natural disasters and resilient communities
TRANSCRIPT
1
Natural Disasters and Resilient Communities
Solvor Lauritzen
The University of York
All corners of the world are repeatedly hit by disasters. Climate change increases this rapidity, and
community resilience grows in relevance accordingly. In times to come it is likely that dry areas
will get drier, and wet areas wetter, the weather will become more extreme, and droughts will be
longer and more intense, sea levels will rise, and water supplies will decrease (Norwegian Church
Aid and Church of Sweden, 2007). As often is the case, poor countries are the most affected by
these changes. The Haiti earthquake and Pakistan flood are examples of two great tragedies of the
year 2010.
How can communities be resilient in times of such tragedies? This paper will explore the
concept of resilience, and give examples of how aid organisations can strengthen the resilience of
communities in connection to natural disasters. Through risk reduction and strength enhancing,
communities worldwide can be given a greater chance to survive and keep an acceptable level of
living despite disasters. One way of doing this is presented in the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach, which will be discussed in further detail below.
What is resilience?
Resilience is not a new phenomenon as such, but is relatively new in research. Werner and Smith
pioneered in the area when they carried out a study on children growing up under difficult
circumstances in Hawaii in the 1950s (e.g. Werner and Smith, 1992). Their study was unique in the
focus it took on those children with a positive development, rather than those with a negative. The
research on resilience had begun.
Resilienz ist die Fähigkeit Krisensituationen zu bewältigen; or
Resilience is the ability to overcome a situation of crisis.
(Lang et.al 2009: my translation)
2
This definition is the working definition of the interdisciplinary resilience team at Internationales
Forschungszentrum (ifz)1 (Lang et.al, 2009). In their explanation of the definition, three points are
emphasised through further explanation. First, ability in the definition refers to an acquired rather
than an innate ability. Although the resilience of an individual may build on innate characteristics,
the resilience itself can be learned and forgotten. I would argue that this supports the understanding
that it is possible for 'the outside' to foster resilience in the individual.
Second, the ifz team draw attention to the definition of 'crisis', which is defined as a situation
in which one doesn't have an immediate coping strategy. They claim that a situation can thus be
difficult and wearing without it being a crisis by definition. This is worth noticing, as they claim
resilience only to exist in the presence of a crisis. In this paper, the crisis in question will be
disasters. Disasters will here refer to situations caused by natural hazards such as earthquakes,
floods, cyclones and drought. Although these disasters have their reason in nature, and are
commonly referred to as “acts of God”, it is important to remember that they often occur partly
because of human action (Doyle, 2010).
Third, ifz draw attention to what is meant by bewältigen; coping or overcoming. They claim
there to be at least four different levels of outcome from this process; dysfunctional overcoming,
overcoming with loss, overcoming through recreation, and overcoming with growth. Further, ifz
argue that a strict definition of resilience only would include the last possibility; overcoming with
growth, whereas a more open definition also would also include the second last; overcoming
through recreation.
Resilience applies to every level, from individual to global. The definition proposed by Lang
et.al uses the individual as an example, but claims itself to be relevant to other levels as well. Rutter,
an acknowledged resilience researcher writes on resilience at individual level in psychology. She
supports the open understanding of resilience proposed by ifz in the following definition:
Resilience is operationally defined in terms of a relatively good outcome
despite the experience of situations that have been shown to carry a major
risk for the development of psychopathology.
(Rutter, 2000: 653)
The goal for resilience is in this definition seen as relative good outcome. In my opinion, this fits to
the last two points emphasised from ifz's definition of Bewältigen, if not the last three; overcoming
with growth, overcoming through recreation and overcoming with loss. This because the outcome is
1Ifz, internationales Forschungszentrum, is an international research centre in Salzburg working on social and ethical
questions. See www.ifz-salzburg.at for further information.
3
seen relative to the crisis in question, which could mean that despite an outcome that is not on the
same level as before the situation of risk occurred, it is an outcome that is good relative to the
strength of the crisis. Interesting in this definition is also that no crisis is in question, but that
resilience can occur in “situations that have been shown to carry a major risk for the development of
psychopathology” (Rutter, 2000: 653). For Rutter, it seems to be the risk that is of importance, not
the crisis as such. The emphasis from ifz on the connection between a crisis and immediate coping
strategy doesn't seem to be of importance to Rutter.
In addition to the two definitions mentioned so far, I would like to cite Luthar (2006),
another acknowledged researcher within the field of resilience:
Resilience by definition encompasses atypical processes, in that positive
adaptation is manifested in life circumstances that usually lead to
maladjustment.
(Luthar, 2006: 739)
In this definition, resilience is highlighted as process. This relates to the claim in ifz's definit ion that
resilience is not an innate, but acquired ability; the resilience ability can be acquired and developed
through process. This process points to the interaction between the abilities of the individual, and
the factors in the environment (Gjelsvik, 2007). Whereas early research on resilience mainly
focused on identifying factors of risk and factors of resilience, later research has engaged itself
more with how these factors interact with each other. Rather than it being single factors that
determine the resilience of an individual, it is the process of many factors that is of importance. The
interaction process happens over time, and resilience is not seen as a static concept, but changes
during this time span. Resilience is consequently not only an outcome that has to be reached, but
must be maintained and recreated (Helmen Borge, 2007).
Resilience is a complex concept, and consequently many definitions have been proposed.
The core developed from the three definitions above, however, seem to be a process of good
functioning relative to circumstances of risk. The words despite and why are important; good
functioning despite risks. One of the tasks for research on resilience is to investigate why this
process takes place.
Community resilience
The definitions of resilience mentioned so far have provided a base for further discussion of
resilience on community level, which is the main focus of this paper. Before going into this in
further detail, I would like to pay some attention to the term “community”.
4
According to Twigg (2007), communities are usually described in spacial terms in
emergency management.
[Communities are] Groups of people living in the same area or close to the
same risks.
(Twigg, 2007: 6)
Although this is a useful definition when discussing disaster resilient communities, it overlooks
important aspects of communities such as common interests, values, activities and structures.
Communities are more complex than the definition proposes, as the “people living in the same
area” can have different status in terms of wealth and social status, as well as undertake different
labour activities (Twigg, 2007). Also, individuals often belong to different subgroups determined by
religion, interests and gender, and belong to several groups at the same time. Although
“community” as a spacial term may be the most fruitful in connection with disasters, one must not
overlook the other dimensions. When disasters occur, some groups or individuals may be more
vulnerable than others (UNICEF, 2009). I will argue that a truly resilient community is one that
does not leave anyone behind. Thus it is especially important to identify vulnerable groups, and
understand the factors that contribute to vulnerability.
Understanding how communities work is considered key to understanding
resilience and a precondition for helping strengthen people's capacities to
cope with and recover from disaster.
(IFRC, 2004: 27).
Resilience cannot be understood in isolation, but must be seen in its context. All communities are
different, and resilience will therefore accordingly mean different things in different communities.
As will be discussed below, both vulnerabilities and strengths vary. A great deal of local knowledge
is therefore necessary when fostering resilience.
Understanding resilience also requires understanding the policy and
institutional environment, how people relate to it, where power lies, and
what influences decisions and change.
(IFRC, 2004: 31)
5
In addition to knowledge about the people, one must also be aware of the relations of power in a
community. As will be described later, under “social capital”, a crucial aspect in fostering resilience
is that the whole community, regardless of power relations, work together towards the same aim.
I will argue that the creation of resilient communities can be approached from two angles.
First, I will present how the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR) argue that resilient communities can be built through risk reduction, where the focus lies
on risk and vulnerability, and ways of lowering these. Second, I will provide a discussion on the
approach from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), where
the focus is moved from vulnerability to strength, and where the resilient community is seen as built
through enhancing the strengths of a community.
Building resilient communities through risk reduction
“Sign up today to make your city resilient to disasters” is one of the first things you read when
entering the site of UNISDR. This is one of the campaigns from UNISDR aiming at reducing the
risk for disasters.
In the middle of January 2005, delegates from more than 160 countries met in Hyogo, Japan
for the “World Conference on Disaster Reduction” convened by the United Nations General
Assembly. The conference was held only shortly after the dreadful 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
where 220,000 lives in 12 countries were taken. The topic of disasters was highly relevant, and one
of the outcomes of the conference was that a framework for action was written; “Hyogo Framework
for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters” (ISDR,
2005). Making cities “sign up” is one of the practical results from this.
Gjelsvik (2007) claims resilience and prevention to be closely related. She argues that
resilience research is at its most effective when it concerns itself with informing strategies for
prevention. The UNISDR does exactly this; they work on community resilience worldwide with
focus on disaster risk reduction. They say the following in their definition of resilience formulated
in Geneva in 2004:
[Resilience is] the capacity of a system, community or society potentially
exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and
maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined
by the degree to which the social system is capable of organising itself to
increase the capacity for learning from past disasters for better future
protection and to improve risk reduction measures.
(Cited in UNISDR, 2005:4, my italics).
6
The words in italics will be discussed further. In this definition, resilience is seen as the capacity to
adapt. This adoption can happen through either resisting or changing. In line with the definitions
from ifz and Luthar, resilience is in this definition not seen as a static characteristic, but as an ability
that that can be developed through process. Part of this process is to learn from past disasters.
Worth noticing is also that the capacity can be measured and strengthened before the crisis
occur as it says that the community is potentially exposed to hazards. Resilience can thus be seen, in
line with Rutter, in the presence of risk, and not necessary in a crisis as such. Although the
difference between risk and crisis may not seem to be particularly important at first glance, it
touches on a great debate in resilience research. Whereas many scholars (e.g. Longstaff 2004) argue
for a distinction between resistance and resilience, UNISDR stand in a different tradition. They
argue that facilitation of resilient communities could mean reducing risks, or preventing disasters
from taking place. Prevention is part of resilience as it occurs in the presence of risks. The
suggestion that resilience can exist in the presence of risk is important, as the main aim for
UNISDR is to create resilient communities through risk reduction.
The definition from UNISDR also suggests a measure for if a community is resilient or not:
“reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure”. Two important points can be
drawn from this; resilience can be reached, and it can be maintained. Resilience changes over time,
and although a community may seem resilient in the short term, this is not necessary true in the long
run, and the other way round. Also, UNISDR's definition claims that the resilient community does
not necessarily need to be strengthened by the crisis, but reach and maintain an acceptable level of
functioning and structure. This is in line with the definition proposed by Rutter, which claimed the
outcome of resilience to be relatively good outcome, and the open definition by ifz, which included
overcoming through recreation, and overcoming with growth.
The last point I want to emphasis from the UNISDR definition is that resilience is claimed to
be determined by two factors; protection and risk reduction. The definition of resilience proposed
by UNISDR was written in the context of disaster risk reduction. Due to this, it places a strong
emphasis on prevention, which may contradict to the conventional understanding of resilience. In
my opinion, risk reduction, as described in the definition above, represent important aspects of
resilience. However, I would also argue that it is important to look at the community after the
disaster has occurred, and enhance the strengths the community need in order to respond resiliently.
The next section discusses this approach in further detail.
Building resilient communities through focus on strengths
Whereas UN/ISDR (2004) mainly focus on the importance of prevention and risk reduction for
resilient communities, the “World Disasters Report” published by the International Federation of
7
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) the same year puts a stronger emphasis on the
strengths already present in the communities. Perhaps more in line with the definitions proposed by
ifz, Rutter and Luthar than the one by UNISDR, IFRC claim resilience mainly to be about
enhancing strengths. The report even radiates certain scepticism towards the strong focus in aid on
risk reduction:
Even practice concerned with mitigating, preventing or preparing for
disasters is often defined under the general rubric of disaster risk reduction,
implying a certain level of risk and ways of lowering it, rather than an
equally explicit identification of levels of resilience and ways of
strengthening it.
(IFRC, 2004: 16)
Important in the IFRC report is that every community has strengths, and that identifying and
strengthening these would be as effective or more effective when mitigating, preventing or
preparing for disasters as identifying and lowering risks.
IFRC argues that in humanitarian, risk reduction and development work, resilience should
replace need and vulnerability at the heart of the debate. Traditional response to disaster reduction is
criticised for the strong emphasis on vulnerability and needs assessment. This insufficient approach
seems to be the most common practice despite the findings in resilience research showing that it is
far more effective to enhance the strengths already present in the communities. Outside
organizations can act as catalysts for creating resilience in this way (IFRC, 2004).
As part of this shift in humanitarian aid, IFRC claims it necessary with further research into
how individuals cope and adapt to adverse circumstances. Through this knowledge it will be
possible to build interventions on the strengths rather than vulnerabilities.
As previously mentioned, local knowledge of the community is central in the understanding
of resilience. Although international aid organisations come in as experts to help, it is critical that
they listen to communities at risk, and learn how they cope with crisis. Through this knowledge, the
organisations can in turn activate programmes to facilitate resilience building on the human skills
and resources already present. Resilience is strongly interconnected with context and culture, and
supporting disaster resilience may therefore need different kinds of interventions in different
communities.
One possible outcome of research on community resilience is to indicate how communities
might respond to a crisis, so that interventions could be activated before the situation turns into a
disaster. This is a potential way to combine the two approaches of risk reduction and focus on skills
8
and resources. However, despite risk reduction and enhancing of strengths, it will always be
impossible to predict exactly how resilient the community is. I would argue that in order to create a
truly resilient community, one must both reduce the risks, and facilitate strengths. A focus on only
one of the aspects could leave the community vulnerable.
The next part of the paper, which will present and discuss the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach, will give examples of how resilient communities can be fostered through a mutual focus
on prevention and risk reduction, and enhancing strengths.
Discussion of the definition for this paper
I would like to summarise the discussion on resilience provided so far in four points.
First, from the definition created by the ifz research team I would like to highlight that
resilience can be learned and developed. There is therefore hope for every community, and aid
organisations can take the role as teacher or facilitator.
Second, Rutter claimed in his definition that resilience is seen in relative good functioning.
In line with this I will not search for strengthening through crisis, but rather look at how
communities at risk can keep an acceptable standard of living.
Third, Luthar emphasises resilience as process. Together with ifz's emphasis on resilience as
an acquired rather than an innate ability, this could be taken in account for the possibility for aid
organisations to catalyse resilience in communities at risk for disasters.
Lastly, UNISDR draws attention to the function of risk reduction for resilience, whereas
ICRC argues for a shift towards strengthening the strengths already present in the community. I
would argue the two approaches to be of equal importance, and they will both be included in the
discussion of practical implication in the next section of the paper. Thus, a basic principle behind
this article is the belief that cities, nations and communities can at least to some extent develop
resilience to disasters. Risk and resilience are opposite sides of the same coin; resilience does only
exist in the presence of risks. However, when talking about resilient communities, both need to be
in focus. The risks have to be reduced, and the resilience strengthened.
Introduction to Sustainable Livelihoods and 'layers of resilience'
The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) has communities in focus, and central to the approach
is the principle to build on strengths, which supports a resilience perspective. The approach was
first proposed in the mid 1980s, but it was first after a paper published by Chambers and Conway in
the early 1990s that it became a common way of thinking about development work (Glavovic et.al.,
2002). SLA is not a set strategy as such, but proposes a shift in focus, with the elimination of
poverty as its final goal.
9
Chambers and Conway (1991) draw attention to development work which often has set its
main aim to increase the economic situation of people. The two researchers claim that this is not
sufficient, as rural communities not only have their strengths and weaknesses in economy, but are
far more complex. They argue natural, financial, human, social, and physical capital to be of
importance. These capitals can be compared to what in psychology is commonly referred to as
resilience factors, or what Glavovic et.al (2002) label levels of resilience. Before going into the five
capitals in further detail, I would like to pay some attention to these two concepts, resilience factors
and layers of resilience, as they provide a unique connection to SLA.
Central concepts in the research on resilience are “resilience factors” and “risk factors”.
Resilience research does as we have seen in the definitions above concern itself with satisfactory
development despite risks. Factors of risk are the circumstances in the individual or the
environment which threatens good functioning and development. Werner and Smith (e.g. 1992), the
two forerunners in research on resilience, conducted a previously mentioned study on children
growing up in poverty and under risk on the Kauai island of Hawaii. Examples of the factors of
risks were somatic or mental illness among the parents, divorced parents, and serious child diseases.
Normally, these factors would lead to negative development among the children. They found,
however, that many of the children challenged this presumption.
Among the children with relatively good functioning despite the factors of risk, some
abilities or components occurred repeatedly (Werner and Smith, 1992). Characteristics in the
individuals were for example that they had high level of activity as babies, hobbies and interests,
and good communicative abilities. In the surroundings, close friends, structure and rules at home,
more carers than the mother, and a good relationship to the siblings were seen frequently. These
aspect, which seemed to play a role in the relatively good functioning were labelled resilience
factors.
The resilience factors have many variables, including gender, culture and time. In a study
conducted among children in the war zone of Palestine, for example, Punamäki (1987) found that
greater responsibility at home functioned as a resilience factor for the girls. Greater responsibility
gave them a positive feeling of being needed, as well as giving more opportunities for interaction in
the family, which in turn strengthened their independence and self confidence, and reduced the risk
of developing mental illnesses. One could also imagine that great responsibilities at home could add
to pressure under different circumstances, and function as a factor of risk.
The studies above provide examples of what factors of risk and resilience could be at an
individual level. Glavovic et.al (2002) provides a similar approach to resilience on community level
through their concepts of “waves of adversity” and “layers of resilience”.
Waves of adversity can be linked to factors of risk. Human beings are experts on dealing
10
with change, it being seasonal change, political changes in the society, or changes in the family
through marriage, death or birth of a child. Such changes do not necessarily propose a threat to the
resilience of people and societies, but when the adaptive capacity is reduced, all changes can
propose a threat to good functioning. According to Glavovic et.al (2002), one of the characteristics
of poverty is exactly this; reduced capacity to adaptiveness. The waves of adversity are the factors
of risk that hit a community; in this paper these will be natural disasters such as heatwaves, floods,
drought and earthquakes.
On the opposite side of the coin from waves of adversity, is the concept of “layers of
resilience” to be found.
The integrity of the livelihood system, coupled with the 'robustness' of
livelihood strategies, comprises 'layers of resilience' that enable people to
cope with 'waves of adversity'.
( Glavovic et.al, 2002: 3)
Resilience is thought of as a layer concept because it applies to different levels, ranging from
individual, household and community, to ethnic group and global. Different circumstances propose
threats to different levels, and resilience at one level does not necessarily mean resilience at another.
When we turn our attention to those layers, and the issues facing poor
people, the key challenge is to build resilience and to strengthen the layers
that protect them from adversity.
( Glavovic et.al, 2002: 4)
As we have seen so far, resilience is build of many factors, and can have many layers. One way of
seeing these layers, is through the five capitals proposed by the SLA; natural, financial, human,
social, and physical capital. These capitals allow aid organisations to focus on different aspects of a
community which could be a layer of resilience. I will in the final part of this paper present the
capitals in further detail, and give example of how they have been threatened and strengthened
during natural disasters.
Natural capital
Natural capital includes water, land, rivers, forests and minerals; all crucial aspects for survival for
both rural and urban populations. From a risk reduction perspective, strengthening the natural
capital is a difficult task. This is partly because it is likely that climate change contributes to natural
11
disasters (Doyle, 2010). Working against the climate change is, however, a difficult task as it takes a
long time, and doesn't always give easily visible results. Organisations try to increase environmental
resilience, however, through small-scale projects at community level (IFCR, 2004). Hopefully this
will reduce the impacts of future disasters.
Approximately 10,000 people were killed when a cyclone hit the state of Orissa in India in
1999 (IFRC, 2000). In an area where 70% live from agriculture, the cyclone had immediate and
serious consequences for the lives of the population (Kar and Kar, 2008). The tragedy led to,
however, that the community on its own initiative rediscovered indigenous drought-resistant seeds
and traditional farming techniques (IFCR, 2004). This increased the farmers' resilience to drought
and floods in the future, giving an excellent example of what UN/ISDR (2004) describe in their
definition of resilience
[Resilience] is determined by the degree to which the social system is
capable of organising itself to increase the capacity for learning from past
disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.
(UNISDR, 2004)
Resilience was perhaps not shown in the short run, but certainly in longer term measures, as they
learned from the disaster, and developed strategies that would protect them from the agricultural
systems being destroyed in future disasters.
In the mid 1980s, a famine killing approximately 95,000 people hit Darfur in Sudan
(Corbett, 1988). The development analyst Alex de Waal (1989) made interviews with 1,182
households after the disaster in order to map their coping strategies. His report gives touching
examples of the extreme human capacity to be future oriented, and illustrates how resilience can be
seen in long term. One of his stories tells of a mother who mixed her seeds with sand to prevent her
hungry children from eating them. Resilience was maybe not seen in the short term, but when it
came to the planting season, she had seeds to put in the soil, giving more food in the next harvest.
During this famine, IRCR (2004) can also tell of people leaving the food-aid centres in order to be
home in time for planting.
International trade has imported and sold seeds to farmers in India and elsewhere that only
lasts for one season, making them dependent on buying seeds every season (Hoggen, 2009).
International trading agreements, including the EFTA agreement, also threatens the resilience of
Indian farmers, as the agreement makes it difficult for the farmers to sell, buy and exchange seeds
from each other. Due to the EFTA agreement, farmers may be less resilient in times of natural
disasters. This because the biodiversity is kept and developed through the old practice, and it helps
12
the farmers to find seeds resistant to plant illnesses, drought, floods and other disasters. Aid
organisations could under such circumstances enhance resilience through supporting and
developing the old practice.
Similarly, drought and pest sometimes attack cash-crops such as cotton, wheat and rice. In
the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, dalit (low caste) women got the opportunity to share their
knowledge of traditional seeds which were able to grow under tougher circumstances (IFRC, 2004).
In this way the community became more resilient, and the women gained more status at the same
time. As IFRC (2004) highlights, aid is most fruitful when it both helps populations bounce back
from disasters, and help building a natural resource base capable of dealing with future disasters.
Financial capital
Access to financial capital, such as savings, income, remittances, pensions, credit and state
transfers, is the second layer of resilience, or capital, mentioned. Financial capital is a crucial
resilience factor, but difficult to distribute with enough cultural and gender sensitivity (IFRC, 2004).
Access to cash does not necessarily protect from disasters. It could, however, mean quicker
recovery from disaster.
The earthquake in Bam in Iran in 2003 hit the rich as hard as the poor when destroying 85%
of the buildings, killing more than 26,000 people, and leaving an even greater number injured
(IFRC, 2007). Although financial capital didn't protect the inhabitants in this case, IRCR (2004)
found that the wealthier could recover faster due to access to financial resources. The less
financially fortunate were offered aid handouts in the beginning, but the handouts were soon
replaced by cash-vouchers. In this way, the affected population could spend the money where they
themselves felt it was most needed at the same time as fresh cash was brought into the economy.
Similarly, Oxfam (2005) organised cash-for-work projects after the tsunami, where everyone was
equally paid. Equality in this sense was not the tradition, and it helped lifting families out of
poverty.
Another example of strengthening the financial capital is micro finance. Muhammad Yunus
won the Nobel Prize in Peace in 2006 for his initiative and work on micro lending through the
Grameen Bank (Grandin, 2007). Poor people are given the opportunity to take up small loans at low
interest rates enabling them to, for example, start a small enterprise, like opening a stall to sell food,
or buy a goat or a cow to sell milk.
'Care' is another organisation providing micro credit loans and micro finance (Care).
Through micro finance programmes, communities are advised through small groups on how to save
money, invest, and better make a living. Unique in these groups is that they are not given any
money, but advised on how to make the best out of what they have. Rather than seeing their lack of
13
money as a weakness, the little they have is seen as a strength, and in line with resilience thinking,
this strength is enhanced through education and supervision.
A survey carried out in Bhuj in India showed that after the earthquake in 2003, the slum
dwelling population invested a significant amount of money on improving their homes. The nearly
10,000 families interviewed, had invested 13 million rupees (€ 219,000) of their own money in the
recovery during the two years following the quake (IFCR 2004). In this way, the community
improved their standard of living compared to before the disaster. This is an example of what ifz
describes in their strict definition of resilience; overcoming the crisis with growth.
Human capital
Ill-health and lack of education are recognized as core dimensions of poverty
as well as of vulnerability to disaster.
(IFRC, 2004: 22)
Human capital is perhaps the capital with the strongest impact on resilience (IFRC, 2004).
Knowledge, skills, health and physical ability are all part of the human capital. Following the quote
above, I will now pay attention to health in connection to HIV/AIDS and education.
HIV has hit parts of Africa beyond belief, making the most productive adults unable to
continue farming, leaving households to poverty and hunger (Donnelly, 2002) . During drought and
other natural disasters, the communities stand without enough power to respond with the same
extent of resilience as before the pandemic (IFRC, 2004). Rather than building on the resources
they have, many are forced to sell sex and vital livestock for food or cash. In terms of human
capital, and resilience to disasters, it is extremely important to strengthen the population's resilience
to HIV/AIDS. This cuts across many sectors, including the health and educational sector.
Medication can prolong lives more than 20 years, and increase the quality of life significantly
(Coombe and Kelly, 2001). In addition, awareness campaigns, knowledge transmission and
reduction of stigma have the potential of stopping the spread of the virus.
Education is labelled 'the social vaccine' against HIV/AIDS, emphasising the importance of
knowledge, awareness and stigma reduction for preventing it from spreading. Education is often
more highly valued by the community at risk than one would think. IFCR (2004) can tell the story
of a woman living under a bridge in Mumbai, in great risk of floods and water-borne disasters. She
owns a flat in town, but rather than living in it herself, she rents it out in order to be able to pay for
the education of her child.
14
Education, knowledge and awareness are critical to building the ability to
reduce losses from natural hazards, as well as the capacity to respond to and
recover effectively from extreme natural events when they do, inevitable
occur.
(Wisner 2006: 4)
The quote above provides another example of how interlinked resistance and resilience are for
resilient communities. Resilient communities are those in which the risks are reduced, and the
“capacity to respond to and recover effectively” is strengthened (Wisner, 2006: 4). Education,
knowledge and awareness can play an important part in both of these areas. The woman living
under a bridge in Mumbai was willing to offer her short term resilience in exchange for long term
resilience for her daughter through education.
The report “Let our children teach us!” is concerned with the role of education and
knowledge in connection to disasters, and identifies three important roles schools can play in this
context (Wisner, 2006). Firstly, teaching about hazards and risk reduction in schools, secondly how
schools can be used as centres for community based disaster risk reduction, and last physical
protection of schools from natural hazards. This illustrates that schools can have multiple roles. I
will now pay particular attention to teaching in schools, and how the transmitted knowledge can act
as a facilitator for both resistance and resilience.
Although the negative impacts of disasters must not be undermined, they also present an
opportunity for change in the society. In educational terms, restarting schools gives an opportunity
for rethinking, which could mean change for the better in terms of both quality and equality
(UNICEF, 2009). In the Pakistan earthquake in 2005, for example, the school enrolment increased
significantly in certain areas, and more girls were reached by distance programmes (ibid.). This is a
positive development, as all children have the right to education (e.g. OHCHR, 1989) and it is part
of the Millennium goals to provide education for all (UN).
The fact that education is intended to reach out to all children, education is a tool that affects
the whole community. The title of the report provided by Wisner in 2006 “Let our children teach
us!” illustrates how reaching the children could mean reaching the whole society, when the children
are given the opportunity to spread their knowledge. According to Freire (1974), the role of
education is to collectively study the reality and problem solving. This could also be applied in
communities where risk of disasters are a part of the reality and a problem that needs solutions.
Unicef (2009) report of women drowning during the tsunami because they were wearing too
heavy clothes, refused to get into a rescue boat together with men, or refused to come out of the
water because their appropriate clothing had been ripped off. Similarly, women have died inside
15
their houses during earthquakes for reasons of clothing. Religious practices can indeed be a
strength, but in these cases it was proven to be a weakness. Unicef (2009) calls for greater attention
towards religious education that would build strengths not weaknesses. The Koran indeed includes
solutions and alternative practices for emergency situation, and building on these would enhance the
strengths of having a religion, as have been done in Iran (ibid.).
Another factor that could save lives and reduce the vulnerability to a tsunami is through
recognising that it is coming (Unicef, 2009). Access to knowledge, such as a forecast indicating that
it is on the way could make the difference between life and death, as could learning how to swim,
and knowing that when the water withdraws, it may come back as a massive wave. These are
example of practical ways in which the resilience could be strengthened through preparing the
community for disasters.
Social capital
Social capital, can in the context of sustainable livelihoods refer to networks, relations, affiliations,
reciprocity, trust and mutual exchange (IFCR, 2004). Social networks are often kept more intact in
rural than in urban areas. In urban areas, extended family structures are weakened, and it is for the
individual to build new networks. On the contrary, social networks are often stronger in the rural
areas, which is a strength that aid organisations could build on in times of disasters.
The extent to which a community is able to work together towards a common aim is
according to IFCR (2004) one of the most significant characteristics of resilient communities. They
tell of Gram Vikas, an Indian NGO which in the previously mentioned state of Orissa refused to
work with the community unless everyone was involved. One of Gram Vikas core values is social
equity. Following is one of their principles illustrating this.
Social equity: Representation of all sections of the community in decision-
making processes across caste, economic status and other barriers to ensure
that a level playing field is created.
(Gram Vikas, 2010).
This “everyone or no one” policy illustrates the high value of social cohesion. When they
managed to involve all the groups of the community in their work, the social networks were built
across the groups, and the capital was increased for the lower casts in particular.
Also informal social networks prove themselves to be of great importance over and over
again. In the case of heatwaves, those elderly in close contact with networks of friends and
neighbours are more likely to survive as their vulnerability most likely will be discovered earlier,
16
which could give them the help they need in time (IFCR, 2004). During the heatwave in France in
2003, the majority of the 14,802 people who died lived in caring homes or hospitals. Health
personnel pointed to that it was not the heat as such that proposed the main threat to the elderly, but
their isolation from family and other social networks. The elderly who stayed at home, or had more
rapid contact with family experienced fewer deaths during the heatwave.
Physical capital
The last capital, physical capital, is composed of the basic infrastructure, goods and services that are
needed to support sustainable livelihoods (IFRC, 2004). This includes infrastructure such as
affordable transportation and energy, shelter and buildings, adequate tools, clean water supply and
sanitation and access to information and communication.
The 'lifeline' infrastructure being built, including schools and hospitals, must be strong
enough to stand through any natural disaster. Sadly, many lives have been ended due to poor
physical capital. 17,000 children were for example killed inside their school buildings during the
earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 (Wisner, 2006). This horrific number could have been significantly
higher, as many schools fell apart out of school hours.
Developing physical capital is a popular priority in aid giving communities and
organisations (IFRC, 2004). Partly this is because the result often highly visible, like new schools,
seawalls, hospitals etc. The results are also easy to measure, as the lives saved are seen as a direct
result of the effort. Especially popular is the building of physical capital that protects communities
directly from disasters. This means that a significant number of seawalls, dykes to contain flooding
rivers or terraces to prevent soil erosion are being built.
The building of such physical capital supports UNISDRs approach to resilience, as it mainly
focuses on risk reduction. This is the trend IFRC (2004) critique when claiming that aid is at its
most sufficient when it supports strengths already present rather than focus on the weaknesses.
Although such 'hardware' can be lifesaving, it is important to back it up with 'software' such as
skills, awareness and training. The hardware both protects and acts as a symbolic factor. Visible
symbols, such as seawalls, may open up for discussion around the topic of disaster risk reduction
and prevention. It could therefore be a door opener for focus on strengths present in the community
in connection to disasters.
Conclusion
In a time where natural disasters repeatedly strike all continents, community resilience is a highly
relevant topic. Several definitions have been proposed to resilience by scholars and organisations
alike, and debate is to whether risk reduction or facilitation of strengths should be at the heart of the
17
definition. I have argued in this paper that both are necessary in order to facilitate resilient
communities. Recommendations have also been made to aid organisations, which to a larger extent
should focus on risk reduction and facilitation of strengths rather than on vulnerabilities in
connection to crisis. Ifz argued that “resilience is the ability to overcome a crisis”. This ability can
be developed in a community through the five capitals presented in the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach; natural, financial, human, social and physical capital. Whereas development activities
traditionally have concerned themselves with increasing financial capital, a resilience approach
would argue for the importance of all the five capitals. There is a need for further research into how
communities cope with crisis. This could inform aid organisations to facilitate resilience to natural
disasters.
18
References:
Care. What we do. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from
http://www.care.org/careswork/whatwedo/index.asp
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1991). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st
Century. IDS Discussion Paper, no. 296. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Coombe, C. & Kelly, M.J. (2001) Education as a Vehicle for Combating HIV/AIDS. Prospects,
31(3), 438-445.
Corbett, J.(1988) Famine and Household Coping Strategies. World Development, 16(9), 1099-1112.
Donnelly, J. (2002) AIDS Seen Spur to Africa Famine; Farmers Are Left Too Weak to Plant.
Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://www.thebody.com/content/prev/art18034.html
Doyle, A. (2010) Analysis: Pakistan floods, Russia heat fit climate trend. Retrieved September 7,
2010, from
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6782DU20100809
Freire, P. (1974) Education for critical consciousness. Great Britain: Continuum.
Gjelsvik, B. (2007) Forebygging og Resiliens [prevention and resilience]. In: Helmen Borge, A.I.
(2007) Resiliens i praksis. Teori og empiri i et norsk perspektiv [Resilience in practice. Theory and
empiricism in a Norwegian perspective] (pp. 27-38). Polen: Gyldendal Akademiske.
Glavovic, B., Scheyvens, R., & Overton, J. (December, 2002). Waves of Adversity, Layers of
Resilience. Exploring the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the The Aotearoa New Zealand International Development Studies Network, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://forum.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/papers/Glavovic_Overton_Scheyvens.pdf
Gram Vikas (2010). What we do. Core Values. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
www.gramvikas.org
19
Grandin, K (2007). Muhammad Yunus – Biography. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus.html
Helmen Borge, A.I. (2003) Resiliens. Risiko og sunn utvikling [Resilience. Risks and healthy
development]. Polen: Gyldendal Akademiske.
Helmen Borge, A.I. (2007) Resiliens i praksis. Teori og empiri i et norsk perspektiv [Resilience in
practice. Theory and empiricism in a Norwegian perspective]. Polen: Gyldendal Akademiske.
Hoggen, H. (2009) EFTA-avtalen: En trussel mot indiske bønder [The EFTA-agreement: A threat
for Indian farmers]. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://www.kirkensnodhjelp.no/Aktuelt/Politisk-nyhetsbrev/EFTA-avtalen-En-trussel-mot-indiske-
bonder/
IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] (2000) Situation Report.
India: Orissa Cyclone. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from
http://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/99/289914.pdf
IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] (2004) World Disaster
Report. Focus on community resilience. Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies.
IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] (2007) Final Report.
Iran:Bam Earthquake. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2007.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/RMOI-6ZZL8W-
full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf
INSDR [International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] (2004) Terminology: Basic terms of disaster
risk reduction. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm
INSDR [International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-
2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Retrieved August 10, 2010,
from
20
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf
INSDR [International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] (2010) Making cities resilient: “My city is
getting ready” - Campaign. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://www.unisdr.org/
Lang et.al. (2009) Unpublished paper. Ifz, Salzburg, Austria.
Longstaff, P.H (2004) Security, Resilience, and Communication In Unpredicatable Environments
Such as Terrorism, Natural Disasters and Complex Technology. Program for Information Resources
Policy, Harvard University. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from
http://pirp.harvard.edu/pdf-blurb.asp?id=606
Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D.
Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation
(pp. 740-795). New York: Wiley.
Kar, M.J. & Kar, M. (2008). Environment and Changing Agricultural Practices: Evidence from
Orissa, India. Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 2(2),119-128.
Norwegian Church Aid and Church of Sweden (2007). Understanding the issue. Climate Change
Threatens the Fight Against Poverty. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from
http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/Webbplats/System/Filer/abccada5-64df-478c-b0e5-f73417d014eb.pdf
OHCHR [The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights] (1989) Convention on the Right
of the Child. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Oxfam (2005). Targeting Poor People: Rebuilding Lives after the Tsunami. Oxfam Briefing Note.
Oxford: Oxfam.
Punamäki, R.L. (1987). Psychological stress of Palestinian mothers and their children in conditions
of political violence. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 9,
116-119.
21
Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered: conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and
policy implications. In: Shonkoff, J.P. & Meisels, S.J. (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood
intervention. Second edition (pp. 651-683). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Twigg, J. (2007). Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community. A Guidance Note. Retrieved
September 6, 2010, from
http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/characteristics/community_characteristic
s_en_highres.pdf
United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/education.shtml
UNICEF (2009) Education in Emergencies in South Asia. Reducing the Risks Facing Vulnerable
Children. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNICEF.
UNICEF (2010). UNICEF helps schools resume in China earthquake zone. Retrieved August 27,
2010, from
http://www.unicefusa.org/news/news-from-the-field/unicef-helps-resume-schools-in-china-
earthquake-zone.html
UNISDR (2009) Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Retrieved September 6, 2010 from
http://www.unisdr.org/preventionweb/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf
de Waal, A. (1989) Famine that Kills. Darfur, Sudan. USA: Oxford University Press.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High-risk children from birth to adulthood.
New York: Cornell University Press.
Wisner, B. (2006). “Let our children teach us” A Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge
in Disaster Risk Reduction. India: Books for Change.
Wustmann, C: Resilienz. (2004). Widerstandsfähigkeit von Kindern in Tageseinrichtungen fördern.
Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag