Climate change and natural hazards: The geography of
community resilience in Norway (ClimRes)
ClimRes project: Background
Studies indicate that climate change is likely to lead to more extreme weather with more and
more intense precipitation in Norway, potentially causing more frequent and more damaging
floods and landslides (St.meld. nr. 33 2012-2013). With some exceptions, in Norway such events
are commonly spatially limited, mainly damaging buildings and infrastructure, causing few
casualties (Rød et al. 2012). These extreme events can nevertheless have severe social and
material consequences for the communities affected and thus the ability of local communities to
prepare for, act during, and recover after a crisis is of vital importance. This capability is
commonly referred to as community resilience (CR).
CR is a generic concept, which can be used for different purposes. It has, with some
exceptions (e.g. Amundsen 2012), not been much explored within the Norwegian climate change
context. This project, ClimRes, sets out to investigate the meaning of CR and how it is
manifested and enacted in the context of climate change related natural hazards across different
Norwegian communities. ClimRes will identify key dimensions of CR, and further explore
which dimensions can be captured in measurable indicators, hence providing a basis for mapping
CR across Norway.
Emphasizing the role of resilience is motivated by the fact that within both climate
change studies and disaster studies there has been a pronounced shift in focus from vulnerability
to resilience. This shift indicates a change towards more proactive and constructive engagement
with climate change impacts and natural hazards (Cutter et al. 2008). The growing attention to
resilience has led to considerable interest in researching what makes local communities resilient
to both climate change and natural disasters. A basic argument underlying this interest in CR is
that communities play important roles in disaster preparedness as well as in recovery processes
after an event. ClimRes leans on UNISDR’s definition which states that resilience is ‘The ability
of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and
recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the
preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions’ (UNISDR 2009, 24).
ClimRes will identify both the more static, quantifiable indices (e.g. Cutter et al. 2008) of
CR, as well as the qualitative interplay between actors’ resources and networks (Norris et al.
2008) as they unfold in situations where communities are in crisis. ClimRes seeks to identify
measures that can assist communities in preparing for, coping with, and recovering from
disastrous events. This objective will be addressed through a combination of quantitative
analysis of survey data on perceptions of climate change risk, qualitative case studies of
communities (affected and non-affected by disastrous events) and visualization techniques. The
combination of quantitative and qualitative research enables us to develop a robust knowledge
base for understanding CR in relation to climate change and natural hazards.
ClimRes builds on previous work on vulnerability (Holand, Lujala & Rød 2011; Holand
& Lujala 2013; Rød et al. 2012), studies of peoples’ perceptions of climate change (Lujala et al.
2014) and studies of home, place and belonging (Brun & Setten 2013). The project is organized
in four work packages (WP). Table 1 gives an overview of the project’s objectives and the
corresponding contributions from each WP.
The announced PhD project is placed in WP2 and will represent a substantial part of work
conducted in WP2.
ClimRes
KLIMAFORSK Project ES520027
Table 1: Organization of work packages with objectives, approaches and contributions
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP 4
Leader
Haakon Lein
Päivi Lujala
Jan Ketil Rød
Gunhild Setten
Meth. Approach Qualitative
Quantitative
Visualization
ClimRes
Objective
Objective 1
To explore and
contextualize
the meaning of
CR in Norway.
Objective 2
To identify the
enactment of
CR before,
during and after
an extreme
event.
Contribution
Contribution
Contribution
Contribution
A qualitative
assessment of
how actors in
communities
construct and
enact the notion
of resilience.
Identification of
key dimensions and
measurable
indicators for CR.
Visualization of
the geographic
distribution of
historical damage
due to natural
hazards.
Identification of
the overlap
between
resilience and
exposure.
An assessment
of the nature of
the notion of
‘CR’ in
Norway.
Identification of
how individual
factors, such age,
gender, income
etc., affect
perceptions of CR.
Identification of Identification of
dominant actors how perceptions of
and distribution CR depend on
of CR-resources. exposure to and
An assessment
experience from a
of the robustness hazard event.
of resilienceresources in
crisis situations.
Provision of
indicators for
mapping CR across
Norwegian
communities.
Development of a
Objective 3
To develop a
methodology for
visualization
participatory
tool for
assessment of
participatory
resilience using
assessments of
web-based
CR.
visualization.
Overall Objective
To identify the potential role of CR in situations of crisis, and how CR can be
strengthened as a means to effectively deal with climate change related
disastrous events in Norwegian communities.
2
Identification
of networked
resilienceresources
important for
disaster
readiness and
recovery.
A visualization
tool which
identifies
places most in
need of
adaptation
strategies.
Analytical and
conceptual
synthesis.
Advice on how
to strengthen
CR.
ClimRes
KLIMAFORSK Project ES520027
PhD Project: WP2 Quantitative analysis of community resilience
Key questions to be addressed: Which measurable factors contribute to community resilience,
which factors people perceive to contribute to community resilience and how do exposure to and
experience from natural hazard events shape peoples’ perceptions of resilience?
Resilience can be viewed as both a state, i.e. ‘inherent resilience’ (Cutter et al. 2008), and as a
process (National Academies 2012; Norris et al. 2008). In a recently published report from the
US National Academies of Sciences, the importance of identifying quantifiable indicators of
resilience (i.e. inherent resilience) are underlined as this is a basic prerequisite for monitoring
geographical differences and changes over time. A number of studies have set out to identify
relevant indicators (Frazier et al. 2013), develop tools (Cohen et al. 2013), or create measurable
indices on CR (Cutter et al. 2010; Kulig et al. 2013; Sherrieb et al. 2010). Some measures are
composite indicators based on national statistics (Cutter et al. 2010), whereas others are based on
local level input as regards identification of relevant indicators as well as actual quantification
(Frazier et al. 2013). Some elements of CR may be generic (e.g. the role of social capital), while
others might be more cultural and place specific (e.g. local planning and building codes). One
objective of the PhD project is to identify quantifiable indicators that are relevant for the
Norwegian context and that are available through existing register data (for example, provided
by Statistics Norway; http://www.ssb.no/) or can be collected by using Geographic Information
Systems (GIS). The goal is to identify a range of measurable indicators which can be used to
map CR across Norway using the visualization tool provided by WP3.
To more systematically examine the broader publics’ understanding and perception of
resilience in relation to climate related natural hazards, the PhD project will conduct surveys. To
study people’s perceptions of CR and the importance of different factors shaping CR across
Norway, the project will conduct two national surveys, one in 2015 and one in 2017. In the
surveys, the respondents are asked to convey their perceptions of how resilient they deem their
household, neighborhood and municipality to be. Further, the respondents will be asked to
identify factors that they deem to be important for CR and to what extent they feel these factors
are contributing to the level of resilience in their community. The surveys will also collect
background information of the respondents (e.g. gender, age, education, income, political
leaning) and whether they have personally experienced a climate related hazard event in the past.
This work builds on project members’ earlier work on people’s perception of climate change and
natural hazards in general (Lujala et al. 2014). The surveys will be conducted as part of TNS
Gallup Climate Barometer and will include over 1100 respondents that are representative for the
whole population of Norway. The responses will be coded by postal zone, which enables us to
estimate the local hazard exposure.
To gain more in-depth understanding of CR and how it is shaped by exposure to hazards
as well as experience from them, the PhD project will conduct a survey centered on people living
in differently exposed areas and with different past experiences from hazard events. This
includes people living in low risk areas where larger hazards have taken place. This survey will
be more limited in geographic scope, concentrating on 8-12 localities in Norway. The local
survey will collect the same background information relating to the respondents as the national
surveys and it will be conducted using online questionnaires, complemented by telephone and
person-to-person interviews to ensure that responses are representative. This survey will include
at least 1100 participants. All survey responses will be geocoded so that we can determine
distance to relevant hazard events, places of high exposure and other relevant factors that may
shape resilience such as distance to hospital.
All surveys will be structured so that they can be analysed using quantitative methods
adapted to survey data.
3
ClimRes
KLIMAFORSK Project ES520027
References
Amundsen, H. 2012. Illusions of Resilience? An Analysis of Community Responses to Change in
Northern Norway. Ecology and Society 17(4): 46-60.
Brun, C. & Setten, G. (Eds.) 2013. Hus, hjem og sted. Geografiske perspektiver på vår samtid [House,
home and place. Geographical perspectives on current times]. Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Cohen, O., Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Goldberg, A. & Aharonson-Daniel, L. 2013. The conjoint community
resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for
emergencies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80(9): 1732-1741.
Cutter, S.L., C.G. Burton & C.T. Emrich. 2010. Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking
Baseline Conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7 (1): 1-22.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L. Berry, M. Burton, C.G., Evans, E., Tate, E. & Webb, J. 2008. A Place-Based
Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters. Global Environmental
Change 18: 598-606.
Frazier, T.G., Thompson, C.M., Dezzani, R.J. & Butsick, D. 2013. Spatial and Temporal Quantification
of Resilience at the Community Scale. Applied Geography 42: 95-107.
Holand, I. S. & Lujala, P. 2013. Replicating and Adapting an Index of Social Vulnerability to a New
Context: A Comparison Study for Norway. Professional Geographer 65(2): 312-328.
Holand, I. S., Lujala, P. & Rød, J.K. 2011. Social Vulnerability Assessment for Norway: A Quantitative
Approach.
Norsk
Geografisk
Tidsskrift–Norwegian
Journal
of
Geography
65(1): 1–17.
Kulig, J.C., Edge, D.S. Townshend, I. Lightfoot, N. & Reimer, W. 2013. Community Resiliency:
Emerging Theoretical Insights. Journal of Community Psychology 41(6): 758-75.
Lujala, P., Lein, H. & Rød, J.K. 2014. Climate Change, Natural Hazards, and Risk Perception: The Role
of Proximity and Personal Experience. Conditional accept, Local Environment.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.887666
National Academies, T.N. 2012. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington D.C:
Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy.
Norris, F.H., Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF & Pfefferbaum RL. 2008. Community Resilience as
a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Am J Community
Psychology 41: 127-150.
Rød, J.K., I. Berthling, H. Lein, P. Lujala, G. Vatne & L.M. Bye. 2012. Integrated Vulnerability Mapping
for Wards in Mid-Norway. Local Environment 17 (6-7): 695-716.
Sherrieb, K., F. Norris, and S. Galea. 2010. Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience. Social
Indicators Research 99 (2): 227-47.
St.meld. nr. 33 (2012-2013) Klimatilpasning i Norge [Climate adaptation in Norway]. Oslo:
Miljøverndepartementet.
UNISDR. 2009. Unisdr Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
4