Development of Evaluation Methodology for Community Resilience Based on a Workshop of the Local Residents

In recent years, resilience of local communities is becoming important policy issues. In Japan, due to the experience of the Great East Japan Earthquake, most of discussions are on the resilience against natural disasters.... [ view full abstract ]

In recent years, resilience of local communities is becoming important policy issues. In Japan, due to the experience of the Great East Japan Earthquake, most of discussions are on the resilience against natural disasters. However, risks that can threat local communities could be not only natural disasters, but could also be diversified events such as economic risks.

In this study, we defined what local community resilience is, and aimed to examine its evaluation methodology. We also applied such evaluation methodology we examined to an actual local community as a trial basis, and extracted its problems.

First, based on the preceding studies, we defined community resilience as the ability of the community (individuals, households, organizations, local government) to overcome crisis situation by foreseeing ‘shocks’ or ‘stresses’ and by resisting, absorbing or managing their influences.

The ‘shocks’ and ‘stresses’ we mention here include, besides natural disasters, environmental problems, natural resource problems, population decline, aging, slumping local economy, financial crises and such. ‘Shocks’ particularly indicate events such as natural disasters, economic crises, major accidents, spread of epidemics and terrorist attacks that ‘are rapid and high impact events that cause immediate and visible damages to the community’. On the other hand, ‘stresses’ indicate events such as population decline, aging, economic gaps (poverty), and deteriorated infrastructure that are ‘chronic events that are not so visible, but constantly accumulate the damages’.

As it is difficult to evaluate the resilience of a community, we examined the following evaluation methodology based on a workshop of the local residents:

1) Identification of risks: Extract risks the community has.

2) Evaluation and characterization of risks: Evaluate and characterize the extracted risks by risk matrix.

3) Evaluation of the countermeasures: Evaluate the countermeasures against those risks that were judged unacceptable.

In order to verify the efficacy of this methodology, we tried it in Uchiko-cho in Ehime prefecture、Japan. As a result, we were able to visualize the risks of the community, and to evaluate the countermeasures (to be taken) by the community. Also, as the evaluation was carried out in workshop style, it deepened the understanding of the local residents on the community resilience. On the other hand, following issues were extracted: First, chronic ‘stresses’ were difficult to image unlike acute ‘shocks’. Secondly, risks and countermeasures were difficult to examine by themselves, and they may not be thoroughly covered. Thirdly, this method can be evaluated the community weaknesses, but not easy to evaluate its strengths. We will keep working to improve the methodology based on the above-mentioned issues.