• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Effectiveness of interventions in the humanitarian field to support community resilience

Effectiveness of interventions in the humanitarian field to support community resilience

Helpdesk Report
  • Emilie Combaz
March 2013

Question

What is the existing literature on the effectiveness of various interventions in the humanitarian field that are meant to support community resilience? Please pay particular attention to capacity building and collaborations.

Summary

Key finding: There is very little evidence available of the effects of humanitarian interventions on resilience for a number of reasons. First, the concept of resilience as it is applied to disasters and human societies remains in its infancy. Second, regarding interventions on resilience, there is a limited evidence base and a short retrospective timeframe. Third, the quality of available evidence is an issue. Monitoring and evaluation tends to be geared toward inputs and processes more than outcomes and impact. A number of other inconsistencies make the evidence base problematic, including: different definitions and assessments of effectiveness; the lack of independent assessment in a number of findings; the evidence base being fragmented and often case- or sector-specific; some of the literature being speculative, prescriptive or based on untested assumptions; and the difficulty in establishing causalities.

Nonetheless, the following common themes emerge from the literature.

  • Resilience is in good part shaped by larger factors, not created by social engineering. Community resilience is first and foremost an endogenous process.
  • Resilience is in part about self-reliance, and donor interventions are not necessarily central. Overall, the most effective efforts are context-specific and tailor their goals and activities to local meanings, priorities and strengths.
  • External interventions may do more harm than good. ‘Do no Harm’ principles include the need to commit enough time and resources for the long-term.
  • Community resilience must be viewed as a process rather than an outcome
  • Programmes for resilience need to be inclusive. They must be carefully designed and implemented in relation to the local context, given the difficulties and risks involved in inclusion.
  • Effective coordination between actors is essential, under local or national leadership. Support must be coherent and cover all aspects of disaster resilience holistically.

Using an annotated bibliography, section 2 of this helpdesk report presents general factors shaping community resilience and section 3 presents evidence of the effectiveness of interventions. Section 4 points to additional references.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID CHASE: Conflict, Humanitarian and Security Department

Related Content

Supporting and rebuilding agriculture in protracted crises
Helpdesk Report
2017
Transitional shelter in post-disaster contexts
Helpdesk Report
2016
Seasonal vulnerability and risk calendar in Nepal
Helpdesk Report
2016
National Disaster Management Authorities
Helpdesk Report
2016
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more