Climate and disaster resilience measurement: Persistent gaps in multiple hazards, methods, and practicability

Laurien, F. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7329-5864, Martin, J.G.C. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-8540, & Mehryar, S. (2022). Climate and disaster resilience measurement: Persistent gaps in multiple hazards, methods, and practicability. Climate Risk Management 37 e100443. 10.1016/j.crm.2022.100443.

Preview

Text 1-s2.0-S221209632200050X-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (514kB) | Preview

Abstract

In response to increasing demands for information on disasters and extreme events by the policy, practice, and research communities, there has been a recent surge in approaches to the measurement of applied risk management and resilience. Nevertheless, very few of these approaches address systemic risks, particularly in multi-hazard environments, and thus do not holistically contribute to decision making in various contexts. This paper addresses this gap by means of a critical review and an assessment of approaches to climate and disaster resilience measurement with a particular focus on three issues: (1) the consideration of compounding socioeconomic and climatic risks in approaches to resilience measurement; (2) the methodological and technical aspects of resilience measurement; and (3) the application and practicability of resilience measurement across various contexts to reliably inform decision-making processes. Seventeen key resilience measurement approaches developed by researchers, government, and private and civil society organizations are selected and evaluated according to a set of assessment criteria. Based on this assessment, we conclude with three key findings. First, we find a lack of clear standards and validated approaches in the measurement methodologies, which can lead to inconsistencies and poor data comparability. Second, approaches to resilience measurement should further strive to combine both process- and outcome-based methodological perspectives to represent resilience in the most holistic and standardized manner possible. Third, in the context of multiple hazards, decision-making strategies should address multiple vulnerabilities. To conclude, we suggest that future developments in resilience measurement should allow for the analysis of interactions between multiple stressors across different scales and among systemic risks. Moreover, more rigorous process-based approaches to resilience measurement are still required that can incorporate outputs into decision making.

Actions (login required)

View Item