The impact of a disaster depends not only on the magnitude of the hazard but also on a range of socio-economic and environmental variables (Bahadur et al., 2010; Castleden et al., 2011; Manyena, 2006). This section summarises evidence on the drivers of and constraints on resilience to natural hazards. These factors are related, and often similar, to the factors that shape people’s resilience in contexts of violent conflict or state fragility (DFID, 2011a, p. 10; GFDRR, 2010, p. 13; Harris et al., 2013, pp. vii-ix).
A number of theoretical and empirical studies identify drivers of disaster resilience, which a few meta-reviews summarise (Bahadur et al., 2010; Castleden et al., 2011; Manyena, 2006). At a general level, these include:
- Processes: communication and information; learning, education and knowledge; risk awareness; adaptation, including acceptance of uncertainty and change; adequate planning and preparation.
- Community, such as community involvement, organisation and cohesion (e.g. trust).
- Underlying social, economic and political conditions, including high equity, good governance, political stability, economic strength and diversification, the population’s physical and mental health.
- Ecological systems and human systems (e.g. emergency health systems). Characteristic drivers of resilience in systems include high diversity, redundancy, connections between short-term and long-term capacities to handle disasters, links between capacities at different geographic levels, and the ability of systems to continue working while evolving (as opposed to merely being stable).
At the community level, factors determining resilience include: levels of economic development and social capital, ‘community competence’ (e.g. collective problem-solving and creativity), and the quality of communication and information in the community (Norris et al., 2008). Such variables determine the adaptive capacities of a community or system, meaning how well it is likely to function and adapt in the face of a severe disturbance or shock (Norris et al., 2008).
Adaptive capacities include preventative strategies, which involve making choices to avoid an event and impact-minimizing strategies, which seek to facilitate recovery (Wisner et al., cited in Jabeen et al., 2010, p. 417). Research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor is likely to account for the degree of disaster resilience in any given context. For example, the role of indigenous knowledge should be understood relative to other socio-economic variables that support or undermine adaptation.
Indigenous knowledge, coping strategies and resilience to floods in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe
This qualitative study in Zimbabwe found that indigenous knowledge systems played a significant role in reducing the impact of floods in two districts. However, it concluded this influence has to be understood in the context of other socio-economic variables. Independently of the level of indigenous knowledge, communities with lower flooding and higher levels of education and formal employment were better able to cope with flood impacts than those who lacked these assets. Moreover, some of the indigenous coping strategies adopted – including crop protection, moving assets, elevating beds, building raised platforms, and reducing meals or store food – were considered primarily short-term and ultimately unsustainable.
Source: Mavhura et al., 2013
Several studies give detailed accounts of the everyday adaptive strategies used by communities at the grassroots level. For example, a survey in Korail, the largest informal settlement in Dhaka, describes the household and community coping strategies used by low-income households in response to the threat of floods (Jabeen et al., 2010). These included:
- Modifying the physical and built environment: Residents modified house structure, and used barriers or built on stilts. Collective efforts to construct and maintain drainage facilities were also noted to be an important factor in disaster resilience.
- Building up stores of food and saleable assets: Whilst storing food is a common strategy in rural areas, people in urban areas tend to accumulate physical possessions of value so that they can be sold if necessary.
- Diversifying income sources: People’s strategies included engaging in informal trade, using savings schemes, and having more than one income earner in the family.
- Developing social support networks: This includes calling on family and wider social networks for financial, emotional or physical support. Being able to move to stay with friends or relatives living in the city was important.
- Bahadur, A.V., et al. (2010). The Resilience Renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters. IDS.
See document online - Castleden, M., et al. (2011). Resilience thinking in health protection. Journal of Public Health, 33(3), 369–377.
See document online - DFID (2011a). Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. DFID.
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 - Jabeen, H., et al. (2010). Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots coping strategies for climate variability. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 415–431.
See document online - Manyena, S.B. (2006). The Concept of Resilience Revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450.
See document online - Mavhura, E., Manyena, S. B., Collins, A. E., & Manatsa, D. (2013). Indigenous Knowledge, Coping Strategies and Resilience to Floods in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 5, 38–48.
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
- From this section on, ‘resilience’ refers to ‘disaster resilience’.
- These reviews differ in scope and methodology. Authors do not always present elements as factors of resilience, but sometimes only as characteristics. All three may not mention each specific driver.
- Redundancy means that partial failure does not lead to the system collapsing (Bahadur et al., 2010, p. 3). Typically, having duplicates or distributed resources keeps critical systems functioning when one component fails.
