predictability, preparedness) (Holling 1973; Ludwig et al. 1997). Socio-economic
resilience focuses on the capability of social and economic elements to maintain the
social–ecological system after disturbances from flood and drought (e.g. household
livelihoods, assets, social capital, social services). Socio-economic resilience
stresses the availability, access, exposure, diversity and functionality of the key
resources and services needed to meet basic needs (Adger 2000; Langridge et al.
2006; Perrings 2006).
Step 2 involves the identification of appropriate parameters and elements to serve
as proxies for measuring ecological, engineering and socio-economic resilience. This
required a second round of literature review aiming to identify the necessary elements
for measuring resilience within the context of the three dimensions outlined above.
We relied on both peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore issues of vulnerability
and resilience in disaster-prone settings. We also sourced secondary data from
relevant government agencies, public organizations, NGOs and international development agencies related to droughts and floods in our study areas (Sect. 6.2.2).
We initially identify approximately 73 elements of resilience across the ecological, engineering and socioeconomic dimensions outlined above. We then select the
major elements based on the (a) extent of application in similar socio-ecological
systems, regions and contexts and (b) scalability in terms of the ability to apply the
different elements within the study communities. This resulted in 52 elements, which
are grouped into parameters that are relevant to each dimension (Table 1). We should
note that even though this process for identifying and selecting resilience elements
has been detailed and thorough, the current list is by no means exhaustive, nor
transferable directly to other contexts (e.g. socio-ecological, disaster, geographical).
Step 3 tests the draft community
3 resilience matrix developed through the extensive review process. We undertook a preliminary field survey to the study communities (Sects. 6.2.2–6.2.3) to identify the possible applicability of the matrix locally.
Based on the collected information, we refine the community resilience matrix,
which involved the addition, omission or revision of the 52 elements of community
resilience (see above).
Step 4 validates the selected elements through community and stakeholder
meetings (Sect. 6.2.3). These meetings aimed at (a) identifying the concerns of
local stakeholders and community members related to droughts and floods in the
study area and (b) incorporating scalable elements of resilience, which fitted into the
local socio-ecological, economic and traditional context. We synthesize the input
from all study communities to compile the final community resilience assessment
matrix. Overall, this phase was extremely important in the context of this study, as it
3 The term ‘community’ in this study refers to the people that share a common physical and/or
geographical space. This includes access to (and utilization of) common ecosystem goods and
services, whilst interacting regularly and being connected through common socio-cultural beliefs
and norms.
196
Y. A. Boafo et al.
resilience focuses on the capability of social and economic elements to maintain the
social–ecological system after disturbances from flood and drought (e.g. household
livelihoods, assets, social capital, social services). Socio-economic resilience
stresses the availability, access, exposure, diversity and functionality of the key
resources and services needed to meet basic needs (Adger 2000; Langridge et al.
2006; Perrings 2006).
Step 2 involves the identification of appropriate parameters and elements to serve
as proxies for measuring ecological, engineering and socio-economic resilience. This
required a second round of literature review aiming to identify the necessary elements
for measuring resilience within the context of the three dimensions outlined above.
We relied on both peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore issues of vulnerability
and resilience in disaster-prone settings. We also sourced secondary data from
relevant government agencies, public organizations, NGOs and international development agencies related to droughts and floods in our study areas (Sect. 6.2.2).
We initially identify approximately 73 elements of resilience across the ecological, engineering and socioeconomic dimensions outlined above. We then select the
major elements based on the (a) extent of application in similar socio-ecological
systems, regions and contexts and (b) scalability in terms of the ability to apply the
different elements within the study communities. This resulted in 52 elements, which
are grouped into parameters that are relevant to each dimension (Table 1). We should
note that even though this process for identifying and selecting resilience elements
has been detailed and thorough, the current list is by no means exhaustive, nor
transferable directly to other contexts (e.g. socio-ecological, disaster, geographical).
Step 3 tests the draft community
3 resilience matrix developed through the extensive review process. We undertook a preliminary field survey to the study communities (Sects. 6.2.2–6.2.3) to identify the possible applicability of the matrix locally.
Based on the collected information, we refine the community resilience matrix,
which involved the addition, omission or revision of the 52 elements of community
resilience (see above).
Step 4 validates the selected elements through community and stakeholder
meetings (Sect. 6.2.3). These meetings aimed at (a) identifying the concerns of
local stakeholders and community members related to droughts and floods in the
study area and (b) incorporating scalable elements of resilience, which fitted into the
local socio-ecological, economic and traditional context. We synthesize the input
from all study communities to compile the final community resilience assessment
matrix. Overall, this phase was extremely important in the context of this study, as it
3 The term ‘community’ in this study refers to the people that share a common physical and/or
geographical space. This includes access to (and utilization of) common ecosystem goods and
services, whilst interacting regularly and being connected through common socio-cultural beliefs
and norms.
196
Y. A. Boafo et al.