DOI: 10.4324/9781003157571-8
6 After the flood
Diverse discourses of resilience in
the United States and Australia
Chloe Lucas and Travis Young
Introduction
Home insurance is seen as a central mechanism for disaster resilience by
governments around the world (Booth & Tranter 2017; Lucas & Booth
2020). The ‘empowerment’ of individuals to manage and take responsibility
for the risk of natural disasters impacting on their person and property is
written into national and international strategies (e.g. United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2009; Council of Australian Governments
2011). This reflects, on the one hand, a recognition of individuals’ rights to
participate in managing environmental risks that affect them; and on the
other, a shift towards the responsibilisation of individuals, through which
collective problems are reframed as the product of personal choices which
can be best managed through market mechanisms (McLennan & Handmer
2012; Box et al. 2016).
Resilience (Holling 1973) is a contested, while ubiquitous term. Much of
the literature on resilience has taken a systems approach that promotes a
return to overall equilibrium following a shock, while allowing for internal
adaptability (Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2010). However, White and
O’Hare (2014) argue that in policy and practice, resilience is most often
used in a technocratic way – to measure the ability to bounce-back to an
assumed non-threatening normality of business-as-usual. This is reflected
in the definitions of resilience used by the insurance industry. For example,
the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) measures resilience as enabling the
least disruption to ‘business and individual capacity to operate normally’
(ICA 2008, p. 3). In these insurantial rationalities, resilient individuals are
seen to be self-reliant, self-disciplined, and privately insured. In this, the
idea of resilience echoes a conservative ethos of non-interventionist, small
government, and individual freedom to succeed or fail on one’s own merits
(Davoudi et al. 2012).
However, in a changed climate, normality is no longer non-threatening.
Sea level rise and greater storm intensity means that homes are flooding
with increasing frequency, and coastal property is at greater risk from
storm surge (Thomas & Leichenko 2011; Christensen et al. 2007). Floods
6 After the flood
Diverse discourses of resilience in
the United States and Australia
Chloe Lucas and Travis Young
Introduction
Home insurance is seen as a central mechanism for disaster resilience by
governments around the world (Booth & Tranter 2017; Lucas & Booth
2020). The ‘empowerment’ of individuals to manage and take responsibility
for the risk of natural disasters impacting on their person and property is
written into national and international strategies (e.g. United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2009; Council of Australian Governments
2011). This reflects, on the one hand, a recognition of individuals’ rights to
participate in managing environmental risks that affect them; and on the
other, a shift towards the responsibilisation of individuals, through which
collective problems are reframed as the product of personal choices which
can be best managed through market mechanisms (McLennan & Handmer
2012; Box et al. 2016).
Resilience (Holling 1973) is a contested, while ubiquitous term. Much of
the literature on resilience has taken a systems approach that promotes a
return to overall equilibrium following a shock, while allowing for internal
adaptability (Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2010). However, White and
O’Hare (2014) argue that in policy and practice, resilience is most often
used in a technocratic way – to measure the ability to bounce-back to an
assumed non-threatening normality of business-as-usual. This is reflected
in the definitions of resilience used by the insurance industry. For example,
the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) measures resilience as enabling the
least disruption to ‘business and individual capacity to operate normally’
(ICA 2008, p. 3). In these insurantial rationalities, resilient individuals are
seen to be self-reliant, self-disciplined, and privately insured. In this, the
idea of resilience echoes a conservative ethos of non-interventionist, small
government, and individual freedom to succeed or fail on one’s own merits
(Davoudi et al. 2012).
However, in a changed climate, normality is no longer non-threatening.
Sea level rise and greater storm intensity means that homes are flooding
with increasing frequency, and coastal property is at greater risk from
storm surge (Thomas & Leichenko 2011; Christensen et al. 2007). Floods