The influence of community factors on community resilience after a disaster. Linking theoretical insights to the practice of the 2001 café fire disaster in Volendam

(1)

The influence of community factors on

community resilience after a disaster

Linking theoretical insights to the practice of the 2001 café fire

disaster in Volendam

Master Thesis

Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University – Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

January 12, 2020

Name:

J.M.D. Spaans

Student number:

1355732

Supervisor:

Dr. P.G.M. Aarten

Second reader:

Dr. A.V. van der Vlies

(2)

2

Abstract

In this explorative study, the influences of community factors on the resilience process of communities are investigated. While the scientific literature is predominantly focussed on individual and personal resilience and how to enhance this prior to and during disastrous situations, a lack of knowledge exists about the community level and its impact on community resilience after a disaster. To investigate this phenomenon, a systematic literature review has been conducted to collect scientific insights about potential community factors influencing the process of coping with and adapting to disastrous events. Two academic databases were used to select relevant articles, according to previously determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. To investigate whether certain community factors are also present in practice, an analysis on the case of the 2001 café fire in Volendam has been conducted. A combination of official investigation reports, documents and books with stories of victims, relatives and caregivers were examined to provide practical examples and insights regarding specific community factors and their influence on the process of community resilience.

The theoretical and practical analyses revealed a number of important results. Social capital within communities, in the form of social interactions, social connectedness and community engagement, was concluded to contribute to the process of community resilience. The importance of collectively supporting and engaging in community activities, supplemented with strong social ties and connections, clearly emerged from the theoretical and practical analysis. In addition to that, cultural factors were concluded to enhance the process of community resilience, according to the scientific field. However, the practical analysis showed the opposite effect; instead of enhancing community resilience, cultural factors seemed to restrict it. A final major finding was the discovered need to view resilience as a concept that has connections with various social-ecological levels. The impact and mutual connections of individual, family and societal levels of resilience needs to be incorporated when investigating community resilience. Future research should further explore the importance of social-ecological levels on resilience, the role of cultural factors as well as the degree of influence of the identified community factors on community resilience in different practical cases.

(3)

3

Foreword

Before you lies my thesis, titled “The influence of community factors on community resilience after a disaster. Linking theoretical insights to the practice of the 2001 café fire disaster in Volendam”. It has been written to complete the MSc program Crisis and Security Management at Leiden University. In the past few months, the subjects of community resilience and the Volendam disaster have had my full attention and fascination. This has resulted in an extensive and interesting investigation of which I hope will fascinate the reader as much as it fascinated me.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Pauline Aarten, for the support and guidance during the thesis process. Our meetings encouraged me to broaden my view on certain subjects and your helpfulness stimulated me in the writing process. My thanks also go to the people I spoke with during my visit to Volendam, for their openness and willingness to talk about the events. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their endless support and trust, not only in the months of writing this thesis but during my entire career as a student.

Jeroen Spaans,

(4)

4

List of Tables and Figures

Table 3.1: Search terms used in databases during the systematic literature review ... 20

Table 3.2: Reports and books used in the practical analysis... 23

Table 4.1: Analysed scientific articles from the PubMed and Web of Science database ... 26

Table 4.2: Identified community factors and dimensions from the systematic literature review ... 36

Figure 3.1: Flow diagram of the different phases in the systematic literature review ... 22

(7)

7

1. Introduction: The Volendam disaster

Almost twenty kilometres to the north of Amsterdam lies the town of Volendam, an old fishing village located at the edge of the ‘Markermeer’. With its particular dialect and age-old traditions, Volendam is a unique village in the Netherlands and a popular destination among national and international tourists (Gemeente Edam-Volendam, n.d.). According to Beernink (2006), the Volendam community has various special characteristics, such as the high (social) involvement between community members, the strong sense of ‘togetherness’ and a strong culture of ‘work hard, play hard’. On the other hand, a high degree of performance pressure and adaptation towards a certain group culture is similarly present (Beernink, 2006, p.13-14).

Almost twenty years ago, this small community faced a disaster that severely affected Volendam and its inhabitants. During New Year’s Eve, 2001, a fire broke out in café ‘De Hemel’ (popularly called ‘Het Hemeltje’), a café crowded with over 300 celebrating young people (Beernink, 2006, p.15). Because of the past Christmas festivities, the café ceiling was almost completely decorated with pine branches. Approximately twenty minutes past twelve, these decorations caught fire due to small fireworks (sparklers) which were lit inside the café. In a matter of seconds, the dry pine branches caught fire. Although the actual fire blaze had a duration of around one minute, this did not prevent the temperature from rising to extremely high numbers. People inside the café were sprinkled with burning branches, causing their clothes and skin to burn (Bierens et al., 2005, p.549). Due to a lack of escape routes in combination with an overcrowded café and major smoke development, many visitors had troubles fleeing from the immense heat and thick smoke. This resulted in the death of fourteen young people who were killed either directly by the fire and heat or passed away in the days, weeks or months afterwards. More than two hundred visitors were (seriously) injured (Beernink, 2006, pp.15-17). According to Bierens et al., “due to the high number of surviving victims and the fact that they

rapidly spread to neighbouring cafes and houses, the on-scene situation became chaotic”. Rescue

workers had troubles with efficiently coordinating the scene and mapping the number of casualties and severe victims (Bierens et al., 2005, p.553). Due to the large number of burned victims, burning centres and hospitals in Germany and Belgium were necessary to accommodate all the victims. Most of the affected youngsters had internal damage to their lungs due to the smoke development and lack of oxygen in the café. Some of them faced months of recovery in hospitals (Beernink, 2006, pp.27-28). The psychological impact on the victims, families and the Volendam community as a whole was severe. The disaster was felt intensely within Volendam, among other things due to the fact that so many young people were affected by the fire and the fact that almost everybody in the small community knew someone who was present during that ill-fated night (Ibid, pp.11-17).

(8)

8

1.1. Research focus and knowledge gap

This study will focus on the kind of influence a community has on the resilience process of that same community after a disastrous event. A disaster, defined as “a potentially traumatic event that is

collectively experienced, has an acute onset, and is time delimited” (McFarlane and Norris, 2006, p.4),

can have human, technical or natural causes. In this definition lies an important factor of disasters in general, namely its potential to cause trauma on those people affected by it (McFarlane and Norris, 2006, pp.4-5). These potential traumatic events can be divided into individually and collectively experienced events. Individually experienced events vary from interpersonal violence to accidents causing severe injuries or life-threatening diseases. Examples of collectively experienced events are terrorism (a chronic threat), epidemics threatening public health (an escalating threat) or natural disasters and technological disaster (an acute threat). Acute threats can be divided into natural or man-made disaster. This latter category can also be subdivided into disasters following outbreaks of mass violence or disasters due to a technological accident. The Volendam café fire, which will be the case study subject of this research, can be seen as a human-caused technological disaster. As McFarlane and Norris state, “Technological accidents are disaster caused by neglect, carelessness, or failures of

technology […]” (Ibid, pp.5-9). Both the factors of neglect and carelessness were clearly present in the

case of the café fire on January 1st_{, 2001.}

A collectively experienced disaster often results in a response from organizations, communities or other actors involved. Until recently, policies regarding disasters and hazard readiness were predominantly aimed at reducing material, human or economic losses (Johnston & Ronan, 2005, p.9). The goal was to prevent losses and reduce risks and vulnerabilities. However, as Mayunga emphasizes, “the main goal of hazard planning and disaster risk reduction has slightly shifted to

focusing more on building community resilience rather than only reducing vulnerability” (Mayunga,

2007, p.1). A community-based problem-solving approach is related to this. Johnston and Ronan argue that resilience consists of multiple factors, which create and sustain healthy and viable communities that are able to recover from and adapt to the effects of a disastrous event (Johnston & Ronan, 2005, p.9). Therefore, when analysing the capacity of communities to recover from disasters, the concept of ‘community resilience’ emerges. One of the definitions has been given by Norris et al. (2008), who define it as the “process linking a set of networked adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of

functioning and adaptation in constituent populations after a disturbance” (Norris, Pfefferbaum,

Pfefferbaum, Stevens, & Wyche, 2008, p.131). A variety of academic scholars has published about the concept; mostly about the way to build or establish it (e.g. Comfort 2016; Gil-Rivas and Kilmer 2016; Plough et al. 2013; Henderson et al. 2013) or how to enhance it in pre-disaster situations (Bishop and Veil 2014; Pfefferbaum et al. 2017). However, specifically the impact of a disaster on a community and the capacity of that community to recover from such an adversity is a topic lacking proper

(9)

9

scientific research. In contrast to the effects of disasters on a personal or individual level, the focus of scholars tends to stop when the community level becomes the centre of attention. The aim of this study is to investigate the importance of this community level. What role does a community play in creating and enhancing community resilience? Are there specific community characteristics or factors important in the way a community deals with disastrous events?

1.2. Research question and reading guide

In this explorative study, research will be conducted on the barely studied topic of the community level and its influence on the resilience of that same community after a disaster. The research question will be stated as follows: Which factors of a community contribute to influence the resilience of this

same community after a disaster and how is this reflected in the aftermath of the Volendam disaster?

In order to answer the central research question, it will be necessary to divide it into two parts. A systematic literature review of the scientific literature surrounding community and community resilience will be conducted first, which will specifically focus on potential community factors influencing community resilience. The variety of definitions surrounding the concepts of ‘community’ and ‘resilience’ and the lack of knowledge regarding the influence of the community level on resilience asks for a thorough study (see Norris et al, 2008, pp.128-131). By investigating a selection of academic articles, this study tries to contribute to the understanding of community-level effects on the resilience process of a community.

Subsequently, the theoretical analysis will be combined with a practical analysis of the Volendam case. Official investigation reports will be analysed, supplemented with literature regarding the Volendam disaster and its aftermath. Information from personal stories of victims and other stakeholders involved will be extracted from various books about the café fire and its surviving victims. In this way, scientific insights will be linked to practical insights and examples, in order to create a broad overview of the resilience within Volendam and the potential role the community has played in enhancing or deteriorating its resilience after the café fire.

This study will be structured as follows. The next chapter will present the body of knowledge, together with an overview of previously conducted research and a conceptualization of the central concepts within this study. After that, the research design will follow, specifying the use of a case-study design, the methods of data collection and the limitations of this research. Subsequently, the findings of this research will be presented in the result chapters. The final chapter provides a concluding overview, thereby answering the research question, offering a discussion on the research and results itself as well as proposing various recommendations for future studies.

(10)

10

2. Body of Knowledge

In this chapter, an overview of previously conducted scientific research in the field of community resilience will be offered. After that, some key concepts that are important for this research study will be presented, discussed and conceptualized.

Worldwide, the amount of (natural) disasters and their impact on a global scale has risen. The consequences of severe adversities often cross borders and harmfully impact people, nature or societies outside the original disaster location (The Economist, August 29, 2017). An article by Quarantelli from 1994 already mentioned different aspects of globalization, such as growing urbanization and increased industrialization combined with decaying and old infrastructure as factors that would ultimately lead to a severe increase in the amount of hazards and disastrous events throughout the world (Norris et al., 2008, p.137). Associated with this is the increased need for resilience measures and certain frameworks to hold on to, which has resulted in a fast growing and expending body of knowledge surrounding resilience (Cox & Hamlen. 2015, pp.220-222). The importance of the concept has been underlined by Houston, who argues that “community resilience is

an important concept in terms of improving and protecting the health and wellness of communities”

(Houston, 2015, p.176).

Resilience theory has been framed as a ‘bandwagon’ term and an ‘empty’ word, consisting of multiple definitions and meanings. As Van Breda (2018) states in his article, some define it as “something

intrinsic to the individual, while others refer to it in a more holistic sense” (Van Breda, 2018, p.2). On

the one hand, the concept of resilience is presented as a certain capacity available in every person; on the other hand, it is thought to be a tool that emerges in adverse situations. Initially, resilience was predominantly seen as an outcome, whereby the attention was focussed on ‘being resilient’ after a disastrous event. Resilience was defined as a path of healthy and stable functioning in the aftermath of an adversity (Ibid, pp.2-3). In present research, the focus lies more on resilience as a changing process (Norris et al., 2008, p.130). For example Bonzo et al., who conceptualized resilience as a developing process instead of an outcome. They argued that resilience consists of beliefs, behaviour, ideas and attitudes that ought to be maintained and sustained (Bonzo et al., 2007, p.349). The same accounts for a study by Allen et al. (2018), who conducted research on the topic of community and ecological resilience and the way to assess these concepts. As a concluding remark, they argued; “Though there is

no consensus on the definition and approaches for assessing community resilience, the concept continues to evolve from a single-state, equilibrium-based definition (e.g., “recovery” from Timmerman, 1981) into a more dynamic, and non-equilibrium-based viewpoint, influenced by research on social-ecological systems […]” (Allen, 2018, p.359). The authors emphasise the dynamic

character of community resilience, which indicates that the concept is seen more as a changing process instead of a static and fixed concept.

(11)

11

Another study investigating the concept of community resilience is the research study conducted by Norris et al. (2008), who present a more theoretical view on community resilience. The authors emphasize the different capacities or resources necessary for community resilience to emerge from, such as community competences, social capital, economic development and information and communication capacities (Norris et al., 2008, pp.136-142). Many other scholars have come up with similar elements necessary to create and build resilience. An example of this are Aldrich’s five elements of resilience after a disaster. They consist of the wellbeing of individual persons, both psychologically and socially; restoring and recovering important systems and critical infrastructure; restoring governmental institutions and important organizations; continuing commercial and economic activities in order to get the productivity started; and resuming government duties with regard to safety (Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum & Van Horn, 2017, pp.104-105).

The growing attention towards disasters and their effect has increased the focus of the scientific field on the concept of community resilience. This has resulted in the formation of several resilience frameworks. An example of these frameworks is the one developed by Cox and Hamlen (2015). They developed the Rural Resilience Index (RRI), a framework to analyse and potentially enhance the resilience of rural communities. Through the Rural Resilience Index, it is possible to collect data on the status of resilience within a certain community, which can eventually be used to improve the resilience of that specific community. The Rural Resilience Index is a tool which could facilitate community-level action and clear community planning in order to increase resilience (Cox & Hamlen, 2015, pp.220-234). Another interesting theoretical framework focussing on the resilience of communities is the ‘Community Engagement Theory’ by Paton (2013). He argues that the capacities of a community to face and survive disaster are influenced by its outcome expectancy beliefs; “if

people hold negative outcome expectancy beliefs, their likelihood of preparing is reduced. If people hold positive outcome expectancy beliefs, they will either proceed to prepare, or […] the relationship between positive outcome expectancy and empowerment will be mediated by the social structural processes (community participation and collective efficacy) used to articulate community members’ needs and expectations” (Paton, 2013, p.6).

Although both interesting frameworks, they do not specifically address the influence of a community on its own resilience process. The Rural Resilience Index predominantly looks at the preparation phase and ways to enhance resilience actions and plans. The Community Engagement Theory predominantly focusses on the outcome expectancy beliefs of community members in the phase before a disaster and how these beliefs influence resilience. However, the focus of this research study lies on the post-disaster phase and aims to investigate the way community factors influence the resilience process after a disaster, instead of the way in which a community prepares for upcoming disaster.

(12)

12

This study will try to fill the existing knowledge gap regarding the effects of the community level on the resilience of that same community in the aftermath of a disaster. The next chapter will focus on the way this research study has been carried out. Before turning to this subject, the relevant concepts in this study will be discussed and conceptualized clear and concisely.

2.1. The concept of community

Within academics, a distinction exists between two different notions of the concept of community. Some look at it as “an aggregation of individual persons, that is, as a population” (Patel, Patterson & Weil, 2010, p.129). This notion of community emphasizes the fact that a population may be divided into different groups according to factors such as income, geography, religion or education. In the end, a community is solely an aggregation of individual people who are limited in their process of acting and making decisions, thereby being dependent on top-down authorities (Ibid, pp.129-130). Another notion of the concept looks at a community as an actor that is functioning autonomously, consisting of shared ideas, resources and interests. In this notion, communities are seen as flexible and adaptive actors, effective because of their local knowledge and common shared values and norms (Patel, Patterson & Weil, 2010, p.130). The following overview of conceptual definitions of a community follows this latter notion.

Bonzo et al. (2007) define a community as an entity consisting of individuals who share similar values, ideas, laws, history, culture, religion, origin and geographical location with each other. A community is built of a variety of groups or individuals, who can be quite diverse but share similar ideas, beliefs, behaviour, perceptions or norms. The interactions between community members who feel related to one another within the social structures and organizations present in their community result in sharing these factors (Bonzo et al., 2007, p.348). This view is underscored by Norris et al., who look at communities as a combination of socially, economically and naturally constructed environments. These environments influence each other constantly, thereby affecting one another in complex processes (Norris et al., 2008, p.128). This relates to the definition Chess and Norlin provide about a community; “an inclusive form of social organization that is territorially based and through

which most people satisfy their common needs and desires, deal with their common problems, seek means to advance their well-being, and relate to their society” (Hardina, 2002, p.88). Inclusion and

exclusion are important themes in regard to the concept of community; communities are defined by those who are included and therefore form a community member. On the other hand they are defined by those excluded, who form the outsiders of a community (Ibid, pp.90-97).

The interactions between individuals is an important feature of communities. These interactions are socially constructed and not facilitated by the state. Membership also forms an important part of communities. It is a social construct, based on perceived ideas about common interests, norms and perspectives binding members together. (Murphy, 2012, p.49-50). In conceptualizing a community,

(13)

13

the construct of social capital also plays a role. As follows from Murphy’s article, “one would expect

communities blessed with high stock of social capital to be safer, cleaner, wealthier, more literate, better governed, and generally ‘happier’ than those with low stocks”. Social capital can be seen as the

combination of organizations, perceptions and networks used to facilitate decision-making processes and acquire resources and power (Ibid, p.51).

2.2. The concept of community disaster

A community disaster can be defined as a negative outcome, which causes the specific resources of a community to be overwhelmed. Community disasters can have natural or man-made causes. These kind of disasters create such a severe impact, destruction and chaos that in order to adequately react and respond to them, outside assistance beyond the community level is necessary (Bonzo et al., 2007, p.348). A community disaster has a severe impact on the abilities of a community to function properly. Resources are threatened, as are the social and behavioural roles and the way people behave and interact to each another. Community disasters have a harmful impact on the wellbeing of community members, both on a physical, emotional and communal level (Ibid, p.348).

2.3. The concept of resilience

As Cox and Hamlen (2015) discuss in their article, the concept of resilience is a social construct. It is formed, influenced and created by social entities. The context of situations in which resilience finds itself in is important, because resilience is a concept that depends on certain capacities that are divided disproportionately among social entities (Cox and Hamlen, 2015, p.222). The first notion of the concept was in an ecological context, when Holding talked about resilience as the possibilities of ecosystems to face adversities or negative changes in their environment and still thrive and grow, absorbing changes and continuing living. After that, many scholars in the field of ecology followed, each with slightly different definitions (e.g. Pimm, Alwang, Walkers, and Cardona). Although the definition of resilience in an ecological context is quite clear, there is no clear definition among scholars when resilience is connected to the field of disaster and (natural) hazards (Mayunga, 2007, pp.2-4). As concluded by Norris et al. (2008), resilience can be seen as an ongoing process instead of an outcome. Most definitions include the ability of systems to adapt when adversities arise. The definition of the concept often contains the adaptability of an individual, group or organization to return to the situation prior to a certain adversity. Norris et al. define resilience as “a process linking a

set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation after a disturbance”

(14)

14

2.4. The concept of community (disaster) resilience

Cox and Hamlen (2015) have provided a clear definition of community disaster resilience. They argue that community disaster resilience is all about the abilities of a community to absorb the effects of disaster and still thrive and persist after these disastrous events. Anticipating and reducing vulnerabilities and risks are important aspects of community disaster resilience, together with increasing the capacities of a community to adapt and transform in the face and aftermath of severe adversities (Cox and Hamlen, 2015, p.221). This resembles quite well the definition Norris et al. offered in their article (2008), which is almost the same as the definition of the concept of resilience. They define community resilience as the “process linking a set of networked adaptive capacities to a

positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation in constituent populations after a disturbance”

(Norris et al., 2008, p.131).

The Community and Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI) looks at community resilience as the capacity of communities to await a specific threat and anticipate to it. It is the ability to restrict the effects of a disaster or severe threat, and to “respond, adapt, and grow when confronted with a threat” (Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum & Van Horn, 2017, p.104). One clear and general definition of the concept is hard to find; the literature about community resilience consists of a variety of scholars defining the concept in slightly different ways. This creates various overlapping definitions (Norris et al., 2008, pp.130-132).

2.5. Potential capacities shaping community resilience

As Gil-Rivas and Kilmer (2016) pose in their article, different actors need to collaborate and work together in order to facilitate community resilience. Various organizations, social actors and other groups have to act collectively in order to assemble and enhance resources necessary for establishing and creating resilience (Gil-Rivas & Kilmer, 2016, p.1320). As follows from the definition of community resilience by Norris et al., the concept consists of a collection of adaptive capacities, networked together (Norris et al., 2008, p.131). According to Norris et al., these networked adaptive capacities or resources need to be present if a community wants to reduce its vulnerability and build resilience.

A crucial part in the process of conceptualizing a community and community resilience therefore includes the provision of a clear overview of resources necessary in a particular community for resilience to arise and develop. In the study by Norris et al. (2008), various general networked resources or capacities are presented which are deemed important within a community in order to build and enhance resilience. Similar capacities are found in other sources of academic literature surrounding this topic. In the following section, a short overview of these capacities will be presented.

(15)

15

2.5.1. Social capacities

Social capital is seen as a capacity to enhance resilience at a community level, according to Norris et al. (2008). Social capital can be defined as “the existence of organizational networks that have

reciprocal, supportive, and trusting relationships; have moderate levels of overlap with other networks; are able to form new associations with other social networks; and have the ability to make joint decisions in a collaborative manner” (Gil-Rivas & Kilmer, 2016, p.1320). Features of social

capital are for example a strong sense of socially constructed networks, social embeddedness and the strength of social relationships between people. When people are affected by an adversity, they tend to look to their social surroundings for comfort, information and support. Individuals mostly look at family members, organizations they trust or people within their social networks for support and help (Ibid, p.1320). These themes also emerge from the article by Norris et al. (2008), in which they indicate the different dimensions of the social capital resource. These dimensions include e.g. informal ties such as social embeddedness, a feeling of belonging to and trusting of a community, the attachment and connection towards one’s own community, and the perceived and received social support between individuals that leads towards a social web of relations people perceive as caring, helpful and loving (Norris et al., 2008, pp.137-140).

2.5.2. Economic capacities

Following from the literature, economic capacities also seem necessary in order to create community resilience. According to Mayunga (2007), the availability of economic capacities within a community will lead to increased capabilities of individuals to deal with adversities, absorb negative disaster effects and re-build their economic lives. Income, investments and personal savings can be used in the process of reducing the vulnerability of one’s own community (Mayunga, 2007, p.7). The importance of economic development has also been emphasised by Norris et al. (2008). They state that equal distribution of economic resources plays an important part in contributing towards community resilience (Norris et al., 2008, pp.136-137). Access to health care, job opportunities, a diversity in economic resources and possibilities for decent housing are important in the creation of resilient communities (Gil-Rivas & Kilmer, 2016, p.1320; Norris et al., 2008, pp.135-137). A lack of those resources can create difficulties for underprivileged communities, especially in the phase of creating collective action plans that are necessary in order to react to the effects of a disaster (Gil-Rivas & Kilmer, 2016, p.1320).

(16)

16

2.5.3. Information capacities

Correct information and clear communication is another necessary capacity, according to Norris et al. (2008). Clear communication refers to “the creation of common meanings and understandings and the

provision of opportunities for members to articulate needs, views, and attitudes” (Norris et al., 2008,

p.140). A shared understanding of community members about particular issues creates a connection between members and a community narrative. As Norris et al. highlight, the recovery process of a community is partly dependent on the way in which a community collectively tells its stories (Ibid, p.140). However, it is not always possible to collectively tell the story of a community. If a community narrative is to be seen as a resource, an adaptive capacity forming the resilience of communities, it is thus unevenly distributed as is the case with the above-mentioned economic and social capacities. As Rappaport argues, not everyone is able to possess such a resource and tell a collective story. This could be the case because some stories are not seen as valuable ones or because they devalue individuals (Rappaport, 1995, p.805). In addition to clear communication, Norris et al. state that trustful and honest information or information sources are important aspects of resilience for a community or group of individuals to possess (Norris et al., 2008, p.140).

2.5.4. Community competence capacities

Community competence is a final capacity presented by Norris et al. (2008), which is argued to be a contributing factor of facilitating community resilience. It can be defined as the extent to which communities make decisions in a collective manner or take collective action. This can be put into practice, for example by engaging in collective group processes or collectively resolving conflictual situations (Norris et al., 2008, p.141). Collectively decided measures increase the resilience of a community, especially if those actions resemble collective efficacy and include the diverse members within a community into joint actions. As Norris et al. argue; “collective efficacy reflects trust in the

effectiveness of organized community action”. Working together, empowering others to cooperate,

share ideas about important community resources and think in a collective way results in collective community action (Ibid, pp.141-142). In order to develop and increase community competences, a community needs to own particular skills. This could be e.g. collaborating effectively and efficiently or solving problems in a flexible manner (Gil-Rivas & Kilmer, 2016, p.1321). Chandra et al. (2013) similarly emphasize the importance of community competence in building resilient communities. They talk about stimulating “participatory decision-making in planning, response, and recovery activities”, in order to establish social connections between members of a community, which are important in contributing towards community resilience (Chandra, 2013, pp.1182-1183).

(17)

17

The four capacities presented above, i.e. social, economic, information and community competence capacities, are seemed to be influential in the process of building and enhancing community resilience, according to some studies. The results of the systematic literature review, which will be presented in chapter four, will indicate whether these capacities are indeed important community factors in the process of influencing community resilience. Naturally, the systematic search could result in other influential community factors too. If this is the case, these factors will also be presented and discussed. In addition to that, the above-mentioned capacities will also be used as a base for the practical analysis about the Volendam café fire disaster, in order to investigate their presence in the Volendam case. However, before turning to the result chapters, an extensive overview of the research design, methodology, data collection and limitations of this study will be presented in the following chapter.

(18)

18

3. Research design

The aim of this research study is to discover what kind of impact the community level has on the resilience of a community after a disaster. To investigate the aforementioned research question, this study used a single-case study design. A systematic literature review has been conducted to investigate the presence of potential community influence(s) on the resilience process in the aftermath of a disaster within academic literature. In addition, the systematic review has been used to collect insights on the place of the community level between other social-ecological levels. Theoretical insights about potential community influence on resilience have been supplemented with practical evidence derived from different official investigation reports regarding the Volendam café fire disaster. This has been combined with a practical analysis of literature and books, in which victims, stakeholders and other community members are discussed and interviewed. The analysis of the Volendam case is used to derive practical insights about potential community influences on resilience after the café fire in 2001. In the following paragraphs, the case study design and the rationale to use this type of research design will be explained. Subsequently, an overview of the research methodology and data collection methods will be presented. After elaborating the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the systematic literature review, the reports and practical literature used will be discussed, together with the criteria and limitations of this qualitative explorative research.

3.1. Research Design: A case study

According to Platt (1992), a case-study design is defined as a form of qualitative research that seeks multifaceted and in-depth information about unique social phenomena. A case study investigates data in a detailed manner and often uses different sources of data to collect in-depth information. When using a case study design in the proper way, collected in-depth information and data could explain a certain phenomenon in an extensive and highly detailed manner (Platt, 1992, p.44).

A case-study design can be quite useful in situations where there is a lack of information and/or theories about social phenomena; in that case, the research design will take the form of an exploratory research (Gustafsson, 2017). As follows from the previous chapter, theories and scientific knowledge about the effects and influences of the community level on the process of community resilience are lacking. This study will therefore have an exploratory approach at its core. It is the aim to discover whether a community plays an important role in the process of recovering from and adapting to a certain adversity. Does a community as a whole contribute to the process of influencing and enhancing resilience, or do communities lack the necessary capacities to do so?

This exploratory study consisted of a systematic search for the presence of potential community factors influencing the resilience process of communities after a disaster. The aim was two-fold. On the one hand, the purpose was to collect insights from the scientific field about potential community

(19)

19

influences; on the other hand, the aim was to collect practical insights about the Volendam community, their capacities to deal with the disaster and the way the community level has influenced its resilience process after the events on New Year’s Eve, 2001.

3.2. The Volendam disaster, an unique event

A single-case design is suitable in situations where the case is a unique or rare event, where the case can be used to critically test certain theories or in situations where the case can be used to unveil specific matters (Platt, 1992, p.45). For this study, a single-case design with embedded units has been used, which enables a researcher to conduct in-depth exploration of a certain case while also considering the importance of sub-units within the main case (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p.550).

The selection of a single-case design, which focusses on the Volendam café fire in 2001, has an important reason. This design has been used because of the special and unique character of the Volendam disaster. Together with the Bijlmer disaster in 1992 (an airplane flew into two flats in Amsterdam) and the Enschede fireworks disaster in 2000 (a fireworks storage exploded in the middle of a residential area), the café fire in Volendam is one of the most tragic disasters with severe national impact in the Netherlands in the last forty years. The catastrophe happened in a small and close community. With fourteen death and over two hundred (severely) injured, almost all residents of the small town knew someone affected by the fire. As has been described in detail in a book, the Volendam community is characterized by high communal involvement, a high degree of solidarity, but also a strong group culture that distinguishes between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (Beernink, 2006, p.13). A report commissioned by the Centre of Reintegration and Aftercare ‘Het Anker’ stated that during and after the fire, Volendam residents immediately participated in helping the victims and emergency services, for example by voluntary transporting wounded to close-by hospitals (Nuijen, 2006, pp.90-91). This very specific and unique character of Volendam, together with the size and social impact of the café fire, makes the disaster in Volendam a suitable case to study the effects and potential influence(s) of a certain community on its process of resilience.

In order to write and conduct proper research on this specific case, it was necessary to become acquainted with the case under investigation. Therefore, a field trip was conducted to the village of Volendam, in order to meet some key actors involved in a ‘task-force’ team regarding the café fire. The team consisted of staff members from the municipality, people from an interest group for victims and people with a journalistic background. All of them were, in one way or another, involved in the disaster or the aftermath of it. A group discussion with these individuals resulted in a deeper understanding of the events of that night and the way it still plays a significant role in the lives of many Volendam residents. The field trip ended with a visit to the café (‘De Hemel’), where the tour through the burnt-out pub left a deep impression on those present. The field trip to Volendam was a first encounter with the village, its people, their stories and the still-present pain and emotions

(20)

20

regarding the events of New Year’s Eve 2001. This introduction contributed to create a better picture of the community, its members and the disastrous event itself.

3.3. Research Methodology and Data Collection: Step 1 – The process of a

systematic literature review

As has been mentioned before, a systematic literature review was conducted to investigate the presence of community factors influencing community resilience within academic literature. As follows from the term ‘systematic review’, this type of research uses a systematic process of gathering and analysing data. Various criteria are used to limit the search for useful articles, which helps against introducing different forms of bias into the research study (see Altman et al., 2009; Brand, Dunn, Spindler & Wright, 2007). Research conducted in an unsystematic way risks only including articles into an analysis that are selected by the researcher itself. This way of conducting a literature review is susceptible of biased selection and biased results (Brand, Dunn, Spindler & Wright, 2007, p.23). However, a systematic review that is conducted in a proper and correct manner could provide a summary and overview of essential evidence in a reliable and accurate way. A useful definition of a systematic review has been provided in the article by Altman et al. (2009). They argue that a systematic literature review aims to answer one or more research questions by collecting data according to pre-established criteria, which are designed to limit biases (Altman et al., 2009, p.2). For this study, a systematic literature review has been conducted in the international PubMed and Web of Science databases, in order to collect knowledge and insights from the scientific field regarding community influence on resilience. Before discussing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, an overview of the search terms, databases, number of hits and number of articles included in the analysis is presented in table 3.1 below. Based on various criteria, 16 articles were included into the final analysis from an initial number of hits of 397 articles.

Table 3.1: Search terms used in databases during the systematic literature review

Database Particular search term N° Hits N° Articles

included PubMed commun* AND influen* AND resilience AND disaster 109 8

Web of Science commun* AND influen* AND resilience AND disaster 288 8

An important feature of systematically reviewing academic literature is the specification of eligibility criteria that are used in a systematic review. Clear and carefully designed criteria ensure the systematic, unbiased selection of articles within the literature review. According to Altman et al.,

(21)

21

“Knowledge of the eligibility criteria is essential in appraising the validity, applicability, and

comprehensiveness of a review” (Altman et al., 2009, p.9.). In this study, various criteria have been

established, as follows from the section below.

One of these criteria was the language of scientific articles. Within this systematic review, only English-written studies were included. The reason for this is the predominance of English-written articles within the scientific field of community resilience and disaster resilience. The time period in the PubMed database ranged from 1990/01/01 to 2019/12/31. However, the time period in the Web of Science database ranged from 1990 to 2019. In this database, it was not possible to select a specific month and day in the given selection criteria. The starting point of 1990 has been chosen due to the fact that one of the earliest definitions of resilience on the community-level of analysis dates back to Brown, 1996. The starting point has been set a few years earlier, in order to include potential articles mentioning community and community resilience before Brown (see Norris et al., 2008). The two scientific databases, i.e. Web of Science and PubMed, were used as a source to find relevant scientific articles. The Web of Science database has been chosen due to its access to large amounts of literature and research studies in the field of humanities and social sciences, a field with which the topic of this research shares many similarities. The PubMed database offers a wide variety of literature in the field of life sciences, behavioural sciences and health and psychology. The probability of finding articles about community resilience in these databases was therefore quite high. In order to keep the literature study feasible given the time available to conduct research, only two databases were used to collect relevant articles.

The focus in selecting relevant articles was on those describing community resilience from a social and partly psychological perspective, instead of an ecological level of analysis. The reason for this was the expectation that studies with a social perspective are more focussed on the community level or on community factors. However, although the practical focus of this study was on a human-caused disaster, relevant studies on community and community resilience from an ecological point of view were still included. This has only taken place in those cases where the community level (influence) was being discussed in regard to resilience.

Figure 3.2 gives an overview of the different phases of the conducted systematic literature review and the number of articles included and excluded in each phase. The search term used has yielded 397 results (109 from PubMed; 288 from Web of Science), from which 73 articles were selected based on the relevance according to their title and abstract. After removing 15 duplicate articles, 58 studies remained of which a definitive selection of 16 articles was made that were used in the final analysis.

(22)

22

3.4. Research Methodology and Data Collection: Step 2 – Analysing the practice

through official reports, documents and books

The answer to the second part of the research question (i.e. how the influence of the community level on the resilience process is visible in the Volendam case) cannot solely be derived by conducting a systematic literature review and analysing academic articles. The conducted systematic review predominantly focussed on academic literature regarding communities, resilience and disaster (see table 3.1 for the particular search term used); it did not specifically focus on the community of Volendam or the Volendam fire disaster. Therefore, the chances of finding relevant studies regarding the café fire in the final selection of the systematic review was quite low. Practical insights and potential evidence of the influence of the Volendam community on its own resilience process were to be derived differently. Therefore, an analysis of official reports and books published in the aftermath of the Volendam disaster was conducted. In table 3.2, an overview of the reports, documents and books used in the analysis of the Volendam case is offered. After this, a brief summary and discussion of the sources used in the practical analysis will follow.

Number of hits from the PubMed & Web of Science database: 397

Number of articles included (by looking at title & abstract): 73

Figure 3.1: Flow diagram of the different phases in the systematic literature review

Number of articles excluded (by looking at title & abstract): 324

Number of articles included after duplicates have been removed: 58

Number of articles included in the final selection (by looking at introduction & discussion): 16

Number of articles excluded (by looking at introduction & discussion): 42

(23)

23

Table 3.2: Reports and books used in the practical analysis

Sources concerning the 2001 Volendam café fire

Title Author(s) and

publication date Focus or aim Cafébrand Nieuwjaarsnacht Eindrapport (report) Commissie onderzoek cafébrand nieuwjaarsnacht (2001)

Reconstruction of the events (pre- and post-disaster), crisis

management and fire safety Het derde klaphek voorbij?

Een analyse van de Volendamse bestuurscultuur (report)

Cachet A., Daemen H., Ringeling A. et al. (2001)

Mapping the administrative and social culture in Volendam and the relationships between the two Nieuwjaarsbrand Volendam 2001.

Lessen voor later (report)

Nuijen M. (2006) Providing evaluation, learning points and experience data of those involved in the aftercare and assistance after the disaster Het psychosociaal welbevinden

van jongeren 4½ jaar na de cafébrand (report)

GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland (2006)

Mapping young people’s

psychosocial, health or behavioural issues and their ways of seeking help

Volendam: een jaar na de ramp. Schuld, schok, schaamte

Nies I. (2002) Narrative of caregivers involved in the (immediate) aftercare process Support in Volendam. De kracht

van de gemeenschap na een ramp (book)

Beernink M. (2006) Investigating the role of the Volendam community in the aftermath of the disaster, focussed on the ‘Supportproject’

Volendam 10 jaar later. Twaalf inspirerende verhalen (book)

Veerman E. (2010) Narratives of victims, relatives and caregivers

Was alles maar weer normaal. Over leven na de brand in Volendam (book)

Janssen M., Kleber R. & van der Velden P. (2002)

Narratives of victims, relatives and caregivers

A comprehensive investigation report is the report of the commission Alders, i.e. the ‘Cafébrand Nieuwjaarsnacht’ final report. This investigation committee was charged with various tasks, predominantly focussing on promoting the integrality and coherence of different reports regarding the Volendam disaster (e.g. reports from the ‘Healthcare Inspectorate’ and the ‘Fire Service Inspection and Disaster Management Inspection’) and reporting about the circumstances leading to the fire and the settlement of the fire. In addition to that, their aim was to advise about recommendations and conclusions provided by other inspections and to focus on the granting of permits and the enforcement thereof by municipalities (Commissie onderzoek cafébrand nieuwjaarsnacht, 2001, pp.19-21).

The report ‘Nieuwjaarsbrand Volendam 2001. Lessen voor later’ (2006), commissioned by the Centre of Reintegration and Aftercare Het Anker (CRN Het Anker), was focussed at different subjects, such as the role of national and local politics and the role of Het Anker in the aftercare process of victims and all others affected by the fire. Furthermore, it looked at the role of the media and the efforts of the Volendam community in dealing with the accident (Nuijen, 2006).

(24)

24

Another report included in the practical analysis is the report by Cachet et al. (2001). They did not look at the disaster directly, but focussed on the administrative and social culture inside the municipality of Edam-Volendam. Targeting the community, political relationships within the municipality, the civil service and its administrative environment, the report aimed to investigate whether the café fire could be partly explained by looking at the administrative culture and characteristics of Volendam.

The GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland (2006) conducted a study on youngster from the municipality of Edam-Volendam, thereby looking at health, behavioural and psychosocial issues. It investigated the potential relationship between young people involved in the café fire and the presence of mental and health issues among them.

The books by Veerman (2010) and Janssen, Kleber and Van der Velden (2002) consisted of a variety of narratives, both from victims, caretakers, relatives and other stakeholders involved during and after the fire disaster. The book by Beernink (2006) can be seen as an evaluation of the community involvement in the aftermath and aftercare process, with a particular focus on the voluntary ‘Supportproject’.

3.5. Criteria and limitations

As indicated, this research study has a qualitative, in-depth focus regarding its research design. Assessing and evaluating qualitative research needs a different approach compared to the evaluation of quantitative research. In the articles by Rocco (2010) and Anderson (2017), a variety of criteria are presented that can be used to asses and evaluate the quality of qualitative empirical research, in order to strengthen the validity and reliability of a study. Important criteria for this research study will be presented in the following part.

First, Anderson talks about ‘meaningful coherence’ as an important feature of qualitative research. Meaningful coherence means that the processes of making choices and applying certain research designs are thought through and carried out in a correct manner (Anderson, 2017, p.127). Qualitative research clearly needs to define the research problem and knowledge gap, in order to indicate the relevance and importance of a qualitative, in-depth research. In addition to that, a clear rationale needs to be stated for using a specific research method necessary to find out all the facets of a research problem at hand (Rocco, 2010, p.376). To meet the above criterion, an overview of the research problem and knowledge gap has been presented in the first chapter. To ensure that the data has been collected through appropriate methods, the previous paragraphs clearly stated the rationale behind the methods of data collection - a systematic literature review - used in this study.

The external validity or generalizability of collected results is another important feature in assessing the quality of a certain research design. A high external validity means that the results of an

(25)

25

investigated case can be generalized towards other, similar cases, allowing a researcher to present broader conclusions. However, results from scientific research that cannot be generalized are not lower in quality. Still, external validity stays an important feature in scientific research (McDermott, 2011, pp.27-28). The external validity of this research project will be relatively low, meaning that conclusions drawn from the data collected through the practical analysis have distinct limitations. However, this does not meant that the results are not generalizable. As Flyvbjerg (2006) argues; “That

knowledge cannot be formally generalized does not mean that it cannot enter into the collective process of knowledge accumulation in a given field or in a society” (Flyvebjerg, 2006, p.227).Results derived from the systematic literature review can be used to contribute to the scientific field concerning community-level influence on community resilience after disasters. In addition to that, insights derived from this case study can also be used to draw broader conclusions about similar communities that faced adversities such as the one in Volendam.

Another important feature of qualitative research are member-checking procedures. They are necessary in the process of verifying the honest representation of answers, feedback and voices of participants. Verifying collected data and responses enhances the credibility of the conducted research (Anderson, 2017, p.129). In this study, data collected through the systematic literature review and the practical analysis of the Volendam case cannot be verified. Particularly in the analysis of reports and documents regarding Volendam, only official reports from investigation committees will be used that are expected to have gathered their data in a proper and objective way.

A final criterion of qualitative research is confirmability, by which is meant that the influence of a researcher’s personal judgements should be kept to a minimum or need to be absent. According to Anderson, “the acknowledged subjectivity of qualitative methods and the importance of the

researcher’s lens in qualitative research requires a discussion of the researcher’s context, positionality, or standpoint, and the possible effect of this on the research process and outcomes”

(Anderson, 2017, p.129). Therefore, the obtained results need to be interpreted and analysed as objectively as possible, in order to prevent a research bias or personal influence to enter this study. In order to do so, the results presented in the upcoming chapters (i.e. the results of the theoretical and practical literature analyses) are analysed in an objective manner. The study will clearly indicate that it contains results and insights derived from analysed sources. However, connections and ties need to be made in order to provide a discussion of the results and a conclusion of the study itself.

(26)

26

4. Results of the systematic literature review

In this chapter, the systematic literature review and its contiguous analysis will be presented. The systematic review has been conducted in order to look into the research question in a scientific and structured way. By analysing a selection of academic articles surrounding the topic of community and community resilience, the aim was to derive one or more conclusions or insights about potential community factors influencing community resilience.

The following paragraphs will be structured as follows. To start with, an overview of the selected articles from the systematic review will be presented, supplemented with a brief summary of the included studies. This will be followed by a section focussing on the place of the community level among other social-ecological levels in regard to resilience. After that, influential factors of a community on resilience will be presented, according to the findings from the analysis of selected scientific articles.

4.1. Overview of the PubMed and Web of Science literature selection

In table 4.1, an overview of the selected and analysed articles from the PubMed and Web of Science database is provided. It contains information regarding the authors and publication dates, supplemented with the aims, results, methods of data collection and analysis. If applicable, the type(s) and year of a disaster will be stated, together with the country in which the research has been conducted and the respective investigation period. After a short summary of the table, the results of the systematic review will be presented, starting with the place of the community level between other social ecological levels.

Table 4.1: Analysed scientific articles from the PubMed and Web of Science database

Author(s) and year of publication Country under investigation Disaster (year) and investigation period

Research aim Data

collection and analysis Results or conclusions Landau, 2010 Kosovo, Argentina, Romania No specific disaster,- Developing a model to enhance individual, family and community resilience. Case study (n=3)

The LINC Model (a model developed to stimulate connectedness between families, communities, individuals and social support systems) can be used to stimulate the process of finding and activating resilience resources, thereby enhancing the process of resilience.

(27)

27

Agani et al., 2010

Kosovo The war in

Kosovo (1998-1999), -

Applying the LINC model of community resilience.

Case study (n=1)

The LINC model proved to be useful in the Kosovar situation as a way of community-based cooperation after a disaster. Cox and Perry, 2011 Canada Wildfires in British Columbia (Jul. – Aug. 2003), Nov. 2003 – Nov. 2005

Investigating the role of social capital and place on the process of community resilience after wildfires transformed the environment. Ethnographic study, participant observation (29 days), semi-structured interviews (n=49), field trip (n=3), document analysis (n=250)

The influence of identity formation, place and social capital are important features contributing in the process of recovering from and adapting to disaster. Clarke and Mayer, 2017 USA Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Apr. 2010), Nov. 2011 – Apr. 2012

Investigating the role of culture as a resource to contribute to the process of community resilience. Case study (n=1), observations, semi-structured interviews (n=37), focus groups

Three cultural factors are important in the recovery process: moral identity, place and heritage.

Ambrens et al., 2019 Australia No specific disaster, - Provide an overview of the literature regarding community and individual resilience in community-dwelling older adults. Systematic literature review (n=29)

Three factors were identified to be important in influencing

community capacities to recover from disaster: collective engagement and leadership, empowerment and collective agency.

Hansel, 2018 USA Hurricane

Katrina (Aug. 2005), May 2006 – Mar. 2008

Evaluate the Youth Leadership Program by looking at mental health interventions and their perceived relations with student’s recovery processes. Participatory research, meetings, screenings (n=387 students)

Participants in the Youth Leadership Program had higher scores on self-efficacy compared to those students who did not participate, resulting in a drop of trauma symptoms. Burhans et al., 2019 USA No specific disaster, 2016 - 2018 Developing a toolkit to build and enhance community resilience through a bottom-up approach. Literature review (n=unclear), field testing

The COPEWELL Rubric has been developed to assess community resilience. It contributes to a broader awareness of resilience, an increase in social capital and enhanced collective problem-solving capacities. Mayer, 2019 - No specific disaster, Jan. 2018 – Jan. 2019 Provide an overview of the literature regarding community resilience after disaster, focussing on the concept’s application and conceptualization. Literature review (n=unclear) Three important findings: social capital still plays an important factor in communities coping with and adapting to disaster; community engagement and social interaction continue to enhance resilience;

The influence of community factors on community resilience after a disaster. Linking theoretical insights to the practice of the 2001 café fire disaster in Volendam