Standardized disaster and climate resilience grading: A global scale empirical analysis of community flood resilience. (15th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hochrainer-Stigler, Stefan; Laurien, Finn; Velev, Stefan; Keating, Adriana; Mechler, Reinhard
• Is Part Of: Journal of environmental management. Volume 276(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-12-15
• Subjects: Resilience -- Floods -- Expert grading -- Technical grading standards -- Standardized resilience grading -- Flood resilience measurement tool; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; 363.705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111332
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-4797

Abstract

Abstract: Suitable and standardized indicators to track progress in disaster and climate resilience are increasingly considered a key requirement for successfully informing efforts towards effective disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. Standardized measures of resilience which can be used across different geographical and socioeconomic contexts are however sparse. We present and analyze a standardized community resilience measurement framework for flooding. The corresponding measurement tool is modelled based on and adapted from a so-called 'technical risk grading' approach as used in the insurance sector. The grading approach of indicators is based on a two-step process: (i) raw data is collected, and (ii) experts grade the indicators, called sources of resilience, based on this data. We test this approach using approximately 1.25 million datapoints collected across more than 118 communities in nine countries. The quantitative analysis is complemented by content analysis to validate the results from a qualitative perspective. We find that some indicators can more easily be graded by looking at raw data alone, while others require a stronger application of expert judgement. We summarize the reasons for this through six key messages. One major finding is that resilience grades related to subjective characteristics such as ability, feel, and trust are far more dependent on expert judgment than on the actual raw data collected. Additionally, the need for expert judgement further increases if graders must extrapolate the whole community picture from limited raw data. Our findings regarding the role of data and grade specifications can inform ways forward for better, more efficient and increasingly robust standardized assessment of resilience. This should help to build global standardized and comparable, yet locally contextualized, baseline estimates of the many facets of resilience in order to track progress over time on disaster and climate resilience and inform the implementation of the Paris Agreement, Sendai Framework, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Highlights: A standardized community resilience measurement framework and tool is presented. Quantitative and qualitative resilience indicators can be graded on the same scale. Analysis based on a large-scale application with over 1.25 million datapoints. Subjective characteristics of resilience grades depend on expert judgment. Guidelines for the construction of new resilience indicators are given.