Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community A ... - PreventionWeb

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note2.1 ApplicationsThe characteristics can be used at various stages of theproject cycle and for different purposes. The followingare likely to be the main applications:● Baseline studies of the level of resilience in acommunity.● Vulnerability and capacity analysis.● Project planning, especially in identifyingindicators for logical and results-based planningframeworks.● Monitoring and evaluation (of individual projectsand for comparative analysis of projects)2.2 Selecting characteristics; settingprioritiesIdentification and selection of relevant characteristicsis essential but not necessarily easy. The complete setof characteristics is intended to represent an ideal stateof resilience – in other words, a community thatexhibits all of the characteristics under all of theheadings (themes and components) would haveattained the highest possible level of safety. Similarly,DRR requires a co-ordinated and comprehensiveapproach in which progress in one area needs to bematched by comparable progress in others.However, as the ideal state of resilience will alwaysremain beyond our grasp, organisations will need toselect those characteristics that are most relevant tothe communities they are working with, and the typeof DRR work they are involved in; and they will seekaims that are realistic in the context of a particularproject. This also depends on the capacities ofindividual organisations and their scale of operation.Not all elements of resilience are necessarily ofequal importance, although there are no universallyagreed priorities for resilience or DRR. Theimportance of each characteristic to a given projectdepends on the specific location, time andcircumstances (including different hazard types). Theselection process should take this into account andreach clear decisions about priorities, recognising thatthis may involve some compromises. This processshould be open. The characteristics will be most useful(and most used) when they are selected by, or at leastwith, those who need to use them. This meanscomprehensive participatory processes of discussionand validation at local level, which may also identifyadditional characteristics of resilience.One way of narrowing the scope of characteristicsis to consider only actions that are intendedspecifically to reduce disaster risk. This is the basis ofthe concept of ‘invulnerable development’, which isdevelopment directed towards reducing vulnerabilityto disaster, comprising ‘decisions and activities that areintentionally designed and implemented to reducerisk and susceptibility, and also raise resistance andresilience to disaster’. 3Users of this guidance note should be aware thatthere is a degree of ambiguity regarding exactly who agiven characteristic may apply to – and hence, whoshould take appropriate action. For instance, acharacteristic such as ‘shared vision of a prepared andresilient community’ begs the question: who issupposed to share in this vision? All of thecharacteristics are intended to be applicable tocommunities and their members (remembering thatcommunities are not homogeneous) but some couldalso apply to groups and organisations working amongthe community, such as local NGOs and perhaps evenlocal government agencies or extension workers. Forthe most part, these external agencies and theircapacities have been placed within the ‘enablingenvironment’ part of the framework (see below).However, since the boundaries between communitiesand the enabling environment cannot always bedrawn exactly, and external agencies have animportant role to play in community welfare anddevelopment, this matter may sometimes requirediscussion and decision in the field.2.3 Characteristics and indicatorsThe characteristics set out in the tables are not projectindicators in the conventional sense. It is important torecognise this. They characterise an ideal state ofresilience in quite general terms, whereas individualprojects will need their own specific and moredetailed indicators of achievement. 4The distinction between characteristics andindicators is not rigid, however. Some characteristicsare equivalent to the ‘outcome’ indicators used inproject evaluation because they represent an end stateresulting from DRR interventions. Others are closer to‘output’ indicators because they represent DRRactivities that must be carried out or measures thatmust be put in place if resilience outcomes are to beachieved. If an organisation or project is using thetables for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), it maychoose to regroup some of the characteristics in thisway. (See also the discussion below on milestones.)3 McEntire DA 2000, ‘Sustainability or invulnerable development? Proposals for the current shift in paradigms’. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 15(1): 58-61.4 The ISDR and OCHA guidance on indicators explain indicators and indicator selection in detail. ADPC’s guidelines on community-baseddisaster risk management contain helpful information on developing DRR indicators at community level (see Further Reading).10
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 20072.4 Composite characteristicsSome characteristics are composites of individualcharacteristics – for example:[hazard/risk] assessment findings shared,discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disasterplanning.This contains two main elements: (1) sharing,discussion, understanding and agreement aboutassessment findings among all stakeholders; (2)assessment findings feed into community disasterplanning. The first main element can also be split intofour more particular elements: sharing, discussion,understanding and agreement. One reason foraggregating characteristics in this way is to make thisdocument more manageable: without it, the tableswould be extremely long. But this has only been donewhere the different characteristics are strongly linkedto one another. In practice, and depending on whatpurpose they are using the tables for, organisationsmay wish to disaggregate some of the characteristics.2.5 Quantitative versus qualitativecharacteristicsThe characteristics set out in these tables arequalitative. Communities and their partners thereforeneed to make their own judgements about whether ornot certain aspects of resilience have been achieved.Some of these will be more straightforward thanothers. For instance, it is easy to tell if a communitydisaster preparedness or contingency plan exists (evenif its quality is another matter). But it is much harder todecide if there is an equitable distribution of wealthand livelihood assets in a community, or the adequacyof access to common property resources that cansupport coping strategies during crises.The guidance note cannot tell projects andcommunities how they should reach thesejudgements. They are matters for collective agreementbetween the stakeholders. The conclusions will bedifferent in each case, according to context andexpectations, and there will be a fair amount ofsubjective judgement. But in every case the processfor reaching decisions must be transparent andparticipatory.Some guidelines and experts have suggested theneed for quantitative indicators of certain aspects ofDRR (e.g. the number of volunteers trained in first aid,the percentage of households in a community withproperty insurance). It is impossible to fix standardquantitative measures that can be applied to everycontext but quantitative indicators can be used at anindividual project level, if required. In such cases, theycould form part of the data on which the broaderjudgements about attainment of characteristics ofresilience are based. It is for individual project teamsto decide what kinds of quantitative indicator areappropriate and what levels of attainment to set.3. Characteristics of an EnablingEnvironmentIn this guidance note, the focus is on communities andlocal organisations (although individual and householdresilience is incorporated in the tables to some extent).However, the framework acknowledges theimportance of wider institutional, policy and socioeconomicfactors in supporting community-levelresilience.The tables identify the main elements of this‘enabling environment’ 5 in relation to eachcomponent of resilience. They are less detailed thanthe characteristics of community resilience. Most aretaken from the national-level DRR indicatorframeworks being developed by UN ISDR and UNOCHA (see Further Reading).The following table (on page 12) illustrates how thisworks for one component of resilience. Note that itincludes local and national level characteristics.Elsewhere in the tables, international dimensions ofthe enabling environment are also sometimesincluded.People who work on community resilience need tobe conscious of the enabling environment and theeffect it may have on their work, but they cannot beexpected to analyse it in detail. An individual projectwill probably undertake a quick, subjective assessmentof the enabling environment. However, anorganisation working on a number of communityprojects in a particular country – e.g. a national orinternational NGO – may wish to carry out a morethorough assessment to inform its work or to supportadvocacy.Many features of the ideal enabling environmentwill be missing in many cases. In some situations thelack of key components of support may be so greatthat it creates what may be called a ‘disabling’5 The term ‘enabling environment’ is borrowed from the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute. See ‘The Need for a More Nuanced View ofLocal Capacity and the Support Approaches of Outsiders’. southasiadisasters.net 2006 #18 (August), p.4.http://www.southasiadisasters.net/publication.htm The IFRC’s ongoing work on local-level DRR indicators uses a C-I-T categorisation toconsider this (where C = issues the community can change; I = issues the community can influence to find solutions; T = issues where thecommunity recognises that transformation will take a long time and is out of their hands): Barrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’. (Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).11
Page 2: An electronic version of this guida
Page 6 and 7: Characteristics of a Disaster-Resil
Page 38: Characteristics of a Disaster-Resil

Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community A ... - PreventionWeb

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?