Abstract
Different dimensions of resilience are needed to deal with different kinds and severities of risk, shock, stress or environmental change. How resilience can be assessed, measured or mapped has not been explored adequately. This paper is based on a study conducted in five disaster-prone low-income settlements of Mumbai city. It proposes a methodology or an approach to measure resilience using a conceptual framework, which helps identify indicators. The paper also offers a critique of the construct of resilience, which poses several challenges. Variations in extent and patterns of resilience and coping are a function of several factors. While it is generally agreed that a resilient community is one that is able to
prepare for, adapt to and live through shocks, while preserving its basic assets, the criteria that make communities resilient differs from place to place. The meaning of the concept has to be adapted at local levels and translated into concrete, specific indicators for each community. Ideally, specific contexts, struggles and choices available to a community or a household must be specified in order to operationalize the concept of resilience. There is a danger that the idea of community or social resilience could inadvertently place upon the community, which may be already experiencing poverty, deprivation and marginalization, the onus of absorbing impacts of decisions and actions of others over which the
community has little control. Glorifying or celebrating resilience of a society that struggles for survival and has limited choices is a pitfall that must be avoided by managers of institutions or governments, which need to focus on disaster risk reduction. The idea of how resilience may be increased by improving standards of living, social infrastructure, enhancing coping capacities and investments in social protection measures is important especially in poorer settlements of cities. By proposing a methodology for measurement of resilience the paper suggests how areas where investments are needed on an urgent basis may be identified.
prepare for, adapt to and live through shocks, while preserving its basic assets, the criteria that make communities resilient differs from place to place. The meaning of the concept has to be adapted at local levels and translated into concrete, specific indicators for each community. Ideally, specific contexts, struggles and choices available to a community or a household must be specified in order to operationalize the concept of resilience. There is a danger that the idea of community or social resilience could inadvertently place upon the community, which may be already experiencing poverty, deprivation and marginalization, the onus of absorbing impacts of decisions and actions of others over which the
community has little control. Glorifying or celebrating resilience of a society that struggles for survival and has limited choices is a pitfall that must be avoided by managers of institutions or governments, which need to focus on disaster risk reduction. The idea of how resilience may be increased by improving standards of living, social infrastructure, enhancing coping capacities and investments in social protection measures is important especially in poorer settlements of cities. By proposing a methodology for measurement of resilience the paper suggests how areas where investments are needed on an urgent basis may be identified.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Disaster Studies |
| Publisher | Springer |
| Pages | 285–310 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-981-32-9339-7 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-981-32-9338-0 |
| Publication status | Published - 26 Mar 2020 |
| Externally published | Yes |