Psychological Resilience Building in Disaster Risk Reduction: Contributions from Adult Education

A number of diverse risk factors for psychological functioning have been explored, including individual life experiences such as abuse (Moran and Eckenrode 1992), daily stress (Hay and Diehl 2010), and loneliness (Adams et al. 2004). Factors affecting larger groups of people have also been explored, such as social crises and disasters, as, for example, growing up in areas with high rates of poverty and violence (Luthar 1999), or surviving terrorist attacks (Hobfoll et al. 2008). Even natural disasters such as hurricanes (Werner and Smith 1992) and earthquakes (Najarian et al. 2011) have been explored with regard to their negative effect on mental health. Such risks imply health-straining distress, which can result in psychological dysfunction, leading to mental illness. Reactions to traumatic experiences can result in cognitive and emotional problems such as anxiety, depression, irritability, and loss of intellectual capacity; as well as unhealthy behaviors, such as sleeplessness, social withdrawal, or substance abuse. Psychosomatic reactions, such as increased resting heart rate, can also result from traumatic experiences (Flatten et al. 2011).

The phenomenon of psychological resilience suggests a psychological coping capacity in the face of risks. It comprises two dominant aspects (Wustmann 2009; Zautra 2009): the maintenance of a positive health level and the relatively rapid recovery to a positive level of psychological functioning, despite critical or traumatic experiences. Resilience is variable and determined by a number of factors. A person may show resilience at some points in his or her life, but not at others, as was found, for example, in a long-term study by Werner and Smith (1992). Researchers have posited the existence of crucial developmental windows in middle and later life (Schulz and Heckhausen 1996; Ong et al. 2010), which are assumed to be opportunities for enhancing psychological functioning. Little is known about the actual processes that, despite risks, result in a positive psychological functioning level; these processes are sometimes referred to as the black box of resilience research (Luecken and Gress 2010). Although their mechanisms are somewhat mysterious, they are verifiably provided by protective factors. Such factors are the critical starting points for taking resilience-building measures. Resilience is the product of interactions between personal and environmental conditions, and adult resilience research has identified a variety of factors that reduce the probability of dysfunctional adaptive reactions to risk situations and increase positive adaptive reactions. Psychological factors, acquired through learning processes, are seen as being the most decisive in processes of mental resilience (Wustmann 2009; Ong et al. 2010). On a personal level, for example, optimism has been confirmed as a protective factor in adults who experienced traumatic events such as earthquakes (Najarian et al. 2011). Finding purpose in life may also be protective, as was found in at-risk adults who had been exposed to a range of severe traumas such as sexual or physical assault or assault with a weapon (Alim et al. 2008). An internal locus of control and strong self-efficacy were found to be protective in adults who went through a number of risk experiences, such as poverty, hurricanes, or growing up with mentally ill parents (Werner and Smith 1992).

The individual’s environment also plays a decisive role in the process of acquiring such protective personal factors. On an environmental level, above all, social support has been recognized as a protective factor, helping adults to be resilient in the face of risks such as chronic political violence or natural disasters. This social support can come in a variety of forms, such as parents (Masten et al. 2004), friends (Kiang et al. 2010; Hobfoll et al. 2011), social networks, institutions, and positive role models (Werner and Smith 1992).

In accordance with the different levels at which influencing factors can be located and with individual-based health promotion in general (Wulfhorst 2002), two basic categories of psychological resilience-building approaches can be distinguished: personal-level approaches (that is, promotion of personal factors), and environmental-level approaches (that is, promotion of environmental factors).

A personal-level approach focuses directly on changing actual and potential behavior in a working process with respective individuals, while an environmental-level approach aims to modify the environment of individuals such that adaptive capacity can develop and resilience is possible in adverse situations. Environmental approaches indirectly influence individuals’ coping behaviors.

Even if resilience is changeable throughout life, mental resilience promotion efforts are limited in what they can do; not all condition factors of resilience are modifiable. While self-efficacy can be modified during adulthood (Latimer and Ginis 2005), personal protective factors such as temperament remain stable throughout an individual’s lifetime (Werner and Smith 1982). In addition, the opportunities to positively influence mental coping capacity rely on program quality, the chances that individuals have to participate, the motivation and skills of recipients, and opportunities for positive coping in the specific situational and environmental context. Human coping capacity has inherent limits and is rare in extreme, chronic risk situations (Masten 2001). Nevertheless, resilience is malleable to some extent. If opportunities for the professional enhancement of mental coping capacity exist, the exploitation of such opportunities seems especially indicated in high-risk populations.

DRR implies a mandate; it refers to the exploration and implementation of measures to prevent risk constellations or to lessen their effects and support functioning and resilience (UNISDR 2009). Resilience interpretations by DRR see this phenomenon as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner” (UNISDR 2009, p. 24). In the case of disasters that are seen as overwhelming a specific society’s ability to cope, disaster resilience is of interest, which is seen as the ability of social (-ecological) systems to manage changes caused by disaster events such as earthquakes, drought, or violent conflict, thereby avoiding long-term negative consequences (DFID 2011).

In DRR practices that can be implemented before, during, or after disasters (Twigg 2004), community-based resilience-building efforts predominate in comparison to individual-based measures. Community-based approaches that build capacity on the family, local, and national levels have been used, for example, in strategies of preparedness for a variety of hazards by organizations such as Palang Merah Indonesia and the Canadian Red Cross in Aceh Province and on Nias Island (Kafle 2010); in disaster preparedness activities by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (IFRC 2008); in poverty-reduction strategies by the United Nations Development Programme in Sudan’s River Nile State (UNDP 2013); in local risk management in Navua, Fiji by the National Disaster Management Office; as well as in climate change and food security initiatives in Samoa by Women in Business for Development Inc (Gero et al. 2011). In such strategies the focus is on the enhancement of community capacities such as new agriculture practices, communication structures, institutional capacities, and funding channels.

The particular importance of resilience building on the broader community level versus doing so on an individual level is highlighted, for instance, by the Institute of Development Studies (Bahadur et al. 2010). In DRR, resilience building on an individual level has received comparably less attention. Individual resilience is sometimes mentioned as an aim within community resilience-building strategies IFRC 2012), and in practice some individual resilience-building measures exist that focus on mental resilience strengthening. These measures can be interpreted as part of overall DRR practice. Examples include the IRISS program that works in areas with high rates of HIV infection to strengthen individuals’ coping with HIV diagnosis (Moskowitz 2010), or the Mongolian Red Cross Project that gives social support to people with disrupted traditional networks in the face of disasters (BRC 2013). However, when individual coping ability is mentioned in DRR, the focus is more often on the ability to physically survive acute crises and disaster situations, rather than on the stress regulation and stress management capacities that are also essential to effectively dealing with threats. This is evident when, for instance, individual coping capacity is linked to knowledge of traditional drought-resistant seed varieties that can be eaten at times of food scarcity (Twigg 2004), or when individual resilience strengthening is seen in terms of delivering vaccinations on the individual level (IFRC 2012). This reductive thinking about the nature of individual coping ability exemplifies the criticism that has been raised against how risk analysis, a key step in developing and implementing DRR measures, is conducted. In such analyses the focus is primarily on the more visible and quantifiable elements at risk, such as buildings, physical or financial assets, and human lives, as opposed to on human vulnerabilities and capacities (Twigg 2004). If DRR addresses psychological capacity building at all, in most cases it seems to do so indirectly, as a by-product of community resilience building. For example, in cyclone risk-reduction efforts, the Bangladesh Red Crescent sees the building of individual self-efficacy as one of the desirable consequences of community capacity promotion (Schmuck 2002). In his comprehensive DRR best practice review, Twigg noted that psychological resilience is especially overlooked in the discourse on post-disaster recovery (Twigg 2004); this is true despite the fact that the psychological impact of disasters and the resulting stress is much debated (Norris et al. 2002; Bonanno et al. 2006) and that stress-related disorders are recognized as relevant target areas for post-disaster intervention (Norris et al. 2008).

Despite the view of the particular importance of resilience building on the broader community level versus doing so on an individual level, this article argues that more research needs to be done focusing on psychological resilience building, and that this area needs to be considered an essential action strategy within DRR efforts. Even if community-based resilience building on social levels such as households, local areas, and nations can contribute to psychological resilience—for example, through creating a secure and supportive environment for the individual, which has been confirmed to serve as a protective mental health function (see Sect. 2.2)—not all aspects of social functioning and resilience, such as economic and physical resources, information, and communication structures contribute in the same way to psychological resilience. These factors can be protective on an environmental level for at-risk individuals, but are not necessarily so. Resilience building in social systems and on the individual level are not interchangeable, as psychological and social systems are fundamentally different. Therefore, community-based approaches may not be able to integrate the nurturing of individual psychological resilience-building and its conditions systematically if they do not focus directly on the needs and potentials of the individual psyche in the face of crises situations.

A justification for a stronger establishment of a mental resilience perspective in DRR practice is given through the gaze of DRR that is directed towards populations that are exposed to multiple stressors, and that are therefore most intensively challenged and overwhelmed by their circumstances. Furthermore, in high risk areas, such as developing countries, where care-related infrastructure and mental health support often are lacking, external interventions are necessary. Integrating psychological resilience building into DRR strategies not only has positive consequences for individuals, but bolstering personal strength is crucial for social communities. In DRR, human abilities are recognized as being key factors in the protection, reconstruction, and development of communities, such as the abilities to practice social roles, to competently participate in and support a community, and to take responsibility for risks (Twigg 2004; Australian Government/Attorney-General’s Department 2012). However, mental health despite existing risks (that is, psychological resilience) is an essential prerequisite for such competencies. Accordingly, the World Disasters Report 2004 named health as a protective factor for social resilience (IFRC 2004). The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR 2009) further noted that psychological dysfunction is a possible hazard for social resilience. If the individual cannot cope successfully, he or she cannot be mentally resilient against hazards; in this case, the manifestation of symptoms of psychological dysfunction, such as diseases, social disengagement, and criminal activity are likely (Werner and Smith 1992). Such behaviors burden the social system, for instance, due to the need for more criminal justice facilities, or due to an increased need for health and social services. The promotion of individual resilience can therefore reduce the strain on social systems. This can lessen the impact of later disasters, as the ultimate extent of a disaster is crucially determined by the reaction of the affected population. Japan’s response to the 2011 tsunami is an example of a particularly positive and effective reaction to a disaster. After experiencing a massive earthquake, a tsunami, and a catastrophic nuclear accident, social order was quickly restored. This was not only ascribed to well-trained and dedicated non-profit organizations (Parashar et al. 2011), but also due to the local population’s cultural socialization in key traits such as calmness and patience (Bara 2011). The abilities to network effectively and to maintain close neighborly bonds (Parashar et al. 2011) also may have been protective for both individuals and the larger society in this instance.

Psychological resilience building as a DRR strategy is not only relevant for high-risk populations but also for professionals working in particularly stressful areas and situations. Flatten and colleagues (2003) reported that rescue workers routinely work under stressful conditions, even in their everyday work, not just in notable, large-scale rescue operations such as the 1998 train accident in Eschede. Rescuers consider themselves to be a high-risk group (Krüsmann et al. 2007) because their job requires them to work in stressful situations on a daily basis. This stress can compromise a rescuer’s mental health, which can lead to the negative individual and social consequences discussed above. Rescuers can also experience impaired decision-making ability or impaired efficiency, which can have fatal consequences in an emergency situation.

In summary, DRR’s goal of strengthening community resilience cannot ignore the importance of individual psychological resilience. Mental resilience is essential for social functioning, and individual-based resilience building can be a beneficial part of community-oriented resilience approaches. Many DRR action projects are criticized as coming to an end too quickly and suddenly (Twigg 2004), making sustainable development an important issue within this field. Building psychological coping capacity takes time; efforts must go beyond psychological first aid during or immediately after disasters, extending into a developmental strategy that promotes environmental and personal strength, enhancing coping capacity, and protecting mental health in the face of risks and stressors.