on secondary data such as government census reports and administrative data in
designing proxies and indicators of resilience (Cutter et al. 2008; UNU 2014).
However, the limited degree of community involvement in top-down resilience
assessments means that they are usually undertaken at international or national
level. Even though many factors (e.g. scale, costs, end use of the output), influence
the adoption of top-down approaches it can be argued that they are insufficient to
offer fine-grained information as there is little (or no) space for integrating the lived
experiences, viewpoints and local knowledge systems and practices of diverse
stakeholders.
We therefore argue in this study that attention needs to shift more to bottom-up
assessment approaches. Our argument is further strengthened by the fact that the
occurrence of climatic disasters (and resilience/adaptive capacity to them) varies
across space and time (Yiran and Stringer 2016). The proxies commonly used in
top-down assessment frameworks often fail to adequately involve, capture and
integrate diverse interest groups and stakeholders’ perspectives in the assessment
(Burton 2015). Thus, some interventions seeking to reduce the vulnerability and/or
increase the resilience to natural disasters might fail because they often do not reflect
local contexts and needs.
2
Conversely, participatory resilience assessments in disaster-prone settings of SSA
can provide a useful knowledge base for policy- and decision-makers at the local,
regional and national level. Hence, this study focuses on the development of a
community-based resilience assessment approach through the input of diverse and
relevant community groups and stakeholders in flood and drought-prone semi-arid
regions of Northern Ghana. The overall research approach is outlined below and
draws from Antwi et al. (2014), which was conducted in the same research setting
under the auspices of the CECAR-Africa project.
Step 1 entails a comprehensive review of the scientific and grey literature on the
concept of disaster resilience, focusing on human–environment interactions. In
particular, the review aims at identifying the broader concepts, dimensions, elements
and variables related to community resilience to floods and droughts. Based on this
review, we identify three key dimensions of community resilience, namely ecological, engineering and socio-economic resilience. Ecological resilience reflects those
elements and actions within local communities that enhance tolerance to droughts
and floods, as well as the ability of socio-ecological system to return to a desirable
state after such events (Gunderson and Holling 2002; Walker et al. 2004; Norris et al.
2008). Engineering resilience reflects the attributes of local communities that enable
the entire socio-ecological system to adapt to and absorb the shocks and stresses of
perennial floods and droughts (e.g. anticipation, consistency, efficiency,
2 Such an example comes from the Afar landscape in north-eastern Ethiopia, where households and
communities are both highly exposed and sensitive to perennial droughts and warming, which
negatively affect water resources, livestock production, and agricultural productivity (Magnan et al.
2016). The promotion of regional adaptation policies such as irrigation agriculture and non-pastoral
livelihoods systems, generated conflicts and widened social disparities due to competition over land
and other natural resources (Eriksen and Marin 2015).
6 Perceived Community Resilience to Floods and Droughts Induced by Climate Change. . . 195
designing proxies and indicators of resilience (Cutter et al. 2008; UNU 2014).
However, the limited degree of community involvement in top-down resilience
assessments means that they are usually undertaken at international or national
level. Even though many factors (e.g. scale, costs, end use of the output), influence
the adoption of top-down approaches it can be argued that they are insufficient to
offer fine-grained information as there is little (or no) space for integrating the lived
experiences, viewpoints and local knowledge systems and practices of diverse
stakeholders.
We therefore argue in this study that attention needs to shift more to bottom-up
assessment approaches. Our argument is further strengthened by the fact that the
occurrence of climatic disasters (and resilience/adaptive capacity to them) varies
across space and time (Yiran and Stringer 2016). The proxies commonly used in
top-down assessment frameworks often fail to adequately involve, capture and
integrate diverse interest groups and stakeholders’ perspectives in the assessment
(Burton 2015). Thus, some interventions seeking to reduce the vulnerability and/or
increase the resilience to natural disasters might fail because they often do not reflect
local contexts and needs.
2
Conversely, participatory resilience assessments in disaster-prone settings of SSA
can provide a useful knowledge base for policy- and decision-makers at the local,
regional and national level. Hence, this study focuses on the development of a
community-based resilience assessment approach through the input of diverse and
relevant community groups and stakeholders in flood and drought-prone semi-arid
regions of Northern Ghana. The overall research approach is outlined below and
draws from Antwi et al. (2014), which was conducted in the same research setting
under the auspices of the CECAR-Africa project.
Step 1 entails a comprehensive review of the scientific and grey literature on the
concept of disaster resilience, focusing on human–environment interactions. In
particular, the review aims at identifying the broader concepts, dimensions, elements
and variables related to community resilience to floods and droughts. Based on this
review, we identify three key dimensions of community resilience, namely ecological, engineering and socio-economic resilience. Ecological resilience reflects those
elements and actions within local communities that enhance tolerance to droughts
and floods, as well as the ability of socio-ecological system to return to a desirable
state after such events (Gunderson and Holling 2002; Walker et al. 2004; Norris et al.
2008). Engineering resilience reflects the attributes of local communities that enable
the entire socio-ecological system to adapt to and absorb the shocks and stresses of
perennial floods and droughts (e.g. anticipation, consistency, efficiency,
2 Such an example comes from the Afar landscape in north-eastern Ethiopia, where households and
communities are both highly exposed and sensitive to perennial droughts and warming, which
negatively affect water resources, livestock production, and agricultural productivity (Magnan et al.
2016). The promotion of regional adaptation policies such as irrigation agriculture and non-pastoral
livelihoods systems, generated conflicts and widened social disparities due to competition over land
and other natural resources (Eriksen and Marin 2015).
6 Perceived Community Resilience to Floods and Droughts Induced by Climate Change. . . 195