Risk and resilience

The word ‘resilience’ is being used more widely, and arguably more loosely, than ever before. Derived from the Latin word resilire – meaning to ‘spring back’ – it has long been used in chemical engineering to refer to substances that have a capacity to return to their original form after being bent, stretched or compressed. It has subsequently been adopted by ecologists interested in what makes some species or ecosystems more adaptable to change than others and by psychologists wanting to understand why some individuals seem more capable of bouncing back after shocks or setbacks. It now enjoys widespread use in international literature on disaster preparation and recovery and is being invoked increasingly in studies related to climate change adaptation. Resilience is often discussed in relation to other terms such as ‘vulnerability’ and ‘exposure to hazards’ (Adger and Brown 2009) while its relationship with risk-taking is largely neglected. Of course, psychologists have long noted that resilient people are likely to have a high level of risk tolerance, however a growing interest in ‘risk management’ seems to encourage the view that resilience can be achieved by finding ways to avoid risk. In a book published in German in 1986 and in English in 1992, Ulrich Beck pointed out that western societies are becoming increasingly ‘risk averse’ at the very time when human activities are making exposure to various forms of risk more widespread and pervasive. For example, the catastrophic accident in the

nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986 may have begun locally but its effects spread across many neighbouring countries and made the region surrounding the plant uninhabitable for humans. The increasing mobility of people and domesticated animals means that viruses and diseases can spread with unprecedented speed while the widespread use of dangerous chemicals and the generation of many forms of toxic waste mean that rising risks can rarely be contained within national boundaries. Increasing exposure to risk calls for greater awareness of the dangers posed – i.e. risk assessment – and it is obviously important to look for ways to minimise risk and hazard exposure. However, Beck warned that people living in western societies have been lulled into a false sense of security about the capacity of their governments and public authorities to manage risk. Rather than contemplate risk more fully, we have seen a marked increase in risk denial or aversion, he noted. In a follow-up book published in 2007, Beck found that risk aversion has become even more entrenched, especially in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the USA in September 2003. However, he argued that risk denial will become increasingly untenable in a ‘world at risk’ and that a need to grapple with risk will eventually trigger big changes in cultural beliefs and practices. This chapter will consider some of the personal and social costs of risk aversion and focus attention on the relationship between risk and resilience. It notes that a measure of risk-taking is essential for innovation, although the distinction needs to be made between unconscious exposure to hazards and knowing acceptance of risk. Many studies have demonstrated that people living in poor countries or poor communities – with inadequate public health systems – are most likely to be exposed to ‘natural’ or human-induced hazards and this is a form of inequity that needs urgent and enduring attention. At the same time, the chapter will argue that people living in western societies have something to learn from people living in non-western societies about resilience because perceptions of risk are heavily influenced by cultural beliefs and practices. While psychologists can describe attributes that make some individuals more resilient than others, ecologists have focused on the kinds of properties that make some living systems more resilient than others and some of their key findings have been summarised in an influential book by Brian Walker and David Salt (2006). Walker and Salt argue that principles of systemic resilience can be designed into the systems we create for human communities and the relevance of those principles will be explored in relation to the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans in 2005 which exposed major faults in the city’s disaster management plans. We need to learn the lessons of past disasters in order to give more substance to the rhetoric about disaster resilience and the onset of global climate change makes this even more urgent. The chapter begins by highlighting some of the dangers associated with prevailing risk management strategies before considering the benefits of embracing, rather than avoiding, risk. The chapter aims to:

■ explain key shortcomings in prevailing western thought on risk management; ■ consider some of the benefits that might flow from a significant cultural

shift in the perception of risk;

■ highlight some of the ways in which some people can become more resilient than others; and

■ expand on the ideas of Brian Walker and David Salt (2006) in relation to systemic attributes that can make some human systems and settlements more resilient than others.