Social clubs and social capital : the effect of electronic gaming machines in disadvantaged regions on the creation or destruction of community resilience

The role of particular third sector organisations, Social Clubs, in supporting gambling through the use of EGMs in venues presents as a difficult social issue. Social Clubs gain revenue from gambling activities; but also contribute to social well-being through the provision of services to communities. The revenues derived from gambling in specific geographic locales has been seen by government as a way to increase economic development particularly in deprived areas. However there are also concerns about accessibility of low-income citizens to Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMS) and the high level of gambling overall in these deprived areas. We argue that social capital can be viewed as a guard against deleterious effects of unconstrained use of EGM gambling in communities. However, it is contended that social capital may also be destroyed by gambling activity if commercial business actors are able to use EGMs without community obligations to service provision. This paper examines access to gambling through EGMs and its relationship to social capital and the consequent effect on community resilience, via an Australian case study. The results highlight the potential two-way relationship between gambling and volunteering, such that volunteering (and social capital more generally) may help protect against problems of gambling, but also that volunteering as an activity may be damaged by increased gambling activity. This suggests that, regardless of the direction of causation, it is necessary to build up social capital via volunteering and other social capital activities in areas where EGMS are concentrated. The study concludes that Social Clubs using EGMs to derive funds are uniquely positioned within the community to develop programs that foster social capital creation and build community resilience in deprived areas.

Building community resilience – learning from the 2011 floods in Southeast Queensland, Australia

The year 2010 was the wettest year on record for Queensland, Australia and the wettest year since 1974 for Southeast Queensland. The extremely heavy rain in early January 2011 fell on the catchments of heavily saturated Brisbane and Stanley Rivers systems resulting in significant runoff which rapidly produced a widespread and devastating flood event. The area of inundation was equivalent to the total land area of France and Germany combined. Over 200,000 people were affected leaving 35 people dead and 9 missing. The damage bill was estimated at over $1B and cost to the economy at over $10B with over 30,000 homes and 6,000 business flooded and 86 towns and regional centres affected. The need to disburse disaster funding in a prompt manner to the affected population was paramount to facilitate individuals getting their lives back to some normality. However, the payout of insurance claims has proved to be a major area of community anger. The ongoing impasse in payment of insurance compensation is attributed to the nature and number of claims, confusing definition of flooding and the lack or accuracy of information needed to determine individually the properties affected and legitimacy of claims. Information was not readily available at the micro-level including, extent and type of inundation, flood heights at property level and cause of damage. Events during the aftermath highlighted widespread community misconceptions concerning the technical factors associated with the flood event and the impact of such on access to legitimate compensation and assistance. Individual and community wide concerns and frustration, anger and depression, have arisen resulting from delays in the timely settlement of insurance claims. Lessons learnt during the aftermath are presented in the context of their importance as a basis for inculcating communities impacted by the flood event with resilience for the future.

An integrated framework for assessing community resilience in disaster management

Climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events which pose significant challenges to the ability of government and other relief agencies to plan for, cope with and respond to disasters. Consequently, it is important that communities in climate sensitive and potential disaster prone areas strengthen their resilience to natural disasters in order to expeditiously recover from potential disruptions and damage caused by disasters. Building self reliance and, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, can facilitate short-term and long-term community recovery. To build stronger and more resilient communities, it is essential to have a better understanding of their current resilience capabilities by assessing areas of strength, risks and vulnerabilities so that their strengths can be enhanced and the risks and vulnerability can be appropriately addressed and mitigated through capacity building programs. While a number of conceptual frameworks currently exist to assess the resilience level of communities to disasters, they have tended to differ on their emphasis, scope and definition of what constitutes community resilience and how community resilience can be most effectively and accurately assessed. These limitations are attributed to the common approach of viewing community resilience through a mono-disciplinary lens. To overcome this, this paper proposes an integrated conceptual framework that takes into account the complex interplay of environmental, social, governance, infrastructure and economic attributes associated with community resilience. The framework can be operationalised using a range of resilience indicators to suit the nature of a disaster and the specific characteristics of a study region.

Surrogate indicators for assessing community resilience

The importance of community resilience to natural disasters is being increasingly recognised. This paper presents an approach for the development of surrogate indicators for comprehensive assessment of community resilience, which is crucial in the context of predicted increase in natural disasters resulting from extreme weather events due to climate change. The use of surrogate indicators is advocated because a comprehensive assessment of community resilience across various thematic areas and associated key areas requires the measurement of a large number of resilience indicators which is not always feasible due to time and resource constraints, To overcome this, researchers tend to use secondary data sources, which are easily available but not always reliable. This highlights the need for surrogate indicators that are easy to measure from reliable primary data sources and are adequate to capture the resilience of a community. Firstly, the paper discusses the two approaches for defining and conceptualising community resilience and the need to account for the complex interrelationships between thematic areas, key areas and resilience indicators and their implications for research. Secondly, a comprehensive framework for the assessment of community resilience is proposed and the difficulties associated with the measurement of overall resilience of the community are discussed. Thirdly, the paper explains a two-step approach to develop surrogate indicators highlighting the necessity and challenges associated with it. Finally, the proposed approach is elaborated with a simple example for better understanding.

The need for and appropriate application of spatial data for disaster management and strengthening community resilience

It is only in recent years that the critical role that spatial data can play in disaster management and strengthening community resilience has been recognised. The recognition of this importance is singularly evident from the fact that in Australia spatial data is considered as soft infrastructure. In the aftermath of every disaster this importance is being increasingly strengthened with state agencies paying greater attention to ensuring the availability of accurate spatial data based on the lessons learnt. For example, the major flooding in Queensland during the summer of 2011 resulted in a comprehensive review of responsibilities and accountability for the provision of spatial information during such natural disasters. A high level commission of enquiry completed a comprehensive investigation of the 2011 Brisbane flood inundation event and made specific recommendations concerning the collection of and accessibility to spatial information for disaster management and for strengthening community resilience during and after a natural disaster. The lessons learnt and processes implemented were subsequently tested by natural disasters during subsequent years. This paper provides an overview of the practical implementation of the recommendations of the commission of enquiry. It focuses particularly on the measures adopted by the state agencies with the primary role for managing spatial data and the evolution of this role in Queensland State, Australia. The paper concludes with a review of the development of the role and the increasing importance of spatial data as an infrastructure for disaster planning and management which promotes the strengthening of community resilience.

Assessing community resilience to climate change

Settlements and communities in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are highly vulnerable to climate change and face an uncertain social, economic and environmental future. The concept of community resilience is gaining momentum as stakeholders and institutions seek to better understand the social, economic and governance factors which affect community capacity to adapt in the face of climate change. This paper defines a framework to benchmark community resilience and applies it to a case study in the Wet Tropics in tropical Queensland within the GBR catchment. It finds that rural, indigenous and some urban populations are highly vulnerable and sensitive to climate change, particularly in terms of economic vitality, community knowledge, aspirations and capacity for adaptation. Without early and substantive action, this could result in declining social and economic wellbeing and natural resource health. Capacity to manage the possible shocks associated with the impacts of climate change and extreme climatic events is emerging and needs to be carefully fostered and further developed to achieve broader community resilience outcomes. Better information about what actions, policies and arrangements build community resilience and mobilise adaptive capacity in the face of climate change is needed.

Community Resilience: Fostering Recovery, Sustainability, and Growth

In this chapter, the authors define community resilience and identify the components that predict it will occur. Three dimensions are highlighted: recovery, sustainability, and growth. Their discussion focuses on communities like those of Sudanese refugees who have experienced forced migration, emphasizing the importance that community plays to future adaptation. They show through their report on their research that community collaboration, shared identity, and empowerment increase bonding and bridging capital that promote the well-being of people under stress. They argue that an emphasis on community resilience places value on the social connections, policies, programs, and community context necessary for resilience in different cultures and contexts.

Community development and community resilience: An integrative approach

Throughout history, communities and civilizations have sought to enhance the quality of community life and the well-being of its people. However, more recently there has been greater interest in attending to the details of community development by capitalizing on the improved ability to capture community well-being and successes scientifically. That interest invites greater attention to the development of indicators that can quantify those qualities of life that lead to strong and healthy communities. The selection of meaningful indicators is dependent upon several factors including a process that stimulates meaningful involvement of community stakeholders, but the single most important is the identification of an underlying model to guide the work. Indicators do not have meaning in themselves. For these measures to provide a coherent assessment of the community, an integrative approach to understanding what constitutes a healthy and strong community in a dynamic environment is required. A resilience perspective serves that purpose and provides a framework that is broad, neutral, and conceptually strong enough to structure development of significant sets of indicators. Exemplary community indicator processes across the nation, particularly recent efforts in the Phoenix, Arizona region, provide evidence supporting the value of indicator development for community building.

Educating for Community Resilience: How the Work of Thomas Homer-Dixon and JohnDewey's Pattern of Inquiry Can Help Us Prepare for the Ecological and Social Challenges of the 21st Century

Scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that global warming occurs as a consequence of human activities and that climate change, combined with the depletion of resources, could have catastrophic consequences for the human civilization later this century. However, in political circles and in the public sphere these conclusions are not taken seriously, or they are laid aside for future generations to deal with; at the same time, significant efforts are being deployed to discredit the scientific evidence. In this thesis I have studied the positions of climate scientists as well as those of climate change deniers, and I also examined how their points of view are likely to impact the interests and habits of corporations and citizens. The work of Thomas Homer-Dixon was used as an important source for analyzing the complex interaction between our natural, economic, and social systems, and John Dewey's pattern of inquiry provided the theoretical foundation for an analysis of the current crisis and its possible solutions. No concerted action to deal with climate change has yet been taken by the leaders of the Western world; I corroborated data from four reliable sources (Hansen, 2009; IPCC, 2007; Lynas, 2007; Steffen, 2011) regarding several development scenarios and their likely consequences on greenhouse gas emissions, and I concluded that a future temperature increase of more than 2°C appears now as unavoidable. In the light of this conclusion I argue that education for increasing the resilience of smaller communities is a realistic alternative that can offer some hope in dealing with the challenges ahead.

Integrating science into humanitarian and development planning and practice to enhance community resilience

There has been an increased emphasis upon the application of science for humanitarian and development planning, decision-making and practice; particularly in the context of understanding, assessing and anticipating risk (e.g. HERR, 2011). However, there remains very little guidance for practitioners on how to integrate sciences they may have had little contact with in the past (e.g. climate). This has led to confusion as to which ‘science’ might be of use and how it would be best utilised. Furthermore, since this integration has stemmed from a need to be more predictive, agencies are struggling with the problems associated with uncertainty and probability. Whilst a range of expertise is required to build resilience, these guidelines focus solely upon the relevant data, information, knowledge, methods, principles and perspective which scientists can provide, that typically lie outside of current humanitarian and development approaches. Using checklists, real-life case studies and scenarios the full guidelines take practitioners through a five step approach to finding, understanding and applying science. This document provides a short summary of the five steps and some key lessons for integrating science.

Public Risk Interpretation and Community Resilience Planning: A Case Study in Aberdeen, Washington

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Community engagement for disaster resilience : flood risk management in Jakarta, Indonesia

Understanding dynamics of interactions between community groups and government agencies is crucial to improve community resilience for flood risk reduction through effective community engagement strategies. Overall, a variety of approaches are available, however they are limited in their application. Based on research of a case study in Kampung Melayu Village in Jakarta, further complexity in engaging community emerges in planning policy which requires the relocation of households living in floodplains. This complexity arises in decision-making processes due to barriers to communication. This obstacle highlights the need for a simplified approach for an effective flood risk management which will be further explored in this paper. Qualitative analyses will be undertaken following semi-structured interviews conducted with key actors within government agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and representatives of communities. The analyses involve investigation of barriers and constraints on community engagement in flood risk management, particularly relevant to collaboration mechanism, perception of risk, and technical literacy to flood risk. These analyses result in potential redirection of community consultation strategies to lead to a more effective collaboration among stakeholders in the decision-making processes. As a result, greater effectiveness in plan implementation of flood risk management potentially improves disaster resilience in the future.

Producing and Governing Community (Through) Resilience

This article argues that the UK government’s Community Resilience programme is less about responding to disasters and more a matter of producing community and governing its behaviour. The passing over of responsibility to local volunteers and organisations is not only about empowerment, but forming identities and relationships that can be more efficiently managed and directed. However, this attempt is hamstrung by its basis in a nostalgic, romantic view of community and the effacement of poverty and inequality as central to the vulnerability/resilience binary. The effect may be a more intense government of communities rather than their empowerment through resilience.