Building Resilience For Social Capital In Post-Disaster Recovery

What is resilience?

Discuss about the Building resilience for Social capital in post-disaster recovery?

The rich structure of many feedback loops which may work in an association in different ways for the restoration of a system even after a large perturbation results in resilience.

In the absence of a whole-system, resilience may not be clear. Resilience is sacrificed by the people to achieve stability or for productivity, or for some other system property which is immediately recognizable.

The term ‘Resilience' can be defined in many ways depending on the several branches of study and the purpose of defining. It is the ability to bounce back from the tough times or difficult experiences. It can be observed in the workplaces, problems of family and relationships, financial stress, health related issues etc. According to research, it is ordinary in nature. The people commonly experience in their lives. One example of resilience can be given by the terrorist attacks in September 11, 2001, in America and the efforts of the people to rebuild their lives after the tragedy. The road to resilience usually involves substantial emotional suffering. It is not the trait which is inherited by the people, in fact, it is concerned with the behavior, actions and thoughts that can be learned and developed during their life span (Werner, 2013).

The individuals who are not resilient develop the state of rigidity. They do not want to change and shape themselves according to the unfavorable situations. In that case, their survival is tough (Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana & Bansal, 2015).

The rich structure of many feedback loops which may work in an association in different ways for the restoration of a system even after a large perturbation results in resilience. A balancing act can bring back a system back to its desired shape. Several strategies can be applied to gain resilience. If one of the strategies fails to achieve the result, the other strategy should be implemented (Walker & Salt, 2012). 

Meta resilience is the skill to bounce back from difficulty by the development of a self-oriented spiritual consideration and being alert and geared up for the appalling events. It involves making of choices and teaches us the method of rationalizing the failures. It utilizes emotional intelligence as a frame of orientation (Rutter, 2012).

The another good example of a resilient system includes the body system, it can bear different ranges of temperatures, ward of thousands of different types of invaders, variation in the supply of food, it can also accelerate or slow down the metabolism, regulate the supply of blood, transplant the parts of the body, learn the social etiquettes and familiarize itself with the new surroundings (Zautra, 2014).

Importance of resilience in post-disaster recovery

Several individuals have a different approach to developing the state of resilience. Therefore, the individuals use diverse strategies. It can be noted that there may be an existence of differences in of cultures in the strategies applied by the people. Resilient systems cannot always be in a static state; they can be very active. Static stability can be observed, and it is measured by an alteration in the state of a system weekly or yearly. On the other hand, resilience cannot be seen very easily, unless its limit is exceeded, overpower and harm the complementary loops, and the structure of the system breaks down. In the absence of a whole-system, resilience may not be clear. Resilience is sacrificed by the people to achieve stability or for productivity, or for some other system property which is immediately recognizable (Rutter et al., 2015).

If the case of development of chronic diseases is taken into consideration, the diseases such as cancer and diseases of the heart result from the collapse of the resilience mechanism of the body, which helps to protect the body from the deadly and infectious diseases. The same situation can be observed in the case of ecosystems where to lose of resilience leads to ecological disasters in many places (Wu et al., 2013).

Therefore, the systems need the management concerning resilience so that they can gain a state of stability and obtain more productivity. Resilience such as the ability to recover from perturbation, the ability for restoration needs to be considered utmost importance.  If a system loses its ability of resilience its area of stability shrinks and the walls which protect it becomes lower and very stiff. The systems can encounter resilience as a surprise; hence, it needs preparations to prevent the tragedies which can happen anytime and alter it stable state (Gunderson & Pritchard, 2012). 

The assessment of risk should only include, what could reasonably be expected to be known by you. The anticipation of unforeseeable risks should not be expected by you.

It is recommended to establish the improvements if any, that can be implemented in a quick manner, or even in a temporary way until the placing of more reliable controls can be done.

The most imperative facet of the risk assessment involves the accurate identification of the probable hazards in the place of work. The first step is to monitor the activities and processes that may hamper the professionals or employees who are involved with the work assigned to them. By focusing on the experiences of the past, one can develop the strategies for building the quality of resilience. The previous experiences will help in addressing the risks of harm and will result in the generation of new ideas to handle and develop the solutions concerning the risk of damage (Aldrich, 2012). 

Strategies for building resilience

The recognized risk of harms has some hazards. The best example can be given regarding the individuals who work with risks of life such as handling of hazardous chemicals, working at heights, handling heavy machines, etc. For each of the hazard, there should be a clear understanding regarding the potential threats and mishaps in the workplace. Feedback should be taken from all the employees regarding the risks because things may be different from the employer's point of view (Goldstein & Brooks, 2013).  Different people have a tendency to be comfortable with some diverse styles of communication. They don’t speak up with the higher authorities regarding the risks of harm. Hence, these people should address the facts and possibilities in the way feasible to them (Gao et al., 2016).   

Resilience aims to improve the ability of to deal with the stressful conditions. Though the risk is an element of everyday life, it can be eliminated up to some extent. The primary emphasis should be laid on the methods which can reduce the risk in the workplace in a responsible way because it is concerned with the life of the individuals who are doing that work to earn their living (Alexander, 2013).

A reasonable practice is required to protect the workers or employees from the risk of harm. It is recommended to establish the improvements if any, that can be implemented in a quick manner, or even in a temporary way until the placing of more reliable controls can be done (Goldstein, 2012). 

There is a need to make the records of the significant findings, in which the hazards, the degree of harm and the measures which need to be taken when the individual's encounters that harm should be done. The produced record should be uncomplicated and focused on the controls (Anderies et al., 2013).

Any paperwork which is produced should communicate and manage the risks of hazards in the business. For most of the professionals, it is not a significant exercise; they only need to note the most important points and start work to minimize the risks.  But for others, it is necessary to document the primary reasons for the damage or harm (Cote & Nightingale, 2012).

The assessments of risk should be appropriate and satisfactory. It should involve the proper checking, the probable population which can be affected, the precautions and the feedback of the persons concerned with the risk of the hazard (Kent et al.,2013).

Factors affecting resilience

The identification of the long-term solutions associated with the risk and its significant consequences should be taken into consideration. It is recommended to establish the improvements if any, that can be implemented in a quick manner, or even in a temporary way until the placing of more reliable controls can be done. One thing should be remembered that the greater is the hazard, the stronger and consistent measures to manage the risk will be made (McEntire, 2014). 

If a new equipment or machine is brought in the workplace, the need to review the changes which have to be done regarding the novel things should be focused more. Hence, the risk of assessing the harm should be updated on a regular basis in an efficient manner.

References:

Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.

Alexander, D. E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13(11), 2707-2716.

Anderies, J. M., Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: robustness, resilience, and sustainability.Ecology and society, 18(2), 8.

Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research.Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), 475-489.

Gao, J., Barzel, B., & Barabási, A. L. (2016). Universal resilience patterns in complex networks. Nature, 530(7590), 307-312.

Goldstein, B. E. (2012). Collaborative resilience: Moving through crisis to opportunity. MIT press.

Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. B. (2013). Why study resilience?. In Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 3-14). Springer US.

Gunderson, L. H., & Pritchard, L. (Eds.). (2012). Resilience and the behavior of large-scale systems (Vol. 60). Island Press.

Kent, M., Davis, M. C., & Reich, J. W. (2013). The resilience handbook: Approaches to stress and trauma. Routledge.

McEntire, D. A. (2014). Disaster response and recovery: strategies and tactics for resilience. John Wiley & Sons.

Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). The long‐term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal.

Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and psychopathology, 24(02), 335-344.

Rutter, M., Thapar, A., Pine, D. S., Leckman, J. F., Scott, S., Snowling, M. J., & Taylor, E. (2015). Resilience: concepts, findings, and clinical implications. Rutter's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 341-351.

Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press.

Werner, E. E. (2013). What can we learn about resilience from large-scale longitudinal studies?. In Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 87-102). Springer US.

Wu, G., Feder, A., Cohen, H., Kim, J. J., Calderon, S., Charney, D. S., & Mathé, A. A. (2013). Understanding resilience. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 7, 10.

Zautra, A. J. (2014). Resilience is social, after all. The resilience handbook, 185-96.