2013-11-30
Participatory assessment workshops in the case study areas Documentation of the second stakeholder workshop Deliverable 6.4
Authors A. Nuray Karanci
Middle East Technical University
Gözde İkizer
Middle East Technical University
Canay Doğulu
Middle East Technical University
Sebastian Jülich
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Sylvia Kruse
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
i
Contract Number: 283201 Project Acronym: emBRACE Title: Building Resilience Amongst Communities in Europe
Deliverable N°: D6.3 Due date: 30st November 2013 Delivery date: 2013
Short Description: This report is the documentation of the second participatory assessment workshop in the case study area Van, Turkey.
Lead Beneficiary: WSL Partner/s contributed: METU Made available to: EU; Partners; Workshop Participants, Public
Version Control Version 0.1 0.2 0.3
Date
Name, Affiliation
Acknowledgements Funding for this report was made available by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme – Grant Agreement No 283201.emBRACE
Contact:
Technical Coordination (Administration) Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Institute of Health and Society Université catholique de Louvain 30 Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs, Bte 30.15 1200 Brussels Belgium T: +32-2-764.33.27 E:
[email protected] W: www.cred.be
Technical Coordination (Science) School of the Built and Natural Environment, University of Northumbria Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK T: + 44 (0)191 232 6002 E:
[email protected] W: www.northumbria.ac.uk
Information given in this emBRACE Working Paper Series reflects the authors’ views only. The Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
i
About emBRACE The primary aim of the emBRACE project is to build resilience to disasters amongst communities in Europe. To achieve this, it is vital to merge research knowledge, networking and practices as a prerequisite for more coherent scientific approaches. This we will do in the most collaborative way possible.
Specific Objectives Identify the key dimensions of resilience across a range of disciplines and domains Develop indicators and indicator systems to measure resilience concerning natural disaster events Model societal resilience through simulation experiments Provide a general conceptual framework of resilience, tested and grounded in cross-cultural contexts Build networks and share knowledge across a range of stakeholders Tailor communication products and project outputs and outcomes effectively to multiple collaborators, stakeholders and user groups
The emBRACE Methodology The emBRACE project is methodologically rich and draws on partner expertise across the research methods spectrum. It will apply these methods across scales from the very local to the European. emBRACE is structured around 9 Work Packages. WP1 will be a systematic evaluation of literature on resilience in the context of natural hazards and disasters. WP2 will develop a conceptual framework. WP3 comprises a disaster data review and needs assessment. WP4 will model societal resilience. WP5 will contextualise resilience using a series of Case studies (floods, heat waves, earthquakes and alpine hazards) across Europe (Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey and UK). WP6 will refine the framework: bridging theory, methods and practice. WP7 will exchange knowledge amongst a range of stakeholders. WP8 Policy and practice communication outputs to improve resilience-building in European societies. ii
Partners
Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) - Belgium University of Northumbria at Newcastle (UoN) - UK King’s College London (KCL) - UK United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU), Bonn Accademia Europea per la Ricerca Applicata ed il Per-fezionamento Professionale Bolzano (EURAC) - Italy Helmholtz-Zentrum Fuer Umweltforschung GMBH - UFZ (UFZ) Germany University of York (SEI-Y) - UK Stockholm Environment Institute - Oxford Office Limited (SEI-O) - UK Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL (WSL) - Switzerland Middle East Technical University - Ankara (METU) - Turkey
iii
1.
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 5
2.
1.1
AIM OF ASSESSMENT WORKSHOPS IN GENERAL .................................................. 5
1.2
AIM OF SECOND ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP IN VAN, TURKEY ................................ 5
1.3
SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY VAN ................................................ 5
1.4
SUMMARY OF THE PREVIOUS WORK IN THE CASE STUDY VAN .............................. 7 WORKSHOP CONCEPT..................................................................................... 8
2.1 PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................ 8 2.2 METHODS USED IN WORKSHOP ............................................................................. 10 3.
WORKSHOP RESULTS ................................................................................... 21 3.1 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE INDICATORS ........................... 21 3.2 DISCUSSION OF APPROPRIATE DESIGN OF A COMMUNITY RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT FOR VAN
4.
.................................................................................................................... 29
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FINAL WORKSHOP AND
REVISION OF THE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 31 4.1 REFLECTION OF THE WORKSHOP CONCEPT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THIRD PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP .................................................................. 31
4.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REVISION OF THE EMBRACE FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE ................................................................................................................ 32
5.
SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX 1: ABSTRACT FOR THE WORKSHOP SESSION EMBEDDED IN THE 2013 INTERNATIONAL VAN EARTHQUAKE SYMPOSIUM ......................................................... 40 APPENDIX 2: INFORMED CONSENT FORM (IN TURKISH) ................................................ 42 APPENDIX 3: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION (IN TURKISH) ......................................... 43 APPENDIX 4: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WORKSHOP........................................................ 44 APPENDIX 5: W EB LINKS TO NEWS ARTICLES IN LOCAL AND NATIONAL PRESS .............. 46 APPENDIX 6: CITED LITERATURE ................................................................................. 47
iv
1. Introduction 1.1 Aim of assessment workshops in general The aim for the participatory assessment workshops in all three emBRACE case studies (Turkey, Eastern Germany, Cumbria Case Study) is twofold: first, to collect, validate and assess the local appropriateness and relevance of different dimensions and indicators for resilience; and second, to assess factors for successful implementation of resilience assessments in the case study context (e.g. responsibilities, actors to be involved, financial resources, political support). There are two main expected outcomes of the participatory assessment workshops: first, the participatory workshops will be a chance to discuss together with local/regional stakeholders how resilience can be assessed and thus serve both as a starting point for further development of indicators as well as a possibility to present and revalidate first results of the case study work together with the stakeholders. Second, the workshops will provide material for WP6 “Refinement of the emBRACE framework for community resilience” by specifying how a resilience assessment could look like from the perspective of different stakeholder groups.
1.2 Aim of second assessment workshop in Van, Turkey The second assessment workshop in the emBRACE project was organized in Van, one of the case sites in Turkey, towards the later phases of the Van case study. Therefore, before the workshop, considerable qualitative and quantitative data were collected from this site. Of particular relevance, a series of in-depth interviews and focus groups with various stakeholders in the case study site had been conducted and results were evaluated through qualitative analyses. Therefore, the specific aims for this workshop were to discuss, to get feedback, and to complement the interim results on possible community resilience indicators with stakeholders, and to validate and clarify the obtained results. Moreover, the workshop provided an opportunity to focus on factors for successful implementation of resilience assessments in the case study context.
1.3 Short introduction to the case study Van Van is situated in the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey (Figure 1) and is the sixth big city in Turkey. It has its borders with the cities of Agri, Bitlis, Siirt, and Hakkari 5
along with the Republic of Iran. The largest lake of Turkey (Van Lake) is located in the city borders.
Figure 1: Map of Turkey (Van is circled in red) (USGS, 2013)
Van is among the least developed cities in Turkey based on the 2009 definition of Human Development Index (HDI) and the data from State Planning Organization (now Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development) (Baday Yıldız, Sivri, & Berber, 2010; Dincer, Ozaslan, & Kavasoglu, 2003). Despite the low population density and high rates of out-migration, the population increased substantially in the last forty years (TUIK, 2011, 2012). The economy of Van is essentially based on agriculture and animal husbandry; among the other sources of economy are trade (especially border trade), tourism, and industry (TUIK, 2010). The city is among the top three cities with high unemployment rates (17.2%; national average: 11.9%) (TUIK, 2011). Approximately 16% of Van’s current population consists of residents of vulnerable age groups (young children: 12.8%; older adults 3.2%) (TUIK, 2012). More than half of the population in Van has educational attainment below high school (61%) (TUIK, 2011). The city is located on complex faults and prone to the effects of earthquakes. The surface area of Van lies within first- or second-degree earthquake zones. Historically, Van has experienced many earthquakes resulting in approximately 5000 deaths (USGS, 2013). The latest destructive earthquakes in Van took place on October 23 and November 9, 2011. More than 600 people were killed and around 250 people were
injured.
The
earthquakes
had 6
also
significant
impacts
on
roads,
telecommunications, electricity, natural gas system, and water services. The earthquakes caused an estimated economic loss around 1 billion to 4 billion Turkish Liras, representing 17 to 66% of Van’s total provincial gross domestic product. 12.5% of the buildings in Van were damaged beyond repair and 10.6% of them were slightly damaged and repairable (KOERI, 2011).
1.4 Summary of the previous work in the case study Van The case study in Van, Turkey aims to examine perceptions of indicators for community resilience. Specifically, the main focus in this case study is to examine how psychological and social aspects of resilience are perceived amongst the community members. The case study investigates perceptions of individuals in the community about indicators of community resilience and also their evaluations of the stakeholders about the actions and processes ranging from the acute immediate post-earthquake phase to the reconstruction phase that took place in the aftermath of the Van earthquakes. Another focus is on the social learning processes; studying how contextual changes and experience of previous devastating earthquakes, i.e. the 1999 Marmara earthquake and its aftermaths, influenced the consequences of Van earthquakes is also included in the scope of the case study in Van. The previous work in the case study involved both qualitative and quantitative studies. These studies included the following methods: -
In-depth interviews with earthquake survivors o
Semi-structured interviews with 51 earthquake survivors living in container cities (September 2012)
o
Semi-structured interviews with 20 earthquake survivors having different levels of exposure and different occupations along with members of different vulnerable groups (April-June 2013)
-
A quantitative survey with 360 earthquake survivors (June-July 2013)
-
Four focus groups with 18 members of various organizations/institutions (April-June 2013)
The workshop was primarily based on results from the in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted between April and June, 2013 and acted as a means to receive feedback from the participants about identified indicators and to further refine them.
7
2. Workshop concept The workshop was embedded in the 2013 International Van Earthquake Symposium held on October 23-27, 2013 at the Rescate Hotel in Van, Turkey. The major aim of the symposium was to bring together the scientists from various disciplines working in earthquake-related fields and having conducted earthquake-related scientific studies, hence, to enable information exchange between scientists on studies that investigate how the risks caused by the earthquakes along with social, economic, medical and psychological effects of earthquakes can be mitigated. Further, the symposium aimed to recreate earthquake related awareness and share such awareness with the people and local authorities. During the symposium, there were parallel sessions including scientific presentations in the fields of earth sciences, engineering, architecture, social sciences, and medicine. The workshop was included in the scientific programme as a closed-session of social sciences on October 24, 2013 (Thursday) between 13:30 and 16:30 (see Appendix 1 for the abstract of the workshop session). The language of the workshop was Turkish. The workshop was conducted in a conference hall at the hotel, “Sala Objeto”, which has an area of 108 m2 with a ceiling height of 5.60 meters and can host a maximum of 90 people in meeting table set-up. The symposium secretariat sponsored and provided the venue for the workshop, all technical equipment, and materials (e.g., flipcharts) as well as pens, notebooks, and water for the participants. The secretariat also provided hot beverages and a variety of cookies and pastries during the coffee break. The METU team offered the participants promotional pens, notebooks, and key chains customized with the METU logo.
2.1 Participants Participants were invited to the workshop by the collaborating partners of METU team from the Van Yuzuncu Yil University from the list of people who took part in focus groups and in-depth interviews in Van. Representatives of other relevant institutions and organizations were also invited. In total, 19 out of 45 invited people attended the workshop. Table 1 presents a list of all participants in the workshop. One participant (P3) left the workshop following the first exercise in the first session due to some family emergency and did not participate in the second session.
8
Table 1: Participants Participants
Affiliation / Role
Involvement in previous case study work in Van
P1
Van Metropolitan Municipality
FG*
P2
Provincial Directorate of Disaster and Emergency Management
FG*
P3
Provincial Directorate of Disaster and Emergency Management
FG*
P4
Provincial Directorate of Public Health (Sociologist)
FG
P5
Provincial Directorate of Public Health
-
P6
Yuzuncu Yil University Medical School Hospital (Social worker)
I
P7
Eastern Anatolia Development Agency (DAKA)
FG*
P8
Eastern Anatolia Development Agency (DAKA)
FG*
P9
NGO representative (Turkish Red Crescent – Van Branch)
FG*
P10
NGO representative (The Association for Supporting Contemporary Life, CYDD)
FG
P11
NGO representative (Oze Donus Platform)
-
P12
NGO representative (İnsan-Der)
FG*
P13
NGO representative (Mercy Hand Food Bank Association)
FG*
P14
NGO representative (Mercy Hand Food Bank Association)
FG*
P15
Community member / Local press
I
P16
Van Yuzuncu Yil University
-
P17
Van Yuzuncu Yil University
-
P18
Community member (Teacher)
I
P19
Community member (Low damage, 40+ male)
I
Research team
Affiliation
Identifier
Nuray Karanci
METU
NK
Gozde Ikizer
METU
GI
Canay Dogulu
METU
CD
Sebastian Jülich
WSL
SJ
Suvat Parin
Yuzuncu Yil University
SP
Note: FG = Focus Groups, I = Interviews. * The institution/organization was represented by another member in focus groups.
9
2.2 Methods used in workshop The workshop was organized as an afternoon event during the symposium. Although the planned duration was three hours, it lasted four hours. The workshop was structured in two subsequent sessions. Below, each session is described in detail. An overview of the workshop schedule and methods used is presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Schedule of the workshop and methods used When
What
Methods 1st session Welcome by NK
13:40 14:05
Welcome and introduction
Introduction of the research team Introductory presentations by SJ and NK on the workshop concept Exercise: Identification of the indicators of community resilience
14:05 15:00
Step 1: Characterization of community resilience
Instruction: Place each of the five stickers to the indicators you would identify as the most important. If you believe that a particular one is very important you are free to place more than one sticker.
Presentation of the results by the research team to the participants Group exercise: Collecting characteristics for the identified indicators 15:00 15:55
Step 2: Evaluating indicators
Instruction: Discuss in your group how to define characteristics of the identified indicators and write them down.
Presentation of the group results by group representatives (NK, CD, GI) and a short wrap-up discussion on collected characteristics 15:55 16:15
Coffee break and buffet 2nd session Discussion on the local-appropriate design of a community resilience assessment in the case study context
Step 3: 16:15 17:00
Design of a community resilience assessment
Instruction: Imagine we have a very good set of indicators for assessing community resilience in Van and then discuss the following questions: - Who is/are responsible for conducting a community resilience assessment? Who needs to take part in a community resilience assessment? - What is the goal of a community resilience assessment at what scale? - Which methods can be used in a community resilience assessment? - What resources are needed and available for a community resilience assessment? - What is a possible outcome/product of a community resilience assessment, how should it be presented and put into practice?
Wrap-up of the workshop by NK 17:00 17:30
End of the workshop
Presentation of certificates of appreciation Group photographs
10
1st session Welcome and introductions The first session started with a welcoming speech by NK who acted as the main facilitator. Upon introducing herself and members of the research team, NK expressed her gratitude and thanked all the participants for their previous contributions in focus groups and in-depth interviews as well as for their attendance in the workshop. NK also thanked SP for his effort in organizing the workshop as a session during the symposium and inviting people who previously participated in focus groups and in-depth interviews to the workshop. Then, NK proceeded with the informed consent form which was delivered to the participants by GI and CD (see Appendix 2). Particularly, participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity and they were required to read and sign the written form for participation. NK specifically asked for participants’ permission for audio recording and photographing of the workshop. They were informed that they would leave the workshop any time if they felt uncomfortable. Furthermore, they were given contact information so as to give them the opportunity to learn about the results. SP asked the participants and the research team if undergraduate and graduate students from the Department of Sociology of Van Yuzuncu Yil University attending the symposium could observe the workshop session. The group agreed and around thirty students observed the session behind the U-shaped table for the participants. Later, NK invited SJ for his ten-minute introductory presentation. SJ first offered a global view on the relevance of earthquakes in Turkey by referring to the number of casualties from the CRED database. SJ also provided an overview of the project (objectives, partners, case studies) to lead to the local level. Hence, after starting from a global point of view, SJ closed by stressing out the importance of indicators for earthquake resilience on the local level. This presentation aimed to act as a bridge to the presentation by NK and to the aims of the workshop. During the presentation, all the English text on the slides was presented with the Turkish translation below. In addition, GI translated and described each slide to the participants in Turkish before SJ proceeded to the next slide. Following the presentation by SJ, NK did a ten-minute presentation. NK provided information on what has been done so far in the case study Van (e.g., focus groups, interviews) and emphasized the importance of the collaboration between METU and Van Yuzuncu Yil University. NK briefly elaborated on the resilience framework and 11
stressed out the aims for the workshop, namely, (1) to share the findings of the previous work done in Van as part of the emBRACE project, (2) to receive feedback from the stakeholders on the identified indicators, (3) to get their help in identifying the most important indicators (4) to get their views on the defining characteristics of the most important indicators and (5) to collect thoughts and ideas about evaluation and implementation of community resilience indicators. Then, based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA; DFID, 1999), NK presented the identified indicators from the findings of the previous work in Van (in-depth interviews and focus groups) (Table 3). NK orally went through the list of 29 community resilience indicators in order to warm up the participants with the workshop concept.
Table 3: List of community resilience indicators obtained from in-depth interviews and focus groups (grouping based on SLA) Human
Physical
Social
Political
Natural
Financial
Awareness of EQ risk / EQ education
EQ-resistant buildings
Social solidarity
Socio-politic context: peace and equality
Climate conditions
Economic resources
Psychological health
Transportation facilities
Earthquake preparedness
Effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services
Investments/ Credit facilities
Appropriate city plans
Being a civic society (e.g., NGOs)
Effective disaster management system (long-term planning)
Tourism potential
Fatalism
Community in which members are content with available resources
Provision of permanent housing
Job opportunities/ Employment
Optimism
Moral and cultural traditional values
Collaboration between institutions
Religious faith
Society of mutual trust
Healthy information dissemination
Physical resistance/ strength
Society resistant to hardships
Perceived psychological support
Education/ Knowledge skills Note. The indicators that received high importance rating in the ranking exercise are written in bold.
12
Step 1: Defining community resilience A ten-minute exercise was conducted to evaluate the community resilience indicators which were identified in the in-depth interviews and focus groups with stakeholders in Van. This exercise aimed to answer the following questions: -
Are there further indications to complement the set of indicators presented?
-
Which indicators are the most important ones?
For this exercise, two piles of adhesive cards with names of the indicators on it were used (Figure 2). The 29 orange-colored cards were randomly attached to two cardboards. Each participant was provided five colorful, adhesive stickers and asked to stand up and place their stickers on the cardboard next to the indicators which they consider as the most important ones. The participants were able to place their stickers next to different cards or on the same card depending on perceived importance of each indicator. Five empty cards were also provided so that the participants can add indicators which they believed were left out. This procedure of prioritizing indicators by placing stickers was chosen to ensure that the four women among the workshop participants can participate equally. Once all the participants finished placing their stickers (Figure 3), the research team collected and structured the material, counting the number of stickers for each card and writing the count on the respective card using another pile (red-colored). These cards were then placed on another cardboard with 70 cm width and 100 cm height which had three nested circles printed on it. For demonstration purposes, indicators with the highest number of stickers were placed in the inner circle, ones with moderate number of stickers were placed in the middle circle, and those with relatively lower number of stickers were placed in the outer circle (Figure 4).
Figure 2: Three piles of adhesive cards for indicators
13
Figure 3: Exercise with cards and stickers
14
Figure 4: Demonstration of the results after the exercise
15
Step 2: Evaluating indicators The second step in the workshop aimed to evaluate the indicators identified in the first step. In order to evaluate indicators, a group exercise was conducted. The indicators collected in the first step were grouped into three based on their relevance with each other. A third pile of cards (yellow-colored) and three flipcharts were used for this exercise. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups1 so that those with similar backgrounds or those representing the same institutions do not work in the same group. Before the exercise, the main facilitator provided an example in order to enable the participants to better understand the exercise they would be engaging in. The example was about an imaginary indicator, politeness. NK asked the participants to think about what would be the defining characteristics of politeness and how we could describe it. She referred to three characteristics that could be used to define politeness, namely, “not to interrupt when someone is speaking”, “to hold the door when someone is approaching”, and “to thank when given something”. Then, NK explained that the group exercise would be similar in the sense that each group would try to work on their assigned indicators in the same way. NK, GI, and CD acted as facilitators for the three groups. The group facilitators acted as moderators to structure and initiate the discussion. They repeatedly asked the following questions to group members: -
Which characteristics would define this indicator?
-
How can we best describe this indicator?
-
How can we understand if there is [indicator name] in a given situation?
Based on the group preference, the group facilitator or a group member wrote the answers/ideas on the flipchart. Enabling all participants to bring their own ideas and perspectives was a major goal. Therefore, contradicting views were also of interest and there was no need to reach consensus. All characteristics mentioned by the participants were written down (Figures 5, 6, and 7). Upon completion of group work, results for each group were summarized by the group facilitators.
1
The participants were asked to count/identify themselves with numbers 1, 2 or 3 in a consecutive
manner. Those who counted 1 were included in the first group, those who counted 2 were included in the second group, and those who counted 3 were included in the third group.
16
Figure 5: Collection of characteristics for identified indicators (Group 1)
17
Figure 6: Collection of characteristics for identified indicators (Group 2)
18
Figure 7: Collection of characteristics for identified indicators (Group 3)
19
2nd session Step 3: Design of a community resilience assessment The second session of the workshop started following the coffee break. In this session, the main focus was on the third step, i.e., designing a community resilience assessment. NK started the round-table discussion by asking the participants to imagine that we have a very good set of indicators at hand for assessing community resilience in Van. This session was not strictly led by the facilitator; rather it was open to all thoughts and ideas of the participants and also to interactions between the participants. The questions directed at the participants during the round-table discussion were as follows: -
Who is responsible for conducting a community resilience assessment? Who needs to take part in a community resilience assessment?
-
What is the goal of a community resilience assessment and at what scale?
-
Which methods can be used in a community resilience assessment?
-
What resources are available and what resources are needed for a community resilience assessment?
-
What is a possible outcome/product of a community resilience assessment, how should it be presented and put into practice?
These questions were also projected onto the screen during the discussion to facilitate the process. End of the workshop Following the discussion on design of a community resilience assessment, NK wrapped up the workshop by summarizing the main results and important points. She also asked for feedback from the participants about the content and organization of the workshop. Next, SJ delivered the certificates of appreciation (see Appendix 3) to the participants. The certificate of appreciation thanked participants for their attendance and valuable contribution to the workshop conducted as the part of the emBRACE project. In the end, several group photographs were taken with the consent of the participants. After the participants left the meeting room, two news agencies (one local and one national) interviewed NK about community resilience, the emBRACE project, and the workshop. The interview has been published in both local and national printed and online news sources (see Appendix 5 for the links to web pages).
20
3. Workshop results 3.1 Discussion of possible community resilience indicators The pattern of the relative importance of the indicators as revealed by the ranking exercise can be seen in Figure 8. Among the 29 community resilience indicators identified in the in-depth interviews and focus groups, the following 8 were the ones with the highest number of stickers: earthquake-resistant buildings, appropriate city plans, effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services, socio-politic context: peace and equality, awareness of earthquake risk/earthquake education, effective disaster management system (long-term planning), religious faith, and being a civic society (e.g., NGOs). These eight indicators were selected by the participants as being highly important for community resilience. The indicator that had the highest perceived importance rating was earthquakeresistant buildings as there were 15 stickers placed on it. Considering that there were 19 participants with each having 5 stickers, it can be said that there was relative consensus on the perceived importance of earthquake-resistant buildings. The indicators that had the highest perceived importance rating after earthquake-resistant buildings were appropriate city plans and effectiveness of post disaster aid and services with 11 and 10 stickers placed on them, respectively. These first three indicators were followed by socio-politic context: peace and equality (9 stickers), awareness of earthquake risk/earthquake education (8 stickers), effective disaster management system (7 stickers), religious faith (7 stickers), and civic society (6 stickers). With respect to the SLA capitals, political capital had three indicators (i.e., sociopolitic context, effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services, effective disaster management system) which were perceived to be highly important for community resilience. Human capital and physical capital each had two indicators that were given high perceived importance rating by the participants (awareness of earthquake risk/earthquake education and religious faith for the human capital; earthquakeresistant buildings and appropriate city plans for the physical capital). Social capital had only one indicator (i.e., being a civic society) that had high perceived importance rating. Overall, the results revealed that for the participants, it was mostly the political capital that was critical for community resilience. This finding is expected given the recent political conditions in the case study site such as the ongoing conflicts between ethnic groups and the ‘Kurdish opening’ in progress (Hale, 2014). 21
Community Resilience Indicators 15
Earthquake-resistant buildings Appropriate city plans Effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services Socio-politic context: peace and equality Awareness of earthquake risk / Earthquake education Effective disaster management system (long-term planning) Religious faith Being a civic society (e.g., NGOs) Earthquake preparedness Physical resistance/strength Perceived psychological support Investment / Credit facilities Collaboration between institutions Transportation facilities (airport, urban roads, etc.) Economic resources Education / Knowledge skills Healthy information dissemination Moral and cultural traditional values Climate conditions Society of mutual trust Society resistant to hardships Fatalism Provision of permanent housing Tourism potential Job opportunities / Employment Community in which members are content with available resources Social solidarity (between tribes, relatives, etc.) Optimism Psychological health
11 10 8 7 6 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ratings of importance
Figure 8: Ratings for relative importance of community resilience indicators
22
12
13
14
15
16
Following the identification of the eight most important indicators, the workshop proceeded with collection of characteristics for each of the indicators (Figure 9). The group exercise conducted for this purpose was very productive as the participants came up with sound definitions and operationalization for the indicators being studied. In general, participants were highly motivated to contribute to the group work. Results for this exercise are summarized in Table 4 where the group information (facilitator, participants, the indicators discussed by each group) and the defining characteristics of each indicator are given. The first group was facilitated by NK and earthquake-resistant buildings, appropriate city plans, and awareness of earthquake risk/earthquake education were the indicators studied by this group. Themes that emerged for the first indicator, i.e., earthquake-resistant buildings, were related to seismic code, community education, and technology. As relevant to the seismic code, participants stated that if the code is prepared by taking into account regional conditions, structures are built according to the code prepared, and there is regular control both during and after construction (i.e., control is not only on paper, but also onsite), then earthquake-resistant buildings could be talked about. Concerning the theme of community education, participants emphasized that community members are given continuous education on features of earthquake-resistant buildings. As for the technology theme, participants considered application of new technology building system for seismic risk (e.g., steel structures) as a defining characteristic of earthquake-resistant buildings. The second indicator studied by this group was appropriate city plans. The basic theme that emerged from what participants viewed as the defining characteristics of appropriate city plans concerned how plans should be prepared and controlled. Participants stated that there should be wide-ranging participation and NGO support during preparation of plans, that green and parking space should be taken into consideration when preparing the plans, and that buildings are regularly controlled for their suitability to construction plans. Furthermore, according to the participants, whether city plans were appropriate could be understood by looking at if residential areas are arranged based on soil investigation and necessary urban transformation is done by protecting the urban fabric. Participants also stated that formation of gathering areas in cases of disasters was a defining characteristic of appropriate city plans. Awareness of earthquake risk/earthquake education was another indicator studied by the first group. Participants in this group considered societies in which people have 23
Figure 9: During group exercise (participants discussing on possible characteristics of the identified indicators)
24
life-long, up-to-date, and practice-based education, have awareness and education on what to do during and after the quake, and know the seismic map of their residential area as having awareness on earthquake risk and/or earthquake education. Participants also mentioned different mediums for creating earthquake awareness including media, museum, and publication. Arrangement of earthquakeresistant interior space as in Japan was also given as one defining characteristic for this indicator. The second group was facilitated by GI and focused on the indicators effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services along with effective disaster management system. Organization was the major theme that emerged from the defining characteristics given for the indicator effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services. Particularly, participants referred to specific organization structure according to the disaster, coordination
between
institutions
regarding
referral,
division
of
labor and
transfer/assignment of convenient individuals/ personnel, formation of a single crisis management center (instead of multiple centers formed by different institutions, previously planned organization (which might include actions for earthquake drills, communication: ensuring mobile services, organization at institutional level, and transportation: keeping roads open), and coordination of NGOs by the government as increasing effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services. In addition to organizational issues, participants stated that ordered provision of services would determine the extent to which aid and services given in post-disaster phase would be effective. According to the participants, search and rescue activities should be the first service to be provided and be followed by health services, food/hygiene, evacuation, temporary housing, permanent housing, and education, respectively. Furthermore, participants viewed voluntariness, cooperation between institutions and NGOs functioning in post-disaster phase, technical competence/skills/knowledge of personnel, efficient timing of equipment and instruments, and utilization of local resources as crucial aspects of effective post-disaster aid and services. Among the other defining characteristics given for this indicator were preparation of inventories for needs assessment (e.g., list of families with vulnerable groups) and provision of psychosocial support by experts. As for the other indicator studied by the second group, i.e., effective disaster management system, it was the plans that the participants mostly referred to. Having a national seismic plan as well as disaster mitigation plan (including planning for before, during, and after the disaster) was seen as crucial aspects of effective 25
Table 4: Results of the group exercise Group #
Facilitator
Participants
Indicators
1
NK
P1
1.
P6
Earthquakeresistant buildings
P10 P12 P16 P17
2. Appropriate city plans
3. Awareness of earthquake risk / Earthquake education
2
GI
P2
4.
P4
Effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services
P8 P9 P11 P13
Defining characteristics 1.1 Preparation of the code in view of regional conditions 1.2 Structures built according to seismic code 1.3 Legal control done regularly both during and after construction 1.4 Continuous community education on features of earthquake-resistant buildings 1.5 Application of new technology building system for seismic risk (steel structures) 2.1 Arrangement of residential areas based on soil investigation 2.2 Wide-ranging participation and NGO support during preparation of plans 2.3 Formation of gathering areas in cases of disasters 2.4 Preparing plans by regarding enough green and parking space 2.5 Controlling regularly the suitability to construction plans 2.6 Necessary urban transformation done by protecting urban fabric 3.1 Life-long, up-to-date, practice-based education 3.2 Creating earthquake awareness (via media, opening museums, publications, etc.) 3.3 Arrangement of earthquake-resistant interior space (Japan example) 3.4 Society having awareness and education on what to do during and after the quake 3.5 Knowing the seismic map of residential area (location) 4.1 Specifying organization structure according to the disaster 4.2 Coordination between institutions - referral, division of labor, transfer/assignment of convenient individuals/personnel (e.g., Ministry of Health specialized medical unit) 4.3 Forming a single crisis management center (instead of multiple centers formed by different institutions) 4.4 Preparing inventories for needs assessment (e.g., list of families with vulnerable groups) 4.5 Voluntariness 4.6 Ordered provision of services (1) Search – rescue (2) Health services (3) Food/Hygiene (4) Evacuation (5) Temporary housing (6) Permanent housing (7) Education 4.7 Technical competence/skills/knowledge of personnel 4.8 Efficient timing of aid and services 4.9 Functional equipment and instruments 4.10 Previously planned organization o Conducting/increasing frequency of earthquake drills (schools, institutions) o Ensuring mobile services o At institutional level o Keeping roads open 4.11 Provision of psychosocial/psychological support by experts 4.12 Coordination of NGOs by the government 4.13 Utilizing local resources 4.14 Cooperation between institutions and NGOs functioning in post-disaster phase
26
5. Effective disaster management system (longterm planning)
3
CD
P5
6.
P7
Socio-politic context: equality and peace
P14 P15 P18 P19
7. Being a civic society (e.g. NGOs)
8. Religious faith
5.1 Seismic plan at national scale 5.2 Disaster mitigation plan (before, during, and after the disaster) o Specifying responsibilities o Disaster logistics center o Short-term / Medium-term / Long-term 5.3 Organization 5.4 Giving education to the personnel; personnel being physically suitable to the work 5.5 Legal penalty (e.g., only one responsible for information dissemination, otherwise disinformation) 5.6 Economic stability 5.7 Credit facilities and economic investment (e.g., in disaster management technologies) 5.8 Planning (place of permanent housing, stocking of temporary housing, construction – geological analysis) 5.9 Use of local resources: local provision of food 6.1 Having dialogue between the public exposed to the earthquake and the local – central – national government 6.2 Communication and cooperation between local and central government 6.3 Not using ethnic-discriminatory discourse 6.4 Not making class discrimination based on ethnicity 6.5 Adopting an integrative approach regarding different ethnicities 6.6 Making unity of ethnic groups visible via media 6.7 Earthquake awareness and preparedness of political authorities 6.8 Not using disaster management activities for political purposes 7.1 NGOs showing their psychological support for earthquake survivors 7.2 NGOs functioning as a bridge between the public and those who will provide aid 7.3 NGOs enabling organization in post-disaster phase 7.4 NGOs not having profit-oriented or politic interests 7.5 NGOs that are trusted by the public 7.6 Cooperation between NGOs and official institutions 7.7 Conditions facilitating the functioning of NGOs 8.1 Having religious beliefs based on awareness of and knowledge on religion (not fatalism, not adherence to religious beliefs that are not based on knowledge) 8.2 Religious faith facilitated by conscientiousness 8.3 Not taking earthquakes as punishment by God 8.4 Presence of the uniting nature of religion (irrespective of political opinion) 8.5 Religious functionaries having positive leadership qualities (not threatening but motivating and knowledge-based attitudes) 8.6 Considering earthquake as a religious test 8.7 Provision of aid irrespective of religious inclination
disaster management system. With respect to disaster mitigation plan, participants mentioned
specification
of
responsibilities
(e.g.,
Disaster
and
Emergency
Management Presidency - AFAD), disaster logistics center, and the temporal frame 27
of the plan (short-, medium-, and long-term). Again, participants referred to organization as the defining characteristic for effective disaster management system. According to the participants, personnel working in the disaster area also played an important role in that the personnel having education and being physically suitable to work in the field was seen as necessary to increase effectiveness of disaster management system. The other defining characteristics given for this indicator included legal penalty pertaining to information dissemination (e.g., only one responsible for information, otherwise there would be disinformation), planning (for place of permanent housing, stocking of temporary housing, construction in view of geological analysis), use of local resources for provision of food, economic stability, and credit facilities and economic investment (e.g., in disaster technologies). The third group was facilitated by CD and worked on the indicators socio-politic context: peace and equality, being a civic society, and religious faith. Several themes emerged for the indicator socio-politic context. One of the themes that were emphasized by the participants was communication and cooperation between different stakeholders. Having dialogue between the public and the government in the post-disaster phase was one aspect of this theme. Here, what participants referred to as government included all local, central, and national levels. The other aspect was communication and cooperation between local and central government. Another theme that emerged for the socio-politic context was stakeholders’ adoption of an approach that reflects equality and peace. Particularly, not using ethnicdiscriminatory discourse, not making class discrimination based on ethnicity, adopting an integrative approach regarding different ethnicities, and making unity of ethnic groups visible via media were considered by the participants as defining sociopolitic context. The last theme concerned political figures in that participants viewed political authorities having increased earthquake awareness and preparedness and not using disaster management activities for political purposes as describing the indicator socio-politic context. As for the second indicator studied by the third group, i.e., being a civic society (e.g., NGOs), all the defining characteristics proposed by the participants were about NGOs for which three themes emerged. Firstly, participants referred to NGOs in terms of their organizational aspects. Specifically, NGOs’ functioning as a bridge between the public and the aid providers, enabling organization in post-disaster phase, and being in cooperation with official institutions were regarded as defining a civic society. Secondly, participants referred to NGOs’ relation to the public in that a 28
society in which NGOs show their psychological support for earthquake survivors and in which there is public trust in NGOs was considered to be a civic society. And lastly, participants referred to the nature of NGOs, in particular, conditions facilitating the functioning of NGOs and NGOs not having profit-oriented or political interests were seen as the defining characteristics of a civic society. Religious faith was the third and the last indicator studied by this group. According to the participants, religious faith was best described by having religious beliefs based on awareness of and knowledge on religion. That is, for religious faith to facilitate community resilience, one should not adhere to religious beliefs that are not based on knowledge. Participants further elaborated on this point by referring it to be in opposition with fatalism. Moreover, participants characterized religious faith as facilitated by conscientiousness, not taking earthquakes as punishment by God, and considering earthquakes as a religious test. Religious faith was also conceptualized in terms of how religious functionaries behave. Particularly, religious functionaries having positive leadership qualities such as having attitudes that are not threatening but that are motivating and based on knowledge were seen as a characteristic that can be used to define religious faith. Participants also stated that presence of religious faith could be understood by looking at whether aid is provided irrespective of religious inclination. Lastly, participants emphasized the uniting nature of religion, namely, religion that is irrespective of political opinion, as a defining characteristic of religious commitment.
3.2 Discussion of appropriate design of a community resilience assessment for Van The discussion on designing a community resilience assessment can be summarized with respect to three topics, namely, responsible actors, characteristics of the resilience assessment, and its outcomes. The actors that were seen by the participants as responsible to conduct a community resilience assessment included various stakeholders. These were Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), local government, NGOs, and professional chambers. For instance, technical people such as engineers were seen as responsible for an assessment of structural aspects and sociologists were seen as responsible for societal aspects. There was also an emphasis on collaboration of different stakeholders representing different segments of the society. Among them 29
were scientists and universities for the scientific segment, community members for the community segment, and local government and associations for the technical segment. Hence, it was important to the participants that a community resilience assessment is conducted by an institution that represents different segments of the society. Furthermore, participants seemed to agree on the view that this institution should be independent in terms of political aspects. One participant stated that it should be an institution attached to the central government, i.e. presidency or the prime ministry. Another point mentioned on the topic of responsible actors was that experts who work in this institution and take part in community resilience assessment should be accomplished in their profession. The other topic that was elaborated by the participants during the discussion concerned various characteristics of the resilience assessment. For instance, one participant emphasized cooperation between institutions as a crucial factor for the assessment adding that it would not be possible for one institution to conduct the assessment. In a similar way, another participant suggested that the community resilience assessment would be possible with organizational initiatives. There was one participant who pointed out that the institution to take part in community resilience assessment should not allow for preferential treatment. That is, people should be equally treated irrespective of their views whether it might be political or religious. A further point was that the resilience assessment should be conducted with plans including a disaster mitigation plan (specified temporally, i.e. before, during, and after the disaster) and a city plan. The main argument made via this point was the importance of planning of responsibilities of different institutions and/or stakeholders. Participants seemed to have a consensus on the view that the assessment should be conducted by taking into consideration all the segments in the society and that it should be done correctly. Specifically, participants stated that the assessment should be done without having political expectations and concerns, that the government should protect the needs of the local, and that there should be community participation during the assessment. The outcomes of a possible community resilience assessment were the last topic that was discussed by the participants. One view was that the outcomes of the assessment should be evaluated by scientists. Several participants also mentioned that the use of these outcomes for the community benefit was of great importance. In other words, if the community resilience assessment is to be conducted, it should be done so for the sake of the society. One participant suggested that the outcomes 30
should be used by the sub-units and that they should be controlled by top-units. Moreover, one participant pronounced the importance of sharing the outcomes of the assessment with the society so that they can be involved in and contribute to the process, further adding that the answer to how to put the resilience assessment into practice should be searched together with the community members. The discussion of community resilience assessment with respect to responsible actors, characteristics of the assessment, and its outcomes yielded one common point, namely, involvement of community members. In particular, participants’ views reflect the notions that (1) the institution to conduct the assessment represents community members along with other stakeholders, (2) community members’ participation during the assessment is endorsed, and (3) the outcomes of the assessment are shared with community members. This emphasis on active involvement of community members in the assessment process in fact underscores the importance of community participation for increasing community resilience to disasters (UNISDR, 2005).
4. Discussion and implications for the final workshop and revision of the framework 4.1 Reflection of the workshop concept and implications for the third participatory assessment workshop The involvement of researchers from the case site as collaborators in gathering data for the project (e.g., in-depth interviews and focus groups) and in organizing the workshop increased the participation and interest of stakeholders in the workshop. There were two researchers from the Sociology Department of the Van Yuzuncu Yil University (a local university in the city) who took part as members of the research team working for the Van case study as part of the emBRACE project. Participants were highly motivated to contribute to the workshop during group discussions on defining indicators as well as general discussion on assessment. This might be due to the fact that the participatory workshop was embedded in the 2013 International Van Earthquake Symposium. Organizing the workshop as part of the symposium seemed to increase the credibility of the work done and also facilitated interest and thus participation in the workshop. On the other hand, the symposium, hence the workshop was held during the second year anniversary of the first 31
earthquake in Van. This might have resulted in emotional reactions observed in some participants such as anger, disillusionment, sadness, and frustration related to disaster management activities and seemed to have partially hindered focusing on workshop tasks. The participants had their own concerns which they wanted to express which were mainly related to some of their dissatisfactions in relation to reconstruction and other disaster management activities. Still, the embedding of the participatory workshop in a larger conference on the same topic is considered positive. Serving drinks and food during the coffee break, providing complimentary materials such as notebooks and key chains, and the provision of certificates of appreciation were helpful to create a warm and appreciating atmosphere as the UoN team suggested in Deliverable 6.3. These aspects seem to be important for future workshops; hence, a similar approach is highly suggested for the third and final participatory workshop in the ‘River floods in central Europe’ case study. There was an extensive interest for the workshop from the media, one local and one national news agency observed the whole workshop and conducted interviews with NK about the workshop and the project. Several news articles were published on printed as well as online media (cf. Appendix 3). The workshop provided an important opportunity to disseminate information on the project and major findings at both local and national scale. For the final participatory workshop, local media could be invited as well to disseminate preliminary findings from the ‘River floods in central Europe’ case study. Finally, some participants expressed their interest to continue the network between the participants and the research team established during the workshop. This reflects ownership and interest in the sustainability of the outputs of the project.
4.2 Implications for the revision of the emBRACE framework for community resilience The results of the workshop have some implications for the emBRACE framework for community resilience presented in the Deliverable 2.2 ‘Agreed Framework’. To better understand the implications of the workshop findings regarding the community resilience indicators for the emBRACE framework, we tried to form a table to see how the defining characteristics of the selected indicators fitted into the capacity, action, and learning loops as well as the contextual changes in the framework (Table 32
5). However, it was hard in some instances to fit the findings into the elements of the framework. Some of the defining characteristics of the indicators identified in the workshop seemed to reflect more than one element of the framework and thus could be placed into various different elements of the loops. However, some reflected general defining characteristics for community resilience and thus could be hardly placed or related to any particular element of the framework. Especially for those characteristics, the framework was not very helpful; instead, it was a little bit confusing. This difficulty we experienced when trying to place the defining characteristics of the selected eight indicators in the framework could be due to the complexity of the community resilience itself. After all, the indicators obtained from the in-depth interviews and focus groups were based on stakeholders’ perception of community resilience and some of these perceptions seem to be independent of any disaster, and thus not related to the elements of the framework which is considerably related to disasters (e.g. the action loop). Most importantly, it seems that resilience is not solely limited to indicators that are specific to a particular disaster. In this respect, it might be problematic that the framework gives a relatively central role to disasters and the related action loop. In the next section we will evaluate the indicators and defining characteristics in relation to the elements of the framework. Capacity loop The SLA approach acted as a helpful tool for structuring community capitals, as also underlined following the participatory workshop in Ullswater, Cumbria. Our indicators seem to show that the capacity loop of the framework is quite helpful and that it accommodated all the indicators identified by our stakeholders. The 29 community resilience indicators obtained from the in-depth interviews and focus groups fitted all of the six capitals. The human capacity was the one with the highest number of indicators (n = 8) whereas the natural capacity was the one with the lowest number of indicators (n = 1) (see Table 3). When the 29 community resilience indicators were reduced to 8 via participants’ ratings of relative importance, it was the political capacity that had the highest number of indicators (n = 3). As can be seen in Table 5, the indicators with high perceived importance rating fitted the human, physical, social, and political capitals of the capacity loop, indicators from the natural (n = 1) and financial (n = 3) capacities were not rated by the participants as the most important. However, this does not mean that in the final model these capitals should be excluded as indicators pertaining to natural and financial capacities did emerge in in-depth interviews and focus groups. 33
Table 5: The defining characteristics of the selected indicators placed in the emBRACE framework for community resilience CAPACITIES Human
Physical
Social
Political Socio-political context: peace and equality
Effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services
Effective disaster management system
6.1, 6.8
4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14
5.3, 5.5, 5.9
Recovery
6.1, 6.8
4.11
5.6, 5.7*
Reconstruction
6.1, 6.8
SELECTED INDICATORS
Awareness of EQ risk/EQ education
Religious faith
EQ-resistant buildings
Appropriate city plans
Being a civic society
ACTIONS
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6
Response
Preparedness
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
Prevention
1.1, 1.2
2.2, 2.3
6.1, 6.8
2.1, 2.5
6.1, 6.8
5.6, 5.7* 4.1
LEARNING Risk/loss perception Problematizing risk/loss
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 3.3
1.4
2.1, 2.2
4.4, 4.7
34
5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.8
Critical reflection
2.3
4.1, 4.3, 4.6
Innovation Experimentation Dissemination
1.4
Monitoring/review
1.3
2.5
5.5
CONTEXTUAL CHANGES Environmental change
2.6
Policy change
Social change
Technical change
1.1, 1.4
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7
2.4
8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7
6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7
5.5
6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7
1.5
* Although these two defining characteristics (5.6 and 5.7) were given for the indicator effective disaster management, they can also be considered as defining the financial capital.
35
With three separate indicators, political capacity seems to be a very important area for community resilience in this case study site. Furthermore, although two indicators, namely, effectiveness of post-disaster aid and services and effective disaster management system, are directly related to earthquakes/disasters, one of them, i.e., socio-political context: peace and equality, seems to be a general indicator that is not specific to disasters. This is understandable when we consider the political atmosphere in the eastern Turkey where ethnic conflicts continue to rise and ‘Kurdish opening’ was launched by the government as part of the overall democratization process that seems to be driven by conflict and compromise between internal forces rather than external prompting (Hale, 2014). Thus, in the table we placed the defining characteristics of this indicator mostly in the contextual changes, particularly to political – social change corners of the model. Similarly, from the human capital, the defining characteristics of religious faith do not seem to be related to the action and learning loops of the framework. Thus, they might be considered under social change or social characteristic. Action Loop When we look at how the defining characteristics of the eight indicators fitted the action loop of the framework, we see that response and preparedness are the mostly referred elements of the action loop. Accordingly, we can infer that indicators, especially those qualifying as political capacity, which relate to response and preparedness elements of the action loop, are critical for resilience. The defining characteristics of this indicator do not seem to reflect recovery, reconstruction, and prevention as much as they reflect response and preparedness. The physical capacity indicators and partly the political capacity indicator, namely, socio-politic context, seem to be associated with the action loop through prevention. However, in general, the political capacity indicators seem to relate to the action loop through recovery and reconstruction elements. This may be due to the recent earthquake experience in the case site, and the fact that the site is still in the process of recovery and reconstruction. Learning Loop When we look at the learning loop elements, the defining characteristics that point to the importance of risk/loss perception, problematizing risk/loss, and critical reflection seemed to emerge. However, there were no defining characteristics that pointed to innovation, experimentation, and dissemination. Monitoring/review was only covered 36
by three defining characteristics. Specifically, these characteristics referred to legal control and endorsement of penalties (i.e., control of building construction, city plans and information dissemination) which are assumed to be the responsibilities of the public authorities in Turkey. This seems to imply that the participants perceived a need for control from higher level authorities for facilitating community resilience. This view for the need of top-down control via legal regulations and penalties is regarded as typical of cultures such as Turkey, which show a high tendency to avoid uncertainty inherent in life. In such cultures in the area of legislation there are many and precise laws and regulations which function to cope with uncertainty (Hofstede, 2001). The desire to have legal control and penalties voiced by the Turkish participants thus may reflect their way of managing uncertainty in disaster risk management. Contextual Changes We were able to place some of the characteristics not in the loops identified in the framework but only among contextual changes. Nevertheless, these characteristics have the potential to distort or block any element in the resilience spiral of the framework. Not only policy changes, social and technological changes or environmental changes, but also perceptions of community members about those changes may be hindering or driving factors for resilience. Thus, contextual factors are very important for the resilience spiral to move either up or down. In addition, as related to contextual changes, it seems that some defining characteristics are not necessarily related to change, but also reflect desired changes in that context that might facilitate resilience. This may of course imply that a desired social change for resilience is specified rather than a specific change leading to resilience. So, we suggest that maybe the corners of the framework are labelled so that they also represent suggestions for contextual change in addition to actual existing contextual changes. In conclusion, we can say that our indicators fit some elements of the framework (mostly the corners of the model and the capacity loop). Some of the indicators are very much related to the specific disaster in the case study site Van, i.e., earthquakes. Therefore, although it may not be feasible, development of different frameworks of community resilience for different hazard events is still a possibility for decreasing the difficulty of making parallels between a large number of diverse characteristics and elements which seem only applicable in the disaster context, and for better addressing complexity of the resilience concept. Furthermore, it will be 37
useful to keep in mind that community resilience for different hazards might show culture- or community-specific indicator characteristics and that the timing of the assessment of perceptions of community resilience indicators may be influential in determining the perceptions of indicators.
5. Summary The aim for the participatory assessment workshops in all three emBRACE case studies (Cumbria Case Study, Turkey Case Study, and Eastern Germany Case Study,) is twofold: first, to collect, validate and assess the local appropriateness and relevance of different dimensions and indicators for resilience; and second, to assess factors for successful implementation of resilience assessments in the case study context (e.g. responsibilities, actors to be involved, financial resources, political support). The second assessment workshop in the emBRACE project was organized in Van, Turkey towards the later phases of the Van case study. A series of in-depth interviews and focus groups with various stakeholders in the case study site had been conducted before the workshop. Hence, this workshop aimed (1) to discuss, to get feedback, and to complement the interim results on possible community resilience indicators with stakeholders, (2) to validate and clarify the obtained results, and (3) to focus on factors for successful implementation of resilience assessments in the case study context. The workshop was embedded in the 2013 International Van Earthquake Symposium held on October 23-27, 2013 in Van, Turkey, in the second year anniversary of the Van earthquake. The workshop was included in the scientific programme as a closed-session of social sciences on the afternoon of October 24, 2013 and 19 stakeholders attended the workshop. The workshop was structured in two subsequent sessions in which characteristics of community resilience indicators and design of a community resilience assessment were discussed respectively. The participants perceived political structure and resources as the most important for resilience of this community among all indicators identified in focus groups and indepth interviews. The participants suggested a number of characteristics for the indicators that they perceived to be the most important for community resilience (namely, earthquake-resistant buildings, appropriate city plans, effectiveness of post38
disaster aid and services, socio-politic context, awareness of earthquake risk/earthquake education, effective disaster management system, religious faith, and being a civic society). Although these characteristics differed in terms of the elements they fit in the framework, they did provide a general overview of what participants perceived to be important for community resilience to earthquakes in Van. During the discussion on community resilience assessment (responsible actors, characteristics of the assessment, and its outcomes), participants seemed to agree on the view that active involvement of community members in the assessment process is crucial. Furthermore, they stressed that this assessment needs to be done by a body which is politically neutral, thus reflecting their concerns related to equality (i.e., indicator of socio-political context: peace and equality). There was not enough time allocated in the workshop for the discussion of all results from the previous fieldwork in the case study site. Moreover, the number of participants was limited due to practical reasons such as capacity of the meeting venue and restrictions related to efficient management of groups during exercises. Despite these limitations, the participants were highly engaged and substantive answers were produced during the discussion. Discussions seemed to facilitate critical reflection on community resilience in case of earthquakes among the participants, as also reflected by their statement of wishing to continue networking and elaborating on the subject matter. In sum, the workshop provided rich and useful material for informing the refinement of the framework for community resilience, for obtaining feedback for the ongoing fieldwork in the selected case sites in Turkey, and finally for systematization. Therefore, it is considered to have contributed to the relevant work packages in the emBRACE project and helped it to move closer to its major aim, ‘building resilience to disasters amongst communities in Europe’.
39
Appendices
Appendix 1: Abstract for the workshop session embedded in the 2013 International Van Earthquake Symposium Participatory Workshop on Evaluation and Implementation of Community Resilience Indicators A. Nuray Karancı
Mehmet Ruhi Köse
Middle East Technical University, Dept. of Psychology, Ankara, Turkey
Yuzuncu Yil University, Dept. of Sociology, Van, Turkey
Suvat Parin
Sebastian Jülich
Yuzuncu Yil University, Dept. of Sociology, Van, Turkey
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
Gözde İkizer*
Canay Doğulu
Middle East Technical University, Dept. of Psychology, Ankara, Turkey
Middle East Technical University, Dept. of Psychology, Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT Resilience has become an important concept in disaster research which is studied within different disciplines in an effort to understand and facilitate communities’ ability to adapt after disasters. EU FP7 emBRACE project is an interdisciplinary effort at delineating community resilience indicators in various disaster contexts and countries. As part of this project, a participatory workshop will be held to discuss the state of resilience in Van, Turkey in the aftermath of the two destructive earthquakes which struck the city in 2011. The participatory workshop will evolve around the presentation of the emBRACE project, followed by the presentation of preliminary findings on resilience indicators from a series of focus groups conducted in Van. This will be followed by an interactive small group discussions for the evaluation of resilience indicators for 2011 Van earthquakes. Finally, the implementation/improvement of these indicators will be evaluated. A range of stakeholders including representatives from local, national and international governmental and non-governmental organizations will participate in the workshop. Due to the interactive nature of the workshop the number of participants will be restricted to thirty. The workshop will be conducted in two sessions (90 minutes each). The first session will start with a general introduction to the aims and process of the EU FP7 emBRACE project. The introduction will be followed by a presentation of preliminary findings from Van based on stakeholder focus groups. The discussion of possible indicators of community resilience in Van and perceptions 40
and evaluations of the state of resilience by the participants will be conducted by holding small group discussions, with ten participants in each group. In the second session, the focus will be on evaluation and implementation (how and by which stakeholders) of community resilience indicators. In particular, indicators will be evaluated in terms of (1) their meaningfulness, reliability, and robustness; (2) data availability for measuring them; and (3) the difficulty/easiness of their assessment (4) feasibility for implementation. Overall, the participatory workshop aims to generate an understanding of how stakeholders perceive community resilience to earthquakes, how these indicators can be assessed and the feasibility for their improvement/implementation. Key words: Community, resilience, indicators, stakeholders, earthquakes, Turkey, participatory assessment *Corresponding author’s email:
[email protected]
41
Appendix 2: Informed consent form (in Turkish)
42
Appendix 3: Certificate of appreciation (in Turkish)
43
Appendix 4: Photographs of the workshop
44
45
Appendix 5: Web links to news articles in local and national press Ilke News Agency (in Turkish - local): http://www.ilkehaberajansi.com.tr/haber/depreme-dayaniklilik-calistayi.html http://www.ilkehaberajansi.com.tr/video/depreme-dayaniklilik-calistayi-video-izle.html (video) Van Olay Newspaper (in Turkish - local): http://www.vanolay.com.tr/yerel/vanda-depreme-dayaniklilik-calistayi-yapildih10936.html Anadolu News Agency (in Turkish - national) http://www.haberler.com/vanlilar-depremi-inanclariyla-yendi-5252558-haberi/ http://www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-vanlilar-depremi-inanclariyla-yendi-5252558/ http://www.haber3.com/vanlilar-depremi-inanclariyla-yendi-haberi-2284884h.htm http://www.memleket.com.tr/vanlilar-depremi-inanclariyla-yendi-254089h.htm http://www.platinhaber.com/vanlilar,-depremi-inanclariyla-yendi-194003h.htm http://www.memurlar.net/haber/422748/ http://www.emlaktasondakika.com/haber/Genel/Vanlilar-depremi-dini-inanclariningucuyle-yendi/69036.aspx http://www.yeniasya.com.tr/haber_detay2.asp?id=64393 http://yurthaber.mynet.com/van-haberleri/vanlilar-depremi-inanclariyla-yendi-1129791 http://www.mynet.com/sebastiyan/anadolu-ajansi-izle-vanlilar-depremi-inanclariylayendi-van-vid-1871019/ (video)
46
Appendix 6: Cited literature Baday Yıldız, E., Sivri, U., & Berber, M. (2010). Socio-economic development ranking of provinces in Turkey [Turkiye’de illerin sosyo-ekonomik gelismislik siralamasi]. Retrieved from www.metinberber.com/kullanici_dosyalari/file/endeks.doc. DFID (1999). (Department for International Development) (Ed.). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Section 2. Framework, London. Dincer, B., Ozaslan, T., & Kavasoglu, T. (2003). Socio-economic development ranking of provinces and regions in Turkey [İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyoekonomik gelismislik siralamasi arastirmasi] (DPT Report no. 2671). Republic of Turkey State Planning Organization Regional Development and Structural Adjustment General Directorate. Retrieved from http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/gosterge/2003-05.pdf. Hale, W (2014). The international context of democratic reform in Turkey. In C. Rodriguez, A. Avalos, H. Yilmaz, and A. I. Planet, Turkey’s Democratization Process (pp. 67-85). New York, NY: Routledge. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications Inc. KOERI (2011). Earthquake damage. Bogazici University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/depremraporlari/Van_Eq_ED-15112011-2.pdf. TUIK (2009). Average size of households by province. Address Based Population Registration System (ABPRS). Ankara, Turkey. TUIK (2010). Regional Indicators TRB2 Van, Mus, Bitlis, Hakkari. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/Kitap.do?metod=KitapDetay&KT_ID=0&KITAP_ID=181. TUIK (2011). Results of the Address Based Population Registration System (ABPRS). Retrieved from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=10736.
47
TUIK (2012). Results of the Address Based Population Registration System (ABPRS). Retrieved from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=13425. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2005). Hyogo Framework for 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf USGS (2013). Earthquakes with 1,000 or More Deaths since 1900. Retrieved from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths.php. USGS (2013). Political Map of Turkey [map]. Retrieved from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/turkey/map.php
48
This study has been funded by the th
European Commission on the 7 Framework Programme
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Catholic University of Louvain School of Public Health 30.94 Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 1200 Brussels, Belgium T: +32 (0)2 7643327 F: +32 (0)2 7643441 E:
[email protected] W: http://www.cred.be
Northumbria University School of the Built and Natural Environment, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK T: + 44 (0)191 232 6002 W: www.northumbria.ac.uk
49
