4.6 Article

Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters

Journal

NATURAL HAZARDS
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 381-408

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-0021-4

Keywords

Resilience; Natural disaster; Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory; Community; Climate change

Funding

  1. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility
  2. Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
  3. Queensland Government
  4. Griffith University
  5. Macquarie University
  6. Queensland University of Technology
  7. James Cook University
  8. University of Newcastle
  9. Murdoch University
  10. University of Southern Queensland
  11. University of the Sunshine Coast

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper advocates the use of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory as a framework to analyse resilience at diverse scales. Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory can be employed to (a) benchmark social resilience, (b) target the priority interventions required and (c) measure progress arising from these interventions to enhance resilience to natural disasters. First, the paper explores resilience to natural disasters in the context of climatic change as building resilience is seen as a way to mitigate impacts of natural disasters. Second, concepts of resilience are systematically examined and documented, outlining resilience as a trait and resilience as a process. Third, issues arising in relation to the measurement of resilience are discussed. Fourth, Bronfenbrenner's bioecological systems theory is described and proffered to model and assess resilience at different scales. Fifth, studies are described which have supported the use of the bioecological systems theory for the study of resilience. Sixth, an example of the use of Bronfenbrenner's theory is offered and the paper concludes with suggestions for future research using Bronfenbrenner's theory.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available