Impacts for implementing SDGs: sustainable collaborative communities after disasters. The city of Macerata at the aftermath of the earthquake

• Pages: 594-623
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2018-0027
• Date: 20 April 2018
• Published date: 20 April 2018
• Author: Alessandra Ricciardelli,Francesco Manfredi,Margaret Antonicelli
• Subject Matter: Corporate governance,Strategy

Impacts for implementing SDGs:

sustainable collaborative communities

after disasters. The city of Macerata

at the aftermath of the earthquake

Alessandra Ricciardelli, Francesco Manfredi and Margaret Antonicelli

Abstract

Purpose –The aim of this paperis to understand how resilience builds to achievea management model

for sustainable resilience, as advocated by sustainable development goals (SDGs), in distressed

communities.The topic is addressed with the case of Macerata, an Italian citylocated at the epicentre of

the devastating earthquakein 1997 and later, in a short time interval between August 2016 and January

2017. Necessary knowledgeon modes and places of engagement and collaboration is deliveredin the

attemptto demonstrate that social and cultural factors have strongerimpacts on devastated communities

as they contributeto resilience for future incidents.

Design/methodology/approach –The paper uses a quantitative econometric approach. It unfolds in

two steps. The first uses the estimationmethod through factor analysis of an index of resilience,a latent

variable,and reveals that it comes from social, cultural,political and economic latent factors. Thesecond

uses a reduced equation model that elaborates and integrates two models: the one estimating the

relationship between the level of development and the impacts due to natural disasters and the other

containing the index of resilience,but only its most relevant ones. A rotated component matrix, which is

the elaborationof the model, will be created.

Findings –Although measuring resilience, in practice, is hampered by both conceptual and

methodological challenges, including finding reliable and meaningful data, the attempt to measure

resilience in this researchhas helped in testifying two important researchhypotheses. According to H1,

resilienceis a fundamentalvariable to ensure faster economic recoveryand has a negative impact on the

dependent variable (deaths); hence, it is considered statistically significant. According to H2, social

resilience develops and increases at the event’s recurrence and leverages on the adaptive, self-

organisingcommunity capacities in recoveringfrom traumatic circumstances andepisodes of distress.

Research limitations/implications –The limitationof this paper is that the comparison betweenthe two

earthquakes is biasedby the interviewees’ misleading responseson the provided questionnaires due to

lack of memory about the 1997 shockand a more higher perception of the latest quakes that occurred

recently in 2016 and 2017.There is a strong awareness of the fact that future research will improve the

analysis suggested in this paper by attempting a quantification of the perception about the difference

betweenthe two occurred earthquakes by replacing the dummy variable(

b

6

improvement)with a cluster

analysis.

Practical implications –The paper fills the gap in the empirical literature on risk management and

organisationalresilience. This research represents a guide to support and acceleratebuilding resilience

by people engagement and empowerment, enthusiasm and commitment in a way that conventional

politics is failingto do. In particular, it aims to support public organisationsand policymakers at the front

by providing them with reliable information on the factors and concerns that need to be considered to

increase community’s level of resilience, coherently with their endogenous characteristics, to ensure a

steady,stable and sustainable recovery fromthe crisis.

Social implications –This research teaches that resilience depends on the existence of minimum

preconditionsfor building resilience –political and economic opportunities,as well as cultural and social

factors –as the measurement of tangible factors such as assets and financial capital maynot capture

Alessandra Ricciardelli is

Adjunct Professor and

Francesco Manfredi is

Professor, both at the

Department of Economics,

University Lum Jean

Monnet, Casamassima,

Italy. Margaret Antonicelli is

based at the Department of

Economics, University Lum

Jean Monnet,

Casamassima, Italy.

Received 14 January 2018

Accepted 22 March 2018

PAGE 594 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCE jVOL. 18 NO. 4 2018, pp. 594-623, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 DOI 10.1108/CG-01-2018-0027

everything that influences resilience. However, although it is common sense that disaster recovery

processes are significantly hard to bear, it is important to acknowledge that they can offer a series of

unique and valuable opportunities to improve on the status quo. Capitalizing on these opportunities

means to well-equip communitiesto advance long-term health, resilience andsustainability and prepare

them forfuture challenges.

Originality/value –This paper contributesto the discussion over the development of sustainable cities

and communities by providing a resilience measurement framework in terms of indicators and

dimensions of resilience. It emphasises on the endogenous adaptation capacity of territories partially

analysed in the empirical literature with regard to resilience. The originality relates to the suggested

model being a tool for social and territorialanalysis, useful for ensuring a summary and comprehensive

assessment of socioeconomicresilience; comparing different timelines(the first earthquake occurred in

1997 and the other two, occurring in a short time intervalfrom one another, in August 2016 and January

2017).

Keywords Public policy, Sustainable development, Risk management, Learning organizations,

Strategic planning, Organizational politics

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Sustainable development goals (SDGs), as the 2030 Agenda declares, are universal,

ambitious and comprehensive. Implementing SDG means to deliver positive developments

that would radically enhance the prospects for building peaceful, just and inclusive

societies by leveraging on collaboration and cooperation between communities with

creativity and innovation (United Nations Organisations, 2015). Yet, it is also possible that

negative developments in some (or all) have the potential to derail SDGs. This is the case of

disasters associated with natural hazards which have become more frequent during the

past 20 years worldwide[1]. Between 1996 and 2015, the Emergency Events Database

(EM-DAT) estimated a total of 8,104 disasters related to natural hazards across all

continents, with 4.1 billion people affected by these events, which is almost twice the level

recorded between 1976 and 1995. With over 1.5 billion people killed, the financial cost of

these disasters amounted to over $2.1tn globally over the last two decades. Hence,

because there is no precise knowledge about what may happen, there is the need for a

sophisticated policy response of preparedness, investment and cooperation in order to

create and co-create public value.

While climate change is among the major causes of more frequent and severe natural

hazards (Mitchell, 2012), population growth and patterns of economic development are key

in explaining the rise in disasters that natural hazards can lead to (CRED and UNISDR,

2015), with the related risks and losses in human, economic, environmental and other

domains. This is likely to pose a significant challenge for achievingthe 2030 Agenda so that

development and progress seem to be even morecontingent on measures to build disaster

resilience, as Mitchell (2012) has argued.In the coming decades, it is likely that the upward

trend in the frequency of natural hazards will continue with more losses expected in

livelihoods and assets. For example, the recent earthquakes, which havestruck the heart of

the Italian peninsula, have had an impact on estimated thousands of people facing food

insecurity along with other lossesin health and infrastructure and a reversal of development

gains.

Because disaster recovery processes are significantly hard to bear, it is important to

understand that they offer a series of unique and valuable opportunities to improve on the

status quo. Capitalizing on these opportunities means to well equip communities to

advance long-term health, resilience and sustainability and prepare them for future

challenges. About 30 years of natural disasters around the world, in all shapes and sizes,

have struck thousands of communities and territories: the Hurricane Katrina which moved

inland from the Gulf of Mexico and quickly moved over the city of New Orleans in 2005; the

Tohoku (Japan) Earthquake–Tsunami and nuclear disaster in 2001; the floods in

the Philippines last December 2017; and the last but not the least, the two earthquakes at

VOL. 18 NO. 4 2018 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCE jPAGE 595