Search

Deliverable 2.1 illuminates how collecting and analysing data in novel ways is capable of generating new knowledge and stimulating new practices that are sensitive to the Risk Perception Action Gap (RPAG), as well as enhancing community resilience approaches. To frame this process of enhancing both disaster resilience (see also D1.2) and community resilience and bridging the RPAG, the extant literature is explored through predominantly desk-based research on three distinct but interrelated concepts: community resilience, community risk perception and citizen generated data in order to: 1. Lay the conceptual foundations of terms frequently used in the project, such as : community resilience, community risk perception and citizen generated data. 2. Produce working definitions of community resilience and of risk perception that will be adopted for the duration of the project. 3. Generate a knowledge-base of good practices and State-Of-The-Art regarding the utilisation of citizen genrated data and other digital technologies for bridging the RPAG and enhancing community resilience. Following an introduction and proceeded by an overall concluding section, D2.1 is divided into three main conceptual chapters (2, 3 and 4), each focused on one of the three above mentioned major concepts. In Chapter 2, community resilience is approached from an academic perspective, as a conceptual amalgam of previously presented epistemologies of resilience across different disciplinary and conceptual boundaries, constituting the ontological outcome of the ‘social turn’ in resilience scholarship. Building on this accumulated knowledge of resilience literature in academia and practice, and combining it with definitions of resilience (mainly disaster and community oriented ones) across a variety of EU-funded projects, we introduce a working definition of the term for RiskPACC, emphasising the key role of human agency and active citizenship while also highlighting the importance of communication channels and ‘trust-ties’ between communities and other local stakeholders. The working definItion of community resilence used for RiskPACC is: The capacity of communities and individuals to interact with their surrounding physical and built environment, comprehend risk and actively mobilise activities to enhance societal connectedness including the use of digital technologies, to co-produce knowledge and build two-way communication channels with the CPAs and other local stakeholders to cope with, adapt to, prepare for and recover from external perturbations or inherent stresses. Following the introduction and consolidation of the working definition for community resilience, Chapter 3 explores community risk perception in extant academic literature and its transtition from a predominantly phychology-oriented to a more sociological concept, whilst illuminating the gap between how experts and lay people perceive risk. The relationship of community risk perception with place is also discussed, as well as its influence during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, D2.1 Month 4 6 | Page Dissemination Level: PU This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101021271 eventually justifying the adoption of the European Environment Agency definition of the term as a working definition for RiskPACC : Risk perception involves people’s beliefs, attitudes, judgements and feelings, as well as the wider social or cultural values that people adopt towards hazards and their benefits. The way in which people perceive risk is vital in the process of assessing and managing risk. Risk perception will be a major determinant in whether a risk is deemed to be "acceptable" and whether the risk management measures imposed are seen to resolve the problem. Here, beyond specific aspects of risk perception, significant attention is also paid in the understanding of the risk context (events and policies) and environmental conditions and constraints, thus foregrounding the importance of situating people in their socio-political/community context, instead of merely viewing them as independent individuals. Moreover, the role of trust in influencing the degree to which citizens believe and act upon communications from CPAs is also emphasised. Complementing this focus on local responses, Chapter 4 focuses on citizen generated data, including social media, and their potentialities for supporting disaster resilience (including improving disaster response) and enhancing community resilience. More specifically, VGI is prioritised as an emerging digital technological trend, while its relevance for engaging local communities in decisionmaking for disaster resilience, and bridging the RPAG, is also emphasised. The analysis in D2.1 has generated a robust knowledge-base that will support the development of the project’s practical Framework (WP4) and digital tooled solutions based on new forms of digital and community-centred data (WP5), and will ultimately feed into the development of the “RiskPack” toolbox/package of solutions (WPs 5,6 and 7). Summing up, the key findings of this Report are the following: • Community resilience is a contested term that emphasises human agency, mobilisation of social capital and the strengthening of communication channels and (in)formal institutions in the process of coping with, adapting to, preparing for and recovering from external perturbations or inherent stresses. • Understanding, capturing and acknowledging community risk perception and aligning it with CPAs’ conceptualisations of risk is fundamental for bridging the RPAG. Digital technologies such as citizen generated data, VGI and social media can support the process of capturing risk perception and thus contribute to the bridging of the RPAG, enhancing community resilience and improving overall disaster resilience.

This report will draw together findings from the previous tasks in Work Package 2 (WP2) identifying academic and policy literature, best practices, stakeholder outcomes and end user perspectives and requirements, as well as key gaps in the current operationalization of concepts in risk perception and action as they pertain to community resilience and civil protection. The report will provide the basis for the development and refinement of work undertaken in subsequent WPs to bridge the risk perception action gap (RPAG). The report is structured with four key sections. The first section provides an overview of WP2, where Deliverable 2.3 (as well as D1.3 in WP1) fits into this and its relevance to the rest of the RiskPACC project. This highlights how this Report has been informed by previous Deliverables and how it will in turn inform the subsequent work programme in RiskPACC. The second section presents the adopted approach in identifying emergent gaps in the utilisation of community risk perception and community resilience in civil protection and disaster management. It begins by presenting some refined working definitions of disaster and community resilience, and risk perception, that will be utilised in subsequent project work. It then identifies the ‘Theory of Change’ approach that the project adopts and through which RiskPACC’s vision of community resilience is unfolded. Based on this the intended plan is to work backwards from so as to ascertain key outcomes; the interventions that are needed to be made in current practice and how these might be delivered in the context of the project and through its planned and intended activities. The third section details 18 key gaps within current approaches to community resilience and community risk perception that have subsequently been categorised in four groups and which are discussed in the remainder of this chapter: 1. Gaps between theory and practice 2. Governance gaps 3. Operational and implementation gaps 4. Data and technology related gaps In detailing these gaps, a range of questions that arise for civil protection stakeholders and communities charged with enhancing resilience have been identified and are also explored. In the fourth and final section of this report we present a detailed roadmap that charts a course through the remainder of the project, ensuring that key identified gaps and barriers to the operationalisation of community resilience are continually reflected upon as tools are developed and training programmes and the ‘RiskPack’ are produced.

PurposeThe study aims to identify the gaps and the potentialities of citizen-generated data in four axes of warning system: (1) risk knowledge, (2) flood forecasting and monitoring, (3) risk communication and (4) flood risk governance.Design/methodology/approachResearch inputs for this work were gathered during an international virtual dialogue that engaged 40 public servants, practitioners, academics and policymakers from Brazilian and British hazard and risk monitoring agencies during the Covid-19 pandemic.FindingsThe common challenges identified were lack of local data, data integration systems, data visualisation tools and lack of communication between flood agencies.Originality/valueThis work instigates an interdisciplinary cross-country collaboration and knowledge exchange, focused on tools, methods and policies used in the Brazil and the UK in an attempt to develop trans-disciplinary innovative ideas and initiatives for informing and enhancing flood risk governance.

Resilience narratives have gathered increased attention in city-regional planning over the last two decades, emphasizing holistic foresight, long-term strategic visioning, cross-sectoral integration and collaborative modes of planning. Combining such resilience narratives with the established idea of socio-spatial imaginaries, we introduce the novel concept of ‘resilience imaginaries’ and explore its application in the city-region of Thessaloniki, Greece. This paper illustrates that resilience imaginaries can be viewed as dynamic and politically contested visions for long-term city-regional development, collectively structured by civic stakeholders, institutionally expressed through city-regional governance transformations and materially manifested through city-regional planning interventions.

This chapter focuses upon the potential of co-production in research linked to risk and resilience. Specifically, it proposes the need to see resilience practice as co-production and illustrates the argument with reflections from the Waterproofing Data project, which investigated water-related risks, with a focus on social and cultural aspects of data practices. The chapter describes how the project adopted a dialogic approach and developed innovative methods around data practices into a method that reframed citizen sensing as a critical pedagogical process. Here the engagement of residents of urban poor neighbourhoods in Brazil was central for a process of research co-production together with a multidisciplinary research team and stakeholders of local governmental and non-governmental organisations involved in disaster risk reduction. Ultimately, we argue that co-production is a necessary ingredient in research looking to transform governance and decision-making in how we respond, in a flexible way, to risks and crisis.

IntroductionTracking the progress of universal health coverage (UHC) is typically at a country level. However, country-averages may mask significant small-scale variation in indicators of access and use, which would have important implications for policy choice to achieve UHC.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional household and individual-level survey in seven slum sites across Nigeria, Kenya, Bangladesh and Pakistan. We estimated the adjusted association between household capacity to pay and report healthcare need, use and spending. Catastrophic health expenditure was estimated by five different methods.ResultsWe surveyed 7002 households and 6856 adults. Gini coefficients were wide, ranging from 0.32 to 0.48 across the seven sites. The total spend of the top 10% of households was 4–47 times more per month than the bottom 10%. Households with the highest budgets were: more likely to report needing care (highest vs lowest third of distribution of budgets: +1 to +31 percentage points (pp) across sites), to spend more on healthcare (2.0 to 6.4 times higher), have more inpatient and outpatient visits per year in five sites (1.0 to 3.0 times more frequently), spend more on drugs per visit (1.1 to 2.2 times higher) and were more likely to consult with a doctor (1.0 to 2.4 times higher odds). Better-off households were generally more likely to experience catastrophic health expenditure when calculated according to four methods (−1 to +12 pp), but much less likely using a normative method (−60 to −80 pp).ConclusionsSlums have a very high degree of inequality of household budget that translates into inequities in the access to and use of healthcare. Evaluation of UHC and healthcare access interventions targeting these areas should consider distributional effects, although the standard measures may be unreliable.

Although the proportion of people living in slums is increasing in low- and middle-income countries and food insecurity is considered a severe hazard for health, there is little research on this topic. This study investigated and compared the prevalence and socio-demographic associations of household food insecurity in seven slum settings across Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Data were taken from a cross-sectional, household-based, spatially referenced survey conducted between December 2018 and June 2020. Household characteristics and the extent and distribution of food insecurity across sites was established using descriptive statistics. Multivariable logistic regression of data in a pooled model including all slums (adjusting for slum site) and site-specific analyses were conducted. In total, a sample of 6,111 households were included. Forty-one per cent (2,671) of all households reported food insecurity, with varying levels between the different slums (9–69%). Household head working status and national wealth quintiles were consistently found to be associated with household food security in the pooled analysis (OR: 0·82; CI: 0·69–0·98 & OR: 0·65; CI: 0·57–0·75) and in the individual sites. Households which owned agricultural land (OR: 0·80; CI: 0·69–0·94) were less likely to report food insecurity. The association of the household head’s migration status with food insecurity varied considerably between sites. We found a high prevalence of household food insecurity which varied across slum sites and household characteristics. Food security in slum settings needs context-specific interventions and further causal clarification.

This paper examines OpenStreetMap data quality at different stages of a participatory mapping process in seven slums in Africa and Asia. Data were drawn from an OpenStreetMap-based participatory mapping process developed as part of a research project focusing on understanding inequalities in healthcare access of slum residents in the Global South. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis were employed to examine the following research question: What is the spatial data quality of collaborative remote mapping achieved by volunteer mappers in morphologically complex urban areas? Findings show that the completeness achieved by remote mapping largely depends on the morphology and characteristics of slums such as building density and rooftop architecture, varying from 84% in the best case, to zero in the most difficult site. The major scientific contribution of this study is to provide evidence on the spatial data quality of remotely mapped data through volunteer mapping efforts in morphologically complex urban areas such as slums, the results could provide insights into how much fieldwork would be needed in what level of complexity and to what extent the involvement of local volunteers in these efforts is required.

This article investigates the role of digital technologies and data innovations, such as big data and citizen-generated data, to enable transformations to sustainability. We reviewed recent literature in this area and identified that the most prevailing assumption of work is related to the capacity of data to inform decision-making and support transformations. However, there is a lack of critical investigation on the concrete pathways for this to happen. We present a framework that identifies scales and potential pathways on how data generation, circulation and usage can enable transformations to sustainability. This framework expands the perspective on the role and functions of data, and it is used to outline a critical research agenda for future work that fully considers the socio-cultural contexts and practices through which data may effectively support transformative pathways to sustainable development.\ud \ud

In the twenty-first century, in response to an array of existential threats, the concept of resilience has risen to prominence in urban studies to address the amplified complexity, uncertainty and accompanying risk contemporary urban environments face, stemming from economic, environmental and socio-political volatility and rapid change (Bourgon, 2009; Chandler, 2014; Duit, Galaz, Eckerberg, & Ebbesson, 2010; McGreavy, 2016; Normandin, Therrien, Pelling, & Paterson, 2018). Under the banner of urban resilience - a concept that has emerged, as an amalgam of previously applied ‘resilience’ concepts in various scientific disciplines (Alexander, 2013) - urban planners and policy-makers have sought more holistic, integrated and communitycentred governance approaches that offer a variety of ‘qualities’ and ‘principles’ for confronting this emergent complexity and uncertainty of city life (Meerow, Newell, & Stults, 2016; Moser, Meerow, Arnott, & Jack-Scott, 2019; Normandin, Therrien, Pelling, & Paterson, 2019; Sellberg, Ryan, Borgström, Norström, & Peterson, 2018; Tobin, 1999).

Background\ud \ud Household surveys are a key epidemiological, medical, and social research method. In poor urban environments, such as slums, censuses can often be out-of-date or fail to record transient residents, maps may be incomplete, and access to sites can be limit, all of which prohibits obtaining an accurate sampling frame. This article describes a method to conduct a survey in slum settings in the context of the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Improving Health in Slums project.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We identify four key steps: obtaining site access, generation of a sampling frame, sampling, and field data collection. Stakeholder identification and engagement is required to negotiate access. A spatially-referenced sampling frame can be generated by: remote participatory mapping from satellite imagery; local participatory mapping and ground-truthing; and identification of all residents of each structure. We propose to use a spatially-regulated sampling method to ensure spatial coverage across the site. Finally, data collection using tablet devices and open-source software can be conducted using the generated sample and maps.\ud \ud Discussion\ud \ud Slums are home to a growing population who face some of the highest burdens of disease yet who remain relatively understudied. Difficulties conducting surveys in these locations may explain this disparity. We propose a generalisable, scientifically valid method that is sustainable and ensures community engagement.

This paper presents results from the application of a methodological framework developed as part of an ongoing research project focused on understanding inequalities in the healthcare access of slum residents of cities in four countries: Bangladesh, Kenya, Pakistan and Nigeria. We employ a systematic approach to produce, curate and analyse volunteered geographic information (VGI) on urban communities, based on a combination of collaborative satellite-imagery digitization and participatory mapping, which relies upon geospatial open-source technologies and the collaborative mapping platform OpenStreetMap. Our approach builds upon and extends humanitarian mapping practices, in order to address the twofold challenge of achieving equitable community engagement whilst generating spatial data that adheres quality standards to produce rigorous and trusted evidence for policy and decision making. Findings show that our method generated promising results both in terms of community engagement and the production of high-quality data on communities to analyse urban inequalities.

Urban Resilience has recently emerged as a systematic approach to urban sustainability. The malleable definition of resilience has rendered its operationalisation an intriguing task for contemporary cities trying to address their organisational problems and confront uncertainty in a holistic manner. In this article we investigate the implementation challenges emerging for Resilient Strategies by the inattention paid to urban geological risk. We conceptualise urban geological risk as the combination of urban geohazards, geological vulnerability and exposure of the built environment and focus on the case study of Thessaloniki, Greece, a city that joined the 100 Resilient Cities initiative in 2014 and published its &ldquo, Resilience Strategy 2030&rdquo, (RS) in 2017. After a review of the RS, historical records of natural hazard events and with evidence gathered through interviews with city officials, we emphasize on earthquakes and surface flooding as the most relevant geohazards for Thessaloniki to tackle in its journey towards urban resilience. First, we examine geological vulnerability to earthquakes in conjunction with exposure of the built environment, as an outcome of ageing building stock, high building densities and the urban configuration, in Acheiropoietos neighbourhood, within the historic centre of the city. Then, we explore geological risk to surface flooding in Perea, in Thermaikos Municipality, with a particular focus on flash floods, by demonstrating how limited consideration of local geomorphology as well as semi-regulated urban expansion and its limited connection with emergency planning increase exposure of the built environment to surface flooding. Finally, we come up with the major implementation challenges Thessaloniki&rsquo, s RS faces with regard to urban geohazards.

D4.1. RiskPACC Task 4.1 Framework Development focuses on the initial development of the RiskPACC framework and collates, evaluates and builds upon existing theoretical frameworks for collaboration between Civil Protection Authorities (CPAs) and citizens in order to close the Risk Perception-Action Gap (RPAG). The Risk Perception-Action Gap (RPAG) is sometimes understood as a lack of risk perception in citizens which results in a lack of appropriate response actions. However, in RiskPACC we unpack that notion and explore the different perceptions, attitudes and actions of both citizens and CPAs and seek ways to create an environment for better understanding through collaborative governance mechanisms. The vehicle for this is the RiskPACC co-creation labs (see RiskPACC Deliverable 3.4 Lab Methodology and Glossary). Task 4.1 builds upon work explored in Work Packages 1 (Understanding good practices and challenges in Civil Protection policy and practice) and WP2 (Engaging citizens to expand understandings of risks, vulnerabilities and data collection opportunities) and works closely with WP3 Co-creation lab and stakeholder integration. Chapter 2 presents some of the findings from interviews with case study partners carried out for Work Packages 1 and 2 where we can see that both CPAs and citizens identify differences in how each understand risks and how they understand each other. RiskPACC Deliverable 4.1 presents the first draft RiskPACC Collaborative Framework, reviews a range of frameworks on, and approaches to, collaborative governance, and sets out recommendations for the format and ways of working in the co-creation labs. The Framework (discussed in Chapter 3) has synthesised from the academic and grey literature, plus the identified gaps from our case study partners, 5 key components to be considered in closing the RPAG. These comprise: • Risk Context • Social-political Context • Risk Perceptions and Actions • Risk Reduction Relationships • Risk Communication Approaches Each of these components has several sub-components and these are all discussed in more detail in the body of the report. The key components form a general structuring framework for the whole report. The framework will be constantly revised and updated as we engage more with our case study partners and their stakeholders. However, for wider use with citizens, we have also simplified this down as follows: UNDERSTANDING • We all have some expertise • We recognize diversity in ourselves and our ideas SHARING • Try standing in another's shoes • Be open to the constraints of others RELATING • Start from a position of equality • Everyone has an equal voice BUILDING • What works for one person, doesn't necessarily work for another We hope this conveys the core values of RiskPACC and how we hope to proceed in developing a collaborative governance process. RiskPACC technical partners have also begun the process of designing the technological solutions to be offered to case study partners. This fits under the ‘Building’ component and the pros and cons of a range of types are discussed in Chapter 4. However, as the main gaps identified through the literature review are a mutual lack of understanding of CPA and citizen perspectives, and a need for relationship building, these form the major focus of this report. Finally, there is a list of recommendations for the design and operation of the workshops and co-creation labs. These are organised under the, now familiar, headings: understanding, sharing, relating, building and co-creation lab planning and facilitation. These synthesise the main lessons learned which come out of the literature reviews and the discussions with case study partners.

This deliverable D1.3 brings together research from the two previous Work Package (WP) 1 deliverables, that are outlined below, to discuss the gaps between the state of the art research (SOTA) and what occurs in practice in six the case study areas. The report defines concepts and processes of disaster management, discusses current operations, and suggests solutions to the gaps discovered. First, background information on the work already done in WP1 is discussed. Then, the gaps are examined in more detail, including information on how they were identified. While discussing the gaps definitions of DRM terms, current practices in case study areas, and suggestions of ways to address these gaps are also highlighted. Finally, the report provides a roadmap for future activities in RiskPACC, and how they can be used to close some of the gaps highlighted in the report. Additionally, the risk perception action gap (RPAG) is discussed in relation to the gaps and activities are suggested to close the RPAG going forward. Chapter 2 of this report provides an overview of the previous work done in WP1. This includes a summary of the results of two deliverables, D1.1 and D1.2. D1.1 provides the theoretical background on disaster resilience, vulnerability and risk perception, leading to the creation of working definitions of these concepts for RiskPACC. There is then a dicussion of the current research on operationalising the concepts. The research on both disaster resilience and risk perception highlighted the need for more bottom-up activiites and an increase in two-way communication. This SOTA research was then contrasted with the work done in D1.2, where empirical evidence was gathered through interviews with CPAs in the case study areas. These interviews highlighted the current practices of different CPAs in the case study areas, which demonstrated the current use of top-down intiatives and communication strategies. In Chapter 3, the gaps are discussed in depth. The gaps were discovered through a thorough analysis of the information provided in both D1.1 and D1.2, with the addition of data on the citizen perspective that is provided in D2.2. There are 15 gaps discussed in this report, which were categorized into the following major themes: - Communication - Theory vs practice - Governance - Operations and implementation - Data and technology Communication gaps address the current lack of communication between CPAs and citizens, and highlight the need for two-way communication, including creating better communication channels to facilitate this two-way communication. CPA and community experiences in communication are discussed, showing the current lack of engagement between the two groups