Planning under new extremes: resilience and the most vulnerable (original) (raw)

Abstract

Climate change is leading to more frequent and intense extreme weather events, putting years of progress in developing countries at risk. The emerging discourse at the international policy level calls for a ‘resilience-based’ response to climate adaptation and infrastructure planning. This paper reviews the relevance of resilience theory in the context of infrastructure in developing countries and finds that ‘resilience thinking’ offers a way to improve engineers’ understanding of the adaptation needs of vulnerable communities. The paper develops a conceptual framework based on resilience thinking, and applies it to the case of a vulnerable coastal community in Honduras where primary fieldwork was undertaken to assess infrastructure planning. The analysis exposes the unintended consequences of traditional planning that exacerbates climate vulnerability and adversely impacts the long-term preparedness of vulnerable communities. Civil engineering scholars and practitioners concerned with sustainable development in developing countries may gain a superior understanding of climate adaptation by integrating resilience thinking into infrastructure planning.

Figures (6)

Figure 1. Mapping of resilience concepts to meta-concepts appropriate for analysing infrastructure planning in the context of climate adaptation focusing predominantly on technological rather than social dimensions (Leach, 2008; Rogers et al., 2012). Ecological resi- lience rejects the existence of a single, stable equilibrium and accepts that a dynamic system has multiple domains of attraction with alternative equilibria. Resilience in such a case is defined as the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes its structure (Holling, 1996). Socio-ecological resilience is defined as the long-term capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop (Moberg and Simonsen, 2014). It embraces learning, diversity and the belief that humans and nature are strongly coupled and should be seen as one socio-ecological system. Some scholars have termed this interpretation ‘evolutionary resili- ence’ due to its parallels with the chaotic, uncertain and complex nature of evolution (Hoffmann and Sgro, 2011; Sgro et al., 2011). A comprehensive study by Folke et al. (2002) synthesised the overlapping academic fields of sustainable development and resilience thinking and demonstrated that socio-ecological resilience is the most appropriate of the three mainstream interpretations of resilience for the context of sustainable development. There are strong parallels between sustainable development and climate adaptation, both having been characterised as ‘wicked problems’ with no clear problem definition, no immediate solution and a high degree of complexity (O’ Brien et al., 2008). The theory of socio- In seeking a meaningful way to map resilience concepts to the context of infrastructure planning, a conceptual framework is proposed here as the basis for analysis. The system under con- sideration is defined as a community, encompassing its inhabi- tants, their social and economic activities and the human, physical, natural, social and financial capitals on which they depend. The spatial boundary of the community is necessarily flexible due to the inherent dynamism of the community sphere of influence (Haidar et a/., 2012) while the temporal boundary is assumed to span from 1950 to 2050, capturing past trends as well as anticipated climate change in coming decades. To map resilience thinking to the adaptation context, a conceptual framework was created based on the theoretical concepts that Bahadur et al. (2010) identify as most prevalent and pertinent to literature that spans adaptation and resilience. To maintain the richness of the concepts and to maximise utility to practitioners, the authors propose a framework that ties together the principal commonalities as they relate to the infrastructure planning context. On the basis of this logic, the framework was constructed by mapping clusters of concepts, or ‘meta-concepts’, as shown in Figure 1. Describing planning

Figure 1. Mapping of resilience concepts to meta-concepts appropriate for analysing infrastructure planning in the context of climate adaptation focusing predominantly on technological rather than social dimensions (Leach, 2008; Rogers et al., 2012). Ecological resi- lience rejects the existence of a single, stable equilibrium and accepts that a dynamic system has multiple domains of attraction with alternative equilibria. Resilience in such a case is defined as the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes its structure (Holling, 1996). Socio-ecological resilience is defined as the long-term capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop (Moberg and Simonsen, 2014). It embraces learning, diversity and the belief that humans and nature are strongly coupled and should be seen as one socio-ecological system. Some scholars have termed this interpretation ‘evolutionary resili- ence’ due to its parallels with the chaotic, uncertain and complex nature of evolution (Hoffmann and Sgro, 2011; Sgro et al., 2011). A comprehensive study by Folke et al. (2002) synthesised the overlapping academic fields of sustainable development and resilience thinking and demonstrated that socio-ecological resilience is the most appropriate of the three mainstream interpretations of resilience for the context of sustainable development. There are strong parallels between sustainable development and climate adaptation, both having been characterised as ‘wicked problems’ with no clear problem definition, no immediate solution and a high degree of complexity (O’ Brien et al., 2008). The theory of socio- In seeking a meaningful way to map resilience concepts to the context of infrastructure planning, a conceptual framework is proposed here as the basis for analysis. The system under con- sideration is defined as a community, encompassing its inhabi- tants, their social and economic activities and the human, physical, natural, social and financial capitals on which they depend. The spatial boundary of the community is necessarily flexible due to the inherent dynamism of the community sphere of influence (Haidar et a/., 2012) while the temporal boundary is assumed to span from 1950 to 2050, capturing past trends as well as anticipated climate change in coming decades. To map resilience thinking to the adaptation context, a conceptual framework was created based on the theoretical concepts that Bahadur et al. (2010) identify as most prevalent and pertinent to literature that spans adaptation and resilience. To maintain the richness of the concepts and to maximise utility to practitioners, the authors propose a framework that ties together the principal commonalities as they relate to the infrastructure planning context. On the basis of this logic, the framework was constructed by mapping clusters of concepts, or ‘meta-concepts’, as shown in Figure 1. Describing planning

Figure 2. Location of Nuevo Amanecer in Honduras on the Mosquito Coast (Google Maps, 2015) Figure 3. Panoramic view of entrance to Nuevo Amanecer by boat (photograph by lead author)

Figure 2. Location of Nuevo Amanecer in Honduras on the Mosquito Coast (Google Maps, 2015) Figure 3. Panoramic view of entrance to Nuevo Amanecer by boat (photograph by lead author)

Figure 4. One of the several abandoned water supply pump: installed by a non-governmental organisation (photograph by lead author) As for the influence of national-level planning policy on local- level infrastructure, residents of Nuevo Amanecer cited the community’s geographical isolation from the capital as a factor in the lack of government services and investments in infra- structure. The few instances of basic infrastructure provision that had taken place evidenced a lack of involvement of com- munity members in decision making, which had led to inap- propriate infrastructure. Several community members claimed that a number of wells installed by a non-governmental organ- isation had suffered from broken handles and intrusion of sal- inity. Inspection suggested that around 20 hand pump wells had been installed some years earlier and all but one had been contaminated with salt water or had suffered breakage of mechanical parts (Figure 4). Conversely, the installation of rainwater harvesting tanks by the same organisation appeared to demonstrate evidence of an action-learning process where failures of their first intervention had been used to improve the planning process behind the second inter- vention (Figure 5). The community had, in fact, used rainwater harvesting for many decades previously, and the organisation’s It is very frustrating. Some of the time practitioners don’t even understand the difference between risk mitigation and climate change mitigation. The disaster risk reduction community and the adaptation community are using a different language and we can’t

Figure 4. One of the several abandoned water supply pump: installed by a non-governmental organisation (photograph by lead author) As for the influence of national-level planning policy on local- level infrastructure, residents of Nuevo Amanecer cited the community’s geographical isolation from the capital as a factor in the lack of government services and investments in infra- structure. The few instances of basic infrastructure provision that had taken place evidenced a lack of involvement of com- munity members in decision making, which had led to inap- propriate infrastructure. Several community members claimed that a number of wells installed by a non-governmental organ- isation had suffered from broken handles and intrusion of sal- inity. Inspection suggested that around 20 hand pump wells had been installed some years earlier and all but one had been contaminated with salt water or had suffered breakage of mechanical parts (Figure 4). Conversely, the installation of rainwater harvesting tanks by the same organisation appeared to demonstrate evidence of an action-learning process where failures of their first intervention had been used to improve the planning process behind the second inter- vention (Figure 5). The community had, in fact, used rainwater harvesting for many decades previously, and the organisation’s It is very frustrating. Some of the time practitioners don’t even understand the difference between risk mitigation and climate change mitigation. The disaster risk reduction community and the adaptation community are using a different language and we can’t

Figure 5. Functioning rainwater harvesting system installed by the same non-governmental organisation (photograph by lead author,

Figure 5. Functioning rainwater harvesting system installed by the same non-governmental organisation (photograph by lead author,

Figure 6. This community centre (foreground), intended to serve as an emergency shelter, has fallen into disrepair. Adjacent (right), an elevated house demonstrates the local technology used to protect against floodwaters

Figure 6. This community centre (foreground), intended to serve as an emergency shelter, has fallen into disrepair. Adjacent (right), an elevated house demonstrates the local technology used to protect against floodwaters

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (36)

  1. Ackerman F and Stanton E (2011) Climate Economics: the State of the Art, Somerville, MA, USA. See http://sei-us.org/ publications/id/417 (accessed 12/06/2015).
  2. Adger N, Paavola J, Huq S and Mace MJ (eds.) (2006). Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  3. Asibey E and van Fleet J (2011). Defining Indicators for Policy Advocacy: Qualitative and Quantitative. The Aspen Institute, Washington D.C., USA. http://fp. continuousprogress.org/node/33 (accessed 04/04/2012).
  4. Bahadur A and Tanner T (2014) Transformational resilience thinking: putting people, power and politics at the heart of urban climate resilience. Environment and Urbanization 26(4): 1-15.
  5. Bahadur AV, Ibrahim M and Tanner T (2010) The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters, SCR Discussion Paper 1, Brighton, U.K. See http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/189793/Default. aspx (accessed 12/06/2015).
  6. Cannon T and Müller-Mahn D (2010) Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards 55(3): 621-635.
  7. Clark H (2012) Putting Resilience at the Heart of the Development Agenda. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/ home/presscenter/speeches/2012/04/16/helen-clark-putting- resilience-at-the-heart-of-the-development-agenda.html (accessed 20/05/2015).
  8. Da Silva J (2012) Shifting agendas: response to resilience. Paper presented at the Institution of Civil Engineers 9th Brunel International Lecture Series, London, U.K. pp. 1-44.
  9. Da Silva J, Kernaghan S and Luque A (2012) A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4(2): 125-145.
  10. Dixon M (2009) Climate change, politics and the civil engineering profession. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -Municipal Engineer 162(4): 207-210, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/muen.2009\. 162.4.207.
  11. Fenner RA, Ainger C, Cruickshank H and Guthrie P (2009) Discussion: Widening engineering horizons: addressing the complexity of sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 162(3): 177-178, http://dx.doi. org/10.1068/ensu.2009.162.3.177.
  12. Fenton A, Gallagher D, Wright H, Huq S and Nyandiga C (2014) Up-scaling finance for community-based adaptation. Climate and Development 6(4): 388-397, http://doi.org/ 10.1080/17565529.2014.953902.
  13. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245.
  14. Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T et al. (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31(5): 437-440. See http://doi.org/10.1639/0044-7447(2002)031 [0437:RASDBA]2.0.CO;2.
  15. Haidar J, Quinlan A and Peterson G (2012) Interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in Northern Afghanistan. Planning Theory and Practice 13(2): 299-333.
  16. Hill H, Wiener J and Warner K (2012) From fatalism to resilience: reducing disaster impacts through systematic investments. Disasters 36(2): 175-194.
  17. Hoffmann AA and Sgrò CM (2011) Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470(7335): 479-485.
  18. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4(1): 1-23.
  19. Holling CS (1996) Engineering Resilience Versus Ecological Resilience. In Engineering Within Ecological Constraints (Schulze PC (ed)) National Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp. 31-43.
  20. IPCC (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  21. Kreft S and Eckstein D (2013) Global Climate Risk Index 2014, Germanwatch e.V., Bonn, Germany. pp. 1-28. http:// germanwatch.org/en/download/8551.pdf (accessed 12/06/ 2015).
  22. Leach M (2008) Re-Framing Resilience: A Symposium Report, STEPS, Brighton, UK. pp. 1-18.
  23. McSweeney K and Coomes OT (2011) Climate-related disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(13): 5203-5208.
  24. Moberg F and Simonsen SH (2014) What is Resilience? An Introduction to Social-ecological Research, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden. pp. 1-20.
  25. Nay JJ, Abkowitz M, Chu E, Gallagher D and Wright H (2014) A review of decision-support models for adaptation to climate change in the context of development. Climate and Development 6(4): 357-367. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 17565529.2014.912196.
  26. O' Brien K, Sygna L and Leichenko R (2008) Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Human Security. Report prepared for the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS) Project, vol. 3. See http://www. gechs.org/downloads/GECHS_Report_3-08.pdf.
  27. Pelling M (2011) Adaptation to Climate Change, from resilience to transformation. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.
  28. Rogers CDF, Bouch CJ, Williams S et al. (2012) Resistance and resilience -paradigms for critical local infrastructure. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer 165(2): 73-83, http://dx.doi.org/10\. 1680/muen.11.00030.
  29. Satterthwaite D and Dodman D (2009) The costs of adapting infrastructure to climate change. In Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change. (Parry M, Arnell N, Berry P et al. (eds)), International Institute for Environment and Development/Grantham Institute for Climate Change: London, UK.
  30. Satterthwaite D, Huq S, Pelling M, Reid H and Lankao PR (2007) Adapting to Climate Change in Urban Areas: the possibilities and constraints in low-and middle-income nations, London, UK.
  31. SERNA (Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente) (2009) Estrategia Nacional de Cambio Climático (National Strategy on Climate Change). SERNA, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. http://cambioclimaticohn.org/uploaded/content/ category/1225554268.pdf (accessed 10/01/2012).
  32. Sgrò CM, Lowe AJ and Hoffmann AA (2011) Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evolutionary Applications 4(2): 326-337.
  33. Tanner T and Rentschler J (2015) Unlocking the "Triple Dividend" of Resilience: Why Investing in Disaster Risk Management Pays Off. Interim Policy Note, London, UK and Washington, DC, USA.
  34. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2008) El Cambio Climático en Honduras: una realidad del presente. Tegucigalpa, Honduras (in Spanish). See http:// cambioclimaticohn.org/uploaded/content/category/ 1570882375.pdf. UNDP (2014) Human Development Report 2014. UNDP, New York. U.S.A. See http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.440.736&rep=rep1& type=pdf.
  35. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2009) Copenhagen Accord Decision -/CP.15. In Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009. http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2009/12/21/the- copenhagen-accord-of-18-december-2009/ (accessed 12/06/2015).
  36. UNFCCC (2011) Report of the Conference of the Parties, on its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010 -Decision 1/CP.16. UNFCCC, pp. 1-31, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1.