Oza Hemali H, Nanavati Anuj, Clasen Thomas, Salinger Allison P, Freeman Matthew C, Sinharoy Sheela S
Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2025 Feb 15;118. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105267. Epub 2025 Jan 31.
With increasingly severe weather events compounded with additional disasters, environmental shocks and stressors, and socio-economic challenges, there is a growing sense of urgency to build resilience, resulting in the need for assessment tools. We conducted a review of empirical studies that measured household and community resilience to environmental shocks and stressors among urban populations in low- and middle-income countries. This review was conducted to 1) understand how empirical studies measure resilience, 2) identify gaps in current practices, and 3) provide theory-informed recommendations to bridge gaps. Our review included 28 studies of which 25 measured community level resilience and three measured household-level resilience. The studies measured resilience against climate change, disease outbreaks, earthquakes, floods, food insecurity, and disasters. The 751 extracted measures from these studies focused on social (45 %), environmental (34 %), and economic (21 %) domains of resilience. Our review revealed that assessment tools often erroneously use measures of vulnerability (example: age distribution, frequency of shocks/stressor) to assess resilience and sub-domains are inconsistently used to characterize resilience across existing measures. Furthermore, capacity measures (i.e., adaptive, absorptive, and transformative) that reflect the dynamic nature of resilience are inconsistently used. We provide guidance on filling these gaps by 1) informing the development of measures, 2) providing an adapted measurement framework for urban household-level resilience against disasters and environmental shocks and stressors for use in LMICs, and 3) making recommendations for how to contextualize the framework.
随着天气事件日益严峻，再加上其他灾害、环境冲击和压力因素以及社会经济挑战，增强恢复力的紧迫感与日俱增，这就产生了对评估工具的需求。我们对实证研究进行了综述，这些研究衡量了低收入和中等收入国家城市人口中家庭和社区对环境冲击及压力因素的恢复力。开展这项综述是为了：1）了解实证研究如何衡量恢复力；2）找出当前做法中的差距；3）提供基于理论的建议以弥合差距。我们的综述涵盖了28项研究，其中25项衡量了社区层面的恢复力，3项衡量了家庭层面的恢复力。这些研究衡量了针对气候变化、疾病爆发、地震、洪水、粮食不安全和灾害的恢复力。从这些研究中提取的751项衡量指标聚焦于恢复力的社会（45%）、环境（34%）和经济（21%）领域。我们的综述表明，评估工具常常错误地使用脆弱性指标（例如：年龄分布、冲击/压力因素的频率）来评估恢复力，而且在现有衡量指标中，子领域在用于描述恢复力时并不一致。此外，反映恢复力动态性质的能力指标（即适应能力、吸收能力和变革能力）的使用也不一致。我们通过以下方式为填补这些差距提供指导：1）为指标的制定提供信息；2）提供一个适用于低收入和中等收入国家城市家庭层面抵御灾害及环境冲击和压力因素的测量框架；3）就如何将该框架因地制宜提出建议。
