Content uploaded by Karen Sudmeier-Rieux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen Sudmeier-Rieux on Dec 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH PAPER
Resilience – an emerging
paradigm of danger or of hope?
Karen I. Sudmeier-Rieux
Centre for Research on Terrestrial Environments, University of Lausanne,
Lausanne, Switzerland
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether “resilience” offers any positive inputs to
international discourse in the field of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and if so,
what recommendations can be made for further research on the topic.
Design/methodology/approach – In addition to an in-depth literature review, observations on
resilience were made based on interdisciplinary research conducted in Nepal 2008-2011 with landslide
affected communities, to map local understandings of resilience in contrast to issues of risk and vulnerability.
Findings – Resilience has the potential to offer a more systemic and cross-cutting approach to
disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and the humanitarian sector. However, it needs
to be assessed critically as one attribute of sustainable development, not as a lesser substitute.
Originality/value – This paper provides new insights to the emerging contrast between proponents
and critics of the resilience paradigm with recommendations for avoiding potential dangers that this
paradigm brings.
Keywords Resilience, Disasters, Disaster risk reduction, International development discourse
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Because of international recognition of climate change impacts on the world’s
population, a paradigm shift is occurring in international development as measured by
shifting allocations of overseas development assistance and new institutional
arrangements for investing in “resilience” (Mitchell and Harris, 2012). If the 1980s and
1990s were the decades of the “sustainable development,” the new century 2000 has
brought with it a notion of “climate risks” and fear of disasters. This era is marked by
a sense of urgency and risk, made more relevant to policy makers with the increasing
number of climate related “mega-events” that occurred this decade, e.g. the 2003 heat
wave in Europe, Hurricane Katrina, Tropical Storm Stan, etc. Gaillard et al. (2010)
call this shift from improving livelihoods toward recovery from extreme events, “the
politics of the extreme.”
“Resilience” would seem to offer the promise of hope that “sustainable development”
once did, with resilience as a binding force, linking development, humanitarian efforts,
CCA and DRR through its more systematic or positive approach (Bahadur et al., 2010).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm
Disaster Prevention and Management
Vol. 23 No. 1, 2014
pp. 67-80
rEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0965-3562
DOI 10.1108/DPM-12-2012-0143
This research was entirely support by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation
(grant no. 26083591) during the period 2009-2011, for which the author is extremely grateful.
Many thanks to Prof. Michel Jaboyedoff, University of Lausanne and Dr J.C. Gaillard, University
of Auckland, New Zealand for valuable inputs during the research period. Dr Ilan Kelman
(CICERO, Norway), Christopher Belperron (Mission East, Nepal) Manuela Fernandez (University
of Lausanne) and Dr Carolina Garcia, Disaster Risk Management Specialist, Colombia who
provided very useful comments to a previous draft of this manuscript.
67
Resilience
The attractiveness of resilience lies in its more positive focus on local capacities
than the negative connotation attributed to vulnerability, and the difficulties in
effecting vulnerability reduction when root causes are so entrenched and difficult to
target (Mitchell and Harris, 2012). Proponents also argue that many vulnerable,
isolated communities, already are quite self-sufficient and should be given the tools
to overcome adversity (Buckle et al., 2000; Paton and Johnston, 2001).
Yet, despite its increased popularity in international discourse there is limited
theoretical understanding and multiple, often contradictory definitions of resilience
(Be
´ne
´et al., 2012; Manyena, 2006; Poulsen, 2013; Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012).
As resilience has been elevated to a policy level with millions of dollars invested by
donors into building “climate resiliency,” the expectation is that there be project
deliverables and results (Ayers et al., 2011). Thus resilience has become the new goal
of many international and national development policies, with little guidance or
benchmarks that describe what resilience is, how to increase it, or when resilience has
been achieved (Kafle, 2011; Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). The purpose of this paper is to
explore whether “resilience” offers positive inputs to international discourse in the field
of DRR and CCA and if so, what recommendations can be made for further research
on the topic. In addition to an in-depth literature review, which covers resilience
extensively within disaster management science, observations on resilience were made
based on interdisciplinary research conducted in Nepal 2008-2011 with landslide
affected communities, to map local understandings of resilience in contrast to issues of
risk and vulnerability. The main finding of this paper is that resilience has the potential
to offer a more systemic and cross-cutting approach to disaster risk reduction, climate
change adaptation and the humanitarian sector. However, it needs to be assessed
critically as one attribute of sustainable development, not as a lesser substitute.
2. The issues with resilience as the new paradigm
As many practitioners and researchers in developing countries already know, many
marginalized communities, i.e. those living in poverty with low food security and
access to resources are often quite resilient (Burton et al., 1993; Cannon, 2007; Wisner,
2003). Such communities have adapted their livelihoods to accommodate to harsh
environmental, economic and social conditions, becoming resilient as a result. They are
often living in the most dangerous places, usually because the rich have already
occupied the “safe places,” not because they are unaware of the physical risks but
because they are seeking to meet basic needs. In case of a hazard event, they are
usually the first to be affected and may actually be the first to “bounce back to their
normal state” since their simply constructed homes are much easier to rebuild than
more sophisticated ones, in addition to having experience and knowledge about
recovery. These observations lead to a contradiction of sorts: poor households may be
highly resilient but continue to be highly vulnerable and highly at risk. In other words,
increased resilience does not necessarily decrease vulnerability nor risk (Lewis and
Kelman, 2010; Levine et al., 2012; Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). Furthermore, a society
could conceivably be highly resilient while at the same time highly corrupt, unsustainable
or inequitable (Levine et al., 2012).
Hence, critics are concerned that resilience is actually a dangerous shift, promoting
short-term actions and a focus on short-term recovery issues rather than on root causes
of risk and vulnerability (Cannon and Mu
¨ller-Mahn, 2010; Gaillard et al., 2010; Lewis
and Kelman, 2010; MacKinnon and Derickson, 2012; Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012;
Wisner, 2003). For a large number of social scientists, it has been heavily criticized
68
DPM
23,1
for “its inability to appropriately capture and reflect social dynamics in general and
consider issues of agency and power” (Be
´ne
´et al., 2012, p. 12). Importantly, it reveals
a shift in targets: from the nebulous goal of “fixing” market inequalities, land tenure
problems, social inequalities or corruption and governance – the main root causes of
vulnerability and part of public domain – toward communities, the private domain,
who are to be made self-sufficient and responsible for becoming resilient, while
ignoring power relations (Cannon and Mu
¨ller-Mahn, 2010; MacKinnon and Derickson,
2012; Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). According to MacKinnon and Derickson (2012) this
shift reveals a neo-liberal alignment toward self-determination, self-empowerment and
a focus on human security rather than on equitable access to resources. Illustrative
of this political shift, the US Department of Homeland Security has reoriented its
policies to “resilience” rather than protection, as “the current paradigm of ‘protecting’
infrastructure and communities is unrealistic” (US Government, 2012).
What this example highlights is the shift from protection, or vulnerability reduction,
to returning to the status quo followed by a shock or stress, i.e. resilience. The problem
with returning to “normal conditions,” is that these are the dangerous living conditions
and high vulnerability that created risk – as well as resilience – in the first place
(Poulsen, 2013; Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). Thus, focussing on “resilience as recovery”
promotes a post-disaster band aid approach of sorts, rather than reducing underlying
risk factors, or prevention, on which DRR measures and policies should be focussing
(Lewis and Kelman, 2010).
However, several recent attempts at measuring resilience at the national and local
levels are worth examining, as is a movement to see resilience in light of “bouncing
forward,” taking into consideration underlying causes of vulnerability as well as
improving capacities to recover after a disaster (Manyena et al., 2011). Considering that
resilience is already being mainstreamed – for better or for worse – this paper thus
takes a pragmatic approach to the concept. In this light, resilience could conceivably
provide a common platform for addressing DRR, CCA and poverty reduction in a move
away from hazard-oriented, technology-driven DRR that is the current norm. It has
the potential to bring about more systemic approaches to DRR and understanding of
complex systems while offering a stronger entry point for critical long-term but
neglected aspects of DRR and CCA, such as ecosystem-based approaches (Be
´ne
´et al.,
2012). However, such utopic potential will be fulfilled only if resilience really does take
a systemic approach by including vulnerability and the root causes of poverty as its
central analytical approach for DRR, rather than acting as a band-aid to address
outcomes and efficiencies in rebounding after crises (Levine et al., 2012).
3. Resilience
3.1 Resilience – multiple origins and meanings
After thirty years of academic analysis and debate, the definition of resilience has become
so broad as to render it almost meaningless (Klein et al., 2003).
The difficulty in discussing, describing and operationalizing resilience is the same as
for vulnerability: it has different meanings and is expected to accomplish many
different policy objectives for which it was not really intended. Resilience has its roots
in the latin, “resiliere,” to bounce back after a shock and was probably first used in 1807
by Thomas Young, an English physicist to describe the capacity of material to absorb
energy without suffering permanent deformation (Yunes (2003) as described by
Amorim (2009)). It was further popularized in ecology, economics, child psychology
69
Resilience
and engineering or systems science (Holling, 1973; Rose, 2007; Masten, 1994; Cyrulnik,
1999; Haimes, 2009; Bruneau et al., 2003). In ecology, relating to natural disturbance of
ecosystems, resilience is considered as: the ability of a system to adapt to and either
maintain its pre-disturbance equilibrium or its ability to transform to a different state
as a consequence of stress or shock, or “adaptive capacity” (Folke, 2006; Holling, 1973).
However, systems can cross-critical thresholds and move into new states (better or
worse), which is referred to as “transformability” (Resilience Alliance, 2007). Resilience
is also attributed to the ability to self-organize, learn and adapt (Carpenter et al., 2001).
In child psychology, resilience refers to the process of, capacity for, or positive outcome
of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances (Masten,
1994). Both child psychologists Cyrulnik and Masten describe resilience as a desired
quality to overcome stress or disturbance, but not synonymous to happiness or
“a magic-bullet” (Masten, 2001; Cyrulnik, 1999). In systems sciences and economics,
resilience is: “the ability of a system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable
degradation parameters and to recover within an acceptable time and composite
costs and risks” (Haimes, 2009; Rose, 2007). According to systems thinking, other
characteristics of resilience include robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and
rapidity (Bruneau et al., 2003).
With regards to DRR and CCA, resilience primarily refers to the ability of a human
system to respond and recover from shocks or stress. According to Cutter et al. (2008),
it includes those inherent conditions that allow the system to absorb impacts and cope
with the event, as well as post event adaptive processes that facilitate the ability of the
system to reorganize, change and learn in response to the event (Cutter et al., 2008).
UNISDR (2009) defines resilience as: “The ability of a system, community or society
exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and
restoration of its essential basic structures and functions,” with this adjoining
comment: “The resilience of a community in respect to potential hazard events is
determined by the degree to which the community has the necessary resources and
is capable of organizing itself both prior to and during times of need” (UNISDR, 2009).
IPCC’s (Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007) definition of resilience is to “absorb disturbances
while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning,” modified somewhat
in 2012 to: “ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb,
accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient
manner” (IPCC, 2012). Yet, both of these organizations’ definitions are problematic as
they refer to a conservative conceptualization of resilience which emphasizes economic
efficiencies in returning to “essential basic structures” or the status quo, which is likely
to continue fostering risk. According to Poulsen (2013), the Fourth IPCC Report
(Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007) makes limited reference to resilience, with “little
attention given to mainstreaming climate resilience in development and to measuring
and valuation adaptation. It is expected that the Fifth Assessment Report, scheduled to
be released in 2014 will discuss ‘resilience’ more prominently” (Poulsen, 2013, p. 105).
Within the hazards and vulnerability literature there are three broad definitions
of resilience: those who believe that resilience and vulnerability are on opposite ends of
the same spectrum (Adger et al., 2005; Bahadur et al., 2010; Birkmann, 2006; Cannon,
2007); those who consider vulnerability as separate, possibly overlapping but not its
opposite (Buckle et al., 2001; Gallopin, 2006; Timmermann, 1981; Turner et al., 2003);
and others who believe they overlap to some extent (Cutter et al., 2008). According to
Gallopin (2006, p. 295), “vulnerability refers to the capacity to preserve the structure of
70
DPM
23,1
a system, while resilience refers to its capacity to recover from non-structural changes
in dynamics.” In other words, vulnerability is considered a baseline of sorts, while
resilience indicates the ability of the system to fluctuate, while returning to its baseline.
Timmermann’s (1981) pioneering work on adaptation, vulnerability and resilience was
one of the first to address such issues in the context of climate change, defining
resilience, as “elasticity,” or “the measure of a system’s or part of a system’s capacity
to absorb and recover from the occurrence of a hazardous event” (Timmermann, 1981,
p. 21). Pioneering work on resilience at the community level also contributed to local
government guidelines for strengthening community prevention, preparedness and
response to disasters (Cutter et al., 2008; Buckle et al., 2000, 2003; Paton and Johnston,
2001; Tobin, 1999).
Table I summarizes the most common approaches and schools of thought related to
various aspects of resilience thinking. The below definitions vary according to their
objectives but also whether the concept resistance should be included in resilience
alongside recovery, the timescale considered, (i.e. chronic stress over a long period or
acute, discontinuous stress and short term) as well as the relation of resilience to
vulnerability.
The above definitions vary considerably in several regards: whether the concept
“resistance” should be included in resilience alongside “recovery,” the timescale (i.e.
chronic stress over a long period or acute, discontinuous stress and short term),
efficiencies (i.e. ability to recover rapidly with few costs), the relation of resilience to
vulnerability and whether resilience should be considered a process, an outcome or
most likely, both. Other difficulties of defining and eventually measuring resilience
is that it may be very context and threat specific, i.e. a society may be resilient to
drought but not flooding.
3.2 Convergence between risk, vulnerability, resilience adaptation and coping capacities?
Some questions raised by this review of resilience are: what is the relation between
risk, vulnerability and resilience? If resilience of a population increases, would this
necessarily reduce vulnerability and risk? What is the difference between resilience,
adaptation and coping capacities?
From a system’s perspective, Haimes (2009) states that vulnerability and resilience
are both manifestations of a system; vulnerability addresses a system’s protection,
whereas resilience focusses on its recovery following a shock. Vulnerability represents
those subsets of a system that can be adversely affected by a certain magnitude and
type of threats, whereas resilience – in addition – represents the ability of the system to
recover within an acceptable time and composite costs and risks according to Haimes
(2009). Cannon (1993) describes the causes of vulnerability as characterized by
individuals and groups of people who inhabit a given natural, social and economic
space, differentiated according to their varying positions in society into more or less
vulnerable individuals and groups. This complex characteristic is produced by
a combination of factors derived especially (but not entirely) from class, gender or
ethnicity (Cannon, 1993). Whereas UNISDR’s (2009) definition of vulnerability is
limited to susceptibility to hazard events “The characteristics and circumstances
of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of
a hazard” (UNISDR, 2009).
When defined in the more narrow sense of “returning to a normal state,” resilience
parallels coping capacities or recovery strategies for dealing with shock and adversity,
rather than favoring long-term capacity building to reduce underlying vulnerabilities.
71
Resilience
Discipline Approach Author Brief description
Socio-ecological
Science/sustainability
science
Persistence of
systems
Holling (1973), Pimm (1984) A measure of the ability of ecological systems to persist in
the face of disturbance and maintain relationships between
different elements of the system
Disturbance as
opportunity
Folke (2006) Equates resilience with the ability to use disturbances as
occasions for doing “new things, for innovation and for
development”
Stability, self-
organization
and learning
Ostrom (1990), Carpenter et al.
(2001), Klein et al. (2003)
The amount of change a system can bear and “[y] still
retain the same controls on structure and function”, the
capacity of a system to self-organize and the ability of a
system to learn and adapt
Ecological-social
thresholds
Renaud et al. (2010) Defining thresholds from one state to another; the time and
investment required to return to the initial state, or an
improved state
Context specific Walker et al. (2002), Berkes (2007) Specific resilience: resilience of what, to what?
General resilience: capacity of system to deal with multiple
pressures
Hazards and
vulnerability research
Characteristics of
disaster resilient
communities
Twigg (2009) The UNISDR Hyogo Framework for Action is used to define
areas for action: governance, risk assessment, knowledge
and education, risk management and vulnerability
reduction, and disaster preparedness and response
Social cognitive Paton and Johnston (2001),
Paton et al. (2008)
Resilience is based on an individual’s motivation to prepare
for, and act during a hazard event. This motivation is based
on trust in authorities, self-efficacy, risk perceptions and
expectances
Community
resourcefulness
Mileti (1999), Buckle et al. (2000) Resilience means when a community can withstand an
extreme event without suffering devastating losses,
damage, diminished productivity, or quality of life without a
large amount of external assistance
Quantifying resilience
and vulnerability
Moench and Dixit (2007), NCVST
(2009), Cutter et al. (2008),
Kafle (2011)
Identify indicators and characteristics of resilience, assign
weights and measure the impact of different variables. Hard
resilience is the direct strength of structures or institutions
(continued)
Tabl e I.
Summarizes the most
common approaches and
schools of thought related
to various aspects of
resilience thinking
72
DPM
23,1
Discipline Approach Author Brief description
when placed under pressure; and soft resilience is the ability
of systems to absorb and recover from the impact of
disruptive events without fundamental changes in function
or structure
Resilience sceptics Lewis and Kelman (2010),
Gaillard et al. (2010), Cannon and
Mu
¨ller-Mahn (2010), Levine et al. (2012),
MacKinnon and Derickson (2012),
Reghezza-Zitt et al. (2012), Mitchell and
Harris (2012), Tobin (1999)
The focus on resilience removes attention and resources
from the need for to address root causes of vulnerability, or
structural change of marginalized populations
Resilience as process,
bouncing forward
Manyena (2006), Manyena et al. (2011),
DFID (2011)
A focus on recovery as opposed to a singular concentration
on resisting shocks, effective adaptation to disturbances
Resilience as “bouncing forward” expresses the need for
change after a disaster
Five capitals sustainable
livelihoods approach
and resilience
Mayunga (2007) Characteristics of resilient systems spring from the
sustainable livelihoods approach where social, economic,
human, physical and natural capital are seen as the
determinants
Climate change
adaptation research
Shock absorption Timmermann (1981) The measure of a system’s or part of a system’s capacity to
absorb and recover from the occurrence of a hazardous
event
Adaptation and social
resilience
Adger (2003), Adger (2006) Social resilience, defined as the ability of communities to
withstand shocks to their social infrastructure economic
growth, stability and distribution of income, degree of
dependency on natural resources, remittances and diversity
in the kind of activities/functions being performed within
systems
Convergence between
adaptation and
resilience
Nelson (2010) Explores convergences and tensions between resilience and
climate adaptation. Adaptation, which effects change at
local scale can undermine resilience, which encompasses the
broader scale system
(continued)
Tabl e I.
73
Resilience
Discipline Approach Author Brief description
Systems thinking and
organizational change
Resilience Spectrum Dovers and Handmer (1992) Resilience is thought of as a continuum or spectrum broadly
made up of three levels and applied to systems and
organizations. Type 1 resilience is characterized by
resistance to change; Type 2 resilience is when marginal
changes are made in order to make a system more resilient;
and Type 3 is when there is a high degree of openness,
adaptability and flexibility
System resilience Haimes (2009) Resilience of a system is measured in terms of a specific
threats (input), the system’s recovery time and the
associated costs and risks
Organizational
thresholds
Robert et al. (2010) Resilience is defined as the amount of time and resources
required to return from a disturbed state back to the state of
reference of a system or organization
The R4 Framework Bruneau et al. (2003) Resilience is a dynamic process consisting of four
components: resourcefulness, robustness, redundancy,
rapidity
Child psychology Adaptation to threats
in childhood
Masten (1994), Masten (2001),
Norris et al. (2008)
“Good outcomes in spite of serious threats to [child]
development” require cumulative protection measures but
cautions against the magic bullet myth of resilience
Disturbance as
a springboard
Cyrulnik (1999) Disturbance provides an opportunity to bounce back
beyond the initial state; resilience obtained only after having
experienced a traumatic event but with higher than average
rates of depression
Economics Resilience as minimizing
losses
Rose (2005), Duval and
Vogel (2008)
The inherent ability and adaptive responses of systems that
enable them to avoid potential losses and the speed with
which economies revert to normal following a shock
Tabl e I.
74
DPM
23,1
Burton et al. (1993) distinguish between adaptation and coping strategies as a function
of the type of threat, and length of time required for a population to reduce risk.
Adaptation is a longer term process, while coping is short term. Both require making
adjustments to systems, (i.e. livelihoods) based on decisions and choices following
an appraisal of events and possible outcomes or consequences (Burton et al., 1993;
Lazarus, 2011). Thus resilience as “returning to a normal state” may be a useful
concept to describe a more efficient recovery process after a crisis as one step in the
disaster management cycle, but will not necessarily change a population’s everyday
risks, well-being, sustainability or reduce vulnerability. In fact, as stated by Be
´ne
´et al.,
“resilience is not necessarily positively correlated with well-being: some households
may have managed to strengthen their resilience but only at the detriment of their
own wellbeing or self-esteem” (Be
´ne
´et al., 2012, p. 13). In other words, a population
can be vulnerable and at risk, while simultaneously resilient (Nelson, 2010).
3.3 Evolution of resilience from “bouncing back”to “bouncing forward”
In recognizing that “bouncing back” does not take into account that disasters
are accompanied by change, Manyena et al. (2011) offers an alternative definition:
“the ability to bounce forward following a disaster,” which could also be described as
“positive transformation” of a community, or system. If mainstream resilience
definitions represent more conservative notions of maintaining stability or the status
quo, then “transformability” is a more appropriate notion for addressing underlying
risk factors and engaging in new development pathways, which include disaster
prevention and vulnerability reduction measures. Resilience as “bouncing forward”
changes the original meaning of resilience but it provides the promise of a framework
against which DRR prevention and post-disaster measures should be undertaken.
Another useful consideration is resilience as a spectrum from passive to
transformational resilience (Dovers and Handmer, 1992) or transformational
capacity (Be
´ne
´et al., 2012). “Passive resilience” would encompass interventions in
an emergency situation where relief is the main intervention and there is resistance
to change, while “transformational resilience,” refers to a high degree of flexibility to
change, including interventions that address root causes of risk, i.e. ecosystem
management, risk sensitive land use planning, women leadership programs to
reduce structural vulnerability and risk.
Thus accepting that resilience has taken a firm hold in development, humanitarian,
DRR and CCA discourses, a pragmatic approach can consider resilience as: the ability
of a system, organization, community, household or individual to change in a positive
manner, when faced with adversity.
4. Conclusions
This paradigm shift toward resilience, for a researcher of resilience, is certainly
interesting although concerning. The verdict is still out on whether resilience really
brings hope of a more comprehensive systems approach to addressing DRR and CCA
or whether the concept brings danger of averting attention away from transformative
measures needed to address disaster and climate risks, i.e. band-aid approaches
rather than cures. If resilience is to offer a more systemic and cross-cutting approach
to DRR, CCA, development and humanitarian work, it needs to be assessed critically as
one attribute of sustainable development, not as a lesser substitute. To this end,
“passive resilience” – focussing on recovery and reconstruction – has a limited value,
whereas “transformational resilience” adds value by addressing underlying risks and
75
Resilience
vulnerabilities. If resilience is to become a useful paradigm, then root causes of risk
and vulnerability must be included in its analysis, as a valuable decision-making tool
for sustainable development, DRR and CCA interventions.
Considering the large amount of funds being channeled to resilience building, there
are surprisingly few operational frameworks for measuring resilience outcomes and
processes (Ayers et al., 2011; Poulsen, 2013). Therefore, researchers and practitioners
should be encouraged to fill this research-policy gap by providing examples of
resilience at different scales and contexts on how to operationalize it (Buikstra et al.,
2010; Cutter et al., 2008; Kafle, 2011; Kahan et al., 2009; Sudmeier-Rieux, 2011).
Devising robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to accompany public funds
spent on increasing resilience should thus be the next step of research in this domain,
with several caveats: resilience needs to be clearly defined in its scope, context and
temporality according to specific threats; causes of vulnerabilities and risk need
to be carefully analyzed and taken into account into resilience measures.
This paper was intended as a contribution to defining the usefulness and role of
resilience as compared to the well tested and familiar notions of vulnerability and risk.
References
Adger, W.N. (2003), “Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change”,
Economic Geography, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 387-404.
Adger, W.N. (2006), “Vulnerability”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 268-281.
Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R. and Rockstro
¨m, J. (2005), “Social-ecological
resilience to coastal disasters”, Science, Vol. 309 No. 5737, pp. 1036-1039.
Amorim, I. (2009), “Resettlement of communities. The case study of Jaguaribara: a resilient
community (Northeast of Brazil)”, JAMBA: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 216-234.
Ayers, J., Kaur, N. and Anderson, S. (2011), “Negotiating climate resilience in Nepal”, IDS Bulletin,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 70-79.
Bahadur, A., Ibrahim, M. and Tanner, T. (2010), “The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of
resilience for tackling climate change and disasters”, Strengthening Climate Resilience
Discussion Paper 1, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 45pp.
Be
´ne
´, C., Godfrey Wood, R., Newsham, A. and Davies, M. (2012), “Resilience: New Utopia or New
Tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation
to vulnerability reduction programmes”, IDS Working Paper No. 405, Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton.
Berkes, F. (2007), “Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience
thinking”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 283-295.
Birkmann, J. (2006), “Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: theoretical bases and
criteria”, in Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, Towards
Disaster Resilient Societies, UNU Press, Tokyo, 550pp.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorm, A.M., Shinouzuka, M.,
Tierney, K., Wallace, W.A. and von Winterfeldt, D. (2003), “A framework to quantitatively
assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 733-752.
Buckle, P., Marsh, G. and Smale, S. (2000), “New approach to assessing vulnerability and
resilience”, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 8-15.
Buckle, P., Marsh, G. and Smale, S. (2001), “Assessment of personal & community resilience &
vulnerability”, EMA Project Report No. 15/2000 49, EMA.
76
DPM
23,1
Buckle, P., Marsh, G. and Smale, S. (2003), “Reframing risk hazards and daily life: A report of
research into local appreciation of risks and threats”, The Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 81-87.
Buikstra, E., Ross, H., King, C.A., Baker, P.G., Hegney, D. and McLachlan, K. (2010), “The
components of resilience – perceptions of an Australian rural community”, Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 975-991.
Burton, I., Kates, R.W. and White, G.F. (1993), The Environment as Hazard, 2nd ed., Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Cannon, T. (1993), “A hazard need not a disaster make: vulnerability and the causes of ‘natural’
disasters”, in Merriman, P.A. and Browitt, C.W.A. (Eds), Natural Disasters: Protecting
Vulnerable Communities, Thomas Telford, London, pp. 92-105.
Cannon, T. (2007), “Reducing people’s vulnerability to natural hazards: communities and
resilience”, WIDER Conference on Fragile States – Fragile Groups: Tackling Economic and
Social Vulnerability, WIDER, Helsinki, 15-16 June.
Cannon, T. and Mu
¨ller-Mahn, D. (2010), “Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in
context of climate change”, Nat Hazards, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 621-635.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M. and Abel, N. (2001), “From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what?”, Ecosystems, Vol. 4, pp. 765-781.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E. and Webb, J. (2008), Community
and Regional Resilience: Perspectives from Hazards, Disasters, and Emergency
Management, CARRI Research Report No. 1, Community and Regional Resilience
Initiative Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN.
Cyrulnik, B. (1999), Un merveilleux malheur, Odile Jacob, Paris.
DFID (2011), Defining Disaster Resilience, A DFID Approach Paper, Department for International
Development (DFID), London, 20pp.
Dovers, S. and Handmer, J.W. (1992), “Uncertainty, sustainability and change”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 262-276.
Duval, R. and Vogel, L. (2008), “Economic resilience to shocks: the role of structural policies.
OECD”, Economic Studies, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-38.
Folke, C. (2006), “Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 253-267.
Gaillard, J.-C., Wisner, B., Benouar, D., Cannon, T., Cre
´ton-Cazanave, L., Dekens, J., Fordham, M.,
Gilbert, C., Hewitt, K., Kelman, I., Morin, J., N’Diaye, A., O’Keefe, P., Oliver-Smith, A.,
Quesada, C., Revet, S., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Texier, P. and Vallette, C. (2010), “Alternatives
pour une re
´duction durable des risques de catastrophe”, Human Geography, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 66-88.
Gallopin, G.C. (2006), “Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 293-303.
Haimes, Y. (2009), “On the definition of resilience in systems”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 498-501.
Holling, C. (1973), “Resilience and stability of ecological systems”, Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, Vol. 4, pp. 1-23.
IPCC (2012), “Summary for policymakers. In: managing the risks of extreme events and
disasters to advance climate change adaptation”, in Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F.,
Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K.,
Tignor, M. and Midgley, P.M. (Eds), A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and
New York, NY, pp. 1-19.
77
Resilience
Kafle, S.K. (2011), “Measuring disaster-resilient communities: a case study of coastal
communities in Indonesia”, Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 315-325.
Kahan, J.H. et al. (2009), “An operational framework for resilience”, Journal of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, available at: bepress.com/jhsem/vol6/iss1/83
Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J. and Thomalla, F. (2003), “Resilience to natural hazards: how useful
is this concept?”, Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, Vol. 5
Nos 1-2, pp. 35-45.
Lazarus, N.W. (2011), “Coping capacities and rural livelihoods: challenges to community risk
management in Southern Sri Lanka”, Applied Geography, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 20-34.
Levine, S., Pain, A., Bailey, S. and Fan, L. (2012), “The relevance of resilience?”, in H.P. Group.
(Ed.), HPG Policy Brief 49, Overseas Development Institute, London, 4pp.
Lewis, J. and Kelman, I. (2010), “Places, people and perpetuity: community capacities in ecologies
of catastrophe”, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 191-220.
MacKinnon, K. and Derickson, K.D. (2012), “From resilience to resourcefulness: a critique of
resilience policy and activism”, Progress in Human Geography, August 8, pp. 1-18,
doi:10.1177/0309132512454775.
Manyena, S. (2006), “The concept of resilience revisited”, Disasters, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 433-450.
Manyena, S.B., O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P. and Rose, J. (2011), “Disaster resilience: a bounce back or
bounce forward ability?”, Local Environment, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 417-424.
Masten, A.S. (1994), “Resilience in individual development: successful adaptation despite risk
and adversity”, in Wang, M. and Gordon, E. (Eds), Risk and Resilience in Inner City
America: Challenges and Prospects, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-25.
Masten, A.S. (2001), “Ordinary magic – resilience processes in development”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 227-238.
Mayunga, J.S. (2007), “Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience:
a capital-based approach”, A draft working paper prepared for the Summer Academy for
Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, Munich, July 22-28, UNU-EHS, Bonn, 16pp.
Mileti, D. (1999), Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States,
John Henry Press, Washington, DC.
Mitchell, T. and Harris, K. (2012), “Resilience: a risk management approach”, in Overseas,
Development & Institute (Eds), ODI Background Note, Overseas Development Institute,
London, p. 7.
Moench, M. and Dixit, A. (2007), Working with the Winds of Change. Toward Strategies for
Responding to the Risks Associated with Climate Change and other Hazards, ProVention
Consortium and Institute for Social and Environmental Transition-International, Geneva
and Kathmandu.
NCVST (2009), Vulnerability Through the Eyes of Vulnerable: Climate Change Induced Uncertainties
and Nepal’s Development Predicaments, Institute for Social and Environmental
Transition-Nepal (ISET-N)/Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET),
Kathmandu/Boulder, CO.
Nelson, D.R. (2010), “Adaptation and resilience: responding to a changing climate”,
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cl imate Change, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 113-120.
Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F. and Pfefferbaum, R.L. (2008),
“Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster
readiness”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 41 Nos 1-2, pp. 127-150.
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
78
DPM
23,1
Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds) (2007), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, available at: ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/
ar4_syr.pdf
Paton, D. and Johnston, D. (2001), “Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and
preparedness”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 270-277.
Paton, D., Smith, L., Daly, M. and Johnston, D. (2008), “Risk perception and volcanic hazard
mitigation: individual and social perspectives”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, Vol. 172 No. 2008, pp. 179-188.
Pimm, S.L. (1984), “The complexity and stability of ecosystems”, Nature, Vol. 307 No. 5949,
pp. 321-326.
Poulsen, L. (2013), “Costs and benefits of policies and practices addressing land degradation and
drought in the drylands”, White Paper II, UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference, 137pp.
Reghezza-Zitt, M., Rufat, S., Djament-Tran, G., Le Blanc, A. and Lhomme, S. (2012), “What
resilience is not: uses and abuses”, Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography Environment.
Renaud, F.G., Birkmann, J., Damm, M. and Gallopin, J.C. (2010), “Understanding multiple
thresholds of coupled social–ecological systems exposed to natural hazards as external
shocks”, Nat Hazards, Vol. 55 pp. 749-763.
Resilience Alliance (2007), Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems, A Workbook for
Scientists, Version 1.1, Resilience Alliance, 53pp.
Robert, B., He
´mond, Y. and Yan, G. (2010), “L’e
´valuation de la re
´silience organisationnelle”,
Te
´le
´scope, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 131-153.
Rose, A. (2007), “Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary
origins and contextual dimensions”, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 383-398.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K. (2011), “On landslide risk, resilience and vulnerability of mountain
communities in Central-Eastern Nepal”, PhD thesis, Faculty of Geosciences and
Environment, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, 310pp.
Timmermann, P. (1981), “Vulnerability, resilience, and the collapse of society”, Environmental
Monograph, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Tobin, G. (1999), “Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning”,
Environmental Hazards, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Turner, B., Kasperson, R., Matsone, P., McCarthy, J., Corell, R., Christensene, L., Eckley, N.,
Kasperson, J., Luerse, A., Martellog, M., Polskya, C., Pulsiphera, A. and Schillerb, A. (2003),
“A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science”, PNAS, Vol. 100 No. 14,
pp. 8074-8079.
Twigg, J. (2009), Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community. A Guidance Note. Version 2.
November 2009. DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group,UK
Department for International Development, London.
UNISDR (2009), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, available at:
www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/?pid:6&pih:2 (accessed
December 15, 2012).
US Government (2012), “The homeland security blog, discussing policies critical to the nation”,
Department of Homeland Security Reorienting Around Resilience, available at:
www.thehomelandsecurityblog.com/2010/04/23/dhs-reorienting-around-resilience/
(accessed October 12, 2012).
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L., Norberg, J.,
Peterson, G.D. and Pritchard, R. (2002), “Resilience management in social-ecological
systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach”, Conservation Ecology, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 14-20.
79
Resilience
Wisner, B. (2003), “Assessment of capability and vulnerability”, in Bankoff, G.F., Frerks, G. and
Hilhorst, D. (Eds), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan,
London, pp. 183-193.
Yunes, M.A
ˆ.M. (2003), “Psicologia Positiva e Resiliencia: O foco no Individuo e na Famı
´lia”,
Psicologia em Estudo, Vol. 8 No. n. especial, pp. 75-84.
Further reading
IPCC (2007), Fourth Assessment Report, Inter-agency Panel on Climate Change Secretariat,
Geneva.
Lavell, A., Oppenheimer, M., Diop, C., Hess, J., Lempert, R., Li, J., Muir-Wood, R. and Myeong, S.
(2012), “Climate change: new dimensions in disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability, and
resilience”, in Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F, Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L.,
Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M. and Midgley, P.M.
(Eds), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation (A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the IPCC), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York, NY, pp. 25-64.
Tierney, K. and Bruneau, M. (2007), “Conceptualizing and measuring resilience, a key to disaster
loss reduction”, TR News, May-June, No. 250 Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC.
About the author
Karen I. Sudmeier-Rieux is a Researcher at the University of Lausanne, Research Centre for
Terrestrial Environment, Switzerland and a Consultant on issues related to environment and
disaster risk reduction.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
80
DPM
23,1
