1 Community Resilience Agenda
2 The Shifting Conceptualization of “Resilience”
3 Context: Policy Approach to Community Resilience in Scotland
Categories of agency | Organizations | Role and responsibilities |
---|---|---|
Category one responders | Police, ambulance, fire and rescue services, local authorities, NHS Health Boards, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency | Coordinate emergency response and plans, including assessment |
Category two responders | Gas, electricity, rail and air transport operators, harbor authorities, telecommunications providers, Scottish Water, the Health and Safety Executive and NHS National Services Scotland | Assist Category one to perform duties according to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 |
Public and private sector groups and individuals | Voluntary groups, private sectors, community planning groups, and individuals | Help in preparation for emergencies in their local community |
3.1 The Governance of Community Resilience in Scotland
Governance | Specific |
---|---|
Legislation/Act | The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 c. 36 (United Kingdom 2004) |
Regulations | The Contingency Planning Scotland Regulation 2005 No. 494 (United Kingdom 2005) Other emergency planning regulations: The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 No. 743 (United Kingdom 1999) The Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996 No. 825 (United Kingdom 1996) The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 No. 2975 (United Kingdom 2001). |
Principles | Integrated emergency management |
Model | Hub and spoke model |
Risk | North RRPa | West RRPb | East RRPc |
---|---|---|---|
Influenza type diseases—pandemic | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Severe weather | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Flooding | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Interruption to utilities | ✓ | ||
Transport disruptions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Pollution and contamination | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Industrial site incidents | ✓ | ✓ |
4 Methods
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Stakeholders’ Understanding of Community Resilience
Narrative type | Description of community resilience | Key themes |
---|---|---|
National government officials’ narratives | “How communities perceive the impact of natural hazards and what they perceive natural hazards to be” “The ability for communities to understand the potential risk to them from natural hazards events such as those associated with the weather, and their ability to plan to prepare and mitigate any damage to them should those events arise” | Perception of hazards and its impact, understanding, and adaptive capacity |
Local authorities officials’ narratives | “Enabling people to look after themselves, understand what they are responsible for, and if an event does happen, being able to recover as quickly and efficiently as possible” “It is all about preparing for emergencies” “Being able to adapt and then get back to normalcy as quickly as possible” “It is about community awareness and awareness to deal with natural disaster problems” “Is about people been resilient for their selves, putting measures in place and obviously if something happens like flooding, it is how quickly that they can get back to normal” | Understanding responsibilities, recovery, preparedness, adaptation, and plans |
Public sector services officials’ narratives | “It is about having a strategy, a plan, and also what happens if there is a disaster; what would be the actions to be taken” “The ability for individual and communities in whatever form, whether that be geographic or cultural in different ways, to understand what natural hazard actually is and be able to not only prepare but also respond [to] and recover [from] it” “It is ensuring that we can still carry our role [as an organization]” “Sustainability and being able to bounce back from a situation” | Disaster mitigation plan, understanding, continuity and sustainability |
Community councillors’ narratives | “It is the ability of communities to react to events, and get through the event, without loss of life and possible damage to properties” “It is the ability of communities to protect properties, lives and keep them safe” “A lot of lovely things written about what people should do and should not do” “It is about the community coming together and face the problem and how you can increase participation in things like community council” | Reactive capacity, safety, action plan, community cohesion |
Member of academic staff’s narratives | “The extent to which population at risk is able to prepare for, deal with implications and impact of some form of natural hazard and recover from any damage physically to their communities or the[ir] structures… and kind of get back to full capacity and normal life thereafter” | Preparedness and recovery |
Utility companies officials’ narrative | “Educating people about preparedness and then helping them to put the measure in place so they are able to respond better and cope for longer until help can come in whichever form” “It is the provision of potable water and the treatment of wastewater, uncertain function and legal and regulatory function” | Education, mitigation measures, and continuity |
5.2 The Problems of Risk Assessment within the Domain of Community Resilience
5.2.1 Cost/Benefit Assessment for Risk Prioritization
One issue they [regional council] always refer to is the cost–benefit analysis for flooding. They keep saying that they cannot do anything unless the cost–benefit analysis is greater than one. However, our feeling is that the way the costs are worked out is ridiculously low. I mean, much of this town were commercial buildings. Commercial buildings are, you know, valued at even less than domestic buildings, the way they work the cost out. Moreover, then, this is all based on a document done by DEFRA [Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs], and some university down south, years ago. And everything is diluted down. I mean, they work out a value, and then divide it by an average annual amount. They divide it by a hundred, I mean, why do they do that, goodness only knows. Because if you have a mortgage, you cannot spread that over a hundred. And they say some ridiculous things in the document like they don’t value the economic loss for shops very much because they say people can go to the next town and get their shopping there. (Community councillor #1)
If you are an old age pensioner, you don’t have a car, and you are in fuel poverty, and you cannot afford regular bus cost. So, it is utter nonsense to say that people can move around and do commercials elsewhere. (Community councillor #2)
5.2.2 Communication Gaps between Stakeholders
The local authorities and their inability to interact on the communications front, or put people up, or buy into the principles… We understand they have got so many other duties; it has been one of the single biggest weaknesses. (Representative of public agency #1)
We at the community council could not get a single bit of information out of the council, the district council, about what they are doing, about the flood, the flood schemes… we wrote and wrote and never got a proper answer. (Community councillor #1)
I would say a very good working relationship because of the local plan district; we meet regularly with SEPA [Scottish Environment Protection Agency], Scottish Water and other local authorities in our [LRP]. They are three-monthly now, two-monthly, three-monthly, but there are other meetings going on. I think communication is really good. (Representatives of local authority #5)
5.2.3 Information Flow and Decision Making
My perception of the regional council is that they do not want interference from third parties. They see themselves as the only decision makers in the region. The difficulty that I have with this approach is that, as they are located in [XXX],6 and therefore, 60 miles away from where things are happening here, they cannot possibly know what is needed in this community, unless someone tells them. Therefore, the community council is crucial in this communication link. (Community council member #2)
There is a great willingness; there is an eagerness to progress. I did sense some degree of territoriality. Each [stakeholder] defending their input, but they seem a bit prepared to work together. (Community council member #5)
5.2.4 Differences in Scientific Assessment Versus Local (Community) Assessment
Recently, we went and had a meeting with the [XXX]7 Community Council… with the options that we thought. What our consultant looked at was just a desktop site visit exercise and looked at a whole range of options, which may reduce flood risk. You know it might not stop flooding, but it would have some, sort of, small reduction… However, if it goes to a public enquiry that could make it longer, you know. But we took the approach although [the consultancy company] had done an assessment and had basically come up with things that may work… we met with Community Council and elected members and said, well these are all of the options that can be used and have been used elsewhere and have helped elsewhere, and we all look at this as a broad brush, sort of, appraisal. We had that meeting; we had 19 options. After that meeting, through that and talking to residents in [the regional community] and the Community Council that list went up to 24 because they were looking at different things. (Local government official #2)
5.2.5 Competing Priorities, Risk Prioritization, and Funding
The biggest problem we have got, and there will be other authorities, [is] finances. So even if you’ve got the resources, the government sets aside a certain amount of money for flood prevention schemes, but if every council in Scotland is looking to do flood prevention schemes, there is not enough money to go around to fund them all. (Local authority official #5)
We need to be very careful that we are not just focusing on the impact of risk, but that we are also looking at the likelihood. Because you talk about terrorism, and the impact of that is huge, it is absolutely massive. And they understand that. But the likelihood of it. And the likelihood of it affecting a great number of people is quite small. Whereas, flooding, in certain parts of Scotland, you know, is absolutely massive. … Probably, 80 percent of what I do in the Council is around counter-terrorism. So that 80 percent of my job is around that… So, you know, I think the likelihood scoring need to be taken into account when we think about funding. (Local government official #7)
There is a statutory instrument that came about in 2004, the Civil Contingencies Act, that was translated in Scotland as the contingency planning Scotland regulation in 2005 on which [there] are six duties [placed] on the category one responders generally, and a seventh duty for the local authorities’ responders. So there are 32 local authority responders in Scotland that have a seventh additional duty. That duty is to promote business continuity. I think that part of the statutory instrument can be amended or improved and adapted that could put a duty on local authorities to promote community resilience in the same way that we have to promote business continuity. (Local authority official #9)
5.3 Limits Stakeholders Face Locally in Building Community Resilience
5.3.1 Grassroots Resources
If we want to do something, the individuals who make up the community council, either have to take the money directly out of their pocket or plead with the regional council for funding. Now, our funds, from a [our] point of view, is about £700 a year. And from that, we are supposed to do everything. It is just impossible. (Community councillor #1)
We are on our own really most of the time. It is easy when we get an alert, but we do not get anyone from the big companies funded by the government to say have you got such and such or anything like that and what do you need. They rely on me and [another community councillor] to do it. That is what they rely on and because you have a social conscience and you are a community councillor you do. You want to make sure that you have all the people that are going to be involved in it, and you do it at your own cost. (Community councillor #4)
5.3.2 Difficulties Around Public Communication
Many of the public do not fully comprehend the risks involved; they do not comprehend the liabilities. They assume that the council is fully responsible for any damage caused by flooding. They fail to accept or understand that the council, under the Act that we have mentioned, is liable only to their property that means, council-owned property, such as the roads, the wall, and any services. (Community council member #2)
There is the need to have an understanding of what people’s sort of attitude to risk is. Because if people do not see themselves as being immediately at threat from something, it is quite difficult to…[manage with sufficient sensitivity or] you can run the risk of scaring people. (Government official #2)
If you are dealing with a group of people, the biggest thing is that a lot of them don’t accept that they’ve got a problem, and that’s the hardest thing, but the more data that we can collect, the more studies, the more information we have, the more accurate that information is, the more we can get these people on board. (Representatives of local authority #5)