IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/101529.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Whose resilience matters?: like-for-like comparisons of objective and subjective measures of resilience

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Lindsey
  • D'Errico, Marco

Abstract

As resilience continues its rise to top of the international policy agenda, development funders and practitioners are under mounting pressure to ensure that investments in resilience-building are effective and targeted at those most in need. It is here that robust resilience measurement can make valuable contributions: identifying hotspots; understanding drivers; and inferring impact. To date, resilience measurement has been dominated by objectively-oriented approaches. These rely on external definitions of resilience (often informed by outside ‘experts’, literature reviews or resilience practitioners) and measured through observation or external verification. More recently, the potential for subjective approaches has been proposed. These take a contrasting approach, soliciting people’s judgements of what resilience means to them, and getting them to self-evaluate their own resilience. While both approaches have their strength and weaknesses, little is known about how objective and subjective modes of resilience measurement compare. To shed light on this relationship, we provide like-for-like comparisons of these two approaches using a regionally representative household survey of 2,308 households in Northern Uganda. In so doing, we introduce a new measurement approach named the Subjective self-Evaluated Resilience Score (SERS). Outcomes from SERS are directly compared with an objectively-evaluated approach, the Resilience Index Measurement Analysis (RIMA), widely used by resilience practitioners. Findings from the survey suggest a moderate correlation between objectively- and subjectively-evaluated resilience modules. More importantly, both approaches share similar associations with many key socioeconomic drivers of resilience. However, there are notable differences between the two. In some case, the approaches differ entirely regarding contributions of important traits, including coping strategies, levels of education and exposure to prior shocks. Our results highlight the need for resilience evaluators to consider a diversity of knowledge sources and seek greater use of evidence in indicator selection. We also investigate the properties of the SERS module itself. We find that characterisations of resilience that mimic various commonly-used frameworks produce similar resilience outcomes, suggesting that debates over the exact composition of resilience-characteristics may matter little. In addition, shorter SERS modules match the performance of the full set of SERS questions, allowing for quicker administration and reduced survey burden. Lastly, we call for evaluators to consider the strengths and weaknesses of subjective and objective measurement approaches, including options for combining both formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Lindsey & D'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters?: like-for-like comparisons of objective and subjective measures of resilience," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101529, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:101529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101529/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthias Ruth & María E. Ibarrarán (ed.), 2009. "Distributional Impacts of Climate Change and Disasters," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13215.
    2. Patrick Bottazzi & Mirko S. Winkler & Sébastien Boillat & Abdoulaye Diagne & Mashoudou Maman Chabi Sika & Arsène Kpangon & Salimata Faye & Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Flood Resilience in Suburban Dakar: A Before–After Evaluation of the “Live with Water” Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Tiwari, Sailesh & Skoufias, Emmanuel & Sherpa, Maya, 2013. "Shorter, cheaper, quicker, better : linking measures of household food security to nutritional outcomes in Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Uganda, and Tanzania," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6584, The World Bank.
    4. Ingebjørg Kristoffersen, 2017. "The Metrics of Subjective Wellbeing Data: An Empirical Evaluation of the Ordinal and Cardinal Comparability of Life Satisfaction Scores," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 845-865, January.
    5. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    6. Stephanie Toole & Natascha Klocker & Lesley Head, 2016. "Re-thinking climate change adaptation and capacities at the household scale," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 203-209, March.
    7. King, Gary & Wand, Jonathan, 2007. "Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 46-66, January.
    8. Anna Scolobig & B. Marchi & M. Borga, 2012. "The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: findings from case studies in an Alpine Region," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 63(2), pages 499-520, September.
    9. Hongjian Zhou & Jing’ai Wang & Jinhong Wan & Huicong Jia, 2010. "Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 53(1), pages 21-41, April.
    10. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    11. Stephanie Toole & Natascha Klocker & Lesley Head, 2016. "Re-thinking climate change adaptation and capacities at the household scale," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 203-209, March.
    12. Neil Adger, W., 1999. "Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 249-269, February.
    13. Matthew E. Kahn, 2005. "The Death Toll from Natural Disasters: The Role of Income, Geography, and Institutions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 271-284, May.
    14. María Ibarrarán & Matthias Ruth & Sanjana Ahmad & Marisa London, 2009. "Climate change and natural disasters: macroeconomic performance and distributional impacts," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 549-569, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bekee, Barituka, 2020. "Does resilience capacity influence households' perception of control to environmental shocks? Evidence from the Bolivian Altiplano," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Barituka Bekee & Corinne Valdivia, 2023. "Resilience of Rural Households: Insights from a Multidisciplinary Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Perrin, Augustine & Cristobal, Magali San & Milestad, Rebecka & Martin, Guillaume, 2020. "Identification of resilience factors of organic dairy cattle farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    4. Spiegel, Alisa & Slijper, Thomas & de Mey, Yann & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Poortvliet, P. Marijn & Rommel, Jens & Hansson, Helena & Vigani, Mauro & Soriano, Bárbara & Wauters, Erwin & Appel, Franzisk, 2021. "Resilience capacities as perceived by European farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Menconi, M.E. & Giordano, S. & Grohmann, D., 2022. "Revisiting global food production and consumption patterns by developing resilient food systems for local communities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    3. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    4. Pablo Aznar-Crespo & Antonio Aledo & Joaquín Melgarejo-Moreno & Arturo Vallejos-Romero, 2021. "Adapting Social Impact Assessment to Flood Risk Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Jana Lorena Werg & Torsten Grothmann & Michael Spies & Harald A. Mieg, 2020. "Factors for Self-Protective Behavior against Extreme Weather Events in the Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Rao, Nitya & Singh, Chandni & Solomon, Divya & Camfield, Laura & Sidiki, Rahina & Angula, Margaret & Poonacha, Prathigna & Sidibé, Amadou & Lawson, Elaine T., 2020. "Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    8. KASHIWAGI Yuzuka & TODO Yasuyuki, 2022. "Trade Disruption and Risk Perception," Discussion papers 22086, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    9. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Aleksandra Pieloch-Babiarz & Anna Misztal & Magdalena Kowalska, 2021. "An impact of macroeconomic stabilization on the sustainable development of manufacturing enterprises: the case of Central and Eastern European Countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8669-8698, June.
    11. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    12. Camila Flórez Bossio & James Ford & Danielle Labbé, 2019. "Adaptive capacity in urban areas of developing countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 279-297, November.
    13. Noy, Ilan & Yonson, Rio, 2016. "A survey of the theory and measurement of economic vulnerability and resilience to natural hazards," Working Paper Series 19394, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Economics and Finance.
    14. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    15. Chepeliev, Maksym & Osorio-Rodarte, Israel & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2021. "Distributional impacts of carbon pricing policies under the Paris Agreement: Inter and intra-regional perspectives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. -, 2015. "La economía del cambio climático en América Latina y el Caribe: paradojas y desafíos del desarrollo sostenible," Libros y Documentos Institucionales, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 37310 edited by Cepal, March.
    17. Julita Gil Cuesta & Joris Adriaan Frank Van Loenhout & Maria Da Conceição Colaço & Debarati Guha-Sapir, 2017. "General Population Knowledge about Extreme Heat: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Lisbon and Madrid," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, January.
    18. Hyun Kim & David Marcouiller, 2015. "Considering disaster vulnerability and resiliency: the case of hurricane effects on tourism-based economies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 945-971, May.
    19. Kellenberg, Derek K. & Mobarak, Ahmed Mushfiq, 2008. "Does rising income increase or decrease damage risk from natural disasters?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 788-802, May.
    20. Ilan Noy & Rio Yonson, 2018. "Economic Vulnerability and Resilience to Natural Hazards: A Survey of Concepts and Measurements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resilience; Subjective measures; Quantitative; Perceived resilience;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:101529. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.