Assessing Community Disaster Resilience in Flood-Prone Areas of Bangladesh: From a Gender Lens

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to assess the level of community flood resilience with a special focus on gender. A gender perspective ensures the representation of diversified voices in the study. From concept development to data representation, all the steps were completed ensuring gender-based inclusion. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to conduct the study. A total of 402 responses were analyzed as the sample. A linear structured questionnaire was developed by using a five-point Likert scale to collect quantitative data. As part of the qualitative tool, in-depth observation was used in the study. The study found that female members of the community lag in terms of disaster resilience comparing to their male counterparts. The scores in different components of resilience assessment framework indicate that there are gaps in terms of level of resilience from the gender perspective. The same disaster can create a disproportionate level of impact on women and men due to an unequal level of resilience. The study indicates that assessing community disaster resilience and introducing resilience enhancement interventions should focus on a gender-based approach.

Full text



Citation: Chisty, M.A.; Rahman,
M.M.; Khan, N.A.; Dola, S.E.A.
Assessing Community Disaster
Resilience in Flood-Prone Areas of
Bangladesh: From a Gender Lens.
Water 2022,14, 40. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w14010040
Academic Editor: Fi-John Chang
Received: 10 October 2021
Accepted: 16 December 2021
Published: 24 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
water
Article
Assessing Community Disaster Resilience in Flood-Prone Areas
of Bangladesh: From a Gender Lens
Musabber Ali Chisty 1, * , Md. Mostafizur Rahman 2, Nesar Ahmed Khan 1and Syeda Erena Alam Dola 1
1Institute of Disaster Management and Vulnerability Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh;
arnob.k7715@gmail.com (N.A.K.); erenaalam@gmail.com (S.E.A.D.)
2Department of Disaster and Human Security Management, Bangladesh University of Professionals,
Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh; mostafizur@bup.edu.bd
*Correspondence: musabber.chisty@du.ac.bd
Abstract:
The main purpose of this study was to assess the level of community flood resilience with
a special focus on gender. A gender perspective ensures the representation of diversified voices in
the study. From concept development to data representation, all the steps were completed ensuring
gender-based inclusion. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to conduct the
study. A total of 402 responses were analyzed as the sample. A linear structured questionnaire was
developed by using a five-point Likert scale to collect quantitative data. As part of the qualitative
tool, in-depth observation was used in the study. The study found that female members of the
community lag in terms of disaster resilience comparing to their male counterparts. The scores in
different components of resilience assessment framework indicate that there are gaps in terms of level
of resilience from the gender perspective. The same disaster can create a disproportionate level of
impact on women and men due to an unequal level of resilience. The study indicates that assessing
community disaster resilience and introducing resilience enhancement interventions should focus on
a gender-based approach.
Keywords: community resilience; gender; resilience assessment; flood
1. Introduction
The frequency, extent, severity, and magnitude of disasters are increasing due to ex-
treme climate variability. Millions of people around the world are facing more natural,
biological, and anthropogenic disasters than ever before. Due to extreme climate variability
and other causes, there are changes in the pattern and impact of disasters [
1
]. Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports indicate that due to climate
change, alteration is taking place in terms of frequency, duration, and intensity of extreme
events like cyclones, droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, etc. [
1
]. In the year 2019, a
total of 308 natural hazards affected 97.6 million people around the world, among which
24,396 people were killed [
2
]. One of the significant findings of the World Disasters Report
2020 was that 97 percent of the disaster-affected people in 2019 were affected by climate-
and weather-related disasters [
2
]. Due to significant climate change, scientists are predicting
that climatic hazards such as floods, cyclones, heat waves, and droughts will intensify and
increase in the coming years [
2
]. According to EM-DAT, a total of 46 percent of the disasters
from 2010 to 2019 were floods [2].
Bangladesh is one of the developing countries which has been experiencing major
catastrophic hazards. According to INFORM Global Risk Index 2020, Bangladesh is in the
second highest position to be at risk of being affected by natural hazards [
3
]. Disasters
like river flooding, monsoon flooding, waterlogging, and cyclones will be very frequent in
the coming years, with the probability of severe impacts [
4
]. In another study, Bangladesh
ranked 13th in terms of being at risk of facing most disasters [
5
]. In 2020, Bangladesh
Water 2022,14, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010040 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2022,14, 40 2 of 15
experienced extreme monsoon floods in 21 districts, exclusively in the north and north-
eastern regions. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the complexity of the condition. More
than 700,000 households in 654 unions were devastated by severe floods [6].
There are a large number of definitions of disaster resilience coined by different
studies and reports. These definitions have some commonalities and differences which
enabled the scholars to analyze disaster resilience from different perspectives. Disaster
resilience can be addressed as the capacity of any system or community to absorb impacts
of any stress or shock and bounce forward to continue regular activities by reconstructing
itself [
7
,
8
]. Asian Development Bank (ADB) defined resilience as “the ability of countries,
communities, business, and individual households to resist, absorb, recover from and
reorganize in response to natural hazard events, without jeopardizing their sustained
socio-economic advancement and development” [
9
,
10
]. The Department for International
Development (DFID), currently known as FCDO, also defined disaster resilience related
to the ability of communities and households to face and shocks without compromising
future development. But one thing in DFID’s definition that was new was that resilience
will be achieved through “maintaining and transforming living standards” [
10
,
11
]. Twigg
added a new term in the definition of disaster resilience which is “bounce back”. Like
previous definitions, Twigg also agreed that disaster resilience refers to the capacity of any
community to absorb impacts of disastrous events and maintain primary activities, and he
also added that a resilient community would not only maintain regular functions during
disasters but also will recover and bounce back after the event [10,12].
While increasing the level of disaster resilience, it is also important to make it inclusive.
Ensuring actions to address the needs and capacities of marginalized groups like women,
children, persons with disabilities, and elderly people will ensure strengthening of overall
resilience [
13
]. Previous studies found that disasters create impacts on men and women
differently, with a possibility of bringing long-term negative consequences for women due
to the roles women have to play during emergencies [
14
,
15
]. As women differ due to causes
like lack of economic opportunity, inequity in resource distribution, and limited decision-
making power, etc., women face the impacts of disasters differently [
15
,
16
]. Assessing the
level of community resilience from a gender perspective will help to review the inequity
and differences faced by gender-based marginalized groups both inside the household and
in the society [17].
All these background studies support that it is important to learn the condition of
community resilience from a gendered perspective so that the importance of ensuring
inclusive resilience can be established. The objective of this study was to assess the level of
community resilience with a special focus on gender.
2. Literature Review
Disaster resilience has seen increasing attention over the past two decades due to
the growing number of serious disasters affecting communities across the world and the
understanding that community resilience is a key determinant for effectively reducing risks
before disaster strikes and building back better once the disaster happens [
18
]. Disaster
resilience refers to the ability of any community or system to face any negative phenomenon
and to sustain efficiently with social, economic, environmental, and physical resources [
19
].
In the context of the community perspective, disaster resilience is the ability of a system
to recover from a shock and disaster, which includes the capacities of the community
people to absorb and cope with the event [
19
]. Disaster resilience refers to the capacity
of the communities, which is the most common thing in all the definitions. Community
resilience is seen as the capacity of any community to cope with adverse effects of hazards
in an efficient way so that the food security and well-being of the community will not be
disturbed [
10
,
20
]. The ability to cope with, recover from, and adapt to hazards is known
as community resilience [
21
]. Community resilience can be alluded to as the capacity of
a local area to use its accessible assets in the administration of unfriendly circumstances
and was one of the first concerns of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Water 2022,14, 40 3 of 15
(2015–2030). This term has acquired broad acknowledgment in disaster management [
22
].
The Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance defined resilience as “the ability of a community to
pursue its development and growth objectives while managing its flood risk over time in a
mutually reinforcing way” [
10
,
23
]. The contribution of local community people is essential
and a vital aspect for setting up a feasible and useful early warning framework to improve
the limit concerning community resilience [
24
]. In this manner, until now, while numerous
speculations and structures about resilience exist, most of them are hard to operationalize
or potentially only apply to explicit cases. Moreover, estimating the size of the local area
level, where inert strength is generally required, represents its troubles [
12
]. To make proper
decisions and ensure advocacy at all levels, it is important to measure the level of resilience
at the community level. Community-level resilience measurement will ensure the inclusion
of all the threats faced by the community [25].
There have been different studies to find proper frameworks to assess community
resilience. In one study by [
18
], different frameworks for assessing community resilience
are summarized. The list includes but is not limited to, Community Disaster Resilience
Index (CDRI), Community Disaster Resilience Framework for Iran, Community Resilience
Score Card, Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure (CCRAM), Communities
Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART), Community Disaster Resilience Indicators (CDRI),
etc. [
18
]. As communities in different areas face various levels of hazards and their capacities
are also different, identifying one standard framework for assessing resilience will raise
complexity [
24
]. For a long time, community resilience mainly focused on interactions
between elements like social, physical, economic, and infrastructural entities [22].
In resilience assessment frameworks like [
26
], gender is seen as part of human re-
sources. Gender integration is considered a basic segment for upgrading the family unit
and community resilience. Underpinning gender integration are three key aspects: ex-
panded admittance to and control of the capital for changing inconsistent connections and
frameworks; strengthening of excluded and vulnerable groups through the commitment of
gatekeepers; and consideration as an essential social measurement for family and commu-
nity resilience [
27
]. Gender-focused resilience analysis investigation affirms that shocks
and stresses are seen diversely by men, women, boys, and girls. Previous studies have
pieces of evidence that disaster creates impacts on women differently; for example, being
the primary caregiver, women had to take responsibility of the children and elderly in the
families during evacuation in the face of a disaster which creates barriers on the mobility
of the women. Cultural practices like clothing create an impact on the survival ability of
women. Studies also found that roles defined based on gender increase the mortality rates
of women during a disaster [
15
,
16
,
28
,
29
]. Studies also observed that due to gender-based
inequality, norms, and marginalization, women are more vulnerable to face the impacts
of disasters. The same study also indicated that as a result of disasters, girls drop out
from educational institutions more than boys [
30
]. Studies also found that these vulnerable
groups like women are not only victims of disasters but also resources to increase the
level of resilience. Inclusive interventions to increase communities’ resilience will ensure
meeting the needs of vulnerable groups and also empowering them to contribute to the
resilience of their communities [
13
]. To effectively reduce disaster risk, it is important to
understand the gendered manner of risks and address the complexities and inequalities
faced by women, girls, boys, and men [
31
]. Previous studies showed resilience building
as a transformational change process where identifying the underlying and root causes of
risk and challenging the current governance process, power structures, ideologies, views,
and practices will ensure proper risk management and achievement of resilience. Empow-
ering the marginalized groups, including gender-based vulnerable groups, will reduce
the underlying drivers of risk and introduce a transformational change process to build
resilience [32].

Water 2022,14, 40 4 of 15
3. Theoretical Framework
This study used the Analysis of Resilience of Communities to Disasters (ARC-D)
toolkit developed by GOAL to assess community resilience to flood [
33
]. The ARC-D
toolkit is developed on the basis of Twigg’s framework of the disaster resilience community.
In the book titled Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community, J Twigg discussed the areas
that should be focused on to assess the level of community resilience [12].
The toolkit assesses data in a way that also helps to use the results for future develop-
ment (Table 1). The toolkit assesses community resilience in a more applicable, feasible,
and useful way [
33
]. The sub-components of the ARC-D toolkit are also aligned with four
priorities of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015–2030. The
study used specific questions under each of the sub-components to measure the level of
resilience [33,34].
Table 1. ARC-D toolkit resilience components, questions, and measurement scores [33].
Sl. No. Components Questions SFDRR Priority
Areas
1Participatory risk
assessment Has the community carried out a participatory risk assessment?
Priority 1:
Understanding disaster
risk
2Scientific risk
assessment
Does the community combine local knowledge and perceptions of risk with scientific
knowledge, data, and assessment methods?
3Dissemination of
Disaster Risk Reduction
(DRR) information
Have community members been exposed to/have participated in DRR specific
awareness events?
4Education of children
on DRR Are DRR and recovery knowledge and capacities being passed on to children formally?
5DRR in development
planning Does the community see DRR as an integral part of plans and actions?
Priority 2:
Strengthening disaster
risk governance to
manage disaster risk
6DRR in land use
planning Does the community decision-making regarding land use and management take disaster risk
into account?
7Community
decision-making Is the community leadership committed, effective, and accountable?
8Inclusion of
vulnerable groups
Are the vulnerable groups in the community included and represented in community
decision making?
9Participation of
women Do women participate in community decision making and management of DRR and recovery?
10 Rights awareness and
advocacy Is the community aware of its rights, relevant legal mechanisms and responsible actors?
11 Partnerships for DRR
and recovery Are there clear, agreed and stable partnerships between the community and other actors?
12 Sustainable
environmental
management Does the community adopt sustainable environmental management practices?
Priority 3: Investing in
disaster risk reduction
for resilience
13 Water security and
management
Does the community have access to sufficient quantity and quality of water for domestic needs
during disasters?
14 Health access and
awareness
Do community members maintain good health in normal times through appropriate
awareness and practices?
15 Secure and sufficient
food supply Does the community have a secure and sufficient food supply during disasters?
16 Hazard-resistant
livelihoods practices Does the community employ hazard-resistant livelihoods practices for food and
income security?
17 Access to market Are the local market links for products, labor and services protected against shocks?
18 Access to financial
services Are there affordable and flexible financial services?
19 Income and asset
protection Are household asset bases sufficiently large and diverse and protected?
20 Social protection Does the community have access to informal and formal social protection schemes?
21 Social cohesion and
conflict prevention Is there a sense of peace, security, and effective conflict prevention and mitigation mechanisms?
22 Critical infrastructure Are the community’s critical infrastructure and basic services resilient to disaster?
23 Housing Is the community’s housing resilient to disaster?

Water 2022,14, 40 5 of 15
Table 1. Cont.
Sl. No. Components Questions SFDRR Priority
Areas
24 Contingency and
recovery planning Does the community use communally developed contingency and recovery plans?
Priority 4:
Enhancing disaster
preparedness for
effective response, and
to “Build Back Better”
in recovery,
rehabilitation and
reconstruction
25 Early Warning
System Is there an operational early warning system in the community?
26
Capacity in
preparedness, response
and early recovery
Does the community have a trained and operating organization in disaster preparedness,
response, and early recovery?
27 Health services in
emergencies Does the community have access to health care facilities during emergencies?
28 Education services in
emergencies Do education services have the capacity to continue operating in emergencies?
29 Emergency
infrastructure Are emergency shelters accessible to the community and have adequate facilities?
30
Leadership and
volunteerism in
response and recovery
Does the community play a leading role in coordinating preparedness, response and recovery?
Measurement Score
Score 1 2 3 4 5
Description Minimum resilience Low resilience Medium resilience Approaching resilience Resilience
Every component has special characteristics that define whether the community is
resilient or not. This study developed a special questionnaire using the questions of the
framework. The questions were asked keeping the gender at focus. For example, while
asking the question about the social protection, which is “Does the community have access
to informal and formal social protection schemes that support disaster risk reduction and
recovery?” the study also ensured to focus on gender and asked a sequential question, such
as “Do the women of the community have access to informal and formal social protection
schemes that support disaster risk reduction and recovery”?
4. Methodology of the Study
4.1. Research Approach and Instrument
The study followed a linear quantitative research path. In the linear research path,
simple step-by-step predefined structure flows help to narrow down the results and reach
a conclusion [
35
]. With a quantitative research approach, the study focuses on the simple
research question(s) and use systematically created data collection tools and analysis
method to show final results [
35
]. The study used a quantitative method to assess the level
of community resilience in terms of a flood. The quantitative method justified the level of
resilience with data-based evidence. Previous studies like [
33
,
36
,
37
] identified the ARC-D
toolkit as a major tool to assess community resilience, whereas Mercy Corps developed a
resilience assessment tool to address gender specifically in the assessment process based
on the ARC-D toolkit [
38
]. The research question of this study focused on “Does gender
have any relationship and/or impact on the level of community disaster resilience?”
To develop the questionnaire, this study focused on the components of the resilient
framework. Each question was aligned with the characteristics of the disaster-resilient
community (Table 1). Five-point Likert scale measurement approach was used in the
questionnaire which helped to collect data and analyze it through different statistical
models. The questionnaire was translated into the local language, which is Bengali. A
group of data enumerators collected responses from the respondents.
4.2. Study Area and Sampling
The northeast part of Bangladesh was heavily affected by the flood of 2020 [
6
]. Highly
impacted areas included the Sirajganj, Kurigram, Gaibandha, Jamalpur, etc., districts [
6
].
The geographical condition of these districts refers to all of the districts connected to the
Jamuna River. The study selected Kajipur Upazila of Sirajganj as the study area. More
than 51 percent of the area of Sirajganj district was inundated during the last flood. The

Water 2022,14, 40 6 of 15
impact brought the district into the second position of the list of affected districts. A total
of
251,494 women
were directly affected by the flood in the Sirajganj district. Another most
important rationale to select this area was the higher number of women-headed households
(about 8605 households) [
6
]. This area experienced major impacts of the 2020 flood. A total
of three of the unions were covered during the survey (Figure 1).
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
resilience with data-based evidence. Previous studies like [33,36,37] identified the ARC-D
toolkit as a major tool to assess community resilience, whereas Mercy Corps developed a
resilience assessment tool to address gender specifically in the assessment process based
on the ARC-D toolkit [38]. The research question of this study focused on “Does gender
have any relationship and/or impact on the level of community disaster resilience?”
To develop the questionnaire, this study focused on the components of the resilient
framework. Each question was aligned with the characteristics of the disaster-resilient
community (Table 1). Five-point Likert scale measurement approach was used in the
questionnaire which helped to collect data and analyze it through different statistical
models. The questionnaire was translated into the local language, which is Bengali. A
group of data enumerators collected responses from the respondents.
4.2. Study Area and Sampling
The northeast part of Bangladesh was heavily affected by the flood of 2020 [6]. Highly
impacted areas included the Sirajganj, Kurigram, Gaibandha, Jamalpur, etc., districts [6].
The geographical condition of these districts refers to all of the districts connected to the
Jamuna River. The study selected Kajipur Upazila of Sirajganj as the study area. More
than 51 percent of the area of Sirajganj district was inundated during the last flood. The
impact brought the district into the second position of the list of affected districts. A total
of 251,494 women were directly affected by the flood in the Sirajganj district. Another
most important rationale to select this area was the higher number of women-headed
households (about 8605 households) [6]. This area experienced major impacts of the 2020
flood. A total of three of the unions were covered during the survey (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Study area map.
The study also followed a simple random sampling technique to select the sample
size. The random sampling technique helps to get accurate information and it is regularly
used in quantitative research [35].
The study used Slovin’s 1960 [39,40] formula to determine the sample size (Equation
(1)).
Equation (1): Slovin’s formula
Figure 1. Study area map.
The study also followed a simple random sampling technique to select the sample
size. The random sampling technique helps to get accurate information and it is regularly
used in quantitative research [35].
The study used Slovin’s 1960 [
39
,
40
] formula to determine the sample size
(Equation (1)
).
Equation (1): Slovin’s formula
n=N/1+N×e2(1)
where n= sample size, N= total population {Sirajganj district population 3,097,000 [
41
]},
and e= margin of error. The study determined the sample size at 95% confidence level and
the margin of error is 5%.
n=3097000/1+3097000 ×(5%)2,n=399.9483 (2)
A total of 450 people were surveyed under the study. With a response rate of
94.44 percent,
a total of 425 responses were recorded as full participation. After data
cleaning and primary level processing, the study used data of 402 samples for final anal-
ysis. Among these 402 samples, 50 percent were male respondents and 50 percent were
female respondents. As the main focus of the study was assessing resilience from a gender
perspective, an equal number of participants from both genders ensured purposively. The
study also tried to cover other genders from the LGBTQI+ community but in the study area
the possibility of finding appropriate samples was very low. Due to cultural and religious
complications, people do not prefer to disclose their other gender identities openly. Thus,
the study focused on male and female members to cover the gender perspective.
4.3. Data Analysis
The main focus of the study was to observe differences in the level of community
disaster resilience from a gender perspective. A gender perspective ensures the representa-

Water 2022,14, 40 7 of 15
tion of diversified voices in the study. From concept development to data representation,
every step is completed ensuring gender-based inclusion. In this regard, all of the analyses
were performed with a specific focus on gender responses. IBM SPSS version 25 was
used for coding data and analysis [
42
]. The ARC-D toolkit was followed to complete the
analysis. Descriptive analyses like frequency and percentage analysis, mean, median, and
standard deviation analysis, etc., were performed. With the accumulated mean score of
all components, the level of resilience was calculated. Resilience level for male and female
respondents was calculated separately to show the gender-based difference of resilience.
Table 2was used to describe community resilience. To understand correlation and associa-
tion between variables, Pearson’s Chi-square test was also performed. As the Chi-square
test is robust, easy to calculate, and flexible to use, the study used this non-parametric test.
Table 2. Community resilience levels [33].
Resilience Level Score Description
Very low resilience 30–45 Very limited awareness and knowledge of the problem(s). No action taken.
Low resilience 46–75
A certain awareness of the problem(s), willingness to act, some actions taken, but actions
are fragmented, and solutions are only short term.
Medium resilience 76–105 Awareness of the problems and long-term actions taken, but not related to a long-term
strategy and/or addressing all aspects of the problem(s).
Close to resilience 106–135
Long-term actions are taken in accordance with a predefined strategy, addressing the
main aspects of the problem(s), but are inhibited by persistent shortcomings in
their implementation.
Resilience 136–150
Long-term actions are undertaken in accordance with a pre-defined strategy assessing all
aspects of the problem(s); they are sustainable and supported by the community.
4.4. Ethical Approval
The study proposal, tools, and procedures were ethically approved by the Institutional
Ethical Review Committee of the Institute of Disaster Management and Vulnerability
Studies, University of Dhaka. The ethical review process included both internal and
external reviewers. The study fully complied with the ethical guidelines to conduct research
developed by the committee.
5. Findings
5.1. Socio-Demographic Information
The study population consisted of 50 percent male respondents and 50 percent female
respondents. More than 20 percent of the respondents were above 57 years old. The study
only included respondents who were 18 years old or above. More than 70 percent of the
respondents did not have any formal education. The majority of the respondents were
related to agricultural activities. Only 30.1 percent of the respondents were homemakers,
who were mainly female respondents. Though homemaker is not a formal occupation,
most of the female respondents who were homemakers also were engaged in different
formal and informal income sectors, including day laborers, homestead farming, rearing
livestock for business purposes, sewing, etc. Thus, the study identified homemaker as an
occupation for the female members who also financially support the households through
home-based activities. Table 3shows the descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic
condition of the respondents.

Water 2022,14, 40 8 of 15
Table 3. Socio-demographic condition of the respondents.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics
Female
n= 201
Male
n= 201 Chi-Square Test
% % x2p-Value
Age
18–22 2.0 2.0
12.431 0.133
23–27 3.7 3.0
28–32 4.5 2.0
33–37 5.5 5.7
38–42 5.0 4.2
43–47 8.2 8.5
48–52 8.5 5.5
53–57 4.2 7.0
Above 57 16.9 24.4
Education
No formal education 39.1 31.3
22.815 0.000 ***
Passed primary level 9.5 14.2
Passed SSC level 0 3.5
Passed HSC level 1.2 0.5
Studying undergraduate level 0.2 0.5
Occupation
Farmer 13.7 44.8
194.148 0.000 ***
Homemaker 30.1 0
Owner of a small and medium enterprise 0.2 0.5
Educationist 0 0.2
Student 0.2 0.7
Unemployed 0.5 0.7
Retired 0 0.2
Others 5.2 2.7
Marital status Married 49.5 48.8 1.308 0.253
Single 0.5 1.2
Monthly Household
Expenditure (BDT) Below 5000 12.2 9.7 9.458 0.092 *
5001 to 10,000 14.2 18.7
10,001 to 15,000 15.2 10.4
15,001 to 20,000 3.2 3.2
20,001 to 25,000 3.7 6.0
More than 25,000 1.5 2.0
Monthly Household
Income (BDT)
Below 5000 18.9 16.4
8.769 0.119
5001 to 10,000 14.7 19.2
10,001 to 15,000 8.2 6.7
15,001 to 20,000 3.7 2.0
20,001 to 25,000 2.7 4.7
More than 25,000 1.7 1.0
Number of family
members
1–5 34.8 29.8
11.133 0.025 **
6–10 13.2 19.2
11–15 1.0 1.0
16–20 1.0 0
*p< 0.1, ** p< 0.05, *** p< 0.01.

Water 2022,14, 40 9 of 15
5.2. Level of Community Resilience
In this section, the results of the community resilience assessment are discussed
from a gender perspective. The process of analyzing the data was already discussed in
the methodology section. The results are discussed, aligning with four priority areas of
SFDRR. Based on SFDRR priorities, the differences in the level of resilience between male
and female respondents are visualized through the relevant figure. Table 4shows the
differences between male and female respondents’ level of resilience in each component.
Table 4. Community resilience level scores.
Sl. No. Component
¯
xp-Value
Female Male
1 Participatory risk assessment 1.28 2.76 0.000 ****
2 Scientific risk assessment 1.58 2.74 0.000 ****
3 Dissemination of DRR information 1.30 1.38 0.051 *
4 Education of children on DRR 1.38 1.66 0.000 ****
5 DRR in development planning 1.06 1.13 0.202
6 DRR in land use planning 1.58 2.74 0.000 ****
7 Community decision-making 1.07 2.86 0.000 ****
8 Inclusion of vulnerable groups 1.23 1.24 0.288
9 Participation of women 1.34 1.86 0.000 ****
10 Rights awareness and advocacy 1.58 2.74 0.000 ****
11 Partnerships for DRR and recovery 1.32 1.33 0.831
12 Sustainable environmental management 1.28 2.76 0.000 ****
13 Water security and management 1.37 2.86 0.000 ****
14 Health access and awareness 1.30 1.38 0.051 *
15 Secure and sufficient food supply 1.38 1.22 0.001 ***
16 Hazard-resistant livelihoods practices 1.32 1.33 0.831
17 Access to market 1.44 1.30 0.003 ***
18 Access to financial services 1.26 2.22 0.000 ****
19 Income and asset protection 1.42 1.44 0.045 **
20 Social protection 1.37 2.86 0.000 ****
21 Social cohesion and conflict prevention 1.30 1.38 0.051 *
22 Critical infrastructure 1.30 1.38 0.051 *
23 Housing 1.30 1.38 0.051 *
24 Contingency and recovery planning 1.30 3.37 0.035 **
25 Early Warning System 1.34 1.39 0.351
26 Capacity in preparedness, response, and early recovery 4.16 4.13 0.216
27 Health services in emergencies 1.30 1.38 0.051 *
28 Education services in emergencies 1.33 1.39 0.177
29 Emergency infrastructure 1.30 1.27 0.509
30 Leadership and volunteerism in response and recovery 1.38 1.22 0.001 ***
Total Score 42.93 58.08
*p< 0.1, ** p< 0.05, *** p< 0.01, **** p< 0.001.

Water 2022,14, 40 10 of 15
Table 4explains the level of resilience based on different indicators from both male and
female perspectives. From understanding risks to recovering from disasters, the indicators
include all the areas through which level of resilience can be explored. Through use of the
measurement score of the Table 1the study collected responses. The mean value mainly
indicates the levels. The greater the value, the higher the level of resilience. Finally, all
the mean values are added to finalize the score. The final scores represent the level of
community resilience according to Table 2.
In both participatory risk assessment and scientific risk assessment, female respon-
dents indicated a very low level of resilience compared to male respondents. But in the
dissemination of DRR information and education of children on DRR, both male and
female respondents scored closely (Table 4). These results indicated that female members
of the community are lagging in participating in risk assessment activities. The results of
risk assessment activities will not give a full picture of the available disaster risks in the
communities if women do not get the opportunity to share their perceptions. Pearson’s
Chi-square test indicated a significant relationship between gender and participatory risk
assessment (p< 0.001), scientific risk assessment (p< 0.001), dissemination of DRR informa-
tion
(p< 0.1),
and education of children on DRR (p< 0.001). These significant relationships
prove that gender affects increasing or decreasing level of community resilience related
to DRR centered knowledge. Based on Table 1, in priority one, which is understanding
disaster risk, the level of resilience of male respondents was 8.54 and female respondents
was 5.54 (Figure 2).
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Figure 2. Community level of resilience (Based on priorities of SFDRR).
Both male and female respondents indicated a very close level of resilience in the
following components. In very few components like sustainable environmental manage-
ment, water security and management, access to financial services, and social protection,
male respondents showed a better level of resilience comparing to female respondents
(Table 4). But in other components, both male and female respondents scored closely.
These components are related to increasing investment for strengthening DRR capacity.
Due to lack of resources and limited access to decision-making platforms, both male and
female members of the community were lagging in strengthening their disaster risk re-
duction capacity. Moreover, gender-based practices made women more vulnerable com-
pared to men in the communities and reduced their level of resilience. For example, ma-
jority of the male respondents do not think it is important to ensure participation of female
members in DRR training. There is also negligence among leaders of the community re-
garding investment for women to increase their coping capacity. The majority of the com-
ponents are significantly related to gender (Table 4). This relation made it visible that gen-
der plays a major role in structuring the level of resilience. In the third priority area of
SFDRR, which is investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, male respondents
scored 21.51 and female respondents scored 16.04 (Figure 2)
In components related to preparedness, response, and recovery, male respondents
showed a comparatively higher level of resilience in one component, which is contingency
and recovery planning. In other components, both male and female respondents showed
a close level of resilience (Table 4). Due to lack of early warning system, limited access to
health care services and educational services during emergencies, the absence of emer-
gency infrastructures like formal flood shelter centers, and deficiency in voluntarism cul-
ture reduced the level of resilience of the communities in the study areas. Components
like contingency and recovery planning, health services in emergencies, and leadership
Figure 2. Community level of resilience (Based on priorities of SFDRR).
In the next components, which are DRR in development planning, the inclusion of
vulnerable groups, participation of women, and partnership for DRR and recovery, both
male and female respondents indicated a close level of resilience. On the other hand,

Water 2022,14, 40 11 of 15
in components like DRR in land use planning, community decision-making, and rights
awareness and advocacy, male respondents showed a comparatively higher level of re-
silience than female respondents (Table 4). Components like DRR in land use planning,
community decision-making, participation of women, and rights awareness and advocacy
are significantly related to gender (p< 0.001). The relationship proved that based on gen-
der, community members could participate in decision-making processes and programs
related to raising awareness. Female members of the community in the study areas did
not get the opportunity to increase their level of resilience by participating in disaster
governance-related activities. Thus, male members were more resilient in disaster gov-
ernance components. SFDRR priority two is strengthening disaster risk governance to
manage disaster risk. The score of male respondents was 13.9 and female respondents was
9.18 (Figure 2).
Both male and female respondents indicated a very close level of resilience in the
following components. In very few components like sustainable environmental manage-
ment, water security and management, access to financial services, and social protection,
male respondents showed a better level of resilience comparing to female respondents
(Table 4). But in other components, both male and female respondents scored closely. These
components are related to increasing investment for strengthening DRR capacity. Due to
lack of resources and limited access to decision-making platforms, both male and female
members of the community were lagging in strengthening their disaster risk reduction
capacity. Moreover, gender-based practices made women more vulnerable compared to
men in the communities and reduced their level of resilience. For example, majority of the
male respondents do not think it is important to ensure participation of female members
in DRR training. There is also negligence among leaders of the community regarding
investment for women to increase their coping capacity. The majority of the components
are significantly related to gender (Table 4). This relation made it visible that gender plays
a major role in structuring the level of resilience. In the third priority area of SFDRR, which
is investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, male respondents scored 21.51 and
female respondents scored 16.04 (Figure 2).
In components related to preparedness, response, and recovery, male respondents
showed a comparatively higher level of resilience in one component, which is contingency
and recovery planning. In other components, both male and female respondents showed a
close level of resilience (Table 4). Due to lack of early warning system, limited access to
health care services and educational services during emergencies, the absence of emergency
infrastructures like formal flood shelter centers, and deficiency in voluntarism culture
reduced the level of resilience of the communities in the study areas. Components like
contingency and recovery planning, health services in emergencies, and leadership and
volunteerism in response and recovery have a significant relationship with gender (Table 4).
This relationship indicated that based on gender, community members’ capacity-related
preparedness, response, and recovery fluctuate. The male respondents scored 14.15 and
the female respondents scored 12.11 in the fourth priority area of SFDRR which is enhanc-
ing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction (Figure 2).
Altogether, male respondents scored 58.08 and female respondents scored 42.93
(Table 4)
. According to Table 2, male respondents had a low level of resilience. In the
study area, male respondents had a certain level of awareness about the risks in their
community and had taken some actions to reduce those risks, but the actions were short
term. These actions included participating in different awareness-raising programs and
training, sharing their needs in decision-making platforms, getting membership in different
DRR committees at local government level, etc. On the other hand, female respondents had
a very low level of resilience. Social and cultural barriers reduced their opportunities to
participate in risk reduction programs and made them more vulnerable to hazards. Causes
like gender-based discrimination, limited education, cultural beliefs and practices, and lack
of access to resources prevent the female community members from achieving resilience.

Water 2022,14, 40 12 of 15
6. Discussion
The results of the study indicated that there are differences in the level of community
disaster resilience from the gender perspective. Women and men scored differently in the
components of the resilience assessment framework. In most of the components, women
scored less.
Understanding disaster risk is one of the priority areas to measure the level of re-
silience. In a previous study, understanding disaster risk is seen as an integral part of
achieving resilience [
43
]. Ensuring proper development depends on identifying the risks
and introducing interventions to reduce them [
44
]. Studies also identified that assessing the
risks will help to identify the vulnerabilities and reduce them to achieve resilience [
45
]. In
this study, the male respondents were more aware of the disaster risks in their communities
than the female respondents. Male members of the communities had the opportunity to
participate in simple and scientific risk assessment activities, whereas the participation
of female members was very low. There was also a disparity in getting education related
to disasters at institutions. Altogether, the female members were lagging in terms of un-
derstanding the risks. If a certain community does not know about the potential hazards
they might face, the risk reduction mechanism will not work for that particular community.
Thus, the male members of the communities had an understanding of the risks which made
them more resilient than their female counterparts.
Community resilience is highly related to disaster governance. Due to strengthened
disaster governance, different governmental and non-governmental institutions intervene
in the communities effectively and increase community resilience [
46
]. Previous studies
also indicated that effective disaster governance ensures activities of formal and informal
organizations in the community, encourages participation of people in the decision-making
process, prioritizes the need of most vulnerable groups, and includes people in long-
term planning. These activities ultimately increase community resilience [
47
,
48
]. This
study indicated that male respondents were more resilient in terms of disaster governance
than female respondents. The main reason behind higher level of resilience among male
members of the study area was getting the opportunity to participate in different platforms.
This participation included areas like the decision-making process, selecting areas for
resource allocation, relief and emergency services distribution, organizing and participating
in training, etc. At the same time, women in the study area did not have the opportunity to
be included in these activities. Absence of inclusive disaster governance reduced women’s
level of resilience.
Investing in disaster risk reduction to increase resilience is seen as a top priority.
Studies agree that investing in different structural and non-structural measures to re-
duce disaster risk and developing instruments to protect social, economic, health, and
culture-related assets will escalate resilience [
49
]. Investing in achieving resilience includes
protecting livelihoods, making the environment sustainable, reducing social vulnerabilities,
preventing economic loss, increasing capacity for managing crises, etc. [
50
]. The study
results showed that male respondents were more resilient than female respondents in this
priority area. Increased knowledge on environmental sustainability, access to financial
services, and better support from social safety net programs made male members more
resilient in the study area.
After a disaster, a community can become more resilient through the idea of build
back better (BBB). While recovering from a disaster and reconstructing communities, BBB
can strengthen human capacities and increase the sustaining capacity of infrastructures,
ultimately increasing community resilience [
51
]. Both male and female respondents of
the study lagged in terms of enhancing preparedness for future disasters. There was a
lack of early warning systems, contingency plans, emergency services and infrastructures,
and voluntary attitude among communities, which reduced community resilience in the
study area.

Water 2022,14, 40 13 of 15
7. Conclusions
Community disaster resilience depends on different indicators and factors. It will not
be possible to ensure the incorporation of a large number of indicators in a small-scale study.
However, this study was not only focused on assessing the level of disaster resilience of the
specific communities but also emphasized a gender-based perspective. The study indicated
that special importance should be provided on the gender component, as women represent
one of the vulnerable groups [
52
]. Assessing community resilience will help in every phase
of disaster management. At the same time, a noteworthy role is played by gender in
every stage of disaster management [
53
]. Gender perspective showed the importance in
studies like understanding risk perception and indicated that gender has a major role in
risk perception [
54
]. Similarly, this study indicated that the level of resilience differs when
assessed from a gender perspective. This study recommends that focusing only on gender
or individual characteristics like children, disability, aging, minority, etc. will not be enough
to get a proper view of community resilience. We need resilience assessment tools and
methods that ensure the inclusion of diverse groups and also differentiate by the various
drivers of vulnerabilities. Future studies have to provide more emphasis on intersectionality.
As this study already showed that women are lagging in the level of resilience, what will
be the scenario if a woman is disabled and old? This study, therefore, proposes a more
advanced question focusing on the intersectional characteristics of the community.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, M.A.C. and M.M.R.; methodology, M.A.C., M.M.R. and
N.A.K.; formal analysis, M.A.C., M.M.R. and S.E.A.D.; investigation, M.A.C., N.A.K. and S.E.A.D.;
resources, M.A.C., N.A.K. and S.E.A.D.; data curation, M.A.C., N.A.K. and S.E.A.D.; writing—
original draft preparation, M.A.C. and M.M.R.; writing—review and editing, M.A.C. and M.M.R.;
visualization, M.A.C.; funding acquisition, M.A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding:
The study was partially funded by University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. (Reg/
Admin-3/74305-07).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the Institute of Disaster
Management and Vulnerability Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh. (Date of
Approval: 1 September 2020).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments:
The study acknowledges the contributions of University of Dhaka, data enumer-
ators, field staff, volunteers, respondents, and proofreaders.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Field, C.B.; Barros, V.; Stocker, T.F.; Dahe, Q.; Dokken, D.J.; Ebi, K.L.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Mach, K.J.; Plattner, G.-K.; Allen, S.K.;
et al. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I
and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012.
[CrossRef]
2. IFRC. World Disaster Report 2020; IFRC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
3. INFORM. Inform Report 2020; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020.
4.
Center for Excellence in Disaster Risk Management and Humanitarian Assistance. Disaster Management Reference Handbook; Center
for Excellence in Disaster Risk Management and Humanitarian Assistance: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI, USA, 2020.
5.
Behlert, B.; Diekjobst, R.; Felgentreff, C.; Manandhar, T.; Mucke, P.; Pries, L.; Radtke, K.; Weller, D. World Risk Report 2020;
Ruhr University Bochum: Bochum, Germany, 2020.
6.
Needs Assessment Working Group (NAWG). Bangladesh Monsoon Floods 2020 Coordinated Preliminary Impact and Needs Assessment;
Needs Assessment Working Group (NAWG): Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.
7.
Coetzee, C.; van Niekerk, D.; Raju, E. Disaster resilience and complex adaptive systems theory. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J.
2016
,
25, 196–211. [CrossRef]

Water 2022,14, 40 14 of 15
8.
Manyena, B.; O’Brien, G.; O’Keefe, P.; Joanne, R. Disaster resilience: A bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environ.
2011,16, 417–424. [CrossRef]
9.
Asian Development Bank. Investing in Resilience: Ensuring a Disaster-Resistant Future; Asian Development Bank:
Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2013.
10.
Keating, A.; Campbell, K.; Mechler, R.; Magnuszewski, P.; Mochizuki, J.; Liu, W.; Szoenyi, M.; McQuistan, C. Disaster resilience:
What it is and how it can engender a meaningful change in development policy. Dev. Policy Rev. 2016,35, 65–91. [CrossRef]
11. DFID. Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper; Department for International Development: London, UK, 2011.
12. Twigg, J. Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2007,1, 1–40.
13. World Bank. Inclusive Resilience: Inclusion Matters for Resilience in South Asia; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
14.
Austin, K.F.; McKinney, L.A. Disaster Devastation in Poor Nations: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Gender Equality, Ecological
Losses, and Development. Soc. Forces 2016,95, 355–380. [CrossRef]
15.
Oktari, R.S.; Kamaruzzaman, S.; Fatimahsyam, F.; Sofia, S.; Sari, D.K. Gender mainstreaming in a Disaster-Resilient Vil-
lage Programme in Aceh Province, Indonesia: Towards disaster preparedness enhancement via an equal opportunity policy.
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021,52, 101974. [CrossRef]
16.
Walters, V.; Gaillard, J. Disaster risk at the margins: Homelessness, vulnerability and hazards. Habitat Int.
2014
,44, 211–219.
[CrossRef]
17. Smyth, I.; Sweetman, C. Introduction: Gender and Resilience. Gend. Dev. 2015,23, 405–414. [CrossRef]
18.
Saja, A.M.A.; Goonetilleke, A.; Teo, M.; Ziyath, A.M. A critical review of social resilience assessment frameworks in disaster
management. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019,35, 101096. [CrossRef]
19.
Qasim, S.; Qasim, M.; Shrestha, R.P.; Khan, A.N.; Tun, K.; Ashraf, M. Community resilience to flood hazards in Khyber
Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016,18, 100–106. [CrossRef]
20. Pasteur, K. From Vulnerability to Resilience; Practical Action Publishing: Rugby, UK, 2011.
21.
Bergstrand, K.; Mayer, B.; Brumback, B.A.; Zhang, Y. Assessing the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Community
Resilience to Hazards. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015,122, 391–409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Joseph, J.K.; Anand, D.; Prajeesh, P.; Zacharias, A.; Varghese, A.G.; Pradeepkumar, A.; Baiju, K. Community resilience mechanism
in an unexpected extreme weather event: An analysis of the Kerala floods of 2018, India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
2020
,
49, 101741. [CrossRef]
23.
Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. The Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC); Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance:
Zurich, Switzerland, 2019.
24.
Lwin, K.K.; Pal, I.; Shrestha, S.; Warnitchai, P. Assessing social resilience of flood-vulnerable communities in Ayeyarwady Delta,
Myanmar. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020,51, 101745. [CrossRef]
25.
Keating, A.; Ianni, F.; Szoenyi, M.; MacClune, K.; Bold, R.; Etienne, E.; Ianni, F.; Laurien, F.; McQuistan, C. Understanding the
Concepts and Principles behind the Approach Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC); Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance:
Zurich, Switzerland, 2019.
26.
Kruse, S.; Abeling, T.; Deeming, H.; Fordham, M.; Forrester, J.; Jülich, S.; Karanci, A.N.; Kuhlicke, C.; Pelling, M.; Pedoth, L.; et al.
Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards—The emBRACE framework. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
2017
,17,
2321–2333. [CrossRef]
27.
Mercy Corps. Rethinking Resilience: Prioritizing Gender Integration to Enhance Household and Community Resilience to Food Insecurity
in the Sahel; Mercy Corps: Portland, OR, USA, 2014.
28.
Neumayer, E.; Plümper, T. The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in
Life Expectancy, 1981–2002. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2007,97, 551–566. [CrossRef]
29.
Hunter, L.M.; David, E. Climate Change and Migration: Considering the Gender Dimensions; University of Colorado; Institute of
Behavioral Science: Boulder, CO, USA, 2009.
30.
Sneddon, A. Gender and Early Warning Systems: Lessons from Nepal and Peru; Flood Resilience Portal—Practical Action:
Rugby, UK, 2019.
31.
Brown, S.; Budimir, M.; Crawford, S.U.; Clements, R.; Sneddon, A. Gender and Age Inequality of Disaster Risk: Policy Brief ; UNICEF:
New York, NY, USA; UN Women: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
32.
Deubelli, T.M.; Mechler, R. Perspectives on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. Environ. Res.
Lett. 2021,16, 053002. [CrossRef]
33.
Clark-Ginsberg, A.; McCaul, B.; Bremaud, I.; Cáceres, G.; Mpanje, D.; Patel, S.; Patel, R. Practitioner approaches to measuring
community resilience: The analysis of the resilience of communities to disasters toolkit. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
2020
,
50, 101714.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Goal. Toolkit for Measuring Community Disaster Resilience Guidance Manual; RILMAC Impresores: Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 2015;
pp. 29–55.
35. Neuman, W.L. Social Research Methods. In Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Allyn, B., Ed.; Sage: Boston, MA, USA, 2000.
36.
Cutter, S.L. Community resilience, natural hazards, and climate change: Is the present a prologue to the future? Nor. Geogr.
Tidsskr.-Nor. J. Geogr. 2019,74, 200–208. [CrossRef]

Water 2022,14, 40 15 of 15
37.
Jones, K.; Pascale, F.; Wanigarathna, N.; Morga, M.; Sargin, S. Critical evaluation of the customisation process of the UNDRR
disaster resilience scorecard for cities to earthquake-induced soil liquefaction disaster events. Bull. Earthq. Eng.
2021
,19,
4115–4143. [CrossRef]
38. Mercy Corps. BRIGE Gender and Resilience Assessment Process and Toolkit; Mercy Corps: Portland, OR, USA, 2018.
39.
Chakraborty, U.; Bhat, S. The Effects of Credible Online Reviews on Brand Equity Dimensions and Its Consequence on Consumer
Behavior. J. Promot. Manag. 2018,24, 57–82. [CrossRef]
40. Tejada, J.; Punzalan, J. On the Misuse of Slovin’s Formula. Philipp. Stat. 2012,61, 129–136.
41. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. District Statistics 2011 Sirajganj; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2013.
42. IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics 25; IBM: Armonk, NY, USA, 2018.
43.
Drennan, L. Community Narratives of Disaster Risk and Resilience: Implications for Government Policy. Aust. J. Public Adm.
2018,77, 456–467. [CrossRef]
44.
Mochizuki, J.; Mechler, R.; Hochrainer-Stigler, S.; Keating, A.; Williges, K. Revisiting the ‘Disaster and Development’ Debate—
Toward a Broader Understanding of Macroeconomic Risk and Resilience. Clim. Risk Manag. 2014,3, 39–54. [CrossRef]
45.
Van Der Vegt, G.S.; Essens, P.; Wahlström, M.; George, G. Managing Risk and Resilience; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor,
NY, USA, 2015.
46.
Villagra, P.; Quintana, C. Disaster Governance for Community Resilience in Coastal Towns: Chilean Case Studies. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2017,14, 1063. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Lam, L.M.; Kuipers, R. Resilience and disaster governance: Some insights from the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Int. J. Disaster Risk
Reduct. 2019,33, 321–331. [CrossRef]
48.
Djalante, R.; Holley, C.; Thomalla, F. Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci.
2011,2, 1–14. [CrossRef]
49.
Kawasaki, A.; Rhyner, J. Investing in Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience: Roles of Science, Technology, and Education.
J. Disaster Res. 2018,13, 1181–1186. [CrossRef]
50.
Clarvis, M.H.; Bohensky, E.; Yarime, M. Can Resilience Thinking Inform Resilience Investments? Learning from Resilience
Principles for Disaster Risk Reduction. Sustainability 2015,7, 9048–9066. [CrossRef]
51.
Vahanvati, M.; Rafliana, I. Reliability of Build Back Better at enhancing resilience of communities. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built
Environ. 2019,10, 208–221. [CrossRef]
52.
Khan, A.A.; Rana, I.A.; Nawaz, A. Gender-based approach for assessing risk perception in a multi-hazard environment: A study
of high schools of Gilgit, Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020,44, 101427. [CrossRef]
53.
Pathak, S.; Emah, I.E. Gendered approach towards disaster recovery: Experiences from 2011 floods in Pathumthani province,
Thailand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017,24, 129–134. [CrossRef]
54.
Gustafson, P.E. Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. Risk Anal.
1998
,18, 805–811.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]