Spaces Where Community Resilience is at Work

A Case Study of a Rural Community Affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

Abstract

On April 25, 2015, a massive M7.8 earthquake struck Nepal causing serious damage. In P village, the study site, over 500 houses collapsed, and 15 people died. Immediate disaster response activities, including setting up tents, providing food, building temporary huts and removing debris, began using funds raised online. This study examines these disaster response activities as a form of community resilience.

Community resilience studies have generally focused on（1）the traditional and cultural resilience inherent in communities, and（2）the act of rebuilding communities after disasters. However, studies that focus on community-building activities often overlook the nature of communities as entities that demonstrate resilience, while those that emphasize resilience tend to ignore the relationship with specific places. This paper takes a different approach by considering the issue from the perspective of community spaces.

In the modern era, communities have become more complex and interconnected due to the increase in global mobility and advancements in media. This means individuals who are spatially distant from the community can still be part of the community, while others, physically present in the community, may not be considered members. In this paper, “place” indicates concrete geographical entities and people, whereas “community space” refers to the space of the “we” created by people’s collective imaginations. The paper examines how resilience is manifested when a modern community, disconnected from “place” and “community space,” experiences a disaster.

In the study area, “place” and “community space” were already separated before the earthquake. However, after the disaster, a diverse range of people formed communities and engaged in fundraising and recovery efforts. Specific activities were carried out in a multi-layered framework, including both newly created modern frameworks and traditional ones such as villages. The resilient “community spaces” that emerged were ambiguous and globally diffuse, extending beyond historically constructed community categories. Examples include the bonds between villagers who have left the country and foreigners residing nearby. These “community spaces” defined the scope of mutual assistance within the study area. In the current context of limited resources, the logic of defining and delimiting the scope of activities is an important element that can help communities demonstrate resilience. Simultaneously, the categories were loosely defined and generated on an ad hoc basis, ensuring a degree of expansiveness and connectedness that prevented the concepts from becoming exclusive and closed.

The study site was a suburban farming village undergoing rapid modernization, blurring the categories and boundaries of the community. The author concludes this allowed a diverse range of individuals to be incorporated into the community, with both wide and shallow connections, therefore enhancing resilience in the event of a disaster.