upon, with interested parties asking questions about both the causes of the nuclear
disaster and Japan’s capacity to recover from such a large catastrophe [58–63].
Reflecting on the consequences of a disaster—death, destruction, the challenges of
recovery [60, 64] and the long lasting-trauma [65–67]; resilience studies forces us
to revisit our understanding of the events, focusing on the relationships between
individual and collective experience and complex scientific, political and engineering systems. The possibilities of interactions, if clearly defined, could reconnect
with previous effort to conceptualize risk and disasters multi-dimensionally.
3 Thinking with Resilience
For almost a decade now, researchers have noted that: “Like vulnerability, multiple
definitions of resilience exist within the literature, with no broadly accepted single
definition…While numerous research efforts have assessed various dimensions of
community resilience, challenges remain in the development of consistent factors or
standard metrics that can be used to evaluate the disaster resilience of communities”
[68].
Building on the research of “vulnerability”, which has tended to emphasize the
subject as an agent, and his specific capacity or lack thereof, to adapt or adjust to a
identified risk; resilience studies have favored a more systematic approach [69–71].
Using a specific case study located in the Sekhukhune District, Limpopo province
of South Africa, Miller and al. have made explicit the divergences in the modes of
engagement between the two concepts pointing the nature of this paradigmatic
change:
In the vulnerability study, the aim was to understand how different stakeholders view their
vulnerability to support decision-making at the village and municipal scales in Sekhukhune
District. […] In the resilience study, the aim was to establish an overall picture of system
function, including qualitative system dynamics and vulnerability analysis, in the Sand
river sub-catchment using resilience theory. […] This study made explicit the linkages
between the social and ecological system on the one hand, and the time scales at which
certain drivers proved more important than others. The vulnerability approach placed more
emphasis on agency and on the identification of hooks for responding to adaptation and
development challenges [72].
Miller et al. are insisting on the divergence of “analytical tools, scales, and
indicators of interest” [72]. But these divergences remain unclear about the political
implications and controversies that arise when considering both the unit and the
scale of analysis (a system, an individual?) and the moral and political dimension of
the distinction as pointed by Reghezza-Zitt et al.:
The recent shift from vulnerability to resilience gives a glimpse of a radical change in the
approach of international agencies to disaster management. On one side, a social vulnerability, mainly suffered by the poorest populations but that can be anticipated and reduced
by various aids relying on solidarity and states’ participation. On the other, a desired
resilience that is only validated long after the crisis and that sanctions adaptation at an
individual level [73].
Hybrid Disasters—Hybrid Knowledge
341
disaster and Japan’s capacity to recover from such a large catastrophe [58–63].
Reflecting on the consequences of a disaster—death, destruction, the challenges of
recovery [60, 64] and the long lasting-trauma [65–67]; resilience studies forces us
to revisit our understanding of the events, focusing on the relationships between
individual and collective experience and complex scientific, political and engineering systems. The possibilities of interactions, if clearly defined, could reconnect
with previous effort to conceptualize risk and disasters multi-dimensionally.
3 Thinking with Resilience
For almost a decade now, researchers have noted that: “Like vulnerability, multiple
definitions of resilience exist within the literature, with no broadly accepted single
definition…While numerous research efforts have assessed various dimensions of
community resilience, challenges remain in the development of consistent factors or
standard metrics that can be used to evaluate the disaster resilience of communities”
[68].
Building on the research of “vulnerability”, which has tended to emphasize the
subject as an agent, and his specific capacity or lack thereof, to adapt or adjust to a
identified risk; resilience studies have favored a more systematic approach [69–71].
Using a specific case study located in the Sekhukhune District, Limpopo province
of South Africa, Miller and al. have made explicit the divergences in the modes of
engagement between the two concepts pointing the nature of this paradigmatic
change:
In the vulnerability study, the aim was to understand how different stakeholders view their
vulnerability to support decision-making at the village and municipal scales in Sekhukhune
District. […] In the resilience study, the aim was to establish an overall picture of system
function, including qualitative system dynamics and vulnerability analysis, in the Sand
river sub-catchment using resilience theory. […] This study made explicit the linkages
between the social and ecological system on the one hand, and the time scales at which
certain drivers proved more important than others. The vulnerability approach placed more
emphasis on agency and on the identification of hooks for responding to adaptation and
development challenges [72].
Miller et al. are insisting on the divergence of “analytical tools, scales, and
indicators of interest” [72]. But these divergences remain unclear about the political
implications and controversies that arise when considering both the unit and the
scale of analysis (a system, an individual?) and the moral and political dimension of
the distinction as pointed by Reghezza-Zitt et al.:
The recent shift from vulnerability to resilience gives a glimpse of a radical change in the
approach of international agencies to disaster management. On one side, a social vulnerability, mainly suffered by the poorest populations but that can be anticipated and reduced
by various aids relying on solidarity and states’ participation. On the other, a desired
resilience that is only validated long after the crisis and that sanctions adaptation at an
individual level [73].
Hybrid Disasters—Hybrid Knowledge
341