1. Disasters and Community Resilience: Urban Lessons from “Peripheral” Wildfire Communities Ivan Townshend, University of Lethbridge Judith Kulig, University of Lethbridge Bill Reimer, Concordia University Dana Edge, Queen’s University Nancy Lightfoot, Laurentian University Ruralwildfire.ca IGU Urban Commission August 2011 Canterbury, UK

2. Background Natural hazards widespread and increasing in number and intensity Blizzards Earthquakes Floods Hail Icebergs, sea ice and fog Landslides and snow avalanches Tornadoes Tsunamis and storm surges Volcanic eruptions Forest Fire etc.

3. Background Wildfire disasters increasing in number and intensity (Walter 2004) Fire disasters linked to: – Climate change – Insect infestation (e.g. pine beetle) – Human habitat (e.g. residential development in wildland-urban interface zones, urban periphery, etc.)

4. Background Impact of Wildfires in Canada: – From 1995 – 2005 over 700,000 people and over 250 communities have been threatened by wildfires (Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2005) – Urban and Rural impacts 11,231 fires in LFDB 1959-1999

5. Background Recent Events in Alberta: – Slave Lake Fire (2011): Over 40% of the town destroyed Evacuation Confusion, anger, despair, etc.

6. Background Significant Human Impacts: – Health issues Physical health Mental health Community health Significant Monetary and Social Costs: – E.g. $9-12 million cost of health impacts due to poor air quality related to major wildfires) (Rittmaster, Adamowicz, Amiro & Pelletier, 2006) – Social disruption, stress, community viability, loss of livelihoods, etc.

7. Key Geographical Issues Variability in disaster impacts Variability in physical / mental health & well being Variability in coping strategies Variability in community capacity to deal with the issues Variability in ability to rebuild, move forward, etc. “Geographies” of Resiliency – How do we better understand this link between disasters (e.g. Wildfires, Tsunami, Flood, Riots) and RESILIENCY

8. Linking Resiliency & Disasters Disaster & insurance agencies use resiliency as a framework to help re-build communities Canadian & US governments using resiliency as policy frameworks (especially post-Katrina / post-911) Resiliency as a Social Process and a Community Process Mallard Fire, 1999

9. On the Question of Resiliency What is resiliency? How can we measure perceptions of resiliency? How does perceived resiliency differ within and between communities? How is resiliency linked to health, community engagement, etc? How can we better understand the social / community dynamics that explain or promote resiliency, or perceived resiliency? What are the links with PSOC / Cohesion etc.

10. Resiliency and Cohesion Numerous studies and conceptual frameworks draw attention to resiliency-cohesion linkages (or some features of each). Still inconsistencies in definitions / measurements etc. – E.g. resiliency or specialized features of resiliency (e.g. engagement) – Cohesion vs SOC etc. (sometimes conflated) Few have captured the “social” or “community” basis of resiliency. But there is progress in this area…

11. Figure 1. Updated Community Resiliency Model Kulig et al (2007) Resiliency as a Social Process

12. The 2003 McLure Fire, Mallard Fire, 1999, La Ronge Saskatchewan 3 yr SSHRC project: Resiliency in Rural Settlements that have experienced Wildfires: Implications for Disaster Management and Mitigation McLure Fire, Barriere BC, 2003 Our Study Builds Upon these Ideas

13. Study Communities Barriere, BC Pop approx 7000 in valley (McLure Fire 2003) >3800 evacuated HHLD survey n=202 La Ronge, SK Pop approx 6000 (Mallard Fire 1999) >1000 evacuated HHLD survey n=111 Controls: Coaldale and RMH HHLD survey n=188

14. Mixed Methods Study Qualitative Interviews (n = 57) Community Profiles Household Survey (over 200 items, evacuation info, resources used, health, community, social capital, cohesion, resilience etc. ) Sampling strategy: Electronic phone book Geocoding by P Codes GIS overlays 1km x 1 km n = 313 in participating communities n = 145 in control communities McLure Fire, BC

15. Measuring Perceived Resilience Develop an index based on existing conceptual / theoretical / empirical work. Index should include different facets of resilience, etc. + other approaches

16. Original 15 Item Perceived Resiliency Scale Scale = 15 - 75

17. Original Scale (15 items)

18. Modified Perceived Resiliency Scale (11 Items) “Health” items Removed Modified following external review of item validity Scale = 11 - 55

19. Modified “Perceived Resiliency” Scale (11 Items) Scale Analysis Scale = 11 - 55 n=492, (Barriere, La Ronge, Control)

20. Structure (Subscales) of the Index of Perceived Community Resiliency 24.2%20.9%12.8%(58%) 1. Leadership and Empowerment 1. Leadership and Empowerment 2. Community Engagement 2. Community Engagement 3. Non-Adverse Geography 3. Non-Adverse Geography Min communality = 0.4 Peripherality?

21. Measuring Cohesion Buckner’s Index of Cohesion Robust 18-item index (5 point Likert scale). Replicated in a number of studies (e.g. Wilkinson 2007, Townshend 2002, etc). Includes multiple facets of cohesion (e.g. Neighboring, PSOC, Attachment, etc.) Useful measure of cohesion as a socio-spatial concept.

22. Buckner’s 18 Item Cohesion Index 1. PSOC 2. Nhood Attraction 3. Neighboring Structure (subscales) of Cohesion. (Buckner 1988, Wilkinson 2007 etc.)

23. Empirical Structure (subscales) of Cohesion from our Study 1. PSOC 2. Nhood Attraction 3. Neighboring 23.8%18.5%14.5%(57%) Structure very similar to Buckner 1998, Wilkinson 2007 etc.

24. Perceived Resilience and Cohesion amongst Individuals 1. Leadership and Empowerment 2. Community Engagement 3. Non-Adverse Geography IPCR Cohesion 1. PSOC 2. Nhood Attraction 3. Neighboring ? linkages

25. Significant Correlation Bonds 1. Leadership and Empowerment 2. Community Engagement 3. Non-Adverse Geography IPCR Cohesion 1. PSOC 2. Nhood Attraction 3. Neighboring.50.23.17.50.13.46.24.13.15.14.11.12 Pearson’s r, p<0.05, n=476

26. Dominant Path 1. Leadership and Empowerment 2. Community Engagement 3. Non-Adverse Geography IPCR Cohesion 1. PSOC 2. Nhood Attraction 3. Neighboring

27. Implications Perceived Resilience and Cohesion are both multidimensional constructs It may NOT be necessary to deal with this type of complexity when studying community resilience (cf. Cutter’s SOVI index etc.) Selected subscales of perceived resilience and cohesion can be isolated (simpler explanatory framework, simpler survey design etc.)

28. Going Beyond Resilience and Cohesion E.g. Health & Well Being

29. Going Beyond Resilience and Cohesion E.g. Behavior, Cognition, Affect, Social Capital, etc.

30. What Enhances Resiliency? Positive, proactive attitude Leadership Volunteerism Sense of belonging, PSOC, etc. Affective traits are key. What Hinders it? Lack of personal resources i.e., money Lack of leadership Lack of opportunity to debrief as a community Other Findings from this study…

31. Research & Policy Challenges Ahead Are there “universal” drivers of resiliency? – Policies to enhance or promote resiliency. Mechanisms for identifying “community-specific” drivers of resiliency. – Equipping communities to identify these and develop local initiatives to promote these Understanding of how resiliency varies through space and time (Geographies of resilience). Policies that connect the appropriate linkages…e.g. PSOC > Engagement > Resiliency How does perceived resilience translate into actual resilience? Problems of governance and coordination from afar, etc.

32. Urban Lessons to be Learned from the “periphery” Community (rural or urban) matters for resilience – (e.g. PSOC > Engagement > Resilience) Urban neighbourhoods and communities also vulnerable to disasters / evacuation, etc. – Social processes are key to resilience / recovery – “Local” knowledge / involvement is paramount We need “intra-urban” studies of resiliency potential

33. Sharing our Findings… Technical reports on the household survey Lessons Learned Booklets Digital Stories on youtube.com: search for McLure Wildfire Ruralwildfire.ca 1:3:25 Report

34. Additional work… Morris, MB – (Spring 2011 flood evacuation alert). Slave Lake, AB – Special emphasis on social processes of resilience amongst children – ACCFCR (Alberta Centre for Child, Family, and Community Research) + AET (Alberta Gov)

36. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Community members Research assistants Community advisory board members Research advisory members Provincial agencies (SRD and Ministry of Forests) Acknowledgements

37. Questions?