A Framework for Understanding Resilience
A
s interest in resilience grows among implementing agencies, donors, and other stakeholders, so too does the need for agreement on a conceptual framework that
provides a comprehensive picture of the specific elements contributing to resilience. A resilience conceptual framework helps us understand how shocks and stresses affect livelihood outcomes and household well-being. It also helps identify the key leverage points to be used in developing a theory of change, which in turn informs programming designed to enhance resilience. Ultimately, a conceptual framework for resilience assessment can help us determine whether households, communities, and higher-level systems (national, regional, global) are on a trajectory toward greater vulnerability or greater resilience (DFID 2011; Frankenberger et al. 2012).
Resilience thinking has evolved considerably, even over
the past five years. Te disaster resilience framework pro- moted by the UK Department for International Develop- ment (DFID) involved four elements that described resil- ience: context, disturbance, capacity to deal with disturbance, and reaction to disturbance (DFID 2011). Tis approach considers resilience of whom (for example, individuals, households, communities, national governments), resilience to what (the shock or stress to which the system is exposed), the degree of exposure (large-scale versus differential expo- sure), sensitivity (ability to cope in the short term), ability to adapt both in anticipation of and in response to changing conditions over the long term, and how the system responds to the disturbance (for example, survive, cope, recover, learn, transform) (Brooks, Aure, and Whiteside 2014). While DFID’s framework approached resilience pri- marily from a disaster risk reduction (DRR) perspective,
2
other approaches have included climate change adaptation (ACCR 2012; Oxfam 2011) and improved livelihoods (Alinovi et al. 2010). One of the challenges of a DRR-cen- tered approach was the short funding cycle (oſten less than two years), which limited the ability of resilience program- ming to sufficiently promote and improve adaptive capacity or to address longer-term enabling conditions necessary to remove structural causes of vulnerability. A longer-term approach was needed that would combine emergency aid with development programming, be multisectoral, and promote synergistic partnerships/alliances between NGOs and other actors. Te resilience framework presented by Frankenberger
et al. (2012)—and updated here—builds on these quali- ties and integrates livelihoods, DRR, and climate change adaptation approaches into a single framework for assessing resilience (Figure 1). Tis integrated approach emphasizes
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45