on how to facilitate the uptake of the proposed methodology, as well as the policy
relevance for achieving sustainable development.
6.2 Methodology
6.2.1 Research Approach
The main starting points of our conceptualization of resilience are the works of
Cutter et al. (2008) and UNISDR (2012). Cutter et al. (2008: 599) define disaster
resilience as, “the ability of a social system to respond and recover from disasters and
includes those inherent conditions that allow the system to absorb impacts and cope
with an event, as well as post-event adaptive processes that facilitate the ability of the
social system to reorganize, change, and learn in response to a threat”. The United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines resilience
as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist,
absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and
efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential
basic structures and functions” (UNISDR 2012: 3).
According to Folke et al. (2003), in order to build communities that are resilient to
disasters within their respective socio-ecological systems, there is a need for:
(a) social learning developed through a memory of past events and the abandonment
of the notion of stability; (b) different forms of social and ecological community
diversity that can enable coping with shocks and stresses; (c) different types of
knowledge that can stimulate learning and innovation and (d) opportunities that can
enable self-organization and the formation of cross-scale linkages.
The concept of resilience has four inter-related dimensions, namely technical,
organizational, social and economic (Bruneau et al. 2003). Simpson (2006) thoroughly examined hazards, community assets, social capital, infrastructure quality,
planning, social services and population demographics as key elements and indicators for resilience. Further advances to community resilience indicators include
ecological, social, economic, institutional, infrastructure and community capacity
dimensions (Cutter et al. 2008). Earlier studies led to the development of the Social
Vulnerability Index (Cutter et al. 2008) and identified economic development, social
capital and community competence as the key elements in measuring community
resilience (Norris et al. 2008). Collective action, community resources and strategic
action have also been emphasized as key dimensions in the assessments of community resilience (Magis 2010). Similarly, Burton (2015) used six indicators
(i.e. economic resilience, social resilience, infrastructure resilience, institutional
resilience, environmental resilience, community resilience) as proxies to assess the
resilience of groups vulnerable to natural disasters.
The above suggest that most of the indicators and parameters commonly used for
the assessment of resilience fit seamlessly into top-down approaches, rather than
bottom-up approaches. Top-down approaches to resilience assessment tend to rely
194
Y. A. Boafo et al.
relevance for achieving sustainable development.
6.2 Methodology
6.2.1 Research Approach
The main starting points of our conceptualization of resilience are the works of
Cutter et al. (2008) and UNISDR (2012). Cutter et al. (2008: 599) define disaster
resilience as, “the ability of a social system to respond and recover from disasters and
includes those inherent conditions that allow the system to absorb impacts and cope
with an event, as well as post-event adaptive processes that facilitate the ability of the
social system to reorganize, change, and learn in response to a threat”. The United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines resilience
as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist,
absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and
efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential
basic structures and functions” (UNISDR 2012: 3).
According to Folke et al. (2003), in order to build communities that are resilient to
disasters within their respective socio-ecological systems, there is a need for:
(a) social learning developed through a memory of past events and the abandonment
of the notion of stability; (b) different forms of social and ecological community
diversity that can enable coping with shocks and stresses; (c) different types of
knowledge that can stimulate learning and innovation and (d) opportunities that can
enable self-organization and the formation of cross-scale linkages.
The concept of resilience has four inter-related dimensions, namely technical,
organizational, social and economic (Bruneau et al. 2003). Simpson (2006) thoroughly examined hazards, community assets, social capital, infrastructure quality,
planning, social services and population demographics as key elements and indicators for resilience. Further advances to community resilience indicators include
ecological, social, economic, institutional, infrastructure and community capacity
dimensions (Cutter et al. 2008). Earlier studies led to the development of the Social
Vulnerability Index (Cutter et al. 2008) and identified economic development, social
capital and community competence as the key elements in measuring community
resilience (Norris et al. 2008). Collective action, community resources and strategic
action have also been emphasized as key dimensions in the assessments of community resilience (Magis 2010). Similarly, Burton (2015) used six indicators
(i.e. economic resilience, social resilience, infrastructure resilience, institutional
resilience, environmental resilience, community resilience) as proxies to assess the
resilience of groups vulnerable to natural disasters.
The above suggest that most of the indicators and parameters commonly used for
the assessment of resilience fit seamlessly into top-down approaches, rather than
bottom-up approaches. Top-down approaches to resilience assessment tend to rely
194
Y. A. Boafo et al.