Multiple resilience dividends at the community level: a comparative study on disaster risk reduction interventions in different countries

The costs of disasters have been increasing in many parts of the world as a result of an increase in exposed and vulnerable assets as well as the effects of climate change. However, investments in disaster risk reduction (DRR)remain insufficient to manage these growing risks. To make investments in DRR more attractive and to shift investments from post-event response and recovery to pre-event resilience, there has been a push to account for the full range of benefits of those investments including economic, ecological and social ‘resilience dividends’. While the concept of ‘multiple resilience dividends’ is now frequently used to strengthen the DRR narrative, it has not yet been widely applied in practice when appraising DRR interventions. The paper analyses the knowledge gaps and challenges that arise from applying the ‘multiple resilience dividends’ in planning, implementation and evaluation of disaster risk reduction interventions on the community level. A newly developed framework is used to analyse empirical survey data on community level DRR interventions as well as five in-depth community case studies in Vietnam, Nepal, Indonesia, Afghanistan and the UK. The analysis reveals a disconnect between the available planning tools and the evidence on materialized multiple resilience dividends, which pose a key obstacle in successfully applying the concept on the community level. The paper concludes that a structured consideration of multiple dividends of resilience from the planning to the monitoring stage is important to secure local buy-in and to ensure that the full range of benefits can materialize

Working with the National Framework for Inclusion: a guide for teacher educators

This companion resource accompanies the National Framework for Inclusion 3rd edition and was developed by the Scottish Universities Inclusion Group (SUIG) and edited by Di Cantali (SUIG Chair). SUIG is a working group of the Scottish Council of Deans of Education

National framework for inclusion

Inclusive education is the cornerstone of Scottish education and, as such, must be of the highest priority for the Scottish Government and for all those involved in education in Scotland. There is clear recognition of the fact that teachers need to be well prepared and appropriately supported throughout their careers if they are to succeed in developing and sustaining the desired inclusive practice which will enable them to meet the increasingly diverse needs of all children within schools in Scotland

Working with the National Framework for Inclusion: a guide for teacher educators

This companion resource accompanies the National Framework for Inclusion 3rd edition and was developed by the Scottish Universities Inclusion Group (SUIG) and edited by Di Cantali (SUIG Chair). SUIG is a working group of the Scottish Council of Deans of Education

An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change

As experts predict that at least some irreversible climate change will occur with potentially disastrous effects on the lives and well-being of vulnerable communities around the world, it is paramount to ensure that these communities are resilient and have adaptive capacity to withstand the consequences. Adaptation and resilience planning present several ethical issues that need to be resolved if we are to achieve successful adaptation and resilience to climate change, taking into consideration vulnerabilities and inequalities in terms of power, income, gender, age, sexuality, race, culture, religion, and spatiality. Sustainable adaptation and resilience planning that addresses these ethical issues requires interdisciplinary dialogues between the natural sciences, social sciences, and philosophy, in order to integrate empirical insights on socioeconomic inequality and climate vulnerability with ethical analysis of the underlying causes and consequences of injustice in adaptation and resilience. In this paper, we set out an interdisciplinary research agenda for the inclusion of ethics and justice theories in adaptation and resilience planning, particularly into the Sixth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6). We present six core discussions that we believe should be an integral part of these interdisciplinary dialogues on adaptation and resilience as part of IPCC AR6, especially Chapters 2 (“Terrestial and freshwater ecosystems and their services”), 6 (“Cities, settlements and key infrastructure”), 7 (“Health, wellbeing and the changing structure of communities”), 8 (“Poverty, livelihoods and sustainable development”), 16 “Key risks across sectors and regions”), 17 (“Decision-making options for managing risk”), and 18 (“Climate resilient development pathways”).: (i) Where does ‘justice’ feature in resilience and adaptation planning and what does it require in that regard?; (ii) How can it be ensured that adaptation and resilience strategies protect and take into consideration and represent the interest of the most vulnerable women and men, and communities?; (iii) How can different forms of knowledge be integrated within adaptation and resilience planning?; (iv) What trade-offs need to be made when focusing on resilience and adaptation and how can they be resolved?; (v) What roles and responsibilities do different actors have to build resilience and achieve adaptation?; (vi) Finally, what does the focus on ethics imply for the practice of adaptation and resilience planning

Multiple resilience dividends at the community level: A comparative study of disaster risk reduction interventions in different countries

Climate-related disasters are increasing in many parts of the world, yet investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR) remains insufficient to manage these risks. This is despite growing recognition that DRR interventions can reduce potential impacts from disasters as well as deliver broader economic, ecological, and social co-benefits. Focusing on the net benefits of DRR, beyond avoiding losses and damages, is considered as an important strategy to strengthen the case for DRR as part of a sustainable development by academics and international organizations alike. However, there is very limited evidence of on-the-ground accounting of these “multiple resilience dividends” by those who act to reduce disaster risk at the local level. Using an innovative analytical approach, we investigate the knowledge gaps and challenges associated with considering multiple resilience dividends in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of DRR interventions at the community level for the example of flood risk. We use a newly developed framework to analyze empirical survey data on community-level DRR interventions as well as five in-depth case studies from Vietnam, Nepal, Indonesia, Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom. The analysis reveals a disconnect between available planning tools and the evidence of materialized multiple resilience dividends, which is a key obstacle to successfully apply the concept at the community level. Structured consideration of multiple resilience dividends from the planning to the monitoring and evaluation stages is required to secure local buy-in and to ensure that these dividends materialize as intended

External stakeholders’ attitudes towards and engagement with local knowledge in disaster risk reduction: are we only paying lip service?

In the research and policy environment, local knowledge (LK) is increasingly seen as an important component of building the resilience of communities and delivering sustainable disaster risk reduction (DRR) approaches tailored to local contexts. Many studies focus on documenting LK in different contexts; however, far less emphasis has been given to understanding how external stakeholders (i.e. government, NGOs, consultants) engage with and perceive the value of LK for DRR. Through an intepretivist epistemology and a case study research design, this paper sets out to fill in this gap by engaging with external stakeholders involved with community-based flood risk management in Malawi. It bases its findings on a thematic analysis of qualitative data collected through focus group discussions (n = 7) and key informant interviews (n = 69) conducted in 2016 and 2017. The findings show that although there is an appreciation of the importance of LK in rhetoric, its inclusion in DRR practice remains limited. The strong dichotomy between local and scientific knowledge persists and it has led to the further marginalisation of LK. The international policy and research push for LK in DRR is therefore not translated to realities on the ground. To the best of our knowledge, this presents one of the first studies of external stakeholders' attitudes of LK and how these influence its overall position in DRR. The paper calls for further development of knowledge co-production processes that will be based on giving equal weight, recognition and importance to LK

Reconciling well-being and resilience for sustainable development

Securing well-being and building resilience in response to shocks are often viewed as key goals of sustainable development. Here, we present an overview of the latest published evidence, as well as the consensus of a diverse group of scientists and practitioners drawn from a structured analytical review and deliberative workshop process. We argue that resilience and well-being are related in complex ways, but in their applications in practice they are often assumed to be synergistic. Although theoretically compatible, evidence we present here shows that they may in fact work against each other. This has important implications for policy

A National Framework for Inclusion in Education in Scotland, 3rd ed.

Sian Jones - ORCID: 0000-0002-2399-1017 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2399-1017https://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/national-framework-for-inclusion