REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Manyena (2006), Mileti (1999), and Norris et al. (2008) describe resilience as an umbrella term
that encompasses a range of methods in which a system adjusts to external pressures, significant
disturbances, and changing conditions (Holling 1973; Kapucu, Hawkins, and Rivera 2013). While
the phrase has gained popularity in fields ranging from ecology to psychology, it has lately
emerged as an important idea in climate change adaptation, disaster risk management, and
sustainable development lexicons (Manyena 2006; Adger 2000; Nelson, Adger, and Brown 2007).
The concept has shown to be extremely beneficial because to its ability to represent the behavior
of systems ranging from the cellular to enormous socioeconomic systems (Holling 2001).

Santos and Leitmann (2016), Rockefeller Foundation (2017), National Research Council (2012)).
It is crucial to consider how current developments in resilience theory and practice, especially how
they are represented in debates over international policy, might influence disaster management
strategy. This is due to the fact that the idea has grown and is now used in a wide range of
situations.

2. Resilience: a conceptual overview

Holling (1973) conceptualized the word resilience to better comprehend ecosystems' ability to
remain in their original condition in the face of exogenous shocks. According to Holling (1973, p.
18), resilience is "a measure of the ability of ecological systems to absorb changes in state
variables, driving variables, and parameters and still persist." Since then, the phrase has been used
to define individuals', human communities', and larger societies' adaptive capacity (Linnenluecke
and Griffiths 2010; Nelson, Adger, and Brown 2007; Norris et al. 2008).
2.1A short survey of resilience definitions
Norris et al. (2008) present an in-depth examination of the evolution of resilience thinking and
concepts as they apply not just to ecological systems, but also to human, city, social, physical, and
community resilience and hazards studies. Because the term has been used in a variety of contexts,
there is no one widely recognized definition. Table 1 summarizes the important features of
resilience definitions gathered from a variety of research and policy fields.

Despite these varying viewpoints, the core ideas of "perturbation" and "recovery" hold true. The
majority of interpretations place an emphasis on the ability to adapt in the face of stress, hardship,
or external disruption, even though they don't necessarily use those exact words. It is important to
note that the emphasis on "successful" adaptation in the literature on disaster recovery and climate
change reflects an anthropocentric bias in favor of development and increased functioning in the
face of challenging circumstances. Numerous policy papers have this positive adaption bias,
which raises the possibility that resilience will no longer be defined in terms of what it "is" but
rather what it "ought to be" if not carefully considered. In terms of objective systems, resilience is
This is not a normative concept, and it does not always indicate progress or development
(Middleton and Latty 2016). The emphasis here is on the system's capacity to endure within a
particular set of system characteristics (Holling 2001; Middleton and Latty 2016).

When considered as a whole, resilience may be appropriately viewed as a system attribute. A

"stable" system was traditionally regarded as being strong, static, and resistant to change
(Manyena 2006; McEntire et al. 2002). A stable system is now defined as one that is flexible and
adaptable to stress, remaining more or less constant throughout a wide variety of situations
(Holling 2001; Thompson et al. 2009). According to Cartalis (2014), a resilient system is one that
can adapt to significant stress well enough to go through transformational transition and shift into
a different sort of system change.
Therefore, it is better to think of resilience as a "chapeau" phrase that covers a variety of system
reactions, particularly the capacity of a system to:

a. Remain stable in the presence of external stressors and disturbances;

 b. Recuperate after a significant disturbance; and
b. Adjust to the new situation.

2.1. 1Approaches to influencing resilience policy

Whatever its definition, a system or one of its parts may be "more or less resilient" in relation to
a certain "shock". From a policy standpoint, Nalau and Handmer (2015) identify three different
forms of systemic resilience initiatives. Organizations in Type I systems concentrate on
preserving the existing system, Type II systems adopt a broader strategy and alter certain aspects
of the existing system, and Type III systems implement transformational change to remain
robust and adapt to novel situations. Governmental organizations may utilize these strategies to
deal with internal change, or they may be externally oriented to facilitate systemic community
reaction and adaptation. All of these tactical methods seek to sustain or boost the system's
robustness, but with varied results. Accordingly, the kind of resilience approach that a policy
practitioner or policy community advocates depends on how a tragedy and its effects are seen
and articulated (Nalau and Handmer 2015).

The literature on policy is likewise rife with various, if not opposing, definitions of resilience.
For instance, Rosati, Touzinsky, and Lillycrop (2015) make a distinction between "risk
management" and "resilience" approaches, the latter of which calls for actors to be ready for
unknown hazards and risks and to think outside the most typical scenarios in order to adapt in a
constantly changing context. Risk management involves managing known risks and hazards,
with the assumption that the system will return to its normal state afterward. This description
conflicts with how resilience is often understood since known risks and unknown risks are rarely
distinguished in the vast majority of applications. (For a detailed discussion of definitions and
interpretations, see Norris et al. 2008; Manyena 2006; Cartalis 2014). However, as the world
becomes more interconnected, complex risk interactions with difficult to predict second and
third order hazard impacts are becoming more and more valued by policy practitioners (Beck
2009; Boin, Rhinard, and Ekengren 2014). These theoretical considerations may appear a bit
abstract, but they have real-world applications for frameworks for implementing catastrophe risk
reduction policies.

2.2 International disaster risk policy

In the 1990s, the United Nations announced the worldwide Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction,
which resulted in the development of the Yokohama Strategy, the first to give worldwide
principles for disaster prevention and mitigation. It focused on merging local emergency
management expertise and increasing coping capabilities to tackle recognized hazards (Tozier de
la Poterie and Baudoin, 2015). The Strategy was created to encourage worldwide communities to
work together to conduct catastrophe risk reduction efforts.
In the decade that followed, disaster risk reduction strategy changed to an emphasis on capacity
building and risk preparedness actions (Tozier de la Poterie and Baudoin 2015). The Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA) was created in 2005. It identified specific measures for disaster risk
reduction through efforts that focused on risk understanding, risk factor reduction, knowledge
development, and preparedness strengthening (United Nations 2005). Although the HFA
prioritized disaster risk reduction within communities, institutions lacked the tools to assess how
effective these policies were. According to some writers, HFA fails to address and/or integrate the
systemic adjustments required to reduce susceptibility and risk (Scolobig et al. 2015).