Measuring resilience: by whom and for whom? A case study of people-centred resilience indicators in New Zealand

Abstract

Purpose

Resilience has become a priority of most agendas for disaster risk reduction at different scales leading to an increase demand for measurement of resilience. However, resilience is mostly defined, assessed and measured by outsider experts rather than by those primarily concerned – local people. This article presents the development of people-centred indicators of resilience in New Zealand. It details both the process and outcomes of these indicators.

Design/methodology/approach

The study draws from participatory methods to develop a six-step tool kit for people-centred indicators of resilience. The people-centred indicators were implemented with four communities in New Zealand in 2019 and 2020.

Findings

The paper highlights that people are capable at defining and assessing their own resilience. The indicators enabled people identify and measure areas of low resilience and foster dialogue between locals and practitioners to strengthen it.

Research limitations/implications

People-centred indicators also have limitations and pose challenges. Their development requires strong facilitation skills; it limitedly enables comparison across communities and implies downward accountability.

Practical implications

The findings should stimulate discussions about who should measure resilience and for whom such measurement is it for. It provides a tool kit that can be used by practitioners and policy makers to measure and strengthen community resilience.

Originality/value

Most resilience indicators is outsider-driven and limitedly involves local people. This study uses a radically different approach placing people at the centre of resilience measurement.

Citation

Le Dé, L., Wairama, K., Sath, M. and Petera, A. (2021), "Measuring resilience: by whom and for whom? A case study of people-centred resilience indicators in New Zealand", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 30 No. 4/5, pp. 538-552. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-04-2021-0128