Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Document Type
- Postprint (5) (remove)
Language
- English (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Keywords
- resilience (5) (remove)
This article examines public service resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic and studies the switch to telework due to social distancing measures. We argue that the pandemic and related policies led to increasing demands on public organisations and their employees. Following the job demands-resources model, we argue that resilience only can arise in the presence of resources for buffering these demands. Survey data were collected from 1,189 German public employees, 380 participants were included for analysis. The results suggest that the public service was resilient against the crisis and that the shift to telework was not as demanding as expected.
Extreme weather resilience has been defined as being based on three pillars: resistance (the ability to lower impacts), recovery (the ability to bounce back), and adaptive capacity (the ability to learn and improve). These resilience pillars are important both before and after the occurrence of extreme weather events. Extreme weather insurance can influence these pillars of resilience depending on how particular insurance mechanisms are structured. We explore how the lessons learnt from the current best insurance practices can improve resilience to extreme weather events. We employ an extensive inventory of private property and agricultural crop insurance mechanisms to conduct a multi-criteria analysis of insurance market outcomes. We draw conclusions regarding the patterns in the best practice from six European countries to increase resilience. We suggest that requirements to buy a bundle extreme weather event insurance with general insurance packages are strengthened and supported with structures to financing losses through public-private partnerships. Moreover, support for low income households through income vouchers could be provided. Similarly, for the agricultural sector we propose moving towards comprehensive crop yield insurance linked to general agricultural subsidies. In both cases a nationally representative body can coordinate the various stakeholders into acting in concert.
The intangible impacts of floods on welfare are not well investigated, even though they are important aspects of welfare. Moreover, flooding has gender based impacts on welfare. These differing impacts create a gender based flood risk resilience gap. We study the intangible impacts of flood risk on the subjective well-being of residents in central Vietnam. The measurement of intangible impacts through subjective well-being is a growing field within flood risk research. We find an initial drop in welfare through subjective well-being across genders when a flood is experienced. Male respondents tended to recover their welfare losses by around 80% within 5 years while female respondents were associated with a welfare recovery of around 70%. A monetization of the impacts floods have on an individual’s subjective well-being shows that for the average female respondent, between 41% to 86% of annual income would be required to compensate subjective well-being losses after 5 years of experiencing a flood. The corresponding value for males is 30% to 57% of annual income. This shows that the intangible impacts of flood risk are important (across genders) and need to be integrated into flood (or climate) risk assessments to develop more socially appropriate risk management strategies.
Social inequalities lead to flood resilience inequalities across social groups, a topic that requires improved documentation and understanding. The objective of this paper is to attend to these differences by investigating self-stated flood recovery across genders in Vietnam as a conceptual replication of earlier results from Germany. This study employs a regression-based analysis of 1,010 respondents divided between a rural coastal and an urban community in Thua Thien-Hue province. The results highlight an important set of recovery process-related variables. The set of relevant variables is similar across genders in terms of inclusion and influence, and includes age, social capital, internal and external support after a flood, perceived severity of previous flood impacts, and the perception of stress-resilience. However, women were affected more heavily by flooding in terms of longer recovery times, which should be accounted for in risk management. Overall, the studied variables perform similarly in Vietnam and Germany. This study, therefore, conceptually replicates previous results suggesting that women display slightly slower recovery levels as well as that psychological variables influence recovery rates more than adverse flood impacts. This provides an indication of the results' potentially robust nature due to the different socio-environmental contexts in Germany and Vietnam.
Resilience trinity
(2020)
Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.