of adaptation as anticipatory or reactive. This is according to whether the responses to hazards are anticipatory or reactive, and adaptation actions are also viewed as short-run or long-run based on the longevity of their occurrence [4].
Recent studies have also distinguished between incremental and transformative adaptation (e.g., References [5][6][7][8]). Incremental adaptation refers to the existing processes, actions, and behaviours in a community that are often adopted to avoid disruption in a perturbed social system [7][9][10]. Outcomes from transformative adaptation are, however, far reaching as they involve changes in the system’s properties towards long-term desirable outcomes upon perturbation [5]. The view of adaptation in this is transformative adaptation seen as a process of responding to hazards from an earthquake in a community with community-based organisations as the agents. Community-based organisations are non-state organisations that are operated by the members in local communities mainly aimed at meeting specific community needs [11].
Researchers in urban hazards have amply documented the role of community-based organisations in the provision of infrastructure and resilience-building [3][11][12][13][14]. They show that the absence of community organisations pre- and post-disaster has a tendency to work against community resilience and long-term recovery. Earlier studies demonstrate how the different kinds of community-based structures prior to a hazard event can mitigate the impacts and support recovery [15]. However, by the conceptual models adopted, these studies did not show the extent of the role of the CBOs in a community’s transformation as a social system.

2. Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex adaptive systems theory has been variously applied to analyse adaptive processes in urban studies [16]. An understanding of roles and processes within social systems requires an understanding of social systems and complexity [17]. Complexity in a complex adaptive system takes the shape of nested systems interacting dynamically and self-organising without recourse to a higher system [18][19][20]. Further, complex systems self-organise, emerging without external influence, upon perturbation [18][19][20]. As such, the behaviour of the whole cannot be predicted by knowledge of behaviour of the parts in a complex system [17][18]. CBOs, being a part of the complex system in this study, provide valuable insights into the processes and behaviours of the Lyttelton community.
An understanding of complex adaptive systems presents a unique advantage in this study for understanding autonomous decisions and system interventions, and how they compound and lead to system emergence. Also of importance to this study is the role of disturbances in creating the needed momentum for change. Adaptive complex systems once exposed to external perturbation do learn, transform, and adapt to their external environment [18][21]. Transformative adaptation means that responses to the hazards from an earthquake involve changes in the system’s properties towards long-term, more desirable outcomes [5].

3. Modelling for Understanding Complex Systems

Models are generally used in studies on complex systems to portray and provide explanations for system behaviours that have been identified through perception, observation, or measurement [22]. Although models are sometimes useful for control and prediction of system outcomes, they are mainly useful for understanding complex systems [23]. Hence, to obtain optimum benefit from system models for understanding system complexities, the accuracy of data, theoretical frames, relationships, and tools is very important.
The system dynamics model was used to simulate system-level interactions and behaviours, and to observe and assess the impact of interventions on the overall outcomes. The system dynamics model in this study was used to simulate CBOs and government initiatives and interventions, and how they impact on outcomes within the community.
Agent-based modelling is used to simulate emergent phenomena within a complex system through a correct description of the system, the characteristics of individual agents, and the relationships between agents [24]. ABM has been used to simulate the activities of individual agents and the interactions between them, and the resultant emergence at the system level. The agents were defined by attributes, variables, and affiliations to CBOs, and the values were used to capture the agents’ activities and interactions, and how they create momentum for systemic transformation.
Lyttelton, according to existing studies, is known for a variety of initiatives, social innovations, and adaptation strategies that facilitated recovery from the impacts of the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes which affected the community [25]. These studies also highlighted the role community-based organisations (CBOs) played in organising these initiatives [25][26]. However, based on the conceptual and theoretical models adopted in these studies, and their thematic focus, these studies did not discuss the transformative role of CBOs in the post-disaster response in Lyttleton.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/geohazards3020010

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment; Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
  2. Birkmann, J.; Dech, S.; Hirzinger, G.; Klein, R.; Klüpfel, H.; Lehmann, F.; Mott, C.; Nagel, K.; Schlurmann, T.; Setiadi, N.J.; et al. Measuring Vulnerability To Promote Disaster-Resilient Societies: Conceptual Frameworks And Definitions. In Measuring Vulnerability To Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies; Birkmann, J., Ed.; UNU-Press: Tokyo, Japan, 2006; pp. 9–54.
  3. Osbahr, H. Building Resilience: Adaptation Mechanisms and Mainstreaming for the Poor; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6248706.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2020).
  4. Malik, A.; Qin, X.; Smith, S.C. Autonomous Adaptation To Climate Change: A Literature Review; George Washington University: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 1–25.
  5. Pelling, M. Adaptation To Climate Change: From Resilience To Transformation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  6. Broto, V.C.; Trencher, G.; Iwaszuk, E.; Westman, L. Transformative capacity and local action for urban sustainability. Ambio 2019, 48, 449–462.
  7. Füssel, H.-M. Adaptation Planning For Climate Change: Concepts, Assessment Approaches, And Key Lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 265–275.
  8. O’Keefe, P.; Westgate, K.; Wisner, B. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 1976, 260, 566–567.
  9. Smit, B.; Pilifosova, O. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. Sustain. Dev. 2003, 8, 9.
  10. Adams, I. Differential Vulnerability and Adaptive Responses to Climate Change-Related Hazards in Informal Urban Settlements in Accra, Ghana. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 2019. Available online: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/137134/1/01front.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  11. Gil-Rivas, V.; Kilmer, R.P. Building Community Capacity and Fostering Disaster Resilience. J. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 72, 1318–1332.
  12. Islam, R.; Walkerden, G. How bonding and bridging networks contribute to disaster resilience and recovery on the Bangladeshi coast. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 10, 281–291.
  13. Crona, B.; Bodin, O. Knowledge, Social Networks and Leadership: Setting the Stage for the Development of Adaptive Institutions? In Adapting Institutions: Governance, Complexity and Socio-Ecological Resilience; Boyd, E., Folke, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 11–36.
  14. Gotham, K.F.; Cheek, W. Post-disaster Recovery and Rebuilding. In The SAGE Handbook of the 21st Century City; Hall, S., Burdett, R., Eds.; SAGE: London, UK, 2017; pp. 279–297.
  15. Ensor, J.; Berger, R. Community-Based Adaptation And Culture In Theory And Practice; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
  16. Dovey, K. Informal urbanism and complex adaptive assemblage. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2012, 34, 349–368.
  17. Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 390–405.
  18. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Adaptive Cycles. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 25–62.
  19. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 2002, 31, 437–440.
  20. Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5.
  21. Lansing, J.S. Complex Adaptive Systems. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003, 32, 183–204.
  22. Peter, C. A Complexity-Based Perspective on Assemblage Theory: Implications for Modelling Urban Assemblages and their Role in Transitions to Sustainability. Academia 2019. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/28362812/A_Complexity-Based_Perspective_on_Assemblage_Theory_Implications_for_Modelling_Urban_Assemblages_and_their_Role_in_Transitions_to_Sustainability (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  23. Adger, W.N.; Agrawala, S.; Mirza, M.M.Q.; Conde, C.; O’Brien, K.; Pulhin, J.; Pulwarty, R.; Smit, B.; Takahashi, K. Assessment Of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 718–743.
  24. Bonabeau, E. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 7280–7287.
  25. Andersen, M.; Bartholemuesz, L.; Guo, Y.; Owen, C. Volunteering in Lyttelton: Impacts and Encouraging Greater Participation; University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2014.
  26. Ozanne, L.K.; Ozanne, J.L. Developing Local Partners in Emergency Planning and Management: Lyttelton Time Bank as a Builder and Mobiliser of Resources during the Canterbury Earthquakes; University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2013.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback