Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

116 volunteers across organizations, but as no data were gathered assessing the total numbers of volunteers, the most important one of the fire brigade was considered. Moreover, the municipality may have to consider this important topic even more in the future, as the principle of volunteers may be endangered due to demographic development. Finally, yet importantly, the accessibility of hospitals was interchanged with the density of doctors. 4. DISCUSSION The results from the work on indicators for monitoring urban climate resilience presented above yields a number of important insights and implications—with respect to previous studies but also for future research and for practitioners in this field. Existing indicator sets are a good starting point, but adapting and extending them for the context at hand is crucial. There are numerous indicator sets for urban resilience; these provided a good basis from which the MONARES indicator set could be developed. However, many of the indicators analysed in the literature reviewwere aimed at the context of developing countries. To adapt indicators identified in the review for the German context, four steps were important: (A) Disregarding indicators that do not allow sufficient distinction between cities, e.g., literacy rate is favoured as an indicator in many sources, but in Germany the literacy rate is rather high and differences between cities are marginal. (B) Disregarding indicators for which the data availability was rather limited in Germany. (C) Adding new indicators for action fields that are deemed important in the context of MONARES but which were not touched upon in the literature. (D) Focusing on municipalities as the key player for climate change adaptation. These level of municipalities require the set to be manageable in terms of data availability as well as size and complexity of the calculations. Step A did not pose any major difficulties. Further, step B based on research concerning data availability did not cause problems. However, step C and D need to be examined in more detail. First, the workshop clearly stated here the conflicting goals when discussing single action fields. It was felt that one indicator does not reflect the entirety of the topic, but at the same time all action fields were considered important and the total number of indicators should not exceed around 20, in order to stay manageable, which is far less than the proposed 52 indicators by the City Resilience Index (CRI) [22] and comparable to the core of 14 by the project Building Resilience Amongst Communities in Europe (embrace) [37] or Cutter’s [43] core of 22. Since researchers, as well as practitioners, participated in our workshop, we had the impression that researchers tended to prefer larger, encompassing indicator sets. Compared with the scientists, practitioners were more in favour of concise and compact sets. The discussions in the workshop showed that persons with a research background had numerous ideas for new indicators for all dimensions, and advocated for their inclusion. During the workshop and its aftermath, practitioners working in municipalities displayed a different tendency—their perspective tended to focus more on how to handle the indicators in practice. Hence, what some researchers considered a concise indicator set was perceived by practitioners as overwhelming and too extensive. In order to find an adequate balance between a broad coverage and good usability in practice, it is important to involve both researchers and practitioners in the development of an indicator set. This finding is consistent with the literature and is one strength of the current study. Meerow and Stults [13], for example, stress the need for including practitioners in the process. Consequently, the trade-off between practicability and completeness had to be balanced, leading to the fact that some indicators that were considered important were still sorted out in order to cover all action fields and still achieve a manageable amount of indicators. Second, it was mentioned that the indicators just by title were not clear in terms of their effect on and relation to urban climate resilience, and were consequently rated around the middle. This fact was considered while developing the survey, but an in-depth explanation of indicators was removed from the survey in favour of including more indicators covering all action fields and in consideration of the time needed to fill out the survey. However, this lack of explanations meant that the disciplinary background of respondents affected the ratings. Third, indicators from the dimension environment were met with relatively high consensus while indicators from the dimension economy were faced with more diverging opinions. The indicator selection was dependent on the conceptualization of urban resilience and the urban context. The results contribute to the gap between the understanding of urban resilience by scholars and practitioners [13]. This became apparent both in the survey and the workshop and shows that more research is warranted on what characterizes a climate resilience urban economy. Supporting evidence for this can be taken from the fact that much more has been published on climate resilience and environmental issues than on climate resilience and economic issues. Moreover, this discussion displayed the importance of a negotiation-focused approach for defining place-specific attributes of urban resilience and its measures [44]. Fourth, secondary data was seen as crucial for monitoring purposes in order to reduce resource expenditure by the administration. In other words, “The best indicator is inoperable if there is no feasible way to obtain the required data.” [37]. Moreover, there was a strong request from the local administrations for more provision of data from the higher administrations. They argued that data handling, data collection and finances for these activities are lacking. They stressed the need for data provision to be handled at the higher level of administration to avoid scaling and data comparability issues. Hence, data availability for indicators on a municipal level is a strong limiting factor, especially when it comes to indicators concerning infrastructure and social aspects [45]. Parts of the infrastructure related to energy, transport and communication are owned or organized by entities on a higher administrative level, such as the national