Implementation Plan

Short-, mid-, and long term solutions from the perspective of the case studies, the survey, and our own findings are being displayed. The solutions are divided into enhancing the social capital as the main priority, while also coping with heavy rainfall and flooding as well as managing quick clay and landslides. As a base to work on we chose community resilience as an outstanding factor being a consequence of our scenario with very limited resources. The selected solutions are representing a sample of ideas. All the solutions were considered with taking into account the predicted increase of the annual precipitation for Trondheim, which raises the risk for erosion leading to a landslide. (see Climate projections for Sør-Trøndelag and Trondheim).

The possible pathways that could be taken are described in the dynamic pathways diagram above and are described with more details in the timeline. With the span of 30 years, the crucial first stage of the strategy takes place in the first 2 years, when annual rainfall has started to have a considerable effect on the area. Current existing policy and plans from the municipality could be implemented in parallel and complement the three prioritized strategies up to 1,5 years, where it would need to shift its focus on either one of the three priorities. If priority C is taken first, its effectiveness would only last for 2 years, since the condition of the quick clay soil will be affected by the heavy rainfall for that amount of years, thus, a shift to either priority A or B needs to be taken.

On the other hand, if priority A is taken first, then it will need to shift its focus to priority B for it to still be effective, since after 5 years of community capacity and social capital building efforts, the result would have been apparent and considerable to be implemented in other priorities. Furthermore, if the results of priority A are not translated into concrete actions, it could reduce the motivation of the community by not showing real implications, decreasing its morale and hard-earned social capital. In a scenario where disaster strikes after 2 years of the strategies implementations, neither priority B nor C would be relevant anymore, since most of their strategy focuses on the build-up of its preparation stage in parallel with priority A. Thus, it is argued that it will always be beneficial to consider priority A sufficiently, especially in the first stage.

During disastrous events, response and recovery strategies should be implemented by utilizing the strategies and resources that have been prepared in the preparedness plan. This is to ensure that the response and recovery strategy could be implemented without too many challenges. Furthermore, an advanced study of the area should be done, assessing the impact of the disaster for the benefit of future mitigation plans that will improve the already existing preparedness plan. These include improving the monitoring of rainfall and quick clay conditions.

After several years of implementation, at its final stage, it is also important to consider more intricate and resource-heavy solutions for future endeavors. When the stage is already set by the preparedness plan, and the community is already well-equipped due to its DRR capacity, social capital, and generated financial capital, it will be easier to consider more complex and permanent solutions as described in the diagram.