Community resilience: A detailed look at how two different neighbourhoods cope with and recover from the July 2021 flood event

Abstract

Sudden extreme weather-related disasters like the 2021 floods prove to be primarily social disasters and challenge neighbourly communities. For a long time, planners and politicians responded to such disasters by strengthening physical and technical infrastructure for hazard prevention (Aldrich and Meyer 2014). With the recognition that future extreme weather-related disasters cannot be avoided or be managed solely by technical solutions (Voss 2008), the community resilience of neighbourhoods has become more important.

Vulnerabilities and resilience are unequally distributed. Certain neighbourhoods can be more vulnerable and resilient than others. Collective vulnerability results from socio-ecological inequalities and exacerbates the impact of disaster events (Cutter et al. 2008). Accordingly, questions arise as to how different neighbourhoods cope with and recover from sudden disaster events, what resilience capacities these neighbourhoods have, and how community resilience can be promoted through urban planning.

The study presented uses two case studies (i.e. affected neighbourhoods in the city of Hagen, Germany) to examine how two different urban neighbourhoods cope with and recover from the July 2021 flood event. The research focus of this study is on the internal characteristics of these urban neighbourhoods and their influence on community resilience and collective vulnerability. Particular attention is paid to the influences of the type and distribution of social capital as well as the type and extent of place attachment on community resilience. For this purpose, the study employed a mixed methods approach, including forms of semi-structured and standardised surveys, statistical analysis, and participatory methods such as participatory mapping and a social network analysis.

The study shows that the two case study neighbourhoods, which differ significantly in their social structure, cope with and recover from the flood in very different ways. The results reveal significant differences in the dynamics and approaches to coping and recovery within the neighbourhoods, but especially between them. The presentation provides information on which socio-spatial factors are decisive for the different ways of coping and recovering. For example, neighbourhood networks interact with local social infrastructures to play various roles and have varying relevance for different population groups.

Aldrich, D. P., and M. A. Meyer. 2014. “Social Capital and Community Resilience.” Am Behav Sci 59 (2): 254–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299.

Cutter, S. L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. G. Burton, and J. Webb. 2008. “A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters.” Glob Environ Change 18 (4): 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013.

Voss, M. 2008. “The Vulnerable Can′t Speak. An Integrative Vulnerability Approach to Disaster and Climate Change Research.” Behemoth 1 (3). https://doi.org/10.1524/behe.2008.0022.