Measuring community resilience using Q method: physical resilience perspective

Abstract

Purpose Decision makers, practitioners and community members have a need to assess the disaster resilience of their communities and to understand their own capacities in disaster situations. There is a lack of consensus among researchers as to what resilience means and how it can be measured. This paper proposes a novel technique to achieve consensus among stakeholders on the definitions, objectives and indicators for measuring a key dimension of community disaster resilience, namely Physical Infrastructure (PI). Method This study uses a 5-step approach utilizing Q-methods to contextualize a resilience index for Physical Infrastructure. Interviews, focus groups and Q-sorting workshops were conducted to develop a tool that ranked measures according to stakeholder preference. A total of 84 participants took part in the workshops across four countries (UK, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). Findings The initial set of 317 measures was reduced to 128 and divided into the three community capacities of Anticipatory, Absorptive and Restorative. The Physical Infrastructure Capacity Assessment Tool (PI-CAT) was then finalized to encompass 38 indicators that were also ranked in order of importance by the participants. Practical implications The PI-CAT can be useful for local governments and communities to measure their own resilience. The tool allows stakeholders to be confident that the metrics being used are ones that are relevant, important and will meet their requirements. Originality The Q-method approach helps stakeholders to develop and use a community capacity assessment tool that is appropriate for their context. The PI-CAT can be used to identify effective investments that will enhance community disaster resilience.