• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
  • Social Development
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
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

Role of Faith and Belief in Environmental Engagement and Action in MENA Region
Helpdesk Report
2021
Areas and Population Groups in Pakistan Most Exposed to Combined Effects of Climate Change, Food Insecurity and COVID-19
Helpdesk Report
2021
Trends in Conflict and Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Literature Review
2021
Donor Support for Climate Change Initiatives in the Middle East and North Africa
Helpdesk Report
2020
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022