Seite - 410 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

410 R.Mechler et al. 17.5.2 MeasuringResilience Comprehensiveriskinformationisonestartingpoint forguidingdisaster riskreduc- tion actions that build resilience. In this regard, a proper understanding of risk in qualitative and quantitative terms is essential, but has not sufficiently permeated resilience research and resilience building to date.Arguably, this iswhy there has beenlittleconcrete,measurableprogressontheground.Theresiliencemeasurement initiativeoftheZFRAarounddevelopingtheFloodResilienceMeasurementFrame- workforCommunities(FRMC)hasbeenfocusedonbenchmarkingandtrackingthe underlyingsourcesofresilienceandthelong-termoutcomes(seeKeatingetal.2017). For theflood-pronecommunities involvedin thestudy, thismeanssheddinglighton whyonecommunitymayfarebetter thananother in thesamedisaster,despiteseem- ingly identical levels of development and vulnerability.With the information and resources acquired in thiswork, communitieswill not just be able to bounce back after a disaster. Theywill be able to actually bounce forward in terms ofmaking progresson important developmentobjectives.The toolwill help communities and developmentpartnersreviewavailableoptionsandmakejudgementsonhowtobuild resilience,helpingcommunitieswithlimitedresourcesdecidewhattoinvest in,such as increasing and strengthening livelihoods, investing in preparednessmeasures or building requisiteDRRinfrastructure. TheFRMCapproach tomeasuring resilience involvesmeasuring the sources of resiliencepre andpost-disaster, operationalisedaroundkeycapacity indicatorsof a community’s socio-economic system (Fig. 17.9). The resilience framework, build- ingondetailed literature reviewaligns resilience systems thinking (Bruneau2006) withtheSustainableLivelihoodsApproach(SLA)adoptedbydevelopmentagencies for broadly tracing achievement of development objectives in communities (DFID 1999). Overall, the approach consistently considers communities‘ assets, interac- tions and interconnections across, whatwe call, 5 capitals (or capacities): human, natural, social, physical andfinancial.Themeasurementofcapitalgroupsbuildson a set resilience sources, overall, for the 5 classes there are a total of 88 sources of resilience in this so-called5C-4Rframework.Sourcesarequalitativelygradedfrom A-Dbased on available data depending on context and need, e.g. fromhousehold surveys, community focus group discussions, expert informants, and other third- party sources. To assure validity ofmeasurement, sources are assessed andgraded by specially trainedNGOexperts embedded in the respective communities, while data are collected globally via an integratedmobile andweb-based system.Build- ing onmeasuring potential resilience of a community, projecting actual outcomes of resilience after an event considers observed impacts (losses and time for getting back to ‘normal’). Themeasurementframeworkhasbeenrolledoutglobally,andinadditiontothe4 case locationsof theZFRA,otherNGOshavebeenenlistedasadditionalboundary partners to the ZFRA, contributing data from communities in Afghanistan, East Timor, Indonesia,Haiti and theUnitedStatesamounting tomore than100currently gradedcommunitieswithmore than1milliondatapoints.