The lens of resilience can help to enhance responses to disaster risk as it calls for a holistic consideration of hazards, exposure, risk, vulnerability and capacity (DFID, 2011a; Manyena, 2006, p. 436). Disaster resilience programming aims to save lives whilst protecting infrastructure, livelihoods, social systems and the environment (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013). Building resilience to natural hazards can have wider-reaching positive effects in fragile states and violent conflicts (GFDRR, 2010; Harris et al., 2013).
Evidence from a range of countries supports the potential contribution of disaster resilience to:
- Saving lives: Statistical evidence suggests disaster prevention has helped limit loss of life to disasters in a number of developed and developing countries (GFDRR, 2010, p. 10). In Bangladesh, for example, the fact that far fewer people were killed by a cyclone in 2008 (3,000) than by a similar one in 1970 (almost 500,000) is attributed to better disaster prevention (Ashdown, 2011, p. 15).
- Protecting infrastructure and livelihoods: A review by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) found that the cost of property damage from all hazards between 1970 and 2008 totalled US$2,300 billion, but that effective disaster prevention had curtailed an upward trend (GFDRR, 2010, pp. 10-11).
- Protecting social systems: A review of humanitarian assistance provided by the Red Cross following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami found that community-based DRR had a positive impact on social resilience through altering attitudes and behaviours towards risk (IFRC, 2012b, p. 12).
- Protecting the environment: Increased disaster resilience has in some cases been associated with behaviours that preserve the natural environment. In Honduras, for example, resilience-building in an indigenous community from 1994 to 2002 led to slower forest destruction (McSweeney & Coomes, 2011), and at the borders between Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia, collaborative local approaches to resilience have helped preserve pasture and water resources (Standley, 2012).
- Supporting broader resilience in contexts of violent conflicts or fragile states: The drivers and constraints that shape resilience to natural hazards are largely similar to those that shape people’s resilience in contexts of violent conflict or fragile states (e.g. DFID, 2011a, p. 10; GFDRR, 2010, p. 13). For example, countries with well-performing institutions are better able to both prevent disasters and reduce the likelihood of disaster-related conflict (GFDRR, 2010, p. 8).
Disaster resilience as common ground
Another potential benefit of disaster resilience is that it offers a ‘rallying point’ for international collaboration (OECD, 2013b, p. 1). It draws together DRR, disaster response, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction (DFID, 2011a; Reaching Resilience, n.d.; Turnbull et al., 2013) and builds on 30-year efforts to link humanitarian and development aid (Irish Aid, n.d.)
Cost-effectiveness
It has also been argued that addressing vulnerability by building resilience is more cost-effective than emergency relief. There is some limited evidence of this from Kenya and Ethiopia, where one study modelled the relative costs of early and late humanitarian responses (e.g. food aid) versus interventions to develop community resilience to drought (e.g. livelihoods diversification, and better access to roads and water) (Cabot Venton et al., 2013). Whilst acknowledging that the true cost of resilience is difficult to ascertain robustly, it concluded that the cost of resilience is offset by its benefits. This is partly because sectoral interventions (e.g. in health, water and education) reduce the need for relief, prevent loss of livestock, and produce long-term development gains. However, the value for money of specific resilience-building activities (e.g. ‘expensive interventions such as education and roads’) depends on the context, hence the need for local participation and buy-in to ensure the right activities are chosen (DFID, 2012a, pp. 6-7).
Relative costs of resilience-building versus humanitarian response
Resilience-building costs more than early response, but its benefits can significantly outweigh the costs:
- In Kenya, every $1 spent on resilience means a $2.9 gain in benefits over 20 years, and $2 over 10 years (pp. 2-4).
- In Southern Ethiopia, every $1 spent on resilience means a $2.8 gain in benefits over 20 years, and $2 over 10 years (pp. 4-6).
- In both countries, a late humanitarian response costs billions more than resilience-building over 20 years (pp. 4, 6).
Source: DFID, 2012a
Critical perspectives on disaster resilience
Whilst disaster resilience has featured prominently in international policy discourse, it has also been subject to criticism. Some authors contend that disaster resilience does not add anything particularly new to the substance of humanitarian or development assistance (Levine et al., 2012, pp. 1-2; Manyena, 2006, pp. 434-436). Others oppose the re-labelling of long-standing approaches as resilience-building if this has no meaningful effect on how humanitarian or poverty reduction programmes are implemented (Manyena, 2006, p. 435; Maxwell et al., 2009, p. 31; Levine et al., 2012, p. 4).
There is also concern that, as a concept, disaster resilience has been depoliticised (Walker et al., 2011, pp. 144-145), placing too much responsibility on the individual and wider society rather than on state actors who have the political power to address the underlying causes of vulnerability to disasters (Andharia et al., 2010; Béné et al., 2012; Chandler, 2012, p. 217; Levine et al., 2012, pp. 1, 4; Manyena, 2006, p. 436; Norris et al., 2008, p. 146; Oxfam, 2013). Some experts suggest that shifting to bottom-up disaster resilience risks further burdening women and girls (Ganapati, 2013; OCHA, 2012). It has also been suggested that the discourse of disaster resilience could stigmatise individuals and communities with low levels of resilience (Norris et al., 2008, pp. 145-146).
- Andharia, J., et al. (2010). Towards disaster resilience index for vulnerable communities: a Mumbai study. Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
- Ashdown, P. (chair) (2011). Humanitarian Emergency Response Review. UK Government.
See document online - Béné, C., et al. (2012). Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes. IDS Working Paper 405. IDS.
See document online - Cabot Venton, C. et al. (2013). The Economics of Early Response and Resilience: Approach and Methodology. DFID.
See document online - Chandler, D. (2012). Resilience and Human Security: The Post-interventionist Paradigm. Security Dialogue, 43(3), 213-229.
See document online - DFID (2011a). Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. DFID.
See document online - DFID (2012a). Multi-Hazard Disaster Risk Assessment (v2). How-to Note. DFID.
See document online - Ganapati, N. E. (2013). Downsides of Social Capital for Women During Disaster Recovery: Toward a More Critical Approach. Politics and Society, 41(1), 72–96.
See document online - GFDRR. (2010). Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters. The Economics of Effective Prevention. United Nations, World Bank.
See document online - Harris, K., et al. (2013). When disasters and conflicts collide: improving links between disaster resilience and conflict prevention. ODI.
See document online - IFRC (2012b). Understanding community resilience and program factors that strengthen them. A Comprehensive Study of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies Tsunami Operation. IFRC.
See document online - Irish Aid (n.d.). Resilience. An Irish Presidency Perspective. Irish Aid.
- Levine, S., Pain, A., Bailey, S., & Fan, L. (2012). The relevance of ‘resilience’? ODI.
See document online - Manyena, S.B. (2006). The Concept of Resilience Revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450.
See document online - Maxwell, D., et al. (2009). Baseline Report: Africa Community Resilience Project. Tsaeda Amba Woreda, Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia. Research Program on Livelihoods Change over Time. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University.
See document online - McSweeney, K., & Coomes, O. (2011). Climate-related disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(13), 5203–5208.
See document online - Norris, F. H., et al. (2008). Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127–150.
See document online - OCHA (2012). OCHA Gender Toolkit 7. Gender and Resilience. OCHA.
See document online - OECD (2013b). What Does “Resilience” Mean for Donors? An OECD Factsheet. OECD.
See document online - Oxfam (2013). No accident. Resilience and the inequality of risk. Oxfam International.
See document online - Reaching Resilience (n.d.). Handbook resilience 2.0 for aid practitioners and policymakers in Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Poverty Reduction. Reaching Resilience. See document online
- Standley, S. (2012). Learning paper: Building resilience in a complex environment. Briefing Paper 04. Care UK.
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 - Walker, J., et al. (2011). Genealogies of Resilience from Systems Ecology to the Political Economy of Crisis Adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42 (2), 143–160.
See document online
- Resilience covers many different activities and available data is often weak, so proxy indicators have to be used.
- ‘Disaster resilience’ was labelled ‘buzzword of the year’ in 2012 (Devex Editor, 2012). It has also been described as a ‘mantra’ (IRIN, 2012), ‘catch-all’ (Bahadur et al., 2010), ‘mobilising banner’ (Levine et al., 2013, p. 4) and ‘new tyranny’ (Béné et al., 2012).