BUILDING LOCAL RESILIENCE CAPACITY IN COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE TO FLOODS IN THE ORASHI REGION OF RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA

Abstract

Building resilience capacities to survive flood disasters in vulnerable communities in the global south encompasses techniques that are unique to such communities. These strands of unique techniques are embedded in their indigenous knowledge as a people and revealed through the actions they display during such times of disaster. Data was obtained from four communities in the Orashi region in the aftermath of the 2012 floods in Nigeria, to investigate the techniques and actions adopted to help build local resilience capacity amongst vulnerable communities there. Interviews and focus groups were the primary means of data collection and analysis was done qualitatively. The findings revealed five key attributes the communities possessed that enabled them build their resilience capacity to cope with the flood disaster.

Full text

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341341212
BUILDING LOCAL RESILIENCE CAPACITY IN COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE TO
FLOODS IN THE ORASHI REGION OF RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA
ArticleinInternational Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH · April 2020
DOI: 10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
CITATIONS
0
2 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Flood Resilience View project
Warebi Brisibe
Rivers State University of Science and Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Warebi Brisibe on 13 May 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [297]
Management
BUILDING LOCAL RESILIENCE CAPACITY IN COMMUNITIES
VULNERABLE TO FLOODS IN THE ORASHI REGION OF RIVERS
STATE, NIGERIA
Ibama Brown 1, Warebi G. Brisibe 2
1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria
2 Department of Architecture, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria
Abstract
Building resilience capacities to survive flood disasters in vulnerable communities in the global
south encompasses techniques that are unique to such communities. These strands of unique
techniques are embedded in their indigenous knowledge as a people and revealed through the
actions they display during such times of disaster. Data was obtained from four communities in
the Orashi region in the aftermath of the 2012 floods in Nigeria, to investigate the techniques and
actions adopted to help build local resilience capacity amongst vulnerable communities there.
Interviews and focus groups were the primary means of data collection and analysis was done
qualitatively. The findings revealed five key attributes the communities possessed that enabled
them build their resilience capacity to cope with the flood disaster.
Keywords: Floods; Resilience; Capacity; Community; Vulnerability.
Cite This Article: Ibama Brown, and Warebi G. Brisibe. (2020). “BUILDING LOCAL
RESILIENCE CAPACITY IN COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE TO FLOODS IN THE
ORASHI REGION OF RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA.” International Journal of Research -
Granthaalayah, 8(4), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35.
1. Introduction
This paper forms part of a much larger body of research on the analysis of power relations in flood
disaster resilience in Rivers State. But the focus of this article is on how vulnerable and affected
communities in the study region built local resilience capacities in the face of adversity. There is
a growing body of knowledge that has identified actions taken by communities susceptible to
flooding in the global south as indigenous to them, aimed at building their resilience capacities to
flooding and other disasters. Most of the vulnerable communities have over the years continued to
deploy series of actions that have become their inclination to build flood disaster resilience. Many
communities in the Orashi region are precariously vulnerable whenever it floods and most of the
people are vulnerable to the threats occasioned by the flood. However, there are some who seem
to display characteristics to indicate that they are more resilient than others which has engendered
differentials in their resilience capacities.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [298]
2. Literature Review
The prolonged dearth of research evidence in the global south regarding differentials in flood
disaster resilience capacities indicate a daunting challenge in identifying the causal factor of the
differentials in flood disaster resilience in a homogenous terrain. However, literature that
strengthened this research indicated four core constructs that are significantly useful in identifying
the causal factors of such differentials in disaster resilience. It draws from: the perspective of
human geography to identify what constitutes a community and the indicators of a resilient
community (Knox and Pinch 2014; Brenner 2001; Daniels et al., 2001; Cloke et al., 1991); from
sociology and anthropology, to understand how social relations and social resources contribute in
the building of resilience (Della Porta and Diani 2009; Crossley 2002; Seale and Willis 1995;
Berger and Luckmann 1991); psychology to evince how the perceptions of the individuals and
communities enhance their resilience capacities (Cairns 2002; Mallak 1998); and from philosophy
to indicate how perceptions of people metamorphose into social objects (Searle and Willis 1995;
Berger and Luckmann 1991).
Seale and Willis (1995) describe the concepts of resilience, community and community resilience
as human constructs that exist with distinct intellectual niches in which academia has elucidated
their depth of understanding. These constructs are sparsely applied in empirical research relating
to flood disaster resilience,yet they represent contemporary tools that support any appropriate
theoretical framework inclined to empirical research (Peillon, 1998).
3. Study Area
Orashi region of Rivers State is the study area, it is in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, and
conservatively covers an approximate landmass of 70,000km2 which represents one of the most
extensive wetlands globally. It is an ecological zone located between latitude 4º and 6º North of
the equator and longitude 5º and 7º East of Greenwich. It is also located on a coastal plain with
fluvial deposits traversed by a number of rivers and tributaries which makes the area vulnerable to
flooding (Mmom and Aifesehi, 2013). The Niger Delta consists of four ecological zones; lowland
rainforest, freshwater swamp forests, mangroves and coastal barrier islands. It has dry and wet
seasons, with poorly drained low-lying terrain and soil that encourages erosion and flooding
occasioned by intense precipitation and river discharge in the wet season (Singh et al., 1995).
As a region, it comprises of four local government areas; Abua/Odual, Ahoada East, Ahoada West
and Ogba/Egbema/Ndoniwith six distinct ethnic nationalities; Abua, Egi, Ekpeye, Engenni,
Kugbo, and Odual with diverse social, cultural, economic and political orientations. For ease of
access and coordination of the research, each of the four local government area represents a case
study site. According to the 2006 national population commission census records, the region has
a combined population of 983,170 persons (NPC 2006) who are predominantly agrarian and
subsistence fisher folks.
Over the years the region has been continuously inundated with flood waters as a result of
anthropogenic activities in the form of continuous agricultural activities, oil and gas exploration
and exploitation leading to a loss in the vegetation (Uyigue and Agho, 2007). With the numerous
anthropogenic activities, the flood susceptibility level in the region is very high because its coastal

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [299]
elevation lies between 4m and 7m which is significantly impacted by continual eustacy (Ochege
et al., 2016). The nature of the terrain engenders tidal surges because of rising sea levels and
sometimes after intense precipitation, the low lying coastal fringes submerge leading to flooding
that could be as high as 3.2m in some locations depending on the height (Mmom and Aifesehi,
2013).
Most vulnerable populations are faced with challenges arising from flooding which has become a
constant phenomenon in their environment, with no help from any source to build their own
resilience capacities or to put in place mitigation approaches (Tawari-Fufeyin et al., 2015). This
scenario has caused most vulnerable communities to develop their resilience capacities to prevent
the loss of livelihood sources as a community (McEwen et al., 2012; Demeritt 2012).
Vulnerability and resilience are two different yet related concepts that represent responses of actors
and social systems regarding changes occasioned by surprises and shocks in the environment
(Chacowry et al., 2018). Vulnerability expresses the state of individual and group susceptibility to
danger, powerlessness and peculiarity to social and environmental changes occasioned by
exposure to disturbances and the ability to adapt and build resilience capacities (Adger, 2006). In
this context, vulnerable communities have incrementally continued to build their resilience
capacities by adopting indigenous knowledge to combat the risk associated with the flood
(Whatmore, 2009). Resilience as a notion stems from resistance, coping, adaptation and recovery
(Zhou et al., 2010) which has over time gained several connotations based on contextual
application of the notion (Rose 2007; Manyena 2006).
Resilience as an idea has had several meanings depending on the context and intent of the
researcher. For Matyas and Pelling (2015), the application of resilience to natural hazards entails
the ability of vulnerable communities to design how to cope, adapt, accommodate and recover
from the consequences of a natural disaster. Timmerman (1981) was first to identify the need for
designing a framework on how to cope, adapt, accommodate and recover from flood-related
disasters. Such a framework witnessed incremental evolution over the years primarily in the global
north enhanced by recorded achievements in science and technology. However, in the global south,
there have been little improvements regarding the building of disaster resilience occassioned by
the prevalence of the application of indigenous knowledge to build resilience capacities during and
after any natural disaster which indicates the need for some form of external assistance (Chacowry
et al., 2018).
Resilience
Resilience as a concept stems from the field of ecology and gained prominence in several fields
like psychology and sociology. Resilience has been one of the main drivers in social sciences
discourses relating to environmental planning, economic geography, psychology and disaster
studies which have been using the concept prominently (Davoudi et al., 2012). The usage of the
term resilience across various research fields has caused its definition to become indistinct (Cote
and Nightingale 2012, Manyena 2006; Wreathall 2006, Pickett et al., 2004). Resilience generally,
but not exclusively attributes its focus on the need to reduce damage in the eventuality of
unexpected natural or anthropogenic distortions in the physical environment (Park et al., 2013;
Zolli and Healy, 2012).

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [300]
Ungar (2008, p225) defined resilience as:
the context of exposure to significant adversity, whether psychological, environmental, or both,
resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to health-sustaining resources,
including opportunities to experience feelings of well-being, and a condition of the individual
family, community and culture to provide these health resources and experiences in culturally
meaningful ways.
Resilience underpins the ability of affected vulnerable population to recover to near normal state
of being after any disturbances. The social environment which encompasses culture, personal
characteristics and family contributes significantly to the building of resilience (Ungar, 2008).
Researchers have established a commonality in the building of resilience capacities in any disaster
scenario which involves the mobilisation of resources, in addition to human adaptation structures
that reflect the capacity to withstand and/or recover from any disaster or stress scenario (Chaskin
2008; Coleman and Hagell 2007; Wreathall 2006; Pickett et al., 2004; Kendra and Wachtendorf
2003).
Increasingly, resilience as a concept has gained global significance in its application by researchers
because it involves the assemblage of both human and material resources, and in some situations
presents adaptive strategies to withstand external and internal stressors in the environment. These
stressors often distort socio-ecological systems to test the capacity to absorb anticipated and
recurring disturbances (Adger et al., 2005). A detailed view of resilience literature evinced
contrasting divides between researchers which indicates two polarities on the resilience spectrum.
Such polarities stem from researchers who focus on adaptation enabled systems and researchers
who focus on disaster recovery systems of resilience. These polarities are evident within the social
non-equilibrium and social equilibrium concepts of resilience. Social non-equilibrium concept
deals with a situation where resilience is established as the ability to adapt and change in a disaster
scenario with no possibility of returning to the normal state, while the social equilibrium concept
establishes resilience as the ability to return to the normal state after a disaster scenario (Pickett et
al., 2004).
To establish these divides in a real-life scenario, a study to identify and establish embedded
resilience capacities innate in the coping abilities of distraught social groups was carried out. It
was further evident that adaptation strategies assisted in the establishment of resilience capacities
by prompting control over any crises, a sense of belonging and a positive perception. An outcome
of the study indicates that social groups display the social non-equilibrium form of resilience when
faced with disturbances in real-life (Doron, 2005).
Doron (2005) generally underpins the notion that the process of building resilience should not be
viewed as a regular adaptive procedure. Instead, the resilience building process should be viewed
holistically as systems with the capability to adapt to situations beyond the threshold of their usual
adaptive capability. Resilience from this perception elicits the attention in identifying the
thresholds of present competence in order to understand the dynamics that go beyond the
competency envelope for resilience (Woods, 2006). For Cairns (2002), the perception of Woods
(2006) regarding resilience is a visible distinction which indicates phenomenal alteration of the
traditional disaster risk management method.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [301]
Resilience in Disaster Management
This study has been deliberately designed to explore resilience within the framework of
communities vulnerable to flood disasters in the Orashi region of Rivers State, Nigeria. In the field
of disaster management, several researchers have looked at the notion of resilience as it affects the
individual and the community collectively (Anderson and Adey 2012; Dore and Etkin 2003;
Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003; Paton and Johnson 2001; Paton et al., 2000). Researchers are of
the opinion that contemporary flood disaster management system prevalent in most societies
globally are tailored to be response-driven and excessively dedicated to actions regarding the
outcome of any disaster (Oven et al., 2012; Bosher et al., 2007). In recent times a lot of
vulnerability and risk reduction plan of actions have augmented the usual response-driven
approaches to encourage resilience building in order to advance pre-disaster planning processes
by vulnerable societies (Bosher et al., 2007).
Body of evidence from a number of studies indicate that response-driven approaches in managing
disaster do not encourage the building of resilience in most vulnerable communities in the global
south that are prone to disaster (Wilson 2012, Manyena 2006; Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003;
Homan 2003; Pelling 2003; Paton et al., 2000). For instance, the study of Tobin and Whiteford
(2002) on Ecuadorian communities affected by volcanic eruption indicates that the response-
driven approach to disaster management did not encourage the building of resilience capacities
because of the negative effect of the evacuation experience on their psyche. These response-driven
approaches indicated that disasters had instead an ephemeral ‘therapeutic effect’ (p28) which did
not engender the development of resilience capacities of affected communities because of the
collective humane behaviour and a sense of solidarity inherent among the affected community
members. The outcome of the research underpins the fact that resilience-based process enhances
an extended recovery outlook such that its absence often leads to delayed or partial recovery from
a disaster.
At the turn of the last century, several community-based vulnerability and risk reduction schemes
away from the resilience-based process emerged to augment existing traditional disaster
management structures. These community-based vulnerabilities and risk reduction programmes
focused more on the external factors such as risk and vulnerability amplification schemes that were
beyond the control of the communities (Toft and Reynolds 2006; Quarantelli 2005; Turner and
Pidgeon 1997). Such vulnerability and risk augmentation schemes were not enough to build the
required resilience of both individual and the community. As such, further augmentations were
required to achieve strong community and individual resilience which required sound policies,
firm institutional practices and internal community structures during and after any crisis to enhance
their resilience capacities (Oven et al., 2012). Researchers averred that the incorporation of the
tenets of vulnerability and risk reduction into contemporary resilience building processes would
enhance the implementation of both pre-disaster and post-disaster recovery programmes in
vulnerable communities (Bosher et al., 2007). To achieve a holistic approach in the building of
disaster resilience, Homan (2003) proposed the multiple standpoints approach which encompasses
several actors on the team as the most suitable in disaster management as evident in most of the
government and public policy driven frameworks. Instances of such multiple standpoint
approaches are evident in parts of the emergency planning in the Civil Contingency Act 2004 of
the United Kingdom (Anderson and Adey 2012).

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [302]
Individual Resilience
As the concept of resilience gains momentum globally, researchers are beginning to identify the
importance of the connection between the individual, community and the institutions in building
resilience during and after a disaster (Wilson 2012; Chaskin 2008; Doron 2005). For instance,
Doron (2005) established that the best treatment for acute stress and trauma is individual resilience,
but for long-standing stress occasioned by a disaster, community resilience aids recovery faster.
Besides, people tend to develop meaningful relationships in an attempt to build personal resilience,
while the support platform that aid such relationships are provided by institutions and
communities for such relationships to thrive and encourage the building of resilience (Dolan,
2008). Resilience as a holistic and multifaceted paradigm encompasses the individual, community
and the institution. To research the resiliency level of an individual, researchers have made three
distinct stages of resiliency represented as the child, adolescent and adult (Coleman and Hagell
2007; Cairns 2002; Paton and Johnson 2001; Mallak 1998).
Concept of Community
Resilience is a dynamic and essential quality that is evident and necessary in every fabric of human
society. The primary focus of this research hinges on power relations and differentials regarding
collective resilience capacities of a community away from individual resilience capacities.
Community resilience is often established through the ability of the community to harness
resources internally in addition to the competence in the management of emerging challenges
associated in the disaster (Hollnagel et al., 2007). In enhancing community resilience, Paton and
Johnson (2001) specify three conditions that need to be in place which include:
• The maintenance of the means of access and use of resources by individuals;
• Protection of the physical environment; and
• To preserve organisational and economic integrity.
These three conditions enhance community resilience because they exist at interdependent levels
within the community. For instance, the capacity of a vulnerable community to bounce back and/or
bounce forward after every disaster scenario is dependent on the ability to deploy its resources.
This would further require the protection of the physical environment, at the same time ensuring
that there is continuity of the economic and administrative activities including social institutions
and emergency management systems. Community resilience at this point also requires members
of the vulnerable communities to have access to these resources and the requisite capacities to
deploy both economic and physical resources with minimal difficulty. For a community to achieve
extended resilience over time, there is a need for some inspiration that encourages members of the
community to respond during a disaster through the formulation of encouraging intentions and
convincing actions (Paton, 2003).
Community Resilience
Researchers have over the years viewed the community resilience discourse with a perception that
resilience in a disaster scenario comes from the individuals within the community. Since resilience
comes from the individual within the community, then collective actions among individuals
instinctively translate to community resilience (Cairns 2002; Mallak 1998). Community resilience
has some underpinning layers of individual activities which is a reflection of collective individual
resilience capacities within the community (Doron 2005; Mallak 1998). Such underpinning layers
revolve around the combination of potential and real resources, possession of durable networks

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [303]
and relationships which Bourdieu (1986) refers to as social capital. It has the potential of enhancing
the resilience level of vulnerable communities at risk of any disaster. Community resilience is an
indication of the ability of the community not to bounce back; rather, they bounce forward after
any disaster episode. This is because ‘bounce back’ indicates the ability of the vulnerable to return
to a pre-disaster state which is not achievable. It means they fail to come to terms with the present
reality of devastation occasioned by the disaster. As the same time, bounce forward summarises
community stability in the context of altered realities occasioned by the disaster scenario
(Manyena, 2009).
It is imperative to state that community resilience is not a stand-alone notion; instead, physical and
social components underpin it. The physical component involves taking into cognisance the ability
of the physical structures within the community to withstand the impact of any disaster. The social
mechanism involves considering the sensitivities of individuals and the entire community. It also
involves the ability of community members to have a fair knowledge of the chronology, nature
and magnitude of previous disasters that have befallen the community and the available social
networks, norms, and forms of capital (Cohen et al., 2013). There are some characteristics inherent
in a resilient community which is peculiar and crucial to the community because it marks the
beginning of the collective will to sacrifice and survive in a disaster situation.
4. Methodology
Gathering the data for the study was done at different stages, but the study focused on four main
case studies, from the four Local Government Areas in the Orashi region. There was a total of
thirty-two interviews conducted; eight interviews for each local government area which involved
community members, opinion leaders, traditional rulers, present and past political office holders.
Others include one interview with the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), one from a faith-
based organisation (FBO) and two from specialised government agencies that participated during
the floods. Three out of the four proposed focus groups were successfully conducted. The process
of recruiting the participants started with a meeting with the kings of each clan, who made referrals
to the chairmen of the community development committee (CDC) in the particular community.
The CDC chairman then contacted the town crier to proclaim around the community inviting those
whose source of livelihood was affected during the flood. Those willing to participate in the
research were asked to give their names and occupation to the CDC chairmen. After the
submission, a second selection process was undertaken to get a balanced mix of participants based
on their occupation and gender in order to get different perceptions of their experiences.
Other interviewees in the research participated through snowballing referrals from gatekeepers and
other participants until saturation was achieved. These key gatekeepers were the kings of the clans
in case study one and three, a former local government chairman in case study two who
incidentally was the chairman during the flood. Interviewees who were representatives of the non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), faith-based organisations (FBOs), government ministries,
departments and agencies (MDAs) were recruited to participate based on their level of
participation during the flood, availability and willingness to participate in the research. Their
willingness to participate was underpinned by the cordial relationship that had existed between
them and the researcher who was a volunteer during the flood.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [304]
5. Analysis
Analysis of the field data was done using deductive thematic analysis (top-bottom), but the process
entails going through several stages. It started with several stages of reduction (coding) along the
line of the theoretical framework. Other stages involve compressing the data before coding them
to fit into the existing deduced themes.
6. Findings
Communities in the different case studies that are considered resilient are because of the attributes
they exhibited during the flood. As stated earlier, there were four case studies in the Orashi region;
each displayed with different levels of resilience capacities, hence the resilience differential.
Nonetheless, the attributes that depict resilience have been picked from each individual case study.
Such attributes were evident in the form of collective efficacy (Perkins and Long 2002), where the
entire vulnerable communities trusted the king of the clan and collectively acted to build their
resilience during the flood disaster that overwhelmed them. Their actions reflect the collective
belief and collective actions inherent in most vulnerable rural communities in the global south
which are often used to effectively handle environmental challenges occasioned by a natural
disaster (Benight, 2004). Five key attributes that contributed to local resilience capacity, deduced
from the study were; social capital, trustworthiness, leadership, indigenous knowledge and
communal network. Each of these attributes has been discussed below accordingly.
Social Capital
Social capital is an intrinsic characteristic exhibited by these vulnerable rural communities during
the flood disaster. It involved the possession of durable networks of more or less entrenched
relationships that are mutually recognised by the principal actors in the field (Bourdieu 1986). For
these communities, social capital represents the existing durable relationships that span across
family members, community members, people within the same age group, and other social
associations. Underlying these relationships is the existence of collective actions among members
to handle their collective challenges when the need arises. Such relationships further engender
communal cohesion among the members, which is often deployed to build their resilience
capacities in times of a disaster. It is such that those within the same network (family, friends,
community, social group and the like) often get priority attention before other vulnerable members
of the community as evident from the field data. Communal interactions existed within the
community between and among the vulnerable actors which is the arena that underpins the
Bourdieusian field because actors deployed social positions in those communities. Deployment of
social positions was done in order to access and control the available resources by the dominant
actors at the same time the vulnerable population display some ingrained dispositions in accepting
the activities of such actors in the field.. These communal actions of the actors contributed
significantly in shaping and elucidating the characteristics of each of the identified fields in the
end.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is a component of social trust which is a reflection of individual and group
anticipation of the mutual cooperativeness and efficacy expected from actors in the society. It
reduces any impending relationship friction and encourages further social cohesion among

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [305]
members of a social network because of the underlying belief in the norm of reciprocity (Justwan
et al., 2018). For instance, the king of the clan exhibited this intrinsic characteristic by ceding most
of the resources that accrued to the people, and it was expected of the local government chairman
to exhibit same by effectively managing the resources during the flood. However, that gesture of
the king of the clan handing over the resources to the local government chairman indicates
trustworthiness. It also encourages community resilience and aligns with the position of
(Khunwishit et al., 2018) underpinning the significance of good leadership in enhancing resilience
capacities of vulnerable communities. It represents a scenario where the trustworthiness of a leader
in a social group engenders members to work collectively against collective challenges that might
befall the group.
Leadership
Leadership entails the ability of an individual in charge of a social group to develop a clear and
comprehensive system of expectations, and to identify and deploy the strengths of all available
resources within an organisation to achieve a collective objective (Batten, 2001). In this scenario,
the leadership capacities of the traditional actors enabled vulnerable people to build their resilience
capacities in order to bounce forward after the flood disaster (Boin, 2010). The gesture of the king
of the clan engenders social bonds among the members of the vulnerable communities in the study
area. It underpins the fact that effective leadership contributes significantly to the building of
disaster resilience in the global south. Entrusting an individual and group with the collective
resources of a social group is strongly related to the leadership capacities possessed and displayed.
Such privileges of taking charge of the collective resources also have the potential of building the
resilience capacities of vulnerable population in a disaster situation. It stems from the fact that
when trustworthy leaders take control of available resources, the sense of fulfilment sets in on the
part of the vulnerable population. This perception further enhances the resilience capacities due to
the therapeutic effects inherent in such perceptions because they are sure of being cared for by the
king of the clan (Khunwishit et al., 2018; Batten 2001).
Indigenous Knowledge
Researchers have identified indigenous knowledge as a strategy deployed in surviving a disaster
(McEwen and Jones 2012). Indigenous knowledge includes lay knowledge, traditional knowledge,
inter-generational knowledge which has also proven to be a source of survival in a disaster
(McEwen et al., 2017; Mavhura et al., 2013; McEwen and Jones 2012; Scammell et al., 2009).
These forms of knowledge encourage the building of resilience capacities to flood disaster in the
global southern context (Mavhura et al., 2013). In most circumstances, each of the vulnerable
communities exhibit a central idea of seeking ingenious indigenous ways to build their resilience
capacities since they have limited access to power structures. Seeking these ingenious indigenous
ways of building resilience capacities to flood disaster in the absence of effective power structures
and related resources has over the years become experimental and had gained currency as an
emerging body of knowledge in the global south because it thrives on the evolving repetitive
practices of the people (Tharakan 2015; Nakata et al., 2005). Besides, such experimental
knowledge is contextual and engenders the community or individual to act on impulse when faced
with danger occasioned by a disaster such as flooding (Spiekermann et al., 2015).
Indigenous knowledge was pivotal in the adaptation strategies adopted by vulnerable communities
to build their resilience capacities during the flood disaster in case studies two and three. The

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [306]
knowledge was unique to them and not written down in any rulebook for others outside their clan
to apply (Tran et al., 2009). Instead, the knowledge was applied tacitly by the people who have
been inundated by the threats associated with the flood annually. As a tradition in most indigenous
communities in the global south, there is hardly any documentation for their endeavours, neither
do they attach patents and names to their discoveries. Since these adaptation strategies were
indigenous to the affected people, they were devoid of any Western scientific knowledge from the
universities, and it falls within the realm of indigenous technology (Flavier et al., 1995).
Being an agrarian society, the vulnerable people in case studies two and three have over the years
developed the ingrained disposition of always preparing themselves with the deployment of their
adaption strategies. These strategies include early planting and harvesting of their crops, the
building of wooden piers to store farm produce and personal effects which had enabled them to
build their resilience capacities to survive the threat occasioned by the floods. This approach to
surviving consistent flood scenarios conforms with the position of Doron (2005) and Mallak
(1998), where vulnerable communities build their resilience capacities with the adoption of
indigenous strategies unique to them.
The application of indigenous knowledge to solve disaster-related threats has always been an
indispensable component of building resilience capacities in most indigenous enclaves in the
global south. Deploying indigenous knowledge by vulnerable population has gained prominence
over the years occasioned by their limited access to resources and capacities concerning western
flood mitigation strategies as indigenous people. Hence, they adapt and deploy systematic
processes such that whenever there was any disaster-related crisis, most of the vulnerable among
them organise themselves and apply such indigenous knowledge that makes them build their
resilience capacities (Dekens, 2007).
Communal Networks
Communal networks, infused with social capital, played a vital role in the build-up to community
resilience because vulnerable members in the same social network were given priority assistance
before others outside their networks. This characteristic evinced bonding social capital (Hawkins
and Maurer, 2009). The communal network in case study three and four does not portray the
traditional perception of Bourdieu (1986) regarding what constitutes a communal network. It is
because the network in the context of this research mostly arose as an offshoot of ill-disposed
developments exhibited by the political actors regarding the resources. A community of crisis in
the clan became evident when the resources were accessed and controlled by only the political
actors and their associates. It further led to them being authoritative and less open to the opinion
of the traditional actors and vulnerable population (Booth-Fowler, 1995). They deployed a high
level of domination and deprivation such that dissenting opinions were not accepted, and it enabled
the vulnerable population to reinforce their bonds in order to support themselves to survive the
threat of the flood disaster. Succinctly put, there was bonding social capital among the actors.
Putnam (2000) described bonding social capital as an offshoot of the relationship existing among
members of the same network. In this circumstance, it spanned the spectrum of relationships from
family, friends, community, social circle and ethnic group. Instances of bonding social capital were
evident during the 2012 flood episode in some of the case study sites under review. From field
experiences in this research, bonding social capital was one of the fastest ways of building the

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [307]
resilience of the affected people. Bonding social capital in this context engendered the closeness
of the vulnerable and affected individuals within the same network such as the family, friends and
community to be formidable (Hawkins and Maurer 2010; Bourdieu 1992).
Another essential form of capital which came as another offshoot of communal network that was
deployed by the vulnerable population during the flood disaster was intellectual capital. It entails
a transformative knowledge that enables the processing of raw materials into a valuable resource
Laihonen and Lönnqvist (2010) which was evident across the entire study area. Achieving a
valuable resource in this context requires human competences at the individual and group levels
as well as the ethics that bind them (Stewart and Ruckdeschel, 1998). In this scenario, intellectual
capital involved the conversion of the information about the flood received in the English language
which represents the raw material. It was converted into the native dialect of the people which
automatically became a valuable resource to the vulnerable people as everybody within the
affected communities got the messages and moved as directed.
The human resource required to enable the completion of the intellectual capital cycle in this
context were the primary actors like the kings of the clans in case study one and two, and the
political actors in case study three and four. These primary actors did the conversion of the
information from the English language into the native dialects of the people and passed the same
information to the town crier to disseminate to the affected people. These commendable gestures
contributed to building a more resilient population with improved resilience capacities as they
prepared to move away from the flood disaster to safer grounds. Furnished with this information
the people were able to prepare themselves enough to reduce the human casualty to the barest
minimum. Social networks enabled the affected people to survive and bounce forward after the
flood while the political and traditional actors were struggling with their social positions to access
symbolic capitals converted to symbolic power in the field. It is evident that there is a nexus
between indigenous knowledge and intellectual capital in the building of disaster resilience
capacities in the global south away from scientific knowledge of flood disaster management.
7. Discussion
This research worked to develop a deepened understanding of how individuals and communities
can enhance their resilience capacities through actions that engender social capital derived from
collective community actions. Findings further indicated that the ways of building resilience
capacities as evident in each case study site are the result of the common practice of the vulnerable
local populace, in addition to the dominant actors and responses of the vulnerable people during
and after the flood disaster. Social capital through their networks and norms of reciprocity was one
common form of capital that was deployed in the study area to build their resilience capacities. On
the part of the traditional actors, they deployed cultural and intellectual capitals to encourage the
vulnerable population to shore up their resilience capacities. The application of symbolic power
contributed to the building of resilience capacities of the vulnerable people as evident in the case
studies.
In the course of exploring further shreds of evidence regarding indigenous resilience capacities in
each of the case study sites, there were strands of evidence found by the author regarding
divergence in references as to what best described indigenous adaptations of the vulnerable

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [308]
population to building resilience capacities as a norm of reciprocity. Such actions are indications
that resonated with findings from some recent research. Mackinnon and Derickson (2013)
effectively summarised this perspective by relating it to how the norm of resilience in UK
government policy sprouts from an unsophisticated conviction that community resilience is
“assumed to be always a positive quality, imbued with notions of individual self-reliance and
triumph over adversity” (MacKinnon and Derickson 2013, p 259).
The authors view the bifurcation of research threads as focusing either on the resilience building
process or the resilience outcome in itself, which has the potential of producing findings that
interpret the struggle for resources consequent on unexpected levels of community resilience as a
negative outcome. In this research, the assertion that vulnerable communities deployed
unsophisticated indigenous approaches to build community resilience was proven to be valid
because their ingrained dispositions have been a way of life that has helped them over the years in
any disaster scenario.
Case study data has minimal evidence that indicates any negative connotations of resilience as
may have been envisaged. However, all the interviews and focus group discussions indicate
evidence of community actions aimed at building resilience capacities as an adaptation to survive
the disaster scenario. The authors assert that findings from this research suggested that some
powerful actors in the field tried to weaken the resilience capacities of the vulnerable communities
through deliberate deprivation of resources that would have enhanced their resilience capacities
during the flood disaster (as evidenced by case study 4 in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni local government
area). This perception draws a parallel with Bene et al., (2012), who indicated that powerful actors
and institutions occasionally desire to weaken the resilience capacities of communities in order to
impose a perceived transformative process within the community.
8. Conclusions
The notion of building resilience capacities of vulnerable people through a resilience weakening
process is a novelty that has not been sufficiently articulated in most academic literature. It is such
that vulnerable people devise indigenous ways to build resilience capacities in a disaster scenario.
In this article, the analysis of the resilience capacities of vulnerable communities indicate that
building resilient capacities involve input from multiple stakeholders but primarily, traditional
actors such as the members of the community, the Community Development Committee (CDC),
the traditional actors in the form of kings and clan heads, specialized government agencies, FBOs
and NGOs to form a durable resilience framework that would in future enhance the resilience
capacities of such vulnerable communities
References
[1] Adger, W.N. "Vulnerability", Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, no. 3, 2006, pp. 268-281.
[2] Anderson, B. & Adey, P. 2012, "Governing events and life: ‘Emergency in UK Civil
Contingencies", Political Geography, vol. 31, no. 1, 2012, pp. 24-33.
[3] Batten, J.D. 2001, Tough-minded leadership, Wipf and Stock Publishers.
[4] Benight, C.C. 2004, "Collective efficacy following a series of natural disasters", Anxiety, Stress &
Coping, vol. 17, no. 4, 2004, pp. 401-420.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [309]
[5] Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of
knowledge, 1991, Penguin United Kingdom.
[6] Booth-Fowler, R. “Communities: Reflections on a definition”, in Etzioni A (ed) “New
Communitarian Thinking: Persons”, Virtues, Institutions and Communities, University Press of
Virginia, Virginia, USA, 1995, pp.88-95.
[7] Bourdieu, P. "The forms of capital (English version)", Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education, 1986, pp. 241-258.
[8] Bourdieu, P. The practice of reflexive sociology (The Paris workshop). An invitation to reflexive
sociology, 1992, pp. 216-260.
[9] Brenner, N. "The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration", Progress in
Human Geography, vol. 25, no. 4, 2001, pp. 591-614.
[10] Béné, C., Wood, R.G., Newsham, A. & Davies, M. "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 Papers, vol. 2012, no. 405, pp. 1-61.
[11] Boin, A. "Designing resilience: Leadership challenges in complex administrative systems",
Designing resilience: Preparing for extreme events, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010, pp. 129-
141.
[12] Bosher, L., Carrillo, P., Dainty, A., Glass, J. & Price, A. "Realising a resilient and sustainable built
environment: towards a strategic agenda for the United Kingdom", Disasters, vol. 31, no. 3, 2007,
pp. 236-255.
[13] Cairns, K. “Attachment, trauma and resilience” British Association for Adoption & Fostering,
2002, London.
[14] Chacowry, A., McEwen, L.J. & Lynch, K. "Recovery and resilience of communities in flood risk
zones in a Small Island Developing State: A case study from a suburban settlement of Port Louis,
Mauritius", International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 28, 2018, pp. 826-838.
[15] Chaskin, R.J. "Resilience, community, and resilient communities: Conditioning contexts and
collective action", Child Care in Practice, vol. 14, no. 1, 2008, pp. 65-74.
[16] Cloke, P.J., Philo, C. & Sadler, D. "Approaching human geography an introduction to
contemporary theoretical debates", 1991, Chapman, London.
[17] Cohen, O., Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Goldberg, A. & Aharonson-Daniel, L. "The conjoint community
resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for
emergencies", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 80, no. 9, 2013, pp. 1732-1741.
[18] Coleman, J. & Hagell, A. "The nature of risk and resilience in adolescence", Adolescence, risk and
resilience: Against the odds, vol. 3, 2007, pp. 2-16.
[19] Cote, M. & Nightingale, A.J. "Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in
socio-ecological systems (SES) research", Progress in Human Geography, vol. 36, no. 4, 2012, pp.
475-489.
[20] Crossley, N. Making sense of social movements, 2002, McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
[21] Daniels P, Bradshaw M, Shaw D and Sidaway J. 2001, “Human Geography – issues for the 21st
Century”, Pearson Education, Harlow
[22] Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L.J., Quinlan, A.E., Peterson, G.D., Wilkinson, C., Fünfgeld, H.,
McEvoy, D., Porter, L. & Davoudi, S. "Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead
End?“Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps:
Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban
Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate
Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note: Edited by Simin
Davoudi and Libby Porter", Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 13, no. 2, 2012, pp. 299-333.
[23] Dekens, J. Local knowledge for disaster preparedness: a literature review, International Centre for
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 2007, Kathmandu
[24] Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. Social movements: An introduction, 2009, John Wiley & Sons.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [310]
[25] Demeritt, D. "The perception and use of public weather services by emergency and resiliency
professionals in the UK", Report for the Met Office Public Weather Service Customer 2012, Group,
vol. 2.
[26] Dolan, P. "Prospective possibilities for building resilience in children, their families and
communities", Child Care in Practice, vol. 14, no. 1, 2008, pp. 83-91.
[27] Doron, E. "Working with Lebanese refugees in a community resilience model", Community
Development Journal, vol. 40, no. 2, 2005, pp. 182-191.
[28] Flavier, J.M., Jesus, A.D. & Navarro, C.S. "The regional program for the promotion of indigenous
knowledge in Asia". In: D. Warren, L Slikkerveer and D. Brokensha (eds.), The Cultural Dimension
of Development: Indigenous knowledge systems 1995, pp. 479-487, London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
[29] Hawkins, R.L. & Maurer, K. "Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in New
Orleans following Hurricane Katrina", British Journal of Social Work, vol. 40, no. 6, 2010, pp.
1777-1793.
[30] Homan, J. 2003, "The social construction of natural disaster: Egypt and the UK" in Natural Disaster
and Development in a Globalizing World Routledge, pp. 157-172.
[31] Justwan, F., Bakker, R. & Berejikian, J.D. "Measuring social trust and trusting the measure", The
Social Science Journal, vol. 55, no. 2, 2018, pp. 149-159.
[32] Kendra, J.M. & Wachtendorf, T. "Elements of resilience after the world trade center disaster:
reconstituting New York City's Emergency Operations Centre", Disasters, vol. 27, no. 1, 2003, pp.
37-53.
[33] Khunwishit, S., Choosuk, C. & Webb, G. "Flood Resilience Building in Thailand: Assessing
Progress and the Effect of Leadership", International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 9, no.
1,2018, pp. 44-54.
[34] Knox, P. & Pinch, S. Urban social geography: an introduction, 2014, Routledge.
[35] MacKinnon, D. & Derickson, K.D. 2013, "From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of
resilience policy and activism", Progress in Human Geography, vol. 37, no. 2, 2013, pp. 253-270.
[36] Mallak, L.A. "Measuring resilience in health care provider organisations", Health manpower
management, vol. 24, no. 4, 1998, pp. 148-152.
[37] Manyena, B. Disaster resilience in development and humanitarian interventions, 2009, (Doctoral
dissertation, Northumbria University).
[38] Manyena, S.B. "The concept of resilience revisited", Disasters, vol. 30, no. 4, 2006, pp. 434-450.
[39] Matyas, D. & Pelling, M. "Positioning resilience for 2015: the role of resistance, incremental
adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy", Disasters, vol. 39, no. s1, 2015,
pp. s1-s18.
[40] Mavhura, E., Manyena, S.B., Collins, A.E. & Manatsa, D. "Indigenous knowledge, coping
strategies and resilience to floods in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe", International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, vol. 5, 2013, pp. 38-48.
[41] McEwen, L. & Jones, O. "Building local/lay flood knowledge into community flood resilience
planning after the July 2007 floods, Gloucestershire, UK", Hydrology Research, vol. 43, no. 5,
2012, pp. 675-688.
[42] McEwen, L., Garde‐Hansen, J., Holmes, A., Jones, O. & Krause, F. "Sustainable flood memories,
lay knowledges and the development of community resilience to future flood risk", Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 42, no. 1, 2017, pp. 14-28.
[43] Mmom, P.C. & Aifesehi, P.E. "Vulnerability and resilience of niger delta coastal communities to
flooding", IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 10, 2013, pp. 27-33.
[44] Nakata, M., Byrne, A., Nakata, V. & Gardiner, G. "Indigenous knowledge, the library and
information service sector, and protocols", Australian Academic & Research Libraries, vol. 36, no.
2, 2005, pp. 7-21.

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [311]
[45] Ochege, F.U., Wekpe, V.O. & Obafemi, A.A. "An Overview of Flood Vulnerability Mapping:
strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria", Nigerian Journal of
Hydrological Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016, pp. 13-26.
[46] Oven, K.J., Curtis, S.E., Reaney, S., Riva, M., Stewart, M.G., Ohlemüller, R., Dunn, C.E., Nodwell,
S., Dominelli, L. & Holden, R. "Climate change and health and social care: Defining future hazard,
vulnerability and risk for infrastructure systems supporting older people’s health care in England",
Applied Geography, vol. 33, 2012, pp. 16-24.
[47] Paton, D. "Stress in disaster response: a risk management approach", Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, 2003, pp. 203-209.
[48] Paton, D. & Johnston, D. "Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness",
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, 2001, pp. 270-277.
[49] Peillon, M. "Bourdieu's field and the sociology of welfare", Journal of social policy, vol. 27, no. 2,
1998, pp. 213-229.
[50] Pelling, M. Natural disaster and development in a globalizing world, 2003, Routledge, New York,
and London, UK.
[51] Perkins, D., & Long, D. Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level
analysis. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research,
applications, and implications. New York: Plenum, 2002, pp. 291–318.
[52] Pickett, S.T., Cadenasso, M.L. & Grove, J.M. "Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for
integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms", Landscape and Urban Planning,
vol. 69, no. 4, 2004, pp. 369-384.
[53] Putnam, R.D. "Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital" in Culture and politics Springer,
2000, pp. 223-234.
[54] Quarantelli, E.L. What is a disaster? a dozen perspectives on the question, 2005, Routledge.
[55] Rose, A. "Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and
contextual dimensions", Environmental Hazards, vol. 7, no. 4, 2007, pp. 383-398.
[56] Scammell, M.K., Senier, L., Darrah-Okike, J., Brown, P. & Santos, S. "Tangible evidence, trust
and power: public perceptions of community environmental health studies", Social science &
medicine, vol. 68, no. 1, 2009, pp. 143-153.
[57] Searle, J.R. & Willis, S. The construction of social reality, 1995, Simon and Schuster.
[58] Singh, J., Moffat, D. & Linden, O. Defining an environmental development strategy for the Niger
Delta, 1995, World Bank.
[59] Spiekermann, R., Kienberger, S., Norton, J., Briones, F. & Weichselgartner, J. "The Disaster-
Knowledge Matrix–Reframing and evaluating the knowledge challenges in disaster risk reduction",
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 13, 2015, pp. 96-108.
[60] Stewart, T. & Ruckdeschel, C. Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organisations. Performance
Improvement, vol. 37, no.7, 1998, pp.56-59.
[61] Tawari-Fufeyin, P., Paul, M. & Godleads, A.O. "Some aspects of a historic flooding in Nigeria and
its effects on some Niger-Delta Communities", American Journal of Water Resources, vol. 3, no.
1, 2015, pp. 7-16.
[62] Tharakan, J. "Indigenous knowledge systems–A rich appropriate technology resource", African
journal of science, technology, innovation and development, vol. 7, no. 1, 2015, pp. 52-57.
[63] Timmerman, P. "Vulnerability resilience and collapse ofsociety", A ReviewofModels and Possible
Climatic Appli-cations. 1981, Toronto, Canada. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of
Toronto,
[64] Toft, B. & Reynolds, S. "Learning from Disaster: A Management Approach", (3rd ed), 2006,
Hampshire, England: Macmillan.
[65] Tobin, G.A. & Whiteford, L.M. "Community resilience and volcano hazard: the eruption of
Tungurahua and evacuation of the faldas in Ecuador", Disasters, vol. 26, no. 1, 2002, pp. 28-48.
[66] Turner, B.A. & Pidgeon, N.F. Man-made disasters, 2nd ed. 1997, Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford

[Brown et. al., Vol.8 (Iss.4): April 2020] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.35
Http://www.granthaalayah.com ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [312]
[67] Tran, P., Takeuchi, Y. & Shaw, R. "Indigenous knowledge in river basin management", In
Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to Policy, Nova Science
Publishers, New York, 2009, pp. 45-58.
[68] Ungar, M. "Resilience across cultures", The British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008,
pp. 218-235.
[69] Uyigue, E. & Agho, M. "Coping with climate change and environmental degradation in the Niger
Delta of southern Nigeria", Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria (CREDC),
2007, pp. 24-27.
[70] Whatmore, S.J. "Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of
expertise", Progress in Human Geography, vol. 33, no. 5, 2009, pp. 587-598.
[71] Woods D.D. “Essential characteristics of resilience”, in: Hollnagel E, Woods DD and Leveson N
(Eds) “Resilience Engineering”, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, 2006, pp. 21-34
[72] Wreathall, J. "Properties of resilient organisations: an initial view", Resilience engineering:
Concepts and precepts, 2006, pp. 275-285.
[73] Wilson, G. Community resilience and environmental transitions, 2012, Oxford, UK: Earthscan
[74] Zhou, H., Wan, J. & Jia, H. "Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective", Natural
Hazards, vol. 53, no. 1, 2010, pp. 21-41.
[75] Zolli, A. & Healy, A.M. Resilience: Why things bounce back, 2012, Simon and Schuster, Hachette
UK.
View publication statsView publication stats