Towards Fostering Resilience Strategy to Robust Infrastructure Systems

Resilience is the ability of a system to take up interruption and restructuring while experiencing change in an attempt to maintain fundamentally the same role, arrangement, distinctiveness, and responses. Resilience denotes the capability of a material to take up energy after it is elastically deformed and free that energy upon unloading (Campbell 2008). The greatest energy, which can be taken up per unit volume devoid of creating a lasting deformation, signifies the modulus of resilience. Resilience is computed by integrating the curve of stress-strain from zero up to the elastic limit by using the following formula:

Where Ur stands for modulus of resilience, E the Young’s modulus, and σ_y the yield strength

The area below the linear part of a curve of stress against strain is the resilience of a given substance.

The concepts of resilience for physical as well as social structures include:

• Robustness- the strength of systems or additional measures of investigation to endure a particular intensity of stress or command devoid of experiencing degradation or deprivation of purpose
• Redundancy- the degree to which systems or additional measures of investigation are substitutable; that is, able to gratify functional obligations if interruption, degradation, or deprivation of purpose occurs
• Resourcefulness- the ability to discover difficulties, set up priorities, and organise resources when situations that threaten to interrupt a number of constituents, systems, or additional measures of investigation exist

Resourcefulness could additionally be conceived as comprising of the capability of using material and human capital in the course of recovery to satisfy set up priorities and attain objectives (Manyena, O’Brien, O’Keefe, & Rose 2011).

• Rapidity- the ability to satisfy priorities and attain objectives in an opportune way with the aim of including losses, improving functionality, and evading future interruption

The robustness concept of resilience is concentrated on offering protection with the aim of avoiding damage or interruption by offering the strength or defence to oppose vulnerability or its main impact. Robustness strategies have noteworthy flaws as protection is frequently extended against the type of occurrences that have been formerly encountered, or those expected to happen derived from historic evidences. Protective safety measures planned at decreasing the impact of nasty threats might or might not assist in decreasing the effects of natural dangers. Disruptive occurrences can surpass the measures offered for defence thereby giving rise to loss or spoil and noteworthy effects, mainly where the robustness concept is the only constituent of a resilience policy (Schroeder, & Hatton 2012).

The redundancy concept underscores the design and ability of a system. The accessibility of backup mechanisms or spare capability will permit functions to be redirected to other divisions of the system in the occurrence of disruptions to guarantee stability of services. In various sectors of infrastructure, redundancy concept would bring about a primary loss of performance up to when the substitute infrastructure is brought into function (Foresti, Massa, Wild, & Harris 2011). For instance, the telecommunications industry uses the redundancy concept to offer the ability and flexibility to satisfy peak requirements and permit redirection of communications in the occurrence of breakdown or loss of constituents.

The rapidity concept aims at permitting a swift and efficient reaction to and recuperation from disruptive incidents. The efficiency of this concept is verified by the diligence of endeavours to plan, organise, and work out prior to occurrences. Several owners of essential infrastructures comprehend the weak points in their systems and have plans ready to counter and restore services. Additionally, it is possible to pre-occasion planning to discover chances to decrease future hazards through recovery (Galliard 2010).

The resourcefulness concept aims at making sure that the elements of infrastructure are essentially created to function under an array of situations and thus alleviate loss or failure from an incident (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig 2004). The trend of a resourcefulness concept is to concentrate only on the happenings within a particular scope, and not happenings that go beyond the stipulated scope. This can bring about inadequate responsiveness to happenings outside the scope, and therefore noteworthy broader and extended effects can crop up. Resourcefulness can hence not be warranted, but worsening can at times be controlled to a satisfactory level up to when full services are reinstated after the incident.

Resilience is important since it helps to avoid the effects of hazards (for instance natural hazards like earthquakes and floods). Resilience works through provision of excellent design of systems to guarantee necessary resourcefulness, redundancy (spare capability), robustness, and the capacity to take action and recover from troublesome incidents. The aims of resilience in systems include maintaining the system in a certain configuration of status (system ‘management’) that will keep on delivering needed products and services (avoiding the system from shifting into an un-wanted establishment from which it is hard or inconceivable to recover). The other aim of resilience is allowing systems to shift from a less advantageous to a more advantageous organisation (Campbell 2008). The value of the four concepts of resilience (robustness, resourcefulness, redundancy, and rapidity) can be measured by the use of the Resilience Cycle. Benchmarking resilience is carried out with the use of computer benchmarks, which are standard devices that permit evaluation and comparison of various systems or constituents in accordance with particular features (for instance, reliability, vulnerability, dependability, and many more). Resilience includes every attribute of the value of a varying world that incorporates defects, breakdowns, inaccuracies and assails. In this regard, resilience benchmarking combines perceptions of dependability, reliability, and vulnerability.

Definitions

• Adaptability is the ability to sustain a system in its present steadiness domain; that is, the capacity to control resilience by retaining particular processes regardless of internal and external changes (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig 2004).
• Reliability is the capacity of an individual or system to function and retain its operations irrespective of hostile or unanticipated incidents.
• Sustainability is the ability to tolerate through maintenance, restoration, or sustenance.
• Vulnerability is the incapacity to endure the impacts of a hostile setting.
• Climate change is a noteworthy and long-term alteration in the statistical circulation of weather models during periods that range from decades to hundreds of years (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig 2004).

Association involving resilience, safety management, and risk management

A greater attempt ensures that resilience is carried out in the field of safety and risk management. The major driving force in resilience is to get ready for occurrences that incur great risk and ensure safety. Resilience is thus raised by decreasing the amount of risky events that might happen through futuristic safety management (Villanueva 2011).

Social resilience

Social resilience is the capacity of human societies to endure and recover from strains like environmental alterations or social, political, or economic disturbances. Resilience in communities and their life-sustaining environments lies fundamental in upholding alternatives for human advancement in future (Yates, Egeland, & Sroufe 2003). Resilience has three significant components in social-ecological systems. These components are as follows.

1. The extent of shock that can be taken up by the system while remaining in a particular condition
2. The extent of self-organisation ability of the system
3. The extent of ability for learning and adjustment articulated by the system

Resilient social systems are capable of absorbing greater shocks regardless of variation in essential manners (Folke, et al. 2002). When enormous change is unavoidable, resilient systems hold the elements required for recovery and restructuring. In the social field, social resilience presumes a particular quantity of redundancy (Luthar & Cicchetti 2000). In the past, the creation of redundancy was via family bonds. For instance, families took care of their own especially when undergoing tough times (for instance, disaster, sickness, old age). Currently, such social resilience systems cannot constantly offer support due to urbanisation. In such conditions, the formation of redundancy is the responsibility of the government, which is expected to care for its citizens and inhabitants when unable to guarantee their own care (Masten 2001).

With internalisation, population resettlement and additional social occurrences necessitate rethinking of the manner to achieve social resilience as well as redundancy (Obradović, et al. 2010). A rising number of individuals are residing in urban areas and consequently being rendered to various kinds of social bonds. Societies at the place of work, faith founded societies, neighbourhoods, and residents of high-rise constructions all can offer the redundancy essential for social resilience (Ungar, et al. 2007). Nearly every systematised religion has a moral system requiring social dependability as a component of their principles (Peres, Moreira-Almeida, Nasello, & Koenig 2007). Likewise, companies rely on individuals for their operations and profit making ventures (Robertson 2012). It then appears reasonable that those organisations (companies and faith-founded) ought to be engaged in the practice of improving social resilience not merely from a realisation that social dependability is necessary, but also from a sense that fundamental and vital nature of social resilience is essential to their maintained feasibility (Zautra, Hall, & Murray 2010).

A company will stop functioning if it lacks workforce, suppliers, and clients (Ungar 2007). When a company has all the aforementioned three elements, it will experience more interruptions to operations and lose more money in the process. In the same way, a faith-founded society will let down its components if it does not provide social support (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker 2000). Due to the existence of many more options in an urban background, worshipers can more possibly select a society catering for their arranged, realistic, and maintained support when calamity and hard times arise (Ungar 2008). Initiating a higher extent of redundancy into avoidance and alleviation of the influence of hazards decreases the number of individuals who are reliant exclusively on non-governmental organisations (NGOs), governments, and other organisations of concern, thus assisting a better effectiveness in reaction to hazards (Haider 2011).

Psychological resilience

Psychological resilience refers to an individual’s capacity to manage stress and hardship that might give rise to the person getting over to an earlier condition of ordinary operation, or merely not demonstrating unconstructive impacts. Often, psychological resilience is realised as a practice and not a characteristic of a person (Grossman, D’augellib, & Franka 2011). In recent times, there has as well been indication that resilience can point out a capability to oppose a sharp decrease in performance although a person seems to worsen in the short term (Snyder, & Lopez 2001). Controversy exists concerning the pointers of good psychological advancement when resilience is researched across diverse cultures and backgrounds (Ungar 2004b). Investigators of aboriginal health have revealed the influence of culture, societal principles, and geographical surroundings on psychological resilience in aboriginal societies (Werner & Smith 2001, p.163). Individuals who manage might as well demonstrate veiled resilience without matching with the anticipations of the community on how somebody is expected to act (Obradovic, et al. 2009).

In every occasion, psychological resilience stands out excellently as a practice. Psychological resilience is commonly mistaken for a characteristic of the person, a thought more characteristically known as resiliency (Herbers, et al. 2011). Majority of studies now demonstrate that resilience is the outcome of people being capable of interrelating with their surroundings and the practices that either encourage fitness or guard them from the irresistible effect of risk aspects (Ungar 2004a). These practices could be individual managing policies, or assisted by excellent families, societies, schools, and social strategies that create better chances for the occurrence of resilience (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurow 2005). In this regard, resilience happens when there are collective defensive aspects. These aspects are probable to play a key function with greater exposure of people to collective risk aspects (Rutter 2000). The frequently applied terms that closely connect to psychological resilience include resourcefulness, mental robustness, and hardiness. Psychological resilience may be resilience to such things as war and violence, life and individuality adaptation, and natural tragedy management (Obradovic 2010).

Researchers carry on with their far-reaching attempts to discover if resilience and vulnerability are separate terms or dissimilar ends of a similar field (Tugade, Fredrickson, Barrett 2004). The efforts of the researchers appear to converge in the view that resilience has best understanding and definition as a separate concept. Current studies emphasise that bouncing back indicated going back to the initial spot and did not reveal the certainty of varying conditions and new opportunities (Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, Wallace 2006). Thus, researchers advocate that ‘bouncing ahead’ might describe what was caused by a tragedy in a better way. In this regard, psychological resilience to tragedy would appear as the fundamental capability of a system, or society influenced by constant worry or shock to ‘bounce ahead’, adjust in order to endure by varying its non-fundamental aspects, and reconstruct itself (Siebert 2005). The aforementioned perspective is appealing, but probably this expression bears an implied meaning that resilient societies are resilient since they struggle to recover, and even pick up the pace, which is some kind of pre-occasion trajectory (Bonanno, Galea, Bucciareli, & Vlahov 2007).

In addition, models stressing on the requirement for attentiveness, mitigation, or defensive activities for resilience emphasise particular psychological aspects (Ungar 2005). For instance, self-effectiveness, risk awareness, personal liability, shared effectiveness, trust, dynamic coping policies, and society involvement, which are vital in assisting readiness and alleviation and thus in promoting psychological resiliency. Application of obtainable resources and the encouragement of their accessibility come across as avoiding and alleviating both the interruption in mental health results and communal, financial, and physical devastation subsequent to a hazardous activity, in addition to moderating the connection involving defensive motivation and conducts. This aspect calls for the comprehension of resilience with respect to psychological aspects associated with tragedy preparedness or alleviation, mostly symbolised in social psychological representations (Charney 2004). Because resources are as well believed to be essential in representations of resilience in terms of a psychological health point of view (medical psychology), personal and society endeavours that get ready for tragedies and in order to alleviate their influence are evidently significant for constructing a resilient result (Lopez 2009).

Numerous models deal with this subject and connect a number of socio-demographic inconsistencies to risk awareness and defensive motivation, which might then bring about plans to get ready or adaptive conducts (Davidson 2000). Explanation of these representations largely recommend that views and assessments concerning danger, risk, vulnerability, and individual accountability are vital for understanding conduct, cognitions, and feelings that are associated with resilient results (Fredrickson Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin 2003). Furthermore, besides psychological supply as highlighted in researches of resilience with respect to psychological health results, these representations underscore the significance of resources; for instance, ideas of self-effectiveness and result, information concerning expertise, and coping. The apparent significance of readiness in hazard change brings about the notion that tragedy preparedness may be a direct forecaster of resilience, an intermediary between the above mentioned variables of psychological resilience (for example, individuality), and a resilient result. This postulation merits investigations within an examinable broad representation (Hood, Hill, & Spilka 2009).

Regardless of valuable attempts to describe psychological resilience with a broad concentration on mental well-being and operation after harsh conditions, particular gaps still subsist in the available literature (Humanitarian Emergency Response Review 2011). Existing gaps comprise the need for theoretical representations, merging variables from researches, tackling mental fitness at the individual stage (that is, medical), and involvement in adaptive conducts to enhance resilience (that is, social psychology) at the same time (Rutter 2008). Advancement of psychometrically effectual resilience scales permit evaluation of representations, assessment of broad models occurring in cross-cultural backgrounds and various types of disaster occasions, and examination of a wide variety of appropriate variables in resilience study. Particularly, tackling racial/cultural differences and longitudinal study on influence of earlier tragedies on psychological resilience in addition to adaptive conducts could prove important in offering a more comprehensive representation (Peters, Leadbeater, & McMahon 2004). A progress towards the establishment of a resilient world involves the consolidation of the aspects of psychological resilience into the wider structure of a resilience representation (Cicchetti & Cohen 2006).

Ecological resilience

Ecological resilience is an evaluation of the amount interruption an ecosystem may withstand devoid of moving into a condition, which is qualitatively dissimilar (Alliance 2007). The ability of a system to endure both surprises and shocks and restructure itself if smashed underscores ecological resilience (Bahadur, Ibrahim, & Tanner 2010, p.176). Ecological resilience could be resilience to stochastic occurrences like fires, windstorms, insect population outbursts, flooding, and human actions like deforestation in addition to introducing exotic species of both plants and animals (Cannon & Muller-Mahn 2010). Interruptions of adequate magnitude or time can have an intense impact on an ecosystem and might compel an ecosystem to arrive at a threshold past under which a dissimilar regime of practices and organisations prevails (Gunderson 2009). Human actions that negatively influence ecological resilience like pollution, cutback of biodiversity, misuse of natural resources, and land exploitation are progressively bringing about system shifts in ecosystems regularly to less advantageous and corrupt states.

Interdisciplinary discussion on resilience currently comprises concern of the connections of individuals and ecosystems through socio-ecological structures (Jones, Ludi, & Levine 2010). The discussion as well includes the requirement of moving from the highest sustainable yield concept to ecological management that aims at constructing ecological resilience via resilience investigation, adaptive supply administration, and adaptive authority. There are numerous instances of environmental systems that have experienced remarkable changes in composition and purpose as a reaction to outside stresses like the change of a freshwater lake from a position of oligotrophic macrophytes, benthonic flora, plenty fish, and clear water to a eutrophic position typified by murky waters, no fish, and presence of blue-green algae. Another recognised instance is the case of Mulga woodlands in Australia that can occur as a grass-dominated establishment that sustains sheep grazing, or occur as a shrub-rich establishment of no worth for sheep herding. The experienced environmental shifts are coerced by the actions of herbivore, fire, and inconsistent rainfall (Obura 2005). Any condition could be resilient relying upon administration (Resilience Alliance 2007). Numerous ecologists do not currently concentrate on the carrying capacity of particular territories but instead concentrate on the resilience of ecological units.

Organisational resilience

Organisational resilience refers to a broad management system advance that categorises and measures risks, examines probable significances and effects following interruptions, inspects and builds up cost efficient security, attentiveness, and alleviates measures to guard against potentially troublesome occurrences taking place (Birkmann, et al. 2010). The broad management system in organisational resilience builds up plans for reacting to possible occurrences in a proficient and accountable way comprising the efficient mobilisation of the labour force (Castro & Murray 2010). These systems as well plan and assess functional stability measures that are essential to recover from troublesome occurrences in the least achievable time; jointly executing these appraises to evade a main tragedy, disaster, or adversity as far as achievable.

In the recent past, organisational resilience has been employed to illustrate a mushrooming movement amongst entities like businesses, societies, and governments to better their capacity to react to and rapidly recover from disastrous occurrences like natural calamities and terrorist assails (Masten 2007). The idea of organisational resilience is gaining acceptance amid private and public sector managers who declare that resilience ought to be accorded equal credence to avoiding terrorist assails in homeland security strategy of the United States. One of the initial applications of organisational resilience in this perspective was by Dr. Flynn in the publication America the Vulnerable: How Our Government is failing to protect us from Terrorism. In this book, Flynn (2004) states that the significant infrastructure of the US, which comprises chemical establishments, bridges, electrical networks, tunnels, ports, as well as water structures, characterises a major likely mark to terrorists since a strike that could damage the infrastructure would gravely interrupt significant social and financial action in the nation. Making infrastructure in the United States more resilient is a timely and invaluable suggestion (Ozbay, Fitterling, Charney, & Southwick 2008). With ninety percent of vital infrastructure in the United States in the hands of the private sector, such a stress will necessitate strong public and private collaboration.

There is a reasonably slight but exceedingly significant variation between organisational resilience perceptions and business continuity perceptions (Reivich, & Shatte 2002). From the onset of organisational resilience as an adaptive, active, and cost efficient management field, there has been a greatly protective reaction from a number of business continuity practitioners (McManus, Seville, Vargo, & Brunsdon 2008). The application of organisational resilience presents a lot more than a reaction planning system that focuses mostly on recovery and recommencement policies (Hoffer, Cameron, & Lim 2006). Business continuity plays a key function in gauging and evaluating risk, discovering potential occurrences, and then preparing to react to the occurrence and recover ordinary business processes in the least achievable time. Alternatively, organisational resilience conveys all of these fields in a constituted Organisational Resilience Management System (ORMS) arrangement, but as well requires a strong concentration on recognising and initiating cost efficient prevention and defence measures (Dalziell & McManus 2004). Three excellent designs of these variations can be obtained from the following real occurrences.

• Firstly an easy instance: A health institution had an occurrence where an alienated parent stole a newborn infant from a maternity ward. It is simple to observe that avoidance or defence in this instance is a much stronger policy than reacting to the occurrence after the incident with much hand pressing and counselling (Gittell, Cameron, & Lim 2005). Merely raising safety levels to keep away such incidences is the proper alternative.
• In a second case, reflection exists on the strategic variations in getting ready for a likely swine flu outbreak. A reaction and recovery advance would usually concentrate on administering the organisation and its functions after serious staffing levels have abruptly dropped subsequent to the start of an endemic (Gittell, Cameron, & Lim 2005). A defence and prevention advance would arrange for a comparable set of reaction and recovery actions, but would as well similarly concentrate on avoidance and defence. In this instance, a suitable measure would be to enlighten employees on bettering sanitisation practices at home, external environment to the home, and in the office before the infection essentially strikes to decrease the opportunities of the illness spreading to the staff of the organisation.
• A third vital design of the advantages of ORMS over Business Continuity Management System (BCMS) stands out clearly in the field of air travel safety and airport management. The augmented violence risk ever at hand in contemporary air travel has led to all major airports acutely escalating the intensity of defensive and protective measures. In this region of risk administration, almost all the concentration has been on avoidance and defence actions instead of reaction and recovery actions, which makes it simple to perceive the reason behind it (Gittell, Cameron, & Lim 2005).

Business continuity policies have a tendency of naturally reacting even if there is prior planning integrated within this immediate progression. Organisational resilience integrates adaptive, practical, and reactive policies thus developing practices and processes that decrease the threat of these troublesome incidents occurring in reality (Cascio 2002).

Supply chain resilience

Supply chain resilience can be defined as the capacity of a supply chain structure to decrease the chances of an interruption, decrease the effects of those interruptions when they happen, and lessen the period taken to regain ordinary operation (Ballou 2004). Supply chain resilience is a fresh and yet mainly unexplored field of management study, even if one is presently in the dominance. Supply chain resilience originates from the establishments of psychology, ecology, risk management, sociology, and system theory. Subsequent to a sequence of major troublesome occurrences in international economies, numerous detailed studies carried out to comprehend the supply chains better could more efficiently acclimatise to change (Alesi 2008, p.216). With the desegregation of the term resilience into the business field, studies tackle constituents that lead to supply chain interruptions and constituents that support enterprises in avoiding and dealing with those interruptions (Allenby & Jonathan 2005). With the intersection of changing viewpoints of supply chain resilience with the field of traditional threat management’s function in discovering and decreasing risks, the idea of resilience started complementing the analytical systems. Complementing of analytical systems occurred with policies that do not need precise quantification, comprehensive details of possibilities, or suppositions of a representative prospect. Tactical imperatives necessitate less fragile and more adaptive supply chains via the following.

1. Supply chain plan
2. Concentration on business progression management to boost capacities across the supply chain
3. Visibility to requirement and supply all through the supply chain
4. Supplier association management
5. Inculcating a culture of resilience

With operational threat ranking as the most significant threat that managements face nowadays, escalating economic worth via better threat based judgment making is very important. Consequently, resilience should turn out as a strategic dream for management (Barratt, Choi, & Li 2007). All organisations that look forward to becoming resilient have to deal with four challenges as outlined below.

1. The political challenge
2. The cognitive challenge
3. The ideological challenge
4. The tactical challenge

The extent of the aforementioned challenges brings about the requirement of an enterprise-extensive consideration of an organisation as covered in the Supply Chain Resilience Outline. Merged with the incorporation of resilient supply chain cohorts, organisations have to build up a resilient supply chain with the intention of surviving. Nevertheless, Harris (2011) recognises a lack of accord on the description of supply chain resilience in addition to a study gap in involving the risks to functions and the policies to conquer them. Based on existence and social disciplines, Villanueva (2011) described resilience as the ability of an organisation to endure, acclimatise, and develop in the countenance of tumultuous alteration.

This research paper supports an investigative research of the vulnerability of Supply Chain by the Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management (CLSCM), carried out in the year 2001 in aid of the government of the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Transport, and the Home Office. The drive for the research on supply chain resilience was the extensive financial interruption practised in the United Kingdom by fuel objections and the epidemic of foot and mouth disease (Manuj, & Mentzer 2008). The task was already ongoing by the time of the terrorist assails on the United States of America in the year 2001 even though these occurrences revealed the appropriateness and significance of the work. The objective of the initial study was to discover the condition of information within the United Kingdom sector of the broader subject of Supply Chain Vulnerability, in addition to discovering “best practice” devices and advances where possible.

A summary of existing notion with respect to risk management from the perceptions of the intellectual society of supply chain management offers an operational description of supply chain vulnerability to be a contact with stern interruption caused by risks in the supply chain and risks outside the supply chain (Bartlett, Julien, & Baines 2007). The difference between risks inside and outside the supply chain is in carrying out a non-natural one, even if it offers a reception spot of reference in assessing and locating other forms of work. A research established that in the public sector of the United Kingdom, Disaster Planning and Administration is a well-instituted field by the standards, which were established in the local government at some stage in the World War II. The Emergency Planning College in Yorkshire has a far-reaching grip of literature on the area under discussion. Studies verify that even if concerns of terrorist assails on infrastructure were handled in the end, particular references to interruptions to supply chains are noticeably missing.

Engineering resilience

Engineering resilience refers to the concentration on steadiness near an equilibrium stable condition, where resistance to interruption and rapidity of going back to the equilibrium are employed to gauge the property. This paper explains engineering resilience to stress. Comprehension of the properties of engineering resilience assists engineers to comprehend suitable materials to apply for a particular purpose, which can range from constructing bridges, airplanes, to furniture, and building up new substances that satisfy the requirements of these purposes excellently. If external forces (stress) are supplied to a flexible object, the object changes shape and curves (Bodin & Wiman 2004). If the external forces are withdrawn, the object will ultimately go back to its original shape. For example, if a weight is placed on an I-beam, then the beam will curve (or break) and when the weight is withdrawn, it will unbend (or stay distorted).

Some expressions illustrate features of engineering resilience as explored here. The initial expression is an evaluation of resistance, the next is an assessment of elasticity, and the third illustrates the steadiness domain of the object (Bodin & Wiman 2004). Raising any or every one of these expressions raises the resilience of the object to stress; nevertheless, the overarching expression applied in portraying the grouping of all the properties is not usually resilience, but stability. In engineering resilience, an object is resilient if it resists shocks, external forces, and interruptions and rapidly returns to its original state. In ordinary practice, a resilient individual is less troubled by stresses, including noteworthy ones like the demise of relatives or the joblessness, and rapidly returns to the usual state. Holling (2009) explains steadiness as an Engineering Resilience not relevant in ecological units, where one ought to regard ecological resilience. To apply engineering resilience (in all backgrounds), one should make numerous assumptions as listed below.

• There is merely a single equilibrium or original state
• The material returns to normal state following a stress it can manage
• The kinds of stresses are anticipated (Holling 2009)

When the aforementioned assumptions have been made, particular key aspects turn out to be evident. First, modelling and measuring of resilience is possible via easy mathematics. Second, the administration of resilience focuses entirely on raising resistance, flexibility, and the field of stability. Historically, engineering resilience was the central pattern of resilience in advancement psychology, yet the previously mentioned assumptions have become progressively questioned (Holling 2009).

Infrastructure

Infrastructure signifies both physical structures (like water provision, sanitation, transportation, and communication systems) in addition to institutional structures (for instance, healthcare institutions, defence, and fire extinguishers). This section tackles resilience of infrastructure to disaster. Urban societies rely greatly on the proper operation of infrastructures like electricity, piped water, and transportation systems (Bruneau, et al. 2003). Usually undetectable, this dependence becomes devastatingly apparent when infrastructures fail due to disasters. Furthermore, due to the network attributes of infrastructure, impairment in a given location can disturb service in a broad geographic region (Guikema 2009). The communal disturbance brought about by infrastructure malfunctions thus excessively and highly compares to real physical destruction.

For a long time, engineers have attempted to devise infrastructure to resist tremendous forces, but of late, they have started to tackle the need for urban infrastructural structures resilient to disasters. Theoretically, resilience involves three interconnected aspects, viz. lesser chances of malfunction, less-stern unconstructive consequences when malfunctions arise, and quicker recovery from malfunctions. The weight on outcomes and recovery proposes that bettering the resilience of infrastructural structures is not just a technological predicament, but also has communal aspects (Bruneau, et al. 2003). The outcomes of current disasters have revealed that urban infrastructural structures in the US, UK, and other developed nations remain greatly vulnerable. In addition, infrastructure malfunction is frequently a chief cause of losses of finances and human beings in disasters. For instance, the results of infrastructural malfunction brought about by wind, storm gushes, and levee malfunctions during Hurricane Katrina. Since infrastructural malfunctions are evidently a chief cause of disturbances in disasters, policies of enhancing disaster resilience of societies must centre on boosting infrastructure resilience. However, few standards have been put up for this course partially due to the complexity of the anticipated disasters (American Lifelines Alliance 2006).

A lot of the early efforts on infrastructure in disasters were on comprehension of the technicalities of how constituents of infrastructures (for example, bridge piers, pipes underground, electricity transformers, in addition to other substation tools) respond when subjected to tremendous forces or situations. This fundamental comprehension was then expanded to the operation of constituent assemblages (for instance, bridges, and pipeline systems). Researches started from fieldwork to models in laboratories with scale forms and computerised analyses. In this regard, new engineering plans, objects, and retrofitting policies were developed to increase the capacity of infrastructure components to resist natural dangers (American Lifelines Alliance 2006). New expertise was also established; for instance, antennas for checking structural health and discovering damage and instantaneous structure controls. Interdisciplinary investigation is naturally hard for numerous reasons, which range from logical matters like variations in communication and mind-sets to organisational matters, such as financial support methods and academic systems. Interdisciplinary study at the connection of engineering and social disciplines is particularly challenging.

A fundamental problem has been dissimilar to disciplinary perceptions of the meaning of infrastructure. For the case of structural engineers, for instance, infrastructure includes constructed constituents like pipes and bridges portrayed with respect to materials and planning aspects that form their reactions to physical strengths (Guikema 2009). For the case of economists, infrastructure regularly denotes public capital, which encompasses an input to financial production computed in dollars and frequently measured at the national/state level. These essential dissimilarities reflect a diverse manner of conceiving and gauging infrastructure. Getting rid of these challenges has necessitated more joint interdisciplinary studies than historical engineering researches. It has as well necessitated researchers to consider concerns of time, room, and framework. These tendencies are exemplified in the area of earthquake engineering.

Since infrastructures are vulnerable to numerous stressors (for instance, wind, flood, earthquake, and deterioration), it is vital to find resolutions and maintain decisions that keep them in that situation. Synergies in threat-reduction expertise might decrease the outlays of pre-adversity installations and post-adversity repairs. Sustainability is the reflection of infrastructure resilience in a lasting environmental background. It can be affirmed that disaster resilience is a natural attribute of sustainability. Designing and constructing infrastructure that is capable of resisting disasters will decrease their unconstructive environmental effects like debris from destroyed structures, spills of dangerous substances, toxins, and the carbon trace of renewal actions (Guikema 2009). Infrastructure planners should thus consider life-cycle ecological effects in their judgment making. Others have indicated that compact city blueprints intended to encourage sustainability (for instance, to support energy effectiveness and decrease discharges of greenhouse gases) might actually weaken disaster resilience by placing more individuals in high-density advancements situated in floodplains as well as other unsafe locations.

Indicators of resilient infrastructure

Water supply

Some of the pointers of resilient infrastructures of water supply include the fraction of inhabitants that get a sustainable harmless water supply and sanitary hygiene in the family unit (Guikema 2009)

Supply Management

• Proportion of monetary resources committed to Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) compared with other water supply management roles
• Fraction of nations that have an Integrated Water Resource Management strategy structure and legislation that particularly reflects communal health concerns (Bartram & Cairncross 2010)

Climate resilience (famine and flood)

• Proportion of population guarded from severe weather occurrences and with weather resilient infrastructure systems (for instance, sufficient transport and housing)
• Fraction of inhabitants that has climate resilient secure water supplies and sanitary hygiene amenities
• Fraction of medical services that have a dependable secure water source and sufficient hygiene, both being resilient to tremendous weather associated incidents (Guikema 2009)

The factors of vulnerability of transportation infrastructure

Every constituent of the transportation system is vulnerable to destruction brought about directly by adversity. Direct destruction arises when a portion of an infrastructure is affected directly by the adversity (Tsuchiya, Tatano, & Okada 2007). A disaster can be manmade or natural, but in this section of research paper, the concentration is exclusively on three natural disasters due to an earthquake, flood, and electricity. Confirmation from historical occurrences reveals that the source of the damage due to these hazards differs due to their distinctive nature. This part will illustrate the kinds of damage caused by earthquake, flood, and electricity failure.

Earthquake hazard

The basic means of transportation in every area is by means of main roads and highways. The road network is the most ordinary of the entire transportation infrastructure bypassing through inhabited, business, and industrialised regions. Since the road network is so extensive, there are numerous redundancies involved in it. Nevertheless, disturbances to the core passageways like highways and main roads could be quite troublesome to regular flow of traffic. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake and the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, noteworthy damage happened to road infrastructure as a direct consequence of the earthquake. In addition, the Kobe earthquake left wreckage on the roads thus causing obstructions for vehicle travels and had an unpleasant effect on movements by road (Chang & Nojima 2001). Debris on the land could as well be a hindrance to the services of communal transportation providers (Tsuchiya, Tatano, & Okada 2007). The consequence would be an alteration, or even a deferment, in some roads.

Relying on the degree of the earthquake, vibration can as well bring about direct destruction to bridges and roads. For instance, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake and the Kobe earthquake, there was stern destruction of bridges with slighter destruction in the Nisqually earthquake. The stern destruction brought about the collapse of entire bridges in a number of instances. Anticipations are comparable in Metro Vancouver. The bridges in Metro Vancouver are anticipated to be particularly vulnerable to an earthquake risk. Because the area is so greatly reliant on tunnels and bridges to travel between cities, destruction to this infrastructure could be tremendously troublesome. In British Columbia, the Transport Ministry has articulated concerns that destruction or interruption to one road might affect the whole transportation structure. The railway network plays a major function in local transportation, particularly in terms of transporting supplies. Railway lines are characteristically essential for sustaining the supply chain in an area. Railway network has as well been proved vulnerable to destruction via ground collapse in case of an earthquake. For instance, in the Kobe earthquake, the railway infrastructures were destroyed to such a degree that it lasted seven months for complete refurbishment (Tsuchiya, Tatano, & Okada 2007).

Flood damage

Flood risks are characteristically more concentrated in one region, giving rise to concentrated pouches of interruptions from destructions. For instance, every infrastructure positioned in a floodplain is vulnerable to destruction. This scenario is in particular right in the case of roads. When floodwaters overfill the elevation of main roads and freeways, they affect the reliability of the road network by making them hard to utilise. Railway lines are vulnerable to the same kinds of destruction from a flood. In the floodplains of particular study areas, road and railway infrastructure located near a number of rivers seem susceptible. In spite of the fact that the railway lines and roads are lifted or situated at the back dikes, the road and railway infrastructures are nevertheless vulnerable to floods (Tsuchiya, Tatano, & Okada 2007). A good example of this is in the 2008 Iowa Flood where flooding brought about the closedown of a number of bridges and main roads, and in addition had effects on commuter and load railway transportation because of flooding in both tracks and stations.

Power failures

Electrical malfunctions might also bring about disturbances to railway and air infrastructure systems. The Ice Storm of the year 1998 in eastern Canada gave rise to effects in the working of commuter and load railway since crossing indications, functioning indications, switches, as well as the stations all require electricity for proper functioning (Loads & Liao 2007). There is certification of flight interruptions and terminations subsequent to the Northeast Blackout of the year 2003. With no power, customer ticketing together with processing capacities were affected, leading to passengers being stranded.

Disasters

Natural disasters are the adversities caused by alteration in natural happenings or acts of God. The degree of loss incurred is reliant on the vulnerability of the people. Intrinsically, this signifies that disasters normally come about in regions that are at risk of vulnerability (Phillips 2005). Alternatively, manmade faults are controlled by humans and are frequently consequences of carelessness and human mistake amid other causes. The following are examples of natural disasters and man made faults.

• Natural disasters: they comprise things like hurricanes, system failures, earthquakes, landslides, and floods.
• Man made faults: they can be broken down into various groups and they comprise technical disasters, sociological disasters, and transportation disasters amid others. Examples of man made faults include fires, economic crisis, terrorism, wars, and system failures.

Regardless of the variation involving these two, it is good to understand that they can bring about irrevocable destruction if not addressed with the correct measures to prevent their occurrence. Therefore, the requirement for disaster attentiveness should be considered as it also contributes greatly in cushioning individuals from the effects subsequent to such occurrences. Whether in the case of natural disaster or man made faults, the manner in which measures are implemented contributes greatly to the determination of the way individuals fair from the incidents (Wilson 2010). The costs related to handling of the natural disasters and manmade faults run to billions each year and thus unconstructively affect the economy.

Reference List

Alesi, P 2008, ‘Building enterprise-wide resilience by integrating business continuity capability into day-to-day business culture and technology’, Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, vol. 2 no. 3, pp. 214-220.

Allenby, B & Jonathan, F 2005, ‘Toward inherently secure and resilient societies’, Science, vol. 309 no. 5737, pp. 1034-1036.

Alliance 2007, Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioner’s workbook, Web.

American Lifelines Alliance 2006, Power Systems, Water, Transportation and Communications Lifelines Interdependencies, Web.

Bahadur, A, Ibrahim & Tanner, T 2010, The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Ballou, R 2004, Business logistics/ Supply chain management: Planning, organising, and controlling the supply chain, Person Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River.

Barratt, M, Choi, T & Li, M 2007, ‘State of inductive case studies in operations management’, Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 1-6.

Bartlett, P, Julien, D & Baines, T 2007, ‘Improving supply chain performance through improved visibility’, International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 294-313.

Bartram, J & Cairncross, S 2010, ‘Hygiene, Sanitation, and Water: Forgotten Foundations of Health’, PLoS Medicine, vol. 7 no. 11, pp. 1-9.

Birkmann, J, Buckle, P, Jaeger, J, Pelling, M, Setiadi, N, Garshagen, M, Fernando, N & Kropp, J 2010, ‘Extreme Events and Disasters: a window of opportunity for change? Analysis of organisational, institutional and political change, formal and informal responses after mega-disasters’, Natural Hazards, vol. 55 no. 3, pp. 2-16.

Bodin, P & Wiman, B 2004, ‘Resilience and other stability concepts in ecology: Notes on their origin, validity, and usefulness’, ESS Bulletin, vol. 2 no. 2, pp. 33–43.

Bonanno, G, Galea, S, Bucciareli, A & Vlahov, D 2007, ‘What predicts psychological resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 75 no. 5, pp. 671–682.

Bruneau, M, Chang, S, Eguchi, R, Lee, G, O’Rourke, T, Reinhorn, A, Shinozuka, M, Tierney, K, Wallace, W & von Winterfeldt, D 2003, ‘A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 19 no. 4, pp. 733–752.

Campbell, F 2008, Elements of Metallurgy and Engineering Alloys, ASM International, Ohio.

Cannon, T & Muller-Mahn, D 2010, ‘Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change’, Natural Hazards, vol. 55 no. 1, pp. 621-635.

Cascio, W 2002, Responsible restructuring: Creative and Profitable Alternatives to Layoffs, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

Castro, F & Murray, K 2010, “Cultural adaptation and resilience: Controversies, issues, and emerging model”, in J Reich, A Zautra & J Hall (eds), Handbook of adult resilience’ Guilford, New York, pp. 375–403.

Chang, S & Nojima, N 2001, ‘Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 35 no. 6, pp. 475–494.

Charney, D 2004, ‘Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience and vulnerability: implications for successful adaptation to extreme stress’, Am J Psychiatry, vol.161 no. 2, pp. 195–216.

Cicchetti, D & Cohen, D 2006, Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation, 2^nd edn, Wiley and Sons, Hoboken.

Dalziell, E & McManus, S 2004, Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptive Capacity: Implications for Systems Performance, 1st International Forum for Engineering Decision Making, Switzerland.

Davidson, R 2000, ‘Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: Brain mechanisms and plasticity’, American Psychologist, vol. 55 no. 11, pp. 1196–1214.

Flynn, S 2004, America the Vulnerable: How Our Government is failing to protect us from Terrorism, Harper Collins, New York.

Folke, C, Carpenter, S, Elmqvist, T, Gunderson, L, Holling, C & Walker, B 2002, ‘Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations’, Ambio, vol. 31 no. 5, pp. 437-440.

Foresti, M, Massa, I, Wild, L, & Harris, D 2011, Responding to external economic shocks: why state capacity and political incentives matter, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Fredrickson, B, Tugade, M, Waugh, C & Larkin, G 2003, ‘What good are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2002’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 84 no. 2, pp. 365–376.

Galliard, J 2010, ‘Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: perspectives for climate and development policy’, Journal of International Development, vol. 22 no. 1, pp. 218-232.

Gittell, J, Cameron, K & Lim, S 2005, Relationships, Layoffs, and organisational Resilience: Airline Industry Responses to September 11^th, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

Grossman, A, D’augellib, A & Franka, J 2011, ‘Aspects of Psychological Resilience among Transgender Youth’, LGBT Youth, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 103–115.

Guikema, S 2009, ‘Infrastructure design issues in disaster-prone regions’, Science, vol. 323 no. 5919, pp. 1302–1303.

Gunderson, L 2009, Comparing Ecological and Human Community Resilience. CARRI Research Paper, 5. Community and Regional Resilience Initiative, National Security Directorate, Oak Ridge.

Haider, H 2011, Topic guide on conflict. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre (GSDRC), University of Birmingham, UK.

Harris, K 2011, Resilience in Practice: Operationalising the Ten Characteristics of Resilience through the Case of Greening Darfur. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 10, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Herbers, J, Cutuli, J, Lafavor, L, Vrieze, D, Leibel, C, Obradovic, J & Masten, A 2011, ‘Direct and Indirect effects of parenting on the academic functioning of young homeless children’, Early Education and Development, vol. 22 no. 1, pp. 77-104.

Hoffer, G, Cameron, K & Lim, S 2006, ‘Relationships, Layoffs, and Organisational Resilience: Airline Industry Responses to September 11’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 42 no. 3, pp. 300-329.

Holling, C 2009, ‘Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience’, Foundations of Ecological Resilience, vol.1 no. 1, p. 51.

Hood, R, Hill, P & Spilka, B 2009, The psychology of religion: An empirical approach, 4^th edn, The Guilford press, New York.

Humanitarian Emergency Response Review 2011, Humanitarian Emergency Response Review, DFID. Department for International Development, London.

Jones, L, Ludi, E & Levine, S 2010, Towards a characterisation of adaptive capacity: a framework analysing adaptive capacity at the local level, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Lopez, S 2009, Encyclopaedia of positive psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, London.

Luthar, S & Cicchetti, D 2000, ‘The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies’, Development and Psychopathology, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 857–885.

Luthar, S, Cicchetti, D & Becker, B 2000, ‘The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work’, Child Development, vol.71 no. 3, pp. 543–562.

Manuj, I & Mentzer, J 2008, ‘Global supply chain risk management Strategies’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 38 no. 3, pp. 192-223.

Manyena, S, O’Brien, G, O’Keefe, P & Rose, J 2011, ‘Disaster resilience: a bounce back or bounce forward ability?’ Local Environment, vol. 16 no. 5, pp. 417-424.

Masten, A, 2001, ‘Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development’, American Psychologist, vol. 56 no. 3, pp. 227–238.

Masten, A 2007, ‘Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises’, Development and Psychopathology, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 921–930.

McManus, S, Seville, E, Vargo, J & Brunsdon, D 2008, ‘Facilitated Process for Improving Organisational Resilience’, Natural Hazards Review, vol. 9 no. 2, pp. 81-90.

Obradovic, J 2010, ‘Effortful control and adaptive functioning of homeless children: Variable-focused and person-focused analyses’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 31 no. 1, pp. 109-117.

Obradović, J, Bush, N, Adler, J, Boyce, W & Stamperdahl, N 2010, ‘Biological sensitivity to context: The interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socioemotional behaviour and school readiness’, Child Development, vol. 81 no. 1, pp. 270–289.

Obradovic, J, Long, J, Cutuli, J, Chan, C, Hinz, E, Heistad, D & Masten, A 2009, ‘Academic achievement of homeless and highly mobile children in an urban school district: Longitudinal evidence on risk, growth, and resilience’, Development and Psychopathology, vol. 21no. 1, pp. 493 – 518.

Obura, D 2005, ‘Resilience and climate change: lessons from local reefs and bleaching in the Western Indian Ocean’, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 63 no. 3, pp. 353–372.

Oladosu, R & Liao, S 2007, ‘Business Interruption Impacts of a Terrorist Attack on the Electric Power System of Los Angeles: Customer Resilience to a Total Blackout’, Risk Analysis, vol. 27 no. 1, pp. 513–531.

Ong, A, Bergeman, C, Bisconti, T & Wallace, K 2006, ‘Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 91 no. 4, pp. 730–749.

Ozbay, F, Fitterling, H, Charney, D & Southwick, S 2008, ‘Social support and resilience to stress across the life span: A neurobiologic framework’, Current psychiatry reports, vol. 10 no. 4, pp. 304-310.

Peres, J, Moreira-Almeida, A, Nasello, A & Koenig, H 2007, ‘Spirituality and resilience in trauma victims’, Journal of Religion & Health, vol. 46 no. 3, pp. 343-350.

Peters, R, Leadbeater, B & McMahon, R 2004, Resilience in children, families, and communities: Linking context to practice and policy, Kluwer, New York.

Phillips, B 2005, ‘Disaster as a Discipline: The Status of Emergency Management Education in the US’, International Journal of Mass-Emergencies and Disasters, vol. 23 no. 1, pp. 111-140.

Reivich, K & Shatte, A 2002, The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles, Broadway, New York.

Resilience Alliance 2007, Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A workbook for scientists. Version 1.0.

Robertson, D 2012, Build your Resilience, Hodder, London.

Rutter, M 2000, “Resilience reconsidered: Conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy implications”, in J Shonkoff & S Meisels (eds), Handbook of early childhood intervention, 2^nd edn, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 651–682.

Rutter, M 2008, “Developing concepts in developmental psychopathology”, in J Hudziak (ed), Developmental psychopathology and wellness: Genetic and environmental influences, American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, pp. 3–22.

Schroeder, K & Hatton, M 2012, ‘Rethinking risk in development projects: from management to resilience’, Development in Practice, vol. 22 no. 3, 409-416.

Siebert, A 2005, The Resiliency Advantage: Master Change, Thrive under Pressure, and Bounce Back from Setbacks. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, California.

Sinclair, M, Christenson, S & Thurow, M 2005, ‘Promoting School Completion of Urban Secondary Youth With Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities’, Exceptional Children, vol. 71 no. 4, pp. 465-482.

Snyder, C & Lopez, S 2001, Handbook of positive psychology, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York.

Tsuchiya, S, Tatano, H & Okada, N 2007, ‘Economic loss assessment due to railroad and highway disruptions’, Economic Systems Research, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 147–162.

Tugade, M, Fredrickson, B & Barrett, L 2004, ‘Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health’, Journal of Personality, vol. 72 no. 6, pp. 1161–1190.

Ungar, M 2004a, ‘A constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts, multiple realities among at-risk children and youth’, Youth and Society, vol. 35 no. 3, pp. 341–365.

Ungar, M 2004b, Nurturing hidden resilience in troubled youth, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Ungar, M 2005, Handbook for working with children and youth: Pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ungar, M 2007, “Contextual and cultural aspects of resilience in child welfare settings”, in I Brown, F Chaze, D Fuchs, J lafrance, S McKay & S Thomas-Prokop, (eds), Putting a human face on child welfare, Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare, Toronto, pp. 1–24.

Ungar, M 2008’, Resilience across cultures’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38 no. 3, pp. 218–235.

Ungar, M, Brown, M, Liebenberg, L, Othman, R, Kwong, W, Armstrong, M & Gilgun, J 2007, ‘Unique pathways to resilience across cultures’, Adolescence, vol. 42 no. 166, pp. 287-310.

Villanueva, P 2011, Learning to ADAPT: monitoring and evaluation approaches in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction – challenges, gaps and ways forward, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Walker, B, Holling, C, Carpenter, S & Kinzig, A 2004, ‘Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems’, Ecology and Society, vol. 9 no. 2, p. 5.

Werner, E & Smith, R 2001, Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resiliency, and recovery, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Wilson, H 2010, ‘Divine Sovereignty and The Global Climate Change debate’, Essays in Philosophy, vol. 11 no. 1, pp. 1-7.

Yates, T, Egeland, B & Sroufe, L 2003, Rethinking resilience: A developmental process perspective. In Luthar, S (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 234-256), Cambridge University Press, New York.

Zautra, A, Hall, J & Murray, K 2010, “Resilience: A new definition of health for people and communities”, in J Reich, A Zautra & J Hall (eds), Handbook of adult resilience, Guilford, New York, pp. 3–34.