Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Report:
EMA Project 15/2000
PREFACE____________________________________________________________3
INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________5
Definitions _______________________________________________________5
General considerations _____________________________________________6
OVERVIEW_________________________________________________________12
METHOD __________________________________________________________14
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND AGENCIES________________________________16
OTHER RELEVANT RESEARCH ACTIVITY _______________________________18
FINDINGS AND COMMENTARY ______________________________________21
Themes __________________________________________________________22
The Nature of Community _________________________________________22
Meaning of Disaster: perceptions of hazard, risk and vulnerability ____________23
Capacity of Emergency Service Organisations ___________________________24
Communications _________________________________________________25
Remoteness _____________________________________________________25
Demographic Changes_____________________________________________26
Economic Changes________________________________________________26
Democracy and local representation __________________________________27
Diversity________________________________________________________27
Local knowledge _________________________________________________27
Local support ____________________________________________________28
Leadership ______________________________________________________28
Role of Government ______________________________________________28
Individual attributes _______________________________________________29
Thematic Commentary ______________________________________________29
Managing the broad and the local together _____________________________30
City and Country _________________________________________________30
Identifying the unidentified __________________________________________31
Volunteerism ____________________________________________________31
Dominant values, norms and standards ________________________________31
Access Factors ___________________________________________________32
Thresholds ______________________________________________________33
Sense of Place/Sense of Dispossession _________________________________33
Change_________________________________________________________33
Levels of Vulnerability and Resilience __________________________________34
Differential Vulnerability and Resilience ________________________________34
Boundary Issues __________________________________________________36
Compassion, Dignity and Integrity ____________________________________36
Demographic Factors______________________________________________37
Economic factors _________________________________________________38
Communities ____________________________________________________38
Agencies & Enterprises_____________________________________________39
Infrastructure ____________________________________________________39
Systems ________________________________________________________40
1
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ISSUES TO PURSUE _________________________41
2
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
PREFACE
The need for this study became apparent following a series of events in Victoria,
Australia, where it became progressively clearer that many of the agencies responsible
for disaster management lacked a clear understanding of the communities that had been
affected.
The most significant of these events were the January 1997 wildfires in the Shire of
Yarra Ranges, set in the Dandenong Ranges on the outskirts of Melbourne, the June
1998 floods in the Shire of East Gippsland, 300 kilometres to the east of Melbourne and
the September Gas Shortage which affected the greater part of Victoria.
Without a clear understanding of the affected communities and the needs generated by
the events, support to the community was more difficult to manage.
As these events occurred, a range of effective and innovative support measures were
developed through collaboration between Government, agencies and the community.
Had there been a better understanding of community vulnerability and resilience and a
better appreciation of impacts and needs, and of the social, economic and
environmental conditions in which these events happened, then it is likely that support
to the community would have been delivered faster, provided more efficiently and
targeted more precisely.
This research program developed as a step to identify ways in which these issues could
be addressed successfully, efficiently and promptly.
3
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
fringe and one in rural Victoria. A fourth area was included and that was a
Shire that had had no major disaster since the Ash Wednesday fires. This
enabled us to test for the level of preparedness and current understanding in
such a region and compare this with those areas that had suffered more
recently;
5. present a final set of guidelines and a complementary brochure for use within
the emergency management context.
This report has been compiled by Philip Buckle, Graham Marsh and Sydney Smale as
part of a research program sponsored by Emergency Management Australia. The
authors have been diligent in making efforts to represent accurately and faithfully the
diverse views and comments that were provided to us. The views expressed in this
report are derived from the interviews and discussions that we held and from the
review of relevant literature and reports. As such recommendations and commentary
represent the authors’ understanding of the issues, our records of interviews and
discussions and our interpretation of the available information. This report, therefore,
does not necessarily represent the views or positions of our agencies, Emergency
Management Australia or of all the views and opinions of all the people with whom we
met.
This report and its recommendations are offered not as a conclusion but as a starting
point for further discussion and consideration of resilience and vulnerability.
This report is complementary to the Guidelines on Resilience and Vulnerability and the
two documents should be read in conjunction for optimum benefit.
4
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
INTRODUCTION
Definitions
There are many definitions of vulnerability and resilience, and a number of these can be
found in the references given in this report. We found that many of these definitions
required an eye for fine detail to distinguish them from each other. In operational and
management contexts these subtleties are at best unnecessary, at worst confusing.
Vulnerability means the degree of loss to a given element at risk or set of such
elements resulting from the occurrence of a natural phenomenon of a given
magnitude…
• Setting
• Shelter
• Sustenance
• Security
• Society
It is important to note that most people referred initially and almost by default to
vulnerability and not to resilience.
Throughout this report we would like to emphasise that vulnerability and resilience
cannot be divorced from each other. They are linked in a double helix. While they are
not opposites nor ends of a continuum, there are direct and strong linkages between
them.
General considerations
We think it is important for engagement of the community in disaster management that
vulnerability and resilience be explained in ways that allow the development of methods
and tools to analyse individual and community circumstances and that also encourage
the development of strategies to reduce vulnerability and generate resilience.
For this reason we have devoted relatively little space to the description of structural
determinants (or contextual issues) of vulnerability and resilience. In part this is because
much literature, analysis and critical commentary already exists on broad issues such as
the contribution of poverty, gender, ethnicity and social exclusion to personal, group
and community vulnerability and resilience.
Even broader matters such as power structures within society, normative values,
political structures and economic trends have also not been given excessive attention.
This is not because we think that these matters are unimportant. On the contrary, it
seems to us that these broad conditions and trends are critical in explaining why some
people, some groups and some areas are at greater risk, and may be more vulnerable
and less resilient than others.
We acknowledge that dealing with these matters directly does not fall within the remit
of emergency management. Although, emergency management agencies can contribute
to broader debate about these broad scale social issues.
6
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Nor have we given much space to private sector activity or responsibilities. In part this is
because much of what we learnt applies to both public and private sectors. In part also
because the private sector was mentioned less often than the public sector by our
respondents and interviewees. But we think that it is because disaster management is
still seen as a government or not for profit agency activity. The role, whatever that
might be and we make no presumptions about that, of the private sector needs to be
more clearly set out.
In addition the significance of a particular loss is also a value judgement. And the value
we place on an item will determine what resources we devote to protecting it and, if it
is damaged, what resources we provide for restoration.
These sorts of decisions and choices are routinely made and are made every day.
Because they are so frequent and so common and because they occur within this broad
agreement about value and significance, we tend not to see them for what they are.
They are covert and implied within the more pragmatic aspects of choosing and
deciding.
But it is important to understand that long term or structural social and economic
trends, as well as social norms and values provide a framework - often intangible and
rarely made explicit - within which the more immediate and more specific assessments
of vulnerability and resilience are made.
Too often, in fact very frequently, vulnerability and resilience are talked of as though
they had an independent existence and as though they were tangible, fixed entities.
7
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Vulnerability and resilience are always attributes of something. They are not entities.
• individuals,
• families,
• groups and
• communities
Consistent with the project brief we have spent less time considering the resilience and
vulnerability of ecosystems and environmental systems, economic, commercial or
agricultural systems, infrastructure or organisations.
Much less work has been carried out on the resilience and vulnerability of intangible
systems such as economies (as distinct from economic loss or damage to assets),
production systems (such as agriculture) and value and belief arrays.
All of these may be exposed to hazards and therefore subject to risk and in turn more
or less vulnerable and resilient.
Some of what we say in this report and the associated guidelines is directly relevant to
all these types of systems.
1. All systems and levels of social activity are interlinked, interdependent and
interactive. Damage to one may impact on one or all of the others.
Agencies and infrastructure do not exist in and for their own right. They exist
to provide a service to people. For example a bridge exists as a means to
travel and communication for people. That is its function and its purpose. So,
8
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
restoration of infrastructure should be concerned not with restoration of an
asset but restoration of a service or facility.
4. Disasters are not the hazard, they are not the hazard impact. They are the
consequences for individuals, groups, communities, systems and the
environment. The consequences are multifarious, they are interactive and
often compounding and they can be protracted.
Knowing that the elderly, let us say, are more vulnerable to bushfire is helpful
in broadscale planning. But it does not tell us anything about the vulnerability
or resilience of any individual. This has to be determined for each case.
9
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
6. Loss and damage is more than loss of physical assets. These are important and
may be crucial to life and safety and well being. But many objects are invested
with emotional and psychological significance. Many losses are more than their
replacement cost. Many losses can never be restored fully. A herd of dairy
cattle may be much more than 100 head of stock. It may represent also years
of invested skill and effort by the farmer. It may represent a hope for the
future. And it may represent months and years spent away from time with his
or her family.
8. A constant issue raised by the people we met was that they and their
communities were confronted by change. Change across all sectors of life,
family, community, social, economic and political.
They indicated that change was often threatening and disruptive, because it
often involved movement away from established practices and altered
conditions (unknown and therefore potentially riskier than previous
conditions). This we expected. People are often not comfortable with change,
and maintaining a given level of safety and confidence during periods of change
requires effort and time to modify behaviour and attitudes and systemic
arrangements.
However, the crucial issues seem to be not change per se, which may often
be positive, but the rate of change and whether that change is understood.
10
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Change can also occur as a consequence of decisions made by those with the
power (political, economic) to enforce change. Amalgamations, closure of
banks, schools, withdrawal of essential services such as medical centres, service
stations all have produced changes which the people affected have both felt
powerless and been powerless to oppose.
Key issues for us, which we would like to set out starkly, are these.
All people, groups, communities, agencies and systems are vulnerable and resilient
one way or another and they may be vulnerable to a number of different phenomena.
Vulnerability is not simple. Nor is resilience. This makes understanding of either difficult.
But this complexity is hopeful too. Because it allows multiple options for vulnerability
reduction and resilience development. Diversity allows many different exposures to
hazards. But it also permits and encourages a flexibility and adaptiveness in responding
to those hazards.
Finally, this report is submitted as a final report in fulfilment of our agreement with
Emergency Management Australia. However, a draft of this report will be sent to all
those people who assisted us in our research. This allows them the opportunity to
comment upon any issues and to suggest clarifications. This also acknowledges their
contribution and goes a small way to meeting a recurrent message; that a lot of
research is undertaken locally but there is rarely any feedback to the community and
still rarer is any identifiable action following from that research. If people choose to
comment, and we strongly encourage them to do so, then we will prepare a
supplementary report that will include additional comments.
11
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
OVERVIEW
Local perceptions of risk, hazard and disaster differ strongly from the perceptions and
concerns of emergency management agencies. Local people had a strong predisposition
to seeing any disruptive change as a "disaster". This has its own validity and logic. It
makes sense if disasters are seen as unexpected, uncontrolled and unwanted
consequences. But it also means that emergency management agencies and local people
often did not match in their appraisal of risk, need, vulnerability and resilience and
efforts required to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience. This mismatch has
significant implications for policy development, program implementation and planning.
Vulnerability and resilience of the individual and other social levels, like a Russian
babushka doll, is nested in wider contexts. This nesting arrangement does not indicate
determinism but a capacity to influence. Vulnerability and resilience are outcomes of the
interaction of many different factors, some of them independent of the entity being
considered, which operate at different levels of social aggregation. As a general
framework for assessing vulnerability we say that the following need to be considered:
12
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
• hazards and the risk environment
• broader social, cultural, environmental and economic determinants and
influences
• trends and directions of broad social, economic, political and environmental
conditions
Any evaluation framework therefore needs to establish first a set of principles or tenets
relevant to macro level issues and then to identify local interpretations and applications
of these conditions:
Vulnerability is in many ways a composite characteristic and not attributable to only one
factor. Individual factors may be disproportionately influential or they may be necessary
for a vulnerable state to exist, but by themselves they will rarely explain vulnerability.
13
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
METHOD
In line with ethical research and the commitment given by researchers to the
participants in our research we do not identify individuals whom we interviewed for the
research project or who participated in the various focus group discussions. However,
in excess of 100 separate individuals were met, some of them on repeated occasions,
representing over 30 agencies or departments. Collectively they represented a
considerable range of demographic characteristics and interests (age, gender,
occupation, profession, experience in emergency management, income level, personal
experience of emergencies) as well as a range of agencies and areas.
It is important to note that our preliminary conclusions and a list of issues, as well as the
Department of Human Services Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience in the Context of
Emergencies Guidelines and other documents were sent out to our first round of
respondents and interviewees for comment and as a basis for a second round of
interviews and discussions.
This has allowed the majority of our interviewees two opportunities to talk to us and an
opportunity to comment directly on our research findings.
We chose a semi-structured interview process as a method for our meetings and focus
groups. This process was chosen because it gave us the opportunity to tease out issues,
to pursue relevant but unanticipated results and to broaden or contract the discussion
as was appropriate to the interviewees.
The utility agency representatives in Melbourne and Horsham were introduced to the
research project and relevant issues and then participated in a desktop scenario based
on disruption to the electricity supply.
We interviewed and discussed issues in depth with a wide range of respondents. These
included public sector agency officers, staff of emergency management agencies,
municipal officers, local clergy, local community workers and resource officers, Royal
District Nursing Staff, community centre staff and individuals from a wide range of
professions and occupations including teaching, farming and business. Males and females
were well represented and there was a span of age groups from those in their early
twenties to people in their seventies.
Respondents and participants were drawn almost equally from both genders,
represented a range of occupations and age groups, include people with various levels
of formal education. In short the people that we met with were a diverse group
allowing an eclectic approach to information gathering.
14
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
While we did not have (or seek to have) a representative sample (this would have
been beyond the resources of the research program) we did meet and discuss in depth
with a wide range of different people with different backgrounds, experience, concerns
and interests.
15
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND AGENCIES
Other people with whom we have discussed this research include staff of:
• Australian Geological Survey Organisation
• Emergency Management Australia
16
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
• Department of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra
• Department of Finance and Administration, Canberra
• Department of Human Services, Melbourne
• Department of Justice, Victoria
• University College London
• Cranfield University
• Greenwich University
• SouthBank University
• Anglia Polytechnic University
• Bath University
• James Cook University
• RMIT University
17
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
OTHER RELEVANT RESEARCH ACTIVITY
Much of the work of Ken Hewitt, Ben Wisner, Terry Cannon, Piers Blaikie, Ian Davis,
Ken Westgate, Elaine Enarson, Maureen Fordham, Peter Winchester and James Lewis is
insightful, creative, rigorous and groundbreaking.
As well there is much material available from the World Bank, the World Health
Organisation, the United Nations Development Program and the International
Monetary Fund that is useful in its information and detail.
David King and Lynda Berry of James Cook University and Douglas Paton from New
Zealand have conducted some interesting and worthwhile work around vulnerability
and resilience.
However we refer particularly to three works. These are not without their
shortcomings but they demonstrate a commitment to rigour and comprehensiveness .
In particular two of them refer directly to Australian circumstances and the third refers
to Toronto, Canada.
A principal value of these studies, all of them having a practical focus and an intention to
be applied, is that they are directly relevant to contemporary Australian society. It is a
curiosity of much of the literature that the authors may be incisively critical of the
structural determinants of vulnerability in countries other than their own. Analysis of the
contribution of social exclusion to vulnerability, of poverty, gender, undemocratic and or
corrupt political practice and institutions is not uncommon. The effects of
environmentally unsound agricultural and industrial practice and biased inter-country
trade relationships are all exposed to critical scrutiny.
The three studies we particularly refer to do not do this either. But their brief was
limited to specific hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments. They are studies and
assessments of particular locations and we refer to them as examples of detailed,
rigorous research that offers many insights into the causation of vulnerability and
resilience. In particular they demonstrate the complexity of assessing vulnerability and
resilience..
18
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
These studies are:
Ken Granger, Trevor Jones, Marion Leiba and Greg Scott Community Risk in Cairns: A
Multi Hazard Risk Assessment Australian Geological Survey Organisation Canberra
1999
Ken Granger and Miriam Middelmann, Community Risk in Mackay: A Multi Hazard
Risk Assessment Australian Geological Survey Organisation Canberra 2001
Norman B Ferrier Creating a Safer City: A Comprehensive Risk Assessment for the City
of Toronto Toronto 2000
These studies take different approaches. Ken Granger and his colleagues structure their
study by hazard type, with reference to the smallest available data collection districts.
They make an effort, acknowledging its shortcomings, to develop a risk priority
schedule.
Ferrier is equally comprehensive but structures his research along the lines of city wards
within which he considers a range of hazards.
Much work that is relevant is being conducted in other areas, such as public safety
(largely focusing on crime prevention), community based emergency response systems
(such as Community Fireguard) and community capability building.
All of these programmes, and numerous others besides, have something to offer in
terms of conceptual clarification, methodology, data evaluation and implementation.
The challenge for the disaster manager and the at-risk community is to identify what is
of value in these approaches and data sets and methods and to apply them to the
specific field of risk reduction.
There are few useful field reports or reviews of recent emergencies and disasters. This
is expected, given the low prominence that resilience and vulnerability considerations
have in emergency management. Even those people who are interested are hampered
by the lack of easily available data and by the absence or suitable research methods and
tools.
There are various reports available on recent events, including the1998 East Gippsland
Floods, the 1998 Victorian Gas shortage and the 1997 Yarra Ranges Bushfires. These
reports are interesting but of limited value to research of this nature. Their data
collection methods are not systematic, they may be sensitive to “political” and security
19
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
issues, and they are not easily accessed. Often they are internal agency reviews or
reports published as public recognition of an event. Their utility is limited.
20
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
FINDINGS AND COMMENTARY
These findings are arranged thematically. They are not arranged by area or by any
particular demographic group, interest groups or other commonality. Where there was
a significant view held by a particular sector or group of respondents then this is
indicated.
There was a commonality to the views of the respondents to the extent that their
concerns and the issues they raised and their perceived solutions were shared across
the entire range of respondents.
Some issues were expressed implicitly or obliquely and required some teasing out or
elucidation at the time. Other views have been thrown into relief following subsequent
discussions between members of the research team and between the research team
and other people.
We have been careful to cross check views that apparently were held only by a small
number of people or were expressed with special vigour. At times we found that such
views were generally held or did have a basis in actual individual or institutional
behaviour. At other times we found that such views were based, so it seemed after
verifying facts and issues, on misperceptions or poor information. But they had an
emotional standing for all that.
These themes overlap and cross-reference each other. We have intentionally left the
themes broad and with permeable boundaries. Our respondents did not neatly
categorise their concerns. They expressed them as issues of daily life, with a priority
appropriate to daily needs of earning and income, raising a family and achieving worth,
success and standing in life and in the community.
21
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Much of what we were told and learnt did not fit tidily under the headings of
vulnerability or resilience. This is because these concepts are diffuse in their practical
expression ( and almost equally diffuse in their theoretical statement).
They also covered a wide span of concerns and issues. But they bore, more or less
directly, on the exposure to risk and the capacity to withstand and the capacity to
recover from impacts.
This is not, we believe, a fault either in the expression of our respondents or of our
methodology. Rather, it highlights the need for clearer understandings of resilience and
vulnerability. And recognition that we may have to move away from definitions that are
so precise (for legal, aesthetic or professional reasons) that they are limiting.
Definitions should reflect the real world, however complex and untidy and inconsistent
that might be. We should avoid trying to fit the real world to our definitions. This, as we
indicate below, is a very real and immediate issue for disaster management, firstly for
what we understand by terms such as “disaster”, “emergency” and “risk”.
Many of the indicators of vulnerability and resilience commonly used mix different states
and conditions. For example, being aged and being very young are often taken to
indicate vulnerability and a lack of resilience, and they are useful group indicators. But
health status, poor water quality and poverty are given as indicators. These too are
useful. But the first set of indicators is simply indicative, the second group, based on
needs, is more descriptive and more useful. Not all aged people are vulnerable and in
fact, due to their life experiences they may be more resilient than many younger
people. All people who have contaminated drinking water are vulnerable (to certain
things). It is important therefore to be clear about the status, classification and meaning
of indicators of vulnerability and resilience.
It needs to be understood that resilience and vulnerability are interactive and linked.
Themes
The Nature of Community
It became clear that the areas in which we undertook our research were characterised
- as we expect all areas would be - by diversity. Differences in occupation, values,
income, age, gender, ethnicity, living site (town or country) were just some of the
differences. In itself this was what we expected. Yet it seemed to the research team that
complexity remained at the same level of detail whatever scale was used. As we met
with people from very small townships and localities so the differences in their area
were given the same degree of significance as people with a wider geographic
perspective gave to the detail they perceived.
It was also clear that people living together in a small area, township or locality did not,
necessarily work well together or get on or share similar values.
22
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Difference was as much in evidence at local levels as at broader scales.
This indicated that:
• The characteristics of community are not fixed but depend on the scale at
which the group or area is investigated
• Community is a poorly defined word used often to gloss over differences
Local people recognised the threat of “traditional” hazards such as bushfire and flood. But they
consistently drew the discussion to matters of greater importance to them such as the change in
the economic activity of their community, changed land use activity, local emigration and
immigration and the loss of young people to towns and cities.
These represented greater threats to well-being and security in the assessment of local
people. It is true that there may be other government and agency programmes to deal
with this sort of matter. But if these were mentioned they were seen as inadequate.
It was clear that local people were comfortable grouping hazards such as bushfire with
the risk generated by poor telecommunications.
It was not entirely surprising that local people had varying perceptions of the risks they
faced and the degree to which they were vulnerable/at risk from a particular disaster.
In many cases it can be said that these perceptions are culturally determined, just as it
can be said of views of risk itself. Vulnerability and risk vary according to the eye of the
beholder. This, accordingly, can lead to conflict between residents who hold one view
of a particular risk and emergency managers who hold another. Through a lack of
understanding of the risk residents can place themselves in a situation of vulnerability,
according to the emergency managers, yet they may also be more resilient because of
23
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
these perceptions. Problems occur for all parties when there is conflict arising out of
these different cultural interpretations of risk.
These agencies therefore focussed principally on the traditional natural hazards and
non-natural hazards such as transport accidents and toxic chemical spills. They did not
volunteer the view that they should be addressing other types of risk, hazard and loss.
This disparity between the two sets of views suggests the need for a review of the
scope of emergency management policies and programmes and the need for better
integration of emergency management activity with other social support programmes.
They did make some specific comments indicating an increasing sense of vulnerability.
Some ESO were remote from the communities we met and so response times could
be very significant, often hours. This meant that the first response fell to local people.
Communication between ESO and local people was sometimes inadequate. Information
about absence from the community while on leave or on jobs was not given.
Information about local emergency arrangements (such as evacuation procedures or
evacuation centres) was not easily available or even understood by some residents
when it was available.
Some ESO had a culture that to appeared to outsiders to be exclusive and highly
specific (essentially, white Anglo Celtic male) and often seemed to intimidate people
from outside this culture from joining the organisation. There was no indication that this
was a deliberate and considered position. But nonetheless, the prevailing culture does
appear to present a hurdle to prospective members from other groups.
On the positive side ESO personnel were enthusiastic (though often we found that
community leaders and community contributors tended to have multiple responsibilities
and to take on a multitude of tasks. Some ESO were also welcoming of members from
non-traditional groups, such as women becoming volunteer firefighters rather than
support personnel.
24
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Communications
Communication was raised frequently in our discussions with local people.
If we define remoteness not as absolute distance but as the effort which is required to
access resources and support then poor communications is a very significant contributor
to worsening the problems of remoteness.
Allied with this was concern by some local people that agency promises to improve
communications had not been met. We could not judge whether this was the case or
not. But it at least signified another community concern that their needs were of a low
priority.
Poor communication facilities were a factor between remote areas and farms to small
townships and between those townships and the outside world.
This positive feature was less in evidence in urban areas and in areas that had high levels
of newcomers.
Remoteness
Remoteness was seen as a direct measure of vulnerability yet it could also mean that
people were more self-reliant and therefore more resilient, in so far as they had to
develop coping behaviours and strategies.
25
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
They recognised the constraints of cost, topography, distance and population numbers
and density. But they also felt disadvantaged.
Demographic Changes
Demographic changes were also frequently mentioned by local people in rural areas.
Net population loss through emigration, an ageing population, loss of young people,
movement of the local population to towns and away from farms and small hamlets,
immigration of people from outside the area. Changes to working patterns, particularly
off farm work, were mentioned as significant.
All these weakened local linkages, networks, local community contribution, local
knowledge and local capacity to be self-reliant and to provide mutual support.
Local people saw these changes as slowly (but increasingly rapidly) changing their
communities and weakening them.
The movement to towns meant that there were fewer people in outlying areas to
support each other. The general social trend to mothers and wives working in paid, off
farm employment meant that during the day many rural areas were almost absent of
people.
Consequent to the above including the loss of leadership in particular, the inevitable
lessening of resilience in the areas will mean the residents are more likely to be
vulnerable to emergencies in the future.
Economic Changes
Many people recognised that there are strong long term trends changing the economic
bases of their lives and communities. Change in itself was felt as disruptive. But
economic changes were seen in many instances as being negative for the community
overall and for local safety. Consolidation of rural properties lead to depopulation,
reduced net income to the area and lead to land use changes. Blue Gum plantations
were mentioned particularly. They changed local fire regimes, altered local risk profiles
(in ways not yet understood), left some people with large amounts of cash (those
landowners that sold to plantation companies), but left the remaining people isolated,
alone and resentful (at not being able to sell or at being “abandoned”) — and at greater
risk as there were fewer residents available to join the ESOs.
Trends of rural decline, falling or unpredictable commodity prices, stock disease all
contributed to population and economic change that impacted negatively on
vulnerability and resilience.
26
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Democracy and local representation
Local people mentioned on numerous occasions and with vigour that they felt under-
represented, at least compared to people living in the cities. This manifested itself in
their view as lack of consultation by government, a discounting of their needs and
opinions and a lack of information.
It seems clear that municipal amalgamations in Victoria have reduced the number of
municipal councillors per capita. This was resented in local areas, which still clung to the
days of better representation and the old municipal boundaries.
However, it was equally clear that municipalities were often at great pains to provide
information and to ensure proper consultation and to give equal weight to the needs of
local communities.
This disadvantage was therefore, in part, only perceived. But there are real aspects to it
also. Remoteness, poor local representation, loss of local municipal councils all leave
local people with reduced, or more difficult, access to policy input, networks of power
and influence.
Diversity
Diversity was taken to be a strength when it was not excessive. Having a range of skills
and abilities, having different groups in a community all contributed to a feeling of well-
being and confidence and capability.
Diversity became excessive when a community had so many different groups that they
did not gel as a whole. When , particularly with different language and ethnic groups,
communication difficulties became problematic. Or when traditional rivalries and
conflicts were exported and replicated in Australian circumstances.
This indicates to us that diversity needs to be managed in the sense that group strengths
need to be identified and built on.
Local knowledge
Knowledge of individuals at risk, hazards and hazard history, local needs and local
resources was seen as an important source of resilience.
However this local and traditional knowledge is under threat due to population
movement, changing economic and environmental systems.
27
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Local support
People were generally very willing to support each other. Apart from values of altruism
they recognised that each locality and community may have to depend on its own
internal resources at some time. Self-interest as well as altruism indicated a strong need
for mutual help. And this help was forthcoming and is a strong source of resilience.
But in the context of major social and economic changes local capacity to provide
mutual support is becoming problematic, and vulnerability is increasing.
Local values are changing, moving from the local to the broader ‘globalised’, and this
may discourage some support to neighbours and other community members
(neighbours are more likely to be unknown, there is no guarantee or even confidence
that the support will be reciprocated).
Leadership
Related to local knowledge and local capacity is the ability of a community to provide
leadership within its own ranks and as a face to the outside world. A recurrent theme
expressed to us was that with emigration, loss of services and facilities, such as schools
and banks, (and this applies within major cities as well as in the smaller towns) local
communities were facing a crisis of leadership capacity.
Those people with professional, managerial or organisational skills (as distinct from
ability) were slowly moving away from local areas as agencies and other places of
employment closed down. The closure of a bank or school meant not just the loss of a
facility but also the loss of the skilled people who managed and ran those enterprises.
Those people who remained were often very willing and competent and diligent. But
increasingly fewer people were sharing the burden. In small communities different
advocacy, social, sporting and community groups would be managed by the same few
people, who progressively found this tiring and a drain on their own time and resources.
This loss of leadership capacity, and future leadership potential, is a source of significant
vulnerability.
Role of Government
Consistent with local self-reliance and values of mutual support, Government (as distinct
from ESO) was often viewed sceptically, which makes it difficult for governments and
other authorities to establish effective communication..
The basis for scepticism in this area revolved around government remoteness and
inappropriate regulation, yet often this was based upon a lack of real understanding of
what, for example, the local council and state government had actually been doing and
what the legislation required.
28
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Government was often taken to be remote from local people, needs and circumstances
and to have a poor understanding of local circumstances. Government, whether
municipal, State or Commonwealth, was felt to be almost equally remote.
This was often expressed through resentment of what were taken to be poorly
designed government regulations. Local people complained that long standing practices,
such as the use of chain saws or brigade and unit catering support or local fund raising
activities, were now stringently regulated by health and safety, legal liability and tax
regulations. All these were strongly resented, seen as a great disincentive to volunteer
activity, and as an impediment to effective local emergency management. They were
seen as intrusive and heavy handed.
If these perceptions are inaccurate (and discussions with some state officials suggest that
some may be) they still have force as perceptions that can guide behaviour. If inaccurate
they require better explanation at local level.
If they are accurate then they may indeed be a strong imposition on local initiative, local
flexibility and response capacity; such that they reduce local resilience and increase local
vulnerability.
Although there may be a net benefit to the State as a whole, there are likely to be
disadvantages in particular localities or in particular social sectors.
Individual attributes
In country areas particularly, many people commented on the resilience of the
Australian character, on individual self-reliance, initiative, innovation, resourcefulness,
endurance, and humour.
No particular groups were singled out as being at particular risk. The elderly and the ill,
young children were the groups most often mentioned in this regard.
The discussion — perhaps partly because of the natural reticence of the people we met
with — focussed most often on community or group attributes and did not often refer
to individual characteristics.
Thematic Commentary
In this section we want to briefly discuss some of the broad issues that arose from our
meetings and discussions. While there may be some overlap with the recommendations
section we feel that these are contextual matters into which particular issues and our
recommendations will fit.
29
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Managing the broad and the local together
Vulnerability and resilience contributed to a number of different factors that operate at
different levels from the individual’s own attributes to the ways in which economic
systems (which may be themselves depend on supra-national or global conditions) and
systems of belief and values impinge on the individual.
Vulnerability and resilience may also be attributes on individuals, groups, agencies and
systems.
Given this Governments in particular have to manage issues at broad and local levels.
They have to manage interactions between the various levels. They have to ensure that
equity is applied equally across levels.
This range of levels and interactions makes managing the multifarious interactions
difficult. But it also allows multiple points of entry and multiple options for intervention.
The first steps, we think, are to acknowledge that vulnerability and resilience have to be
managed simultaneously across different levels. It also has to be acknowledged by local
people and by Governments that action can take place on one level and that, while its
outcomes may not be obvious, it may have direct or indirect bearing on other levels.
This range also suggests to us that any concerted and purposeful actions have to be on
explicit partnerships between the local and the broad. Between local people and their
Municipal, State and National governments. Some activities will be appropriate for
individuals, some for local communities and some for Government.
A particularly important difference between city and country, which has consequences
for the future, was in people's perceptions in the area of the delivery of emergency
services. The expectation in the city was that emergencies would generally be dealt with
by full time professionals with little thought being given to the role of volunteers. In the
country, it was assumed that people would be more self-reliant and that volunteers
would play a major role in the operation of services. The future consequences lie in the
fact that many city residents are now living in rural Australia and their expectations are
still the same. Someone else is responsible. Also, as 'newcomers' they may be excluded
(or may feel excluded) from participating in the local community. The 'culture' of the
emergency services we were told was another factor for many people not seeking to
30
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
join up. The end result of all this when coupled with the decline in the population along
with leadership in many regions is that rural areas become less resilient and the
residents more vulnerable.
It seemed to us, however, that there was potentially one class of people at particular
risk. People receiving home care or on life support systems are known to responsible
authorities. But there are some people who are not known and who are effectively
hidden. These may be people who, by choice, live a private or reclusive life. Or people
who do not have social and support networks but would otherwise welcome them. Or
there may be people who can just deal with day to day life, but whose coping capacity
is at its limit and, when an emergency occurs, are directly at risk. All these individuals are
difficult to identify.
Supporting them probably requires more sophisticated event impact and needs
assessment methods than we now use. Effective support will be dependent on thorough
and rigorous consequence surveys and assessments.
Volunteerism
There is a continuing debate about whether volunteerism is in decline and as this is the
basis of much disaster management in Australia this is an important question. We
suspect that it is declining in some areas, increasing in others, and declining in some
sectors of the population and increasing in others. The issue may not be one of decline
or growth but of the changing nature of volunteer behaviour in Australia. It is important
that some progress be made to resolving this as so much of the management of 'risk' is
dependant on a volunteer force.
In particular, Governments and their agencies should examine the potential impacts of
their behaviour and regulations on local and volunteer activity.
Disaster management policy makers and practitioners rarely try to stand outside their
system to view it critically as a whole. We suggest that this needs to be done if relevant
agencies are to properly understand how they behave and how effective they are (and
might be).
31
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
It is clear from what we were told that values and norms and standards play a significant
role in binding people together in communities and can play a destructive role in
separating people or in keeping them apart. In this case we have to acknowledge the
strong role played by factors that are not tangible.
Exclusion by one factor can lead to more general exclusion; exclusion from other areas
of support and services, exclusion from decision-making processes. Exclusion on the
basis of ethnicity from information (because for instance the information is printed only
in English, or even that it is only printed, which excludes the illiterate) cascades to
making it more difficult for them to access all services — if they do not know about them
in the first place how can they use them.
Access Factors
Access is usually taken to refer to distance, and while this is one element it is not the
only feature that has to be considered.
Access is better conceived as the ease with which services or support can be obtained.
Distance itself may be translated into travel time and travel cost; the further the distance
the more likely it is that the journey will take longer, be more expensive in fuel and
maintenance costs. However, travel time, ease and safety of travel, costs and wear and
tear are influenced by other factors. The condition of the roads, time of day and time of
year, terrain and topography, road surface and other factors all influence the ease or
difficulty of travel and access. One hundred kilometres on a dry freeway on a dry day is
quite different to one hundred kilometres along dirt roads, in the mountains during
winter.
Equally boundary issues must be considered. People living close to the borders of their
State or Territory may be on an exchange or phone code system that belongs to
another State. In this case certain information and access services, such as 1800
numbers, may have to be carefully planned and developed if they are State or
jurisdiction specific.
32
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Thresholds
It is our view from what we learnt that vulnerability and resilience might not develop
(positively or negatively) in a smooth linear fashion but by distinct steps. This suggests
that there may be critical thresholds that have to be identified.
A small but real example is this. A sporting club may be a useful node of social networks
and a useful source of organised volunteer labour. You can have a soccer club of 1000
members or of 100 members or of 11 members. But you cannot have one of 10
members — it is too small to field a team. So a club can move from being small to not
existing, with no transition.
Equally you cannot have half a community. Service capacity is dependent on size of the
group, as government services are dependent on population size. As population
decreases so services do not decline progressively and proportionately. You either have
a local bank or you do not.
This is an important issue in areas of population decline and attendant service decline
and withdrawal.
Change
Change, positive or negative, short or long term, was mentioned often by the people
we interviewed.
Any change of any magnitude was seen as potentially if not actually disruptive. It is part
of the way in which we see the world that we assume that previously we had greater
stability and we minimise the nature of change as a constant process.
Nonetheless, change — as difference — has to be managed. There are strategies for this
ranging from involving local people in decision making, to deliberately choosing and
working towards desired futures.
33
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Given what was expressed to us we believe that managing change, or better explaining
it, is an important factor in enhancing resilience in particular but also in minimising
vulnerability.
All can be developed and enhanced so that they become more resilient and less
vulnerable.
• The individual
• The family
• The group (such as sporting clubs and church congregations)
• The community (as an aggregation of individuals and groups)
• Agencies
• Administrative Units (such as municipal areas)
• Economic systems (they can be damaged by their elements being impacted,
trends can be accelerated or limited)
• Production systems (including agricultural systems)
• Natural systems
• Beliefs, values and norms
The link and interrelations between these can be complex. All can be affected, and
therefore may be vulnerable. All can resist, or be developed to resist, impacts and can
be more or less resilient.
All can be investigated and dealt with individually. Yet we have to recognize that all may
have an effect on each other.
34
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
responses of these to different hazards. Resilience and vulnerability vary periodically
(time of year, recurrent environmental events such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation
phenomenon.) and over time; they can grow or diminish.
Resilience and vulnerability respond to and can be indicated by certain generic states
but have to be assessed for a particular time and set of circumstances.
• Individual
• Family
• Group
• Locality
• Community
• Administrative Area
• Agency
• Region
• Whole of area (where an entire administrative or political unit is affected.)
Acknowledging this we also recognise that public policy, program implementation and
effective resource use cannot proceed on the basis of an almost unlimited capacity for
social differentiation. Excessive particularity will lead to resource dissipation. It is
important therefore that tools for effective aggregation of social commonalities be
developed and applied by agencies to ensure that resources are used effectively.
35
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Boundary Issues
Services are generally provided or administered on the basis of administrative unit;
municipality, government region, State. Perhaps the exception to this is recovery
services in Victoria that are provided generally on the basis of the affected area. In this
case collaboration and cooperation between jurisdictions is necessary; it may also
require one agency or jurisdiction to take a lead role. If these arrangements are well
managed they can be very effective in ensuring efficiency and equity of services across
the whole of the affected population.
They are also principal values of Australian society and do much to bind us together a
community that cares for and supports its members.
We found these values to be held strongly by the people we interviewed. Many of our
interviewees held a passionate commitment to their communities. They felt very
strongly about issues of risk, safety and vulnerability as well as being profoundly
committed to supporting their friends, relatives and neighbours. They also assumed that
their neighbours would offer the same support to them.
They also cared about their locality and their community and were concerned for the
future, even the long-term future in which they personally would not be involved.
Yet even though this was generally the case, we also heard from a number of
interviewees of the 'outsiders' who did not really participate in the affairs of the local
community. Single parents who were being supplied cheap government housing in their
region was one example. These people - those who may be living on the fringes of the
community - may be those in the end who are least resilient as they lack the local
networks which are so necessary in the time of a disaster and this in turn makes them
more likely to be vulnerable. We have no evidence of whether these residents feel
"very strongly about issues of risk, safety and vulnerability as well as being profoundly
committed to supporting their friends, relatives and neighbours." Nor can we assume
that their neighbours would offer the same support to them.
We therefore think it is important that these values be brought to the fore and made
explicit without unnecessary emphasis. It is helpful if we frequently remind ourselves that
36
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
these values provide the ethical foundation for our work and they provide standards
against which we can judge success and achievement.
Demographic Factors
We have indicated that vulnerability and resilience are phenomena that vary according
to the particular circumstances, and that we favour an assessment process that focuses
on needs and services.
Nonetheless there are certain groups that are indicated as having higher potential levels
of vulnerability.
The people we discussed these issues with generally referred to the community as a
whole and did not frequently refer to special groups. The groups they mentioned most
often included:
A review of the literature shows that this list can be extended, to include:
37
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
• People with limited management and decision making skills
• People with inadequate accommodation.
• Those on holiday and travelling (particularly those in tent and caravan resorts)
• New arrivals to the country
• People exposed to particular or extreme hazards
• People affected by an emergency
Resilience is not just the absence of these characteristics. It a positive attribute and can
include:
• Resources
• Management skills
• Knowledge and information
• Access to services
• Involvement in decision making and planning processes
• Equitable social arrangements
• Support and supportive networks
• Personal coping capacity
• Shared community values
• Shared community aspirations and plans
• Local engagement in social, community and local government activity
Economic factors
Economic factors can be important in determining the vulnerability and resilience of
individuals, groups and communities and economic systems themselves.
Communities
Communities as extended groups of people can also be vulnerable. Communities do
not have an existence of their own separate from their members. But they are more
than the sum of individuals and families. Communities manifest their existence in
common networks, exchange systems, common values, plans for the future, shared
methods for resolving problems, agreements to work together for the future.
38
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
These aspects can be damaged and therefore may be vulnerable. There are numerous
instances where disasters have resulted in demographic changes, conflicts between
community members, system and network deterioration, so that the community
becomes a group of people who no longer work together as effectively as before the
disaster.
Relevant factors in indicating the state of resilience and vulnerability for communities
include:
Infrastructure
Infrastructure is vulnerable in so far as it is susceptible to damage, and resilient in so far
as it can withstand destructive forces. These capacities are not attributes per se of the
asset but a consequence of a human assessment of the standard to which the asset
should be built.
39
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
In addition infrastructure has value in supporting humans and their society. Loss of
infrastructure is likely therefore to impact on people quite directly.
Systems
Systems we take to be any process or set of arrangements that can influence activity or
behaviour. So value systems and economic systems and production systems exist as
partial determinants of individual and group circumstances.
These systems can be vulnerable and resilient. Where disasters cause changed
circumstances people may respond in ways which directly challenge values, ethics and
norms. For example, there are clear examples of farmers fighting over whether to
remove or strengthen levee banks, depending on whether the levees would exacerbate
or minimise flooding on their properties. As a consequence their self-directed and
aggressive behaviour weakened community links, damaged the fabric of local
associations such as football clubs and reduced community capacity to manage recovery.
40
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ISSUES TO PURSUE
Numerous respondents told us that they were rarely given the results of research
activity to which they contributed and that both researchers and agencies often did not
follow up their promises to undertake activities or provide information.
Recognising this as a legitimate complaint and a useful observation we will distribute this
report, as a draft, to the people who gave their time to discuss these matters with us. If
they care to provide additional comments then we will consider including this additional
material and information in a revised report.
Forums that come to mind include workshops and developmental activities conducted
by Emergency Management Australia, conference and training activities conducted or
supported by Emergency Management Australia and the States and Territories and peak
bodies covering private sector activities, professional associations, local government
associations and networks of non-government organisations and appropriate advocacy
groups.
Exposure of these issues to appraisal that is wide-ranging and diverse will result in
dissemination of an enhanced consideration and review of the matters raised in this
report.
43
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
References
Blaikie, P, Cannon, T, Davis, I & Wisner, B 1994 At Risk: natural hazards, people’s
vulnerability and disasters Routledge London 1994
Buckle, P Defining Community and Vulnerability: A New Approach James Cook University
Conference on Disaster Management: Crisis and Opportunity Cairns November 1998
1999
Buckle, P Defining Community and Vulnerability — Current Issues in Risk Management The
Australian Journal of Emergency Management Australian Emergency Management
Institute 1998
Buckle, P, Marsh, G and Smale, S New Approaches to Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience
Disaster Prevention for the 21st Century: Proceedings of the Australian Disaster
Conference 1999 Canberra 1-3 November Emergency Management Australian
Canberra pp 123 — 128 1999
Bunbury B Cyclone Tracy: Picking up the Pieces - talking history Fremantle Arts Centre
Press 1994
Coakes S Social Impact Assessment: A policy maker's guide to developing Social Impact
Assessment programs Bureau of Rural Sciences Canberra 2000
Davis M Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster Metropolitan Books
New York 1998
East Gippsland Shire and Others Reports of the Community Development Officers - East
Gippsland Floods East Gippsland Shire and Others 2000
Erikson, K T Everything in its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood
Simon and Schuster New York 1976
European Union Report on Risk Assessment Procedures used in the field of civil protection
and rescue services in different European Union Countries and in Norway European Union
1998
Federal Emergency Management Agency Multi Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
FEMA Washington 1997
Flood Hazard Research Centre - Middlesex University The Health effects of Floods: the
Easter 1998 Floods in England Flood Hazard Research Centre 3/99 9 pages
Florida Department Of Community Affairs The Local Mitigation Strategy: A Guidebook for
Florida Cities and Counties Vulnerability Assessment Supplement, Part 1 & Part 2 nd
Fordham M Participatory planning for flood mitigation: models and approaches Australian
Journal of Emergency Management Summer 1998/99 pp 27 — 34
Fukuyama F Trust: The Social Virtues & the Creation of Prosperity The Free Press New
York 1995
Gilbert, R & Kreimer, A Learning from the World Bank's Experience of Natural Disaster
Related Assistance World Bank Washington 1999
45
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001
Granger K, Jones T, Leiba M and Scott G Community Risk in Cairns: A Multi Hazard Risk
Assessment Australian Geological Survey Organisation Canberra 1999
Gregg, E, Toumbourou, G, Bond, l & Patton, G Improving the Lives of Young Victorians in
Our Community: a menu of services Centre for Adolescent Health 2000
Hames R & Callanan G Burying the 20th Century: New Paths for New Futures Business
and Professional Publishing Warriewood NSW 1997
Hinton P (ed.) Disasters; image and context Sydney Studies Sydney 1992
McEwin M Towards a Statistical Road Map for Social Capital: Issues Paper Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2000
Rubin, C Emergency Management in the 21st Century: Coping with Bill Gates Osama bin-
Laden and Hurricane Mitch Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
Center University of Colorado Natural Hazards Research Working Paper #104 2000
Samson P & Crow A Dunblane: Our Year of Tears Mainstream Publishing Edinburgh 1997
Sen A Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation Clarendon Oxford
1982
Shire of Yarra Ranges Report of the 1997 Dandenong Ranges Bushfires Shire of Yarra
Ranges 2000
World Bank World Bank Development Report: 2000/2001 Attacking Poverty World Bank
OUP 2001
World Bank New Paths to Social Development Community and Global Networks in Action
World Bank, Geneva 2000
World Bank Managing the Social Dimensions of Crises: Good Practices in Social Policy
World Bank, Geneva 1999
Internet References
Searching on the basis of general social issues relevant to vulnerability and resilience we
provide the following list.
Searching on the basis of emergency management issues we list the following sites.
Emergency Management Sites include:
49
Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Buckle, Marsh & Smale May 2001