recover following droughts and floods, and in some cases, they experience new
disasters while being in the process of recovery.
6
The overall mean scores of the socio-economic resilience dimension are not
markedly different to the score of ecological and engineering resilience (Table 4).
FGD participants scored sub-dimensions such as social capital and risk elements
(i.e. livelihood diversification, social support system, disaster memory) slightly
higher than financial instrument (i.e. money transfers and remittances, savings and
credits, livestock income, petty commerce) and the livelihood asset base
(i.e. livestock holding, secured food during disaster, secured water for domestic
use) (Table 5).
The weak socioeconomic resilience is reflected in the lack of alternative income
sources and low asset ownership, which both suggest the low capacity to meet
household needs and eventually the inability to enhance community resilience to
disasters. Related to the low livelihood asset base is the fact that households in the
study areas prefer to keep livestock, such as cattle as a means of savings, a safety net
for contingencies, a self-reproducing asset and a source of income.
7
6.3.3 Perceived Community Resilience by Age Group
Figures 2–4 show the mean perceived community resilience scores and consensus
ratings among the three age groups (i.e. elderly men, elderly women and young
adults). To highlight more themes and compare consensus among different groups
on resilience elements, we analyse below scores by resilience dimension and
sub-dimension through the summation of scores for various resilience elements.
Figures 2–4 help to identify and classify the elements of resilience with mean scores
greater than 2 (i.e. scores closer to moderate), whilst also exploring for possible
commonalities among groups.
Figure 2 suggests that all three age groups perceive community resilience to
droughts and floods as “very low” and “low”. Elderly men (drought ¼ 2.3);
(flood ¼ 2.4) and elderly women (drought ¼ 2.1; flood ¼ 2.0) recorded slightly
higher mean resilience scores compared to young adults (drought 1.8; flood 1.8).
The further analysis of the three sub-dimensions of ecological resilience
(i.e. environmental management, land use and cover, agricultural productivity)
reveals similar patterns and trends for the different age groups (i.e. elderly men
report higher mean scores, followed by elderly women, and young adults). These
6 It is well known that the synergistic effects of different disasters can have even higher adverse
outcomes (Yiran and Stringer 2016), and reducing further the resilience of local communities in
semi-arid Ghana.
7 Even though not specifically mentioned, cattle can also support farm intensification, as they are a
major source of nutrients for agriculture in the form of manure and crop residues from feed
(Mortimore and Adams 2001).
208
Y. A. Boafo et al.
disasters while being in the process of recovery.
6
The overall mean scores of the socio-economic resilience dimension are not
markedly different to the score of ecological and engineering resilience (Table 4).
FGD participants scored sub-dimensions such as social capital and risk elements
(i.e. livelihood diversification, social support system, disaster memory) slightly
higher than financial instrument (i.e. money transfers and remittances, savings and
credits, livestock income, petty commerce) and the livelihood asset base
(i.e. livestock holding, secured food during disaster, secured water for domestic
use) (Table 5).
The weak socioeconomic resilience is reflected in the lack of alternative income
sources and low asset ownership, which both suggest the low capacity to meet
household needs and eventually the inability to enhance community resilience to
disasters. Related to the low livelihood asset base is the fact that households in the
study areas prefer to keep livestock, such as cattle as a means of savings, a safety net
for contingencies, a self-reproducing asset and a source of income.
7
6.3.3 Perceived Community Resilience by Age Group
Figures 2–4 show the mean perceived community resilience scores and consensus
ratings among the three age groups (i.e. elderly men, elderly women and young
adults). To highlight more themes and compare consensus among different groups
on resilience elements, we analyse below scores by resilience dimension and
sub-dimension through the summation of scores for various resilience elements.
Figures 2–4 help to identify and classify the elements of resilience with mean scores
greater than 2 (i.e. scores closer to moderate), whilst also exploring for possible
commonalities among groups.
Figure 2 suggests that all three age groups perceive community resilience to
droughts and floods as “very low” and “low”. Elderly men (drought ¼ 2.3);
(flood ¼ 2.4) and elderly women (drought ¼ 2.1; flood ¼ 2.0) recorded slightly
higher mean resilience scores compared to young adults (drought 1.8; flood 1.8).
The further analysis of the three sub-dimensions of ecological resilience
(i.e. environmental management, land use and cover, agricultural productivity)
reveals similar patterns and trends for the different age groups (i.e. elderly men
report higher mean scores, followed by elderly women, and young adults). These
6 It is well known that the synergistic effects of different disasters can have even higher adverse
outcomes (Yiran and Stringer 2016), and reducing further the resilience of local communities in
semi-arid Ghana.
7 Even though not specifically mentioned, cattle can also support farm intensification, as they are a
major source of nutrients for agriculture in the form of manure and crop residues from feed
(Mortimore and Adams 2001).
208
Y. A. Boafo et al.