World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Disaster Resilience Integrated Framework for Transformation (DRIFT): A

new approach to theorising and operationalising resilience
Bernard Manyena a,1, Fortunate Machingura b, Phil O’Keefe c,⇑
a
Geography and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
b
Sheffield Institute of International Development, S1 4DP, UK
c
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite the heightened interest in resilience over the past decade, theorising and operationalising resili-
Accepted 10 June 2019 ence across sustainable development, disaster risk reduction and climate change and adaptation realms
Available online 19 July 2019 remains a challenge. The frameworks that have been developed to theorise and operationalise resilience
tend to be vague, and, in some cases, theoretically weak. The major challenge, we believe, is the lack of
Keywords: clarity on the resilience capacities required to deal with the destabilising events. In this article, we pro-
Disaster Resilience Integrated Framework vide a chronology of resilience, on a decade basis, from 1970 to 2016 in order to establish the connections
for Transformation (DRIFT)
between resilience and capacity literatures, and how these literatures affect the operationalisation of
Risk drivers
Resilience capacities
resilience. Based on the resilience and capacity literature review, a new approach to resilience termed
Resilience indicators Disaster Resilience Integrated Framework for Transformation (DRIFT) is presented, which advances the
Resilience processes and outcomes notion of capacity, as one of the principal bridges between the resilience theory and practice. DRIFT out-
lines the linkages between context, risk drivers, capacities and processes that are required to deal with
the risk in order to achieve positive outcomes. We present the preventive, anticipative, absorptive, adap-
tive and transformative capacities as distinct elements, although in practice there are overlaps between
these capacities. Presenting the capacities as distinct elements allows us to unpack the elements and the
processes that may be critical in both theorising and operationalising resilience. Looking to the future,
DRIFT is a first step towards developing a global resilience index, to be applied at various scales, including
global, regional and local levels.
Crown Copyright Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction decade to operationalise resilience, but these frameworks tend to

While the epistemological questions on what is resilience? and
how do we know it exists? remain high on the agenda, in this article
we ask a critical question: how do we operationalize resilience in pol-
icy and practice? The epistemological assumptions that underlie, as
well as shape, and sometimes constrain, the conceptualisation,
purpose and content of resilience, are slowly giving way to
assumptions that more accurately reflect how resilience is opera-
tionalised in various contexts (Barrett & Constas, 2014; Constas,
Frankenberger, & Hoddinott, 2014; Cutter, 2016; DFID, 2011;
Djalante & Thomalla, 2011; Harris, 2011; Howard, 2017;
Wardekker, de Jong, Knoop, & van der Sluijs, 2010). In acknowledg-
ing this shift several frameworks have been proposed over the past
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bernard.manyena@northumbria.ac.uk (B. Manyena),
fmachingura@rti.org.uk, FS4FM@sheffield.ac.uk (F. Machingura), phil.okeefe@
northumbria.ac.uk (P. O’Keefe).
1
Author deceased.
be vague, piecemeal, and, in some cases, (Tanner, Bahadur, &
Moench, 2017; White & O’Hare, 2014) theoretically weak.
This paper sets out the practice of resilience building; it does so
by providing a chronology of resilience, on a decade basis, from
1970 to present. It makes connections between resilience practice
and building community capacity to destabilising events. The
question, is not whether a focus on capacity is useful and valuable
but why the capacity literature (Kretzmann & McNight, 1993;
Goodman, Spears & McLeory, 1998; Chaskin, Brown, Vankatesh,
& Vida, 2001; Lovell, Kearns, & Rosenberg, 2011) has played such
a limited role in the resilience theory and practice. Based on the
resilience review, a new approach to resilience termed Disaster
Resilience Integrated Framework for Transformation (DRIFT) is
presented, which advances the notion of capacity, as one of the
principal bridges between resilience theory and practice.
Methodologically, we are inspired by Edward Albee (1960:15)
assertion that ‘‘sometimes it’s necessary to go a long distance out
of the way in order to come back a short distance correctly”. Along
the lines of Albee’s reasoning, we draw on Alfred Schutz (1945

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.011
0305-750X/Crown Copyright Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

[1962]: 208) analysis of Edmund (Husserl’s 1991) ‘lifeworld’, par- bers in dealing with the problems they face (Magis, 2010). The
ticularly his assertion that ‘knowledge at hand function is a scheme major difference is that while community capacity can be devel-
of reference, based upon a stock of previous experience of it, our oped for virtually anything, resilience specifically exists within
own experiences and those handed down to us by our parents and because of change (Magis, 2010). Gaillard (2010) notes that
and teachers’. Thus, this article partly draws from the extensive resilience recognises, accepts, builds capacity for, and engages
‘lifeworld’ experiences of authors, mainly through engagement change, encapsulating expressions such as ‘capacity to resist’, ‘to
with the resilience and vulnerability debates for over 60 years. To face’, ‘to recover’, etc, which emerged from practitioners in the late
recognise that the new structures of the lifeworld resulting from 1980s. The use of these expressions, according to Gaillard (2010),
the resilience debates are part of former and current stocks of could have been a reflection of the increased recognition of peo-
knowledge, we supplemented our experience by the literature ple’s ability to face climate-related and other natural hazards that
searches for the resilience definitions and frameworks across aca- were not captured in the mainly negative concept of vulnerability.
demic and grey policy literature using the Web of Knowledge, Goo- However, due to the clear-cut focus on community development,
gle scholar, Google and websites for governments and United the concept of capacity has, to a large extent, remained widely
Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations. unnoticed by disaster resilience scientists.
If resilience is about capacity, what is this capacity for? In the
main, the capacity enables the affected community to deal with
2. Is resilience about capacity?
the risk (Dubois, 2000; Norris et al., 2008). Generally understood
as the ‘‘potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets
If we agree with the FSIN1 (2017)1 view that resilience frame-
which could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific
works and measurements should be built upon a definition of resili-
period of time, risk tends to be determined probabilistically as a
ence, then an analysis of resilience definitions is an appropriate
function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity (UNISDR,
starting point. With at least 83 definitions (Appendix A1), resilience
2016:14). However, this does not mean risk is an objective hazard,
is a fuzzy concept that possesses two or more alternative meanings
threat or danger that can be measured independently of social and
and thus cannot be reliably identified or applied by different people
cultural processes. In fact, risk is a product of historical, social and
(Cutter, 2016; Goode, Salmon, Spencer, McArdle, & Archer, 2017;
political discursive constructions and contingent ways of seeing
Sharifi, 2016; Markusen, 1999). Such a diversity of meanings poses
(Beck, 1986; Kasperson et al., 1988; Tierney, 1999; Hardy &
epistemological and methodological challenges and making it diffi-
Maguire, 2016). Despite these conceptual challenges, if risk is a
cult to operationalise.
function of capacity, among other key variables, resilience building
Despite the conceptual confusion, we believe resilience is about
should begin by understanding risk and risk drivers (DFID, 2011).
‘ability’ or ‘capacity’ given that 67 (81%) of the 83 definitions asso-
UNISDR (2016) outlines four types of risks: acceptable risk,
ciate resilience with the ‘ability’ or ‘capacity’ of a community
residual risk, extensive risk and intensive risk. Acceptable risk, or
exposed to a destabilising event ‘to do something’ positive before,
tolerable risk, is the extent to which a disaster risk is deemed
during and after the destabilising event in order to reduce its
acceptable or tolerable depending on the existing social, economic,
impact. If we go by the definitions of resilience, then ‘ability’ or ‘ca-
political, cultural, technical and environmental conditions or
pacity’, used here interchangeably, are central to dealing with
capacities to deal with the risk. Residual risk is the risk that
destabilizing events as it reflects an individual and collective action
remains even when effective DRM measures have been instituted,
in addressing disaster problems. Surprisingly, apart from Norris,
and for which emergency response and recovery capacities must
Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, and Pfefferbaum (2008), Magis
be maintained. Extensive risk is the risk of low-severity, high-
(2010) and Cutter, Ash, and Emrich (2014) work that tangentially
frequency hazardous events and disasters, mainly but not exclu-
refers to capacity, there is a limited connection between the resili-
sively associated with highly localized hazards such as floods,
ence literature and the capacity literature.
landslides, storms or drought and often exacerbated by poverty,
Capacity is a contested construct (Kretzmann & McNight, 1993;
urbanization and environmental degradation. Intensive disaster
Goodman et al., 1998; Chaskin et al., 2001). A general consensus,
risk is the risk of high-severity, mid- to low-frequency disasters,
however, has emerged on its meaning. Capacity is the community’s
mainly associated large cities or densely populated areas that are
ability to engage in collective action, and to solve collective prob-
not only exposed to intense hazards such as strong earthquakes,
lems and improve or maintain community well-being through
active volcanoes, heavy floods, tsunamis or major storms but also
the use of, and leveraging community assets and resources includ-
have high levels of vulnerability to these hazards. Dealing with
ing human capital, local associations, institution, attributes, skills,
these types of risk require different types of capacities.
leadership, and social capital and inter-organisational networks
Disaster risk drivers are often manifest in exposures to hazards
of communities. including human capital, organizational resources,
and vulnerabilities and their interaction to produce disasters. But,
and social capital (Magis, 2010; Kretzmann & McNight, 1993;
as the nature of risk is ever-changing, regular risk reviews are
Goodman et al., 1998; Chaskin et al., 2001). For disaster risk man-
required. This includes reviews of the hazard’s characteristics in
agement (DRM), capacity refers to the endogenous resources and
terms of their location, intensity, frequency and probability and
assets people possess or access, which rely on traditional knowl-
vulnerabilities including the physical, social, health, environmental
edge, indigenous skills and technologies and solidarity networks
and economic dimensions; and the capacities to deal with the risk.
to enable them resist, cope with and recover from disaster shocks
An assessment of risk drivers can inform disaster risk management
(Gaillard, 2010).
(DRM) measures that can be adopted to protect exposed people,
Magis (2010) identifies two commonalities between resilience
property, services, livelihoods and the environment to potential
and capacity. Both concepts emphasising on (a) developing and
harm (UNISDR, 2009). While the language of risk is expressed in
utilising community resources for community’s well-being; and
the form of rational calculations, the language of resilience is in
(b) collective action, utilising active agency of community mem-
many ways not amenable to calculations and rational judgements,
and ‘‘is nonetheless saturated with a certain kind of optimism: if
1
FSIN stands for Food Security Information Network. FSIN set-up a Food and we are resilient, whatever is thrown at us, we can survive and
Nutrition Security Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group in 2013, whose
objectives were to secure consensus on a common analytical framework and
thrive” (Rose & Lentzos, 2017, p.10).
guidelines for food and nutrition security resilience measurement, and to promote UNISDR (2016) identifies at least five DRM options aimed at
adoption of agreed principles and best practices. strengthening resilience and reduction of disaster losses by
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
applying disaster policies and strategies to prevent new risks,
reduce existing risks and manage residual risk. These are prospec-
tive, corrective, compensatory, community-based and local and
indigenous peoples’ approaches to disaster risk management.
Prospective DRM activities address and seek to avoid the develop-
ment of new or increased disaster risks through, for example, bet-
ter land-use planning or disaster-resistant water supply systems.
In contrast, the corrective DRM activities address and seek to
remove or reduce disaster risks which are already present and
which need to be managed and reduced such as retrofitting of crit-
ical infrastructure in Nepal or the relocation of exposed popula-
tions or assets in Mozambique. The compensatory DRM activities
focus on strengthening the social and economic resilience of indi-
viduals and societies in the face of residual risk through prepared-
ness, response and recovery activities, but also a mix of different
financing instruments, such as national contingency funds, contin-
gent credit, insurance and reinsurance and social safety nets.
Community-based DRM promotes the involvement of potentially
affected local communities in community risk assessments, plan-
ning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of local actions.
Involving local communities in DRM has the potential of incorpo-
rating traditional, indigenous and local knowledge and practices
that complement the scientific knowledge.
Finally, it is our contention that some of the issues that have
been clouding the resilience construct have been resolved
(Matyas & Pelling, 2015). This includes the understanding that:
(a) vulnerability and resilience are not simply opposites, they have
overlaps between them – but we believe resilience cannot be
understood without reference to vulnerability, making vulnerabil-
ity the ontology of resilience – thus for one to become resilient one
should accept that they are fundamentally vulnerable (Manyena &
Gordon, 2015); (b) resilience is more process-oriented than
outcome-oriented construct; and (c) resilience is more than just
bouncing back to the same position as disasters are accompanied
by change (Matyas & Pelling, 2015). On some of the unresolved
issues Matyas and Pelling (2015) question whether resilience
Table 1
Common terms contained in resilience definitions 1970–2016.
Period Keywords
1970–1979 absorb, deflect elasticity, maintain, persist, store energy
1980–1989 cope, learn, return to equilibrium; bounce-back,
1990–1999 adapt, anticipate, bounce-back, cope, design, learn, function,
minimise, organise, overcome, prevent, respond, recover, resist,
restore, withstand
2000–2009 acceptance, accommodate, adapt, adjust, allocate resources,
anticipate, bounce-back, bounce-forward, change, circumvent,
contain, cope, create opportunity for doing new things
(innovation), degrade, feedback, flexibility, function, grow,
improve, improvise, learn, ‘make do’, manage, mitigate, ‘move
on’, plan for the future, prepare, preserve, rebound, rebuild,
recognise, recover, re-organise, resist, resourcefulness, respond,
restore, retain, return to equilibrium, self-control, self-organise,
self-righting, stable, survive, sustain, tolerate, transition,
withstand
2010–2016 absorb, access assets, adapt, anticipate, avoid, benefit from
shocks, change, collaborate, collective action, consensus
building, cope, create, function, improve, increased competent,
learn, maintain, manage, mitigate, network, prepare, preserve,
problem solving, rebound, reduce, recover, re-organise, resist,
respond, restore, return to equilibrium, robust, search, seize
opportunity, thrive, transform, withstand
Source: (Authors).
3
should go beyond the normative notion to include politics, power,
and culture. If resilience does not address politics, when disasters
are by their nature socio-political events (Pelling & Dill, 2006,
2010), then, we argue, resilience is likely to be less different from
the hazard and vulnerability paradigms.
3. If resilience is about capacity, what are these capacities?
From our analysis of 83 resilience definitions from 1970s to
2016, we identify 62 terms which suggest the types of capacities
that enable communities deal with destabilising events (Tables
1). For our purpose, resilience capacities have evolved in four
phases.
3.1. Phase 1: 1970s: resilience as persistence and absorption
During the 1970s the dominant terms included persist, absorb,
maintain (Holling, 1973), deflect elasticity, store energy (Gordon,
1978), highlighting the influence of ecology (Holling, 1973), phy-
sics (Gordon, 1978) and engineering (Pimm, 1984) disciplines at
the time. This notion of resilience is picked up two decades later
by Bruneau et al. (2003) who identify robustness, redundancy,
resourcefulness and rapidity as key property resources for buffer-
ing or counteracting stress. Here, absorbing change, that is, by
moderating or buffering the impacts of shocks and stresses on
the lives and livelihoods of at risk communities is a key measure
of resilience (Béné, Wood, Newsham, & Davies, 2012). In practice,
absorbing change is an endogenous feature of the system involving
recuperative power, perseverance and stability, relief and recovery
mechanisms to avoid permanent damage and to preserve and
restore essential basic structures and functions (Vugrin, Warren,
& Ehlen, 2011). The questions that arise may centre on the capacity
to activate emergency preparedness and response plans such as
evacuation routes, delivery of supplies from stockpiles, surge
capacity including use of community volunteers, search and rescue
teams and temporary mortuaries.
Sources
Holling (1973), Gordon (1978)
Pimm (1984), Wildavsky (1989)
Dovers and Handmer (1992), Egeland, Carlson, and Sroufe (1993), Tilman and
Downing (1994), Holling (1996), Grotberg (1996), Horne and Orr (1998), Mallak
(1998), Comfort (1999), Miletti (1999); Geis (2000); Chen, Ferng, Wang, Wu, and
Wang (2008), Tobin (1999)
Adger (2000); Gunderson (2000); Paton, Smith, and Violanti (2000); Carpenter
et al. (2001); Gunderson, Holling, Pritchard, and Peterson (2001); Gunderson
and Holling (2002); Coutu (2002); Walker et al. (2002); Bruneau et al. (2003);
Cardona (2003); Hamel and Valikangas (2003); Kendra and Wachtendorf
(2003); Pelling (2003); Rockström (2003); Bodin and Wiman (2004); Rose (2004,
2007); Tugade, Fredrickson, and Feldman Barrett (2004); Walker et al. (2004);
Katz (2004), Cumming et al. (2005); Allenby and Fink (2005); Resilience Alliance
(2005); Hollnagel (2006); Aguirre (2006); Luthans, Vogelgesang, and Lester
(2006); Manyena (2006); McDonald (2006); Folke (2006); Hale and Heijer
(2006); Fujita (2006); Grote (2006); Kinzig, Ryan, Etienne, Allison, and Elmqvist
(2006); Perrings (2006); Fiksel (2006); Woods and Cook (2006); Maguire and
Hagan (2007); Mayunga (2007); McCarthy (2007); Norris et al. (2008); Hill, Wial
& Wolman (2008); Cutter et al. (2008); Risk Steering (2008); UNISDR (2005);
Woods (2009); Manyena (2009); Haimes (2009)
Magis (2010); Obrist, Pfeiffer, and Henley (2010); Cabinet Office (2011); DFID
(2011); Pasteur (2011); Barrett and Constas (2014); Béné et al. (2012); IPCC
(2012); Mancini (2012); IFRC (2014); USAID (2012); Cohen, Leykin, Lahad,
Goldberg, and Aharonson-Daniel (2013); Food Security Information Network
(2014); Sudmeier-Rieux (2014); Walker, Sayer, Andrew, and Campbell (2010);
Woods (2015), Kuir-Ayius (2016)
4 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
3.2. Phase 2: 1980s: resilience as bounce back and return to
equilibrium
The terms coping, learning, return to equilibrium and bounce-
back (Wildavsky, 1989) emerge, emphasising the engineering
notion of resilience where a system emerges unchanged from
exposure to shocks and stresses. These studies provide excellent
snapshots how we can learn from objects that are capable of
regaining their original shape after compression, bending, stretch-
ing or other types of deformation. However, the intense focus on
equilibrium is associated with the (discredited) hazard paradigm,
where hazards are seen as disasters per se, leading to the reactive
response mode. A hazard focus deflects attention from social pro-
cesses that cause disaster, with the potential of preserving the sta-
tus quo, entrenching exclusion, and diverting attention from
inequality, oppression and entitlement losses that result in prone-
ness to insecurity and disasters (Manyena, 2006).
3.3. Phase 3: 1990s: resilience as prevention, anticipation and
adaptation
While during the 1990s, some of the terms associated engineer-
ing perspective appear such as overcome (Grotberg, 1996), recover,
resist, withstand (Miletti, 1999), and restore (Tobin, 1999), a new
crop of terms emerge such as adapt (Comfort, 1999; Miletti,
1999), anticipate, learn (Dovers & Handmer, 1992), prevent
(Grotberg, 1996), and organise (Tobin, 1999) emerge. As these
terms emerge from multiple disciplines such as complex systems
and seismic hazards (Comfort, 1999), natural hazards and disaster
risk management (Dovers & Handmer, 1992; Miletti, 1999; Tobin,
1999) and psychology (Grotberg, 1996), this reinforces the notion
that resilience is a ‘boundary object’ (Brand & Jax, 2007: online)
that is both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough
to maintain identity across them (Star & Griesemer, 1989), thus
disrupting the then standing notions of resilience based on hard
sciences (United Nations, 2016).
Prevention is implicated in the resilience construct during this
phase. In DRM, prevention narrowly refers to ‘‘activities and mea-
sures to avoid existing and new disaster risks” (UNISDR, 2016,
online). But, the outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards
cannot be eliminated completely. This is not often feasible. The
aim of prevention is to reduce vulnerability and exposure by remov-
ing the disaster risk, where possible. Prohibiting settlements in high
risk zones through landuse regulations, constructing dams or
embankments that eliminate flood risks, and immunization against
vaccine-preventable diseases are examples where disasters can be
prevented (UNISDR, 2016). Prevention measures are not only aimed
at pre-disaster activities; they can be taken at any phase of the dis-
aster, for example, after a disaster event to prevent secondary disas-
ters, such as preventing the contamination of water (UNISDR, 2016).
The terms ‘prevention’ and ‘mitigation’ are sometimes used inter-
changeably. Mitigation measures can lessen or minimise the scale or
severity of disaster impacts (Christoplos, Mitchell, Liljelund, & Cross,
2001; Twigg, 2004; Nuttall, 2010). In climate change policy, ‘‘mitiga-
tion” is defined differently. It used for the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions that are the source of climate change (UNISDR,
2016). Mitigation efforts can be both physical or structural, e.g. flood
defences in the UK or retrofitting building to withstand seismic
waves in Nepal. They can also be non-structural measures such as
training in DRM, regulating land-use and inclusion of disaster educa-
tion in school curriculum. Clearly, prevention and mitigation is about
development, as well as DRM. Disaster prevention and mitigation
should address ongoing socio-economic processes, which marginal-
ize people and increase their vulnerability to disasters. This is
because disasters have long been viewed as manifestations of unre-
solved development problems (Cuny, 1983; Christoplos et al., 2001;
Pelling, 2003; Pelling, 2007; Collins, 2009; Manyena, 2012). The aim
of development here should be preventing the creation of risk, as
well as reducing existing risk and the strengthening of economic,
social, health and environmental resilience.
The ability to anticipate destabilising event is another key term
which appears during this period. Surprisingly, the resilience liter-
ature does not draw extensively upon the anticipation theory
(Boyd, Nykvist, Borgström, & Stacewicz, 2015), an indicator of the
bias of disaster studies towards the reactive than the proactive
mode implied in the anticipation theory. The ‘‘anticipatory turn”
(Cevolini, 2016, p. 2) has increased the demand in elucidating com-
plexity and decipher ‘wicked’ problems, and in so doing, engage
with new mechanisms to harness the future (Boyd et al., 2015).
Anticipation, or ways and means of adjusting present behaviour
in order to address future problems (Rosen, 1985; Poli, 2010,
Hodgson, 2013), is a widely used concept implicating several disci-
plines, such as philosophy, biology, psychology, engineering and
many social sciences (Poli, 2010). Being ambiguous in meaning,
absence of theory and lack of empirical evidence, anticipatory
approaches risk adopting deterministic approaches and lack of
attention to agency, a criticism encountered in resilience literature
(Davidson, 2010; Kelly & Kelly, 2017; Matarrita-Cascante, Trejos,
Qin, Joo, & Debner, 2017).
An anticipatory system is not a reactive system which can only
react in the present to changes that have already occurred in the
causal chain. Rather, an anticipatory system should also be proac-
tive, feeding-forward from the present state of change to an antici-
pated future state, suggesting the system should have the capacity
to model the world in such a way as to estimate future develop-
ments (Fuerth, 2009;Hodgson, 2013; Louie, 2010). In practice, antic-
ipation is about ‘‘horizon scanning to identify potential dangers,
registering those in a formal typology and recognition of the chang-
ing nature of risks that need to be continually identified and re-
assessed” (Rogers, 2011, p. 55). With policy shift toward under-
standing climate adaptation and uncertainty, forecasting and pre-
dicting change becomes an imperative to developing strategies
under uncertain environmental futures, supported by anticipatory
governance, which involves changing short-term decision making
to a longer-term policy vision. Boyd et al. (2015) brings to our atten-
tion the complexity of anticipatory governance, requiring the ‘‘co-
production’’ of knowledge by experts and non-experts, openness
and participation of citizens at every stage of policy, programme
and project design, coordination and simplification of to enable
credible predictions and shared future visions and scenarios.
Resilience as the capacity to ‘adapt’ also enters the resilience
thinking during this period, and to later become one of its central
concepts, as evidenced by its highest frequency in resilience defini-
tions (Table 2). Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to
respond proactively and positively to stressors or opportunities by
self-organising and changing endogenously during the response
and recovery period (Vugrin et al., 2011; IPCC 2012; Whitney
et al., 2017). More specifically to resilience, Bene et al. (2014, p.
601) adaptive resilience are ‘‘various adjustments (incremental
changes) that people undergo in order to continue functioning
without major qualitative changes in function or structural iden-
tity.” DFID (2011) broadens adaptive capacity to include diversifi-
cation and alternative livelihood strategies, coping, adjustments,
modifications and changes that can be made on benefiting commu-
nities, institutions and organizations to moderate potential future
damage (e.g. migration to urban areas for better medication, edu-
cation, remittances, informal economy, etc.). These definitions
reveal that adaptation can occur before, during and after a destabil-
ising event, incorporating elements of the absorptive and transfor-
mative capacities.
Although there are inherent overlaps between capacities, the
literature does not clearly delineate adaptive capacity from
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587 5

Table 2
Frequency of common terms in resilience definitions.

Capacity to Frequency Capacity to: Frequency Capacity to: Frequency

adapt 32 accommodate 2 be flexible 1
recover 23 bounce back 2 improvise 1
absorb 16 create 2 be competent 1
anticipate 9 grow(th) 2 ‘make do’ 1
learn 7 improve 2 minimise 1
cope 6 mitigate 2 move on 1
maintain 6 prepare 2 network 1
respond 6 rebound 2 overcome 1
withstand 6 be resourceful 2 plan for future 1
resist 5 survive prevent 1
(re) (self-) organise 4 accept 1 rebuild 1
change 3 access assets 1 reduce 1
function 3 allocate (resources) 1 robust 1
manage 3 avoid 1 search 1
preserve 3 benefit (from shocks) 1 self-control 1
recognise 3 bounce forward 1 self-righting 1
restore 3 circumvent 1 be stable 1
retain 3 collaborate 1 store energy 1
return to equilibrium 3 deflect elasticity 1 transition 1
tolerate 3 design 1
transform 3 feedback 1

preventive, anticipative, absorptive and transformative capacities.
The literature views adaptive capacity as an overarching concept
(Hinkel, 2011; Warrick, Aalbersberg, Dumaru, McNaught, &
Teperman, 2017) that is similar, or closely related, to adaptability,
coping ability, absorptive capacity, management capacity, stability,
robustness, flexibility and resilience (Smit & Wandel, 2006). And,
depending on the degree of spontaneity, it can be autonomous or
planned. Of course, the wider the range of the elements of adaptive
capacity, the greater the degree of freedom from which to choose
the elements that respond to the disciplinary and contextual
needs.
Cutter et al. (2008) attempt to clear the confusion between
adaptive and absorptive capacities. They assert that when the
absorptive capacity is exceeded, the individual will then exercise
their adaptive resilience, suggesting absorptive capacity precedes
the adaptive capacity in a linear fashion. While this may hold true,
it is also possible for at risk-communities to prevent as well as
anticipate the destabilising events before the absorptive mecha-
nisms are activated. Bene et al. (2012) postulate that adaptation
is not only a continuous, incremental process that poses difficulties
in measuring it. People or societies may not even be aware of how
they adapt to changing circumstances, be they specific or multiple
stressors. Some adjustments may be short-term yet result in posi-
tive outcomes. Others may produce negative ‘resiliencies’, for
example corruption, which poses difficulties to disadvantaged
communities who cannot afford to pay their way through the cor-
rupt system to access services (Manyena, 2014).
The degree to which the system is capable to organise, re-
organise or self-organise (Klein, Nicholls, & Thomalla, 2003) is
another feature of resilience. (Re)organising incorporate elements
of planning, enabling people to respond to, absorb disturbances
(Cinner, Fuentes, & Randriamahazo, 2009), and engage in preven-
tive, anticipative and transformative actions. Westley (2002) views
re-organisation as one of the four discrete responses of a system to
an external shock, which occurs after growth, conservation and
collapse phases of the adaptive cycle. To capture change, Westley
(2002) refers to the ‘collapse’ and ‘reorganisation’ responses as
constituting a ‘back-loop’ in which the system faces a shock or
stress factor of such severity that it collapses or is forced to re-
organise. Our understanding of the way systems reorganise, can
be enhanced if we employ Gunderson and Holling’s (2001) panar-
chy framework, a hierarchical structure of natural systems and
human systems that are linked in non-stop adaptive cycles of
growth, accumulation, restructuring and renewal which occur as
nested sets across-scales. As systems are linked, systems (re)organ-
isation at one particular scale will affect the systems (re)organisa-
tion at another scale.
The extent to which a community is organised might depend on
social capital, comprising such things as networks, norms and
trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit
(Putnam, 1993). Serving as informal insurance and mutual assis-
tance for disaster survivors (Aldrich, 2012), social capital takes
the forms of ‘bonding’ (where social networks benefit are dis-
tributed within communities) and ‘bridging’ (where social net-
works contribute to cross-cultural and intergroup linkages) has
been extensively discussed in the literature (Aldrich, 2012;
Ferlander, 2007; Paxton, 2002; Putnam, 1993). Bonding capital
can take many forms such as high level of participation of local
communities in community meetings, membership in self-help
community groups and community-based organisations. There is
need, however, to recognise that localised social networks can be
closed to outsiders, thereby contributing to more dangerous forms
of exclusionary and competitive politics at the macro level (Coffé &
Geys, 2007).
Social capital can be enhanced by social learning, an individual
learning that takes place in a social context that is influenced by
social norms, learning from each other (Bandura, 1971), with a
potential of influencing social change and resilience outcomes.
For positive resilience outcomes, this means social learning should
go beyond its conflation with social participation epistemologies,
the social contexts in which it occurs (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Reed et al., 2010; Wenger, 1998), and the forms of social interac-
tion between people in their environment in the construction of
meaning and identity (Muro & Jeffrey, 2008). Rather, social learn-
ing should strengthen individuals and groups capacities to survive
destabilising events by modifying existing or acquired knowledge,
behaviours, skills, values or preferences prior to or post-disaster
event (Biggs et al., 2012).
Strengthening community capacity through social learning is not
straight-forward; it can be through intentional, facilitated or emer-
gent (Biggs et al., 2012) processes or outcomes (Biggs et al., 2012)
that link social interactions, experiences, reflection, and experimen-
tation (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). Drawing on Argyris and Schon
(1978, 1996), social learning can range from: learning about the con-
sequences of specific actions (single-loop learning); learning about
the assumptions underlying our actions (double-loop learning);
6 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
and learning that challenges the values and norms that underpin our
assumptions and actions (triple-loop learning) (Keen & Mahanty,
2006). In this way the resilience actions that do not necessarily
change the status quo such as the prevention, anticipation, absorp-
tion and adaptation can thus be understood in terms of single- and
double-loop learning, while transformation requires triple-loop
learning (Keen & Mahanty, 2006).
Improvisation is another aspect which may directly alter the
inherent resilience of the community for the next event. As the
engine of resilience, improvisation is about ‘‘thinking in action”,
that is characterised by nearness in time between planned and
execution of an action (Grøtan, Størseth, Rø, & Skjerve, 2008)
Improvisation, which is also closely related to resourcefulness,
implies looking beyond the obvious and experience, and deviating
from existing practice and knowledge. Taking into account that
improvisation can create, solve, or worsen the problem, it requires
expertise, teamwork, inclusion, high level of real-time information,
which need to be supported by science and indigenous knowledge
systems (Grøtan et al., 2008). In practice, effective improvisation
requires training to take on the responsibility for tasks or roles out-
side one’s professional area of specialization, developing formal
routines for changes in roles, tasks, tools, routines and information
sharing (Rankin, Dahlbäck, & Lundberg, 2013).
3.4. Phase 4: 2000s: resilience as transition, flexibility, bounce-forward
and transformability
Phase 2000–2009 gravitate towards agency. Terms that emerge
include transition (Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, 2001), flex-
ibility (Grote, 2006), and create opportunities for doing new things
(Folke, 2006) change (Cutter et al., 2008; Manyena, 2006; Walker
Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004), bounce-forward (Manyena,
2009). Transition focuses on multilevel changes in complex (sub)
systems (Jerneck & Olsson, 2008), thereby offering a powerful
framework for theorising resilience. Rooted in social theory and
technology systems studies, transition is associated with transfor-
mation processes in which societies, or subsystems change pro-
foundly in terms of structures, institutions and relations between
actors (Rotmans, Kemp, & Van Asselt, 2001). The Green Revolution
illustrates the transition theory; it involve both a technological
change e.g. new crop varieties and agrochemicals, and change in
national and international politics, markets and institutions
(Djurfeldt & Jirström, 2005). From the transition vantage point, dis-
aster risks should be understood as part of a complex system with
multiple chains of causality, characterized by institutional as well
as technological lock-ins (Foxton, 2007). Jerneck and Olsson
(2008) underscore the importance of understanding risk drivers
and their impacts on livelihoods to enable transitions to resilience
through a set of substantial multilevel political changes (local,
regional, national) in several domains (science, economy, law).
However, transition should go beyond linear, or cause-effect rela-
tionship, to include flexibility in order to shift from rigidity to com-
plex science, encapsulating uncertainty and an interplay between
gradual and rapid change (Rose, 2007; Cutter et al., 2008).
During 2000–2010 period, Manyena, O’Brien, O’Keefe, and Rose
(2011) oppose the bounce-back ability. They advance the thesis
that resilience is the bounce-forward. They argue that the state
ex-post disaster event is characterised by change, including col-
lapse, decay, chaos, loss of structure, uncertainty, loss of connect-
edness (Manyena et al., 2011), creating new opportunity and
possibilities to transform the socio-economic conditions and the
status quo. In Nepal, following the 2015 earthquake, the initial
response by affected communities was to protect themselves and
then help others. The reality of their surroundings was different
before the earthquake. There was a new reality. Some lost friends,
family and livelihoods. During the recovery period survivors began
forming new social relationships and tried to re-build their, or start
a new, livelihood. Some stayed in the affected areas. Others moved
on to start a new life in other locations. In all cases, the survivors
moved on or bounced forward following the disaster.
3.5. Phase 5: 2010s: resilience as a neoliberal construct
The inclusion of ‘change’ signifies the transformative capacity,
which is also clearly articulated in policy documents for donors,
for example DFID (2011). In some cases, persistence and adapta-
tion is neither possible nor desirable to persist or adapt, and may
be inappropriate in situations where the destabilization goes
beyond the critical threshold, that is, beyond the level at which a
system can self-organize along a different trajectory towards a
new dispensation (Folke et al., 2010). Some systems, such as egal-
itarian systems, may appear highly resilient, persistent and adapt-
able, while at the same time they may be characterized by poverty,
corruption and oppression. In his study on resilience as transfor-
mative capacity in lower Zambezi River, central Mozambique,
Arnall (2015, p. 26) concludes ‘‘that more attention should be paid
to facilitative, as well as constraining, nature of structures if vul-
nerable populations are to be assisted in their efforts to exert
transformative capacity over the wider conditions that give rise
to their difficulties.” Here Arnall (2015) re-emphasises the notion
that disaster causation lies in the social structure which (re)pro-
duces inequalities and vulnerability to disasters (Wisner, Blaikie,
Cannon, & Davis, 2004).
Based on Giddens (1984) structuration theory in which the struc-
ture frames, and is a product of agency, it is possible for affected
communities to transform a systems by creating a fundamentally
new system when ecological, economic, or social (including politi-
cal) conditions make the existing system untenable (Walker,
Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004, p. 1). Transformability is, in part,
a recognition of the importance of managing uncertainty and
change, diversity, non-equilibrium, non-linear, and multi-scales
dynamics, and adaptive learning social change and power relations
and agency (Aldrich, 2012), thus bringing the already known social
science debates on decentralisation, governance and participatory
principles (Béné et al., 2012). Thus, transformative capacity chal-
lenges the status quo by reconfiguring the structures of develop-
ment and risk reduction (Béné et al., 2012; Pelling, 2011; Manuel-
Navarrete et al., 2011; Pelling & Manuel-Navarrete, 2011) in order
to prevent the creation, as well as amplify the existing risk.
However, there is still an unclear distinction between adaptive
capacity and transformative capacity (Apgar, Allen, Moore, &
Ataria, 2015). Walker et al. (2004) distinguish adaptability from
transformation. To them, adaptability refers to the capacity of
actors in a system to influence resilience while transformability
refers to the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when
ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system
untenable. Then, is there a distinction between resilience, adapta-
tion and transformation? Through their resilience–transition–trans
formation framework, Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete (2011) view
resilience, adaptation and transformation as separate constructs:
resilience is the maintenance of the status quo; transition is incre-
mental change; while transformation is radical change. We, how-
ever, consider adaptive and transformative capacity as elements
of resilience. The distinction between adaptation and transforma-
tion depends on the degree of change, with transformation becom-
ing clearer when the system is fundamentally changed or
dismantled to create a new system (Nelson, Adger, & Brown,
2007). The changes can be incremental, drastic and sometimes vio-
lent, allowing for critical analyses to deal with underlying causes of
vulnerability and instability.
Bringing transformation in the resilience debate was not by
accident. It was in part, in response to sharp criticisms from
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
political science and international relations, who view resilience as
a neoliberal project, which de-politicises disasters, even if disasters
are political events (Chandler & Reid, 2016). In this way, and from
the Foucauldian perspective, resilience becomes an instrument of
(re)producing responsibilised citizens, who can take care of them-
selves and also become, or continue to be, unquestioning subjects
rendering themselves more governable (Joseph, 2013).
However, Ferguson (2010) cautions on the simplistic use of
neoliberalism – that neoliberalism is bad for the poor and working
people and therefore should be opposed. He is optimistic that if we
go beyond seeing in ‘neoliberalism’ an evil essence and learn to see
a field of specific government techniques, it is possible to repur-
pose some of these techniques and put to work in the service of
political projects very different from those usually associated with
neoliberalism. For this reason, Rose and Lentzos (2017) opine that
while some see the rise of resilience strategies as the apotheosis of
reactionary individualism, resilience focused strategies can poten-
tially provide opportunities for a more progressive politics.
To conclude this section, Table 3 presents the five indicative
resilience capacities: preventive, anticipative, absorptive, adaptive
and transformative capacities. These capacities are an extension of
Béné et al.’s (2012) three resilience capacities: absorptive; adap-
tive; and transformative capacities and Keck and Sakdapolrak
(2013) persistability, adaptability and transformability. However,
these capacities leave out some of the terms (contained in Tables
1 and 2), which do not only bridge the sustainable development
– humanitarian divide, but also critical in crafting a comprehensive
resilience framework. For this reason, we increase the capacities to
five to account for the preventive (mitigation) and anticipative
capacities, and to emphasise the development and disaster nexus.
The capacities such as learning, organising and resourcefulness are
assumed to be inherent, and may act as inputs or processes to rea-
lise each of the five capacities.
4. The need for a comprehensive resilience framework
An analysis of 46 resilience frameworks, models, toolkits and
indexes from both academic and grey literatures sources
(Appendix A2), revealed two main issues. First, three groups of
Table 3
The five indicative resilience capacities.
Capacity Terms emerging from definitions
Preventive avoid, design, growth, maintain, minimize (damaging
effects), mitigate, plan for the future, prevent, preserve,
reduce, resist
Anticipative anticipate, plan for the future, manage, prepare and plan for
change, proactive, recognise, reduce the impact, store
energy
Absorptive absorb, accommodate, bounce–back, circumvent, contain
the effects, cope, create, deflect elasticity, enduring minimal
stress, function, ‘make do’, maintain, manage change,
manage environmental variability, minimize damaging
effects, overcome, persist, react, rebound, reduce the
impact, resist, resourcefulness, respond, restore, retain,
return to equilibrium, robust, search, self-righting, stable,
survive, tolerate (transitions), withstand
Adaptive acceptance of reality, adapt, adjust, change (non-essential
attributes), continuous reconstruction, flexible, innovative,
improve, learning, life is meaningful, manage change,
manage environmental variability, network, plan for the
future, reactive, rebuild itself, recover, retaining the same
function, self-control
Transformative access assets, benefit (from shocks), bounce-forward,
change, plan for the future, transform, transition
allocate (resources), collaborate, feedback, learn, improvise,
innovative, network, organise, plan, resourcefulness, cross-
cutting capacity.
Source (authors).
7
resilience frameworks emerged. The first category of resilience
frameworks emerge from multidisciplinary backgrounds (for
example, Cimellaro, Renschler, Reinhorn, & Arendt, 2016; Cutter
et al., 2008; Sherrieb, Norris & Gales, 2010; Yoon, Kang, & Brody,
2015) where resilience capacities are viewed in terms of broad fac-
tors that determine the existence or lack of resilience. Broadly
labelled as sustainable livelihoods, these factors include physical,
social, human, natural, and financial assets (Scoones, 1998) which
can affect vulnerability and exposure to disaster risk (Alshehri,
Rezgui, & Li, 2015; Keating, Campbell, & Szoenyi, 2017; Mayunga,
2007; Orencio & Fujii, 2013; UNDP, 2014). The major reproach often
disposed against the sustainable livelihoods thinking is that with-
out ‘political capital’ it fails to address power relations (de Haan &
Zoomers, 2005; Jakimow, 2013; McLean, 2015), given that disasters
are socially constructed events (Wisner et al., 2004). Even if power
relations were taken into account, the sustainable livelihoods cap-
itals are themselves not necessarily resilience capacities. Instead,
they could be regarded as inputs as well as processes that support
the realisation of each of the resilience capacities.
The second group brings together vulnerability and resilience
thinking to develop heuristic tools to guide systematic assessment
and development of indicators at different scales. These tools
emphasise non-linearity, place-specific and straddle multiple
approaches and epistemologies between natural and social
sciences and DRM to promote communication across different
communities. The strengths of these frameworks, e.g, the MOVE
framework, recognise the risk drivers (i.e exposure to hazard or
stressor, vulnerability and societal response capacities or lack of
resilience to anticipate, cope and recover), and adaptive capacities
supported by risk governance (Birkmann et al., 2013). The down-
side of these frameworks is their lack of explicit emphasise on
the transformative capacity to clearly address power relations,
the root causes of disasters.
The third group of frameworks focuses on some properties
(Béné, Newsham, Davies, Ulrichs, & Godfrey-Wood, 2014) or capac-
ities of resilience, including the absorptive, adaptive and transfor-
mative capacities (Alexander, 2013; Béné et al., 2014; Béné et al.,
2012; DFID, 2011; Frankenberger, Mueller, Spangler, & Alexander,
2013; USAID, 2012; Walker et al., 2004). Cutter et al. (2008) DROP
(disaster of place) model recognises the antecedent conditions, i.e
hazard exposure and inherent vulnerability and inherent resili-
ence, absorptive capacity and adaptive capacity, and though
implicitly, the anticipative capacity through mitigation and pre-
paredness. The silence of the DROP model on the transformative
capacity, though it might be implied under antecedent conditions,
reduces resilience to the maintenance, or even to the acceleration
of the status quo (Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete (2011) ex-post
disaster event. The Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund (ZRBF)
addresses the weaknesses of DROP by focusing on the absorptive,
adaptive and transformative capacities through its three projects
(Table 4).
However, the ZRBF’s activities under absorptive and transfor-
mative capacities raise some questions. If absorptive capacity is
understood as the capacity to absorb and minimise the impacts
of destabilising events (Vurgin, Warren, & Ehlen, 2011), why are
risk analyses and assessments under absorptive capacity for the
Enhancing Community Resilience and Sustainability and Matabele-
land Enhanced Livelihoods, Agriculture and Nutrition Adaptation
projects? Should risks not be determined prior to developing the
absorptive capacity and other capacities in order to gauge the level
of capacity needed? For the Zambezi Valley Alliance for Building
Community Resilience project, why is improving stakeholder coor-
dination, planning and management of resilience and disaster
response under transformative capacity? What is transformative
about stakeholder coordination and planning? Does stakeholder
coordination and planning not apply to all capacities? Clearly,
8 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Table 4
The Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund projects.

Project Absorptive Capacity Adaptive Capacity Transformative Capacity

Zambezi Valley Alliance for  Developing Integrated Disaster Risk
Building Community Management and Resilience Plans
Resilience activities  Enhancing early warning information
and knowledge management systems
Enhancing Community  Multi-Hazard Risk Analysis – House-
Resilience and hold Livelihood Security Assessment
Sustainability (ECRAS) (HLSA) and Risk analysis for disaster
risk management
 Making functional and responsive dis-
aster risk management (DRM) struc-
tures and systems
 Local seasonal plans developed and
advisories disseminated
 Establishing functional community
safety nets.
Matabeleland Enhanced Same as ECRAS
Livelihoods, Agriculture
and Nutrition
Adaptation (MELANA)
 Diversifying and adopting climate
resilient and sustainable liveli-
hoods strategies
 Improving access to, control, own-
ership of and sustainable utilisa-
tion of assets at community and
household levels
 Enhancing health, nutrition and
sanitation conditions.
 Improve sustainable crop, livestock
and agro-forestry production
 Functional, stable, viable and
inclusive markets (diversified
livelihoods)
 Improving uptake of low cost sus-
tainable productive water
technologies
 Improve social, agriculture and
water service delivery
Same as ECRAS
 Creating an enabling environment for sus-
tainable, equitable utilization and manage-
ment of natural resources at local, district
and national levels
 Improving stakeholder coordination, plan-
ning and management of resilience and dis-
aster response
 Improved social, agriculture and water ser-
vice delivery addressing poverty and build-
ing resilience
 Engage communities duty bearers on provi-
sion of services
Same as ECRAS

Source (ZRBF, 2018, online).

there is confusion on the constitutive elements of each of these
capacities.
The second aspect that emerged from the analysis of resilience
frameworks relates to the epistemological and methodological
assumptions. Most resilience frameworks use an indicator
approach, employing both quantitative and qualitative methodolo-
gies, in assessing resilience. Indicators of disaster resilience are fac-
tors, which can be used to quantitatively or qualitatively assess, as
well as compare resilience levels over spatial and temporary scales
(Cutter et al., 2008).
As the literature suggests resilience is both a process and out-
come (Manyena, 2006; Matyas & Pelling, 2015), this means process
and outcome indicators are needed to measure resilience. Process
indicators ensure that the resilience roadmap is being used in pol-
icy making and programming while outcome indicators show
results of resilience building interventions (Schipper & Langston,
2015). Process and outcome indicators are not mutually exclusive.
A process indicator is only of value when it is linked to the outcome
(Mant, 2001). As disaster resilience is not directly observable,
proxy indicators are needed to produce measures of resilience
(Cutter, Burton, & Emrich, 2010) in relation to a given outcome
such as disaster mortality.
The criteria for the selection of indicators is varied. Some indi-
cators reflect different types of vulnerability and resilience includ-
ing ecological, physical, social, economic, institutional and
infrastructure variables (Cutter et al., 2008, Birkmann et al.,
2013). Others are based on functionality of systems such as com-
puter systems and engineering infrastructural projects, for exam-
ple the MECER project at the University of Buffalo, which
assesses seismic resilience. The functionality approach has also
been applied in quantifying community resilience, e.g., the
PEOPLES2 methodology aggregates functionalities related to physi-
cal facilities such as such as housing, commercial facilities, lifelines,
and cultural facilities. The functionality approaches are hailed for
their precision, clarity and transparency to arguments for different
2
PEOPLES is the acronym for Population and demographics, Environmental/
ecosystem, Organised governmental services, Physical infrastructure, Lifestyle and
community competence, Economic development and Social-cultural capital.
policy choices. However, the technical approaches tend to mask
whose perspectives count (Levine, 2014). Quantification of indica-
tors can also be based characteristics such as poverty and inequali-
ties. Examples include the Social Vulnerability Index, Prevalent
Vulnerability Index (Cardona, 2005), the MOVE framework
(Birkmann et al., 2013) and Index for Risk Management (INFORM,
2017).
There are several sources of outcome indicators of resilience.
Examples included the Human Development Index, the Corruption
Perception Index, the Governance Index, the Failed State Index, and
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Indicators. The
disadvantage of quantifying indicators based on characteristics is
that it masks different strategies people employ to deal with the
risk (Levine, 2014). While indicators based on access, for example,
access to basic needs such as food and water tend to be used, the
challenge is that resilience is not a measure of current well-being
but a measure of maintaining well-being, which cannot be simply
assessed from current well-being (Levine, 2014). Other important
criteria for selecting indicators, include validity, sensitivity, robust-
ness, reproducibility, scope, availability, affordability, simplicity
and relevance (Cutter et al., 2008).
In a nutshell, the downside of the indicator approach is that it
tends to decontextualise and depoliticise resilience, making it dif-
ficult to recognise relevant contributing factors and to gain full
understanding of how hazards and vulnerabilities shape resilience
outcomes (Weichselgartner & Kelman, 2014). However, a frame-
work that is explicit on the transformative aspects of resilience
might form the basis for the politicisation of disasters.
5. The Disaster Resilience Integrated Framework for
Transformation (DRIFT)
Having identified, but also recognised the importance of defini-
tions of resilience as well as contributions from existing frame-
works and their limitations, we propose the DRIFT (Fig. 1) as a
new way of conceptualising and operationalising disaster resili-
ence. Designed to emphasise the relationship between resilience
and capacity, the DRFIT framework is theoretically grounded,
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
Fig. 1. Disaster Resilience Framework for Transformation (DRIFT).
amenable to both quantitative and qualitative approaches; and can
be contextually applied to address real problems in real places. In
the remaining sections of this paper, we outline the assumptions of
the DRIF framework model and then explain each component.
Because DRFIT, like many models or frameworks is a simplifica-
tion of reality, it is important to state the assumptions that are
implicit in its construction. DRIFT is underpinned by at least four
theoretical assumptions. DRIFT is informed by Wisner et al.
(2004) risk equation: risk = hazard * vulnerability/resilience. The
overarching assumption here is that disasters that disasters are
not natural; they are socio-political constructions, that can serve
as political capital for initiating political regime change to address
the root causes of disasters (Wisner et al., 2004). As the preventive
(mitigation), anticipative, absorptive and adaptive capacities tend
to maintain rather than challenge the status quo, they are inade-
quate to deal with underlying causes of destabilising events. The
transformative capacity is required to catalyse social change and
possibly address the root causes of disasters.
Taken together, these capacities have a direct link to the nature
of outcomes, which may be both positive and negative, ranging
from the maintenance of the status quo to its transformation.
These capacities are, however, not mutually exclusive. There are
feedback loops and overlaps, which, in practice, may occur simul-
taneously. Although the major focus of DRIFT is to create a resili-
ence index of countries in the world based on the hazard,
vulnerability and resilience capacities, it is also possible to apply
it at multiple temporal, spatial and institutional scales.
5.1. Elements of DRIFT
To apply DRIFT, the first port of call is the assessment of key risk
drivers, including the groups likely to be affected by potential
shocks and stresses. Following the assessment of risk drivers, the
focus shifts towards the assessment of the capacities – preventive,
anticipative, absorptive, adaptive and transformative – and the
inputs and processes such as organising, learning, improvisation
and resources. The capacities, processes and inputs are intertwined
actions that enable affected communities deal with the risk drivers.
The outcomes range from ‘bouncing back’ to ‘bouncing forward’.
The former emphasises a return to the state before the disaster
event while the later recognises the new opportunities and possi-
bilities created by the disaster event. Overall, DRIFT providing an
9
insight on the risk drivers, and the resilience capacities, which then
become the target for resilience building. The elements of DRIFT
are summarised in Annex 2.
5.1.1. Assessing risk drivers
Broadly speaking, risk is a function of three risk drivers: hazard;
exposure; and vulnerability (Hochrainer & Mechler, 2011). Assess-
ing risk drivers helps us to answer questions such as: ‘resilience to
what?’ or ‘whose resilience?’ or ‘resilience at what level?’ Under-
standing risk drivers involves gathering at least three layers of
data. The first is hazard analysis of both natural and anthropogenic
origin. Hazards can be measured using a variety of instruments
depending on the purpose. Measuring earthquakes for example
uses the Richter scale to measure the intensity while Mercalli scale
measures the level of impact. The hazard data can be accessed from
various sources such as CRED and UNISDR databases. The second is
exposure analysis. In as much as hazards vary in scale and intensity
depending on where and when they occur, the people with whom
they occur accentuate the impact of these hazards. It is therefore
critical to conduct exposure analysis such as the number of people
or types of assets in an area to determine the situation of people,
infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible
human assets located in hazard-prone areas. The third layer is vul-
nerability analysis, involving an assessment of physical, social, eco-
nomic and environmental factors (Hochrainer & Mechler, 2011),
which are being exacerbated by among others, urbanisation, cli-
mate change impacts, civil conflicts and HIV and AIDS. The impact
of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in eastern coast of Sri Lanka and
in the Aceh province of Indonesia, for example, was exacerbated by
rebel movements that were fighting for autonomy (Collins, 2009).
Most of the vulnerability data can be proxied from the several
databases (Appendix A3). For example, the Human Development
Index provides indexes on development and deprivation, inequal-
ity, aid dependency and child malnutrition and mortality rates
while the World Bank’s governance index provides data on institu-
tional performance all of which are proxies of socio-economic vul-
nerability. The major challenge is that some of the data from the
established databases maybe be outdated. As risk assessments
results primarily inform decisions on the level of capacity required
to deal with the risk, the data should not only be regularly updated
and accessible to users and affected communities but should also
10 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
be as comprehensive as possible to include historical data and
indigenous knowledge.
5.1.2. The resilience capacities
Having developed an understanding of the risk context, the next
question is: ‘resilience through what action?’ The answer is: possi-
bly through the preventive/mitigation, anticipative, absorptive,
adaptive and transformative capacity of communities (the indica-
tors of these capacities are provided in Appendix A4).
5.1.2.1. The preventive and mitigation capacity. Assessing preventive
and mitigation capacity requires asking questions such as: Are
measures to avoid unsustainable development in place? Are
gender-sensitive, risk-informed development and mitigation plans
in place? Are there policies in place and are they enforced? Are
development outcomes meeting the basic needs? As the preven-
tive and mitigation capacity focuses enhances the capacity to deal
with both corrective and prospective DRM, some of the proxy indi-
cators may include those related to the creation and enforcement
of land-use policies, immunisation coverage and investment in
seismic engineering designs that ensure the survival and function
of a critical building in any likely earthquake. Taking into account
that prevention and mitigation, in essence, should deal with the
underlying disaster risks, this includes addressing sustainable
livelihoods assets (physical, human, social, natural and financial)
(Mayunga, 2007) and political capital, which often is the root
causes of vulnerability to disasters (O’Keefe, Westgate, & Wisner,
1976). These capitals include health and well-being (access to
water, health, and sanitation), environmental management (miti-
gation of land degradation, landslides, drought, fires, catchment
area management), access to education, social protection mea-
sures, risk transfer, access to finance, and physical protection of
infrastructure.
The proxy indicators are the extent to which corrective and
prospective DRM activities impact on development outcomes,
most of which are available from the several databases such as
the Human Development Index, World Health Organisation
(WHO) Observatory Data Repository, the Index for Risk Manage-
ment (INFORM), the Sendai Framework Monitoring Reports and
the World Bank databases.
5.1.2.2. The anticipative capacity. In practice, anticipation depends
on the scenarios created based on the risk data to predict where,
when and who the disaster will affect. The indicators of anticipa-
tive capacity are likely to include the extent of understanding risk
knowledge, coverage of early warning systems, disaster prepared-
ness and response plans, access to risk and early warning informa-
tion, risk retention and risk transfer mechanisms.
Early warning systems entail the provision of timely and effec-
tive information, through identified institutions, to enable action in
advance to avoid or reduce the risks and prepare for effective
response (Basher, 2006; UNISDR, 2006) to a singular or multiple
hazards such as natural geophysical and biological hazards, com-
plex socio-political emergencies, industrial hazards, personal
health risks and many other related risks. The assumption here is
that these early warning systems are context-specific and sup-
ported by institutional arrangements, community involvement
including volunteers, and user-focused language and communica-
tion procedures that take into account diverse cultural, social, gen-
der, linguistic and educational backgrounds.
Although there are no clear indicators for early warning sys-
tems, direct indicators have been developed under the Sendai
Framework (UNISDR, 2016). Specifically, the Sendai framework’s
global target G has six indicators on the effectiveness of early
warning systems. Indicator G-3, for example, will measure the
number of people per 100,000 that are covered by early warning
systems. Measuring the population’s access to risk information,
including early warning systems might provide the level of under-
standing of risk. The proxy indicators may include access to radio,
TV, internet, mobile cellular subscriptions data provided by the
World Bank. But, early warning information on its own might not
be useful unless it is acted upon. Indicators of the response capabil-
ity that triggers early action to anticipated adverse threats have
also been included in the Sendai Framework indicator G-4, that
will measure the percentage of local governments in countries
with a plan to act on early warnings.
Other indicators under global target G that are relevant to mea-
suring anticipative capacity include existence of local government
emergence preparedness plans that regularly tested and updated,
and indicate safe evacuation routes, emergency shelters, commu-
nication procedures, stockpiles (buffer stocks). Disaster prepared-
ness and response planning includes mobilisation of strategic
reserves, in physical or financial or both, before an affected country
can request for external humanitarian support. To avert food inse-
curity, strategic grain reserves, for example, primarily help a coun-
try cope with food emergencies and stabilize grain prices. For
example, Zimbabwe, in theory, has a strategic grain reserve of
936,000 tonnes, a buffer stock of 500,000 metric, and a cash reserve
equivalent of 436,000 tonnes to avert famine (Braimoh, Manyena,
Obuya, & Muraya, 2018). The physical stock aims at meeting Zim-
babwe’s food shortfalls for three months, and assuming the finan-
cial reserve equivalent is available to import the grain then the
grain will be available for another three months. In reality, devel-
oping countries do not often have adequate financial reserves to
import food.
Risk transfer mechanisms are also an indicator of the anticipa-
tive capacity. The percentage of insured losses as a proportion of
all predicted losses following a disaster can be another indicator
of the anticipative capacity. Following disasters, households in
low-income countries in particular, tend to suffer uninsured asset
losses that suddenly cast them into poverty and possibly onto a
downward spiral from which they have a difficult time re-
emerging (Bannet, Barret, & Skees, 2008). Besides the traditional
claimed-based insurance, index-based insurance has increasingly
gained currency, mainly to reduce the negative impacts of climate
change on human security (Yuzva, Botzen, Aerts, & Brouwer, 2018).
The Africa Risk Capacity, a Specialised Agency of the African Union,
for example, provides Member States access to disaster risk finance
that can be deployed in times of disasters arising from extreme
weather events (African Risk Capacity, 2016). This financing, cou-
pled with predefined contingency plans, enables governments to
respond to affected households in a timely manner thereby pre-
venting household loss of livelihoods and building resilience
(African Risk Capacity, 2016). To do this, the Africa Risk Capacity
provides a link between early warning through its advanced
satellite-based software, Africa RiskView, and contingency plan-
ning for early action with objective and predictable financing
through its insurance payouts (African Risk Capacity, 2016). In the-
ory, channeling these early action funds through a national
response mechanism not only offers improved efficiency in deliv-
ering a more effective response to weather shocks in the short
term, but also facilitates longer-term investments in increasing
food security, DRM and climate resilience (African Risk Capacity,
2016).
5.1.2.3. The absorptive capacity. The absorptive capacity is at the
nucleus of resilience as it is not only the realisation of the effective-
ness of the preventive, anticipative, but also the adaptive and
transformative capacities. These capacities contribute to, among
others, robust, resourceful, resistant, responsive and parallel or
redundant systems and structures, humanitarian assistance, sup-
port for victims and survivors, rehabilitation, and recovery.
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
The proxy indicators of the absorptive capacity are related to
the outcomes of the Sendai Framework indicators, such as disaster
mortality, number of people affected by disasters, economic losses
as a percentage of GDP and the proportion of external humanitar-
ian assistance to the total humanitarian assistance following a dis-
aster. The higher the values of these indicators against the average
of past disasters may suggest low absorptive capacity while the
lower values may suggest a higher absorptive capacity.
5.1.2.4. The adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity refers to adjust-
ments which can take the form of both ex ante and ex post
responses (Engle, 2011), diversification livelihoods, coping and
self-organisation in order to moderate future damages. Ideally,
the adaptive indicators should cut across the human, natural, phys-
ical, social, financial and political assets in order for them to be
comprehensively. Considering the constraints of resources and
time, it might not be possible to adequately measure adaptive
capacity using a set of indicators.
The literature distinguishes several ways of adaptive resilience.
In view of the negative impacts of climate change, developing
effective sustainable measures in order to cope with projected or
actual changes in the use of natural resources such as land, forests,
water and ecosystems might be an indicator of adaptive capacity.
Some of the indicators may include access to irrigation and associ-
ated equipment, promoting sustainable soil management prac-
tices, discouraging farming on marginal land, investment in farm
machinery and equipment versatile enough to adjust production
decisions to variable climatic conditions (Swanson, Hiley,
Venema, & Grosshans, 2007). Enhancing social-economic resilience
includes public investment in social protection, diversification of
off-farm incomes and livelihoods, access to finance, access to elec-
tricity, and availability of medical staff to cope with diseases such
as malaria and cholera.
5.1.2.5. Transformative capacity. What is emerges from preventive,
anticipative, absorptive and adaptive capacities is a ‘business-as-
usual’ approach, which narrows community and management
options. It does not necessarily question the status quo. Instead,
it tends to support the maintenance of the status quo, which could
have caused the disaster in the first place. If we go by Chandler’s
(2016: 89) assertion of ‘resilience as freedom’ which is an exten-
sion of Sen’s argument of development as freedom, this means
resilience is about capacities or capabilities of individuals and com-
munities to make choices in order ‘to do something positive’ to
deal with risk drivers. This implies that resilience, like develop-
ment, consists of ‘‘removal of various types of unfreedoms that
leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising
their reasoned agency” (Sen, 1999:xii). The unfreedoms include
‘‘poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well
as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well
as intolerance or over activity of repressive states” (Sen, 1999:1).
This suggests measuring transformative capacity should go beyond
material outcomes, which are of neoliberal concern, to include the
differentiated inner capabilities of an individual or society to
choose (Sen, 2009; Nussbaum, 2011) rather than the freedom of
choice. The later conception is the classical liberalism which
assumes that freedom is all that is required for the rational auton-
omous subject while the former refers to Sen’s view of freedom as
an ongoing process of empowering the individual which is not
measured in external outputs but through internal processes of
valuation and decision-making (Chandler & Reid, 2016).
Considering disaster are socially constructed, disaster occur-
rence is a manifestation of unfreedoms. From this vantage point,
disasters become tipping points for asking questions about the
community’s fragility, governance, institutions, practices, struc-
tures and social relations that constrain people’s capabilities to
11
make choices. Some of these concerns are related to the fragile
state index, the corruption perception index and the World Bank’s
governance index (Table 1). Some of the questions that may be
asked may include: What structural elements facilitate and con-
strain people to act? What are structural rigidities that make alter-
ation of social systems difficult? In what ways are policies,
programmes and projects aligned with people’s day-to-day strug-
gles? What is the relationship between duty bearers and rights
holders? To what extent are communities organised to exert power
to structures of domination in asserting their rights?
5.1.2.6. Inputs and processes for achieving resilience outcomes. Sim-
ply identifying and measuring the outcomes of the preventive,
anticipative, absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities
built over space and time is inadequate; we also need to identify
the inputs and processes to realise the outcomes (Manyena,
2006). These inputs and processes, which may also be thought of
as sub-capacities or sub-actions, attempt to modify the environ-
ment and remove the stresses and shocks in order to find a better
goodness-of-fit (Kumpfer, 2002). These include learning, planning,
feedback mechanisms, allocation of resources, collaboration, net-
working, organising, improvising and innovation. Examples of indi-
cators for assessing inputs and process for enhancing resilience are
summarised in Appendix A5. As some, if not all of these sub-
capacities or sub-actions may be required to realise each of the five
capacities or their combinations, we believe these should be con-
sidered as constitutive elements of each of the five capacities.
5.1.3. The resilience outcomes: bounce-back or bounce-forward?
The resilience outcomes answer to the question, ‘resilience of
what results’? According to the DRIFT framework, resilience out-
comes are conceptualized as lying on the bounce-back–bounce-for
ward continuum. Within the continuum, there is a possibility for
the community to ‘bounce-back’, by taking away pressure from
immediate response (Gawronski & Olson, 2013 and Aldunce,
Beilin, Handmer, & Howden, 2014), but without necessarily trans-
forming the pre-disaster situation. As stated earlier, the bounce-
back notion of resilience suggests a return to the status quo that
may have caused the disaster in the first place, with a possibility
of communities being worse than before the disaster. Gawronski
and Olson (2013), in a study on whether the 1976 Guatemala
earthquake disaster triggered a critical juncture, found that while
the 1976 Guatemala disaster led to a high degree of community
self-organizing and alliance-building, the reaction from govern-
ment was massively repressive violence, with legacies that con-
tinue to this day. Similarly, Cuneo, Sollom, and Beyrer (2017),
demonstrate how since 2000, the Robert Mugabe’s regime in Zim-
babwe politicised drought relief food, by denying food aid to mem-
bers of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. Similarly,
the efforts by the Chinese state to control criticism and reshape the
2008 Sichuan earthquake into a vehicle for nationalist sentiment
shows how fear of political change can lead to suppression of rights
and the reinforcing of the status quo (Pelling & Dill, 2010). In such
cases, the opportunity to resilience building ex-post disaster is
denied. Instead, local communities are urged by the those in power
to build their own resilience. In fact, O’Brien and O’Keefe (2014: 8)
correctly state:
Moreover, there is clear evidence political structures can only
do top-down interventions as the people cannot be trusted.
Despite the language of empowerment there is none. Except
to say ‘‘Make yourselves resilient”, and sub voce, ‘‘Without
resources from us”.
In contrast, the ‘bounce-forward’ ability recognises that com-
munities undergo change post-disaster, providing a ‘‘window of
12 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

opportunity” to transform the socio-economic conditions and the
status quo (Manyena et al., 2011). The 1972 Managua earthquake
engendered a major political change in Nicaragua, which con-
tributed to the Sandinista overthrow of the Somoza regime. The
earthquake exposed the corrupt Somoza family and its inability
to manage the recovery, which raised peasant and workers discon-
tent, making it easier for the Sandinistas to mobilise support
(Tierney & Nigg, 1993). Similarly, following the 1985 Mexico City
earthquake, several prominent activists involved in reconstruction
efforts entered city and nationwide politics, which resulted in the
restructuring of city government, and the ruling party lost its 70-
year hold on the capital city (San Juan Victoria, 2000, cited in
Pelling & Dill, 2008). More recently, using on renewable energy
transition (specifically, solar photovoltaic diffusion) in their study
of disasters as opportunity for change following the 2011 Great
East Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster, Mochizuki
and Chang (2017) found that the disaster-affected communities
adopted significantly more solar power than the rest of Japan fol-
lowing the introduction of the country’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) system
in 2012.
Indeed, resilience as ‘‘bouncing-forward ability” changes the
original meaning of resilience (Sudmeier-Rieux, 2014). With the
bounce-forward ability being one of the outcomes of DRIFT, the
framework provides a strong footing against which DRR preven-
tion and post-disaster measures should be undertaken, which
potentially may lead to interventions that address root causes of
risk, i.e. ecosystem management, risk sensitive land use planning,
women leadership programs to reduce structural vulnerability
and risk (Sudmeier-Rieux, 2014).
6. Looking to the future
This concludes by presenting DRIFT, a framework that con-
tributes to the theoretisation and operationalise resilience. DRIFT
brings to full significance the centrality of capacity in resilience
theory and practice as highlighted by most definitions. In particu-
lar, while the linkage between adaptive capacity and resilience has
been established in the literature (Hinkel, 2011; Warrick et al.,
2017), the preventive, anticipative, absorptive and transformative
capacities have received limited attention. By emphasising hith-
erto, the under-explored relationship between resilience and
capacity, DRIFT has the potential of contributing to the nature, con-
tent and tone of the resilience debate. Not only a focus on these
under-researched capacities is likely to add value to resilience the-
ory but the capacities must be linked to the extent to which com-
munities go about their daily lives before, during and after
destabilising events.
To operationalise DRIFT will require testing which might reveal
some gaps or revision of some the suggested metrics. The resultant
measurements will assess change by comparing the level of resili-
ence over time and space at local, national and global levels. These
measurements likely to reinforce the measurements from other
indexes such as HDI but also inform policies and strategies for
enhancing resilience.
7. Author declaration
No conflicts of interest.

Appendix A1. Resilience definitions

Year Author Context Definition Capacity or ability

1973 Holling (1973) Ecological The measure of the persistence of systems and of persistence, absorb,
systems the ability to absorb change and disturbance and maintain
still maintain the same relationships between state
variables
1978 Gordon (1978) Physics/Physical The ability to store energy and deflect elasticity store energy, deflect
system under a load without breaking or being deformed elasticity
1984 Pimm (1984) Engineering System’s speed of return to equilibrium following a equilibrium
shock
1989 Wildavsky (1989) Resilience is the capacity to cope with cope, learning, bounce-
unanticipated dangers after they have become back, unanticipated
manifest, learning to bounce back
1992 Dovers and Handmer Re-active and pro-active resilience of society can anticipate, learn
(1992) be distinguished based on the major difference
between ecosystems and societies (human
capacity for anticipation and learning)
1993 Egeland et al. (1993) Psychology/ The capacity for successful adaptation and adapt, function
Individual functioning despite high risk, stress or trauma
1994 Tilman and Downing Ecological The speed at which a system returns to a single return to equilibrium
(1994) systems equilibrium point following a disruption
1996 Holling (1996) Ecology Ability of a system to withstand shock and withstand
maintain critical relationships and functions
1996 Grotberg (1996) Psychology A universal capacity which allows a person, group prevent, minimise,
or community to prevent, minimize or overcome overcome
the damaging effects of adversity
1998 Horne and Orr (1998) Organisational Resilience is the fundamental quality to respond respond
productively to significant change that disrupts the
expected pattern of event without introducing an
extended period of regressive behaviour
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587 13

Appendix A1 (continued)

Year Author Context Definition Capacity or ability

1998 Mallak (1998) Individual/ Resilience is the ability of an individual or design, adapt
Organisational organisation to expeditiously design and
implement positive adaptive behaviours matched
to the immediate situation, while enduring
minimal stress.
1999 Comfort (1999) The capacity to adapt existing resources and skills adapt
to new systems and operating conditions
1999 Miletti (1999) Disaster Local resiliency with regard to disasters means withstand
management that a locale is able to withstand an extreme
natural event without suffering devastating losses,
damage, diminished productivity, or quality of life
without a large amount of assistance from outside
the community
1999 Miletti (1999); Geis Disaster In the context of disaster management, resilience resist, adapt, recover
(2000); Chen et al. (2008) management is used to describe the ability to resist or adapt to
stress from hazards, and the ability to recover
quickly
1999 Tobin (1999) Disaster Resilient communities are defined as societies, organise, recover,
management which are structurally organized to minimize the restore
effects of disasters and at the same time have the
ability to recover quickly by restoring the
socioeconomic vitality of the community
2000 Adger (2000) social systems Ability of groups or communities to cope with Cope
external stresses and disturbances as a result of
social, political and environmental change
2000 Gunderson (2000) Ecological The magnitude of disturbance that a system can absorb
systems absorb before its structure is redefined by
changing the variables and processes that control
behaviour
2000 Paton, Smith, & Violanti Psychology Resilience describes an active process of self- self-righting, learn,
(2000) righting, learned resourcefulness and growth— the resourcefulness, growth,
ability to function psychologically at a level far function
greater than expected given the individual’s
capabilities and previous experiences.
2001 Carpenter et al. (2001) Socio–ecological The magnitude of disturbance that a system can tolerate, transition
systems tolerate before it transitions into a different state
that is controlled by a different set of processes
2001 Gunderson, Holling, Uncategorised Engineering resilience is the time of return to a return to equilibrium,
Peterson, and Pritchard global equilibrium following a disturbance. absorb
(2001) Ecological resilience is the amount of disturbance
that a system can absorb before it changes state
2002 Coutu (2002) Individual Resilient individuals’ possess three common acceptance, improvise
characteristics. These include an acceptance of
reality, a strong belief that life is meaningful and
the ability to improvise
2002 Walker et al. (2002) Socio–ecological The ability to maintain the functionality of a maintain,
systems system when it is perturbed or the ability to
maintain the elements required to renew or
reorganise if a disturbance alters the structure of
function of a system
2003 Bruneau et al. (2003) Geography; The ability of social units to mitigate hazards, mitigate, contain,
disaster risk contain the effects of disasters when they occur recover, mitigate future
reduction and carry out recovery activities that minimise earthquakes
social disruption and mitigate the effects of future
earthquakes
2003 Cardona (2003) The capacity of the damaged ecosystem or absorb, recover
community to absorb negative impacts and
recover from these
2003 Hamel and Valikangas Organisational Resilience refers to the capacity to continuous continue
(2003) reconstruction

(continued on next page)

14 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Appendix A1 (continued)

Year Author Context Definition Capacity or ability

2003 Kendra and Wachtendorf The ability to respond to singular or unique events respond
(2003)
2003 Pelling (2003) The ability of an actor to cope with or adapt to cope, adapt
hazard stress
2003 Rockström (2003) Strategies of social resilience building include manageable strategies
manageable strategies, such as institutional
development, land reform, land tenure,
diversification, marketing, human capacity
building, and unmanageable ones, such as relief
food, cereal banks, social networks, virtual water
imports
2003 Kendra and Wachtendorf Organisational Resilience is the system’s ability to sustain a shock sustain, adapt, bounce-
(2003) systems without completely deteriorating; that is, most back
conceptions of resilience involve some idea of
adapting to and bouncing back from a disruption
2004 Bodin and Wiman (2004) Physical systems The speed at which a system returns to return to equilibrium
equilibrium after displacement, irrespective of
oscillations indicates the elasticity (resilience)
2004 Rose (2004) Engineering Resilience includes inherent resilience (ability adapt
under normal circumstances) and adaptive
resilience (ability in crisis situations due to
ingenuity or extra effort)
2004 Tugade et al. (2004) Psychological An individual’s ability to adapt to stress and adapt, learn
adversity. Resilience is a process and can be
learned by anyone using positive emotions
2004 Walker et al. (2004) Ecological The capacity of a system to absorb a disturbance absorb, recognise,
systems and reorganise while undergoing change while retain, feedback, change
retaining the same function, structure, identity and
feedback
2004 Katz (2004) Geography/ Ways in which people adapt to changing adapt, ’make do’
Community circumstances to get by and ‘make do’ through the
exercising of autonomous initiative
2005 Cumming et al. (2005) socio-ecological Resilience is the ability of the system to maintain maintain
systems its identity in the face of change and external
shocks & disturbances. Component of the system,
the relationship among these components and the
ability of these components & relationships to
maintain themselves constitutes system identity
2005 Allenby and Fink (2005) Social system Resilience is defined as the capability of a system maintain, degrade
to maintain its functions and structure in the face
of internal and external change and to degrade
gracefully when it must
2006 Hollnagel (2006) Organisational An organization’s ability to adjust to harmful adjust
influences rather than to shun or resist them
2006 Aguirre (2006) we define resilience as physical, biological, absorb, respond, recover
personality, social, and cultural systems’ capability
to effectively absorb, respond, and recover from an
internally or externally induced set of
extraordinary demands.
2006 Hollnagel (2006) Engineering The ability to sense, recognise, adapt and absorb recognise, adapt, absorb,
variations, changes, disturbances, disruptions and accommodate, recover
surprises
2006 Luthans et al. (2006) Psychology The developable capacity to rebound from rebound
adversity
2006 Manyena (2006) Geography; The intrinsic capacity of a system, community or adapt, survive, change
disaster risk society predisposed to a shock or stress to adapt
reduction and survive by changing its nonessential attributes
and rebuilding itself.
2006 McDonald (2006) Organisational Resilience conveys the properties of being able to adapt, manage,
adapt to the requirements of the environment and
being able to manage the environments variability
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587 15

Appendix A1 (continued)

Year Author Context Definition Capacity or ability

2006 Resilience Alliance (2005) Socio–ecological Ecosystem resilience is the capacity of an tolerate, withstand,
systems ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without rebuild, anticipate, plan
collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is for the future
controlled by a different set of processes. A
resilient ecosystem can withstand shocks and
rebuild itself when necessary. Resilience in social
systems has the added capacity of humans to
anticipate and plan for the future.
2006 Folke (2006) Socio-ecological In a resilient socio-ecological system disturbance create opportunity for
systems has the potential to create opportunity for doing doing new things
new things, for innovation and for development. (innovation)
2006 Hale and Heijer (2006) Safety Resilience refers to the ability of an organization to Anticipate, circumvent,
Management anticipate, circumvent threats to its existence & recover, preserve
primary goals and rapidly recover
2006 Fujita (2006) Organisational Resilience is the ability to recognize & adapt to recognise, adapt,
systems handle unanticipated perturbations that call into improve
question the model of competence, and demand a
shift of process, strategies and coordination
2006 Grote (2006) Organisational Resilient organizations are therefore characterized stability, flexibility,
systems by a balance of stability and flexibility that allows adapt, self-control
for adaptations in the face of uncertainties without
losing control
2006 Kinzig et al. (2006) socio-ecological Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb, re-organise,
systems absorb disturbance and reorganize while retain
undergoing change so as to still retain essentially
the same function, structure, identity and
feedbacks
2006 Perrings (2006) Economic Resilience is the ability of the system to withstand withstand, allocate
system either market or environmental shocks without resources
losing the capacity to allocate resources efficiently
2006 Fiksel (2006) Economic Resilience is the capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, grow
system survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent
change
2006 Fiksel (2006) Uncategorised Resilience is the capacity of the system to tolerate tolerate, retain
disturbances while retaining its structure and
function
2006 Woods and Cook (2006) Uncategorised Resilience refers to how well the system adapts adapt
and to what range or source of variation
2007 Kang, Lee, Kang, and Kim Climate Change Resilience is the ability of the system to recover recover
(2007) once hazard has occurred and measure resilience
by the duration of an unsatisfactory condition
2007 Donnellan, Larsen, and Organisation Resilience is related to predicting and preventing Prevent, predict
Levine (2007) unexpected threats. (anticipate)
2007 Maguire and Hagan (2007) Crisis In broad terms, social resilience is the capacity of a bounce back
Management social entity (e.g., a group or community) to
bounce back or respond positively to adversity
2007 Mayunga (2007) Social Resilience Resilience is the ability or capacity of a community anticipate, prepare,
to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover respond, recover, learn,
quickly form impacts of a disaster. This means it is cope, adapt
not only the measure of how quickly the community
can recover from the disaster impacts, but also the
ability to learn, cope with or adapt to hazards.
2007 McCarthy (2007) Infrastructure Resilience is the ability of a system to recover from recover, adjust
systems adversity, either back to its original state or an
adjusted state based on new requirements;
building resilience requires long-term effort
involving reengineering fundamental processes,
both technical and social
2008 Norris et al. (2008) Community A process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a adapt
resilience positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation
after a disturbance

(continued on next page)

16 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Appendix A1 (continued)

Year Author Context Definition Capacity or ability

2008 Hill, Wial, and Wolman Urban and The ability of a region to recover successfully from recover
(2008) regional shocks to its economy
development
2008 Cutter et al. (2008) Disaster The ability of a social system to respond and respond, recover,
management recover from disasters and the inherent conditions absorb, cope, adapt, re-
that allow the system to absorb impacts and cope organise, change, learn
with an event, as well as post-event adaptive
processes that facilitate the ability of the social
system to re-organize, change, and learn in
response to a threat
2008 Risk Steering (2008) Organisational Capacity of an organization to recognize threats recognise, anticipate,
systems and hazards and make adjustments that will adapt
improve future protection efforts and risk
reduction measures
2008 Risk Steering (2008) Uncategorised Resilience is the ability to resist, absorb, recover resist, absorb, recover,
from or successfully adapt to adversity or a change adapt
in conditions
2008 Risk Steering (2008) Uncategorised Resilience refers to the ability of systems, resist, absorb, recover,
infrastructures, government, business, and adapt
citizenry to resist, absorb recover from, or adapt to
an adverse occurrence that may cause harm,
destruction, or loss of national significance
2009 UNISDR (2009) Geography; The ability of a system, community or society resist, absorb,
disaster risk exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate accommodate, recover,
reduction to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a preserve, restore
timely and efficient manner, including through the
preservation and restoration of its essential basic
structures and functions.
2009 Woods (2009) Socio–ecological As a form of adaptive capacity, is a system’s adapt
systems potential for adaptive action in the future when
information varies, conditions change, or new
kinds of events occur, any of which challenge the
viability of previous adaptations, models, or
assumptions.
2009 Manyena (2009) Geography Resilience should be viewed as the ability to bounce-forward, move
‘‘bounce forward” and ‘‘move on” following a on
disaster
2009 NIAC, National Infrastructure Infrastructure resilience is the ability to reduce the anticipate, absorb,
Infrastructure Advisory systems magnitude and/or duration of disruptive events. adapt, recover
Council (2009) The effectiveness of a resilient infrastructure or
enterprise depends upon its ability to anticipate,
absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from a
potentially disruptive event
2009 Haimes (2009) Uncategorised Resilience is the ability of a system to withstand a withstand, recover
major disruption within acceptable degradation
parameters and to recover within acceptable time
and composite costs and risks
2010 Magis (2010) Social The existence, development, and engagement of thrive
sustainability community resources by community members to
thrive in an environment characterized by change,
uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise
2010 Obrist et al. (2010) Development Social resilience as the capacity of actors to access access capitals, cope,
studies capitals in order to – not only cope with and adjust adjust, search, create,
to adverse conditions (that is, reactive capacity) – increased competence
but also search for and create options (that is,
proactive capacity), and thus develop increased
competence (that is, positive outcomes) in dealing
with a threat
2011 Cabinet Office (2011) Public Policy The ability of assets, networks and systems to anticipate, absorb,
anticipate, absorb, adapt to and/or rapidly recover adapt, recover
from a disruptive event
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587 17

Appendix A1 (continued)

Year Author Context Definition Capacity or ability

2011 DFID (2011) Public Policy The ability of countries, communities and manage change,
households to manage change, by maintaining or maintain, transform,
transforming living standards in the face of shocks without compromising
or stresses – such as earthquakes, drought or
violent conflict – without compromising their
long-term prospects
2011 Pasteur (2011) and Barrett Development Capacity of a person, household or other aggregate avoid
and Constas (2014) unit to avoid poverty in the face of various
stressors and in the wake of myriad shocks over
time
2012 IPCC (2012) Climate Change The ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb,
anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from adapt, recover, preserve,
the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and restore, improve
efficient manner, including through ensuring the
preservation, restoration, or improvement of its
essential basic structures and functions
2012 Mancini (2012) Socioeconomic Socioeconomic resilience refers to the policy- recover, adjust, benefit
resilience induced ability of an economy to recover from or from shocks
adjust to the negative impacts of adverse
exogenous shocks and to benefit from positive
shocks
2012 The National Academies Multidisciplinary Resilience is the ability to prepare and plan for, prepare, absorb, recover,
(2012) absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt adapt
to adverse events.
The ability of individuals, communities, anticipate, mitigate,
organizations, or countries exposed to disasters cope, recover, without
and crises and underlying vulnerabilities to: compromising future
anticipate, reduce the impact of, cope with and
recover from the effects of adversity without
compromising their long-term prospects
2013 Asian Development Bank Economic The ability of countries, communities, businesses resist, absorb, recover,
(ADB) (2013) Development and individual households to resist, absorb, reorganise
recover from, and reorganize in response to natural
hazard events, without jeopardizing their
sustained socioeconomic advancement and
development
2013 Economic and Social Economic The capacity of countries to withstand, adapt to withstand, adapt,
Commission for Asia and Development and recover from national disasters and major recover
the Pacific (ESCAP) (2013) economic crises – so that their people can continue
to lead the kind of life they value.
2013 Cohen et al. (2013) Emergency A community’s ability to function amidst crises or function
Management disruptions
2014 Sudmeier-Rieux (2014) Ecosystems The ability of a system, organization, community, change in a positive
household or individual to change in a positive manner
manner, when faced with adversity.
2015 Woods (2015) Engineering Resilience has four basic concepts: (1) resilience as rebound, return to
rebound from trauma and return to equilibrium; equilibrium, robust,
(2) resilience as a synonym for robustness; (3) network, adapt
resilience as the opposite of brittleness, i.e., as
graceful extensibility when surprise challenges
boundaries; (4) resilience as network architectures
that can sustain the ability to adapt to future
surprises as conditions evolve
2016 Kuir-Ayius (2016) Health Systems The ability of communities to respond and adapt respond, adapt, learn,
after disturbance through learning and collaborate, maintain
collaboration with all relevant stakeholders, and
strategic planning at local and national levels to
maintain, measure, and strengthen community
capitals, and hence achieve sustainability
Source: Authors.
18 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Appendix A2. Resilience Frameworks

Source Tool Dimensions Limitations

Tobin (1999) Sustainable and resilient Mitigation, structural-cognitive, Mitigation (preventive), recovery
communities in hazardous recovery, sustainable and resilient (absorptive, adaptive) and some
environments: a framework for communities reference to societal change and
analysis but anticipation is not clearly
addressed
Bruneau et al. (2003) A framework to quantitatively 4Rs (robustness, redundancy, Addresses 4Rs associated with
assess and enhance seismic resourcefulness, rapidity) absorptive; not comprehensive
resilience of communities
Bradley and Grainger Social Resilience Model adaptive, performance, and Adaptive capacity and absorptive
(2004) survival strategies, stress (performance, survival) is implied
perception and learning and learning (cross-cutting)
Mayunga (2007) Framework for analysing Sustainable livelihoods (SL) Limited to SL capitals, which are
community disaster resilience capitals (social, economic, human, cross-cutting issues to support
physical, natural) capacities
Cutter et al. (2008) Disaster resilience of place (DROP) Antecedent conditions (ecological, Identifies antecedent conditions,
Model social, economic, institutional, absorptive and adaptive capacities
infrastructure, community but not specific on preventive,
competence), coping, absorptive anticipative and transformative
capacity, adaptive capacity, capacities
recovery
Cutter et al. (2008) Framework for Community Social vulnerability, built Apart from mitigation and
Resilience Assessment environment and infrastructure, planning associated with
natural systems and exposure, preventive capacity, the rest of the
hazards mitigation and planning capacities are implied
Cutter et al. (2010) Baseline resilience indicators for Social resilience, economic Focuses on dimensions of
communities (BRIC) resilience, institutional resilience, resilience with the five capacities
infrastructure resilience, implicit in the realisation of
community capital resilience
Sherrieb, Norris, and Measuring capacities for Economic development; social Focuses on economic metrics and
Galea (2010) community resilience capital social capital but does not address
itself to the capacities
Ainuddin and Community resilience framework Vulnerability analysis, risk Apart from awareness which is
Routray (2012) for an earthquake prone area in perception and awareness and associated with anticipative
Baluchistan resilience analysis (social, physical, capacity, the rest of the capacities
economic, institutional) are implied
Orencio and Fujii Localised disaster resilience index Environmental and natural Focus on natural resource
(2013) resource management, SL, social management, planning and
protection, planning regimes sustainable livelihoods capitals
which maybe associated with
preventive capacity
Alshehri et al. (2015) Community resilience framework social; economic; physical and Apart from Information and
to disasters environmental; governance; health communication (anticipative
and well-being; and information capacity) the rest are implied in SL
and communication capitals, health and well-being
Yoon et al. (2015) Community Disaster Resilience human, social, economic, Capacities not clearly addressed
Index (CDRI) environmental, and institutional but these SL dimensions appear to
factors be inputs for capacities
Zhou, Wan, and Jia Disaster resilience loss-response of Loss potential, geographic connect, Biased towards risk analysis (loss
(2010) location social fabric, biophysical, social, potential) and the role of
and resilience of location geographic, social, biophysical and
social processes in absorptive
capacity
Keating, Campbell, Development and testing of a Five SL capitals of the SL The SL are inputs for realising
and Szoenyi community flood resilience framework and 4Rs capacities while the 4R focus on
(2017) and measurement tool absorptive capacity
Keating, Campbell,
and Mechler
(2017)
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587 19

Appendix A2 (continued)

Source Tool Dimensions Limitations

Miles and Chang Community Based Disaster Damage and recovery over time of Focus on earthquakes response and
(2011) Resilience Model critical services and community recovery (absorptive capacity) and
capital across different scales processes towards its realisation
through community capital
Arbon, Steenkamp, Community disaster resilience Community connectedness, risk Does not clearly identify the
Cornell, Cusack, model and vulnerability, available capacities. Rather, it addresses
and Gebbie (2016) resources, planning and inputs and processes required to
procedures realise the capacities
Frazier, Thompson, Spatial and temporal quantification Identify three indicators – place The indicators are useful in
Dezzani, and of resilience at the community specific, differentially weighted, understanding the spatial and
Butsick (2013) scale temporal and spatial temporal variation of capacities
but does not address the capacities.
Rowcliffe, Lewis, and Community Resilience Manual People, organisations, resources Identifies inputs and processes;
Port (2000) (CRM) and community process unclear on capacities
THRIVE (2000) Toolkit for health and resilience in People, place, equitable Same as above
vulnerable environments (THRIVE) opportunity, community
USIOTWSP (2007) Guide for evaluating coastal Governance, society and economy, Preventive, anticipation, absorptive
community resilience to tsunamis coastal resource management, land capacities implied but not clearly
and other hazards use and structural design, risk articulated; limited emphasis on
knowledge, warning and transformative capacity
evacuation, emergency response,
recovery
UNISDR (2008) Indicators of progress: guidance on The framework is based on HFA Same as above
measuring the reduction of priority actions, with the resilience
disaster risks and the capacities implied
implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action
Courtney et al. Coastal community resilience in Governance, society and economy; Same as above
(2008) the Indian ocean region: a unifying coastal resource management, land
framework, assessment, and use and structural design, risk
lessons learned knowledge, warning and
evacuation, emergency response,
disaster recovery
Schwind (2009) Community resilience toolkit (CRT) A community-based tool for Transformative resilience implied
initiating change; a situation although it does not refer to the
analysis tool, visioning and resilience capacities;
strategic planning
Twigg (2009) Characteristics of a disaster- The framework is based on HFA The framework has 167 indicators,
resilient community priorities – governance, early with resilience capacities implied
warning systems, education, risk
reduction, and preparedness and
response
Shaw, Takeuchi, Climate and disaster resilience Asset based approach: physical, Limited to SL capitals, which are
Joerin, Fernandez, initiative (CDRI) social, economic, institutional, and cross-cutting issues to support
Tjandradewi, natural aspects capacities
Chosadillia, and
Matsuoka (2010)
Team (2010) Community economic resilience Economic, labour market, social Focuses on economic, labour and
index (CERI) social indicators; does not address
resilience capacities
Peacock, Brody, Seitz, Community disaster resilience Disaster cycle supported by SL Links SL assets to each disaster
Merrell, Vedlitz, framework (CDRF) capital assets phase with the capacities implied
Zahran, Harriss,
and Stickney
(2010)
Sempier, Swann, Community self-assessment Critical infrastructure, critical Mainly focused on mitigation
Emmer, Sempier, resilience index facilities, transportation, (preventative capacity) but unclear
and Schneider community plans, mitigation with other capacities
(2010) measures, business plans and
social systems

(continued on next page)

20 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
Appendix A2 (continued)
Source Tool Dimensions
Chandra, Acosta, Building Community Resilience to Wellness, access, education,
Stern, Uscher- Disasters (BCRD) engagement, self-sufficiency,
Pines, and partnership, quality and efficiency
Williams (2011)
Pfefferbaum, Communities advancing resilience Connection and caring, resources,
Pfefferbaum, and toolkit (CART) transformative potential disaster
Van Horn (2011) management
DFID (2011) Four elements of a resilience Context, disturbance, capacities to
framework deal with disturbance (exposure,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity),
reaction to disturbance (survive,
cope, recover, learn, transform)
Kafle (2012) Measuring disaster resilient community-based organisations;
communities hazard, vulnerability and capacity
assessment; community risk
reduction plans; involvement of
vulnerable groups; integrated
development planning;
partnerships; community
awareness; diversified local
economy; safe ‘critical facilities’;
contingency plans; external
support; and community early
warning system
USAID (2012) Conceptual Framework of sensitivity, exposure, adaptive
Resilience capacity and risk reduction (access
to risk assessment tools; early
warning systems, reduce drivers of
conflict, DRR, social safety and
financial protection)
White and O’Hare Community Resilience System Predict, plan and perform process
(2014) (CRS) and conduct monthly interactive
workshops before, during, and
after disasters and crises
Frankenberger, Community resilience: conceptual Context, community capacities for
Spangler, and framework and measurement feed collective action, areas of collective
Alexander (2013) the future learning agenda action, sensitivity, reaction to
disturbance, livelihood outcomes
Hughes, Fuller, and A multidimensional approach for Social and institutional capability,
Bushell (2013) measuring resilience livelihood viability, contingency
resources, environment,
innovation potential
UNDP (2014) Community based resilience Sustainable livelihoods framework
analysis (CoBRA) capitals (physical, social, human,
natural and financial)
Limitations
Presents inputs, processes and
outcomes but not clearly linked to
specific resilience capacities
Identifies transformative capacity
(potential for community change)
and inputs (resources based on SL)
and processes (e.g participation),
while the rest of capacities are
stated in the form of disaster
phases
While it identifies adaptive
capacity, it has a response focus.
Exposure and sensitivity are not
themselves capacities but these
determine the effort needed to deal
with the shocks. Reaction to the
disturbance identifies the potential
for transformative capacity
Apart from transformative
capacity, the rest of the capacities
are implied
The adaptive capacity is clearly
identified while the preventative
capacity is implied in risk
reduction. Exposure and sensitivity
are not themselves capacities but
these determine the effort needed
to deal with the shocks
Places emphasis on processes but it
is not clear on the capacities to be
developed
Similar to DFID and USAID
frameworks; clearly identifies the
adaptive capacity but unclear on
the preventive, anticipative,
absorptive and transformative
capacity. However, the reaction to
disturbance has some
transformative capacity, a critical
element for livelihood outcomes
Inputs and processes for
strengthening resilience capacities
but unclear on the capacities
themselves
Limited to SL capitals, which are
cross-cutting issues to support
capacities
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
Appendix A2 (continued)
Source Tool Dimensions
TRF (2014) City resilience framework (CRF) Qualities (reflective, robust,
redundant, flexible, resourceful,
inclusive, integrated); leadership
and strategy, health and wellbeing,
economy and society,
infrastructure and ecosystems
IFRC (2014) Framework for community Risk informed approaches, demand
resilience driven, people-centred approach,
being connected
Barkham et al. Grosvenor resilience framework Climate, environment, resources,
(2014) infrastructure, community,
governance, institutions, technical
and learning, planning systems,
funding structures
Gawler and Tiwari International council for local Engagement, climate research and
(2014) environmental initiatives (ICLEI) impact assessment, vulnerabilities
resilience framework assessment, city resilience strategy
UNISDR (2014) Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Organize for resilience; identify,
Cities understand and use current and
future risk scenarios; strengthen
financial capacity for resilience;
pursue resilient urban
development; safeguard natural
buffers; strengthen institutional
capacity for resilience; increase
societal and cultural resilience;
increase infrastructure resilience;
ensure effective disaster response;
expedite recovery and build back
better
Khazai et al. (2015) Disaster Resilience Index (DRI) Legal and institutional processes,
awareness and capacity building,
critical services and infrastructure
resilience, emergency
preparedness, response and
recovery planning, development
planning, regulation and risk
mitigation
C3LD, (2015) RELi Resiliency Action List + Credit Panoramic approach, hazard
Catalog (RELi) preparedness, hazard adaptation,
community vitality, productivity/
health, diversity, energy, water,
food, materials, artefacts and
applied creativity
Cimellaro et al. PEOPLES Framework Population and Demographics,
(2016) Environmental/Ecosystem,
Organized Governmental Services,
Physical Infrastructure, Lifestyle
and Community Competence,
Economic Development, and
Social-Cultural Capital
Ospina and Heeks Resilience assessment Robustness, self-organisation,
(2016) benchmarking and impact toolkit learning, redundancy, rapidity,
(RABIT) scale, diversity, flexibility, equality
Adapted from Sharifi (2016).
21
Limitations
The 4Rs are associated with
absorptive capacity while
leadership are processes that are
required to achieve various
capacities, with health and well-
being being outcomes
These are process for realising the
capacities, although capacities are
not clearly articulated
States inputs and process for
realising capacities with some of
the capacities implied
Focuses on the processes towards
enhancing some of the resilience
capacities although these are not
clearly identified
A mixture of inputs, processes,
types of resilience and resilience
outcomes, with some of the
capacities implied such as
preventive, anticipative, absorptive
and adaptive capacities
Provides inputs and processes to
achieving resilience, with some
capacities implied such as
preventive/adaptive (mitigation,
development planning),
anticipative (emergency
preparedness) absorptive
(response and recovery)
Adaptive capacity is clearly stated
but some of them are implied e.g.
anticipative while the rest are
inputs and processes to
strengthening various capacities
Based on 7 dimensions, the
framework is a useful tool for
defining and measuring disaster
resilience at various community
scales. However, the resilient
capacities are not clearly
articulated
Mixes processes of realising
capacities (e.g learning, self-
organisation, flexibility, diversity)
but clearly skewed towards the
absorptive capacity (4Rs)
22 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Appendix A3 Risk Drivers.

Components Sub-components Indicators Source

Hazard Hydrometeorological hazards
 Drought Frequency, people exposed UNISDR/EM-DAT (CRED)
 Flood
 Tropical cyclone
 Snow avalanches
Geological hazards
 Earthquake Frequency, people exposed UNISDR/EM-DAT (CRED)
 Tsunami
 Landslide
 Volcanic eruption
Biological hazards
 Human epidemics (gastro-intestinal infections, Frequency/prevalence rate, WHO Global Health observatory
HIV influenza, malaria etc) people exposed
 Animal epidemics (foot and mouth, anthrax Frequency, people exposed UNISDR/EM-DAT (CRED)
etc
 Insect infestation (Fall Armyworm etc) Frequency, people exposed FAO
Technological Hazards
 Industrial pollution Frequency, people exposed UNISDR/EM-DAT (CRED)
 Nuclear release and radioactivity
 Toxic waste
Environmental degradation
 Land degradation Frequency, people exposed UNISDR/EM-DAT (CRED)
 Deforestation
 Desertification
 Wildfires
Civil conflict
 Recent internal conflict People exposed Global Conflict Risk Index
 Project conflict risk
 Current highly violent conflict intensity
Vulnerability Social-economic vulnerability
 Development and deprivation Multidimensional Poverty UNDP Human Development Report
Index
 Inequality Gender Inequality Index
 Aid dependency Aid per capita
 Unemployment Total unemployment rate
Vulnerable groups
 Unprotected people Total people of concern UNHRC/Global Internal
Displacement Database (GIDD)
 Health conditions TB, HIV, malaria rates WHO
Life expectancy at birth
 Children U5 Underweight and mortality UNDP Human Development Report
 Recent shocks People affected by disasters UNISDR/EM-DAT (CRED)
 Food security Food availability, utilisation FAO
access
Urbanisation
 Population density People/km2
 Urban population Urban population growth
rate
% of urban population to
country population
 Slum population Slum population as % of
urban population
 Settlement House ownership rate

Source: UNISDR (2004) for hazard classification; INFORM for vulnerability classification.
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
Appendix A4 Indicators of resilience capacities.
Capacity Dimension
Preventive Environmental sustainability
 Investment in renewable energy
 Investment in carbon dioxide emis-
sions reduction
 Investment in forest area
 Investment in fresh renewable
water sources
Economic development
 Natural resource depletion
 Adjusted net savings
 External debt stock
 Research and development
 Concentration index (exports)
Infrastructure Development
 Road infrastructure
 Improved sanitation facilities
 Improved water sources
 Investment in to electricity
Social Development
Access to health
 Public and private expenditure on
health care
 Immunisation
Access to education
 Public expenditure on education
 School enrolment
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
 Investment in disaster risk
reduction
 International support and coopera-
tion for DRR
 Disaster risk reduction strategy
Anticipative Early warning and early action
systems
 Level of risk knowledge
 Availability and access to multi-
hazard early warning systems
 Early action
Disaster preparedness and response
plans
Risk retention and transfer
 Strategic/Financial reserves
 Protection of public and private
assets
23
Indicators Data sources
% of renewable energy to total energy UNDP Human Development
production Report
Per capita (tonnes)
% of forest to total land area
% of total renewable water resources
% of GNI UNDP Human Development
% of GNI Report
% of GNI
% of GDP
value
Roads network density INFORM
% of population with access WHO/UNICEF
% of population with access WHO/UNICEF
% of population with access World Bank
Per capita expenditure WHO Global Health Observatory
Data Repository
% coverage among 1 –year olds
Per capita expenditure UNESCO Institute for Statistics
% of literate people ages 15 and above
% of GDP SFDRR Monitor
official development assistance
(ODA) receipts plus other official
flows),
Existence of a DRR strategy in line
with SFDRR
% of local governments that adopt
and implements local DRR strategy in
line with national strategies.
Access to disaster risk information at SFDRR Monitor
national and local levels
Coverage of early warning SFDRR Monitor
information per 100,000 people
% local government having a plan to SFDRR Monitor
act on early warnings
% population protected through pre- SFDRR Monitor
emptive evacuation following early
warning
Existence of a national emergency SFDRR Monitor
preparedness and response plan
% of local governments that adopts SFDRR Monitor
and implements local emergency
preparedness and response plan
Hospital beds per 1,000 people WHO
Financial reserves as % of GDP World Bank
% of insured losses World Bank, African Risk Capacity
(ARC); The Caribbean Catastrophe
Risk Insurance (CCRIF)
(continued on next page)
24 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Appendix A4 (continued)

Capacity Dimension Indicators Data sources

Early warning communication and
dissemination
 Internet access Internet users per 1,000 people World Bank
 Mobile cellular access Subsrciptions per 1,000 people World Bank
 TV access % with access to TV World Bank
 Radio access % with access to radio World Bank
Absorptive Disaster mortality
 Disaster deaths Number of deaths/100,000 Sendai Framework Monitor/EM-
DAT (CRED)
 Missing people Missing people/100,000
People affected by disasters
 People affected Number of people affected/100,000 Sendai Framework Monitor/EM-
DAT (CRED)
Economic losses
 Direct economic loss % of economic loss of GDP Sendai Framework Monitor/EM-
DAT (CRED)
 Damage to critical infrastructure Value of damage
and disruption of basic services
(e.g. health and educational
facilities)
Humanitarian aid Ratio of external assistance to OCHA Financial Tracking Service
government
Adaptive Natural resources
 Projected or actual change in agri- % of availability of quality agricultural
cultural land and forests land and forests
% of people accessing quality
agricultural land and forests
 Projected or actual change in % of population with access to WHO/UNICEF
ground water runoff and fresh improved drinking water sources
water withdrawals
% of availability of quality water
resources for agriculture
% of people accessing quality water
resources for agriculture
 Projected or actual change in % dam capacity FAO
groundwater recharge
 Projected or actual change in Ecological footprint UNFCCC
ecosystems
% coverage of protected biomass FAO/UNFCCC
Social Protection
Projected change in number of Public spending on social assistance World Bank (ASPIRE) Atlas of
vulnerable groups as % of GDP Social Protection
Health
 Projected or actual change in deaths % of population with access improved WHO Global Health Observatory
due to disasters (e.g. climate change sanitation facilities Data Repository
induced diseases)
 Projected or actual change in Physicians, nurses and WHO Global Health Observatory
vector-borne diseases (e.g. malaria) midwives/10,000 population Data Repository
 Projected or actual change in water- WHO Global Health Observatory
borne diseases (gastro-intestinal Data Repository
infections e.g. cholera)
Livelihoods diversification
 Projected or actual change in % of off-farm income World Bank
incomes and diversification of liveli- % of off-farm employment
hoods portfolios
 Projected or actual change in Rate out migration IOM
migration % remittances to GDP World Bank
 Projected or actual change to access % population with access to credit
to finance
 Projected or actual change in access % of population with access to
to energy electricity
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587 25

Appendix A4 (continued)

Capacity Dimension Indicators Data sources

Transformative Country’s fragility
 Cohesion (security apparatus, fac- Level of fragility according to the Fragile state index
tionalised elites, group grievance) fragile state index
 Economic (economic decline,
uneven economic development,
human flight and brain drain)
 Political (state legitimacy, public
services, human rights and rule of
law)
 Social (demographic pressures,
refugees and IDPs, external
intervention)
Country’s governance mechanisms
Voice and accountability Governance performance according World Bank Worldwide
 Political stability and lack of to the governance index Governance Indicators report
violence
 Government effectiveness
 Regulatory quality
 Rule of law
 Control of corruption
Country’s corruption Level of corruption Corruption Perception Index
Source: Authors.

Appendix A5. Examples of inputs and process indicators.

Element What to measure Source/Method

Learning  No. of local schools providing education in disaster risk The data sources will include quantitative data
reduction (DRR) for children in their curricular activities from surveys and qualitative data from
 No. of organisations trained in relevant skills for DRR, participatory research
including disaster preparedness and response
 Quantity of appropriate learning materials (information,
communication, education) developed for each of the
capacities;
 No. of positive learning events replicated at community
level
 No. of DRR proposals containing lessons learning
Planning  No. of community groups and partners that understand rel-
evant legislation
 No. of local communities with DRR-informed land use and
management plans
 No. of communities with local operational and resourced
DRR plans, including poverty and vulnerability reduction,
natural resources management, food and nutrition security
and social protection plans
Collaboration/  No. of DRR partnerships between local stakeholder groups
Coordination and organisations
Networking  No. of exchange activities between partners leading to learn-
ing and innovation within organisations
 Existence of productive links with academic, scientific and
other institutions to produce and disseminate lessons
learned
 No. policy level changes resulting from advocacy networks
Organising  No. of effective local disaster management committees
 No. and quality of efficient, effective and timely participa-
tory community assessments undertaken and actions to deal
with the risks
 No. of effective advocacy actions initiated by communities
that result in increased access to public resources and/or
positive policy influencing
 No. of actions that improved community organization for
disaster preparedness

(continued on next page)

26 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587

Appendix A5 (continued)

Element What to measure Source/Method

Communication  Proportion of local communities accessing risk communica-
tion through the media, including social media
 Level of general public awareness of disaster risks they face
and how to manage them
 Frequency and effectiveness of awareness raising pro-
grammes at national, regional, local levels
 Existence of two-way public communication programmes
that involve dialogue with stakeholders about disaster risks
and related issues
 Levels of education provision, access, literacy, etc., facilitate
effective information dissemination and awareness raising
Resources  Range and diversity of household and community asset
bases (income, savings, convertible property) to support cri-
sis coping strategies
 Proportion of community members involved in commu-
nity/group savings and credit schemes, and/or access to
micro-finance services
 Proportion of households with access to affordable insur-
ance (covering lives, homes and other property)
 Proportion of local authority ex-ante and ex-post disaster
finance aimed at enhancing local community capacity to
destabilising events, including existence of community dis-
aster fund to implement DRR, response and recovery
activities
Improvising  Frequency of training where participants take on the
responsibility for tasks or roles outside one’s professional
area of specialization
 Existence of a platform for information sharing using tools
and routines
Innovation  Existence of mechanisms for integration indigenous knowl-
edge and local perceptions of risk and scientific knowledge,
data and assessment methods
Source: Authors.

References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience; are they related? Progress in
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Human Geography, 24, 347–364.
Arnall, A. (2015). Resilience as transformative capacity: Exploring the quadripartite
African Risk Capacity (2016) African Risk Capacity Strategic Framework 2016-2020.
cycle of structuration in a Mozambican resettlement programme. Geoforum, 66,
<http://www.africanriskcapacity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
26–36.
PI_Strategic-Framework-2016-2020_20161207_EN_TA.pdf> Last accessed
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2013). Investing in resilience: Ensuring a disaster-
January 17, 2017.
resistant future. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Aguirre, B. E. (2006). On the concept of resilience. Disaster Research Centre:
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
University of Delaware.
Barkham, R., Brown, K., Parpa, C., Breen, C., Carver, S., & Hooton, C. (2014). Resilient
Ainuddin, S., & Routray, J. K. (2012). Community resilience framework for an
cities: A grosvenor research report. Grosvenor.
earthquake prone area in Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Barnett, B. J., Barrett, C. B., & Skees, J. R. (2008). Poverty traps and index-based risk
Reduction, 2(1), 25–36.
transfer products. World Development, 36(10), 1766–1785.
Albee, E. (1960). The zoo story and the sandbox: Two short plays. New York:
Barrett, C. B., & Constas, M. A. (2014). Toward a theory of resilience for international
Dramatists Play.
development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111
Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery.
(40), 14625–14630.
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Basher, R. (2006). Global early warning systems for natural hazards: Systematic and
Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Handmer, J., & Howden, M. (2014). Framing disaster
people-centred. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
resilience: The implications of the diverse conceptualisations of ‘‘bouncing
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364(1845), 2167–2182.
back”. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(3), 252–270.
Beck, U. (1986). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Alexander, D. E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological
Béné, C., Newsham, A., Davies, M., Ulrichs, M., & Godfrey-Wood, R. (2014).
journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13(11), 2707–2716.
Resilience, poverty and development. Journal of International Development, 26
Allenby, B., & Fink, J. (2005). Toward inherently secure and resilient societies.
(5), 598–623.
Science, 309(5737).
Béné, C., Wood, R. G., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2012). Resilience: New Utopia or
Alshehri, S. A., Rezgui, Y., & Li, H. (2015). Disaster community resilience assessment
New Tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of
method: A consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach. Natural Hazards, 78,
resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working
395–416.
Papers, 405, 1–61.
Alshehri, S., Rezgui, Y., & Li, H. (2015). Delphi-based consensus study into a
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., ... West, P.
framework of community resilience to disaster. Natural Hazards, 75(3),
C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services.
2221–2245.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448.
Apgar, M. J., Allen, W., Moore, K., & Ataria, J. (2015). Understanding adaptation and
Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreño, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer,
transformation through indigenous practice: The case of the Guna of Panama.
S., ... Welle, T. (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: The
Ecology and Society, 20(1), 2017. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07314-200145. Last
MOVE framework. Natural Hazards, 67(2), 193–211.
accessed December 5.
Bodin, P., & Wiman, B. L. B. (2004). Resilience and other stability concepts in
Arbon, P., Steenkamp, M., Cornell, V., Cusack, L., & Gebbie, K. (2016). Measuring
ecology: notes on their origin, validity and usefulness. The ESS Bulletin, 2(2).
disaster resilience in communities and households. International Journal of
Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Per_Bodin/publication/
Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(2), 201–215.
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
236208772_Resilience_and_Other_Stability_Concepts_in_Ecology_Notes_on_
their_Origin_Validity_and_Usefulness/links/0c960516faf19c9a03000000.pdf>
Last accessed December 5, 2017.
Boyd, E., Nykvist, B., Borgström, S., & Stacewicz, I. A. (2015). Anticipatory
governance for social-ecological resilience. AMBIO, 44(S1), 149–161.
Bradley, D., & Grainger, A. (2004). Social Resilience as a controlling influence on
desertification in Senegal. Land Degradation and Development, 15, 451–470.
Brand, F., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning (s) of resilience: Resilience as a
descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society, 12(1).
Braimoh, A., Manyena, B., Obuya, G., & Muraya, F. (2018). Assessment of food security
early warning systems for East and Southern Africa. Washington DC: World Bank.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., ...
von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and
enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4),
733–752.
C3LD. (2015). The C3 Living Design Project, http://c3livingdesign.org/ Last accessed
10 August 2017.
Cabinet Office, C.. (2011). Strategic national framework on community resilience.
London: Cabinet Office. <www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/
resources/Strategic-National-Framework-on-Community-Resilience_0.pdf>
Last accessed October 30, 2017.
Cardona, O. D. (2003). The notions of disaster risk: Conceptual framework for
integrated management information and indicators program for disaster risk
management. Inter-American Development Bank.
Cardona, O. (2005). Indicators of disaster risk and risk management—main technical
report. IDB/IDEA program of indicators for disaster risk management. Manizales.
Retrieved from http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/ Last accessed 8 April, 2018.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to
measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4, 765–781.
Cevolini, A. (2016). The strongness of weak signals: Self-reference and paradox in
anticipatory systems. European Journal of Futures Research, 4(1), 4.
Chandra, A., Acosta, J., Stern, S., Uscher-Pines, L., & Williams, M. V. (2011). Building
community resilience to disasters: A way forward to enhance national health
Security. Rand Corporation.
Chandler, D., & Reid, J. (2016). The neoliberal subject: Resilience, adaptation and
vulnerability. London and New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
Chaskin, R., Brown, P., Vankatesh, S., & Vida, A. (2001). Building community capacity.
New York: Aldione de Gruyter.
Chen, S. C., Ferng, J. W., Wang, Y. T., Wu, T. Y., & Wang, J. J. (2008). Assessment of
disaster resilience capacity of hillslope communities with high risk for
geological hazards. Engineering Geology, 98(3), 86–101.
Christoplos, I., Mitchell, J., Liljelund, A., & Cross, B. R. (2001). Re-framing risk: The
changing context of disaster mitigation and preparedness. Disasters, 25(3),
185–198.
Cimellaro, G. P., Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. M., & Arendt, L. (2016). PEOPLES: A
framework for evaluating resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(10),
4016063.
Cinner, J., Fuentes, M. M. P. B., & Randriamahazo, H. (2009). Exploring social
resilience in Madagascar’s marine protected areas. Ecology and Society, 14(1),
art41.
Coffé, H., & Geys, B. (2007). Toward an empirical characterization of bridging and
bonding social capital. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 121–139.
Cohen, O., Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Goldberg, A., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2013). The
conjoint community resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling
and predicting community resilience for emergencies. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 80(9), 1732–1741.
Collins, A. E. (2009). Disaster and development. Oxon: Routledge.
Comfort, L. (1999). Shared risk: Complex systems in seismic response. New York:
Pergamon.
Constas, M. A., Frankenberger, T. R., & Hoddinott, J. (2014). Resilience measurement
principles: Toward an agenda for measurement design. Rome: Food Security
Information Network.
Courtney, C. A., Ahmed, A. K., Jackson, R., McKinnie, D., Rubinoff, P., Stein, A., ...
White, A. (2008). Coastal community resilience in the Indian Ocean region: A
unifying framework, assessment, and lessons learned. In Solutions to coastal
disasters (pp. 990–1001).
Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–50.
Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J., ... Van
Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of
resilience. Ecosystems, 8(8), 975–987.
Cuneo, C. N., Sollom, R., & Beyrer, C. (2017). The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe,
2008–2009: A review and critique of the evidence. Health and human rights, 19
(2), 249–263.
Cuny, F. (1983). Disaster and development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cutter, S., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008).
Community and regional resilience: perspectives from hazards, disasters, and
emergency management. Oak Ridge, TN. <http://www.resilientus.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/FINAL_CUTTER_9-25-08_1223482309.pdf> Last
accessed November 30, 2017.
Cutter, S. L. (2016). The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA.
Natural Hazards, 80(2), 741–758.
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., ... Acosta-Michlik, L.
(2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural
disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606.
Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for
benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
27
Management, 7(1) http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jhsem.2010.7.1/jhsem.
2010.7.1.1732/jhsem.2010.7.1.1732.xml.
Cutter, S., Ash, K., & Emrich, C. (2014). The geographies of community disaster
resilience. Global Environmental Change, 29, 65–77.
Davidson, D. (2010). The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems:
Some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society and Natural Resources, 23
(12), 1135–1149.
de Haan, L., & Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the frontier of livelihoods research.
Development and Change, 36(1), 27–47.
Djalante, R., & Thomalla, F. (2011). Community resilience to natural hazards and
climate change: A review of definitions and operational frameworks. http://atdr.
unsyiah.ac.id:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/5320 Last accessed 8 April, 2018.
Djurfeldt, G., & Jirström, M. (2005). The puzzle of the policy shift: The early Green
Revolution in India, Indonesia and the Philippines. In G. Djurfeldt, H. Holmen,
M. Jirström, & R. Larsson (Eds.), The African food crisis: Lessons from the Asian
Green Revolution (pp. 1–8). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
DFID (2011). Defining disaster resilience. A DFID approach paper. London: DFID.
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/186874/defining-disaster-resilience-approach-paper.pdf>
Last accessed December 3, 2017.
DHS Risk Steering Committee (2008). U.S. Department of homeland security risk
lexicon. Washington DC: United States Department of Homeland Security.
Donnellan, B., Larsen, T. J., & Levine, L. (2007). Editorial introduction to the special
issue on: Transfer and diffusion of IT for organizational resilience. Journal of
Information Technology, 22, 3–4.
Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. (1992). Uncertainty, sustainability and change.
Global Environmental Change, 2(4), 262–276.
Dubois, D. M. (2000). Review of incursive, hyperincursive and anticipatory
systems—Foundation of anticipation in electromagnetism. In D. M. Dubois
(Ed.), Computing anticipatory system (pp. 3–30). College Park, MD: American
Institute of Physics.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and
Psychopathology, 5(4), 517.
Engle, N. L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental
Change, 21(2), 647–656.
ESCAP (2013). Building resilience to natural disasters and major economic crises,
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Last
accessed 10 August, 2017 http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/
ThemeStudy2013-full2.pdf.
Ferguson, J. (2010). The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(s1), 166–184.
Ferlander, S. (2007). The importance of different forms of social capital for health.
Acta Sociologica, 50, 115–128.
Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(2), 14–21.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological
systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.
Folke, C., Carenter, B., Walker, C., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. C. (2010).
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability.
Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Foxton, T. J. (2007). Technological lock-in and the role of innovation. In G. Atkinson,
S. Dietz, & E. Neumayer (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable development
(pp. 304–318). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Frankenberger Mueller, M., Spangler, T., & Alexander, S. (2013). Community
resilience: Conceptual framework and measurement feed the future learning
agenda. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Frazier, T. G., Thompson, C. M., Dezzani, R. J., & Butsick, D. (2013). Spatial and
temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography,
42, 95–107.
FSIN (2017). Food Security Information Network (FSIN)-Technical Working Group.
Rome: Food Security Information Network. www.fsincop.net/topics/resilience-
measurement/technical-working-group/en Last accessed December 6, 2017.
Fuerth, L. S. (2009). Foresight and anticipatory governance. Foresight, 11(4), 14–32.
Fujita, Y. (2006). Systems are ever-changing. In E. Hollnagel, D. Woods, & N. Leveson
(Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 20–33). Hampshire:
Ashgate.
Gaillard, J. C. (2010). Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: Perspectives for climate
and development policy. Journal of International Development, 22(2), 218–232.
Gawler, S., & Tiwari, S. (2014). ICLEI ACCCRN PROCESS building urban climate change
resilience: A toolkit for local governments. ICLEI South Asia.
Gawronski, V. T., & Olson, R. S. (2013). Disasters as crisis triggers for critical
junctures? The 1976 Guatemala case. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(2),
133–149.
Geis, D. E. (2000). By design: The disaster resistant and quality-of-life community.
Natural Hazards Review, 1(3), 151–160.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goode, N., Salmon, P. M., Spencer, C., McArdle, D., & Archer, F. (2017). Defining
disaster resilience: Comparisons from key stakeholders involved in emergency
management in Victoria, Australia. Disasters, 41(1), 171–193.
Goodman, R., Speers, M., & McLeroy, K. (1998). Identifying and defining the
dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health
Education & Behaviour, 25(3), 258–278.
Gordon, J. (1978). Structures. London: Penguin.
Grøtan, T. O., Størseth, F., Rø, M. H., & Skjerve, A. B. (2008). Resilience, Adaptation
and Improvisation – increasing resilience by organising for successful
improvisation. Paper presented at the 3rd symposium on resilience engineering
Antibes, Juan-Les-Pins, France, October 28–30.
28 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
Grotberg, E. (1996). The international resilience project findings from the research
and the effectiveness of interventions. In Proceedings of the 54th annual
convention of the International Council of Psychologists (pp. 118–128).
Grote, G. (2006). Rules management as source for loose coupling in high-risk
systems. In Proceedings of the second resilience engineering symposium
(pp. 116–124).
Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience—In theory and application. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31(1), 425–439.
Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Resilience and adpative cycle. In L. H.
Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in
human and natural systems (pp. 25–62). Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., Pritchard, L., & Peterson, G. (2001). Resilience. In H.
Mooney & J. Canadell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of global environmental change 2.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Analysis, 29(4),
498–501.
Hale, A., & Heijer, T. (2006). Defining resilience. In E. Hollnagel, D. Woods, & N.
Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts (pp. 35–40).
Hampshire: Ashgate.
Hamel, G., & Valikangas, L. (2003). Why resilience matters. Harvard Business Review,
81(9), 56–57.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2016). Organizing risk: Discourse, power, and
‘‘Riskification”. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 80–108.
Harris, K. (2011). Resilience in practice: Operationalising the ten characteristics of
resilience through the case of greening Darfur. Sussex: Institute of Development
Studies.
Hill, E., Wial, H., & Wolman, H. (2008). Exploring regional economic resilience.
Berkely: Univ. of California, Inst. of Urban and Regional Development. www.
econstor.eu/handle/10419/59420 Last accessed December 6, 2017.
Hinkel, J. (2011). ‘‘Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a
clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21(1),
198–208.
Hochrainer, S., & Mechler, R. (2011). Natural disaster risk in Asian megacities: A case
for risk pooling? Cities, 28(1), 53–61.
Hodgson, A. (2013). Towards an ontology of the present moment. On the Horizon, 21
(1), 24–38.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematic, 4, 1–23.
Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Engineering
within Ecological Constraints, 31–43.
Hollnagel, E. (2006). Resilience – The challenge of the unstable. In E. Hollnagel, D. D.
Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts
(pp. 9–17). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Horne, J. F., & Orr, J. E. (1998). Assessing behaviours that create resilient
organisations. Employment Relations Today, 24, 29–39.
Howard, M. T. (2017). Raising the bar’: The role of institutional frameworks for
community engagement in Australian natural resource governance. Rural
Studies, 49, 78–91.
Hughes, K., Fuller, R., & Bushell, H. (2013). A Multidimensional approach to measuring
resilience. Discussion Paper. Oxfam GB. http://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.
com/oxfam/handle/10546/302641. Last accessed 10 August, 2017.
Husserl, E. (1991). On the phenomenology of the consciousness of internal time.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
IFRC (2014). IFRC framework for community resilience. Geneva: International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. <www.ifrc.org/Global/
Documents/Secretariat/201501/1284000-Framework for Community
Resilience-EN-LR.pdf> Last accessed November 29, 2017.
INFORM. (2017). Index for Risk Management. Retrieved from http://www.inform-
index.org/ Last accessed 8 December, 2017.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2012). Managing the risks of
extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: A special
report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jakimow, T. (2013). Unlocking the black box of institutions in livelihoods analysis:
Case study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Oxford Development Studies, 41(4),
493–516.
Jerneck, A., & Olsson, L. (2008). Adaptation and the poor: Development, resilience
and transition. Climate Policy, 8(2), 170–182.
Joseph, J. (2013). Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality
approach. Resilience, 1(1), 38–52.
Kafle, S. K. (2012). Measuring disaster-resilient communities: A case study of
coastal communities in Indonesia. Journal Business Continuity Emergency
Planning, 5, 316–326.
Kang, B., Lee, S. J., Kang, D. H., & Kim, Y. O. (2007). A flood risk projection for
Yongdam dam against future climate change. Hydro-Environ Research, 1(2),
118–125.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., ... Ratick, S.
(1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8
(2), 177–187.
Katz, C. (2004). Growing up global: Economic restructuring and children’s everyday
lives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Khazai, B., Bendimerad, F., Cardona, O. D., Carreno, M. L., Barbat, A. H., & Buton, C. G.
(2015). A guide to measuring urban risk resilience: Principles, tools and practice of
urban indicators. The Philippines: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (EMI).
Keating, A., Campbell, K., & Mechler, R. (2017). Disaster resilience: What it is and
how it can engender a meaningful change in development policy. Development
Policy, 35(1), 65–91.
Keating, A., Campbell, K., & Szoenyi, M. (2017). Development and testing of a
community flood resilience measurement tool. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences, 17(1), 77–101.
Keck, M., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons learned and
ways forward. Erdkunde, 67(1), 5–19.
Keen, M., & Mahanty, S. (2006). Learning in sustainable natural resource
management: Challenges and opportunities in the Pacific. Society and Natural
Resources, 19(6), 497–513.
Kelly, U., & Kelly, R. (2017). Resilience, solidarity, agency – grounded reflections on
challenges and synergies. Resilience, 5(1), 10–28.
Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the world trade
centre disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Centre.
Disasters, 27(1), 37–53.
Kinzig, A., Ryan, P., Etienne, M., Allison, H., & Elmqvist, T. (2006). Resilience and
regime shifts: Assessing cascading effects. Ecology and Society, 11(1)
https://consecol.org/vol11/iss1/art20/main.html.
Klein, R. J. T., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How
useful is this concept? Environmental Hazards, 5, 35–45.
Kretzmann, J. P., & McNight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from inside out–a path
towards finding and mobilizing community assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.
Kuir-Ayius, D. (2016). Building community resilience in mine impacted communities: A
study on delivery of health systems in Papua New Guinea. New Zealand: Massey.
Kumpfer, K. L. (2002). Factors and processes contributing to resilience. In M. D.
Glantz & J. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development (pp. 179–224). Boston,
MA: Springer.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, S. (2014). Assessing resilience: Why quantification misses the point.
Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute. Available online
at: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-
files/9049.pdf. Last accessed January 15, 2017.
Louie, A. H. (2010). Robert Rosen’s anticipatory systems. Foresight, 12(3), 18–29.
Lovell, S. A., Kearns, R. A., & Rosenberg, M. W. (2011). Community capacity building
in practice: Constructing its meaning and relevance to health promoters. Health
& Social Care in the Community, 19(5), 531–540.
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological
capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 25–44.
Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society
& Natural Resources, 23(5), 401–416.
Maguire, B., & Hagan, P. (2007). Disasters and communities: Understanding social
resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 22, 16–20.
Mallak, L. (1998). Resilience in the healthcare industry. Paper presented at the 7th
annual engineering research conference.
Mancini, A. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring the ‘‘economy” dimension in the
evaluation of socio-ecological resilience: A brief commentary. International
Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences, 2, 190–196.
Manuel-Navarrete, D., Pelling, M., & Redclift, M. (2011). Critical adaptation to
hurricanes in the Mexican Caribbean: Development visions, governance
structures, and coping strategies. Global Environmental Change, 21(1),
249–258.
Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450.
Manyena, S. B. (2009). Disaster resilience in development and humanitarian
interventions. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbdv.200490137/
abstract Last accessed December 6, 2017.
Manyena, S. B. (2014). Disaster resilience: A question of ‘‘multiple faces” and
‘‘multiple spaces”? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 8, 1–9.
Manyena, S. B. (2012). Disaster and development paradigms: Too close for comfort?
Development Policy Review, 30(3), 327–345.
Manyena, S. B., O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., & Rose, J. (2011). Disaster resilience: A
bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment, 16(5), 417–424.
Manyena, B., & Gordon, S. (2015). Resilience, panarchy and customary structures in
Afghanistan. Resilience, 3(1), 1–15.
Mant, J. (2001). Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of
health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 13(6), 475–480.
Markusen, A. (1999). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for
rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 33(9),
869–884.
Matarrita-Cascante, D., Trejos, B., Qin, H., Joo, D., & Debner, S. (2017).
Conceptualizing community resilience: Revisiting conceptual distinctions.
Community Development, 48(1), 105–123.
Matyas, D., & Pelling, M. (2015). Positioning resilience for 2015: The role of
resistance, incremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk
management policy. Disasters, 39 Suppl 1(s1), S1–S18.
Mayunga, J. S. (2007). Understanding and applying the concept of community
disaster resilience: A capital-based approach. Landscape Architecture (July),
22–28. <www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/get/3761.pdf> Last accessed December 6, 2017.
McCarthy, J. (2007). From protection to resilience: Injecting ‘‘Moxie” into the
infrastructure security continuum. Virginia: Critical infrastructure protection
program.
McDonald, N. (2006). Organisational resilience and industrial risk. In Resilience
engineering. Concepts and precepts (pp. 155–179). Ashgate: Aldershot.
 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
McLean, J. E. (2015). Beyond the pentagon prison of sustainable livelihood
approaches and towards livelihood trajectories approaches. Asia Pacific
Viewpoint, 56(3), 380–391.
Miles, S. B., & Chang, S. E. (2011). ResilUS: A community based disaster resilience
model. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 38, 36–51.
Miletti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the
United States. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Mochizuki, J., & Chang, S. E. (2017). Disasters as opportunity for change: Tsunami
recovery and energy transition in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 21, 331–339.
Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social
learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344.
National Research Council (NRC) (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, D., Adger, W., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change:
Contributions of a resilience framework. Annual review of Environment and
Resources, 32.
Norris, F., Stevens, S., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K., & Pfefferbaum, R. (2008).
Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and strategy for
disaster readiness. American Journal for Community Psychology, 41(1/2),
127–150.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The human development approach.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nuttall, M. (2010). Anticipation, climate change, and movement in Greenland.
Études/Inuit/Studies, 34(1), 21.
O’Brien, G., & O’Keefe, P. (2014). Managing adaptation to climate risk: Beyond
fragmented responses. London: Routledge.
O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K., & Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural
disasters. Nature, 260, 566–567.
Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi-layered social resilience. Progress in
Development Studies, 10(4), 283–293.
Olson, R., & Gawronski, V. (2003). Disasters as Critical Junctures? Managua,
Nicaragua 1972 and Mexico City 1985. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, 21(1), 3–35.
Orencio, P. M., & Fujii, M. (2013). A localized disaster-resilience index to assess
coastal communities based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 3(1), 62–75.
Ospina, A. V., & Heeks, R. (2016). Resilience Assessment benchmarking and impact
toolkit (RABIT) implementation handbook. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Retrieved from http://www.cdi.manchester.ac.uk. Last accessed 14 December,
2017.
Pasteur, K. (2011). From vulnerability to resilience. Rugby, Warwickshire, United
Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing. <http://doi.org/10.3362/
9781780440583> Last accessed October 28, 2017.
Paton, D., Smith, L., & Violanti, J. (2000). Disaster response: Risk, vulnerability and
resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(3), 173–180.
Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship.
American Sociological Review, 67, 254–277.
Peacock, W. G., Brody, S., Seitz, W., Merrell, W., Vedlitz, A., Zahran, S., Harriss, R., &
Stickney, R. (2010). Advancing resilience of coastal localities: Developing
implementing, and sustaining the use of coastal resilience indicators: A final
report. Hazard Reduction and Recovery Centre.
Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Social resilience and natural disaster.
London: Earthscan.
Pelling, M. (2007). Learning from others: The scope and challenges for participatory
disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 31(4), 373–385.
Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation.
London: Routledge.
Pelling, M., & Dill, K. (2008). Disaster politics: From social control to human
security. In Environment, development and politics working paper series
(pp. 1–25).
Pelling, M., & Dill, K. (2006). Natural’disasters as catalysts of political action. Media
Development, 53(4), 7.
Pelling, M., & Dill, K. (2010). Disaster politics: Tipping points for change in the
adaptation of sociopolitical regimes. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), 21–37.
Pelling, M., & Manuel-Navarrete, D. (2011). From resilience to transformation: The
adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecology and Society, 16(2).
Perrings, C. (2006). Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and
Development Economics, 11(4), 417.
Pfefferbaum, R., Pfefferbaum, B., & Van Horn, R. (2011). Communities advancing
resilience toolkit (CART): The CART integrated system. Oklahoma City, OK:
Terrorism and Disaster Centre at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences
Centre.
Pimm, S. L. (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307(5949),
321–326.
Poli, R. (2010). The many aspects of anticipation. Foresight, 12(3), 7–17.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rankin, A., Dahlbäck, N., & Lundberg, J. (2013). A case study of factor influencing role
improvisation in crisis response teams. Cognition, Technology & Work, 15(1),
79–93.
Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., ... Stringer, L. (2010). What
is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Resilience Alliance. (2005). What is resilience? <www.resalliance.org/ev_en.php>
Last accessed December 5, 2017.
29
Rockström, J. (2003). Resilience building and water demand management for
drought mitigation. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 28(20–27),
869–877.
Rogers, P. (2011). Development of Resilient Australia: Enhancing the PPRR approach
with anticipation, assessment and registration of risks. Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, 26(1), 54–58.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution:
Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.
Rose, A. (2004). Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 13(4), 307–314.
Rose, A. (2007). Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters:
Multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environmental Hazards, 7
(4), 383–398.
Rose, N., & Lentzos, F. (2017). Making us resilient: Responsible citizens for uncertain
times. In S. Trnka & C. Trundle (Eds.), Competing responsibilities: The ethics and
politics of contemporary life (pp. 1–30). London: Duke Press. https://hal.arts.
unsw.edu.au/media/HALFile/Rose_and_Lentzos__2015__Making_Us_Resilient.
pdf Last accessed 8 April, 2018.
Rosen, R. (1985). Anticipatory systems – Philosophical, mathematical and
methodological foundations. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Rowcliffe, P., Lewis, M., & Port, A. (2000). The community resilience manual: A
resource for rural recovery & renewal. Centre for Community Enterprise.
Schipper, E. L. F., & Langston, L. (2015). A comparative overview of resilience
measurement frameworks. Working Paper 442. London: Overseas Development
Institute.
Schutz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5
(4), 533–576.
Schwind, K. (2009). Community resilience toolkit: a workshop guide for community
resilience planning. Oakland, California: Bay Localize. http://www. baylocalize.
org/files/Community Resilience Toolkit v1.0.pdf. Last accessed 8 April, 2018.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working
Paper 72. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Sempier, T., Swann, D., Emmer, R., Sempier, S., & Schneider, M. (2010). Coastal
community resilience index: a community self-assessment. http://masgc.org/
assets/uploads/publications/662/coastal community resilience index.pdf Last
accessed 8 April, 2018.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.
Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community
resilience. Ecological Indicators, 69, 629–647.
Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., Joerin, J., Fernandez, G., Tjandradewi, B., Irawati, Chosadillia,
... Matsuoka, Y. (2010). Climate and disaster resilience initiative capacity-building
program – UNISDR. Kyoto: Kyoto University. <https://www.unisdr.org/we/
inform/publications/16723> Last accessed December 5, 2017.
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring capacities for community
resilience. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 227–247.
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292.
Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary
objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 347–420.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K. I. (2014). Resilience – An emerging paradigm of danger or of
hope? Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(1), 67–80.
Swanson, D. A., Hiley, J. C., Venema, H. D., & Grosshans, R. (2007). Indicators of
adaptive capacity to climate change for agriculture in the prairie region of canada:
An analysis based on statistics Canada’s Census of Agriculture. Working Paper for
the Prairie Climate Resilience Project. Winnipeg: International Institute for
Sustainable Development.
Tanner, T., Bahadur, A., & Moench, M. (2017). Challenges for resilience policy and
practice. London: ODI.
Team, A. S., 2010. Community economic resilience index, Birmingham, UK. http://
www.ied.co.uk/images/uploads/Community Economic Resilience Index tcm9-
33264.pdf. Last accessed 8 April, 2018.
THRIVE (2000). A community approach to address health disparities: Toolkit for health
& resilience in vulnerable environments. Prevention Institute. http://www.
preventioninstitute.org/component/jlibrary/article/id-96/127.html. Last
accessed 8 April, 2018.
Tierney, K. J. (1999). Toward a critical sociology of risk. Sociological Forum, 14,
215–242.
Tierney, K. J., & Nigg, J. M. (1993). Disasters and social change: Consequences for
community construct and affect. Preliminary Paper No. 195. Newark: Disaster
Research Centre.
Tilman, D., & Downing, J. A. (1994). Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature,
367(6461), 363–365.
Tobin, G. (1999). Sustainability and community resilience: The holy grail of hazards
planning? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 1(1),
13–25.
TRF (2014). City resilience index: City resilience framework. The Rockefeller
Foundation and ARUP. https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/
20140410162455/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf. Last accessed 10
August 2017.
Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2004). Psychological
resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of
positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6),
1161–1190.
Twigg, J. (2004). Good practice review disaster risk reduction. Disasters, 44, 31–60.
30 B. Manyena et al. / World Development 123 (2019) 104587
Twigg, J. (2009). Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note.
London: University College London, Benefield Hazard Centre.
UNDP (2014). Community based resilience analysis. New York, NY: UNDP.
United Nations (2016). Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working
group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. New York:
United Nations General Assembly. <https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/
publications/51748> Last accessed January 15, 2017.
UNISDR (2005). Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters:
Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015. World Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction. UNISDR.
UNISDR (2006). Developing early warning systems: A checklist. Bonn: UNISDR.
UNISDR (2008). Indicators of progress: guidance on measuring the reduction of disaster
risks and the implementation of the hyogo framework for action – UNISDR. Geneva:
UNISDR. <https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/2259> Last accessed
July 10, 2017.
UNISDR (2014). Disaster resilience scorecard for cities. United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/2014/campaign-cities/
Resilience%20Scorecard%20V1.5.pdf. Last accessed 10 August, 2017.
USAID (2012). Building resilience to recurrent crisis USAID policy and programme
guidance. Washington DC: USAID. <https://www.usaid.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/1866/Policy %26 Program Guidance - Building
Resilience to Recurrent Crisis_Dec 2012.pdf> Last accessed December 5, 2017.
USIOTWSP (2007). How resilient is your coastal community? A guide for evaluating
coastal community resilience to tsunamis and other hazards. U.S. Indian Ocean
tsunami warning system program supported by the United States Agency for
International Development and Partners, Bangkok, Thailand. https://coast.
noaa.gov/regions/pacific/resources/resilience/coastal community resilience
guide.pdf. Last accessed 10 August, 2017.
Vugrin, E. D., Warren, D. E., & Ehlen, M. A. (2011). A resilience assessment
framework for infrastructure and economic systems: Quantitative and
qualitative resilience analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane.
Process Safety Progress, 30(3), 280–290.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S. R., Anderies, J. M., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M. A., ...
Pritchard, R. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A
working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1),
art14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00356-060114.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience,
adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and
Society, 9(2). Retrieved from ftp://131.252.97.79/Transfer/WetlandsES/Articles/
walker_04_socio-ecology_resilience.pdf.
Walker, B., Sayer, J., Andrew, N. L., & Campbell, B. (2010). Should enhanced
resilience be an objective of natural resource management research for
developing countries? Crop Science, 50(Supplement_1), S-10. https://doi.org/
10.2135/cropsci2009.10.0565.
Warrick, O., Aalbersberg, W., Dumaru, P., McNaught, R., & Teperman, K. (2017). The
‘‘Pacific Adaptive Capacity Analysis Framework”: Guiding the assessment of
adaptive capacity in Pacific island communities. Regional Environmental Change,
17(4), 1039–1051.
Wardekker, J. A., de Jong, A., Knoop, J. M., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2010).
Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to
uncertain climate changes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6),
987–998.
Weichselgartner, J., & Kelman, I. (2014). Geographies of resilience: Challenges and
opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography, 39(3),
249–267.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: Adaptive management on the front
lines. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding
transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 333–360). Washington, D.C:
Island Press.
White, I., & O’Hare, P. (2014). From rhetoric to reality: Which resilience, why
resilience, and whose resilience in spatial planning? Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 934–950.
Whitney, C. K., Bennett, N. J., Ban, N. C., Allison, E. H., Armitage, D., Blythe, J. L., ...
Yumagulova, L. (2017). Adaptive capacity: From assessment to action in coastal
social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(2), art22. https://doi.org/
10.5751/ES-09325-220222.
Wildavsky, A. (1989). Searching for safety. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s
vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.
Woods, D. (2009). Escaping failures of foresight. Safety Science, 498–501.
Woods, D. D. (2015). Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future
of resilience engineering. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 5–9.
Woods, D., & Cook, R. (2006). Incidents – Markers of resilience or brittleness. In E.
Hollnagel, D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience Engineering. Concepts and
precepts (pp. 69–79). Hampshire: Ashgate.
Yoon, D., Kang, J., & Brody, S. (2015). A measurement of community disaster
resilience in Korea. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(3),
436–460.
Yuzva, K., Botzen, W. W., Aerts, J., & Brouwer, R. (2018). A global review of the
impact of basis risk on the functioning of and demand for index insurance.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (In press)., 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.001 Last accessed January 17.
Zhou, H., Wan, J., Jia, H., et al. (2010). Resilience to natural hazards: A geographic
perspective. Natural Hazards, 53(1), 21–41.
ZRBF. (2018). Zimbabwe resilience building fund. Retrieved April 8, 2018, from
http://www.zrbf.co.zw/ Last accessed 8 April 2018.