IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Exposure, Vulnerability, and ResilienceChapter 1with the aim of achieving basic functioning in the short to mediumterms.Resilience is defined as the ability of a system and its component partsto anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of apotentially hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, includingthrough ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of itsessential basic structures and functions. As Gaillard (2010) points out,this term has been used in disaster studies since the 1970s (Torry, 1979)and has its origins in engineering (Gordon, 1978), ecology (Holling,1973) and child psychology (Werner et al., 1971).Although now widely employed in the fields of disaster risk managementand adaptation, resilience has been subject to a wide range ofinterpretations and levels of acceptance as a concept (Timmerman,1981; Adger, 2000; Klein et al., 2003; Berkes et al., 2004; Folke, 2006;Gallopín, 2006; Manyena, 2006; Brand and Jax, 2007; Gaillard 2007;Bosher, 2008; Cutter et al., 2008; Kelman, 2008; Lewis and Kelman,2009; Bahadur et al., 2010; Aven, 2011). Thus, for example, the term isused by some in reference to situations at any point along the risk‘cycle’ or ‘continuum’, that is, before, during, or after the impact of thephysical event. And, in a different vein, some consider the notions of‘vulnerability’ and ‘capacity’ as being sufficient for explaining the rangesof success or failure that are found in different recovery scenarios andare thus averse to the use of the term at all (Wisner et al., 2004, 2011).Under this latter formulation, vulnerability both potentiates original lossand damage and also impedes recovery, while capacity building canchange this adverse balance and contribute to greater sustainabilityand reduced disaster risk.Older conceptions of resilience, as ‘bouncing back,’ and its conceptualcousin, coping (see Section 1.4), have implicitly emphasized a return toa previous status quo or some other marginally acceptable level, suchas ‘surviving,’ as opposed to generating a cyclical process that leadsto continually improving conditions, as in ‘bouncing forward’ and/oreventually ‘thriving’ (Davies, 1993; Manyena, 2006). However, thedynamic and often uncertain consequences of climate change (as well asongoing, now longstanding, development trends such as urbanization)for hazard and vulnerability profiles underscore the fact that ‘bouncingback’ is an increasingly insufficient goal for disaster risk management(Pelling, 2003; Vale and Campanella, 2005; Pendalla et al., 2010)(high confidence). Recent conceptions of resilience of social-ecologicalsystems focus more on process than outcomes (e.g., Norris et al., 2008),including the ability to self-organize, learn, and adapt over time (seeChapter 8). Some definitions of resilience, such as that used in thisreport, now also include the idea of anticipation and ‘improvement’ ofessential basic structures and functions. Section 1.4 examines theimportance of learning that is emphasized within this more forwardlookingapplication of resilience. Chapter 8 builds on the importance oflearning by drawing also from literature that has explored the scope forinnovation, leadership, and adaptive management. Together thesestrategies offer potential pathways for transforming existing developmentvisions, goals, and practices into more sustainable and resilient futures.Chapters 2 and 8 address the notion of resilience and its importance indiscussions on sustainability, disaster risk reduction, and adaptation ingreater detail.1.1.2.2. Concepts and Definitions Relating to Disaster RiskManagement and Adaptation to Climate ChangeDisaster risk management is defined in this report as the processesfor designing, implementing, and evaluating strategies, policies, andmeasures to improve the understanding of disaster risk, foster disasterrisk reduction and transfer, and promote continuous improvement indisaster preparedness, response, and recovery practices, with the explicitpurpose of increasing human security, well-being, quality of life, andsustainable development.Disaster risk management is concerned with both disaster and disasterrisk of differing levels and intensities. In other words, it is not restrictedto a ‘manual’ for the management of the risk or disasters associated withextreme events, but rather includes the conceptual framework thatdescribes and anticipates intervention in the overall and diverse patterns,scales, and levels of interaction of exposure, hazard, and vulnerabilitythat can lead to disaster. A major recent concern of disaster riskmanagement has been that disasters are associated more and more withlesser-scale physical phenomena that are not extreme in a physical sense(see Section 1.1.1). This is principally attributed to increases in exposureand associated vulnerability (UNISDR, 2009e, 2011).Where the term risk management is employed in this chapter andreport, it should be interpreted as being a synonym for disaster riskmanagement, unless otherwise made explicit.Disaster Risk Management can be divided to comprise two related butdiscrete subareas or components: disaster risk reduction and disastermanagement.Disaster risk reduction denotes both a policy goal or objective, andthe strategic and instrumental measures employed for anticipatingfuture disaster risk, reducing existing exposure, hazard, or vulnerability,and improving resilience. This includes lessening the vulnerability ofpeople, livelihoods, and assets and ensuring the appropriate sustainablemanagement of land, water, and other components of the environment.Emphasis is on universal concepts and strategies involved in theconsideration of reducing disaster risks, including actions and activitiesenacted pre-impact, and when recovery and reconstruction call forthe anticipation of new disaster risk scenarios or conditions. A strongrelationship between disaster risk and disaster risk reduction, anddevelopment and development planning has been established andvalidated, particularly, but not exclusively, in developing countrycontexts (UNEP, 1972; Cuny, 1983; Sen, 1983; Hagman, 1984; Wijkmanand Timberlake, 1988; Lavell, 1999, 2003, 2009; Wisner et al., 2004,2011; UNDP, 2004; van Niekerk, 2007; Dulal et al., 2009; UNISDR,2009e, 2011) (high confidence).34