Melisa Güngör, Zeynep Elburz (p)

Hung-Chih Hung

Community resilience to earthquakes is a crucial issue for urban planning and disaster management. While the literature on community resilience has primarily focused on spatial, economic, and environmental dimensions, the importance of social and community capital dimensions has been neglected. As a result, there is an academic gap in evaluating the interplay of the dimensions in measuring community resilience to earthquakes. Moreover, current studies rely on multi-criteria decision-making methods; however, there is a lack of evaluating more than one method together. This study seeks to address the academic gaps by examining the significance of social, spatial, economic, environmental, and community capital dimensions in determining community resilience to earthquakes. The study will be conducted in the high earthquake-risk region of İzmir-Bayraklı, Turkey, and the scale of the neighbourhoods. The main research question is, "What is the importance of social, spatial, economic, environmental, and community capital dimensions in determining community resilience to earthquake events?" The hypothesis is that evaluating the interplay of these dimensions is crucial to measure community resilience accurately. In the study, a multi-criteria decision-making method that integrates Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) will be used together. AHP will be used to determine the relative importance of each dimension and to prioritise the sub-criteria within each dimension. WLC will then be used to combine the weighted criteria and sub-criteria to evaluate the overall community resilience. By integrating AHP and WLC, the study aims to offer a more comprehensive and robust method for assessing community resilience. The findings of this study will provide valuable insights into disaster management and urban planning policies to improve community resilience to earthquakes. Finally, the study aims to contribute to the existing literature on community resilience by offering a more integrated understanding of the interplay of various dimensions.

Francesco Corrado (p), Semonetta Longhi, Aura Reggiani

Zeynep Elburz

In recent years, economists and social scientists have analysed the concept of economic resilience. Concerning regional economic resilience, a seminal definition has been provided by Martin (2012), who measures the resilience of a region as the relative difference between its employment growth rate and the national employment growth rate, between two years.
In the literature, several studies have investigated what variables may affect resilience; for a review see, e.g., Di Caro and Fratesi (2018).
Social capital is defined as the set of beliefs, habits and trust each individual feels within society (Bourdieu, 1986). As highlighted by Habisch and Adaui (2013), social capital is “a fruitful analytical tool to better understand the structure and role of social innovations” (p.72). Concerning the relationship between social capital and resilience, Aldrich and Meyer (2014) highlight that social infrastructure drives resilience. Bristow and Healy (2018) use social capital as an independent variable impacting resilience but within a broader set of variables. Further insights into the relationships between social capital and resilience are necessary here.
This paper investigates the role of social capital on resilience, after controlling for socio-economic variables, such as occupational specialisation. We expect social capital to positively influence economic resilience.
Our analysis focuses on the resilience of European regions between 2014 and 2018. First, by estimating OLS model, our results tend to suggest that social capital has a positive effect on resilience. However, OLS estimates are sensitive to outliers and do not allow a clear separation between resilient (characterised by positive changes) and non-resilient regions (negative changes). We therefore also categorise regions into two groups: resilient and non-resilient, and use a probit model, confirming a positive relationship between social capital and resilience. Finally, we refine the probit model by allowing uncertainty in the classification of regions: regions with changes close to zero can be classified as no-change, thus creating a third group. With a dependent variable with three categories (resilient, no-change, non-resilient), we estimate the model using ordered probit and find no effect of social capital on resilience. More analysis is needed to more systematically identify the threshold to separate the resilient/non-resilient regions from the no-change ones.
Further research may also extend the analysis to more recent periods, including the economic crisis, and using panel data estimation techniques.

Maki Ikegami (p)

Francesco Corrado

The social responsibility of higher education institutions in contributing to a sustainable society is commonly recognized. However, campus sustainability has not been practically implemented in Japan more than 10 years since the concept was introduced to Japanese higher education institutions.

One useful tool to understand the current status of campus sustainability at Japanese universities is Assessment System for Sustainable Campus (ASSC). ASSC is an evaluation system that takes a holistic view of campus sustainability. Universities classified as “top of the class” in ASSC are the top-runners in Japan (Ikegami and Neuts, 2020).

On the other hand, International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) is one of the most important networks of higher education institutions for keeping up with the global trends. It is one of the few global networks dedicated to campus sustainability, in which any higher education institutions can participate. A distinctive feature here is that the ISCN has award categories based on the chronological stages of development of campus sustainability, such as Whole Systems Approach, Partnerships for Progress, and Cultural Change for Sustainability.

In this study, projects and campaigns implemented by ISCN award-winners (The University of Edinburgh, University of Leeds, Thammasat University, etc.) and by “top of the class” universities in Japan evaluated by ASSC (Kyoto University, Nagoya University, Hokkaido University, etc.) were compared within the framework of Triple or Quadruple Helix. An attempt was made to identify differences and similarities between the top-runner universities in the world and Japan. A document analysis was adopted by using material on the web and from the data of ASSC, as well as material obtained from interviews.

The interim investigation implies that Japan's top-runner universities have excellent campus projects focusing on district planning to improve well-being of the surrounding area and the campus. In the ISCN award categories, the winning projects categorized in "partnerships for progress", which is based on collaboration with external organizations, might have similarities to these Japanese cases.

On the other hand, the similarities between Japanese cases and the winning projects in the most early-stage award category - “Cultural change for sustainability” or in the most mature stage category - “whole systems approach” are not highly expected. This suggests that, for Japanese institutions, sustainability perspectives are only taken into account in specific campus projects and not necessarily rooted as a university-wide strategy. It is important to understand that in what way these differences are created under a different societal context.

Hung-Chih Hung (p), Yi-Ching Ling, Chih-Hsuan Hung

Maki Ikegami

1. Background
The proportion of older adults in the world is projected to reach nearly 16% in 2050 and nearly 23% by 2100. Moreover, many rapidly growing urban areas in the Pacific-Asia region face high seismic risk and become more vulnerable as they develop. Recent international efforts, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030, identified ways to alleviate disaster risks through stakeholders’ resilience-building. To optimize health opportunities for the ageing population in rapidly urbanizing communities, World Health Organization (WHO) promoted the concept of Age-Friendly Cites (AFC) to support and help people to age actively and age-in-place. However, relatively little attention has been paid to linking AFC and ageing resilience and exploring the impact of AFC on older community members’ resilience from a behaviour perspective. This article aims to investigate the components of AFC that contribute to building earthquake resilience among older adults.
2. Methods and data
Combining WHO’s AFC assessment framework with the disaster ageing resilience concept, developmental psychology theory and literature review, we develop the Framework of Age-friendly and Resilience Behaviour for Earthquake Risks (FARBER) to examine the determinants of ageing adaptation and resilience to earthquakes. A survey was conducted among older adults in Taipei, Taiwan to illustrate the proposed methodology. We applied focus group meetings to incorporate key stakeholders’ knowledge and engagement into the questionnaire design. The survey was pre-tested by trained interviewers through three rounds of face-to-face interviews. Finally, 427 respondents were used in the analysis with a response rate of 95%. We then integrated Cluster Analysis and Binary Logit Regression Models into the data investigation.
3. Results
Survey results show that accessibility, walkability, and the quality of physical environments significantly increase older adults’ adopting adaptation behaviour and resilience. Social environment, community and social capital are vital supporting factors for the physical environment in promoting cooperation, social integration, sharing resources, personal fulfilment, and freeing from isolation. Results also indicate that respondents with chronic diseases, low sensory and physical activity abilities are less conducive to adopting adaptation behaviour and less resilient. Our findings show that the resilience of older people to earthquakes depends not only on individual attributes, but also on their interactions with community contexts and social supports. If this is reflected in policy lines of land-use planning and built environment design, it raises the importance of involving social capital and participation, individual capacity, and community support in physical environmental improvements to increase ageing resilience.