Several agencies have developed guidance for measuring disaster resilience. One widely-cited example is the ‘characteristics of resilience’ framework, which uses the five dimensions of resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action and suggests a range of indicators for measuring each of them (Twigg, 2009). The indicators are illustrated in the table below.
| Thematic area | Components/indicators of resilience |
|---|---|
| Governance |
|
| Risk assessment |
|
| Knowledge and education |
|
| Risk management and vulnerability reduction |
|
| Disaster preparedness and response |
|
|
Source: Twigg, 2009 |
Other agencies’ frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, has recently developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity, access to contingency resources, the integrity of the natural environment, and social and institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Selected frameworks for analysing disaster resilience
- Catholic Relief Services’ 2009 ‘Community Based Disaster Preparedness: A How-To Guide’.
- DFID’s 2012 ‘Multi-Hazard Disaster Risk Assessment’.
- The Emergency Capacity Building Project’s 2013 guidance on analysis for disaster resilience in the programme cycle (Turnbull et al. 2013, 33-36).
- Oxfam GB’s 2012 ‘Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessment (PCVA): A Practitioner’s Guide’.
- Tearfund’s 2011 ‘Roots 9: Reducing Risk of Disaster in our Communities’.
- Twigg’s 2009 ‘Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community. A Guidance Note’ (discussion of analysis pp. 22-23).
Action-oriented resilience assessment has also been applied in some instances. This approach seeks to understand the roles that different stakeholders can play in implementing the actions needed to enhance disaster resilience. For example, in urban Chennai, India, researchers interviewed 155 elected representatives (municipal councillors) to ascertain what the priority areas of action were, and who should be responsible for undertaking them (i.e. government or communities) (Joerin et al., 2012).
There is a tension between the need for indicators to be comparable, whilst at the same time tailored to particular social groups and contexts (Castleden et al., 2011, p. 375; Turnbull et al., 2013, p. 40; Twigg, 2009). Moreover, Levine et al. (2012) warn that quantification can de-contextualise resilience, particularly where it fails to account for factors operating at multiple levels (household, national, international).
- Castleden, M., et al. (2011). Resilience thinking in health protection. Journal of Public Health, 33(3), 369–377.
See document online - Hughes, K., Fuller, R., & Bushell, H. (2013). A Multidimensional Approach for Measuring Resilience. Oxfam UK Working Paper.
See document online - Joerin et al. (2012). Action-oriented resilience assessment of communities in Chennai, India. Environmental Hazards, 11(3).
See document online - Levine, S., Pain, A., Bailey, S., & Fan, L. (2012). The relevance of ‘resilience’? ODI.
See document online - Turnbull, M., et al. (2013). Toward Resilience: A Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Catholic Relief Services.
See document online - Twigg, J. (2009). Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community. A Guidance Note. NGO inter-agency group.
See document online
