Concept of Resilience in Disaster Risk Reduction
Resilience in reduction of risks of disasters has developed as a crucial concept in disaster management. Resilience is essentially the ability of individuals to take the necessary and required steps, organize carefully, assimilate, recuperate, and most importantly, acclimate to untimely unfortunate events and occurrences (Shaw and Sharma, 2011). Shaw and Sharma (2011) posit that resilience tends to be one primary and important way to minimize the overall consequences of hazardous events on the affected nations as well as their different communities. As such disaster risk reduction majors on the reduction of damages resulted by various hazardous occurrences such as cyclones, earthquakes, floods, blizzards, tornados, and droughts through a structured ethic of impediment or diversion (National Research Council and National Academies, 2012). The structured ethics involve various concepts and practices such as the application of well-structured principles with an aim of analyzing and reducing the major factors leading to disasters, creating and implementing concrete solutions that help in curbing the extreme exposure to catastrophes within the communities; reducing the general predisposition of both individuals and property (Coppola 2007). In addition, the ethics also include the knowledgeable administration of land and the entire environment, as well as enhancing the element of preparedness and providing early signals for hazardous occurrences (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, and Wisner, 2014). Indeed, investing in resilience is extremely important since improved strategies of resilience tend to create room for enhanced expectation of disasters and ameliorated methods of planning that in turn aid in reducing losses related to disasters instead of being caught unawares by catastrophes and paying dearly for them (National Research Council and National Academies, 2012). As such, this paper brings out the concept of resilience in disaster risk management and critically analyses the usefulness of the concept of resilience in disaster risk reduction.
Matsuoka and Shaw (2014) claim that the definition of resilience stemmed from a board of members who based it on the existent literary texts and is congruent with policies related to international communities on disasters such as the DHS Risk Steering Committee, the NRC and UNISDR. The term resilience first attained popularity within governments globally in the year 2005 because of the adoption of a scheme referred to as the Hyogo Framework for Action by over one hundred and 68 members of the United Nations (Matsuoka and Shaw, 2014). This framework prioritized the reduction of risks caused by disasters and the propagation of the creation and implementation of resilience to disastrous occurrences and events. Over the years, the literary texts have come up with new definitions and concepts related to resilience as well as the organizations and systems that incorporate resilience (Tierney, 2014). However, the issue of resilience majors on the idea that proper planning and management of one type of a hazardous event and occurrence can ultimately lead to the rigidity of different communities and different regions once bombarded by a different kind of catastrophe (Tierney 2014). Therefore, resilience tends to encompass all forms of disaster risks occurring due to either natural or artificial reasons and as a result, it is deemed to be an extremely element in the reduction of risks related to disastrous occurrences.
Disaster risk reduction comprises various disciplines such as management of disasters, palliation of disasters, and the general preparedness factor. As a result, disaster risk reduction generally involves all parts and constituents of the societies and communities, every parts of the government, as well as the entire group of individuals constituting the public, professional, and private fields (Wisner, Gaillard, and Kelman, 2011). This is because no individuals, nations or communities surpass either the disastrous occurrences or the immense losses recorded after catastrophic events. Besides, pandemics, outrageous terror attacks, societal unrests and disenchantments, financial crisis, as well as natural disasters tend to all result to dire consequences for the affected nations and communities worldwide. In turn, such situations call for creation of strategies of disaster risk reduction through the implementation of ways such as disaster resilience, as stated earlier.
Nevertheless, structuring the lifestyle and complete execution of disaster resilience is both difficult and expensive. This is because even though the relevant individuals readily put up measures towards resilience after catastrophes and hazardous events, resilience is hardly recognized and acknowledged before disasters occur (Devenson, 2003). In turn, this makes the anticipated gains from investments made on resilience to vanish entirely. Moreover, this noble decision to invest and build communities that are more resilient is mainly relies on various primary points such as the continuity of occurrence of disasters either naturally caused or artificially induced, the continued growth or decline of various populations thereby each factor posing different challenges (Wisner, Gaillard, and Kelman 2012). Additionally, Wisner, Gaillard, and Kelman (2012) has it that data acquired from various demographic sources globally have it that more individuals migrate to coastal and southern areas which tend to be prone to hazards such as droughts, tornados and hurricanes. Furthermore, public infrastructure such as roads, educational centers, health institutions, and other essential social amenities in the community and national level face challenging times economically with the increase of population size and individual ages.
Besides, risks resulting from disasters cannot face complete eradication from the face of the earth and as a result, remaining risks requiring management, and attention will continue persisting (Baas, 2008). The consequences of climate changes and degradation of the ozone layer resulting from degenerative human activities will also continue making the globe exposed to disasters. Therefore, various governments globally have recognized the hurdle of improving national resilience. As a result, eight agencies in conjunction with one group on community resilience amalgamated with a national laboratory requested the council in charge of national research (NRC) to handle the wide issue of improving resilience to disasters globally (Baas 2008). Baas (2008) claims that the main issues requested upon the NRC by the agencies included the definition of national resilience and a draft on the primary agendas related to the improvement of resilience in the world, an illustration of the recent statistics on the condition of knowledge about resilience to catastrophes and provision of goals, inception conditions, and execution metrics related to resilience.
In addition, the issues also included a mandatory outline from different countries, states and communities on supplementary information, particulars, apertures and obstacles requiring special attention in order to improve the overall resilience to disasters (Shaw, 2012). The said individuals also asked the NRC to provide suggestions and proposals on the relevant strategies resulting in enhanced resilience to disasters globally. As such, the aim of the raised issues and concerns was to ensure that all people from various communities and nations easily accessed information on the various risks and incidences leading to vulnerability to disasters in order to enhance resilience. Additionally, Blaikie, et al., (2014) argue that the aim was also to all the levels of different governments, assorted communities and private fields possess formulated and designed strategies, policies and operation plans based on resilience. Furthermore, the main agenda also ensured massive recognition of different community alliances as well as enhancing their financial support channels for the provision of the crucial services prior and after disaster occurrences.
Ultimately, the major aim also advocated for better services such as universal health, education and general safety of the public. This was because if the alternative state of affairs in which different states and countries worldwide continued being passive to issues related to disaster resilience, then it would certainly result to a detrimental future (Filho, 2012). In other words, disasters would remain excessively costly in terms of severity in the number of injuries caused, increased death toll, destruction of homes, jobs and other organizational disturbances amongst other dangers. Thus, the creation and implementation of disaster resilience towards a better future essentially calls for total transformation of the old cultures, attitudes and methods of handling disaster resilience. Filho (2012) claims that the relevant bodies all over the world need to come up with new ways of resilience in order to curb risks caused by disasters. Besides, creation of short term policies to vulnerable communities to disasters cannot fully lead to the enhancement of disaster resilience.
Formulation of long term policies and improvement of cultural approaches towards the management and maintenance of resilience in disaster risk management are extremely important in order to enhance and advance disaster resilience to better heights. Paton Smith and Violanti (2000) posit that these new methods include various ways such as taking accountability for disaster risks, acknowledging disaster resilience as a challenge in most countries, both developed and developing countries, and working towards its establishment in through all means possible, creation and utilization of the relevant tools and metrics required in keeping track of the progress on improvement of disaster resilience. Moreover, these new methods include focusing primarily on improving resilience from the community levels in order to ensure the final world-class resilience before and after catastrophic events and occurrences, making sure that people understand the layout of governmental strategies, policies and practices towards aiding different countries and states in overcoming disaster risks through resilience (Paton Smith and Violanti, 2000). Consequently, the new methods also include the identification and communication of the duties and accountability of all individuals towards the creation and enhancement of resilience.
The overall resilience to risks associated with disasters tends to blossom on the strength of all aspects of a community including its infrastructure, education levels of the community members, the peoples’ health statuses, economic viability, and the general natural surroundings of the community (Mechler, 2004). As such, this requires that the entire society co-relates well in such a way that their dependency levels towards each other provide strength and comfort in cases of hazardous events and occurrences. Moreover, both community and leadership networks which comprise of the community members are intricate and aggressive systems that through combined efforts and enhanced responsibility create and implement various strategies and policies related to reduction of disaster risks. Besides, no community, country or state has been delegated the responsibility for enhancing global resilience and the said entities do not possess the required skills and enough resources to handle the growing challenge of resilience (Mechler, 2004). However, the essential role of enhancing measures on global resilience of disasters in different regions lies within the commitment of communities and their members, contribution and counsel from all governments in different countries and states, private organizations and both community structured entities as well as non-governmental organizations.
The enhancement of world-wide resilience in disaster risks is an indispensable prerogative that calls for a joint will of different nations in conjunction with their communities. Godschalk (2003) claims that in order to achieve the ideal goal of improving resilience, it is necessary for different regions to set up various measures and strategies. These mandatory policies related to aiding disaster resilience include various ways such as ensuring the incorporation of the theme of global resilience in all states, countries, and regions as the major guiding principle in order to create awareness of the looming danger in the occurrence of disasters (Godschalk, 2003). Additionally, governments in all countries and states should oversee the installation of two-way radio systems in areas with high susceptibility levels to catastrophes and train them and other community members on how to use them. In turn, this would help the people in such areas to communicate faster and easier to the relevant authorities in case of disastrous events as well as ask for help in good time in order to reduce increased loss of lives and injuries.
Furthermore, governments in all countries and states should facilitate and ensure the evacuation of people in regions of high susceptibility to catastrophic events such as people residing in the lowlands of areas prone to flooding or those residing in mountain regions or plateaus prone to killer lightning strikes (Geis, 2000). This measure would in turn help save many lives as well as prevent people from constructing businesses and investing in such areas thereby saving property from damage. In addition, the said governments should also enhance the humanitarian responses to areas affected by catastrophic occurrences by investing more in groups such as the Red Cross and First Aid groups within regional or international levels globally that deal with aiding affected people in such regions. This improved response to the affected areas helps save the lives of many people who could be injured or trapped within the debris from the destroyed buildings (Geis, 2000). It also ensures the timely recovery of the deceased’ bodies in order to give quick closure to their relatives and save them from the trouble of searching endlessly for their fallen loved ones.
Moreover, the entire world through various international partners including various bodies of the United Nations such as UNICEF and UNESCO and other international non-governmental organizations like Save the Children as well as other private entities can address the issue of unsafe schools in order to curb the extreme loss of lives of the innocent children (Cutter et.al, 2008). The said programs can achieve the said goal by creating open source mapping programs that give a world-wide platform for all schools and other risk prone educational premises as well as a follow up for the measure of progress towards school safety globally. Furthermore, Cutter et.al (2008) suggest that the international partners could also facilitate technical workshops cutting across the globe with the main agenda of sharing experiences from different countries and states as well as raising different ideas and exploring ways in which governments could tackle the hurdles hindering the promotion of safe school environments.
An example of such a workshop is the occasion held in affiliation of the World Bank and the group in charge of disaster risk management in Tokyo (GFDRR), which led to the amalgamation of both policy makers and technical experts from different parts of the world (Shaw and Sharma, 2011). In addition, all governments globally should ensure the establishment and documentation of all data related to the detrimental effects of hazardous events such as loss of lives and property, injuries and negative impacts on economic activities. In return, the creation of such national resources ultimately help in the development of more duodecimal models on disaster risks as well as enhancing the understanding of both structural and social susceptibility of particular regions to catastrophes (Shaw and Sharma, 2011). Besides, different states and local governments should support and implement the development upkeep of coalitions related to programs on community resilience at local, regional and national levels.
For instance, the new initiatives in the education sector that aid in enhancing resilience on a wide basis globally that work with various ministries such as public works, education and public works have proved extremely useful in disaster risk reduction (Godschalk, 2003). For example, in Nepal, extremely poor administration and execution of the standards of building and construction policies and practices in some areas lead to the creation of susceptible educational and residential structures (Godschalk, 2003). Thus, the measures recommended for building resilience in such areas emphasize on the implementation of stricter rules and regulations in the building and construction policies that major on the creation of strong buildings that can conquer various disastrous events such as earthquakes, lightning strikes and flooding. This can also help in the aversion of deadly disasters such as the magnitude earthquake that struck Nepal on the twenty fifth of April in 2012 that led to the collapse of approximately two thousand schools and destroyed more than five thousand residential areas (Shaw, 2012).
Besides, the destruction caused by the Typhoon Haiyan in the fall of 2013 in Philippines also caused fatalities whereby it damaged over two thousand schools as well as affecting over one million children (Khan, 2005). Moreover, the recent flooding issue in Malawi resulted to the destruction of many schools and residential areas as well as the disruption of approximately four hundred thousand children. Additionally, Khan (2005) claims that the damage caused by the deadly tornado strike in Joplin in mid-2011 causing the demise of over one 59 people and injuring over a thousand other civilians. In essence occurrences of such massive destruction of both lives and property caused by natural disasters resulting from human negligence or negative artificial indulgence reverberates into the development of proper educational systems as well as the national growth and development globally. Moreover, such disastrous events have resulted to national consequences and those hazardous effects have cut across large geographic areas and large chunks of the human population globally. Therefore, provision on information of resilience before and after the occurrence of disastrous events is extremely important in order to avoid such detrimental events (Khan, 2005).
From the above discussion, it is indeed justified to allude that investing in various ways of the management of disaster risks such as resilience provides important benefits in both short and long terms. Focusing on background risks related to hazardous events through putting more emphasis on global resilience to all countries and states leads to better planning strategies, long-term investments and enhanced entrepreneurial skills. In addition, despite of whether disasters occur or not, disaster risk management investments are not misdirected and misguided since they result to the general well-being of individuals both socially and economically. In other words, failure to invest in disaster risk management strategies such as resilience is indeed a derailed chance for world-wide progress socially, environmentally and economically.
Bibliography
Baas, S. (2008). Disaster risk management systems analysis: a guide book. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B., 2014. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.
Coppola, D. P. 2007. Introduction to international disaster management. Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E. and Webb, J., 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change, 18(4), pp.598-606.
Devesnon, A. (2003). Resilience. Crows Nest, NSW, Allen and Unwin.
Filho, W. L. (2012). Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management. Dordrecht, Springer.
Geis, D.E., 2000. By design: the disaster resistant and quality-of-life community. Natural Hazards Review, 1(3), pp.151-160.
Godschalk, D.R., 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Natural hazards review, 4(3), pp.136-143.
Kahn, M.E., 2005. The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography, and institutions. Review of economics and statistics, 87(2), pp.271-284.
Matsuoka, Y., and Shaw, R. (2014). Hyogo framework for action and urban disaster resilience. Bingley, U.K., Emerald. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1812222.
Mechler, R. (2004). Natural disaster risk management and financing disaster losses in developing countries. Karlsruhe, VVW.
National Research Council (U.S.), and National Academies (U.S.). (2012). Disaster resilience: a national imperative. Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
Paton, D., Smith, L. and Violanti, J., 2000. Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 9(3), pp.173-180.
Shaw, R. (2012). Community-based disaster risk reduction. Bingley [England], Emerald Group Pub.
Shaw, R., and Sharma, A. (2011). Climate and Disaster Resilience in Cities. Bradford, Emerald Group Pub.
Tierney, K. J. (2014). The social roots of risk: producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books.
Wisner, B., Gaillard, J. C. and Kelman, I. eds. 2012. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London and New York: Routledge.
