• 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»Measuring disaster resilience

Measuring disaster resilience

Helpdesk Report
  • Freyja Oddsdóttir
December 2013

Question

What are the different approaches and methodologies being applied by donors, NGOs, the UN and others in measuring resilience within programming? In defining resilience the review should refer to DFID’s strategy “Defining Disaster Resilience”.

Summary

Several agencies have developed guidance for measuring disaster resilience. One of the most comprehensive and widely-cited frameworks is Twigg’s (2009) ‘characteristics of resilience’ framework. Based on five dimensions of resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management and vulnerability reduction, disaster preparedness and response), it provides an extensive inventory of 28 components and 167 characteristics or indicators. DFID’s Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment Framework and Oxfam GB’s Multidimensional Approach for Measuring Resilience are two other frameworks with detailed recommendations for indicators.

On the other hand, many agencies do not recommend standard sets of indicators, but instead emphasise the need to develop locally-relevant indicators through participatory methods involving local communities. These agencies provide strategies and tools for developing context-specific indicators and approaches to measuring resilience.

There is a tension between the need for indicators to be both comparable and tailored to particular social groups and contexts. Moreover, it has been warned that quantification can de-contextualise resilience, particularly where it fails to account for factors operating at multiple levels (household, national, international).

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Trends in Conflict and Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Literature Review
2020
Donor Support for Climate Change Initiatives in the Middle East and North Africa
Helpdesk Report
2020
Risk of Capital Flight Due to a Better Understanding of Climate Change
Helpdesk Report
2020
Coping mechanisms in South Sudan in relation to different types of shock
Helpdesk Report
2020
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