document

Full text

hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
Jàmbá - Journal of Disaster Risk Studies
ISSN: (Online) 1996-1421, (Print) 2072-845X
Page 1 of 11 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Authors:
Japhet N. Khendlo1,2
Roodheer Beeharry1
Aliaons:
1Faculty of Sustainable
Development and
Engineering, University of
Mascareignes, Rose Hill,
Maurius
2Faculty of Environmental
Sciences, Mzuzu University,
Mzuzu, Malawi
Corresponding author:
Japhet Khendlo,
jtkhendlo@student.udm.
ac.mu
Dates:
Received: 17 July 2024
Accepted: 08 Dec. 2024
Published: 28 Feb. 2025
How to cite this arcle:
Khendlo, J.N. & Beeharry, R.,
2025, ‘Barriers to
organisaonal resilience to
climate hazards: A case study of
Chikwawa, Malawi’, Jàmbá:
Journal of Disaster Risk
Studies 17(2), a1750.
hps://doi.org/10.4102/
jamba.v17i2.1750
Copyright:
© 2025. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
Worldwide, the impacts of climate change are increasing in frequency and intensity, particularly
in terms of catastrophic floods, storms, droughts and heatwaves (IPCC 2023). Among
meteorological disasters, flooding has been witnessed as one of the most dangerous and
devastating type of weather events. Countries are witnessing an increase in the unpredictability
and severity of flood hazards which often culminate into massive loss of lives and livelihoods
together with damage to crucial infrastructure and property. Among the recent series of extreme
flood events worldwide in 2022, we can recall the deadly floods in Pakistan, which claimed 1739
lives and submerged one-third of the country, affecting 33 million people (OCHA, 2023). The
latter floods damaged most of the water systems in affected areas, forcing more than 5.4 million
people to rely solely on contaminated water from ponds and wells. It also caused $14.9 billion of
damage and $15.2 billion of economic losses (UNICEF 2022). The year 2022 has also witnessed
fatal floods in Brazil with 57 deaths and thousands displaced and also in Australia where 23
people died and 20 000 homes and businesses were flooded (Alcantara et al. 2023; Kushwaha
et al. 2024). Moreover, in July 2023, floods in India resulted in at least 100 casualties and
impacted at least 1000 people (Liu et al. 2024).
African countries are also among regions increasingly experiencing destructive storms and
floods including landslides as a result of climate change effects (IPCC 2022). In 2022, floods
Malawi faces severe climate change impacts, with 30 climate-related disasters recorded in
20 years, causing over 4000 deaths, affecting 2.6 million people and resulting in economic
losses of over $1 billion. The southern region, especially Chikwawa District, is hit the
hardest, experiencing 40% of these disasters. In light of this, the study aimed to assess
organisations’ capacity and obstacles to collaborative approaches for adapting and building
resilience to climate change-induced extreme weather events. Primary data were collected
through a questionnaire distributed among 25 organisations, involving 325 participants.
Thematic analysis was employed for qualitative data analysis, and the analytical hierarchy
processing (AHP) method was applied to analyse intra-organisational challenges or
obstacles to adopting climate resilience strategies. Alarmingly, 90% of organisations
suspended operations because of climate-related disasters, with only 5% engaged in
flood mitigation approaches. About 67% lacked flood abatement measures, and only 4%
had conducted risk assessments. Most enterprises relied on government (80%) and
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (70%) for resilience. Additionally, 85% of the
organisations did not act collectively during extreme weather events, facing challenges
such as lack of planning, adaptive capacity, leadership and funding. The results of this
research offer a baseline for the organisations within the study area to map the way forward
in making sure that the relentless impact of climate change-induced hazards should not
always turn into disasters for their livelihoods and also the community at large.
Contribution: This study provides a methodology for the identification of barriers to
fostering a culture of proactive organisational adaptation to the escalating impacts of
climate change for safeguarding lives and livelihood within a neighbourhood.
Keywords: resilience; climate change; organisation; analytical hierarchy processing;
climate change; floods; hydrometeorological hazards.
Barriers to organisaonal resilience to climate
hazards: A case study of Chikwawa, Malawi
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Note: The manuscript is a contribuon to the themed collecon tled 'Proceedings from the 6th Biennial Conference of the Southern
Africa Society for Disaster Reducon (SASDiR),' under the expert guidance of guest editor Prof. Dewald van Niekerk and Prof. Manta
Nowburth.

Page 2 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
severely impacted countries like Chad, Liberia, Nigeria,
Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Gambia,
Mauritania, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Cote
d’Ivoire, Senegal, Ghana, Cameroon, Mali and Burkina Faso
(WHO 2023). In 2019, Mozambique was hit in a short time
interval by two consecutive severe tropical cyclones, namely
Idai and Kenneth, which caused loss of lives and brought
huge destruction to the country. Cyclone Idai caused the
deaths of 603 people and left more than 1.5 million people
affected. Just 6 weeks later, cyclone Kenneth resulted in the
deaths of 45 people and affected over 280 000 people.
According to the UN Humanitarian Country Team, 3 months
after the passage of the cyclones more than half a million
people were reportedly still living in destroyed or structurally
damaged homes, while another 70 000 people still remained
displaced in emergency accommodations. In 2021, flooding
affected 1.4 million people in 15 countries in West and Central
Africa (IFRC 2021). In 2023, severe flooding devastated
communities in the DRC where 460 people have been
reported dead including huge losses in livelihoods,
infrastructure and materials. During the same period, 131
people lost their lives because of floods in Rwanda and about
6000 homes were destroyed, roads were swept away and
crops and livestock were wiped out (IDMC 2023). Between
2015 and 2022, floods killed more than 500 people in Ghana
and destroyed about 60 000 houses including about 136 000
acres of farmland. The United Nations Refugee Agency
has mentioned more than 3.4 million displaced people on
the African continent because of floods in the year 2022
(OCHA 2022).
Malawi is among the African countries acutely impacted
by the effects of climate change, with the frequency and
intensity of devastating floods and cyclones increasing in
recent years. In particular, the Chikwawa District has been
disproportionately affected, experiencing significant and
far-reaching consequences from these climate-related
hazards. The latter include large number of people getting
killed; extensive destruction of infrastructure; huge
damage to agriculture, thereby worsening food insecurity
and disruption of water and sanitation systems with acute
risk of waterborne diseases such as cholera. In 2015,
flooding caused the death of 54 people, and 121 000 people
were hugely affected. In 2019, cyclone Idai left 60 dead and
about 1 million people suffered from major losses. Homes
and public infrastructure were destroyed, agriculture
fields and livestock were washed away and substantial
damage was caused to the sanitation facilities. In 2021, 52
people died during cyclone Kenneth, and in 2022, cyclone
Ana brought about 46 deaths and left 4967 in distress. In
2023, at least 400 people lost their lives as flash floods led
to multiple debris flows and mudslides during cyclone
Freddy, and about 83 870 people were left afflicted
(DoDMA 2023). The total damages caused by tropical
cyclone Freddy in the housing sector, in the most highly
impacted area, amount to $113.45 million. The total
recovery cost for the physical damages and economic
losses is estimated at $680.36m, and recovery interventions
would span a period of 5 years (GoM 2023). However,
from the observed recent trend in the occurrence of
climate-related hazards in Malawi, it is quite obvious that
before the completion of the recovery from the last event,
another meteorological disaster may strike. Thus, there is
an acute need to act quickly and manage interventions to
be completed in the shortest term.
Climate change is already adversely affecting the lives of
billions of people throughout the globe but the distress is
much more acute in low-income nations such as Malawi.
The latter country is one of the poorest countries in the
world ranked at 174 out of 189 countries on the Human
Development Index. The projections in the IPCC reports
clearly show that climatic hazards such as floods will get
worse over the coming years and decades. Thus, it is not
enough to consider current levels of risk alone, and there is
an acute need for building resilience for more extreme and
more frequent events than we are currently witnessing
(IPCC 2023). However, despite the mounting risks and
relatively astronomical losses because of weather hazards,
there is no evidence of much progress on adaptation
measures in Malawi. The ‘Malawi 2023 Tropical Cyclone
Freddy Post-Disaster Needs Assessment’ report emphasises
on the importance of building back better by incorporating
climate resilience into recovery efforts to reduce
future disaster risks. For efficient disaster risk management
(DRM) in Malawi, the latter report emphasises on the
need for strengthening the organisational, technical,
institutional and financing capabilities. Of the four
aforementioned potentialities, the last three are quite scarce
in low-income countries and may not be fully or adequately
available for enhancing disaster risk resilience. Thus,
there is a crucial need for maximising the organisational
aspects of interventions for enhancing resilience to weather-
related hazards such as floods and cyclonic conditions.
Organisational capacity is also a prime requisite concerning
the judicious application of scarce technical, institutional
and financial resources, more importantly, in low-income
countries. Thus, there is a crucial need for identifying
barriers that hinder organisations in the local community, in
a highly disaster-prone region like the Chikwawa District in
Malawi, from becoming adequately responsive and
participative to be able to contribute efficiently in the face of
deadly weather-induced hazards such as floods to prevent
risks from turning into disasters.
Organisaonal resilience
Disaster resilience has been defined as the process by
which individuals, organisations or communities gather
and use their capability endowments to interact with the
situation in a way that favourably adjusts and maintains
functionality before, during and after the occurrence of a
potential hazard. The key aspect is the capacity to

Page 3 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
anticipate, withstand, recover from and successfully
adjust to adversity (Folake 2021). Thus, it is a characteristic
that may be examined from an individual perspective and
also from a collective or organisational standpoint
(Bartuseviciene, Butkus & Schiuma 2024; Hillmann &
Guenther 2021; Rodriguez-Sanchez et al. 2021). A
community or society can be conceptualised as an
organisation, thereby establishing a direct interconnection
between organisational resilience and community
resilience (Duchek 2020; Xiao & Cao 2017). Existing
literature demonstrates that organisational resilience can
be examined from various perspectives, including
ecological, psychological and infrastructural processes
within the natural disaster management framework
(Klibi, Rice & Urciuoli 2018; Sahlmueller & Hellingrath
2022; Yao & Fabbe-Costes 2018). Over time, an organisation’s
level of resilience evolves, with resilience often described
as an intermediate state in the transition of an
organisation’s status from fragility to anti-fragility. Thus,
a four-level maturity model for organisational resilience
(MMOR) illustrates the progression of an organisation’s
capacity to adapt to adverse circumstances over time
(Stocker et al. 2022). In the event of a hazard, an
organisation’s status is expected to evolve through four
distinct levels: fragile, robust, resilient and anti-fragile.
This evolution is determined by the organisation’s ability
to develop the necessary skills, traits and capacities to
effectively manage disturbances in a timely and adaptive
manner. If a fragile organisation is exposed to deteriorating
conditions, it will inevitably collapse. In contrast, a
robust organisation can adapt to predictable adverse
circumstances (Bravo & Hernandez 2021; Polsky et al.,
2007). However, when conditions fall outside the
anticipated parameters, both fragile and robust
organisations are likely to fail, as their ability to cope is
limited to predefined scenarios. A resilient organisation is
not merely strong but also capable of withstanding
unanticipated events. At the highest level, an anti-fragile
organisation goes beyond endurance, demonstrating the
ability to adapt, grow and thrive under adverse conditions
or during disasters (Munoz, Billsberry & Ambrosini 2022;
Ruiz-Martin, López-Paredes & Wainer 2018).
According to Koronis and Ponis (2018), organisational
resilience consists of three different abilities, namely: (1) the
ability of an organisation to ‘bounce’ back (to survive) after a
traumatic or unfavourable event; (2) the ability of an
organisation to adapt to circumstances and events before
they become unfavourable, traumatic or crises; and (3) the
combined abilities of people to absorb crises and operationally
adapt to new situations. The four major factors that contribute
to organisational resilience, as identified in existing literature,
include: readiness, responsiveness, adaptation and learning
(Evans, Cregan & Wall 2020). Furthermore, existing research
identifies four key factors influencing an organisation’s
resilience: (1) leadership styles (Liu et al. 2021; Nasab &
Amiri 2023); (2) dynamic capabilities (Teece, Peteraf & Leih
2016); (3) organisational learning and unlearning (Fiol &
O’Connor 2017; Starbuck 2017); and (4) networks and social
capital (Esen, Asik & Ege 2019).
Recurring meteorological disasters in the Chikwawa District
of Malawi, with increasingly deadly outcomes, demonstrate
that organisations have been unable to effectively cope with
the worsening conditions. In order to foster corporate
resilience, this research aimed to identify the barriers within
organisations to the implementation of strategies for
adaptation and enhancing resilience against devastating
meteorological hazards such as floods including cyclonic
conditions.
Research aim and objecves
This study sought to identify challenges within local
organisations which hindered the implementation of
adaptation and resilience strategies to address the
devastating impact of floods. Employing the analytical
hierarchy processing (AHP) methodology, the research
systematically evaluated the relative significance of
various factors influencing individual organisational
resilience. By assessing these factors at the organisational
level and analysing sub-criteria for each, the study
extracted actionable insights to guide policy makers and
organisations within the study area on a path to resilient
community. Ultimately, these efforts aimed to strengthen
organisational resilience and promote sustainable
development in the face of climate-related challenges.
The objectives of the study include the following:
• To examine the organisational-level barriers that
impede collaborative initiatives aimed at enhancing
resilience to climate change-induced extreme weather
events.
• To evaluate the existing level of collective organisational
climate resilience initiatives within the study area.
• To assess the level of awareness about the importance
of collective resiliencebuilding in the face of severe
floods.
• To employ AHP to identify factors affecting organisational
resilience within each organisation.
• To highlight the desired collaboration needs and ideas as
expressed by the representatives of the organisations
themselves.
Research methods and design
Study area
Malawi is a landlocked country situated in Southeast Africa
and is bordered by Mozambique to the south and east,
Zambia to the west and Tanzania to the north. The study area
in Malawi is one of the 28 districts named Chikwawa and is
situated in the southern region of the country on the west
bank of the Shire River. The district covers an area of 4892 km²
located at 106 metres above mean sea level, and it has a

Page 4 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
population of 564 684 with a population density of 117 per
km2, whereby most people’s livelihood depends on
agriculture (NSO 2018). Its geographical coordinates are 16°
46’ 0” South and 35° 17’ 0” East. The literacy rate in Chikwawa
is about 58%, the electrification rate is about 6.4% and the
water pipe rate is about 6.9%. Tropical weather prevails
throughout the area, with distinct wet and dry seasons.
Data collecon
The research employed purposive sampling and random
sampling techniques to engage with all 27 organisations
within the Chikwawa District using a questionnaire that
consisted of 16 open-ended questions. Purposive sampling
was employed to identify all organisations within the district,
while random sampling was employed to identify
participants from the identified organisations. In each of the
27 organisations, between 10 and 20 respondents were chosen
at random. The sample size of respondents required was
verified using the Fisher’s formula in equation 1:
)
(
=n
zp
P
e
1–
2
2 [Eqn 1]
Z = tabulated z-value (1.962), n = desired sample size,
P = estimate of population percentage (0.5) and e = desired
error allowance (±10%);
With P = 16 900 people, p = 1.962, e = 10%, n = 325; and
equation 2:
()
=n1.962 1–0.5 x16 900
10
2
2 [Eqn 2]
The data collected for this study consisted of audio
recordings and completed questionnaires. The questionnaire
was tested for reliability and validity using the Index
of Item Objective Congruency (IOC) and Cronbach’s alpha
values (Kamonratananun, Sujiva & Tangdhanakanond
2016; Pimdee 2021). The average IOC and Cronbach’s
alpha values were found to be 0.6 and 0.76, respectively,
which were all within the acceptable ranges and making
the questionnaires acceptable to use for data collection.
Prior to analysis, the data underwent preprocessing and
cleaning. The cleaning process involved removing incomplete
questions and irrelevant answers, as well as checking
for response consistency (Acaps 2016; Ridzuan & Wan
Zainon 2019).
Out of the initial 325 questionnaires, five were excluded
from the data set after screening because of incompleteness.
This resulted in a final data set of 320 respondents,
representing 93% of the total data set. The audio recordings
were imported into NVivo software for coding. Nodes
were created to categorise the responses into relevant
themes and topics. Likewise, the open-ended questions
were coded by highlighting relevant text sections within
the transcribed documents and assigning them to distinct
nodes representing different themes.
Themac analysis method
Thematic analysis was conducted on the responses from the
320 eligible respondents using NVivo software. NVivo is an
effective tool for transforming unstructured text into themes
or codes, aiding in the classification, sorting and organisation
of information. The results allowed for the categorisation of
themes into two distinct classes: (1) themes conducive to
enhancing collaboration at the organisational level for
bolstering resilience against flood hazards and (2) themes
highlighting barriers that hinder implementation of
resilience against hazardous events.
Analyc Hierarchy Process analysis method
The analytical hierarchy process, developed by Saaty (1987), is a
decision-making methodology, designed to address complex
problems by evaluating multiple alternatives based on a
hierarchical set of criteria. Analytical hierarchy processing
organises decision criteria, sub-criteria and objectives into a
hierarchical structure to determine the relative importance of
alternatives (Leal 2020; Russo & Camanho 2015). The study
utilised AHP to identify the barriers and enablers of organisational
collaboration in strengthening resilience to climate change-
induced hazards. The overarching objective-enhancing resilience
was linked to criteria such as organisational challenges, resource
constraints and policy effectiveness, which were further
developed into sub-criteria identified through thematic analysis
(Ozcan & Musaoglu 2020).
The initial step in analysing the computed questionnaires
involved assessing overall priorities through the
geometric mean method (GMM), which integrates the
perspectives of all experts involved (Dano 2022).
Geometric mean method was chosen for its suitability
and reliability in consolidating expert priorities, deemed
preferable over other methods such as compromise
voting, individual models or consensus approaches
because of its effectiveness in handling reciprocal
judgements (Balogun et al. 2021; Kułakowski 2020).
Equation 1 was employed to compute the mean values of
experts’ priorities using GMM. These aggregated values
were then utilised in a pairwise comparison table to
determine local priorities through AHP. Ensuring proper
scaling is essential prior to conducting a pairwise
comparison matrix (Table 1).
TABLE 1: Pairwise comparison matrix of eight criteria for the analycal hierarchy
processing process.
Criteria OC RA IA IR LE TI PE ER Criteria
weight
OC 1.00 1.14 1.33 1.60 2.00 2.67 4.00 8.00 0.22
RA 0.88 1.00 1.17 1.40 1.75 2.33 3.50 7.00 0.19
IA 0.75 0.86 1.00 1.20 1.50 2.00 3.00 6.00 0.17
IR 0.63 0.71 0.83 1.00 1.25 1.67 2.50 5.00 0.13
LE 0.50 0.57 0.67 0.80 1.00 1.33 2.00 4.00 0.11
TI 0.38 0.43 0.50 0.60 0.75 1.00 1.50 3.00 0.08
PE 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.50 0.67 1.00 2.00 0.06
ER 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 0.03
ER, ethical and social responsibility; IA, innovaon and adaptability; IR, impact on resilience;
LE, level of engagement; OC, organisaonal capacity; PE, past experse and experience;
RA, resource availability; TI, technological integraon.

Page 5 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
The consistency index (CI), calculated using Equation (4),
was used to assess the consistency of individual responses
within a decision-making framework. Similarly, the
consistency of weight was evaluated through the
consistency ratio (CR), determined using Equation (5)
(Taherdoost 2017). A CR value below 0.1 indicates that the
factor weights derived from the comparison matrix are
consistent. Conversely, a CR exceeding 0.1 indicates
inconsistency in the comparison matrix, necessitating
revision. In this study, the CR falls below 0.1 as shown
further in the text, indicating consistency of the assessment
in equation 3, 4 and 5:
aaaa a
n
n1234
∏= ∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗ [Eqn 3]
where n = the number of respondents; a = the value scored by
each respondent.
maxλ = 8.017870
=λ
==
CI maxn
n
CI
–
–1
8.01870 –8
8–1
0.003
[Eqn 4]
=
==<
CR CI
RI
CR 0.003
1.40
0.002 0.1
[Eqn 5]
Where CI is the consistency index, maxλ is the eigenvector
value, RI is the random index which varies based on the size
of the comparison matrix.
This analysis was used to evaluate organisational performance
and identify weak areas that impeded organisation resilience
efforts within each organisation. The overall priority ranking
of the criteria from highest: Organisational capacity: 0.22,
Resource availability: 0.19, Innovation and adaptability: 0.17,
Impact on resilience: 0.13, Level of engagement: 0.11,
Technological integration: 0.08, Past expertise and experience:
0.06 and Ethical and social responsibility: 0.03. Subsequently,
these factors were ranked to identify overarching traits
within the sub-criteria of the main factors, ensuring resilience.
Organisational capacity was ranked 8, resource availability
7, innovation and adaptability 6, impact on resilience 5, level
of engagement 4, technological integration 3, past expertise
and experience 2 and ethical and social responsibility 1.
FIGURE 1: Map of Chikwawa District: the Study Area.
Key
Elevaon in m (above msl) value
District_Bndry
High: 977
Low: 25

Page 6 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
Ethical consideraon
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained
from the Universite’ Des Mascareignes Ethics committee
on 15 November 2023. The researchers adhered to ethical
principles in social science research by not disclosing the
names and positions of participants to protect their
identities, and an ethical clearance letter was obtained for
the institution.
Results
Findings concerning themac analysis
The analysis provided insight into four key organisational-
level issues regarding flood hazards: types of vulnerability,
disaster preparedness, obstacles for cooperation initiatives
and types of desired collaboration initiatives. This strategy
allowed for a comprehensive understanding of these four
issues. The constraints and challenges experienced by
organisations during the recent floods triggered by cyclone
Freddy in 2023 are summarised in Figure 2.
Level of preparedness
Thematic analysis of the challenges experienced by
organisations during the floods caused by cyclone Freddy last
year (2023) reveals varying levels of disaster preparedness.
Approximately 85% of organisations have not implemented
any preparedness measures, while 10% of organisations
indicate plans to relocate to less vulnerable areas. Additionally,
4% report initiating risk assessments, and only 1% are
actively implementing comprehensive measures, such as
constructing flood protective infrastructures, conducting drills
and simulations, investing in backup power systems, training
staff in emergency response protocols and establishing internal
communication frameworks within their organisations.
Factors hinder cooperave collaboraons
The factors that may hinder cooperative collaboration
within the organisations were identified through a thematic
analysis conducted using NVivo software. These barriers
were then ranked using the rank function in Microsoft
Excel. The ranking was based on the frequency with which
each theme appeared in the thematic analysis. The results
of this ranking are depicted in Figure 3.
Strategies aimed to enhance collaboraon
Organisations in the study area face a number of challenges
in order to collaborate on issues related to climate change
resilience. Thematic analysis of the collected data identified
six key strategies aimed at enhancing collaboration in
addressing climate change-induced hazards. These
strategies include providing training and resources to
local communities to build their capacity for climate
adaptation and investing in research and development to
promote innovative climate adaptation technologies.
Advocating for policy reforms that support climate
adaptation initiatives was also highlighted as critical for
creating an enabling environment for resilience efforts.
Additionally, implementing green infrastructure projects
such as natural buffers and sustainable drainages (avoiding
farming or blocking natural drainage systems) strengthens
FIGURE 2: Condions experienced by organisaons during severe oods caused by cyclone Freddy in 2023.
0
Access to and capable of interpreng District land use Maps
Received regular updates on local weather condions
Received updates on river water levels for addressing
flood hazards
Were involved in collecve acvies
Warning infrastructure sll working
Received early warning message on severity of the floods
Closed business during floods
20 40 60
Percentage
Strategies
80 100 120
No (%)
Yes (%)
FIGURE 3: Ranking of barriers that hinder the development of resilience
strategies within the study area.
02010 30 40
Frequency (%)
Themes
(7) Scarcity of climate change-focused
companies
(6) Lack of cohesion or unity
(5) Hesitance regarding relocaon
(4) Reliance on NGO aid
(3) Barriers to effecve communicaon
(2) Absence of a precise early
warning system
(1) Dependence on government
leadership roles

Page 7 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
climate resilience. Conducting collective campaigns to
raise awareness and improve preparedness for climate-
induced hazards further enhances collaboration. Finally, a
willingness to provide financial support for developing
joint climate change adaptation strategies underscores the
importance of shared responsibility and resource
mobilisation in fostering effective partnerships.
Findings concerning analycal hierarchy
processing analysis
The AHP analysis revealed several factors where individual
organisations across various sectors are performing poorly
which in turn affects their collaborative efforts. Notably, factors
such as continuity planning, financial stability and funding
diversity and adaptive capacity emerged as areas of concern,
indicating potential weaknesses in organisational resilience
and long-term planning. The results align with the literature,
which highlights the fact that a failure to engage in continuous
planning creates an environment where organisations struggle
to adapt to change, lack preparedness for crises and miss
opportunities for improvement (Asare-Kyire et al. 2023;
Carmeli & Dothan 2017; Pertheban et al. 2023).
Additionally, factors such as technological infrastructure and
information systems, along with collaborative partnerships
and networks, underscored challenges in effectively leveraging
technology and fostering strategic alliances to enhance
organisational resilience. Existing literature indicates that
leveraging technological advancements and networks in
organisations’ operations enhances flexibility in communication,
risk assessment and management. (Camarinha-Matos et al.
2019; Dubey et al. 2024; Garrido, Martín-Rojas & García-
Morales 2024). The identification of these factors underscores
the need for targeted interventions and resource allocation to
address gaps and improve overall organisational capacity
and performance. The results, as shown in Figure 4, provide
valuable insights into the areas where organisations are
struggling or underperforming across multiple sectors
(Bourland-Davis & Graham 2017; Hafeez et al. 2024; Rasheed,
Liu & Ali 2024).
Factors related to continuity planning, and learning and
unlearning culture reveal potential vulnerabilities in
organisational preparedness for unexpected disruptions or
crises, indicating the necessity for enhanced risk- management
strategies and diversified implementation of a learning and
unlearning culture. Georgescu et al. (2024) highlighted the fact
that an organisation’s ability to recognise and assimilate new
knowledge plays a crucial role in fostering collaboration. This
capacity, combined with a critical analysis of the evolving
nature of operations, significantly enhances organisations’
effectiveness (Manju Prem et al. 2024; Naveed et al. 2022).
Additionally, the emphasis on environmental sustainability
underscores the increasing importance of addressing
environmental concerns and integrating sustainable practices
into organisational operations (Linnenluecke, Griffiths &
Mumby 2015).
Moreover, the identification of factors such as technological
infrastructure and collaborative partnerships highlights
the significance of embracing digitalisation and fostering
synergistic relationships with stakeholders to drive
innovation and enhance organisational resilience. A study
by Adomako and Nguyen (2024) found that digitalisation
within organisations positively influences inter-
organisational collaboration. This enhanced collaboration
FIGURE 4: Dendrogram for poorly performing factors within organisaons.
Connuity planning
Technical experse
Human capital investment
Adapve capacity
Capacity for change
Technological innovaon
Learning culture
Adaptaon strategies
Flexibility in approach
Adapve capacity enhancement
Technological infra structure and informaon systems
Financial stability and funding diversity
Leadership and governance
Advocacy and awareness
Empowerment and capacity building
Collaborave partnerships and networks
Advocacy and fundraising capacity
Policy influence and advocacy
Communicaon and transparency
Inclusivity and diversity
Risk management culture
Livelihood protecon and economic recovery
Environmental sustainability
Social cohesion and well-being
765
Hierarchical clustering distance
Internal performance factors affecng collaboraon
4328

Page 8 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
facilitates effective technological transfer, which in turn
significantly boosts the intensity of commercialisation and
cooperation efforts (Naveed et al. 2022).
In Figure 3, the dendrogram illustrates the hierarchical
nature of the themes identified as areas where organisations
are performing poorly internally, thereby hindering their
ability to collaborate effectively with others. The dendrogram’s
structure visually represents how these internal performance
issues are organised from significant to the least impactful
in terms of their influence on collaboration (Boyko &
Tkachyk 2023; Contreras & Murtagh 2015).
The hierarchical arrangements highlight how the internal
barriers of organisations are interconnected and progressively
affect the capacity to engage in collaborative efforts. The
length of the branches indicates the degree of dissimilarly or
distance between these internal issues, helping to visualise
the relative importance and clustering of the various barriers
to collaboration (Lazarević & Mosurović Ružičić 2023; Dosi,
Marengo & Virgillito 2021).
Discussion
The results of the study show that almost all the organisations
in the study area are vulnerable to climate change-induced
extreme weather events at varying susceptible levels and
lack proper strategies to work collectively to address the
latter issues exacerbating the adverse impacts of climate
change-induced extremes. This is evidenced by the relatively
very high proportion of organisations (90%) which had to
stop operations during the floods because their infrastructures
became unusable during flood events of 2023. As noted from
the responses of the interviewees, the disruption was not
limited to physical damage but also extended to the
organisation’s ability to function even remotely. Sarkar et al.
(2023) and Alibašić (2024) highlighted that organisational
resilience is a function of adaptive capacity and infrastructure
quality which enables the continuation with minimal
disruptions. The magnitude of infrastructure collapse during
the recent floods underscored the urgent need for not only
improving the quality of infrastructure but also ensuring
comprehensive and effective urban planning.
It has been highlighted that a significant lack of knowledge
exists regarding collective management, including role
assignment, within organisations willing to contribute
financially or materially towards shared responsibilities for
building resilience against extreme flood events. Additionally,
the lack of role assignment within organisations, despite their
willingness to contribute to resilience building, leads to
excessive reliance on government and NGO actors, resulting in
ineffective, short-term solutions that fail to address the root of
organisations’ vulnerability. The findings are consistent with
those of Kefalas (2017) and Gazdeliani (2024), who noted that
the absence of clearly defined role assignments among
organisations collaborating to strengthen community
resilience against extreme weather events fosters a tendency
towards blame-shifting. This lack of coordination perpetuates a
cycle of disaster, recovery and repetition, with increasingly
devastating impacts each time a disaster strikes, as no
organisation is fully aware of its responsibilities in ensuring
resilience to climate change.
Despite some limited collective resilience initiatives among
the organisations, they are often underdeveloped hindered by
poor coordination, unclear ownership and inadequate
monitoring, leaving both organisations and communities
vulnerable to future flood events. Literature (Auliagisni,
Wilkinson & Elkharboutly 2022; Rosmadi et al. 2023; Shah
et al. 2023) highlights the fact that the absence of effective
monitoring and poor coordination in resilience or adaptive
efforts often result in several critical challenges. These include
the inability to identify weaknesses, limited capacity to adapt
to evolving conditions and misallocations of resources.
Moreover, such deficiencies foster a reactive rather than
proactive approach to disaster management, undermining
the effectiveness of preparedness and response strategies. The
lack of coordination also creates fragmented efforts and
information silos, where vital information is not effectively
shared among stakeholders (Bento, Tagliabue & Lorenzo
2020; De Waal et al. 2019). At the core of organisational
resilience lies the capacity for organisational adaptations, as
well as ongoing monitoring and evaluation of identified
strategies (Inderberg 2015; Nair, Manohar & Mittal 2024;
Sethi, Sushil & Gupta 2024). The absence of these measures,
along with a lack of clear ownership of the identified strategies,
renders the organisations and the communities at large
vulnerable to the potential impact of future floods (Endendijk
et al. 2024; John 2020). As the devastating impact of floods,
worsened by climate change, continues to affect communities,
organisational resilience must be addressed proactively and
with urgency. This approach is crucial to minimising the
negative consequences of extreme weather events (Chigudu
& Chigudu 2015; Georgiou & Arenas 2023; Roberts 2023).
The identified obstacles for improving collaborative efforts
to address climate change impacts highlight the need for a
more efficient approach that fosters enhanced collaboration,
particularly through clear ownership of responsibilities, in
addressing localised susceptibility and vulnerability to climate
change hazards (Adaptation Fund 2024; UNDRR 2020).
Conclusion
Organisations should reframe their perspective on climate
change-induced disasters, shifting from viewing them as
insurmountable challenges to approaching them positively
and collaboratively. This paradigm shift will empower
communities to adopt adaptive strategies, improve preparedness
and contribute to building long-term resilience in the face of
the ongoing climate crisis. This recommendation aligns with
the findings of Ahmad and Abu Talib (2015) and Ibrahim
(2024), who emphasised that involving local institutions and
implementing decentralisation strategies in addressing
community challenges significantly enhance the sense of
ownership and responsibility within communities. Measured

Page 9 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
against the four-level MMOR proposed by Ruiz-Martin et al.
(2018), it is evident that the community remains vulnerable to
the impacts of extreme weather events driven by climate
change. This underscores the urgent need for ownership and
the implementation of adaptive strategies to enhance resilience
and reduce vulnerability to such events. By addressing
these areas of weakness, organisations can enhance their
adaptive capacity, actively contribute to collaborative efforts
in dynamic environments, mitigate risks and strengthen
community resilience. The results of this research provide a
foundational framework for organisations within the study
area and beyond to chart a path forward, ensuring that
the relentless impacts of climate change-induced hazards
no longer escalate into disasters, thereby promoting the
effective safeguarding of communities at large.
Study limitaon
Because of limited time and lack of human resources for the
survey, we could only engage the statistical minimum
number of stakeholders. A larger number of participating
organisations could have revealed other latent issues at
organisational levels.
Large language model statement
Some large language model (LLM) tools have been used in
some cases for paraphrasing and grammatical error corrections.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the invaluable support from everyone
who participated in the interviews. They are specially
thankful to the officials of the Office of the District Council
for their support and for facilitating the identification of the
organisations targeted during the stakeholder consultation
meetings. The authors also appreciates the support of Dr.
Goodarry from the University of Mascareignes for offering
immense support during his PhD studies at the institution.
This article is partially based on the authors thesis entitled
‘Geospatial analysis for enhancing disaster resilience to
extreme flood events exacerbated by climate change in the
sub-Saharan African region – Malawi a case study’ towards the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Civil
Engineering, at the University of Mascareignes, Mauritius, with
supervisors Dr. Rajeshwar Goodary and Dr. Roodheer Beeharry.
This research was presented at the 6th Biennial SASDiR
Conference, held from 21 to 23 August 2024 at the Ravenala
Attitude Hotel, Mauritius, with the theme ‘Strengthening
Disaster Resilience in Africa: Transdisciplinary Approaches
and Sustainable Solutions’.
Compeng interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal
relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them
in writing this article.
Authors’ contribuons
J.N.K. conducted the data collection, analysis and drafting of
the article. R.B. was responsible for reviewing and formatting
the article.
Funding informaon
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author, J.N.K., upon reasonable
request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the authors and are the product of professional research.
They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position
of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the
publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results,
findings and content.
References
Abba, A.H., Noor, Z.Z., Yusuf, R.O., Din, M.F.M.D. & Hassan, M.A.A., 2013, ‘Assessing
environmental impacts of municipal solid waste of Johor by analycal hierarchy
process’, Resources, Conservaon and Recycling 73(2013), 188–196. hps://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.003
Acaps, 2016, Data cleaning: Dealing with messy data, pp. 1–19, ACAPS (Assessment
capacity Projects), Washington.
Adaptaon Fund, 2024, Addressing climate change adaptaon in fragile sengs
and conict-aected countries: Lessons learned from the Adaptaon Fund’s
porolio Stakeholder engagement meeng in Ghana (Photo by Adaptaon
Fund), viewed January 2024, from hps://www.adaptaon-fund.org/wp-
content/uploads/ 2024/02/climate-change-adaptaon-in-fragile-sengs-02.15.
2024.pdf.
Adomako, S. & Nguyen, N.P., 2024, ‘Digitalizaon, inter-organizaonal collaboraon,
and technology transfer’, Journal of Technology Transfer 49(4), 1176–1202.
hps://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-023-10031-z
Ahmad, M.S. & Abu Talib, N.B., 2015, ‘Empowering local communies:
Decentralizaon, empowerment and community driven development’, Quality
and Quanty 49(2), 827–838. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0025-8.
Alcantara, E., Marengo, J.A., Mantovani, J., Londe, L.R., San, R.L.Y., Park, E. et al., 2023,
‘Deadly disasters in southeastern South America: Flash oods and landslides of
February 2022 in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro’, Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 23(3), 1157–1175. hps://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1157-2023
Alibašić, H., 2024, ‘Advancing disaster resilience: The ethical dimensions of adaptability
and adapve leadership in public service organizaons’, Public Integrity 26, 1–13.
hps://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2024.2388285
Asare-Kyire, L., Bonsu, C.A., Appien, W.A. & Ackah, O., 2023, ‘Organizaonal
resilience, innovaon and rm performance: Moderang role of social es’, Open
Journal of Business and Management 11(05), 2034–2050. hps://doi.
org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.115112
Auliagisni, W., Wilkinson, S. & Elkharboutly, M., 2022, ‘Learning from oods – How a
community develops’, Water 14, 3238.
Balogun, A., Quan, S., Pradhan, B., Dano, U. & Yekeen, S., 2021, ‘An improved ood
suscepbility model for assessing the correlaon of ood hazard and property
prices using geospaal technology and Fuzzy-ANP’, Journal of Environmental
Informacs 37(2), 107–121. hps://doi.org/10.3808/jei.202000442
Bansal, P. & Knox-Hayes, J., 2013, ‘The me and space of materiality in organizaons
and the natural environment’, Organizaon and Environment 26(1), 61–82.
hps://doi.org/10.1177/1086026612475069
Bartuseviciene, I., Butkus, M. & Schiuma, G., 2024, ‘Modelling organizaonal
resilience structure: Insights to assess resilience integrang bounce-back and
bounce-forward’, European Journal of Innovaon Management 27(1), 153–169.
hps://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2022-0180
Bento, F., Tagliabue, M. & Lorenzo, F., 2020, ‘Organizaonal silos: A scoping review
informed by a behavioral perspecve on systems and networks’, Sociees 10(3),
1–27. hps://doi.org/10.3390/soc10030056

Page 10 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
Bourland-Davis, P.G. & Graham, B.L., 2017, ‘Examining public relaons’ role in shaping
organizaonal culture, with implicaons for PR, HR, and CSR/sustainability’, in
E. Parry (ed.), Craneld School of Management, Corporate social responsibility,
sustainability, and ethical public relaons: Strengthening synergies with human
resources, pp. 199–220, Emerald Publishing, Bingley.
Boyko, N.I. & Tkachyk, O.A., 2023, ‘Hierarchical clustering algorithm for dendrogram
construcon and cluster counng’, Informacs and Mathemacal Methods in
Simulaon 13(1–2), 5–15. hps://doi.org/10.15276/imms.v13.no1-2.5
Bravo, O. & Hernández, D., 2021, ‘Measuring organizaonal resilience: Tracing
disrupve events facing unconvenonal oil and gas enterprise performance in the
Americas’, Energy Research and Social Science 80(June), 102187. hps://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102187
Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Fornasiero, R., Ramezani, J. & Ferrada, F., 2019, ‘Collaborave
networks: A pillar of digital transformaon’, Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 9(24),
5431. hps://doi.org/10.3390/app9245431
Carmeli, A. & Dothan, A., 2017, ‘Generave work relaonships as a source of direct
and indirect learning from experiences of failure: Implicaons for innovaon
agility and product innovaon’, Technological Forecasng and Social Change 119,
27–38. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.007
Chigudu, H. & Chigudu, R., 2015, Strategies for building an organizaon with a soul,
pp. 1–127 African Instute for Integrated Responses to VAWG & HIV/AIDS (AIR),
Bukavu, Democrac Republic of Congo.
Contreras, P. & Murtagh, F., 2015, ‘Hierarchical clustering’, in C. Hennig, M. Meila, F.
Murtagh & R. Rocci (eds.), Handbook of cluster analysis, pp. 103–124, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Dano, U.L., 2022, ‘An AHP-based assessment of ood triggering factors to enhance
resiliency in Dammam, Saudi Arabia’, GeoJournal 87(3), 1945–1960. hps://doi.
org/10.1007/s10708-020-10363-5
De Waal, A., Weaver, M., Day, T. & Van der Heijden, B., 2019, ‘Silo-busng: Overcoming
the greatest threat to organizaonal performance’, Sustainability (Switzerland)
11(23), 1–19. hps://doi.org/10.3390/su11236860
Dosi, G., Marengo, L. & Virgillito, M.E., 2021, ‘Hierarchies, knowledge, and power
inside organizaons’, Strategy Science 6(4), 371–384. hps://doi.org/10.1287/
STSC.2021.0136
Dubey, R., Bryde, D.J., Blome, C., Dwivedi, Y.K., Childe, S.J. & Foropon, C. 2024,
‘Alliances and digital transformaon are crucial for beneng from dynamic
supply chain capabilies during mes of crisis: A mul-method study’,
Internaonal Journal of Producon Economics 269(August 2023), 109166. hps://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109166
Duchek, S., 2020, ‘Organizaonal resilience: A capability-based conceptualizaon’,
Business Research 13(1), 215–246. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
Endendijk, T., Botzen, W.J.W., De Moel, H., Slager, K., Kok, M. & Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2024,
‘Enhancing resilience: Understanding the impact of ood hazard and vulnerability
on business interrupon and losses’, Water Resources and Economics 46, 100244.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2024.100244
Esen, A., Asik, O. & Ege, T., 2019, ‘Unlearning in organizaons: Understanding and
rethinking the way organizaons learn and change’, Pressacademia 9(9), 43–47.
hps://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2019.1062
Evans, V., Cregan, K. & Wall, T., 2020, in T. Wall, W.L. Filho, A.M. Azul, P.G. Özuyar &
L. Brandli (eds.), Organizaonal resilience and sustainable development,
pp. 540–550, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham.
Fiol, M. & O’Connor, E., 2017, ‘Unlearning established organizaonal rounes – Part I’,
Learning Organizaon 24(1), 13–29. hps://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2016-0056
Folake, A., 2021, ‘Organizaonal resilience in the face of disrupons’, Journal of
Management and Administraon Provision 1(3), 45–52. hps://doi.org/10.55885/
jmap.v1i3.228
Garrido-Moreno, A., Marn-Rojas, R. & García-Morales, V.J., 2024, ‘The key role of
innovaon and organizaonal resilience in improving business performance: A
mixed-methods approach’, Internaonal Journal of Informaon Management
77(March), 102777. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102777
Gazdeliani, G., 2024, ‘The role and challenges of collecve management organizaons
in copyright protecon’, Aктуальные исследования 41(223), 6–11. hps://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.13910213
Georgescu, I., Bocean, C.G., Vărzaru, A.A., Rotea, C.C., Mangra, M.G. & Mangra, G.I.,
2024, ‘Enhancing organizaonal resilience: The transformave inuence of
strategic human resource management pracces and organizaonal culture’,
Sustainability (Switzerland) 16(10), 4315. hps://doi.org/10.3390/su16104315
Georgiou, A. & Arenas, D., 2023, ‘Community in organizaonal research: A review and
an instuonal logics perspecve’, Organizaon Theory 4(1), 13. hps://doi.
org/10.1177/26317877231153189
Government of Malawi, 2023, Malawi 2023 tropical cyclone freddy post-disaster
needs assessment, pp. 1–102, viewed April 2023, from hps://www.
prevenonweb.net/media/87994/download?startDownload=true.
Hafeez, M., Yasin, I., Zawawi, D., Odilova, S. & Bataineh, H.A., 2024, ‘Unleashing the
power of green innovaons: The role of organizaonal ambidexterity and green
culture in achieving corporate sustainability’, European Journal of Innovaon
Management 27, 7. hps://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2023-0274
Hillmann, J. & Guenther, E., 2021, ‘Organizaonal resilience: A valuable construct for
management research?’, Internaonal Journal of Management Reviews 23(1),
7–44. hps://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239
Ibrahim, A.H.H., 2024, ‘Decentralizaon and its impact on improving public services’,
Internaonal Journal of Social Sciences 7(2), 45–53. hps://doi.org/10.21744/ijss.
v7n2.2278
IDMC, 2023, ‘Global report on internal displacement: Internal displacement and food
security’, in Internal displacement and food security, pp. 1–76, viewed n.d., from
hps://www.internal-displacement.org.
Internaonal Federaon of Red Cross and Red Crescent Sociees, 2021, African
Floods, Internaonal Federaon of Red Cross and Red Crescent Sociees, Geneva.
Inderberg, T.H., 2015, ‘Changes in organizaonal culture, changes in adapve
capacity?’, in K. O’Brien & E. Selboe (eds.), The adapve challenge of climate
change, pp. 213–229, Cambridge University Press & Assessment, Cambridge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023, ‘Annex I: Observaonal products’,
in Climate change 2021 – The physical science basis, (2), pp. 2061–2086. hps://
doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.015
IOM – DTM, 2023, Tropical cyclone freddy, (9), pp. 1–14, viewed March-April 27, 2023,
from hps://dtm.iom.int/terms-and-condions.
IPCC, 2022, Fact sheets | Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptaon and vulnerability,
fact sheet, viewed 09 September 2024, from hps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
about/factsheets/%0Ahps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/factsheets.
IPCC, 2023, ‘Summary for policymakers: Synthesis report’, in Climate change 2023:
Synthesis report. Contribuon of Working Groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, pp. 1–34.
John, R., 2020, ‘Flooding in informal selements: Potenals and limits for household
adaptaon in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania’, American Journal of Climate Change
09(02), 68–86. hps://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2020.92006
Kamonratananun, N., Sujiva, S. & Tangdhanakanond, K., 2016, ‘Development of an
evaluaon capacity-building program for nurse teachers in students’ praccum’,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 217, 344–353. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2016.02.100
Kefalas, A., 2017, The relevance of tradional Collecve Management Organisaons
in the digital age. Current challenges and future possibilies, p. 96, University of
Agder, Krisansand, Norway.
Khan, T.Z.A. & Farooq, W., 2021, ‘Learning organizaonal culture and its impact on
organizaonal resilience in SMEs’, Internaonal Journal of Business and Economic
Aairs 6(3), 175–190. hps://doi.org/10.24088/ijbea-2021-63006
Klibi, W., Rice, J.B. & Urciuoli, L., 2018, ‘Special dossier: Quanfying supply chain
resilience’, Supply Chain Forum 19(4), 253–254. hps://doi.org/10.1080/1625831
2.2018.1551266
Koronis, E. & Ponis, S., 2018, ‘Beer than before: The resilient organizaon in crisis
mode’, Journal of Business Strategy 39(1), 32–42. hps://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-
2016-0124
Kułakowski, K., 2020, ‘On the geometric mean method for incomplete pairwise
comparisons’, Mathemacs 8(11), 1–12. hps://doi.org/10.3390/math8111873
Kushwaha, A.P., Solanki, H., Vegad, U., Mahto, S.S. & Mishra, V., 2024, ‘Land and
Atmospheric Drivers of the 2023 Flood in India’, Earth and Space Science 11(10),
1–17. hps://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA003750
Lazarević, M. & Mosurović Ružičić, M., 2023, ‘Organizaonal structure and
organizaonal culture’, Economic Analysis 56(2), 39–53. hps://doi.org/10.28934/
ea.23.56.2.pp39-53
Leal, J.E., 2020, ‘AHP-express: A simplied version of the analycal hierarchy process
method’, MethodsX 7. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.11.021
Linnenluecke, M.K., Griths, A. & Mumby, P.J., 2015, ‘Execuves’ engagement
with climate science and perceived need for business adaptaon to climate
change’, Climac Change 131(2), 321–333. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
015-1387-1
Liu, Y., Chen, R., Zhou, F., Zhang, S. & Wang, J., 2021, ‘Analysis of the influencing
factors of organizational resilience in the ISM framework: An exploratory
study based on multiple cases’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(23). https://
doi.org/10.3390/su132313492
Liu, Q., Du, M., Wang, Y., Deng, J., Yan, W., Qin, C. et al., 2024, ‘Global, regional and
naonal trends and impacts of natural ood1990–2022’, Bullen of the World
Health Organizaon 102(6), 410–420. hps://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.23.290243
Munoz, A., Billsberry, J. & Ambrosini, V., 2022, ‘Resilience, robustness, and anfragility:
Towards an appreciaon of disnct organizaonal responses to adversity’,
Internaonal Journal of Management Reviews 24(2), 181–187. hps://doi.
org/10.1111/ijmr.12289
Nair, A.J., Manohar, S. & Mial, A., 2024, ‘Reconguraon and transformaon for
resilience: Building service organizaons towards sustainability’, Journal of
Services Markeng 38(4), 404–425. hps://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2023-0144
Nasab, Y.H. & Amiri, M., 2023, ‘Idenfying eecve factors of organizaonal
resilience : A meta-synthesis study’, Internaonal Journal of Research in Industrial
Engineering 12(2), 177–196. hps://doi.org/10.22105/riej.2023.375356.1352
Naonal Stascal Oce, 2019, Malawi populaon and housing census report-2018,
2018 Malawi Populaon and Housing Main Report, viewed 08 July 2024, from
http://www.nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/demography/
census_2018/2018 Malawi Populaon and Housing Census Main Report.pdf.
Naveed, R.T., Alhaidan, H., Al Halbusi, H. & Al-Swidi, A.K., 2022, ‘Do organizaons
really evolve? The crical link between organizaonal culture and organizaonal
innovaon toward organizaonal eecveness: Pivotal role of organizaonal
resistance’, Journal of Innovaon and Knowledge 7(2), 100178. hps://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100178
Newbrun, E., 2010, ‘What we know and do not know about uoride’, Journal
of Public Health Denstry 70(3), 227–233. hps://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1752-
7325.2010.00171.x
Ozcan, O. & Musaoglu, N., 2020, ‘Vulnerability analysis of oods in urban areas using
remote sensing and GIS’, in R. Reuter (ed.), Remote sensing for science,
educaon,and natural and cultural heritage, pp. 379–386, European Associaon
of Remote Sensing Laboratories, Paris.
Pakistan Floods Situaon Report No. 15 | 2., n.d., viewed 09 May 2023, from hps://
reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/pakistan-oods-response-overview-8th-may-2023.

Page 11 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.jamba.org.za Open Access
Pertheban, T.R., Thurasamy, R., Marimuthu, A., Venkatachalam, K.R., Annamalah, S.,
Paraman, P. et al., 2023, ‘ The impact of proacve resilience strategies on
organizaonal performance: Role of ambidextrous and dynamic capabilies of
SMEs in manufacturing sector’, Sustainability (Switzerland) 15(16), 12665. hps://
doi.org/10.3390/su151612665
Pimdee, P., 2021, ‘An analysis of the causal relaonships in sustainable consumpon
behaviour (SCB) of Thai student science teachers’, Internaonal Journal of
Instrucon 14(1), 999–1018. hps://doi.org/10.29333/IJI.2021.14159A
Polsky, C., Ne, R. & Yarnal, B., 2007, ‘Building comparable global change vulnerability
assessments: The vulnerability scoping diagram’, Global Environmental Change
17(3–4), 472–485. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.005
Quan, J. & Dyer, N., 2008, Climate change and land tenure: The implicaons of climate
change for land tenure and land policy, Food and Agriculture Organizaon of the
United Naons (FAO), Rome.
Rasheed, M., Liu, J. & Ali, E., 2024, ‘Incorporang sustainability in organizaonal strategy:
A framework for enhancing sustainable knowledge management and green
innovaon’, Kybernetes 53, 19. hps://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2023-1606
Ridzuan, F. & Wan Zainon, W.M.N., 2019, ‘A review on data cleansing methods for big
data’, Procedia Computer Science 161, 731–738. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2019.11.177
Roberts, M., 2023, ‘How do community organizaons develop successful strategies of
resistance? Revising instuonal embeddedness and agency ’, Territory, Polics,
Governance 11(5), 934–950. hps://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2205882
Rodriguez-Sanchez, A., Guinot, J., Chiva, R. & Lopez-Cabrales, A., 2021, ‘How to
emerge stronger: Antecedents and consequences of organizational resilience’,
Journal of Management and Organization 27(3), 442–459. https://doi.
org/10.1017/jmo.2019.5
Rosmadi, H.S., Ahmed, M.F., Mokhtar, M.B. & Lim, C.K., 2023, ‘Reviewing challenges of
ood risk management in Malaysia’, Water (Switzerland) 15(13), 1–21. hps://
doi.org/10.3390/w15132390
Ruiz-Marn, C., López-Paredes, A. & Wainer, G., 2018, ‘What we know and do not know
about organizaonal resilience’, Internaonal Journal of Producon Management
and Engineering 6(1), 11–28. hps://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2018.7898
Russo, R.D.F.S.M. & Camanho, R., 2015, ‘Criteria in AHP: A systemac review of
literature’, Procedia Computer Science 55(July), 1123–1132. hps://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
Manju Prem, S., Jayalekshmi, G., Mohanraj, M., Sneha, M.A. & Mathew, R., 2024,
‘Enhancing organizaonal capacity: A holisc examinaon of evoluon, methods
and challenges’, Journal of Experimental Agriculture Internaonal 46(5), 856–864.
hps://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i52440
Saaty, T.L., 1987, ‘The analyc hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used’,
Mathemacal Modelling, 9(3–5), 161–176. hps://doi.org/10.1016/0270-
0255(87)90473-8
Sahlmueller, T. & Hellingrath, B., 2022, ‘Measuring the resilience of supply chain
networks’, in Proceedings of the 19th ISCRAM Conference, CoRe Paper – Analycal
Modeling and Simulaon, Tarbes, France, May 2022, pp. 55–67.
Sarkar, A., Selway, K., Ascro, J. & Wingreen, S., 2023, ‘Developing a capacity for
organizaonal resilience through organizaonal culture of collaborave networks
among informaon workers’, in Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii Internaonal
Conference on System Sciences 2023-Janua(June), 6377–6386.
Sethi, M., Sushil & Gupta, M.P., 2024, ‘Modelling the enablers of organizaonal
resilience: A modied total interpreve structural modeling (m-TISM) approach’,
Benchmarking 31, 5. hps://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2023-0621
Shah, A.A., Ullah, A., Khan, N.A., Khan, A., Tariq, M.A.U.R. & Xu, C., 2023, ‘Community
social barriers to non-technical aspects of ood early warning systems and NGO-
led intervenons: The case of Pakistan’, Froners in Earth Science 11(March),
1–15. hps://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2023.1068721
Starbuck, W.H., 2017, ‘Organizaonal learning and unlearning’, Learning Organizaon
24(1), 30–38. hps://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-11-2016-0073
Stocker, J., Herda, N., Wolf, M. & Ruf, S., 2022, ‘A maturity model to assess and foster
the resilience of organizaons’, Art and Society 1(3), 1–12. hps://doi.
org/10.56397/as.2022.12.01
Taherdoost, H., 2017, ‘Decision making using the Analyc Hierarchy Process (AHP); A
step by step approach’, Journal of Economics and Management Systems
2(Internaonal), 244–246, viewed from hp://www.iaras.org/iaras/journals/ijems.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M. & Leih, S., 2016, ‘Dynamic capabilies and organizaonal agility’,
California Management Review 58(4), 13–35.
Tseitlin, A., 2013, ‘The anfragile organizaon’, Queue 11(6), 20–26. hps://doi.
org/10.1145/2493944.2499552
UNDRR, 2020, Disaster risk reducon and climate change adaptaon: Pathways for
policy coherence in Sub-Saharan Africa, p. 80, United Naons Oce for Disaster
Risk Reducon (UNDRR), Geneva.
United Naons Oce for the Coordinaon of Humanitarian Aairs (OCHA), 2022,
West and Central Africa ooding situaon-overview, pp. 1–2, viewed 22
September 2024, from le:///C:/Users/fobim/Downloads/WCA 2022 Flooding
Snapshot_as of 02 January 2023- (1).pdf.
WHO Regional Office for Africa, 2023, Weekly Bulletin on outbreaks, pp. 1–20,
viewed 16 February 2020, from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/
handle/10665/331023/OEW07-1016022020.pdf.
Xiao, L. & Cao, H., 2017, ‘Organizaonal resilience: The theorecal model
and research implicaon’, In ITM Web of Conferences, ITA 2017 (Vol. 12, Arcle
04021), EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, May 26–28, 2017.
Yao, Y. & Fabbe-Costes, N., 2018, ‘Can you measure resilience if you are unable to
dene it? The analysis of Supply Network Resilience (SNRES)’, Supply Chain Forum
19(4), 255–265. hps://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2018.1540248