This Resilience Scan summarises writing and debates in the field of resilience during the third quarter (July to September) of 2015. The scan is of particular interest to those implementing resilience projects and policies, and those seeking summaries of current debates in resilience thinking.
The section on insights from resilience experts highlights:
The importance of understanding and managing trade-offs in resilience building. These trade-offs can relate to individuals and groups, to geographical or temporal scales, to structure and function, and between different types of hazard.
The need to focus more attention on measuring the chronic stressors that affect large sections of the population on a frequent basis, as well as resilience to compound shocks and stresses rather than taking a ‘hazard by hazard’ approach.
A range of different approaches to measuring resilience, highlighting in particular the distinction between those tracking numbers affected or losses, and those seeking to measure the characteristics of ex ante resilience.
Links between the emerging resilience components within the set of 2015 platforms/frameworks and calls to ensure that measurement approaches are joined up to prevent duplication.
Analysis of resilience influencers, networks and topics on Twitter reveals that as compared to the last Twitter analysis in the Resilience Scan for January-March 2015:
Climate resilience still has the most prominent discursive visibility among the seven sectors analysed, followed by conflict and water resilience. Economic resilience is the least discussed sector.
In terms of cross-cutting themes, women and gender issues feature more prominently in tweets on resilience as compared to the last scan, as do issues relevant to local responses and cases studies, especially in the context of climate resilience.
Discussions on disaster risk enjoy less visibility, which was dominated by the build up to the Sendai World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).
The most vocal and influential voices discussing resilience on Twitter continue to be expert organisations, NGOs and donors. As shown by the network diagrams, the nodes closer to the centre are almost all expert/institutional accounts.
Broadcasting links, rather than discussion streams, continue to dominate and networking with potentially relevant conversational circles is limited.