ANALYSIS OF RESILIENCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORKS

The following sections explore these questions byillustrating key points with examples from resiliencemeasurement frameworks.1 Despite the numerousdifferences among approaches that have been debatedto date, there are also a surprising number of similaritiesamong them. The emerging field of resiliencemeasurement could build on these, in order to developan evidence base for resilience interventions.MethodologyThe frameworks sampled were selected from a literaturereview drawing on systematic review methodologies(Gasteen, 2010). The literature review involved threesteps. First, key search terms on resilience measurementframeworks based on title and abstract were used toscan academic journal databases, including GoogleScholar, IngentaConnect, ScienceDirect, Taylor &Francis Online, and Wiley Online Library. Searchwords included combining “resilience” with thewords measurement, indicators, assessment, metrics,12The frameworks use a range of terms to describe their purpose,including tools, principles, guidelines and frameworks. For clarityand coherence throughout this document, the authors use the term“frameworks” to describe a document that presents a method ofmeasuring or conceptualizing the components of resilience.Analysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approachesthresholds, evaluation, monitoring, impact, score, andestimate. Then, a more purposive search, includingdiscussions with key informants, covered the grayliterature produced by organizations actively involvedin research on resilience. Once this initial set ofmaterial was collected, an exponential discriminativesnowball sampling technique was employed, startingwith a small, core set of data sources to uncover newsources while rejecting those that were not centrallyaligned to the research design (Denzin and Lincoln,2005). An exclusion criterion was developed, andpapers were retained that had an explicit focus onapproaches for conceptualizing, measuring, andevaluating resilience from areas of practice withinthe broad paradigm of international development.This exclusion favored frameworks that consideredresilience in relation to socio-environmental shocksand stresses, rather than, for example, psychologicaltrauma or disruptions in information technologysystems. The scan yielded more conceptual thananalytical frameworks, so the subsequent analysisfocused on the theoretical and conceptual issuesrelated to resilience measurement.

SECTION 1Defining resilienceKey points While definitions of resilience vary, in general, they state that resilience should enablesystems to function and flourish in the face of shocks and stresses. Limiting damage from disturbances and recovering from shocks features prominentlyacross definitions. Managing change is core to most definitions, though some frameworks extend this toinclude transformative shifts.The definitions of resilience across the frameworks arenot uniform. However, they demonstrate interestingsimilarities around key elements, thus offering potentialfoundations for building a coherent evidence base overtime.System/unit. Almost all the frameworks highlight oneparticular entity or unit that needs to be made resilient.Some leave the definition open-ended by calling it a“system.” Others identify the types of systems/unitsthey are referring to, such as household, community,city, ecosystem, or country.Disturbances. Almost all frameworks agree thatresilience is critical in enabling systems to functionor flourish in the face of shocks and stresses. Someare tailored for measuring resilience to specificdisturbances; others do not specify the disturbance.For instance, Action Research for Community Action inBangladesh (ARCAB) defines resilience as “a processof building the securities of the climate-vulnerable poorin ways that enable them to respond positively to climate-related shocks and stresses” (ARCAB, 2012).As such, it is clear that the framework operates in thecontext of climate shocks. On the other hand, MercyCorps underlines that resilience is deployed to deal withdisturbances but does not identify these disturbances.According to this approach, resilience is “the capacityto ensure that adverse shocks and stressors do notFIGURE 1:Common components of resilience definitionsDisturbancesPre-event actionSYSTEMDamage limitationManaging changeAnalysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approaches3

have long lasting adverse development consequences”(Constas et al., 2014; Mercy Corps, 2015). This point isalso highlighted by Béné and Frankenberger (2015)who explicitly frame resilience as a means rather thanan end.Underlining resilience as inherently about ensuringcontinued wellbeing despite shocks and stresses, theyalso stress the vital importance of monitoring shocksBOX 1Six principles for shockmeasurementThese should be considered in any resiliencebuilding initiative.1. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the largerrisk landscape including potential risks over time2. Measure shocks and stressors at multiple scalesand over different time periods3. Measure the connections and interrelationshipsbetween shocks and stressors4. Measure both the objective and subjectiveaspects of shocks5. Measure the occurrence of large-scale andsmall-scale shocks6. Include indicators of political instability andconflict in shock and stressor managementSource: Choularton et al., 2015and stresses through the development of indicators atdifferent levels in any approach to measure resilience.Others have also stressed the vital importance ofcollecting data on shocks in any approach to resiliencemeasurement, emphasizing the lack of standardizationin this type of data (Carletto et al., 2015). Choulartonet al. (2015) also highlight the importance of measuringshocks. The six principles they proposed for doing thiseffectively are presented in Box 1.Pre-event action. Many definitions of resiliencereference actions that need to be taken in preparationfor shocks and stresses. Here, language around theimportance of anticipation and risk managementand reduction actions dominates. For example, theInternational Federation of the Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies (IFRC) defines resilience as theability to “anticipate, prepare for, reduce the impactof, cope with and recover from the effects of shocksand stresses without compromising their long-termprospects” (IFRC, 2014). Similarly, the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID) defines resilienceas the ability to “mitigate, adapt to and recoverfrom shocks and stresses in a manner that reduceschronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth”(Frankenberger et al., 2013).Damage limitation. Another key component of mostdefinitions references resilience as limiting damagefrom disturbances, including recovery, “bouncingback,” or absorbing shocks. For example, Béné(2013) defines resilience as the ability “to anticipate,absorb, accommodate, or recover from the impactsTABLE 1:Frequency of concepts within definitionsPRE-EVENT ACTION4DAMAGE LIMITATIONCHANGEAnticipate, plan, prepare (4)Bounce back, recover(y) (11)Adapt, evolve (10)Reduce or manage risk (4)Accommodate, absorb, cope (11)Transform (5)Avoid (1)Minimize loss or cost (4)Learn (3)Survive, persist, maintain (3)Reorganize (2)Analysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approaches

of a particular adverse event, (shock, stress, or (un)expected changes).” Similarly, the UN DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) Community-Based ResilienceAnalysis (CoBRA) defines resilience as a pathway thatallows communities to bounce back or bounce backbetter after a shock or stress (UNDP, 2014).Managing change. Most definitions highlight thatresilience is about initiating or managing processesof change to deal with changing circumstances. Mostframeworks frame the depth and breadth of this changein terms of learning, reorganization, adaptation, andevolution, with embedded assumptions of incrementalshifts. Some, but not all, conceptualize it to includetransformation or transformative shifts. For example,Cabell and Oelofse (2012) highlight that resilience is theability to retain function through disturbance but alsorefer to “the degree to which the system is capable ofself-organization; and the ability to build and increasethe capacity for learning and adaptation.” This is incontrast with the definition of resilience included aspart of the FAO’s Resilience Index Measurement andAnalysis (RIMA) approach – an approach that spansabsorption and adaptation but also includes “thetransformative capacity of an enabling institutionalenvironment” (FAO, 2014).Analysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approaches5

SECTION 2Level, scale, system, andtemporal dimensionsKey points The majority of resilience measurement frameworks focus analysis at the local level,with some indicators related to higher governance systems. Few frameworks consider the resilience of individuals, though emerging research onsubjective and psychological resilience is generating evidence of cognitive factors thatinfluence resilience outcomes. Generally, urban frameworks focus primarily on systems, institutions, and policies thatdeliver resilience, rather than on the agency of people and the resources available tothem. There is room for greater exploration of the interaction between scales and the potentialtrade-offs in resilience-building efforts across scales.Resilience is a cross-scalar phenomenon, andunderstanding the question, “resilience for whom?”requires a closer look at the scales at which frameworksaim to measure. These scales are inherently interlinked– the resilience of an individual is influenced by theresilience of the wider community, which, in turn, isinfluenced by national government – although resiliencequalities manifest differently at each level. Mocket al. (2015:12) underline that processes of resilience,vulnerability, and wellbeing must be analyzed from a“multi-level and multi-scale perspective” for a numberof reasons, including feedback loops and complexinteractions among system components.This aside, in a subsequent paper, Béné andFrankenberger (2015) add that a multi-scalar, multi-levelapproach is also needed for measuring the “responses”6Analysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approachesto disturbances. This makes attempting to measure theresilience of the entire landscape at multiple scales anextremely complex task (Choularton et al., 2015). Themajority of the resilience measurement frameworksreviewed focus analysis on the local level, which coversindividuals, households, and communities. This allowspractitioners and policymakers to understand andoperationalize a framework more easily, and is morecomfortable from a traditional development paradigmperspective that directs interventions at the householdlevel. Local frameworks focus on people’s agency,capacity and abilities, whereas higher-level frameworksdescribe how larger systems can deliver resilience forpeople within them.The frameworks analyzed focus disproportionately onthe local scale (see Figure 2). This scale is often referred

to as “community resilience” and is measured largely bylooking at capital assets and, in some cases, qualitiesof resilience. This is both a strength, because it drawson a history and set of tools, and a weakness, becauseof the potentially poor linkage between establishedcapital assets and the qualities of those assets thateither contribute to resilience or create fragility. Thecomparatively smaller number of frameworks thataim at measuring resilience at higher scales focus onsystems, institutions, and policies that deliver resilience.Resilience at the locallevelOf the 35 frameworks analyzed, 28 focus on thecommunity or local level. These local level frameworksare generally linked to particular interventions ordesigned to help inform programming. For example,UNDP’s CoBRA uses participatory tools to identify“building blocks” of community resilience, and to askpeople to gauge which development interventions werethe most impactful in building resilience against shocks.Factors that influence resilience at the householdlevel are derived from this analysis (UNDP, 2014). Theframeworks have been developed for use in primarilyrural development contexts. The limited number of otherframeworks suggests a potentially weak engagementwith other arenas of action that are relevant in relationto large-scale stresses, such as those emerging as aconsequence of climate change, including, for example,economic system resilience, critical infrastructure,water resources, and urban systems.Unpacking the components of community resilienceyields three levels: individual, household andcommunity. The notion of the community itself is looselyor not defined. The Cabell and Oelofse (2012) agriculture-focused framework defines the community levelas “concerned with a scale greater than the individualand his or her farm, but a scale small enough that anindividual’s voice can still be heard.” Community-levelindicators include quality of environment and naturalresource management institutions, access to communalresources, quality of protective infrastructure, levelsof peace and security, availability of contingencyresources or social safety nets, and social participationin the community. Frameworks that measure resilienceat the household level primarily use assets, services andendowments that a particular household can access.This is true of FAO’s Resilience Index MeasurementFIGURE 2:Measurement at 2012National or HigherSystems20132014Household andCommunity20152016UrbanAnalysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approaches7

and Analysis (RIMA), which includes a number ofdimensions of resilience, such as income, food, accessto basic services, assets, and social safety nets (FAO,2014). This is also true for the measurement frameworkproposed by the Food Security Information Network(FSIN) Technical Working Group (Constas et al., 2014).Assessing resilience at the individual level is crucialto understanding intra-household dynamics andpsychosocial wellbeing. There can be large differenceseven within the same household in how shocks orstresses affect individuals. For example, in places wheremigration is a coping or adaptation strategy, measuringresilience at the individual level is vital to understandinghow the absence of a breadwinner impacts spousesand children (Brooks et al., 2014). Recent research onpsychological resilience following traumatic eventssuch as major disasters suggests positive parent-childand mutually supportive social networks are key, whilea lack of these key relationships may erode mentalhealth (Graber et al., 2015).2 In some cases, long-termdisplacement after a humanitarian disaster may alsoimpact psychological health. Tulane University’s HaitiHumanitarian Assistance Evaluation is one of thefew frameworks that attempt to measure individualresilience in a meaningful way.The evaluation measures psychological health usingthree instruments: focus group discussions, the GeneralHealth Questionnaire–12, and the Personal WellbeingIndex IIWG, 2013). Material factors, such as livelihoodcapitals and assets, are clearly not the only drivers ofresilience in the aftermath of a shock or stress (TulaneUniversity, 2012). Additionally, research on subjectiveresilience brings attention to psychosocial factors thatimpact resilience at the individual and community levels.Béné et al.’s (2016) technical report provides compellingevidence that aspirations, self-efficacy, and perceptionsof risk influence the ability to absorb and recover fromshocks and stresses at both the individual and collectivelevels. The paper suggests that key social variables28Note, however, that reliance on strong local social networks can alsoundermine resilience in the face of communicable forms of stress.For example, this was the case with Ebola, where reliance on strongcommunity networks accompanied by weak trust in governmentalsystems contributed to rapid transmission. A similar dynamic couldalso apply to panic and social unrest.Analysis of Resilience Measurement Frameworks and Approacheslinked to subjective and cognitive elements are asimportant as material factors in people’s ability to buffershocks. These early forays into including psychologicalfactors in resilience measurement demonstrate thevalue that these metrics can bring to the understandingof resilience at individual and community scales.Resilience at higherscales – city, national,and systems levelsThe remaining frameworks are divided between thosemeasuring the resilience of cities or national systems,or of other types of systems, such as ecosystemsor socio-ecological systems. These frameworks arequalitatively distinct from those that measure resilienceat the household level. They tend to focus primarily onsystems, institutions, and policies that deliver resilience,rather than on the agency of people and the resourcesavailable to them. For example, Tracking Adaptationand Measuring Development (TAMD) measuresclimate risk management processes across scales, atglobal, national, subnational, and local levels (Brookset al., 2011). At the national level, indicators are focusedon the national government’s capacity to respond toclimate change risks. Suggested indicators includeinstitutional knowledge of climate change, budgetingfor adaptation activities, and integration of climatechange into planning and institutional coordination. Theframework builds on traditional mainstreaming tools tomeasure whether the government provides an enablingenvironment for resilience building. Tracking resilienceat the subnational scale follows the same protocol.Multiple scale focus. One novel approach thatassesses resilience at multiple scales – the ResilienceAdaptation Pathways Transformation AssessmentFramework (RAPTA) – focuses on assessing resilienceof socio-ecological systems to aid the planning ofinterventions. The tool guides practitioners to conduct“systems assessments” to determine risks and keycontrolling influences for dealing with future shocksand identify benefits of maintaining, adapting, or

transforming the system. Key stakeholders feed intothe systems analysis, which can be conducted at thescale of a community, nation, or food system. A RAPTA“systems assessment” application, for example, mayshow that demographic growth has outstripped milksupply, and that the livestock losses from droughtprevent intensification of pastoralism. In this case, thesystem assessment may suggest an intervention thathelps shift the system towards agro-pastoralism to helpdiversify the food production system (O’Connell et al.,2016). The framework focuses on broad social, economic,and ecological trends in order to improve resiliencepractitioners’ understanding of their interactions, andemphasizes that effective social networks that are opento change are needed to effect

understanding emerging risks, managing uncertainty, . distribution of risk, impact of climate, weather extremes and other hazards on poverty and development, and the political economy of managing risk and building resilience. About the Resilience Measurement, . URF Urban Resilience Framework (ISET)