April 27, 2024

disaster resilience philippines essay

9th Annual Singapore OpenGov Leadership Forum 2024, 14 - 15 May 2024 - CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

We are creating some awesome events for you. kindly bear with us., strengthening disaster resilience and preparedness in the philippines.

  • Aineena Hani
  • October 1, 2021

disaster resilience philippines essay

The Philippines is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to natural disasters. Natural disasters are increasing the social and economic costs in the country as a result of population growth, changing land-use patterns, migration, unplanned urbanisation, environmental degradation, and global climate change. Reducing the risk of disasters will be critical to achieving the Philippines’ development goals.

In terms of population exposure and vulnerability to hazards, the Philippines ranks among the top three countries in the world. Over the course of their long history of dealing with disasters, the Philippine government has developed strong defence strategies. Nonetheless, significant gaps in disaster management capacities persist across the Philippines, and surprisingly little data on local levels of disaster resilience and preparedness are available.

At least 60% of the country’s total land area, nearly 300,000 square kilometres (116,000 square miles), is prone to natural disasters, owing in large part to the archipelago’s location along the path of tropical storms brewing in the western Pacific as well as the Ring of Fire.

The Department of Science and Technology-Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (DOST-Phivolcs) has inaugurated its Mindanao Cluster Monitoring Centre for Earthquake and Tsunami to address disaster resilience and preparedness initiatives in the Philippines. According to the Phivolcs Director, the newly built Mindanao Cluster Monitoring Centre will improve the country’s earthquake detection capability.

PMCMCET is located in Mintal, Davao City, inside the Southern Mindanao Campus of the Philippine Science High School (PSHS). According to Phivolcs, the cluster centre also manages the earthquake and tsunami monitoring stations on Mindanao, which include nine staff-controlled seismic stations, 18 satellite-telemetered seismic stations, 12 sea-level detection stations, and tsunami alerting stations.

Although Phivolcs has a data receiving centre in Quezon City, Solidum believes that establishing earthquake detection facilities in other parts of the country would ensure service continuity, particularly during disasters.

“If there is a large earthquake in Metro Manila, it (other facilities) would help us ensure that the office is still operating. It is an initial step to ensure continuity of service,” the Phivolcs Director said. Establishing the PMCMCET is also said to be helpful in case of large earthquake events in Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao on the same day.

Furthermore, an engineer in the Philippines recently introduced the Seismic Isolator, a game-changing solution for protecting the country’s buildings from earthquakes. Given that the Philippines is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire and is prone to earthquakes, the anti-seismic device could assist in mitigating and preventing much more damage if another ground-shaking event occurs.

The Seismic Isolator is an anti-seismic device that helps ensure that a building sustains no damage in the event of an earthquake. Its goal is to protect the building from damaging ground movement by allowing it to slide along with it. Because damaging earthquake movements are horizontal rather than vertical, a building equipped with seismic isolators will simply sway rather than vibrate back and forth in varying directions as a result of inertial forces, causing deformation and damage.

In addition, the Philippines government also established its National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP), which was followed by the Philippines’ National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, which is the relevant peak body and includes cabinet-level heads of each major government department, as well as permanent representatives from civil society, the Philippines Red Cross, and the private sector. This is significant because non-governmental actors play a critical role in fostering community, regional, and national resilience.

The NDRRMP is in line with the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF), which provides the primary guide for the country’s disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) efforts. The Framework envisions a country of safer, more adaptable, and disaster-resilient Filipino communities working toward long-term development.

Recommended Stories

disaster resilience philippines essay

Exploring the Impact of AI on the Media Landscape

disaster resilience philippines essay

Vietnam: Push for a Comprehensive AI Policy Framework

disaster resilience philippines essay

New Zealand: Digital Tech for Innovative Flood Management

disaster resilience philippines essay

Australia: Smart Solutions for Climate Challenges

disaster resilience philippines essay

DigiLocker Integration: Transforming Indian Air Force Operations

disaster resilience philippines essay

Water Resource Management with Space Tech

disaster resilience philippines essay

Innovating for Impact: Singapore’s Biomedical and Tech Leadership

disaster resilience philippines essay

India Advancing IP Awareness to Foster Innovation

© 2024 OpenGov Asia – CIO Network Pte Ltd.

Qlik Website Logo

Qlik’s vision is a data-literate world, where everyone can use data and analytics to improve decision-making and solve their most challenging problems. A private company, Qlik offers real-time data integration and analytics solutions, powered by Qlik Cloud, to close the gaps between data, insights and action. By transforming data into Active Intelligence, businesses can drive better decisions, improve revenue and profitability, and optimize customer relationships. Qlik serves more than 38,000 active customers in over 100 countries.


CTC Global Singapore, a premier end-to-end IT solutions provider, is a fully owned subsidiary of ITOCHU Techno-Solutions Corporation (CTC) and ITOCHU Corporation.

Since 1972, CTC has established itself as one of the country’s top IT solutions providers. With 50 years of experience, headed by an experienced management team and staffed by over 200 qualified IT professionals, we support organizations with integrated IT solutions expertise in Autonomous IT, Cyber Security, Digital Transformation, Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure, Workplace Modernization and Professional Services.

Well-known for our strengths in system integration and consultation, CTC Global proves to be the preferred IT outsourcing destination for organizations all over Singapore today.


Planview has one mission: to build the future of connected work. Our solutions enable organizations to connect the business from ideas to impact, empowering companies to accelerate the achievement of what matters most. Planview’s full spectrum of Portfolio Management and Work Management solutions creates an organizational focus on the strategic outcomes that matter and empowers teams to deliver their best work, no matter how they work. The comprehensive Planview platform and enterprise success model enables customers to deliver innovative, competitive products, services, and customer experiences. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, with locations around the world, Planview has more than 1,300 employees supporting 4,500 customers and 2.6 million users worldwide. For more information, visit www.planview.com .



SIRIM is a premier industrial research and technology organisation in Malaysia, wholly-owned by the Minister​ of Finance Incorporated. With over forty years of experience and expertise, SIRIM is mandated as the machinery for research and technology development, and the national champion of quality. SIRIM has always played a major role in the development of the country’s private sector. By tapping into our expertise and knowledge base, we focus on developing new technologies and improvements in the manufacturing, technology and services sectors. We nurture Small Medium Enterprises (SME) growth with solutions for technology penetration and upgrading, making it an ideal technology partner for SMEs.


HashiCorp provides infrastructure automation software for multi-cloud environments, enabling enterprises to unlock a common cloud operating model to provision, secure, connect, and run any application on any infrastructure. HashiCorp tools allow organizations to deliver applications faster by helping enterprises transition from manual processes and ITIL practices to self-service automation and DevOps practices. 


IBM is a leading global hybrid cloud and AI, and business services provider. We help clients in more than 175 countries capitalize on insights from their data, streamline business processes, reduce costs and gain the competitive edge in their industries. Nearly 3,000 government and corporate entities in critical infrastructure areas such as financial services, telecommunications and healthcare rely on IBM’s hybrid cloud platform and Red Hat OpenShift to affect their digital transformations quickly, efficiently and securely. IBM’s breakthrough innovations in AI, quantum computing, industry-specific cloud solutions and business services deliver open and flexible options to our clients. All of this is backed by IBM’s legendary commitment to trust, transparency, responsibility, inclusivity and service.


disaster resilience philippines essay


disaster resilience philippines essay

Disaster plays a large role across the communities of the Philippines, with the ASEAN Member State constantly affording significant attention and resources to ensuring its citizens and infrastructure are prepared and resilient to disaster occurrences that frequently impact the nation due to its geographic context. For the entire month of July 2019, the Philippines celebrated its National Disaster Resilience Month (NDRM) that involved numerous events and activities across the nation aimed at increasing awareness and resilience for its people in the face of ongoing natural disaster threats.

The theme for 2019’s celebration was Kahandaan sa Sakuna’t Peligro Para Sa Tunay na Pagbabago – which translates to Disaster Risk and Emergency Preparedness for Genuine Development in the English language – with NDRM kicking off on July 1st through a number of opening events. The Philippines’ National Disaster Management Organisation (NDMO) – the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) – kicked-off the month-long celebration with the launching of its DELSA Satellite Warehouse in Quezon City, an event that will be covered in detail in the next volume of the AHA Centre’s Column publication. For the entire month of July, the Government of the Philippines, institutions, businesses and the general public took part in activities related to disaster resilience, particularly covering the four thematic areas of DRRM –Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Response and Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery.

A variety of engaging and interesting activities were planned for the whole month, with each of the nation’s numerous regions implementing its own schedule for celebrations and awareness raising within the community. The Municipality of San Jose de Buenavista, through the Antique Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, undertook a ‘caravan’ around San Jose de Buenavista to raise community awareness on the importance of readiness within the landslide and flood-prone region. In San Fernando City, the annual Run for Resilience event was organised. The annual event was formed to offer thanks for the support of the many partners who promote disaster resilience in the community. Schools across the nation will participate in activities such as essay writing, song development and poster creation, with the aim to ensure strong resilience in the next generations of the country’s youth. In Butuan City, officials aim to highlight their Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Heroes – namely the health care providers in provincial and district hospitals who are at the frontlines providing care during emergencies and disasters.

Disaster response trainings in schools and government offices and in disaster prone areas were held across different locations, that formed the practical aspect of the NDRM in strengthening disaster resilience for people of the Philippines. Other events aimed to strengthen internal and external partnerships on disaster management, through events such as: ceremonial turnover of tents from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); the launch and implementation of the 2019 Nationwide Simultaneous Hands-Only CPR Campaign; Basic Life Support Training for the DOH Security Personnel, and; a ceremonial signing of the memorandum of agreement with the Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation.

Written by : William Shea | Photo : The Philippines Office of Civil Defense Facebook Page

' src=

About AHA Centre

What you can read next, vol 61 – disaster management cycle, vol 77 – social media in disaster management, vol 69 – social media in disaster management.

ASEAN Coordinating Centre for H umanitarian Assistance on disaster management

chrome icon

Resilience and Disaster Trends in the Philippines: Opportunities for National and Local Capacity Building.

Citation Count

Psychometric validation of the PTSD Checklist-5 among female Filipino migrant workers.

Post-disaster social capital: trust, equity, bayanihan and typhoon yolanda, agent-based modelling of post-disaster recovery with remote sensing data, social media in aid of post disaster management, building organization and employee resilience in disaster contexts, summary for policymakers, managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. a special report of working groups i and ii of ipcc intergovernmental panel on climate change, making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk management, global assessment report on disaster risk reduction, process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island communities, related papers (5), disaster impacts and financing: local insights from the philippines, learn from the past, prepare for the future: impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the philippines and thailand, disaster prevention, disaster preparedness and local community resilience within the context of disaster risk management in cameroon, making communities disaster resilient: challenges and prospects for community engagement in nepal, developing a disaster education program for community safety and resilience: the preliminary phase, trending questions (1).

The information provided does not mention anything about building a recreational facility complex in light industrial land use in the Philippines National Building Code.

Content Search


Typhoons in the Philippines: A journey to disaster resilience

“All of the houses in my village were destroyed in a snap,” says Analita Garcela, the captain of the upland village of Cambucao in Tabon Tabon, Leyte – one of the communities hardest hit by Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.

Though it is already two years after the typhoon, Analita says that the tragic experience is hard to forget:

It was devastating but we had no choice but to move forward. People in my community worked hard to recover and I must say we are on the right track.

CARE and local partner Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD) have supported Cambucao through emergency food distributions, shelter repair assistance, financial support to restore livelihoods, and training on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation.

The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, and since Haiyan, further typhoons such as Hagupit and Koppu have further tested the recovery efforts of the affected communities. Analita says:

Good thing that we were able to rebuild and repair our damaged homes through the support of CARE.

“We were taught how to apply the ‘Build back better’ techniques that definitely improved the quality and durability of our homes,” she adds.

After the shelter repair and livelihoods recovery support, CARE and ACCORD implemented disaster risk reduction training in the affected communities. CARE also conducted a series of DRR training sessions and community drills in Cambucao involving all the members of the community to increase their ability to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and emergencies. Analita explains:

Everyone in my community participated, from the youngest to the oldest. They saw its relevance and importance and the people themselves wanted to be well-prepared for future disasters.

The training helps community members identify resources at risk from climate hazards, analyse changes in seasonal activities, understand trends and changes over time, and develop livelihoods and coping strategies.

The community drill involved responding as a village to a Haiyan-like typhoon. Analita says: “Everyone joined the drill and they took their roles seriously. Even it was just a simulation, they acted like it was really happening.

“They went to designated evacuation areas, they brought their important belongings with them, wore raincoats and boots, and even rescued those who needed help such as trapped older people.

If the people know how to prepare, adapt and respond, it will lessen the damages and avoid cases of casualties. We thank CARE for addressing that concern.

“I could say that my community is now disaster-resilient,” she concludes.

By Dennis Amata, Information and Communications Manager, CARE Philippines

Related Content

Joint statement of the humanitarian country team on the 10th year anniversary of super typhoon haiyan in the philippines, philippines: typhoon haiyan emergency appeal final report (mdrph014), philippines: typhoon haiyan emergency appeal preliminary final report (mdrph014), philippines humanitarian bulletin issue 4 | 1 to 30 april 2016.

  • Subscribe Now

[OPINION] Challenging the narrative of Filipino resiliency

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

[OPINION] Challenging the narrative of Filipino resiliency

In the wake of 4 typhoons that devastated the Philippines in a two-week span, numerous areas in the country were left submerged, with hundreds of thousands displaced and the death toll still rising. As the country reels from the effects of the typhoons, people have taken to social media to share stories of suffering, and appeals for relief and rescue for those affected. Interspersed between these appeals are calls from netizens not to “glorify resilience.”

What does it mean to glorify resilience and why is it problematic? “Glorify” is defined as “to cause to be or seem to be better than the actual condition.” To glorify Filipino resilience is to make resilience appear better than it actually is. While praising resilience in and of itself is uncontroversial, as with many things, context matters. And it is in the context of post-disaster recovery and survival that the narrative of Filipino resilience often takes centerstage. The narrative of Filipino resilience is derived from overcoming experiences of suffering and trauma due to disasters.

Understanding the context also means taking stock of our experience with how the government has handled disasters. For a country that is regularly battered by typhoons, the government has failed to keep up with the alarming rate of climate change. Despite the abundance of champions of the environment and climate justice, our policies, infrastructure, and general preparedness have always been wanting. 

The issue goes beyond preparedness for environmental emergencies. Lack of sustainable urban planning has resulted in a failure to control urban sprawl, a key issue in prevention. Even the national and local government capacities to effectively handle post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction have been criticized. Moreover, our leaders’ seeming ineptitude in crisis governance and allegations of mishandling of funds that at times follow disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts make matters worse. It is then the height of brazenness when it is our own government leaders who extol narratives of Filipino resilience.

Even when the glorification of resilience is done by members of the public, problems may still arise. There is no denying that typhoons (and disasters in general) affect people of different socio-economic status disproportionately. It is the poorer families and individuals who often find themselves in more vulnerable situations, not by choice but out of necessity. In addition, their insecurity also makes it more difficult for them to recover after disasters. Hence, while disasters cannot discriminate, our country’s socio-economic development does. Therefore, one must bear in mind that having the luxury to glorify resilience comes from a position of privilege.

An intimately related concept that is also used interchangeably with glorification is the concept of romanticization. Romanticization is said to “manifest itself through assimilation or internalization of an event by individuals or a community to obscure its negative implications.” To romanticize resiliency is to present the resilient Filipino as the desired image of a disaster victim — one who survives.

[ANALYSIS] Filipinos aren’t so much resilient as Duterte is incompetent, abusive

[ANALYSIS] Filipinos aren’t so much resilient as Duterte is incompetent, abusive

Given this backdrop, we can problematize the glorification and romanticization of Filipino resilience for the following reasons:

First, it detracts from the suffering and trauma that victims of disasters are experiencing. It diminishes the sufferings and trauma experienced by the victims. While one can certainly praise resilience while also raising awareness for the victims’ sufferings and trauma, in this context, glorification and romanticization add nothing to the discourse on how to alleviate the harsh realities that victims face. It is ironic that while narratives of Filipino resilience earn them admiration and attention from the public, it does not offer anything tangible that they deserve given the urgency of their situation.

Second, it undermines the importance of immediate action by overemphasizing the image of a Filipino who is able to survive in spite of his/her circumstances, rather than that of a Filipino who is able to survive because he/she is given the support he/she deserves . It shifts the accountability to the victims by implying that overcoming their suffering and trauma is a matter of choosing to be resilient, when in truth, the victims have diminished agency as a consequence of their socioeconomic status or because regardless of the choices they make, institutions have failed to prepare them from the negative consequences of natural disasters. No one chooses to be vulnerable, but the structural causes of their insecurity have forced them to be locked in with few to no options.

Third, it normalizes the vicious cycle of displacement due to disasters – as if those in vulnerable situations should just accept and get used to the experience of displacement every time disasters hit the country. This can lead to an overemphasis on the crisis management component of disaster management over risk management. Focus is primarily placed on assessment, response, recovery, and reconstruction stages while mitigation and prevention, preparedness, and prediction stages are given less attention.

Fourth, the resilient Filipino – one who overcomes in spite of – is idealized at the expense of those who are unable to overcome their sufferings and trauma, further victimizing them. By implication, the victims’ inability to overcome is seen as a weakness and that their own sufferings and trauma are imputed to their own actions. What about those who lost their lives?  Are they mere statistics that are included in reports and then later forgotten?

Finally, the notion of Filipino resiliency as it is portrayed in the mainstream is limited to the idea of resiliency as a virtue, as something that is characteristic of a Filipino. The image of the Filipino who is able to keep faith and overcome his/her hardships is celebrated in popular culture. But the resiliency in the context of disaster risk reduction and mitigation goes beyond that. It includes the capacity of communities (and the country as a whole) to adapt to and recover from disasters or calamities. Government preparedness is a key element of disaster resilience.

In conclusion, while accountability is not solely on the government, the duty of the government to serve and protect demands that our leaders should bear most of the responsibility and accountability. This is especially true in cases where natural disasters may become man-made calamities due to government negligence. While the aim is not to downplay the will and spirit of the Filipino to survive, our experience with government failures and the exploitation of Filipino resilience necessitates challenging the dominant narrative. 

As for offering an alternative to the glorification and romanticization of Filipino resilience, we should challenge the dominant narrative by promoting a discourse beyond resiliency as a virtue . The discourse should be on the kind of resiliency that puts the emphasis on building institutional (i.e., structural) capacities at both local and national levels to adapt and recover. Governance and leadership should also improve to allow for inclusive resilience – one that gives voice to marginalized sectors of society. Individually, we can help amplify the voices of the victims and survivors by echoing their calls for assistance, and helping them voice out their narratives of suffering and trauma. This way, they can take back their agency and challenge the dominant narrative of what it truly means to be a “resilient Filipino.” – Rappler.com

Abu Al-Rasheed T. Tanggol is the Peace Action Coordinator at the Institute for Peace and Development in Mindanao and Associate Lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology. He’s been involved in different disaster relief operations in the past for local and international organizations.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Disaster Risk Resilience: Conceptual Evolution, Key Issues, and Opportunities

  • Open access
  • Published: 21 June 2022
  • Volume 13 , pages 330–341, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

disaster resilience philippines essay

  • Marie-Hélène Graveline 1 &
  • Daniel Germain 1 , 2  

12k Accesses

19 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Resilience has become a cornerstone for risk management and disaster reduction. However, it has evolved extensively both etymologically and conceptually in time and across scientific disciplines. The concept has been (re)shaped by the evolution of research and practice efforts. Considered the opposite of vulnerability for a long time, resilience was first defined as the ability to resist, bounce back, cope with, and recover quickly from the impacts of hazards. To avoid the possible return to conditions of vulnerability and exposure to hazards, the notions of post-disaster development, transformation, and adaptation (build back better) and anticipation, innovation, and proactivity (bounce forward) were then integrated. Today, resilience is characterized by a multitude of components and several classifications. We present a selection of 25 components used to define resilience, and an interesting linkage emerges between these components and the dimensions of risk management (prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery), offering a perspective to strengthen resilience through the development of capacities. Despite its potential, resilience is subject to challenges regarding its operationalization, effectiveness, measurement, credibility, equity, and even its nature. Nevertheless, it offers applicability and opportunities for local communities as well as an interdisciplinary look at global challenges.

Similar content being viewed by others

disaster resilience philippines essay

Disaster preparedness of local governments in Panay Island, Philippines

disaster resilience philippines essay

Building community resilience in a context of climate change: The role of social capital

disaster resilience philippines essay

Early Warning Systems and Their Role in Disaster Risk Reduction

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Over the last two decades, the interest in the concept of resilience has grown significantly in the scientific community. Over the past 20 years, more than 30,000 articles with the term resilience in the title or keywords have been indexed in the SCOPUS database. In 2017 alone, more than 200 papers were published on resilience in the field of risk and disaster management—a sevenfold increase from 10 years earlier ( n = 30 in 2008) (Demiroz and Haase 2019 ). Through this explosion of interest, the concept of resilience has evolved greatly and has been widely discussed within the scientific community. The purpose of this review is to present the conceptual evolution of resilience in the risk and disaster management field while highlighting its principal components, major issues, and best opportunities.

2 Etymology and History of the Resilience Concept

The term resilience has a long and diverse history. Alexander ( 2013 ) and O’Brien and O’Keefe ( 2013 ) traced the history of the use of the term as well as its etymological evolution through the major eras. Its exact origin is unclear, but resilience is thought to come from the Latin resilire , resilio meaning “to leap” (Manyena et al. 2011 ; Alexander 2013 ). Both terms were used by Seneca the Elder, Ovid, Cicero, and Livy in their works in classical antiquity to mean leaping, jumping, or bouncing. In the Western Middle Ages and then in Modern Times, the term resiler was used in Middle French to express the action of retracting, and the term resile was used in England to express the fact of retracting, returning to an old position, resisting. The first known scientific use of the term resilience was in 1625 by Sir Francis Bacon, an English attorney general, in the Sylva Sylvarum , a collection of writings on natural history. The first known definition of the word comes from the Glossographia published from 1618 to 1679. Its author, Thomas Blount, gave it a double meaning: to bounce and to go back on one’s word. From 1839 onwards, the term resilience was associated with the ability (strength) to recover from adversity. At the end of the nineteenth century a prominent Scottish engineer, William J.M. Rankine, used the term in the field of mechanics to designate the strength (resistance) and ductility (ability to be stretched without breaking) of steel beams. As early as 1950, the concept began to be used in ecology and psychology, two fields in which it would become very important. The ecologist Holling ( 1973 ) later conceptualized resilience as a measure of an ecosystem’s ability to absorb disturbances and persist without changing its fundamental structure. In the late 1990s, the concept migrated from natural ecology to human ecology because of economists and geographers. In the field of risk and disaster management, the concept of resilience started to be used in the 1970s but gained importance especially from the end of the twentieth century and after 2010 (Demiroz and Haase 2019 ).

The broad evolution of the concept of resilience can be explained by its journey in time across various disciplines. Widely used, its meaning evolved as it has gained importance in fields such as ecology, psychology, engineering, social sciences, and so on (Alexander 2013 ; O’Brien and O’Keefe 2013 ). The major definitions from several fields and disciplines are presented in Table 1 . Although there is currently no real consensus on the definition of resilience in risk and disaster management, the definition of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR 2021 ), formerly UNISDR, is probably the one most recognized.

3 Conceptual Evolution of the Term Resilience in Risk and Disaster Management

Over the past two decades, the concept of resilience has been highlighted by the evolution of research and practice efforts in the field of risk and disaster management. These efforts have long been oriented towards post-disaster response and recovery (Cronstedt 2002 ; Cutter et al. 2014 ), rather than pre-event initiatives such as prevention and preparedness (Hyunjung 2018 ). Subsequently, divergent approaches from natural and social sciences have focused either on the hazard itself, or on vulnerability. All these approaches aimed at making communities more resilient to hazards by reducing the hazard itself (frequency, intensity, and so on) or by working on the vulnerability factors of communities (sensitivity, exposure, and so forth). Although these approaches have contributed greatly to disaster risk reduction (DRR), as well as to sustainable community development, they are still considered as part of a reactive framework (Hyunjung 2018 ). According to many (for example, Innocenti and Albrito 2011 ), a more progressive and proactive approach to risk reduction is needed and the risk paradigm should no longer focus solely on reducing vulnerability, but also on building resilience (McEntire et al. 2002 ; Cutter et al. 2008 ; Olwig 2012 ; Twigg 2015 ; Williams and Shepherd 2016 ). It is in this context that current efforts are increasingly oriented towards risk reduction that focuses on building and strengthening resilience, including the valorization of positive factors such as local capacities and social capital (Hyunjung 2018 ).

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) established as the second strategic goal of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005−2015:

[…] the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards (UNISDR 2005 , p. 4).

The concept of resilience then gained importance until it was used 60 times in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030. The Sendai Framework makes it its third priority for action: “Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience” (UNISDR 2015 , p. 14). The explosion of interest in resilience over the last decade has thus contributed to the evolution of the concept and the development of different visions, or even schools of thought, of resilience in the field of risk and disaster.

Resilience and vulnerability have long been considered as opposing, interdependent, or correlated concepts. Some refer to resilience as the inverse of vulnerability (Twigg 2007 ). Thus, increasing resilience would reduce vulnerability and vice versa (Chisty et al. 2021 ). Resilience and vulnerability have also been considered by others to be subcomponents, subconcepts, or attributes of each other (Turner et al. 2003 ). Many, however, consider them to be subcomponents of the concept of risk (Cutter et al. 2008 ; Aven 2011 ) since one (vulnerability) consists of factors that increase risk and the other (resilience) consists of factors that reduce risk. In this sense, a good understanding of vulnerability is the starting point for building resilience (Alexander 2013 ), and resilience is now “deployed as a strategy to overcome the vulnerability of communities in the wake of natural disasters” (McDonnell 2020 , p. 56). However, while all these thoughts on the conceptual positioning of resilience in relation to vulnerability have their accuracy, they rather represent simplistic translations of the complex and multidimensional character of these two concepts. In the end, it appears that resilience has evolved into an independent concept, albeit one that is related to, and interconnected with, vulnerability.

From ecology and engineering, resilience was characterized as the ability to resist, bounce back, cope with, and recover quickly from the impacts of hazards (Mileti 1999 ; Alexander 2013 ). Linked to a rather reactive risk strategy, the focus is on the resistance of infrastructures and systems and the speed of return to the initial pre-disaster state (bounce-back). Resilience is thus visualized as an elastic band that can stretch without breaking (ductility) and return to its original shape without deforming. This perspective of resilience thus induces a return to the pre-disaster conditions of the system or community without thinking, without regard to their evaluation, making it possible to return to the conditions of vulnerability that may have caused the hazard or exacerbated its impacts (Paton and Johnston 2017 ).

To address this challenge, the notion of “build back better” and “bounce forward” has been developed within risk management and has contributed to the integration of post-disaster development, transformation, and adaptation capacities within resilience (Kennedy et al. 2008 ; Manyena et al. 2011 ; Béné et al. 2012 ). Disaster is then seen as an opportunity to improve, change, and thus adapt (Paton 2006 ). From this point of view, resilience represents “the intrinsic capacity of a system, community or society predisposed to a shock or stress to bounce forward and adapt in order to survive by changing its non-essential attributes and rebuilding itself” (Manyena et al. 2011 , p. 419). At the heart of this conception of resilience is a well-known mechanism of human development: experiential learning (Manyena et al. 2011 ). Particular emphasis is placed on the reporting of events, as they feed into the processes of reflection, learning, and feedback necessary to build on lessons learned. This perspective on resilience also opens the door to planning and action over longer time horizons. However, in the context of risks and disasters, this conception of resilience remains reactive.

Recently, the meaning associated with the expression “bounce forward” seems to have shifted to a new one, more focused on proactivity. This new conceptual input idealizes resilience as the ability to leap beyond risk rather than bounce back. Greater importance is then given to the capacities of anticipation, innovation, and adaptability to uncertainties (Rubim and Borges 2017 ). Until recently, resilience was divided into three main visions and objectives: (1) to reduce impacts and consequences; (2) to reduce recovery time; and (3) to reduce future vulnerabilities (Koliou et al. 2020 ). This new perspective opens the door to a fourth vision: that of reducing the impact of uncertainties. Moreover, this representation favors the development and the reinforcement of resilience without having undergone a prior shock.

Ultimately, through its various phases of conceptual evolution, resilience is now defined by its three complementary dimensions: bounce back, build back better, and bounce forward. This combination of meanings makes resilience a difficult concept to define in any straightforward way.

4 Key Components of Resilience

Resilience is made up of an assemblage of several components that have multiplied through its conceptual evolution. Whether it is through the analysis of an individual, a community, or a complex system, many have worked to deconstruct, structure, and order the properties of the concept. For Tierney and Bruneau ( 2007 ), resilience is composed of four main elements: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity. According to Béné ( 2013 ), resilience relies instead on the synergy of three capabilities: absorption, adaptation, and transformation. For Chen et al. ( 2020 ), resilience to disasters can be summarized by three distinct capacities: the capacity to resist, adapt, and recover quickly. In a non-exhaustive way, Table 2 presents 25 components mentioned and frequently used to define resilience in the risk and disaster management literature.

When we observe the meaning of the listed components of resilience, they can be classified according to their conceptual dimension (Fig. 1 ). To facilitate operationalization, the components with similar meanings and processes can be gathered into groups of actions.

figure 1

Components of resilience according to their conceptual dimensions

Looking at their nature, many of the components of resilience show an interesting fit with the actions, strategies, and time horizons of the four basic dimensions of risk management: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery (Fig. 2 ). Some components of the “bounce forward” dimension apply to all dimensions of risk management such as innovation, flexibility, or autonomy, for example. While many see a conflict in the different conceptual views of resilience, we see it as a process that recognizes the gains of each of the major phases of the term’s evolution. Through this perspective, resilience would likely be strengthened at each stage of risk management using different capacities. Norris et al. ( 2008 ) presented a similar view of resilience as a set of attributes and capabilities in dynamic relationship.

figure 2

Conceptual evolution of resilience according to risk management dimensions

5 Community Resilience

Within the field of risk and disaster management, building resilience is often community-oriented due to the importance of the local scale. Hazards generally occur locally and many of the most effective tools for reducing exposure are found at this scale. The impacts of disasters are felt immediately and intensely at the local level and local actors are the first responders. It is also at the local level that the core functions of environmental management and regulatory governance are concentrated and where governments and communities best engage and work together (UNDRR 2019 ). Because each community is composed of a complex and dynamic assemblage of social, economic, and natural environments (Meng et al. 2018 ), it is the ideal entity to develop or strengthen a resilience that is unique to that community and that will act effectively to manage the risks. Furthermore, to adequately represent the diversity within the vulnerable groups of a community, it is important to pay attention to its intersectional characteristics (Chisty et al. 2021 ).

According to Norris et al. ( 2008 ), the emergence of community resilience would be based on a variety of adaptive capacities grouped into four broad networked sets: economic development, social capital, information and communication, and community competence. These capabilities are characterized by dynamic attributes such as robustness, redundancy, and speed. Amobi et al. ( 2019 ) argued that community resilience is based on three key fundamentals: community leadership, social cohesion, and social connections. For Haase et al. ( 2021 ), community resilience is the result of six core capacities: human capital, physical capital, economic capital, social capital, institutional and environmental capital, and these encompass the 9 elements and 19 subelements proposed by Patel et al. ( 2017 ).

Among the many dimensions at the heart of community resilience are two fundamental notions: social learning and social capital. Social learning is defined as “a process of iterative reflection that occurs when we share our experiences, ideas and environments with others” (Keen et al. 2005 , p. 9). This concept is found, among others, at the basis of adaptive management (McEwen et al. 2018 ) and is a driver of social change. The concept of social capital has its roots in sociology but is now widely used in different fields (Chelihi et al. 2020 ). According to the sociologist Bourdieu ( 1986 , p. 247), social capital represents: “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” It is then considered as a resource that is acquired and maintained individually (Chelihi et al. 2020 ). For others, social capital constitutes “resources and attributes of social organization (communities, regions, countries)” (Chelihi et al. 2020 , p. 9) and encompasses both links and networks, as well as norms and values shared by the community. Norris et al. ( 2008 ) considered social capital as a combination of social support, social embeddedness, organizational ties, leadership and sense of community.

Resilience building actions and interventions are mostly carried out at the community level (McDonnell 2020 ), often through a community-based approach. This type of approach is used in several areas, whether it is for DRR (community-based disaster risk reduction—CBDRR), management (community-based management—CBM), adaptation (community-based adaptation—CBA), or development (community-driven development) objectives. It represents “a community-led process, based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, which should empower people to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change” (Reid et al. 2009 , p. 13), disaster risk, or sustainable development challenges. Based on the principle of inclusiveness, this approach places social aspects and the role of communities at the center of disaster risk management (Frankenberger et al. 2013 ). All members of the community are actively involved in decision making at all stages of the process (Shaw 2016 ), using participatory processes that mobilize a diversity of local actors and value local knowledge (Berkes 2007 ; Bahadur et al. 2013 ). The CBA is also based on the development of autonomy and self-organization of communities through capacity building of local actors. To enable communities to make the necessary transformations, this approach needs a decentralization of powers and the transfer of resources for effective risk management, local development, and environmental governance (Bahadur et al. 2013 ; UNDRR 2019 ; Davis et al. 2021 ). Proponents of this approach emphasize strengthening networks, connections, relationships, and social capital as well as improving community engagement and understanding (Mileti 1999 ; Gunderson and Folke 2005 ; Norris et al. 2008 ). It is also directly connected to the bottom-up management process whose activities can then be institutionalized (Shaw 2016 ). The UNDRR’s Local Risk Reduction and Resilience Strategy is a planning tool for local actors to integrate a DRR approach into local development and resilience building (UNDRR 2019 ).

6 Issues and Challenges

Resilience is a very promising concept for disaster risk management, but the lack of consensus on its definition is still a major challenge to its operationalization and assessment (Bollettino et al. 2017 ). To date, there is no unified approach to resilience, no single way to define it, measure it, or promote it to our communities (Demiroz and Haase 2019 ), which poses a challenge to its practical application. Because resilience is a complex, multi-dimensional and multi-scalar term, it brings several complications to its application. Its use implies a sharing of challenges and responsibilities between scales of intervention and practice and thus requires a multi-sectorial, multi-scalar, and inter-scalar approach (Bahadur et al. 2013 ; Bahadur and Pichon 2016 ). Some authors even consider the concept too imprecise to contribute significantly to DRR (Manyena 2006 ).

As an umbrella concept with many intangible factors, resilience is even more difficult to measure and model, further complicating the assessment of measures that claim to develop or strengthen it (Berkes and Ross 2013 ; Cutter 2016 ; Bollettino et al. 2017 ). While across the scientific community, a wide variety of approaches, frameworks, indices, and indicators have been developed to assess it (Ruszczyk 2019 ; Clark-Ginsberg et al. 2020 ), there is still little empirical data on the actual understanding and use of resilience by practitioners (Matyas and Pelling 2015 ). To date, it remains difficult to justify funding for resilience-based activities and to assess the results in a reliable and effective way for communities and investors.

There is also a lack of consensus on what resilience is. In the policy context, the concept is often used as an endpoint, an ideal to be achieved. In the sciences, resilience represents an attribute or a set of attributes, capacities, and conditions that can be developed, constructed, and measured (Reghezza-Zitt et al. 2012 ). For others, it should be considered as: “a complex of social processes that allow local communities to self-organize and enact positive collective action for community survival and wellbeing” (Imperiale and Vanclay 2016 , p. 207). In this sense, resilience represents a process or set of processes, rather than an endpoint, involving learning, anticipation, and improvement of basic structures, actors, and system functions (Norris et al. 2008 ; Mitchell and Harris 2012 ). From a utilitarian perspective, resilience can also be understood as both a process and an outcome (Matyas and Pelling 2015 ).

As a buzzword overused in political discourses since the twenty-first century (Mitchell and Harris 2012 ; Deeming et al. 2018 ), resilience has lost some of its meaning and credibility, especially for practitioners and citizens. Moreover, many believe that resilience, especially of communities, necessarily leads to better outcomes for all (Imperiale and Vanclay 2016 ; Patel et al. 2017 ) or is a positive indicator of development (McDonnell 2020 ). Yet the concept could be used to reinforce unethical practices or hegemonies or undesirable situations such as environmental degradation (Alexander 2013 ; MacKinnon and Derickson 2013 ), political marginalization of the vulnerable, poverty, or systemic corruption (Mochizuki et al. 2018 ). To address what some call the “dark side of resilience,” it is therefore important to pay particular attention to the power in communities so that the resilience of one group does not come at the expense of another group and that efforts to strengthen it do not contribute to perpetuating vulnerabilities (Matyas and Pelling 2015 ; McDonnell 2020 ). It is thus essential to practice critical resilience thinking through locality and marginality and to ask who benefits from resilience and who pays the cost, especially in the DRR, climate change adaption (CCA), human development, and spatial planning fields (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015 ; Cutter 2016 ).

Furthermore, resilience has been associated with neoliberal perspectives and agendas (Cutter et al. 2013 ; MacKinnon and Derickson 2013 ) by encouraging the development of solutions for constant growth and competitive advantages for territories (Oliva and Lazzeretti 2017 ). From this perspective, resilience can be used as a moralizing discourse that, through the promotion of community autonomy, transfers the heavy responsibility of disaster management to individuals and communities without offering the necessary institutional support for its adequate management (Walker and Cooper 2011 ; Bankoff 2019 ; McDonnell 2020 ). Resilience approaches are generally conducted from an apolitical perspective. Yet, this desire for neutrality can lead to a narrow and one-dimensional resilience thinking that will keep addressing the symptoms rather than achieve the necessary structural transformations (Davis et al. 2021 ). In the end, all agree on the importance of developing and strengthening community resilience to disaster risks. However, the understanding of resilience is still too unclear to allow for adequate planning of practices on the one hand, and the development of tools and methodologies to address, engage, and strengthen local communities on the other hand (Hutter and Kuhlicke 2013 ; Mitchell 2013 ; Imperiale and Vanclay 2016 ).

7 Opportunities

Despite the challenges it imposes, resilience nevertheless offers a range of opportunities, including that of offering a holistic multi-hazard, even all-hazard, multi-scalar, and integrated approach (Berkes 2007 ; Bahadur and Pichon 2016 ). Resilience refers to the capacities of systems, communities, and societies, and these are applicable to different hazards and their dynamics, allowing for an integrative perspective (Ruszczyk 2019 ).

Then, the concept of resilience has great applicability. It can be applied to almost any phenomenon that involves a shock or stress (Alexander 2013 ). It offers an answer to the question: How do we prepare for the unknown? (Fekete et al. 2014 ). More concretely, resilience, as defined in the field of risk and disaster, applies to a broad spectrum of objects, in multiple practice settings, and at multiple spatial and temporal scales. With so many uses and possible applications, it is important to be clear about the parameters of resilience that are being analyzed and put into practice—especially, since there is no single recipe for building resilience, as it is intrinsically linked to the context of its object of analysis (Demiroz and Haase 2019 ). Thus, the resilience of a family in the context of a pandemic cannot be compared to the resilience of a regional road network in the context of a terrorist risk or to that of a municipality in the context of climate change.

Some consider resilience to be a multidisciplinary concept given its use in many disciplines (Upadhyay and Sa-ngiamwibool 2021 ). Characterized by a high degree of interdisciplinarity, it constitutes an effective frontier object that allows the bringing together of different political agendas, including those of the humanitarian and development fields (Matyas and Pelling 2015 ), and thus contributes to the development of transversal competences of actors at all levels. The imprecise nature of resilience and its conceptual flexibility can even benefit communication and knowledge exchange across disciplinary boundaries and between the fields of science, policy, and practice (Klein et al. 2003 ; Fekete et al. 2014 ; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015 ; Deeming et al. 2018 ; Moser et al. 2019 ; Ruszczyk 2019 ). Resilience also allows for an interdisciplinary look at some global challenges that, until recently, were generally understood separately such as DRR, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development (MacAskill and Guthrie 2014 ; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015 ; Bollettino et al. 2017 ). Through its evolution, the concept of resilience is moving away from its original definition from ecology, psychology, and the physical sciences and now offers greater interdisciplinarity among these three broad fields (Gero et al. 2011 ; Schipper et al. 2016 ; Kelman 2017 ; Ruszczyk 2019 ). This inherent interconnectedness contributes to the convergence of ideas but more importantly practices guided by the concept of resilience (Bahadur et al. 2013 ; Matyas and Pelling 2015 ; Mochizuki et al. 2018 ).

Adaptation has gained significant importance as a fundamental component of resilience, establishing an unmistakable conceptual bridge with the notion of climate change adaptation. The latter represents an “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which mitigates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (UNFCCC 2021 ). Adaptation can be incremental and “maintain the essence and integrity of a system or process at a given scale” (IPCC 2018 , p. 542) or transformational and change “the fundamental attributes of a social-ecological system in anticipation of climate change and its impacts” (IPCC 2018 , p. 542). Whether it is through hydro-climatic risk management or the development of climate resilience, there are many points of intersection between the two fields. Moreover, while risk management has long been associated with a rather short time horizon (Thomalla et al. 2006 ), the conceptual evolution of resilience towards adaptation and anticipation opens the door to longer-term planning, allowing a better linkage with climate change adaptation objectives. For Lama et al. ( 2017 ), adaptation and resilience have become complementary objectives to be achieved to reduce vulnerability. However, the relationship between these two concepts is not simple and certain aspects must be considered for risk and sustainable development to ensure that adaptation and resilience are developed and strengthened effectively. These include the importance of making explicit the values, goals, and aspirations that drive the process; the spatial and scalar delineation of the individuals, households, and communities involved and their relationships; and the precise definition of the time period involved (Lama et al. 2017 ).

Resilience is also intrinsically linked to sustainable development, whether through territorial planning activities, resource management, or vulnerability factors. Sustainable development constitutes “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Imperatives 1987 , p. 14). Its process is based on the reconciliation of three basic elements, which are interdependent and all indispensable to the well-being of individuals and societies: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection (United Nations 2021 ). Sustainable development calls for and promotes the following elements: concerted action; poverty eradication; sustainable, equitable, and inclusive economic growth; creation of opportunities for all; reduction of inequality; improvement of basic living conditions; equitable social development; inclusion; and integrated and sustainable management of natural resources (United Nations 2021 ). Resilience and sustainable development enjoy a mutually positive relationship. Sustainable development can contribute to economic development activities that consider hazards and help reduce rather than exacerbate risk. In turn, resilience helps protect development efforts and their sustainability. Furthermore, resilience is linked to environmental protection through nature-based solutions and the ecosystem-based approach. For Mabon ( 2019 ), post-disaster recovery is an opportunity to reflect on how nature-based solutions can help a community to rebound differently, to build back greener. The ecosystem-based approach is used both in the field of climate change adaptation (ecosystem-based adaptation—EbA) and in the field of disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR), it gives a central role to ecosystems in adaptation and in disaster risk management. It consists of “the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adapting strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change” (UNDRR 2020 , p. 10). This approach thus refers to “the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to reduce disaster risk, with the aim to achieve sustainable and resilient development” (UNDRR 2020 , p. 10). The increasing importance of the principle of equity within the concept of resilience also contributes to bringing it closer to the objectives of sustainable development. According to Twigg ( 2007 ), the equitable distribution of wealth and assets and an equitable economy are essential to the development of community resilience. Thus, building community resilience should never be about maintaining the status quo, but rather about moving toward more equitable conditions (Cutter 2016 ; Amobi et al. 2019 ).

8 Conclusion

Resilience has undeniably become one of the big ideas of our time for dealing with uncertainty (Ruszczyk 2019 ). Beyond its catchy and all-encompassing nature, the concept is now being used as the basis for reflective decisions and concrete practices (Matyas and Pelling 2015 ), particularly by local communities. As discussions on resilience in the context of disaster risk, climate change, and sustainable development continue, its conceptualizations have yet to converge into a widely accepted framework (Mochizuki et al. 2018 ). Concerns and debates remain about its operationalization, effectiveness, and especially about the equity issues associated with it. The great conceptual evolution that resilience has undergone also raises questions. To what extent can a concept evolve, move away from its original meaning, without becoming distorted? Is resilience really the result of the evolution of efforts and the paradigm shift that disaster risk management has undergone in recent decades? Or has resilience reached its limit and are we seeing the emergence of a new, integrative concept?

Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social–ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737): 1036–1039.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldunce, P., R. Beilin, J. Handmer, and M. Howden. 2014. Framing disaster resilience: The implications of the diverse conceptualisations of “bouncing back”. Disaster Prevention and Management 23(3): 252–270.

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

Amobi, A., M. Lewis, A. Novais, and N. Alexander-Scott. 2019. ASTHO president’s challenge: Core principles for building community resilience. American Journal of Public Health 109(S4): S277–S278.

Aven, T. 2011. On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Analysis 31(4): 515–522.

Bahadur, A., and F. Pichon. 2016. Analysis of resilience measurement frameworks and approaches. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Bahadur, A.V., M. Ibrahim, and T. Tanner. 2013. Characterising resilience: Unpacking the concept for tackling climate change and development. Climate and Development 5(1): 5–65.

Bankoff, G. 2019. Remaking the world in our own image: Vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation as historical discourses. Disasters 43(2): 221–239.

Béné, C. 2013. Towards a quantifiable measure of resilience. IDS Working Papers 2013(434): 1–27.

Béné, C., R.G. Wood, A. Newsham, and M. Davies. 2012. Resilience: New utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working Papers 2012(405): 1–61.

Berkes, F. 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 41(2): 283–295.

Berkes, F., and H. Ross. 2013. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Resources 26(1): 5–20.

Bollettino, V., T. Alcayma, P. Dy, and P. Vinck. 2017. Introduction to socio-ecological resilience . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of social capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education , ed. J. Richardson, 241–258. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Chelihi, M., J. Arnaud, J.-M. Normandin, and M.-C. Therrien. 2020. Social capital as an innovative vector of urban resilience: Detailed report ( Le capital social comme vecteur innovant de résilience urbaine: Rapport détaillé. Rapport de recherche ). Cité-ID LivingLab Gouvernance de la résilience urbaine. Montréal: École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP). https://cite-id.com/documents/le-cit%C3%A9-id-lance-son-rapport-le-capital-social-comme-vecteur-innovant-de-r%C3%A9silience-urbaine/Rapport_Capital_Social_et_R%C3%A9silience_Urbaine.pdf . Accessed 27 May 2022 (in French).

Chen, C., L. Xu, D. Zhao, T. Xu, and P. Lei. 2020. A new model for describing the urban resilience considering adaptability, resistance and recovery. Safety Science 128: Article 104756.

Chisty, M.A., S.E.A. Dola, N.A. Khan, and M.M. Rahman. 2021. Intersectionality, vulnerability and resilience: Why it is important to review the diversifications within groups at risk to achieve a resilient community. Continuity and Resilience Review 3(2): 119–131.

Clark-Ginsberg, A., B. McCaul, I. Bremaud, G. Caceres, D. Mpanje, S. Patel, and R. Patel. 2020. Practitioner approaches to measuring community resilience: The analysis of the resilience of communities to disasters toolkit. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 50: Article 101714.

Cronstedt, M. 2002. Prevention, preparedness, response, recovery an outdated concept? Australian Journal of Emergency Management 17(2): Article 10.

Cutter, S.L. 2016. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom?. The Geographical Journal 182(2): 110–113.

Cutter, S.L., J.A. Ahearn, B. Amadei, P. Crawford, E.A. Eide, G.E. Galloway Jr., M.F. Goodchild, and H.C. Kunreuther et al. 2013. Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55(2): 25–29.

Cutter, S.L., K.D. Ash, and C.T. Emrich. 2014. The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change 29: 65–77.

Cutter, S.L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18(4): 598–606.

Davis, S., L. Horlings, T. Van Dijk, and H. Rau. 2021. Towards representative resilience: The power of culture to foster local resource representation. Local Environment 26(12): 1564–1585.

Deeming, H., M. Fordham, C. Kuhlicke, L. Pedoth, S. Schneiderbauer, and C. Shreve, eds. 2018. In Framing community disaster resilience: Resources, capacities, learning, and action . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Demiroz, F., and T.W. Haase. 2019. The concept of resilience: A bibliometric analysis of the emergency and disaster management literature. Local Government Studies 45(3): 308–327.

Fekete, A., G. Hufschmidt, and S. Kruse. 2014. Benefits and challenges of resilience and vulnerability for disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 5(1): 3–20.

Frankenberger, T., M. Mueller, T. Spangler, and S. Alexander. 2013. Community resilience: Conceptual framework and measurement feed the future learning agenda . Rockville, MD: Westat.

Gero, A., K. Méheux, and D. Dominey-Howes. 2011. Integrating community based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Examples from the Pacific. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11(1): 101–113.

Gunderson, L., and C. Folke. 2005. Resilience: Now more than ever . Ecology and Society 10(2): Article 22.

Haase, T.W., W.J. Wang, and A.D. Ross. 2021. The six capacities of community resilience: Evidence from three small Texas communities impacted by Hurricane Harvey. Natural Hazards 109(1): 1097–1118.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.

Holling, C.S., and L.H. Gunderson. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Hutter, G., and C. Kuhlicke. 2013. Resilience, talk and action: Exploring the meanings of resilience in the context of planning and institutions. Planning Practice and Research 28(3): 294–306.

Hyunjung, J. 2018. Linking risk reduction and community resilience . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Imperatives, S. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf . Accessed 27 June 2021.

Imperiale, A.J., and F. Vanclay. 2016. Experiencing local community resilience in action: Learning from post-disaster communities. Journal of Rural Studies 47: 204–219.

Innocenti, D., and P. Albrito. 2011. Reducing the risks posed by natural hazards and climate change: The need for a participatory dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers. Environmental Science and Policy 14(7): 730–733.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Annex II: Glossary. In Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects . Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, et al., 1757–1776. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2018. Special report on global warming of 1.5 °C. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jeans, H., S. Thomas, and G. Castillo. 2016. The future is a choice: The Oxfam framework and guidance for resilient development . Oxford: Routledge.

Keen, M., V.A. Brown, and R. Dyball. 2005. Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future . Oxford: Routledge.

Kelman, I. 2017. Linking disaster risk reduction, climate change, and the sustainable development goals. Disaster Prevention and Management 26(3): 254–258.

Kennedy, J., J. Ashmore, E. Babister, and I. Kelman. 2008. The meaning of “build back better”: Evidence from post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 16(1): 24–36.

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls, and F. Thomalla. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 5(1): 35–45.

Koliou, M., J.W. van de Lindt, T.P. McAllister, B.R. Ellingwood, M. Dillard, and H. Cutler. 2020. State of the research in community resilience: Progress and challenges. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 5(3): 131–151.

Lama, P.D., P. Becker, and J. Bergström. 2017. Scrutinizing the relationship between adaptation and resilience: Longitudinal comparative case studies across shocks in two Nepalese villages. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 23: 193–203.

Mabon, L. 2019. Enhancing post-disaster resilience by “building back greener”: Evaluating the contribution of nature-based solutions to recovery planning in Futaba County, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan . Landscape and Urban Planning 187: Article 105118.

MacAskill, K., and P. Guthrie. 2014. Multiple interpretations of resilience in disaster risk management. Procedia Economics and Finance 18: 667–674.

MacKinnon, D., and K.D. Derickson. 2013. From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of resilience policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography 37(2): 253–270.

Manyena, S.B. 2006. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 30(4): 434–450.

Manyena, S.B., G. O’Brien, P. O’Keefe, and J. Rose. 2011. Disaster resilience: A bounce back or bounce forward ability?. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 16(5): 417–424.

Matyas, D., and M. Pelling. 2015. Positioning resilience for 2015: The role of resistance, incremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy. Disasters 39(s1): s1–s18.

McDonnell, S. 2020. Other dark sides of resilience: Politics and power in community-based efforts to strengthen resilience. Anthropological Forum 30(1–2): 55–72.

McEntire, D.A., C. Fueller, C.W. Johnston, and R. Weber. 2002. A comparison of disaster paradigms: The search for a holistic policy guide. Public Administration Review 62(3): 267–281.

McEwen, L., A. Holmes, N. Quinn, and P. Cobbing. 2018. Learning for resilience: Developing community capital through flood action groups in urban flood risk settings with lower social capital. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27: 329–342.

Meng, B., N. Li, and D. Fang. 2018. Attributes, challenges and future directions of community resilience. Frontiers Engineering 5(3): 307–323.

Mileti, D.S. 1999. Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States . Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Mitchell, A. 2013. Risk and resilience: From good idea to good practice. In OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers . Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3ttg4cxcbp-en .

Mitchell, T., and K. Harris. 2012. Resilience: A risk management approach. ODI background note . London: Overseas Development Institute.

Mochizuki, J., A. Keating, W. Liu, S. Hochrainer-Stigler, and R. Mechler. 2018. An overdue alignment of risk and resilience? A conceptual contribution to community resilience. Disasters 42(2): 361–391.

Moser, S., S. Meerow, J. Arnott, and E. Jack-Scott. 2019. The turbulent world of resilience: Interpretations and themes for transdisciplinary dialogue. Climatic Change 153(1): 21–40.

Norris, F.H., S.P. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K.F. Wyches, and R.L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1–2): 127–150.

O’Brien, G., and P. O’Keefe. 2013. The concept of resilience. In Managing adaptation to climate risk—Beyond fragmented responses , ed. G. O’Brien, and P. O’Keefe, 118–147. London: Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Oliva, S., and L. Lazzeretti. 2017. Adaptation, adaptability and resilience: The recovery of Kobe after the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995. European Planning Studies 25(1): 67–87.

Olwig, M.F. 2012. Multi-sited resilience: The mutual construction of “local” and “global” understandings and practices of adaptation and innovation. Applied Geography 33: 112–118.

Patel, S.S., M.B. Rogers, R. Amlôt, and G.J. Rubin. 2017. What do we mean by “community resilience”? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Currents Disasters 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2 .

Paton, D. 2006. Disaster resilience: Integrating individual, community, institutional and environmental perspectives. In Disaster resilience: An integrated approach , ed. D. Paton, and D. Johnston, 305–316. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Paton, D., and D. Johnston. 2017. Disaster resilience: An integrated approach , 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Reggiani, A., P. Nijkamp, and D. Lanzi. 2015. Transport resilience and vulnerability: The role of connectivity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 81(C): 4–15.

Reghezza-Zitt, M., S. Rufat, G. Djament-Tran, A. Le Blanc, and S. Lhomme. 2012. What resilience is not: Uses and abuses. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography . https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.25554 .

Reid, H., M. Alam, R. Berger, T. Cannon, S. Huq, and A. Milligan. 2009. Community-based adaptation to climate change: An overview. In Community-based adaptation to climate change , Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) series, no. 60, ed. H. Reid, T. Cannon, R. Berger, M. Alam, and A. Milligan, 11−33. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Rogers, P. 2011. Development of resilient Australia: Enhancing the PPRR approach with anticipation, assessment and registration of risks . Australian Journal of Emergency Management 26(1): Article 54.

Rubim, I.C., and M.R.S. Borges. 2017. The resilience and its dimensions. In Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM) , 21–24 May 2017, Albi, France, 457–463.

Ruszczyk, H.A. 2019. Ambivalence towards discourse of disaster resilience. Disasters 43(4): 818–839.

Schipper, E.L.F., F. Thomalla, G. Vulturius, M. Davis, and K. Johnson. 2016. Linking disaster risk reduction, climate change and development. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 7(2): 216–228.

Shaw, R. 2016. Community-based disaster risk reduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomalla, F., T. Downing, E. Spanger-Siegfried, G. Han, and J. Rockström. 2006. Reducing hazard vulnerability: Towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. Disasters 30(1): 39–48.

Tierney, K., and M. Bruneau. 2007. Conceptualizing and measuring resilience: A key to disaster loss reduction. TR News 250: 14–17.

Turner, B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, and J.X. Kasperson et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 100(14): 8074–8079.

Twigg, J. 2007. Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note . London: Department for International Development (DFID).

Twigg, J. 2015. Disaster risk reduction. Good practice review 9 . London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Humanitarian Policy Group.

UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2019. Words into Action guidelines: Implementation guide for local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies . Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2020. Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction: Implementing nature-based solutions for resilience. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2021. Terminology. https://www.undrr.org/terminology . Accessed 18 April 2021.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2021. Climate change glossary, acronyms and terms ( Lexique du changement climatique, acronymes et termes ). https://unfccc.int/fr/process-and-meetings/the-convention/lexique-du-changement-climatique-acronymes-et-termes#a . Accessed 18 April 2021 (in French).

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2005. Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Extract from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (A/CONF.206/6). Geneva: UNISDR.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030 . Geneva: UNISDR.

United Nations. 2021. Sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/fr/development-agenda/ . Accessed 27 June 2021.

Upadhyay, A., and A. Sa-ngiamwibool. 2021. A systematic literature review of community disaster resilience: Main and related research areas and agendas. Continuity and Resilience Review 3(2): 192–205.

Walker, B., C.S. Holling, S.R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems . Ecology and Society 9(2): Article 5.

Walker, J., and M. Cooper. 2011. Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue 42(2): 143–160.

Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman. 2015. Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography 39(3): 249–267.

Williams, T.A., and D.A. Shepherd. 2016. Building resilience or providing sustenance: Different paths of emergent ventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Academy of Management Journal 59(6): 2069–2102.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institut des Sciences de l’Environnement (ISE), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, H3C 3P8, Canada

Marie-Hélène Graveline & Daniel Germain

Department of Geography, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, H3C 3P8, Canada

Daniel Germain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Hélène Graveline .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Graveline, MH., Germain, D. Disaster Risk Resilience: Conceptual Evolution, Key Issues, and Opportunities. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 13 , 330–341 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-022-00419-0

Download citation

Accepted : 14 May 2022

Published : 21 June 2022

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-022-00419-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Disaster risk
  • Sustainable development
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research
  • Get Involved

Australia and UNDP partner to build disaster and climate resilience in the Philippines

March 2, 2021.

Australian Ambassador to the Philippines H.E. Steven J. Robinson AO (left) and UNDP Philippines Resident Representative Selva Ramachandran (right) at the ceremonial signing of the partnership between the Australian Government and the United Nations Development Programme which aims to strengthen disaster resilience of targeted local governments in the next six years.

Metro Manila – The Australian Government and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Philippines signed an agreement for a new initiative that will strengthen the disaster and climate resilience of targeted local governments in the Philippines. Through the strategic partnership, the Australian Government will invest PHP630 million (AUD18 million) for the initiative to be implemented over the next six years.

Dubbed as the SHIELD (Strengthening Institutions and Empowering Localities against Disasters and Climate Change) Program , the initiative will particularly work with local governments, as the first responders to emergencies, by building their institutional and community resilience capacities against natural hazards and climate change. SHIELD will be implemented by UNDP, together with consortium partners UN-Habitat, Philippine Business for Social Progress, National Resilience Council, and the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society.

While significant progress has been made in disaster risk reduction and management and climate action, the Philippines remains among the countries most vulnerable to natural hazards and climate change impacts globally. The cost of disasters to the country is significantly high, with local governments and communities bearing the brunt.

Australian Ambassador to the Philippines Steven J. Robinson AO said this new investment affirms Australia’s continued commitment to the Philippines as a dependable partner in building the long-term disaster and climate resilience of its institutions and its people.

“Enhancing resilience remains a high priority for Australia, particularly in the Philippines, which is extremely vulnerable to disasters and the impacts of climate change. Through SHIELD, we will work with governments, private sector, civil society and academic institutions to enhance and sustain community resilience,” Ambassador Robinson further added.

The SHIELD program endeavors to accelerate resilience-building efforts in the Philippines by collaborating with multiple stakeholders to unlock financing and implement risk-informed and inclusive resilience actions at the local level. The initiative will also support the national government establish the needed enabling environment and work with Philippine scientific agencies to produce tailored and accessible information that will inform local resilience actions.

“Through SHIELD, our ultimate aim is for our target communities to be safer and more resilient to the impacts of natural hazards and climate change, taking also into account the lessons brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. It bears noting that the program also puts importance on gender equality, disability, and social inclusion in the context of resilience-building,” noted Dr. Selva Ramachandran, UNDP Philippines Resident Representative.

The six-year program will be implemented in ten of the country’s most vulnerable provinces to disaster and climate change impacts. It will also cover Metro Manila, given its vulnerability to earthquakes and its economic significance, along with the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), with the increasing disaster and climate vulnerability of conflict-affected areas.

Related Content

disaster resilience philippines essay

Press Releases

Safeguarding local communities against disasters.

In every region or province, the impacts of disasters and climate change vary across communities. Location, particularly the proximity to volcanoes, rivers, and s...

disaster resilience philippines essay

Australia, DILG, and UNDP strengthen disaster risk resilience in the Philippines

Over 160 representatives from 12 provinces and regions, gathered for the first Annual SHIELD Stakeholders Forum hosted by the Australian Government, the Departmen...

disaster resilience philippines essay

Davao Oriental bats for resilient Australia-UNDP support through SHIELD

To strengthen the disaster and climate resilience of its emerging tourism and agribusiness sectors, the Provincial Government of Davao Oriental entered into a par...

disaster resilience philippines essay

Get Airports Ready for Disaster Program held in Laguindingan Airport

The GARD Program is a global public-private partnership aimed at supporting airports in planning for their role as logistical hubs in the event of natural disaste...

disaster resilience philippines essay

Australia and UNDP back Metro Manila in enhancing evidence-based approaches against disaster and climate threats

To mitigate climate and disaster risks in the region, the Department of the Interior and Local Government in the NCR (DILG-NCR) agreed to collaborate with the Uni...


The importance of well-being on resiliency of filipino adults during the covid-19 enhanced community quarantine: a necessary condition analysis.

Desiderio S. Camitan IV

  • 1 College of Arts and Sciences, Manila Tytana Colleges, Pasay, Philippines
  • 2 Psycli-Nik Psychological Assessment and Intervention Services, Zamboanga City, Philippines

Nation-wide community quarantines and social distancing are part of the new normal because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Since extensive and prolonged lockdowns are relatively novel experiences, not much is known about the well-being of individuals in such extreme situations. This research effort investigated the relationship between well-being elements and resiliency of 533 Filipino adults who were placed under the nationwide enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants comprised of 376 females (70.56%) and 157 males (29.45%). The median and mode ages of the participants is 23 years, while 25 is the mean age. PERMA Profiler was used to measure participants’ well-being elements, while Connor-Davidson Resiliency Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10) was used to measure their resiliency. Collected data were analyzed using the regression model and necessary condition analysis. This study corroborated that all the five pillars of well-being are significant positive correlates of resiliency ( p < 0.00) in quarantined adults. The results shown accomplishment ( β = 0.447, p < 0.01) positively predicts resiliency, while negative emotions ( β = −0.171, p < 0.00) negatively predict resiliency. Lastly, the five pillars of well-being are necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions (ceiling envelopment with free disposal hull, CE-FDH p < 0.00) of resiliency. Our results cast a new light on well-being elements as constraints rather than enablers of resiliency. This novel result shows that optimum resiliency is only possible when all the five pillars of well-being are taken care of and when a person is at least minimally contented with their physical health. The present findings underscore the importance of a holistic as against an atomistic approach to maintaining good mental health, which suggests that deficiencies in certain areas of well-being may not be fully addressed by overcompensating on other areas, as all five pillars of well-being are necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions of resiliency. The study ends with the recommendation for the use of necessary condition analysis to study both classical and novel psychological research problems.

The Importance of Well-Being on Resiliency of Filipino Adults During the COVID-19 Who are Community Quarantined

The infectious Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which causes respiratory illness includes flu-like symptoms such as cough, fever, and in more severe cases, breathing difficulties. COVID-19 is mainly spread through contact with an infected person who sneezes or coughs. It can be acquired when a person touches their eyes, nose, or mouth after touching objects or surfaces that have the virus on it ( World Health Organization, 2020 ). Starting December 2019, countries imposed travel bans and asked individuals who have possibly been exposed to the contagion to isolate themselves in a dedicated quarantine facility or at home ( Brooks et al., 2020 ) at an unprecedented scale. The Philippines reported its first case of COVID-19 on January 30, 2020. Since then, the number of reported cases exponentially increased by the day ( ABS-CBN Investigative and Research Group, 2020 ). As of December 12, 2020, 447,039 infected cases were reported throughout the country. Of the total number of cases, 409,329 have recovered, and 8,709 have died ( Department of Health, 2020 ).

As a response to the growing threat of the pandemic, the entire Luzon was placed under enhanced community quarantine (ECQ; Medialdea, 2020 ). Shortly, both Visayas and Mindanao followed suit. The said measure involves draconian restrictions: that include the establishment of checkpoints in most cities; the suspension of classes in all levels; the prohibition of mass gatherings; the temporary shutting down of non-essential businesses; the banning of public utilized utility vehicles; and the strict implementation of home isolation. Although it was initially planned to end on April 12, 2020 ( Abueg, 2020 ), several subsequent recommendations both from the national and local governments extended the nationwide community quarantine until December 31, 2020 ( CNN Philippines Staff, 2020 ). As the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) shrank 16.5% in the second quarter of 2020, the Philippines officially entered recession as an effect of the extended quarantines ( Agence France-Presse, 2020 ). While quarantine is often among the initial responses against an emerging infectious disease ( Parmet and Sinha, 2020 ), it is often unpleasant for those who are required to submit to it and may lead to several harmful conditions for some persons ( Hawryluck et al., 2004 ; Brooks et al., 2020 ). Hence, the psychological effects of quarantine have received considerable attention. Barbisch et al. (2015) reported that losing autonomy, isolation away from loved ones, uncertainty, and boredom could lead to adverse effects on an individual’s well-being. Following the imposition of cordon sanitaire in previous outbreaks, substantial anger, anxiety and even an increase in suicide rates have been reported ( Brooks et al., 2020 ). Similarly, the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) in the Philippines reported that depression and other mental health issues were on the rise after imposing ECQ in different provinces in the country ( Tenorio, 2020 ).

Well-Being and Its Elements

It is important to note that while quarantines are often unpleasant, their effect on people diverge. While there are individuals who experience mental health issues, there are also those who are more resilient and can move on with their lives. This highlights the importance of studying not only how individuals suffer in light of community quarantines, but also how they cope, and even flourish in the face of such challenging times. Seligman (2011) argued that even in difficult situations, human beings are motivated to thrive and not just merely survive. According to Fredrickson and Losada (2005) , flourishing means living “within an optimal range of human functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience.” Based on this definition, resilience appears to arise from flourishing. Well-being predicts resiliency. For clarity, the terms “flourishing,” “thriving,” and “well-being” are used interchangeably in the literature ( Butler and Kern, 2016 ). Therefore, we also use the terms interchangeably here.

Well-being Theory of Seligman (2011) advocates that flourishing arises from five well-being pillars-Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment, hence PERMA. It is important to note that no single element defines well-being, but each contributes to it. Positive emotions include an extensive variety of feelings, which include excitement, satisfaction, pride, and awe. Previous reviews highlight the important role of these emotions in positive life outcomes ( Butler and Kern, 2016 ). Engagement involves activities that stimulate and develop upon an individual’s interests. Csikszentmihalyi (2009) argues that true engagement leads to a state of deep and effortless involvement where an individual is completely absorbed in an activity that often leads to a sense of joy and lucidity. Relationships are social connections important in stimulating positive emotions. They can either be work-related, familial, romantic, and even platonic. The experiences that contribute to well-being are often amplified through our relationships. Positive relationships have been linked to positive outcomes such as better physical health, healthier behaviors, less psychopathology, and lower mortality risk ( Tay et al., 2013 ). A sense of meaning is derived from having a direction in life, belonging to a cause larger than the self, and serving a purpose greater than one’s immediate needs ( Steger, 2012 ). Such activities provide a sense that life is valuable and worthwhile. Various societal institutions such as religion, politics, justice, and community social causes enable a sense of meaning. Accomplishments are pursuits toward and reaching goals, mastery, and efficacy to complete tasks ( Butler and Kern, 2016 ) in various domains such as the workplace, in sports and games, and even in hobbies and interests. Seligman (2011) argued that people pursue accomplishments even when they do not result in positive emotions, meaning, or relationships. Although PERMA was developed mainly within the Western context, several researches found that PERMA is experienced in culturally consistent manners in non-Western societies such as the United Arab Emirates ( Lambert and Pasha-Zaidi, 2016 ), Hong-Kong ( Lai et al., 2018 ), and the Philippines ( Nebrida and Dullas, 2018 ).

Defining Resilience

Over the past decade, resilience has become a popular concept in both research and clinical practice ( Kumpfer, 2002 ; Walsh-Dilley and Wolford, 2015 ). Despite the lack of consensus in how it is defined ( Vella and Pai, 2019 ), it is accepted that resilience involves the positive adaptation following a stressful or adverse experience ( Porterfield et al., 2010 ). Most definitions acknowledge two key points about resilience ( Herrman et al., 2011 ). First, is that various factors interact with it. For example, personal characteristics such as personality traits ( Oshio et al., 2018 ), self-esteem ( Karatas and Cakar, 2011 ), and even age ( Diehl and Hay, 2010 ) influence resilience. Social and community factors ( Harms et al., 2018 ) such as secure attachments, the presence of a role model ( Levine, 2003 ), family stability ( Grubman, 2018 ), and culture ( Ungar, 2008 ) affect the ability to cope with daily struggles. Second, resilience is time and context-specific and may not be present across all life domains. Resilience appears to be receptive to the influence of specific situations ( Hayman et al., 2017 ) such as unique stressors ( Jex et al., 2013 ) like war and other happenstances ( Besser et al., 2014 ).

While the aforementioned literature provides key insights into the definition, factors, and contexts of resilience, most research focuses on factors are outside the control of the individual. While these researches are important in explaining the development of resilience, they lack emphasis on positive mechanisms, which are behaviors a person can perform to facilitate resilience. While resilience has been studied both in daily and unique stressors, none focused on the novel situation of wide range community quarantines. Therefore, despite the abundance of resilience-related research, the question remains “What positive mechanisms are involved in the resilience of people who are subjected to quarantine?”

The Present Study

In this paper, we introduced a novel approach in understanding the necessary but not sufficient nature of the aforementioned positive aspects of well-being in predicting resiliency. We used Dul (2016) Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), which seeks to identify necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions in data sets ( Dul, 2018 ). A necessary condition is a crucial factor in an outcome. If it is not in place, the outcome will not be achieved, but its sole presence does not guarantee that the outcome will be obtained. Without the necessary condition, however, there is a certain failure, which may not be compensated by other determinants of the outcome. Necessary (but not sufficient) conditions widely exist in real-life. For example, the novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition for COVID-19 ( World Health Organization, 2020 ). Without SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, an individual will not acquire COVID-19. However, even with SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, an individual may or may not acquire COVID-19. In the same light, a college student who wants to pass the course, Introduction to Psychology (the outcome) needs to attend 80% of lecture hours (necessary conditions). However, attending class regularly does not guarantee passing the course as other requirements (examinations, seat-works, research work, and journal critique paper) play a role in a student’s grade. Yet, if the student incurs too many absences and tardiness, failure is guaranteed. As seen in the aforementioned examples, necessary causes are not automatically sufficient. They can be seen as constraints, barriers, or obstacles one needs to deal with to arrive at the desired outcome.

While well-being and resiliency are closely related concepts ( Hu et al., 2015 ) Flourishing model of Seligman’s (2011) perceives resiliency as the result of both “surviving” and “thriving” psychological characteristics. This theoretical relationship between well-being and resilience has gained empirical support in recent years ( Harms et al., 2018 ). For example, Martínez-Martí and Ruch (2017) and Burns and Anstey (2010) demonstrated that measures of well-being are not simply redundant with self-report scales of resilience. At the same time, while the relationship between these two concepts are robust, it is rarely straightforward ( Harms et al., 2018 ). Interestingly, some researchers ( Fredrickson et al., 2003 ; Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004 ; Ong et al., 2006 , 2010 ; Kuntz et al., 2016 ) argued that optimal levels of PERMA elements predict resilience in normal sample.

In the light of the foregoing, the present study aims to investigate how PERMA predicts the resiliency of community quarantined individuals. An explanation of possible necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions of resiliency during quarantine may have both theoretical and practical value. Theoretically, an investigation of this sort allows the advancement of our understanding of how a multitude of variables coalesces to produce resiliency in times of quarantine and social isolation. This is significant as wide-range and prolonged quarantines are relatively novel experiences. Hence, not much is known about its psychological implications for human beings. Psychological interventions may target different necessary-but-not-sufficient variables jointly. Because of NCA’s ability to identify bottleneck variables ( Dul, 2019a ), conditions that must be present for resiliency to be possible, interventions may prioritize bottleneck variables of resiliency to maximize the use of limited resources. Lastly, identifying necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions for resiliency may also help individuals who are quarantined to develop their understanding of the behaviors they need to engage to have resiliency. Following this logic, we hypothesize that:

H 01 : PERMA elements predict the resiliency of the community-quarantined individuals.

H 02 : PERMA elements are necessary, but not sufficient conditions, for the resiliency of the community-quarantined individuals.


Research design.

To test the assumption that PERMA elements are both sufficient and necessary conditions of resiliency in community quarantined individuals, sufficiency and necessity observational design were used concurrently. In these designs, the conditions (PERMA) and the outcome (resiliency) are observed in real-life context and without the manipulation of the condition. While sufficiency and necessity observational research designs follow the same data gathering procedures, they diverge in data analysis. Dul (2016) argued that NCA is a complement to traditional approaches to analyze relations. As in our research, by using multiple regression we could spot determinants that contribute to resiliency, whereas NCA allowed us to spot critical determinants (constraints) that prevent resiliency from developing. These bottlenecks, when present, prevents resiliency from occurring even when we increase the values of other determinants unless we take away the bottlenecks by increasing the value of the critical determinant. NCA lead us to discover critical determinants that were not part of the determinants identified with the regression model. Using both approaches is critical in adequately understanding the resiliency of individuals who are subjected to the extended ECQ.

Research Participants

Because of the restrictions in both mobility and social interactions as direct consequences of the nationwide ECQ, we used purposive – convenience sampling to recruit Filipino Facebook users who reside in communities placed under the ECQ. The survey was promoted through social media, primarily on Facebook. A total of 541 participants responded to our online survey via Google Form. The minimum age reported was 16 years old, while the maximum age was 64 years old with a median of 23. Because resiliency scores are contingent to age, only those whose ages ranged between emerging adulthood to early middle adulthood (18–40) were included in the study.

Inclusion Criteria

Participants that were considered to partake in the research met the following criteria: first, a participant must be aged 18 to 40 years old. Second, he/she resides in a quarantined area in the Philippines. Third, a participant must be a Filipino citizen as social and cultural factors influence resiliency.

Exclusion Criteria

A participant was excluded in the research because of the following conditions: first, a participant aged less than 18 years old and over 40 years old, a participant who refused to completely answer the online survey questionnaires, and a participant who does not reside in a quarantine area in the Philippines.

Ethical Considerations

In dealing with the participants, respect and protection of the privacy of the participants were prioritized. Thus, privacy and anonymity was of paramount importance. Also, voluntary participation of the chosen participants for said the study was important. Participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any phase of the research if they wished to do so.

Potential participants were fully informed regarding the research, full consent was essential and obtained from the participants. The first page of the online questionnaire required participants to check a box to show consent before having access to the survey. The principle of informed consent involved the researchers providing sufficient information and assurances about taking part to allow potential participants to understand the implications of participation and to reach a fully informed, considered, and freely decided about whether to do so, without the exercise of any pressure or coercion. No incentives were provided in return for their participation.

In collecting data through online surveys, we minimized intrusions on privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality. Before data collection, an adequate level of confidentiality of the research data was ensured to the participants to make them feel secured and protected with the information they shared or contributed. Also, any communication about the research was observed with respect and transparency. Ultimately, research participants are not subjected to harm.

Research Instruments

Google Forms was used to gather sociodemographic variables from the sample and deliver the following self-administered scales, which were used to measure the variables of the current study. Specifically, we used the Connor-Davidson Resiliency Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10) to measure their resiliency, and the PERMA Profiler to measure participants’ well-being elements.

Connor-Davidson Resiliency Scale

The CD-RISC-10 is a 10 item scale that is used to measure resiliency, operationally defined as the ability to “thrive in the face of adversity” ( Connor and Davidson, 2003 ). The unidimensional CD-RISC-10 evaluates several components of psychological pliability: the abilities to adapt to change, manage what comes along, handle stress, stay focused and think clearly, avoid getting discouraged in the face of failure, and handle unpleasant emotions such as pain, sadness, and anger ( Campbell-Sills and Stein, 2007 ). Each item is rated on a five-point range of responses. The total score is computed by getting the sum of all the responses whereby higher scores show high resilience ( Scali et al., 2012 ). Campbell-Sills et al. (2009) maintained that CD-RISC-10 has a median score of 32 with lowest to highest quartiles of 0–29 (Q1), 30–32 (Q2), 33–36 (Q3), and 37–40 (Q4) in general sample. As a widely used scale, CD-RISC-10 has achieved remarkable internal consistency of 0.89 in general population samples. It is both valid and reliable within the context of different cultures, including Filipino samples ( Campbell-Sills and Stein, 2007 ).

PERMA Profiler

The PERMA Profiler is a brief scale that measures the five pillars of well-being: positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishment, together with negative emotions and health ( Butler and Kern, 2016 ) along a 10-point Likert type scale. Of the 23 items, 15 correspond to the five core elements of well-being (three items per PERMA domain). In addition, eight items were included to test negative emotions (three items), physical health (three items), loneliness (one item), and overall well-being (one item). All items are expressed positively and higher scores denote better well-being except for negative emotions. Subscale scores are calculated by getting the mean of the three items on each subscale, except for loneliness. Overall well-being is calculated by averaging all items except those from the negative emotions subscale. The measure has been used in various samples and was found to have sufficient psychometric properties ( Cobo-Rendón et al., 2020 ). Butler and Kern (2016) reported that adequate reliability is observed for overall well-being and all subscales, α range from 0.71 to 0.94 across eight studies ( N = 31,966). According to Nebrida and Dullas (2018) , the Tagalog version of the PERMA Profiler has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.842 in 101 Filipino participants.

In the current study ( n = 533), both PERMA Profiler ( α = 0.927) and CD-RISC-10 ( α = 0.915) have an “excellent” internal consistency. These results confirm that the scales are reliable tools for measuring elements of Well-being and Resiliency, respectively, in our sample.

Data Gathering Procedures

Data gathering lasted from March 23 to April 10, 2020, during the first reset of the nationwide extended ECQ. After securing individuals’ interest to take part in the study, we sent potential participants a link to the survey via Facebook Messenger. The first section of the Google Form shows the title of the research and an overview of the current study. After giving consent, participants could fill out the survey. Participants cannot answer the scales without explicitly agreeing to partake in the study. After securing informed consent, each participant was asked to provide their sociodemographic characteristics and then answer the PERMA Profiler and the CD-RSC-10. Answering both scales did not take the participants more than 20 min. After completing the questionnaire, each participant was virtually debriefed.

At any point, should a participant decide not to proceed with the research, they were free to do so with no implications. All the participant has to do was to close the Google Form window and any previously provided data were not recorded.

Data from Google Form were exported to IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and NCA Software for data analysis.

Data Analysis

Frequency and percentage were used to analyze the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. We used Cronbach’s alpha to determine the internal reliability of the measuring scales. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between PERMA elements and potential predictors of resiliency. Lastly, we used NCA to analyze whether the core elements of well-being are necessary but not sufficient conditions of resiliency.

There are two steps in NCA ( Dul et al., 2019 ), determining ceiling lines and bottleneck tables are the first. Unlike traditional regression models where a line is drawn through the middle of the data in an XY-plot, a ceiling line is created in NCA. This line distinguishes between areas with cases and areas without cases, the zone found in the upper left-hand corner of the plot. However, exceptions such as outliers and errors may be present in a sample so that the empty zone above the ceiling is not empty ( Karwowski et al., 2016 ). The ceiling line is a non-decreasing line (either a linear step function or a straight line) that shows which level of x (well-being elements) is necessary but not sufficient in producing the desired level of y (resiliency).

Dul (2016) identified two techniques in drawing the ceiling line. The first is the non-parametric Ceiling Envelopment with Free Disposal Hull (CE-FDH), which is a piecewise linear line. It is the default ceiling envelopment technique for NCA because it is flexible and intuitive and applies to dichotomous, discrete, and continuous conditions. The second technique is the parametric Ceiling Regression with Free Disposal Hull (CR-FDH), unlike the CE-FDH, this technique smoothens the piecewise linear lines by using a straight line. Because of this, CR-FDH usually has some observations above the ceiling line. Whereas CE-FDH does not. In further comparing the two techniques, CE-FDH is preferred when a straight line does not represent the data because smoothing reduces the size of the ceiling zone as with dichotomous variables and for discrete and continuous variables with relatively low small data sets. CE-FDH is 100% accurate in drawing the demarcation between observations above and observations below the ceiling line.

Quantifying the accuracy of ceiling lines, effect size, and statistical significance of the necessary conditions and necessary inefficiency are the second and final step ( Dul et al., 2020 ). The area of the empty zone above the ceiling line divided by the area where cases would be possible given the minimum and maximum values of X and Y is the effect size of a necessary condition ( Karwowski et al., 2016 ). Therefore, large effect size shows lower ceiling line and greater limitations that well-being elements have on resiliency. On the other hand, if there is a lack of empty space in the scatter plot then well-being elements are not contingents of resiliency. The effect size of a necessary condition can take the values between 0 and 1 where 0–0.1 corresponds to a small effect, 0.1–0.3 a medium effect, 0.3–0.5 a large effect, and d that is greater than 0.5 a very large effect ( Tynan et al., 2020 ). An R package that allows the calculation of various effect size indicators and inferential statistics useful for hypothesis testing is provided by Dul (2016) . The NCA null hypothesis is that the observed effect size is the same as the effect size calculated using random data ( Dul, 2019b ). An estimation of the probability that the observed necessary condition effect size results from comparing two unrelated variables, otherwise known as permutation test, is used to determine statistical significance in NCA ( Dul et al., 2020 ). Observed values of the x and y variables are randomly paired without replacement. Such pairing continues until the sample size is reached and the process is repeated at least 10,000. The resultant value of p is interpreted using traditional thresholds such as α = 0.05 or α = 0.01. Depending on the context of the research, both significance testing and effect size are useful in determining the theoretical and practical importance of an observed outcome ( Tynan et al., 2020 ). We focus our attention on conditions with both d > 0.5 and p < 0.05.

SPSS was used to analyze the frequency and percentage of various sociodemographic variables, the scales’ reliability, and for generating the Regression Model. R Statistical Software with NCA Package was used to conduct NCA.

Profile of the Participants

Participants comprised 376 females (70.56%) and 157 males (29.45%). The median and mode ages of the participants are 23 years, while the mean age is 25. Among the participants 189 (35.46%) were college students, 293 (54.97%) are employed, and 51 (9.57%) are out of work. Lastly, seven (1.31%) participants reported that they had direct contact with someone who was infected with COVID-19, while 100 (18.76%) reside in communities with known COVID-19 cases and 426 (79.92%) have no exposure to the disease.

PERMA as Predictors of Resiliency

Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and analysis results of the study. Results revealed that the mean resiliency score of the participants is 24.83, with a SD of 7.22. PERMA elements including overall well-being are positive and significantly correlated with resiliency. Interestingly, a subjective sense of health (feeling good and healthy each day) showed only a weak, albeit significant positive correlation with resiliency. Negative emotions and loneliness are negatively correlated with resiliency.


Table 1 . Summary statistics, correlations, and coefficient results for regression analysis of study variables.

The multiple regression model with all nine predictors produced R 2 = 0.368, F (9, 523) = 33.83, p < 0.001 with adjusted R 2 = 0.357. This means that 36.8% of the variance in resiliency scores is because of the PERMA elements. As seen in Table 1 , accomplishment ( β = 0.447, p < 0.01) and negative emotions ( β = −0.171, p < 0.00) are the only elements of PERMA with significant regression weights, showing scores on these elements predict resiliency. However, negative emotions have significant negative weight as compared to with standardized coefficients of −0.171 vs. 0.477.

The multiple regression model of the four confounders between the relationship of PERMA elements and resiliency produced R 2 = 0.036, F (4, 528) = 4.90, p < 0.001 with adjusted R 2 = 0.028. It shows that the spread of the confounders is 3.6% between the relationship of the variables. As seen in Table 2 , only employment status (student, unemployed, and employed) with β = 0.14, p < 0.00 is a significant predictor of resiliency.


Table 2 . Confounders between the relationship of PERMA and Resiliency.

PERMA as Necessary-But-Not-Sufficient Conditions of Resiliency

The results of NCA on Resiliency show that all five elements of the original Seligman (2011) PERMA are necessary but not sufficient conditions of Resiliency among individuals who are community quarantined as showed by the size of the empty zone in the XY-plots in Figure 1 . This means that to score 35 in the CD-RISC-10, a score of 1 for positive emotions and engagement, a score of 2 for Positive Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment are necessary.


Figure 1 . Scatterplots of the original PERMA elements ( x ) as necessary conditions of resiliency ( y ). Note: The dashed lines are ceiling lines. The selected ceiling line technique (CE-FDH) do not allow data points above the ceiling line. The solid line is the ordinary least squares regression line.

Figure 2 contains the scatterplots of the four supplementary subscales of Butler and Kern (2016) PERMA Profiler. Only the xy-plot of Overall Well-being ( x ) and Resiliency ( y ) has a “moderately sized” empty zone in the upper left corner of the plot. This is not surprising considering that Overall Well-being is the composite score of the five PERMA elements and health score. The scatterplots of Health ( x ) and Resiliency ( y ), and Negative Emotions ( x ) and Resiliency ( y ) contain discernibly small empty zones. Lastly, the empty zone is absent in the Loneliness ( x ) – Resiliency ( y ) scatterplot. This assumes that Loneliness is not a necessary condition of Resiliency as the presence and size of an empty zone is a sign that a necessary condition is present ( Dul, 2016 ).


Figure 2 . Scatterplots of overall well-being, health, negative emotions, and loneliness ( x ) as necessary conditions of resiliency ( y ). These elements were not in the original Seligman (2011) PERMA model but are supplementary subscales in Butler and Kern (2016) PERMA Profiler. Note: The dashed lines are ceiling lines. The selected ceiling line technique (CE-FDH) does not allow data points above the ceiling line. The solid line is the ordinary least squares regression line.

We summarized the results of the multiple NCA in Table 3 . The observed accuracy of all variables exceeds arbitrary benchmark of Dul (2018) for the desired accuracy of 95%. Dul suggests the use of CR-FDH for interpreting variables with accuracies above 95%. However, since our variables do not follow a normal distribution ( p = 0.00) based on One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, we used the non-parametric CE-FDH ceiling line technique. Necessary-but-not-sufficient relationships between Resiliency and the five original PERMA elements and the auxiliary components are observed. The NCA effect size range between d = 0.09 and 0.12 based on CE-FDH for the original PERMA elements and d = 0.04 to 0.12 on the supplementary elements, excluding Loneliness. According to recommendations, Positive Emotions, Meaning, Accomplishment, and Overall Well-being of Dul (2016) have medium effect sizes on Resiliency. Engagement, Positive Relationships, Negative Emotions, and Health have small effect sizes on Resiliency. The NCA significance test is powerful enough to rule out an effect being the product of randomness ( Dul et al., 2020 ). Lastly, there is no necessary-but-not-sufficient relationship between Loneliness and Resiliency.


Table 3 . Necessary conditions effect size and significance test for PERMA Profiler subscales predicting Connor-Davidson Resiliency Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10) scores.

The ability to identify bottleneck variables (constraints) is a useful feature of NCA, especially for interpreting multivariate necessary conditions ( Dul, 2019b ). Table 4 , which is read horizontally, shows for which level of resiliency, which level of PERMA elements is necessary. For a desired value of resiliency, in the first column, it shows the minimum required values of the PERMA elements in the next columns. Levels are expressed in percentage ranges so that 0 is the minimum value, the maximum is 100, and 50 is the point between these two values.


Table 4 . Bottleneck table of PERMA elements as necessary conditions of resiliency based on CE-FDH.

The bottleneck table shows that no minimum value of any PERMA element is necessary to score 30% in Resiliency. This means that at 30% no PERMA element is a bottleneck for resiliency. However, for a resiliency level of 40%, the minimum required level of Positive Emotions is 6.9%, the necessary level of Accomplishment is 3.7, 7.1% for Overall Well-being, and none of the over PERMA elements are necessary. As observed in the bottleneck table, when Resiliency increases from 0 to 100%, more PERMA elements become necessary, and required levels of the PERMA elements become higher. At 90% level of Resiliency, the necessary level of Positive Emotions is 34.5%, Engagement is 18.6%, Positive Relationships is 25.9%, Meaning is 26.7%, Accomplishment is 25.9%, Overall Well-being is 34.2%, Health is 6.7%, and Negative Emotions is 42.9%. No level of Loneliness is necessary for any level of Resiliency. Not achieving any of these minimum levels means that attaining a 90% level in resiliency is impossible. Since each condition is a bottleneck, scoring higher in other elements does not compensate for the deficiency in others.

Wide range community quarantines and social distancing are elements that are increasingly becoming the new normal as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research ( Hawryluck et al., 2004 ; Barbisch et al., 2015 ; Brooks et al., 2020 ; Parmet and Sinha, 2020 ) offer invaluable insights into the psychological consequences of restrictions. Moreover, while there has been an interest in the psychological impact of COVID-19 and community quarantine in the Philippines (for example, Nicomedes and Avila, 2020 ; Tee et al., 2020 ), most focus on the negative psychological impact of COVID-19. This raises the question of what protective factors are important in the midst of prolonged community quarantines. To test this properly, we used a combination of the traditional regression model and the novel multivariate necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions analysis to investigate how resiliency is contingent on well-being elements in Filipinos who are community quarantined.

Participants of this study were predominantly female, around the age of 23 and who are employed. While, we specifically targeted individuals between the ages of 18–40, most of our sample are emergent adults (mean age = 25, median, and mode ages = 23). The disproportional representation of young adult females can be attributed to several factors. First, previous studies ( Smith, 2008 ; Yetter and Capaccioli, 2010 ; Slauson-Blevins and Johnson, 2016 ) have reported that young adult females take part in online surveys at a higher frequency compared with their male counterparts. There are more female Facebook users than males ( Lee et al., 2016 ), which is significant because we invited potential participants through Facebook. Lastly, the Philippines has a young population. The median age in the Philippines is 25.7 ( United Nations Statistics Division, 2019 ; Plecher, 2020 ). Taken together, it can be assumed that the sociodemographic characteristics of our study are similar to the Filipino Facebook population.

Based on the CD-RISC-10 quartiles for community sample provided by Campbell-Sills et al. (2009) , the mean resilience score (24.83) of the current sample belongs to the lowest 25%. This implies that the participants of the current study have lower resiliency scores than the general population. This result ties well with the notion that resilience is stress-context specific ( Jex et al., 2013 ; Wood and Bhatnagar, 2015 ; Hayman et al., 2017 ) and that the nature of the sample influences resiliency scores ( Connor and Davidson, 2003 ). Specifically, people with psychiatric problems and those who are experiencing significant stress score lower than the general population ( Li et al., 2012 ; Ye et al., 2017 ). In the context of COVID-19, Nicomedes and Avila (2020) found that Filipinos in community quarantine experience significant stress and scored high on both health anxiety and panic.

While resiliency and well-being have become commonplace terms and construct central in positive psychology ( Jeste et al., 2015 ), they are often studied using correlational methods ( Schultze-Lutter et al., 2016 ), and traditional approaches via the sufficiency paradigm. In line with previous studies ( Souri and Hasanirad, 2011 ; Khawaja et al., 2017 ; van Agteren et al., 2018 ), we found that all elements of well-being are positively correlated with resiliency. Although the multiple regression test shows that among the original PERMA elements, only accomplishment is a significant predictor of resilience. This means that the subjective sense of competence, having a structure each day, i.e., identifying, setting, and achieving daily goals enable resiliency in individuals subjected to quarantine. We also observed that negative emotions significantly, although negatively predict resilience. This suggests the significant predicting function of individuals’ tendency to experience anxiety and anger for lower levels of resilience. These findings support the previously reported ( Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004 ; Chen et al., 2018 ) link between negative emotions and low levels of resilience.

In this paper, we identified elements of well-being that are necessary-but-not-sufficient for resiliency to occur in individuals who are community quarantined. Specifically, Positive Emotions, Meaning, and Accomplishment are significant and moderately necessary conditions of Resiliency, as suggested by their medium effect size. This finding suggests that positive feelings like interest, joy, and contentment and pursuing a daily purpose, and regularly experiencing a sense of accomplishment are essential to quarantined individuals’ ability to thrive in their present predicament. Such necessary conditions not only allow individuals to enjoy everyday experiences ( Abiola et al., 2017 ) but also provide a sense that life matter, which replenishes depleted energy from adverse experiences, and are required in the development of resiliency.

Engagement and Positive Relationships have small yet significant effect sizes on Resiliency. This infers that experiencing a state of “flow,” or being absorbed in an activity ( Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014 ) and feeling loved, supported, and valued by others are also necessary to the quarantined individuals’ capacity to recover quickly from their daily difficulties. This ties well with previous studies ( Eaude, 2009 ; Svence et al., 2015 ; Abiola et al., 2017 ; Gerino et al., 2017 ; Roncaglia, 2017 ; Cobo-Rendón et al., 2020 ), where well-being elements were observed to be related with the occurrence of resiliency in individuals from a different context. Well-being elements allow quarantined individuals to focus their attention on alleviating harm, preventing negative mental health consequences, and finding positive outcomes in the presence of difficulty.

A unique finding, we encountered is that PERMA elements are bottleneck variables of resiliency. This highlights the little-known capacity of well-being to serve as a constraint to attaining higher levels of resiliency in community-quarantined individuals. This novel result shows two things. First, low levels of resiliency (30% and less) do not necessitate even the slightest well-being elements. Second, higher levels of resiliency require certain levels of all the original PERMA elements and physical health. However, health remains a constant, albeit weak, necessary condition. This means that optimum resiliency is only possible when all the five pillars of well-being are taken care of and when one is at least minimally content with their physical health. When comparing our results to those of older studies ( Sanders et al., 2015 ; Svence et al., 2015 ; Abiola et al., 2017 ). It must be pointed out that while the link between well-being and resiliency has been suggested in these studies, none could establish the necessary-but-not-sufficient relationship between the concepts. The present findings underpin the importance of holistic rather than an atomistic approach to mental health as noted by Mario (2012) and contradicts the compensation hypothesis of well-being. NCA revealed that deficiencies in certain areas of well-being may not be addressed by overcompensating in other areas, as all five pillars of well-being are necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions of resiliency.

Our findings show that loneliness is inversely correlated with the subjective perception of health. This basic result is consistent with the research ( Balter et al., 2019 ) showing that loneliness predicts poor immune systems in healthy young adults. This is important since maintaining good health is vital amidst a growing viral pandemic. We observed that loneliness is a significant negative predictor of resiliency and not a necessary condition for any level of resiliency in individuals who are community quarantined. A similar conclusion was reached by Perron et al. (2014) where individuals who feel resilient also experience less loneliness. This further highlights the importance of the elements of well-being as necessary conditions of resiliency, which may lessen the effects of or serve as a buffer against loneliness and other negative psychological consequences of quarantine.

The overall results of our study have theoretical and practical implications. At a theoretical level, our results found clear support to PERMA concept of Seligman (2011) as necessary ingredients of resiliency even for socially isolated individuals such as those placed in ECQ. This goes beyond previous reports wherein PERMA elements were observed as predictors of resiliency, as only NCA can identify a necessary-but-not-sufficient relationship between the said variables. Despite experiencing segregation like lockdowns, the conditions that will allow people to thrive in the face of adversity are the same as when they are not undergoing such a predicament. Therefore, this finding can help us understand how the five elements of well-being constrain the negative psychological consequences of community quarantine by providing a buffer against these harms, reducing their effects, and promoting individual capacity to cope with such unsettling conditions. From this standpoint, we speculate that PERMA should be inversely correlated with negative indicators of mental health and correspondingly with other elements of positive psychological health, as noted by Hu et al. (2015) . At a practical level, this opens an opportunity to develop evidence-based interventions such as telepsychology ( Zhou et al., 2020 ) for quarantined individuals that help clients understand behaviors they need to engage to have resiliency, and target multiple necessary-but-not-sufficient variables jointly, and not just focus on certain elements of well-being. This provides support for eclectic approaches to therapy especially the ones that incorporate positive psychology as Bolier et al. (2013) noted empirical support for the effectiveness of such interventions. Lastly, our findings agree with the call to a more inclusive psychology in the Philippines. This paradigm shift involves incorporating such approaches as critical ( Paredes-Canilao et al., 2015 ) and positive ( Datu et al., 2018 ) psychology to the prevailing traditional pathology-based perspective.

One fundamental limitation of this study is that the use of multiple regression and NCA cannot guarantee causality ( Dul, 2016 ). While our data is consistent with the causal hypothesis, it is not evidence of a causal connection. Therefore, causal necessary-but-not-sufficient relations should not be inferred from our data. Another important caveat in interpreting our results is that we used the Facebook population as compared to the actual geographical population. It is not a perfect representative since Facebook users are usually younger females who have better educational attainment compared to the general population ( Kosinski et al., 2015 ). Resiliency and well-being were measured during the ECQ, a far from normal situation. Therefore, although we took obligatory safety measures to increase the trustworthiness of the findings, we suggest that care be exercised when generalizing our findings into the general population and normal circumstances.

Many questions remain to be answered concerning the well-being of people who are community quarantined and the utility of NCA in psychological research. Further work is needed to identify the negative consequences of prolonged quarantine on individuals, especially those who have preexisting mental health problems and those who experience a disruption in access to their mental health-care providers. Moreover Odacı and Kalkan (2010) reported that internet use, specifically social media ( Maglunog and Dy, 2019 ) exacerbates loneliness and that social media usage is expected to rise during the ECQ. Another important question, therefore, is how does the ongoing quarantine affects rates and levels of loneliness. Finally, while necessary conditions are traditionally studied using regression analysis in psychological research, NCA proved to be a more useful tool in understanding necessary-but-not-sufficient relationships because of its ability to understand bottleneck variables. We, therefore, recommend the use of NCA in both classical and novel psychological research problems.

Resiliency grants us the capacity to flourish in the face of difficulty. For resiliency to result, the pillars of well-being are essential. Our research reveals, however, that well-being elements could be enablers or constraints. Accomplishment, for example, could predict resiliency. All pillars are necessary to attain it. Compensating in certain aspects cannot address the deficiency in others. Herein lies the importance and significance of holistic well-being. Those who can attain this are better equipped to thrive in the ECQ, a situation that affects the lives of so many Filipinos.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Manila Tytana Colleges Research Ethics Committee. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

DC wrote the introduction, results, and discussion and conducted the necessary condition analysis. LB wrote the methods, contributed in the results and discussion, and conducted the correlation analysis, regression analysis, and reliability check of the scales. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.558930/full#supplementary-material

Abiola, T., Olorukooba, H. O., and Afolayan, J. (2017). Wellbeing elements leading to resilience among undergraduate nursing students. IJANS 7, 1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijans.2017.05.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

ABS-CBN Investigative and Research Group (2020). Tracking COVID-19 cases in the Philippines [News Site]. ABS-CBN News. Available at: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/multimedia/infographic/03/17/20/tracking-covid-19-cases-in-the-philippines (Accessed March 17, 2020).

Google Scholar

Abueg, L. (2020). Extended, enhanced, and extreme: Macroeconomic implications of the community quarantine in the Philippines due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Report No.: 2020-01.

Agence France-Presse (2020). Philippines plunges into recession as coronavirus devastates economy, GDP plummets [News Site]. South China Morning Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3096258/philippines-plunges-recession-coronavirus-devastates (Accessed August 6, 2020).

Balter, L. J. T., Raymond, J. E., Aldred, S., Drayson, M. T., Veldhuijzen van Zanten, J. J. C. S., Higgs, S., et al. (2019). Loneliness in healthy young adults predicts inflammatory responsiveness to a mild immune challenge in vivo. Brain Behav. Immun. 82, 298–301. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2019.08.196

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barbisch, D., Koenig, K. L., and Shih, F. -Y. (2015). Is there a case for quarantine? Perspectives from SARS to Ebola. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 9, 547–553. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2015.38

Besser, A., Weinberg, M., Zeigler-Hill, V., and Neria, Y. (2014). Acute symptoms of posttraumatic stress and dissociative experiences among female israeli civilians exposed to war: the roles of intrapersonal and interpersonal sources of resilience. J. Clin. Psychol. 70, 1227–1239. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22083

Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., and Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health 13:119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-119

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., et al. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 395, 912–920. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8

Burns, R. A., and Anstey, K. J. (2010). The Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Personal. Individ. Differ. 48, 527–531. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.026

Butler, J., and Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-profiler: a brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. Inter. J. Wellbeing 6, 1–48. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526

Campbell-Sills, L., Forde, D. R., and Stein, M. B. (2009). Demographic and childhood environmental predictors of resilience in a community sample. J. Psychiatr. Res. 43, 1007–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.013

Campbell-Sills, L., and Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J. Trauma. Stress. 20, 1019–1028. doi: 10.1002/jts.20271

Chen, D., Wu, J., Yao, Z., Lei, K., Luo, Y., and Li, Z. (2018). Negative association between resilience and event-related potentials evoked by negative emotion. Sci. Rep. 8:7149. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25555-w

CNN Philippines Staff (2020). Metro Manila retains GCQ status until year-end [News Site]. CNN Philippines. Available at: https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/11/30/PH-quarantine-classifications-December.html (Accessed November 30, 2020).

Cobo-Rendón, R., Pérez-Villalobos, M. V., Páez-Rovira, D., and Gracia-Leiva, M. (2020). A longitudinal study: affective wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy and academic performance among first-year undergraduate students. Scand. J. Psychol. 61, 518–526. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12618

Connor, K. M., and Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 18, 76–82. doi: 10.1002/da.10113

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Nachdr.) . New York: Harper and Row.

Datu, J. A., Bernardo, A., and King, R. (2018). Positive psychology research in the Philippines: an introduction. Philipp. J. Psychol. 51, 21–32. doi: 10.31710/pjp/0051.01.02

Department of Health (2020). Updates on Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) [Government Agency]. Department of Health Website. Available at: https://www.doh.gov.ph/2019-nCov (Accessed December 12, 2020).

Diehl, M., and Hay, E. L. (2010). Risk and resilience factors in coping with daily stress in adulthood: the role of age, self-concept incoherence, and personal control. Dev. Psychol. 46, 1132–1146. doi: 10.1037/a0019937

Dul, J. (2016). Necessary condition analysis (NCA): logic and methodology of “necessary but not sufficient” causality. Organ. Res. Methods 19, 10–52. doi: 10.1177/1094428115584005

Dul, J. (ed.) (2018). “Necessary condition analysis” in Oxford research Encyclopedia of business and management . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dul, J. (2019a). Conducting necessary condition analysis: For business and management students. 1st Edn . California: SAGE Publications.

Dul, J. (2019b). Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) with R (Version 3.0.2): A Quick Start Guide (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2624981). Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2624981 (Accessed May 1, 2020).

Dul, J., van der Laan, E., and Kuik, R. (2020). A statistical significance test for necessary condition analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 23, 385–395. doi: 10.1177/1094428118795272

Dul, J., van der Laan, E., Kuik, R., and Karwowski, M. (2019). Necessary condition analysis: type I error, power, and over-interpretation of test results. A reply to a comment on NCA. Commentary: predicting the significance of necessity. Front. Psychol. 10:1493. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01493

Eaude, T. (2009). Happiness, emotional well-being and mental health – what has children’s spirituality to offer? Int. J. Children’s Spiritual. 14, 185–196. doi: 10.1080/13644360903086455

Fredrickson, B. L., and Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. Am. Psychol. 60, 678–686. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., and Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 365–376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.365

Gerino, E., Rollè, L., Sechi, C., and Brustia, P. (2017). Loneliness, resilience, mental health, and quality of life in old age: a structural equation model. Front. Psychol. 8:2003. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02003

Grubman, J. (2018). “How do you balance family stability with resilience over the generations?” in Wealth of wisdom . eds. T. McCullougha and K. Whitaker (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.), 351–354.

Harms, P., Brady, L., and Wood, D. (2018). “Resilience and Well-Being” in Handbook of well-being . eds. E. Diener, S. Oishi, and L. Tay (Salt Lake City: DEF Publishers).

Hawryluck, L., Gold, W. L., Robinson, S., Pogorski, S., Galea, S., and Styra, R. (2004). SARS control and psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 1206–1212. doi: 10.3201/eid1007.030703

Hayman, K. J., Kerse, N., and Consedine, N. S. (2017). Resilience in context: the special case of advanced age. Aging Ment. Health 21, 577–585. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2016.1196336

Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., and Yuen, T. (2011). What is resilience? Can. J. Psychiatr. 56, 258–265. doi: 10.1177/070674371105600504

Hu, T., Zhang, D., and Wang, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Personal. Individ. Differ. 76, 18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039

Jeste, D. V., Palmer, B. W., Rettew, D. C., and Boardman, S. (2015). Positive psychiatry: its time has come. J. Clin. Psychiatry 76, 675–683. doi: 10.4088/JCP.14nr09599

Jex, S. M., Kain, J., and Park, Y. (2013). “Situational factors and resilience: facilitating adaptation to military stressors” in Building psychological resilience in military personnel: Theory and practice . eds. T. W. Britt and R. R. Sinclair (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 67–84.

Karatas, Z., and Cakar, F. S. (2011). Self-esteem and hopelessness, and resiliency: an exploratory study of adolescents in Turkey. Int. Educ. Stud. 4:p84. doi: 10.5539/ies.v4n4p84

Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., Jankowska, D. M., Gajda, A., et al. (2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary condition analysis. Intelligence 57, 105–117. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2016.04.006

Khawaja, N. G., Ibrahim, O., and Schweitzer, R. D. (2017). Mental wellbeing of students from refugee and migrant backgrounds: the mediating role of resilience. Sch. Ment. Heal. 9, 284–293. doi: 10.1007/s12310-017-9215-6

Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., and Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. Am. Psychol. 70, 543–556. doi: 10.1037/a0039210

Kumpfer, K. L. (2002). “Factors and processes contributing to resilience” in Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations . eds.M. D. Glantz and J. L. Johnson (US: Springer), 179–224.

Kuntz, J. R. C., Näswall, K., and Malinen, S. (2016). Resilient employees in resilient organizations: flourishing beyond adversity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. Perspect. Sci. Pract. 9, 456–462. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.39

Lai, M. K., Leung, C., Kwok, S. Y. C., Hui, A. N. N., Lo, H. H. M., Leung, J. T. Y., et al. (2018). A multidimensional PERMA-H positive education model, general satisfaction of school life, and character strengths use in Hong Kong senior primary school students: confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis using the APASO-II. Front. Psychol. 9:1090. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01090

Lambert, L., and Pasha-Zaidi, N. (2016). Using the PERMA model in the United Arab Emirates. Soc. Indic. Res. 125, 905–933. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0866-0

Lee, R. B., Baring, R. V., and Sta Maria, M. A. (2016). Gender variations in the effects of number of organizational memberships, number of social networking sites, and grade-point average on global social responsibility in Filipino University students. Eur. J. Psychol. 12, 191–202. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v12i1.1040

Levine, S. (2003). Psychological and social aspects of resilience: a synthesis of risks and resources. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 5, 273–280. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2003.5.3/slevine

Li, Y., Cao, F., Cao, D., Wang, Q., and Cui, N. (2012). Predictors of posttraumatic growth among parents of children undergoing inpatient corrective surgery for congenital disease. J. Pediatr. Surg. 47, 2011–2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.07.005

Maglunog, G. P. A., and Dy, M. F. R. (2019). Facebook usage and depression levels of selected Filipino college students. IJPES 6, 35–50. doi: 10.17220/ijpes.2019.02.004

Mario, B. (2012). Complementary treatments and holistic perspective: experience in a public mental health service. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 4:83. doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2012.07.666

Martínez-Martí, M. L., and Ruch, W. (2017). Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. J. Posit. Psychol. 12, 110–119. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1163403

Medialdea, S. (2020). Community Quarantine Over the Entire Luzon and Guidelines for the Management of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation. Official Gazette of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Available at: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2020/03mar/20200316-MEMORANDUM-FROM-ES-RRD.pdf (Accessed March 16, 2020).

Nakamura, J., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). “The concept of flow” in Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi . ed.M. Csikszentmihalyi (Netherlands: Springer), 239–263.

Nebrida, J. D., and Dullas, A. (2018). “I’m perfectly imperfect”: exploring the relationship between PERMA model of wellbeing with self-esteem among persons with disabilities. IJRSP 7, 27–44. doi: 10.5861/ijrsp.2018.3005

Nicomedes, C. J. C., and Avila, R. M. A. (2020). An analysis on the panic during COVID-19 pandemic through an online form. J. Affect. Disord. 276, 14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.046

Odacı, H., and Kalkan, M. (2010). Problematic internet use, loneliness and dating anxiety among young adult university students. Comp. Educ. 55, 1091–1097. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.006

Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., and Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 730–749. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730

Ong, A. D., Zautra, A. J., and Reid, M. C. (2010). Psychological resilience predicts decreases in pain catastrophizing through positive emotions. Psychol. Aging 25, 516–523. doi: 10.1037/a0019384

Oshio, A., Taku, K., Hirano, M., and Saeed, G. (2018). Resilience and big five personality traits: a meta-analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 127, 54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048

Paredes-Canilao, N., Babaran-Diaz, M. A., Florendo, M. N. B., and Salinas-Ramos, T. (2015). “Indigenous psychologies and critical-emancipatory psychology” in Handbook of critical psychology . ed.S. L. Mendoza(Oxfordshire: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group), 356–365.

Parmet, W. E., and Sinha, M. S. (2020). Covid-19—the law and limits of quarantine. N. Engl. J. Med. 382:e28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2004211

Perron, J. L., Cleverley, K., and Kidd, S. A. (2014). Resilience, loneliness, and psychological distress among homeless youth. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 28, 226–229. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2014.05.004

Plecher, H. (2020). Median age of the population in the Philippines 2015. Statistica. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/578796/average-age-of-the-population-in-philippines/#:~:text=Median%20age%20of%20the%20population%20in%20the%20Philippines%202015&text=In%202020%2C%20the%20average%20age,was%20under%2020%20years%20old (Accessed September 23, 2020).

Porterfield, K., Akinsulure-Smith, A. M., Benson, M. A., Betancourt, T., Heidi Ellis, B., Kia-Keating, M., et al. (2010). Resilience and recovery after war: Refugee children and families in the United States.

Roncaglia, I. (2017). The role of wellbeing and wellness: a positive psychological model in supporting young people with ASCs. PSYCT 10, 217–226. doi: 10.5964/psyct.v10i1.203

Sanders, J., Munford, R., Thimasarn-Anwar, T., Liebenberg, L., and Ungar, M. (2015). The role of positive youth development practices in building resilience and enhancing wellbeing for at-risk youth. Child Abuse Negl. 42, 40–53. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.006

Scali, J., Gandubert, C., Ritchie, K., Soulier, M., Ancelin, M. -L., and Chaudieu, I. (2012). Measuring resilience in adult women using the 10-items Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Role of trauma exposure and anxiety disorders. PLoS One 7:e39879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039879

Schultze-Lutter, F., Schimmelmann, B. G., and Schmidt, S. J. (2016). Resilience, risk, mental health and well-being: associations and conceptual differences. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 25, 459–466. doi: 10.1007/s00787-016-0851-4

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. 1st Edn . New York: Free Press.

Slauson-Blevins, K., and Johnson, K. M. (2016). Doing gender, doing surveys? Women’s gatekeeping and men’s non-participation in multi-actor reproductive surveys. Sociol. Inq. 86, 427–449. doi: 10.1111/soin.12122

Smith, W. G. (2008). Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation? A Record-Linkage Analysis of University Faculty Online Survey Response Behavior. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501717 (Accessed June 2020).

Souri, H., and Hasanirad, T. (2011). Relationship between resilience, optimism and psychological well-being in students of medicine. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 30, 1541–1544. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.299

Steger, M. F. (2012). “Experiencing meaning in life: optimal functioning at the nexus of well-being, psychopathology, and spirituality” in The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications . 2nd Edn. ed. P. T. P. Wong (Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group), 165–184.

Svence, G., Majors, M., Majors, M., and Majors, M. (2015). Correlation of Well-Being with Resiliency and Age. Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century, 9, Continuous.

Tay, L., Tan, K., Diener, E., and Gonzalez, E. (2013). Social relations, health behaviors, and health outcomes: a survey and synthesis. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 5, 28–78. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12000

Tee, M. L., Tee, C. A., Anlacan, J. P., Aligam, K. J. G., Reyes, P. W. C., Kuruchittham, V., et al. (2020). Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. J. Affect. Disord. 277, 379–391. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.043

Tenorio, B. D. (2020). Depression on the rise due to ECQ. Available at: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/04/29/2010543/depression-rise-due-ecq (Accessed April 29, 2020).

Tugade, M. M., and Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce Back from negative emotional experiences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 320–333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320

Tynan, M. C., Credé, M., and Harms, P. D. (2020). Are individual characteristics and behaviors necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions for academic success?: a demonstration of Dul’s (2016) necessary condition analysis. Learn. Individ. Differ. 77:101815. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101815

Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across Cultures. Br. J. Soc. Work. 38, 218–235. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl343

United Nations Statistics Division (2019). 2018 Demographic Yearbook. United Nations. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/dybsets/2018.pdf (Accessed January 13, 2021).

van Agteren, J., Iasiello, M., and Lo, L. (2018). Improving the wellbeing and resilience of health services staff via psychological skills training. BMC Res. Notes 11:924. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-4034-x

Vella, S. -L., and Pai, N. B. (2019). A theoretical review of psychological resilience: defining resilience and resilience research over the decades. Arch. Med. Health Sci. 7:233. doi: 10.4103/amhs.amhs_119_19

Walsh-Dilley, M., and Wolford, W. (2015). (Un)Defining resilience: subjective understandings of ‘resilience’ from the field. Resilience 3, 173–182. doi: 10.1080/21693293.2015.1072310

Wood, S. K., and Bhatnagar, S. (2015). Resilience to the effects of social stress: evidence from clinical and preclinical studies on the role of coping strategies. Neurobiol. Stress 1, 164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2014.11.002

World Health Organization (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report (Situation Report No. 62; pp. 1–10). World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200322-sitrep-62-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=f7764c46_2 (Accessed May 1, 2020).

Ye, Z. J., Qiu, H. Z., Li, P. F., Chen, P., Liang, M. Z., Liu, M. L., et al. (2017). Validation and application of the Chinese version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC-10) among parents of children with cancer diagnosis. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 27, 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.01.004

Yetter, G., and Capaccioli, K. (2010). Differences in responses to web and paper surveys among school professionals. Behav. Res. Methods 42, 266–272. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.266

Zhou, X., Snoswell, C. L., Harding, L. E., Bambling, M., Edirippulige, S., Bai, X., et al. (2020). The role of Telehealth in reducing the mental health burden from COVID-19. Telemed, E-Health 26, 377–379. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0068

Keywords: positive psychology, well-being, resilience, PERMA, COVID-19, necessary conditions and sufficient conditions for optimality, necessary condition analysis, Philippines

Citation: Camitan DS IV and Bajin LN (2021) The Importance of Well-Being on Resiliency of Filipino Adults During the COVID-19 Enhanced Community Quarantine: A Necessary Condition Analysis. Front. Psychol . 12:558930. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.558930

Received: 04 May 2020; Accepted: 01 March 2021; Published: 22 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Camitan and Bajin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Desiderio S. Camitan IV, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

  • Transparency Seal
  • Citizen's Charter
  • PIDS Vision, Mission and Quality Policy
  • Strategic Plan 2019-2025
  • Organizational Structure
  • Bid Announcements
  • Site Statistics
  • Privacy Notice

disaster resilience philippines essay

  • Research Agenda
  • Research Projects
  • Research Paper Series
  • Guidelines in Preparation of Articles
  • Editorial Board
  • List of All Issues
  • Disclaimer and Permissions
  • Inquiries and Submissions
  • Subscription
  • Economic Policy Monitor
  • Discussion Paper Series
  • Policy Notes
  • Development Research News
  • Economic Issue of the Day
  • Annual Reports
  • Special Publications

Working Papers

Monograph Series

Staff Papers

Economic Outlook Series

List of All Archived Publications

  • Other Publications by PIDS Staff
  • How to Order Publications
  • Rate Our Publications
  • Press Releases
  • PIDS in the News
  • PIDS Updates
  • Legislative Inputs
  • Database Updates
  • GIS-based Philippine Socioeconomic Profile
  • Socioeconomic Research Portal for the Philippines
  • PIDS Library
  • PIDS Corners
  • Infographics
  • Infographics - Fact Friday
  • Infographics - Infobits

Building Philippine SMEs Resilience to Natural Disasters

  • Climate Change
  • Ballesteros, Marife M.
  • Domingo, Sonny N.
  • Philippines
  • and medium enterprises (MSMEs)

Disasters are bad for business specifically for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). These catastrophic events can compromise capital, logistics, product market, and labor, which compromise business continuity and recovery. Physical damage and disruptions in supply and labor can cause temporary business closure while structural repairs to buildings and recovery or replacement of damaged equipment needed to restore operations require large amount of resources. The adverse impact may not only be short term but can have medium- to long-term effects. Unfortunately, the disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) framework of the government has not been effectively translated into local and sectoral (or business) plans. Philippine SMEs thus are highly vulnerable, have weak adaptability and limited access to a broader set of coping strategies. This paper recommends strategic policies to embed DRRM into the business sector and the role of APEC in promoting SME resilience in the region.

This publication has been cited 4 times

  • Israel, Danilo C. and David Feliks Bunao. 2016. Research on urban resilience to natural disasters of households, firms, and communities in the Philippines . Discussion Papers DP 2016-41. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  • Jha, Shikha et. al. 2018. Natural disasters, public spending, and creative destruction: A case study of the Philippines . ADBI Working Papers 817. Asian Development Bank Institute.
  • Llanto, Gilberto. 2016. Risks, shocks, building resilience: Philippines . Discussion Papers DP 2016-09. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  • Skouloudis, Antonis, et. al. 2020. Small & medium-sized enterprises, organizational resilience capacity and flash floods: Insights from a literature review . Sustainability, 12, No. 18, 1-17. MDPI.

disaster resilience philippines essay

Download Publication

Please let us know your reason for downloading this publication. May we also ask you to provide additional information that will help us serve you better? Rest assured that your answers will not be shared with any outside parties. It will take you only two minutes to complete the survey. Thank you.

disaster resilience philippines essay

Related Posts


disaster resilience philippines essay

Video Highlights

disaster resilience philippines essay

  • How to Order Publications?
  • Opportunities


  1. Perceptions of Disaster Resilience and Preparedness in the Philippines

    This is the first nationwide household survey on measures of disaster resilience and disaster preparedness carried out in the Philippines. It comes at a time of critical importance as efforts are being made to ensure disaster management is based on evidence, especially at the local level and amid national discussions on centralizing disaster ...

  2. PDF Perceptions of Disaster Resilience and Preparedness in The Philippines

    PERCEPTIONS OF DISASTER RESILIENCE AND PREPAREDNESS IN THE PHILIPPINES • INTRODUCTION • V Yet, 83 percent of Filipinos claimed to have discussed emergency plans with their families. However, only 27 percent of the population was confident that they could adapt to changes resulting from a disaster, and

  3. Resilience and Disaster Trends in the Philippines: Opportunities for

    Introduction. An archipelago of over 7,100 islands, the Philippines is the fourth most at-risk country in the world in terms of climate-related natural disasters, such as typhoons, sea level rise, flooding and extreme temperature. 1 It is one of the top three countries in the world for population exposure and has the largest proportion of capital investment and stock along coastlines. 2 ...

  4. Strengthening Disaster Resilience and Preparedness in the Philippines

    The NDRRMP is in line with the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF), which provides the primary guide for the country's disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) efforts. The Framework envisions a country of safer, more adaptable, and disaster-resilient Filipino communities working toward long-term development.

  5. Typhoon Yolanda and post‐disaster resilience: Problems and challenges

    After Typhoon Yolanda devastated the Philippines, 'resilient' was a term frequently used by the media, survivors, government officials and various other stakeholders in the city of Tacloban to describe those affected by the disaster. The focus of this article is therefore on how this term was articulated and experienced during this period.

  6. PDF Strengthening climate resilience through law and policy in the Philippines

    The Philippines Disaster Resilience Act A legislative process on disaster resilience has been going on in the two branches of the Philippines parliament since 2019. As part of this, the Senate is currently discussing 'An Act Creating the Department of Disaster Resilience, Defining its Powers and Functions, and Appropriating Funds Therefor'

  7. PDF Maria Celina C. Anga,*, Lily Beth L. Diazb

    Perception, Resiliency and Coping Strategies of Filipinos amidst Disasters 1 Maria Celina C. Anga,*, Lily Beth L. Diazb aBulacan State University, #4 Lucero St, San Vicente, City of Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines E-mail address: [email protected] b Bulacan State University, Brgy.Guinhawa, City of Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines

  8. Perceptions of disaster resilience and preparedness in the Philippines

    Preparedness is a component of resilience. Resilience is a long-term concept that covers the full disaster continuum and includes aspects of positive transformation that enhances the ability of ...

  9. Measuring disaster resilience in the Philippines: evidence using

    (DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1599317) In this paper, we assess the resilience of households in responding to climate-induced calamities such as flash floods and landslides in Compostela Valley of the Philippines. Using cross-sectional survey data collected in 2013 and 2014, we applied the integrated data envelopment analysis (DEA)-based network model to estimate a composite resilience score ...


    For the entire month of July 2019, the Philippines celebrated its National Disaster Resilience Month (NDRM) that involved numerous events and activities across the nation aimed at increasing awareness and resilience for its people in the face of ongoing natural disaster threats. The theme for 2019's celebration was Kahandaan sa Sakuna't ...

  11. (Open Access) Resilience and Disaster Trends in the Philippines

    Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of disaster rehabilitation interventions on bonding social capital in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda. Design/methodology/approach: The data from the project is drawn from eight barangays in Tacloban City, the Philippines. Local residents and politicians were surveyed and interviewed to examine perceptions of resilience and ...

  12. Rebuilding Differently for Resilience in the Philippines

    The cost of disasters to the Philippines is a massive burden on peoples' security and well-being, and on national, local and household budgets. It tears through the social contract between leadership, state institutions and people. Local governments and communities bear the heaviest brunt, repeatedly hitting hardest at the poor and most vulnerable.

  13. Typhoons in the Philippines: A journey to disaster resilience

    News and Press Release in English on Philippines about Disaster Management, Food and Nutrition, Flash Flood, Flood and more; published on 25 Feb 2016 by CARE

  14. [OPINION] Challenging the narrative of Filipino resiliency

    Nov 18, 2020 2:00 PM PHT. Abu Al-Rasheed Tanggol. 'To glorify Filipino resilience is to make resilience appear better than it actually is'. In the wake of 4 typhoons that devastated the ...

  15. (PDF) Disaster Risk Reduction Knowledge among local people in a

    The scholarly papers focused on awareness of disaster and disaster risk ... in a rural community's flood recovery and resilience process. ... The Philippines is a disaster-prone country due to its ...

  16. The UN calls for increased support for climate resilience in the

    One of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, the Philippines is highly exposed and vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Recent estimates showed that climate change could cost the Philippines over 7% of GDP by 2030. Disasters have already cost US$ 23 billion in damages to the country since 1990.

  17. Disaster Risk Resilience: Conceptual Evolution, Key Issues, and

    The concept of resilience then gained importance until it was used 60 times in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030. The Sendai Framework makes it its third priority for action: "Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience" (UNISDR 2015, p. 14).The explosion of interest in resilience over the last decade has thus contributed to the evolution of the concept ...

  18. Australia and UNDP partner to build disaster and climate resilience in

    Metro Manila - The Australian Government and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Philippines signed an agreement for a new initiative that will strengthen the disaster and climate resilience of targeted local governments in the Philippines. Through the strategic partnership, the Australian Government will invest PHP630 million (AUD18 million) for the initiative to be ...

  19. Disaster Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in the ...

    In response to these challenges, the study documents several resilience-building initiatives undertaken by the local government and community organizations. These efforts include the establishment of early warning systems, the implementation of hazard-resistant infrastructure, and the promotion of community-based disaster risk reduction and ...

  20. Full article: A review of themes in disaster resilience literature and

    An alternative model of community resilience was developed by Cutter et al. (Citation 2008), which offers a place-based view of community resilience. The Disaster Resilience of Place (DROP) model incorporates social systems, the built environment and natural systems as system attributes that influence and interact with the inherent resilience ...

  21. Bayanihan: The Gift of Community for Disaster Resilience in the Philippines

    The Philippines is one of the most ecologically vulnerable places in the world, belonging to the Pacific ring of fire facing the realities of harsh weather, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions ...

  22. NDRRMC rallies Pinoys to unite in achieving disaster resilience

    MANILA - The people must unite and work hand in hand towards the common goal of achieving disaster resilience and fostering development. The National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC) made this call on Friday, which marks the start of the observance of the "National Disaster…

  23. Frontiers

    1 College of Arts and Sciences, Manila Tytana Colleges, Pasay, Philippines; 2 Psycli-Nik Psychological Assessment and Intervention Services, Zamboanga City, Philippines; Nation-wide community quarantines and social distancing are part of the new normal because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Since extensive and prolonged lockdowns are relatively novel experiences, not much is known about the ...

  24. PIDS

    Research on urban resilience to natural disasters of households, firms, and communities in the Philippines. Discussion Papers DP 2016-41. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Jha, Shikha et. al. 2018. Natural disasters, public spending, and creative destruction: A case study of the Philippines. ADBI Working Papers 817.