Thomas Tanner

Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in the context of urban planning

The aim of this paper is to analyse the emergence of the concept of ‘urban resilience’ in the literature and to assess its potentials and limitations as an element of policy planning. Using a systematic literature review covering the period 2003–2013 and a combination of techniques derived from narrative analysis, we show that diverse views of what urban resilience means and how it is best used (as a goal or as a conceptual/analytical framework) compete in the literature. Underlying these views are various (and sometimes diverging) interpretations of what the main issues are and what forms of policies or interventions are needed to address these issues. Urban planners need to be better aware of these different interpretations if they want to be in a position to use resilience appropriately and spell out what resilience can bring to their work. The review also highlights that the notion of urban resilience often lacks adequate acknowledgement of the political economy of urbanization and consequently does not challenge the status quo which, some argue, is socially unjust and environmentally unsustainable. As such it runs the risk to be seen as simply making marginalized urban communities more resilient to the shocks and inequity created by the current dominant paradigm.

‘Subjective resilience’: using perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate extremes and disasters

How should we measure a household’s resilience to climate extremes, climate change or other evolving threats? As resilience gathers momentum on the international stage, interest in this question continues to grow. So far, efforts to measure resilience have largely focused on the use of ‘objective’ frameworks and methods of indicator selection. These typically depend on a range of observable socio-economic variables, such as levels of income, the extent of a household’s social capital or its access to social safety nets. Yet while objective methods have their uses, they suffer from well-documented weaknesses. This paper advocates for the use of an alternative but complementary method: the measurement of ‘subjective’ resilience at the household level. The concept of subjective resilience stems from the premise that people have an understanding of the factors that contribute to their ability to anticipate, buffer and adapt to disturbance and change. Subjective household resilience therefore relates to an individual’s cognitive and affective self-evaluation of their household’s capabilities and capacities in responding to risk. We discuss the advantages and limitations of measuring subjective household resilience and highlight its relationships with other concepts such as perceived adaptive capacity, subjective well-being and psychological resilience. We then put forward different options for the design and delivery of survey questions on subjective household resilience. While the approach we describe is focused at the household level, we show how it has the potential to be aggregated to inform sub-national or national resilience metrics and indicators. Lastly, we highlight how subjective methods of resilience assessment could be used to improve policy and decision-making. Above all, we argue that, alongside traditional objective measures and indicators, efforts to measure resilience should take into account subjective aspects of household resilience in order to ensure a more holistic understanding of resilience to climate extremes and disasters.

The Triple Dividend of Resilience—A New Narrative for Disaster Risk Management and Development

To secure development gains and help eradicate poverty in the long run, it is critical to strengthen ex-ante disaster risk management (DRM) measures that build resilience at the household, firm and macro level. Decision-makers however often view DRM investments as a gamble that pays off only in the event of a disaster. This is despite increasing evidence that building resilience yields significant and tangible benefits, even if a disaster does not happen for many years. This chapter outlines the Triple Dividend of Resilience as a new analytical method to enhance the business case for investments in building resilience. The three benefits that are outlined are: (1) avoiding losses when disasters strike; (2) unlocking development potential by stimulating economic activity thanks to reduced disaster-related investment risks; and (3) social, environmental and economic co-benefits associated with investments. The second and third dividends in particular are typically overlooked in appraisals around investment decisions, and can accrue even in the absence of disaster events. Presenting evidence of additional dividends to policy-makers and investors can provide a stronger case for investment in DRM, helping to reconcile short- and long-term objectives. This chapter sets the conceptual basis for the more detailed assessments of the resilience streams and implications for decision-makers provided in the following chapters.

Financial Crises and Economic Resilience: Lessons for Disaster Risk Management and Resilience Dividends

The development progress achieved by many countries, and particularly by low-income countries, is at risk of being undermined or even wiped out by the range of shocks and resulting crises they face. Since the turn of the millennium, there has been growing recognition of the importance of climate and disaster risks for development progress; the global financial crisis of 2007/08 also had profound implications for economies around the world. Partly in response to this experience, anticipatory risk management systems have become an increasingly popular approach to tackling both economic and disaster resilience. This chapter examines the impacts of financial crises on development at the national level and the responses of major international institutions in terms of coping with and anticipating such shocks. It then examines the lessons from these risk management mechanisms for understanding and recognising the dividends of resilience emerging from disaster risk management.