Building Disaster Resilience: Why Social Equality Matters?

A human being, unlike a non- living thing, cannot bounce back completely the same way it used to. Resilience is a characteristic of a system that can bounce back from disasters to its original state. How can we measure someone’s ability to bounce back? We face a major challenge today in measuring or defining the ability of local communities to bounce back after a disaster. I found that local communities in disaster-affected areas in India and Ghana see “equality” as a major concern when facing a disaster and recovering from it. Communities are not homogenous entities, risks are not evenly distributed among them, and members do not have equal opportunities to bounce back. I observed that the government, in partnership with NGOs (Non- Governmental Organizations), bui l t str on g and stru ctur al l y resilient houses for earthquake survivors in Gujrat, India. Although these houses are well built and structurally resilient to earthquakes, people from farmer communities rejected to live there because the dwelling unit plan and layout plan of these houses do not allow communities to engage in social and cultural activities. The Ghanaian government, in collaboration with international  donor  agencies, conducted preparedness programs and initiatives to enhance the resilience of the local community against floods and climate change.

Although local communities applauded the initiatives, they did not wish to participate in this preparedness program because they felt it did not address their ongoing challenges, such as livelihood issues, leaving them vulnerable to disasters of all kinds. Local communities often differ in their ability to bounce back due to socio-cultural and economic differences. In the same way, it is difficult to define an ideal state of rebounding. Due to time and sociocultural factors, a community cannot bounce back exactly to its original state after a disaster. The standard and popular models and indicators are often too narrow and top-down in defining local communities’  resilience.  Defining resilience with a universal indicator is risky and unpractical, most often these parameters are outcome- based rather than process-based. Different communities may define resilience differently. The local community should help define and build disaster resilience based on what and how they want to define it. This is a more participatory and community-oriented approach.