Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Building Resilience during Recovery: Lessons from Colorado’s Watershed Resilience Pilot Program

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the potential for and scope of some types of disasters increases, so too does the need to build greater disaster resilience across the globe. Communities ideally begin building resilience prior to experiencing a disaster in order to reduce negative impacts and ease recovery processes; however, numerous environmental and sociopolitical factors can impede such efforts until a disaster occurs. While the disaster recovery period offers opportunities for communities to build resilience as they replace infrastructure and restore services, a host of new issues arise during this time that can further complicate or delay resilience building. In this study, we highlight the opportunities and challenges inherent at the intersection of disaster recovery and resilience building, which we term the “recovery–resilience nexus.” To study this nexus, we analyze a first-of-its-kind disaster recovery program in Colorado, United States, that promotes resilience-building activities in disaster-affected communities by supporting the efforts of place-based watershed coalitions. Although the program faced numerous and interrelated technical, political, and fiscal hurdles, we argue that it provides an opportunity for drawing important lessons about how communities can navigate the recovery–resilience nexus via cross-boundary collaboration and creatively leveraging traditional disaster recovery funding sources to achieve resilience goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Additional information about the WRPP can be found at the program’s website: https://cdola.colorado.gov/watershed-resilience-pilot-program

  2. The state version became available in 2016, whereas the local government version became available in 2017, according to a post on FEMA Region II’s website: http://www.region2coastal.com/fema-finalizes-pre-disaster-recovery-planning-guide-for-local-governments/

  3. Through a literature review and consultation with one of the foremost scholars of watershed coalitions, the authors could find no examples of literature discussing the role of watershed coalitions working to build resilience in post-disaster contexts beyond other recent studies of WRPP coalitions, though watershed coalitions do exist to address longer-term hazards such as legacy mine pollution and general environmental restoration.

  4. While FEMA typically provides the bulk of funding for response and recovery costs after federally declared disasters in the United States, HUD provides additional funds for rebuilding public infrastructure in areas where recovery needs exceed those covered by FEMA, especially for low- and moderate-income populations.

  5. A major source of funding for project implementation came from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. The NRCS is a U.S. federal agency that administers programs to promote resource conservation on private lands. EWP provides funding for repairing watershed damages resulting from disasters that have the potential to imperil property or lives. Along with DOLA and CWCB, EWP personnel provide science-driven technical assistance “to support project design, cultural resources assessment, construction oversight, and other technical services” (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2018).

References

  • Adger WN (2003) Building resilience to promote sustainability. IHDP Update 2:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Albright EA, Crow DA (2015) Learning processes, public and stakeholder engagement: analyzing responses to Colorado’s extreme flood events of 2013. Urban Clim 14:79–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Albright EA, Crow DA (2019) Capacity building toward resilience: how communities recover, learn, and change in the aftermath of extreme events. Policy Stud J. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12364

  • Aldrich DP (2012) Building resilience: social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich DP, Meyer MA (2015) Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci 59:254–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldunce P, Beilin R, Handmer J, Howden M (2016) Stakeholder participation in building resilience to disasters in a changing climate. Environ Hazards 15:58–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell C, Boin A, Keller A (2010) Managing transboundary crises: identifying the building blocks of an effective response system. J Contingencies Crisis Manag 18:195–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach C, Silverstein LB (2003) Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. NYU Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (2018) National Disaster Resilience Strategy. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/national-strategy-for-disaster-resilience/.

  • Berke P, Cooper J, Aminto M, Grabich S, Horney J (2014) Adaptive planning for disaster recovery and resiliency: An evaluation of 87 local recovery plans in eight states. J Am Plan Assoc 80:310–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2008) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

  • Berkes F, Ross H (2013) Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc Nat Resour 26:5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland TA (1996) Natural disasters as focusing events: policy communities and political response. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 14:221–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland TA (2006) Lessons of disaster: policy change after catastrophic events. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

  • Blount K, Kroepsch A (2019) Improving the resilience of water resources after wildfire through collaborative watershed management: a case study from Colorado. Case Stud Environ. https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2019.sc.960306

    Google Scholar 

  • Boin A, Comfort LK, Demchak CC (2010) The rise of resilience. In: Comfort LK, Boin A, Demchak CC (eds) Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, PA, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Boin A, Lodge M (2016) Designing resilient institutions for transboundary crisis management: a time for public administration. Public Adm 94:289–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Clavin CT, Petropoulos ZE, Gupta N, Tokita CK (2017) Case Studies of Community Resilience and Disaster Recovery from the 2013 Boulder County Floods. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/publications/case-studies-communityresilience-and-disaster-recovery-2013-boulder-county-floods

  • Colorado Department of Local Affairs (2018) Watershed Resilience Pilot Program. https://cdola.colorado.gov/watershed-resilience-pilot-program. Accessed 22 Apr 2020

  • Comfort L et al. (1999) Reframing disaster policy: the global evolution of vulnerable communities. Glob Environ Change Part B 1:39–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort LK, Birkland TA, Cigler BA, Nance E (2010) Retrospectives and prospectives on Hurricane Katrina: five years and counting. Public Adm Rev 70:669–678

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox RS, Perry K-ME (2011) Like a fish out of water: reconsidering disaster recovery and the role of place and social capital in community disaster resilience. Am J Community Psychol 48:395–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow DA, Albright EA (2019) Intergovernmental relationships after disaster: state and local government learning during flood recovery in Colorado. J Environ Policy Plan 21:257–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow DA, Albright EA, Ely T, Koebele E, Lawhon L (2018) Do disasters lead to learning? financial policy change in local government. Rev Policy Res 35:564–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow DA, Albright EA, Koebele E (2019) The role of coalitions in disaster policymaking. Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12396

  • Cutter SL (2013) Building disaster resilience: steps toward sustainability. Chall Sustainability 1:72

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Change 18:598–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport MA, Seekamp E (2013) A multilevel community capacity model for sustainable watershed management. Soc Nat Resour 26:1101–1111

    Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi S (2012) Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Plan Theory Pract 13:299–307

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries DH (2017) Temporal vulnerability and the post-disaster ‘window of opportunity to Woo:’a case study of an African-American floodplain neighborhood after Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina. Hum Ecol 45:437–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit A (2016) Resilience thinking: lessons for public administration. Public Adm 94:364–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (2011) A whole community approach to emergency management: principles, themes, and pathways for action. Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/20130726-1813-25045-0649/whole_community_dec2011__2_.pdf

  • Floress K, Akamani K, Halvorsen KE, Kozich AT, Davenport M (2015) The role of social science in successfully implementing watershed management strategies. J Contemp Water Res Educ 154:85–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16:253–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest S, Milliken C (2019) Building resilience to disaster: from advice to action. Eur Rev 27:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajendran T, Oloruntoba R (2017) Governance and resilience: a case of re-development after a bushfire disaster. Technol Forecast Soc Change 121:50–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk DR, Brody S, Burby R (2003) Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: challenges for comprehensive planning. J Environ Plan Manag 46:733–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein BE (2012) Collaborative resilience: moving through crisis to opportunity. MIT press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy SD, Koontz TM (2008) Reducing nonpoint source pollution through collaboration: policies and programs across the US states. Environ Manag 41:301–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy A, Malhotra N (2009) Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. Am Political Sci Rev 103:387–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernantes J, Labaka L, Turoff M, Hiltz SR, Bañuls VA (2017) Moving forward to disaster resilience: perspectives on increasing resilience for future disasters. Technol Forecast Soc Change 121:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1996) Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people. Ecol Appl 6:733–735

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram JC, Franco G, Rumbaitis-del Rio C, Khazai B (2006) Post-disaster recovery dilemmas: challenges in balancing short-term and long-term needs for vulnerability reduction. Environ Sci Policy 9:607–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine (2015) Healthy, resilient, and sustainable communities after disasters: strategies, opportunities, and planning for recovery. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  • Kapucu N (2012) Disaster resilience and adaptive capacity in Central Florida, US, and in Eastern Marmara Region, Turkey. J Comp Policy Anal 14:202–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu N (2014) Collaborative governance and disaster recovery: the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) in the U.S. In: Shaw R (ed) Disaster recovery: used or misused development opportunity. Springer, Tokyo, pp 41–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman S (2012) Complex systems, anticipation, and collaborative planning for resilience. In: Goldstein BE (ed) Collaborative resilience: moving through crisis to opportunity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 61–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendra JM, Clay LA, Gill KB (2019) Resilience and disasters. In: Handbook of Disaster Research. 2nd edn. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 87–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Koebele E, Crow DA, Lawhon LA, Kroepsch A, Schild R, Clifford K (2015) Wildfire outreach and citizen entrepreneurs in the wildland–urban interface: A cross-case analysis in Colorado. Soc Nat Resour 28:918–923

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM (2014) Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy. J Environ Plan Manag 57:1572–1593

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroepsch A, Koebele EA, Crow DA, Berggren J, Huda J, Lawhon LA (2018) Remembering the past, anticipating the future: community learning and adaptation discourse in media commemorations of catastrophic wildfires in Colorado. Environ Commun 12:132–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin S, Fox-Lent C, Eisenberg DA, Trump BD, Wallace S, Chadderton C, Linkov I (2015) Benchmarking agency and organizational practices in resilience decision making. Environ Syst Decis 35:185–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD (2006) Collaborative public management and democracy: evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Adm Rev 66:100–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Resour Plan Manag 127:378–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Sabatier PA (2005) Are Trust and Social Capital the Keys to Success? Watershed Partnerships in California and Washington. In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. MIT Press, Cambrige, MA, pp 233–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I et al. (2014) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat Clim Change 4:407

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Wimberly MC, Lamsal A, Sohl TL, Hawbaker TJ (2015) Climate change and wildfire risk in an expanding wildland–urban interface: a case study from the Colorado Front Range Corridor. Landsc Ecol 30:1943–1957

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Schneider M, Scholz JT, Mete M (2002) Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. Am J Political Sci 46:148–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Masten A, Obradović J (2008) Disaster preparation and recovery: lessons from research on resilience in human development. Ecol Society 13

  • McCaffrey S, Toman E, Stidham M, Shindler B (2013) Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. Int J Wildland Fire 22:15–24

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McWethy DB et al. (2019) Rethinking resilience to wildfire. Nat Sustainability 2:797–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J (2014) Qualitative Data Anal, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra A, Ghate R, Maharjan A, Gurung J, Pathak G, Upraity AN (2017) Building ex ante resilience of disaster-exposed mountain communities: Drawing insights from the Nepal earthquake recovery. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:167–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris JC, McNamara MW, Belcher A (2019) Building resilience through collaboration between grassroots citizen groups and governments: two case studies. Public Works Manag Policy 24:50–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018) Emergency Watershed Protection Program. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/ewpp/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018

  • Nohrstedt D, Bynander F, Parker C, t Hart P (2018) Managing crises collaboratively: prospects and problems—a systematic literature review. Perspect Public Manag Gov

  • Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol 41:127–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton D, Johnston D (2017) Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL

  • Peek L (2012) They call it ‘Katrina fatigue’: displaced families and discrimination in Colorado. In: Weber L. & Peek L. (eds.), Displaced: Life in the Katrina diaspora. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, USA, pp 31–46

  • Penadés MC, Núñez AG, Canós JH (2017) From planning to resilience: the role (and value) of the emergency plan. Technol Forecast Soc Change 121:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton D, Johnston Pollock MJ et al. (2019) Preparedness and community resilience in disaster-prone areas: cross-sectoral collaborations in south Louisiana, 2018. Am J Public Health 109:S309–S315

    Google Scholar 

  • Pralle S (2019) Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping flood zones. Climatic Change 152:227–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts P (2019) Natural hazards governance in democratic states with developed economies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural HazardScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.135

  • Roberts PS (2006) FEMA and the prospects for reputation-based autonomy. Stud Am Political Dev 20:57–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockefeller Foundation (2018) 100 Resilient Cities. http://www.100resilientcities.org/. Accessed 23 Dec 2018

  • Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (2005) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data, 2nd edn. Sage, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (2005) Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Sinkovics R, Alfoldi EA (2012) Facilitating the interaction between theory and data in qualitative research using CAQDAS. In: Symon G, Cassell C (eds) Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges. Sage Publications, London, p 109–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2012) Planning for post-disaster recovery: a review of the United States disaster assistance framework. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith G, Martin A, Wenger DE (2018) Disaster recovery in an era of climate change: the unrealized promise of institutional resilience. In: Handbook of Disaster Research. 2nd edn. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 595–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith GP, Wenger D (2006) Sustainable disaster recovery: operationalizing an existing agenda. Handbook of disaster research, 1st edn. Springer, New York, NY, pp 234–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Strother L (2018) The National Flood Insurance Program: a case study in policy failure, reform, and retrenchment. Policy Stud J 46:452–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney K, Oliver-Smith A (2012) Social dimensions of disaster recovery. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 30:123–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler J, Sadiq A-A, Noonan DS (2019) A review of the community flood risk management literature in the USA: lessons for improving community resilience to floods. Nat Hazards 96:1223–1248

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Niekerk D, Nemakonde LD, Kruger L, Forbes-Genade K (2018) Community-based disaster risk management. In: Handbook of Disaster Research. 2nd edn. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 411–429

  • Wenger C (2017) The oak or the reed: how resilience theories are translated into disaster management policies. Ecolo Soc 22

  • Wilby RL, Keenan R (2012) Adapting to flood risk under climate change. Prog Phys Geogr 36:348–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2013) Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation 19:321–332

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was initially prepared for presentation at the 2018 Midwest Political Science Conference. The authors would like to thank Laura Wolton for her research assistance, Dr Tomas Koontz and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback, and participants in the WRPP for their time and insight.

Funding

This research is funded through theInfrastructure, Management, and Extreme Events Program of the National Science Foundation (Award Numbers 1461923 and 1461565).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science Department, University of Nevada Reno, 1664 N. Virginia St./MailStop 0302, Reno, NV, 89509, USA

    Elizabeth A. Koebele

  2. School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, P.O. Box 173364–Campus Box 142, Denver, CO, 80217, USA

    Deserai A. Crow

  3. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 9 Circuit Dr., Box 90328, Durham, NC, 27708, USA

    Elizabeth A. Albright

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Koebele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deserai A. Crow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth A. Albright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Albright.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This paper does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koebele, E.A., Crow, D.A. & Albright, E.A. Building Resilience during Recovery: Lessons from Colorado’s Watershed Resilience Pilot Program. Environmental Management 66, 1–15 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01296-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01296-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation