International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Enhancing resistance and resilience to disasters with

micronance: Parallels with ecological trophic systems
Fausto Marincioni a,n, Federica Appiotti a, Antonio Pusceddu a, Kenneth Byrne b
a
Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Universita Politecnica delle Marche, Polo Monte Dago, 60131 Ancona, Italy
b
Graduate Program in Sustainable Landscape Planning and Design, The Conway School, 01341 Conway, MA, USA

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: Large sums of money are spent by humanitarian programs for disaster recovery world-
Received 27 March 2012 wide each year. Though bringing relief to millions of victims in the immediate aftermath
Received in revised form of a disaster, these efforts have produced mixed results in terms of sustainable disaster
10 January 2013
mitigation. One of the shortfalls has been the failure to invest adequately to support
Accepted 10 January 2013
disaster risk reduction activities. To better understand how to increase human resistance
Available online 29 January 2013
and resilience to natural disasters, this paper explores parallels between social and
Keywords: ecological theories of disturbance. The authors do not introduce new research, or offer
Resistance new substantive critiques of these approaches, but try to build new connections between
Resilience
core concepts of ecosystems theory and disaster risk reduction theory. The central
Disaster risk reduction
argument is that, similar to certain trophic pathways (e.g. microbial loop) that can
Micronance
Trophic pathways enhance ecosystems resistance and resilience to disturbances, micronance programs
Microbial loop used to foster disaster risk reduction strategies may signicantly enhance humans
Social-ecological systems ability to cope with natural hazards and disasters.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction At the ecosystem level, a disaster can be compared to a

Coping with extreme events and disasters is not unique to
Homo sapiens, but is common to most of the species living on
planet Earth. Scholars have highlighted many parallels,
interconnections, and interdependencies between social and
ecological systems as they react and adapt to severe changes
[14]. In spite of their ability to manipulate the environment,
humans are themselves part of the Earth ecosystem and
subjected to its processes. Thus, to better comprehend
human response to extreme events, and possibly enhance
the ability of individuals and communities to deal with
disasters, one should also analyze those processes that enable
natural systems to deal with extreme events.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 071 2204312;
fax: 39 071 2204650.
E-mail address: f.marincioni@univpm.it (F. Marincioni).
disturbance, a stochastic event causing prominent and tem-
porary changes in the average conditions of the system,
occasionally leading to (massive) mortality [5]. The ability
of a community to counteract severe changes is largely
dependent upon its ecological traits and on the distribu-
tion of ecological functions among species (i.e., functional
redundancy) [3]. Among the basic functions minimizing
an ecosystems vulnerability to disturbance are the
trophic relationships (e.g., competition and predation),
including those involving microorganisms (e.g., the
microbial loop) [6]. These trophic paths, allowing efcient
recirculation of resources otherwise lost in the distur-
bance, enhance the overall systems resistance and resi-
lience to disturbance [712].
At the human level a disaster creates a striking
disparity between the available resources and those
necessary to deal with the crisis [13]. In poor countries
this is exacerbated by peoples inability to access the basic
resources needed to mitigate extreme events and lower

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.01.001
 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
exposure to disasters. Indeed, the effects of an extreme
event on any given community is not random but deter-
mined by patterns of social interaction, organization, and
stratication, which determine access to resources
[1417]. As Cannon [18], p. 1415 writes: there are no
really generalized opportunities and risks in nature, but
instead there are sets of unequal access to opportunities
and unequal exposures to risks, which are a consequence
of the socio-economic systemy It is more important to
discern how human systems themselves place people in
relation to each other and to the environment than it is to
interpret natural systems.
Knowledge of appropriate disaster mitigation and
safety practices is certainly important but is seemingly
insufcient for effective disaster planning. Many other
factors, including location, dwelling type, and socio-
economic circumstances, appear to affect individual and
community exposure and response to disasters [1924].
Explicitly, social vulnerability is triggered by limited
access to economic and material resources, and is dened
by human or personal resources (such as education),
family and social means (such as networks of reciprocity)
and political assets (such as power and autonomy) [25].
Finding ways to enhance individuals and commu-
nities socio-economic security is therefore crucial to
lowering exposure to disaster risk. Efforts should be
focused on devising more effective resource recirculation
mechanisms capable of tackling the underlying issues of
economic stratication and poverty. Nonetheless, the
relationship between income and vulnerability to specic
types of natural disasters (such as oods, landslides or
windstorms) is non-linear, and increased afuence may
even increase exposure to risk [26]. Above a GDP per
capita of $4500 to $5500, the number of disaster deaths
decreases, yet below such threshold the number of deaths
increases with rising income [27].
Moreover, beyond the ability of a society to access
available resources, what determines its exposure to
disasters is its level of adaptation to the surrounding
environment. Thus, if development efforts are not attuned
to the environmental context, the potential impacts of
disasters can be very severe, both in terms of infrastruc-
tural and livelihood losses. For this reason, economic
growth must also be accompanied by adequate environ-
mental management and planning. By exploring parallels
between human societies response to disasters and
ecological communities response to disturbance, the
authors try to theorize new and more efcient ways of
allocating resources to increase humans environmental
adaptation. In particular, discussing parallels in the resi-
lience of the microbial loop, in the marine ecosystem, and
of micronance interventions in human communities, this
paper aims at stimulating further debate on how to foster
communities self-help capabilities to preventing extreme
natural occurrences from turning into disasters.
In the next section, basic concepts such as resistance
and resilience to disasters will be dened both at the
ecological and socio-economic levels. Section 3 theorizes
how micronance tools, such as microcredit, microinsur-
ance, or social funds, could be employed to support
disaster risk reduction projects, while Section 4 highlights
53
parallels between human and ecosystem resource recir-
culation models. Section 5 discusses best practice case
studies of micronance interventions that appear to have
increased resilience and reduced vulnerability. A list of
intended and unforeseen outcomes of these interventions
is presented and compared with ecosystems patterns. The
authors are not attempting to introduce original data or
offer new substantive critiques of these approaches, but
rather try to build new connections between the core
concepts of ecosystems theory and disaster risk reduction
theory.
2. Resistance and resilience to disasters
At the ecological level a communitys ability to oppose
the changes induced by disturbance, maintaining struc-
tures and functions unaltered, is dened as resistance [7].
Resilience, on the other hand, is the capacity of the
community to absorb impacts, endure changes, and reor-
ganize itself in a new dynamic equilibrium. This denition
includes the systems capacity for learning and adapting,
as well as its ability to sustain production of resources and
ecosystem services [3,6].
These denitions apply also to human communities
facing extreme events and disasters. The fundamental
difference is that in social systems, resistance and resi-
lience are not solely determined by interactions among
humans and between humans and the environment, but
are also inuenced by, inter alia, cultural, economic, and
technological constraints and opportunities [3,28]. Risk
and development scholars have shown that wealthy
human communities, successfully adapted to their natural
environments, have greater access to resources, knowl-
edge and technology, and exhibit high resistance and
resilience to disasters [29]. Conversely, poor human com-
munities inadequately adapted to their natural surroundings
lack, or have minimal access to, the necessary resources to
implement risk prevention strategies or to develop protective
mechanisms to lower vulnerability [30].
Undoubtedly, poverty is a highly complex phenom-
enon in which nancial, social, cultural and political
factors interact to maintain long-term disparities in
opportunities and accessibility to resources. Without
entering the discussion of the poverty-risk nexus, which
is beyond the scope of this paper and which has been
extensively debated in the academic literature, it can be
said that these disparities increase structural, social, and
livelihood vulnerabilities, lower societal resilience, and
leave the community unable to properly respond to
disasters [31].
3. Micronance for disaster risk reduction
Effective economic programs are needed to help and
sustain poor human communities in their efforts to adapt
to their surroundings and protect themselves from dis-
asters. Indeed, many humanitarian-aid programs had
been developed over the years, bringing relief to millions
of disaster victims. Such programs are funded and man-
aged by international agencies such as the United Nations
Ofce for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [32],
54 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
and various other governmental and non-governmental
organizations.
In recent decades, among the possible nancing stra-
tegies for disaster relief, micronance tools such as
microcredit, microinsurance, and social funds have
become increasingly employed by Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) working in the eld of disaster
recovery [32]. Among these, microcredit is the most
widespread and well known; the United Nations declared
2005 as the Year of Microcredit (Resolution 53/197).
These programs customarily provide small monetary
loans to extremely impoverished people, who typically
lack capital guaranties but possess social trust.
The overall aim of micronance is to sustain entrepre-
neurship and enable willing people to generate an income
and exit the poverty cycle [33]. However, such programs
have not been without controversy, and the broad aim
and the empirical results of some micronance initiatives
have been criticized by a number of community activists
and academics. For example, microcredit, typically
focused on women in impoverished communities and
building upon traditional communal networks, often
transforms local residents into individual entrepreneurs
within a globalized economy [34,35]. While in some cases
this may enhance some individuals and communities
means, it may have unpredictable and severely negative
consequences, including gender violence, which may
increase when women receive micronance support, or
the environmental degradation that accompanies eco-
nomic growth (as conventionally dened), which often
in turn leads to uneven development rather than
enhanced opportunities for the poor.
Ahling and Jiang [36] maintain that the long-term
sustainability of the effects of microcredit programs
appears linked to a successful transition of self-
employment into entrepreneurship. Without proper edu-
cation and micro-saving strategies to enhance the wealth
accumulation process, microcredit may in the long run
even raise poverty. Among other things, some microcredit
programs have increased individualistic behavior, coer-
cion, and hostility, led to breakdowns in the community,
worsened social hierarchies, or increased work burdens
[34,35].
It should also be said that in the specic application of
microcredit programs to disaster management, additional
trouble may arise; such programs can be risky for the
micronance institutions (borrower insolvency), and even
somewhat ethically questionable (giving loans instead of
grants to people who have lost everything to a disaster).
Yet, when government interventions (disbursements) are
insufcient, the support offered by micronance institu-
tions could be vital for economic recovery and reconstruc-
tion [37]. Successful examples of this were seen after the
tsunami of 2004 in the Pacic Ocean, where numerous
non-governmental organizations and international asso-
ciations made use of microcredit to facilitate recovery
[37,38].
Nevertheless, while microcredit programs have been
employed to help poor communities to cope with the
effects of disasters, pre-impact mitigation and prevention
activities have received little or no attention from the
micronance institutions. A micronance tool that holds
great potential to support pre-impact disaster risk reduc-
tion activities is microinsurance. By encouraging policy
holders to invest in preventive measures in order to pay
lower insurance premium, microinsurance may foster
safer behavior and decrease exposure to hazards [39,40].
Combining microcredit with microinsurance programs
ex ante disasters could perhaps trigger a positive feedback
loop of disaster prevention and mitigation behaviors.
The mechanism of social funds may be a further
micronance instrument that could be employed to foster
disaster-resilient communities. These are programs estab-
lished to nance small-scale community development
projects, and are used for a variety of purposes ranging
from capacity building to infrastructural renovation.
Social funds are not a risk-reduction nancing mechanism
per se, but a grant funding mechanism to strengthen
livelihood security and increase resilience for poor and
vulnerable households [41]. Because these funds are
managed and coordinated by local stakeholders and
autonomous local government agencies, they can effec-
tively funnel nancial support coming from international
donor organizations directly to the local communities.
Indeed, this ability to bypass existing national level
institutions (such as sectorial ministries and depart-
ments) is both a strength and weakness of these social
funds, as they might become means for special interest
groups to stealthily penetrate new markets.
Disaster risk reduction, especially in poor human
communities, cannot be achieved without enhancing
livelihood and increasing economic security. Finding ways
to circulate resources more effectively may, in the end,
lower social vulnerability and increase resilience to dis-
asters. Thus, some basic questions about micronance
programs must be addressed: (i) Can these resource
circulation mechanisms, originally thought to alleviate
poverty, support entrepreneurship, and empower women,
also work for disaster risk reduction? (ii) What are the
possible advantages and disadvantages of such applica-
tions? (iii) What evidence, direct and indirect, can be
gathered? (iv) Are there parallels to be found in ecosystem
resilience theory? If so, (v) what can be learned from such
very different contexts?
4. Comparing social and ecological ways of recirculating
resources
In a concept paper, hypothesis and research questions
are, of course, addressed and discussed conceptually. One
way to corroborate the assumption that micronance
programs may improve disaster risk reduction is to
examine their equivalence to certain natural mechanisms
known to enhance ecosystems resistance and resilience
to disturbance. More explicitly, highlighting the simila-
rities between ecological and social mechanisms of recir-
culating resources, the authors suggest that microcredit,
microinsurance, and social funds may enhance societys
ability to prevent and mitigate disasters. Ecological and
social systems are comparable in as much as: (i) they are
adaptive systems characterized by historical dependency,
non-linear dynamics, and multiple equilibria [42], and (ii)
 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
their resistance and resilience are functions of frequency,
intensity, and strength of the interactions among the
different units composing the systems hierarchical
structure (i.e., individuals, species and communities in
ecosystems, or individuals, local groups and nations in
socio-economic organizations) [43,44]. Let us briey com-
pare these mechanisms in ecological and social systems.
In ecological systems, interactions and resource
exchange occur through biological relations such as, for
example, predation and competition within and among
species. The strength of these interactions can be esti-
mated in terms of connectance, that is the number of
effective links among the different units in relation to the
maximum number of possible interactions. The higher the
connectance, the more stable are the ecosystems func-
tions and production [45,46]. Namely, increasing interac-
tions among the ecosystems units increases its overall
functional diversity and energy-use efciency. The micro-
bial loop is a good example of this specialization in the
use of the environment and its resources. In this aquatic
detrital food web, non-living organic matter is re-utilized
and transformed by heterotrophic bacteria; namely detri-
tus otherwise lost for the food web is converted partly in
inorganic nutrient molecules (fueling photosynthetic pro-
duction) and partly in new prokaryotic biomass (fueling
the grazing food web) [11]. This process allows major
uxes of organic matter in the open ocean, moving large
amounts of dissolved organic matter through bacteria and
their grazers [47]. The microbial loop is the essential
mechanism sustaining life and complex trophic webs in
the deep sea, the largest ecosystem on Earth where
bacteria represent the principal component of benthic
biomass. This ability to remobilize dissolved and particu-
late organic detritus buried in the sediment provides to
benthic heterotrophic animals the substrate to live in an
environment otherwise lacking primary production [48].
Moreover, the microbial loop, by providing additional
nutrition to the higher trophic levels, increases connec-
tance and the number of species and functions that can
coexist [12]. A high number of coexisting species and high
functional diversity (e.g., the different trophic or func-
tional traits) usually increases the temporal stability of
the ecosystem, and enhances its ability to respond to the
different needs created by a disturbance [4] (Fig. 1).
In a socio-economic system the interactions among the
various units constituting the systems hierarchical struc-
ture occur through the mutual exchanges of goods,
knowledge, and services, among individuals and groups
[7]. Other signicant interactions include the joint appli-
cation of labor (e.g., in the production and distribution of
goods for direct consumption, exchange or market trade)
and the educational and cultural activities that sustain
and develop the community [49]. In this regard, micro-
credit, microinsurance, and social funds promoting a wide
array of economic activities, local trade, and social colla-
borations increase socio-economic connectance (the
number of effective economic and social networks). In
turn, these new networks foster additional knowledge
exchange and promote peer monitoring and mentoring
mechanisms [50]. Put differently, micronance programs,
by simplifying access to goods, money, knowledge, and
55
services, to individuals or small groups, may trigger
virtuous and diversied economic loops generating
additional incomes and non-monetized social benets.
In the end, a higher number of economic entities and a
greater diversication of their activities may result in an
increased capacity of the poor local communities to adopt
preventive measures to lower their vulnerability to dis-
asters (Fig. 1).
Certainly, micronance holds great potential to
increase resource recirculation, intensifying and strength-
ening interactions among the different units of the social
system, yet it should be said that micronance will not
increase economic diversity if it is tied to producing and
reproducing only traditional economic models (e.g., the
individual entrepreneur hiring wage labor to produce
commodities for a monetized global market) [49]. Such
an outcome will in fact decrease economic diversity,
diverting resources (social and nancial capital) away
from a variety of indigenous and novel economic activities
(e.g., communal resource management in critical environ-
ments), tying communities even more precariously to
narrowed economic and ecological environments.
5. Investing for sustainable disaster risk reduction: best
practice case studies
A selection of microcredit, microinsurance, and social
fund best practice case studies for disaster prevention and
mitigation (Table 1) will be discussed in the following
pages. The micronance projects chosen, some now
decades old, allow the long-term disaster risk reduction
benets to become visible. In some cases, recent events
have put these programs to the test. Some of these disaster
risk reduction effects were unexpected side-effects rather
than originally designed objectives; nonetheless, the pro-
mising outcomes demonstrate the potential of micro-
nance to increase resistance and resilience to disasters of
poor human communities.
5.1. Microcredit
5.1.1. Flood risk mitigation in Bangladesh
Bangladesh is exposed to a variety of natural hazards
from tropical cyclones and storm surges to earthquakes
and tsunami. Floods, local seasonal storms, and rising sea
levels are events which cause loss of lives and damage to
housing, agriculture, and economy. From 1980 to 2008
Bangladesh was hit by 219 disasters which killed 191,344
people and caused economic damage of almost US$
16,800 million. On average 11 million residents are
affected by disasters each year [51]. About 38% of the
population still lives below the poverty line [33], and the
countrys economic growth is severely limited by the
cyclical impacts of hydro-meteorological events [52].
After the destructive ood of 1987, some systematic
risk mitigation programs were initiated in Bangladesh by
Grameen Housing, a program of Grameen Bank [33].
Different types of loans were made available to support
housing retrotting and reconstruction projects, and spe-
cic safety designs were set as a precondition to access
funding [33]. For example, new houses had to be built on
56 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262

Fig. 1. Parallels among ecological and socio-economic systems. The microbial loop, by fostering high connectance, trophic interactions, and high
functional diversity and supporting a high number of coexisting species, helps ecological systems oppose changes induced by a disturbance. Similarly,
micronance programs, by promoting a high number of economic and social networks, local trade and collaborations, and diversied local economic
activities and supporting a high number of economic entities, helps socio-economic systems mitigate and possibly prevent impacts induced by a disaster.

Table 1
Examples of micronance programs supporting disaster risk reduction.

Micro-Finance Institution Country Hazard Objective

Grameen Bank Bangladesh Flood and Housing renovation to increase poor families resilience to ood
cyclone

KRCS (Kenya Red Cross Society) Kenya Drought Reduce vulnerability to droughts through better environmental
(Machakos) education and more effective land use management (micro-irrigation
and cereal banks)

DWF (Development Workshop France) Vietnam Flood and Move poor families from precarious shelters to semi-permanent
(Thua Thien cyclone houses with a greater resistance to oodwater
Hue)

ADB (Asia Development Bank) Sri-Lanka Multi- Coastal protection and livelihood restoration (e.g. rebuilding shing
hazards boats, reopening shops, or starting new businesses).
GSDMA (Gujarat State Disaster Management India Earthquake Housing renewal combining earthquake and cyclone resistant design,
Authority) (Gujarat) traditional shelter styles, and indigenous building materials

CARD-MRI (Center for Agriculture and Rural Philippines Multi- Increase poor communities capacity to cope with disasters with
Development and Mutually Reinforcing hazards specically designed micro-insurance and savings programs
Institutions)

FHIS (Honduran Social Investment Fund) Honduras Cyclones Community-driven development projects in public education, health
and sanitation, and other social infrastructures to mitigate hurricanes

TASAF (Tanzania Social Action Fund) Tanzania Drought Community empowerment to demand, implement and monitor
services and access to opportunities that contribute to mitigate food
crisis and improve livelihood.

FONADES (National Foundation for Burkina Faso Drought Mitigate vulnerability to droughts by granting micro-loans to women,
Development and Solidarity) establishing banks of cereals, and diversifying agricultural production

SEWA (Self Employed Womens Associations) India Multi- Safety nets among women to increase disaster resilience of the rural
(Gujarat) hazards poor people

ACODEP (Association of Consultants for the Nicaragua Multi- Sustain poor households, particularly those located in hazard prone
Development of the Micro and Small hazards areas, to improve housing
Enterprises)
 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
elevated platforms to prevent water damage during the
ood season. The house frame, normally built with
bamboo, had to be reinforced with four concrete columns
to increase the overall stability of the houses and make
the roofs usable as an elevated shelter during oods. From
the economic development side, the new buildings were
also required to have windows, or similar openings, to let
in the natural light and allow the family to work inside
their home. From 1987 to 2006 the number of houses
constructed through this program exceeded 600,000 [53],
and the growth has been steady since the 1990s.
A study conducted by The Center for Urban Develop-
ment Studies of Harvard University, Graduate School of
Design [52], revealed an encouraging disaster risk reduc-
tion outcome of the Grameen Housing program. Houses
built in this initiative performed better than other houses
during the cyclic hydro-meteorological events, and
required fewer structural repairs after the severe oods
of 1998 and the disastrous cyclones that hit the coastline
of Bangladesh in the spring of 1991 [52]. Moreover,
besides increasing these houses structural stability, the
Grameen Housing program also helped improve house-
holds social conditions; in Bangladesh to have a well-
built home is a symbol of social status and a source of
dignity for the family [52]. Thus, although working with
single households, this microcredit program enhanced the
overall community structural and social resistance and
resilience to ood disasters.
5.1.2. Drought preparedness in Kenya
Kenya, like many other African countries, is exposed to
severe drought, desertication, and heavy oods (during
rainy seasons). Considering that 80% of the Kenyan
population depends on agriculture, either through inten-
sive or pastoral farming, hydro-meteorological hazards
are critical issues. From 1980 to 2008 Kenya was hit by 68
disasters which killed 5494 people and caused economic
damage of almost US$ 112 million. On average 1.7 million
people are affected by disasters each year [51]. Water
scarcity has had devastating effects on households ability
to cope with nancial obligations and to gather food.
Among the various initiatives for humanitarian aid and
disaster relief developed after the devastating famine of
2000, the Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS) implemented a
microcredit plan for the Machakos district, one of the
poorest areas of Kenya, with an estimated population of
906,644. The aim of the KRCS was to reduce residents
vulnerability to drought disasters through better environ-
mental education and more effective land use [54].
Different types of actions were nanced to prevent, cope,
and recover from droughts. Loans were distributed among
the poorest households to establish simple preventive
measures, such as building water storing and irrigation
systems, or to establish diversied drought-resistant crop
farming, including the establishment of local seed banks
and grain storage. KRCS also conducted awareness cam-
paigns about drought risk management and reserved
some microcredit loans to support women in rural com-
munities, especially the heads of households with chil-
dren. This was an important choice; the United Nations
has identied women as key to disaster prevention,
57
acknowledging their proactive role in disaster response
through family and community services [55].
A very encouraging test for the KRCS microcredit
program was the 2004 severe drought in Kenya. On that
occasion, the communities of Machakos district did not
report drastic losses (as had happened two years before)
and showed a surprising resilience to the drought [54].
Here too, as in the Bangladesh case study, the ecosystem
approach was the key to the success of the KRCS program
for drought mitigation. The new irrigation systems, diver-
sied crops, and seed banks helped increasing local
communities resistance to drought, while a greater
diversication of economic and social links increased the
Machakos districts overall social resilience.
5.1.3. Housing reinforcement in Vietnam
Vietnam is highly exposed to climate change impacts,
experiencing signicant change in rainfall and cyclone
patterns. These events are causing unprecedented oods
and drought, affecting agriculture, aquaculture, and ani-
mal husbandry activities, which are the major livelihoods
of the rural people of Vietnam. From 1980 to 2008 the
country was hit by 140 disasters which killed 15,377
people and caused economic damage of almost US$ 6160
million. On average 2.3 million residents are affected by
disasters each year [51]. Over the last three decades
Vietnam has also been undergoing intense economic
development through heavy industrialization and pro-
found economic reforms, yet the improvement in living
conditions is frequently limited by the destruction caused
by these seasonal disasters [56].
After the devastating ood that hit central Vietnam in
1999, a microcredit program for housing preventive
reinforcement against cyclone and ood damages was
initiated by the Development Workshop France (DWF)
and the Canadian International Development Agency
(CIDA) in collaboration with the European Commission
for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO). In the province of Thua
Thien Hue in central Vietnam, funds were loaned to the
poorest families to retrot or renew buildings to increase
their resistance to extreme hydro-meteorological events.
Over 1300 ood and cyclone-resistant houses have been
retrotted under the original program [56]. This project
followed a governmental building renewal program for
rural areas implemented during the mid-1990s, in which
some 80% of rural housing was constructed to replace
previous thatch and bamboo dwelling. Regrettably,
storm-resistant building principles were neglected during
this governmental program, and such a large investment
did not correspond with an increase in building resistance
(as shown by the catastrophic effects of the 1999 oods).
Learning this outcome, DWF paid special attention on
communicating the basic principles and techniques of
safe storm and ood resistant construction to both local
people and local government ofcials. In 2002 DWF
further developed the program, organizing a new credit
scheme for the construction of new permanent houses.
This new plan required an initial contribution from the
families.
Over time, the project achieved real progress decreas-
ing the frequency of households losses and reducing the
58 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
cost of recovery. DWF also showed that people were able
to repay quickly these types of loans, in spite of the fact
that the loans were not awarded for items directly linked
to the generation of new income [56]. This should not be
surprising; in Vietnam strengthening home safety is a key
component of household economic security and a familys
ability to channel their budget to other, more productive
activities. The local population quickly recognized that
despite the large initial investment, in the long-term it is
cheaper to have a safe and permanent house able to
withstand the annual ood events [56]. A permanent
house increases the familys resistance to ood disasters,
which in turn, by enhancing livelihood and socio-
economic connections, increases communities resilience
and ability to face an extreme event.
5.1.4. Livelihood restoration and coastal protection in Sri
Lanka
Sri Lanka, like many Asian and Pacic developing
countries, is located in a very active hazard region subject
to oods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunami, and
landslides. From 1980 to 2008 Sri Lanka was hit by 54
disasters which caused some 36,500 deaths and economic
damage of almost US$ 1670 million. On average 568,000
people are affected by disasters each year [51]. Indeed, the
worst disaster ever faced by the country was the devas-
tating tsunami of the Indian Ocean of December 2004,
which alone killed 35,322 people and displaced another
516,000. Many people lost their livelihoods, particularly
in the shing and agricultural sectors; some 23,449 acres
of cultivated land was made infertile by seawater intru-
sion. The value of physical assets lost has been estimated
at US$ 900 million [37].
Among the numerous and massive international
humanitarian relief programs, the Asian Development
Bank (ADB) distributed, in the form of microcredit loans,
about US $3 million to approximately 8000 people
affected by the tsunami [57]. The program helped families
to recover their livelihood by, for example, rebuilding
shing boats, reopening small shops, or establishing new
businesses. The maximum individual loan was about US$
1000. The ADB also helped the Sri Lankan Government
with another $220 million to fund small scale credits for
housing reconstruction and coastal protection projects.
Furthermore, the Sri Lankan National Development Trust
Fund, in cooperation with government agencies and other
micro-nancial institutions, also provided loans for capa-
city building and other social support services [57].
Numerous other donor agencies distributed nancial
support through local micro-nancial institutions and,
independently of the various granting styles and require-
ments, all aid programs played an important role in
restarting the local economy. A common emphasis of
such programs was sustainable livelihoods through com-
munity participation in coastal conservation, including
nurturing mangroves and restoring beaches, fences, and
channel systems. Special attention was also paid to
promote womens welfare and self-esteem to secure their
participation in economic development. Overall, these
micronance programs produced a great mobilization of
savings, providing opportunities to the tsunami victims to
revive or start anew income generating activities,
strengthen their self-reliance and lowering the vulner-
ability of local communities to future disasters.
5.2. Microinsurance
5.2.1. Earthquake reconstruction in Gujarat (India)
Natural disasters of geophysical and meteo-climatic
origins cause massive loss of human lives and infrastruc-
tures in India. From 1980 to 2008 the country was hit by
395 disasters which led to some 139,400 deaths and
economic damage of about US$ 45,000 million. On aver-
age 52 million people are affected by disasters each year
[51]. After the massive earthquake in the state of Gujarat
of January 2001, the local disaster management authority
implemented an earthquake insurance program to help
the reconstruction phases. The earthquake affected some
1.1 million houses. Damages were classied into ve
categories from G-1 (minor damages) to G-5 (requiring
reconstruction). As declared by the Gujarat State Disaster
Management Authority (GSDMA), the objective of the
reconstruction program was not simply to help indivi-
duals to recover from the effects of disasters, but also to
reduce their vulnerability to future earthquakes [58].
The program obliged the people who received public
assistance to rebuild their house (category G-5) to buy a
long-term, standard re and special perils insurance
policy. The minimum policy cost was about US$ 8, and
covered 14 types of hazards (including re, lightning,
cyclones, tornadoes, ooding, subsidence, landslides,
earthquakes, and even acts of terrorism), and the max-
imum premium coverage was about US$ 22,500. The
policies were issued on a village basis, but individual
contracts were also issued to the owners whose houses
were previously covered by insurance. GSDMA acted as an
intermediary between the insurance companies and the
beneciaries. In two years a total of 214,247 houses were
insured [58].
According to Dhar et al. [38], the GSDMA case study
showed that micro-insurance helped individuals to
become self-reliant in taking actions to minimize the
impact of earthquakes. It also shows that when the
government acts as an intermediary between insurance
companies and communities, through appropriately
designed policies, large and rapid diffusion of funds are
possible and the new houses built can be constructed
according to anti-seismic standards. A study found that
prior to the earthquake only 5% of those surveyed knew
about insurance, while after the earthquake 67% were
aware of disaster insurance services. Overall, the micro-
insurance scheme used in Gujarat appeared to be a good
earthquake disaster mitigation program, and an effective
means of risk transfer; if an earthquake strikes again, the
beneciaries will be less exposed and able to indepen-
dently repair/reconstruct their houses without encumber-
ing the local or national government.
5.2.2. Poverty alleviation and disaster resilience in the
Philippines
The Philippine islands are particularly exposed to
weather related hazards such as tropical cyclones, oods,
 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
and landslides. Other important hazards are earthquakes,
tsunami, and droughts. From 1980 to 2008 the country
was hit by 310 disasters which caused 31,000 deaths and
economic damage of almost US$ 6000 million. On average
3.4 million people are affected by disasters each year [51].
Considering that about 45 million people (almost half of
the countrys population) live in rural areas, and most of
them depend on subsistence farming and shing for their
livelihoods, natural disasters can cause and perpetuate
severe and widespread poverty. In 1997 the Center for
Agriculture and Rural Development and Mutually Rein-
forcing Institutions (CARD-MRI) set to increase the dis-
aster resilience of rural communities through specially
designed micronance products, including loans, savings,
and micro-insurance. Initial operations began in 2002 to
help the badly ooded Quezon Province, and in less than a
year CARD-MRI quickly reached 3000 clients. Here too,
particular attention was paid to the needs of women,
considered key to disaster prevention.
The project outcomes immediately showed that micro-
nancial services can increase social resilience and lower
vulnerability [59]. Positive effects were seen in all stages
of the disaster cycle: relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction,
and development [59]. Indeed, these programs have
expanded all over the Philippines, and in 2010, CARD-
MRI served 1,034,808 microcredit clients (which repre-
sent about 38% of the whole micro-nancial institutions
contributions in the countries, or circa 21% contributions
aimed at poverty reduction), and tallied almost 4.9
million active insurance policies (19% of the total insured
Filipinos). In spite of the high frequency of disasters that
occur in the Philippines, so far the repayment rate of
micro-loans has been very high: 99.5%. Recently, CARD-
MRI began providing disaster preparedness training for
borrowers and micronance organizations, thus fostering
knowledge exchange and further increasing local com-
munities capacity to cope with recurrent extreme events
[60].
5.3. Social funds
5.3.1. Recovery and reconstruction after Hurricane Mitch in
Honduras
Honduras, like other Caribbean countries, is exposed to
severe hurricanes and oods, and to frequent but gener-
ally mild earthquakes. From 1980 to 2008 Honduras was
hit by 50 disasters which killed 15,548 people, and
produced economic damage of about US$ 4400 million.
On average 124,185 people are affected by disasters each
year [51]. Honduras is also the third-poorest country in
the Latin America and Caribbean Region. The majority of
the poor and extremely poor live in rural areas and lack
consistent access to schools, health centers, and infra-
structure services.
In the 1990s the government set up the Honduran
Social Investment Fund (FHIS) with the goal to help
disadvantaged communities to update infrastructures
and support the development of local social services. FHIS
also aimed at the creation of short-term employment
opportunities. With time the focus changed toward
community-driven development projects and to gaining
59
local governments commitment to increase social capital.
At the end of its rst decade of operations, nearly half of
Honduras 298 municipalities participate to FHIS, which
had grown to support about 800 projects per year in the
realms of public education, health and sanitation, and
other social infrastructure [61].
When Hurricane Mitch hit Honduras in November
1998, the fund played a pivotal role in the reconstruction
process, both at the local and national level. In the rst
100 days, the FHIS approved 2100 projects with a total
value of US$ 40 million and by the end of 1999 had
increased the total number of projects to 3400 [61].
Immediately supporting labor-intensive clean-up and
early recovery activities, FHIS counteracted the disruption
of livelihood caused by the hurricane, providing tempor-
ary employment to affected people while restoring basic
social services and rebuilding critical infrastructure [41].
Although not much planning was done in terms of
disaster mitigation before Hurricane Mitch, the lessons
learned in its aftermath brought FHIS to examine pre-
ventive strategies, particularly focusing on the role of
women in disaster, both during the rehabilitation and
preparation phases, and on the mitigative potential of
schools and other social infrastructure during the design
phase [62].
5.3.2. Reduction of poverty and livelihood vulnerability in
Tanzania
Tanzania is highly exposed to drought, oods, and
epidemics. Other hazards are earthquakes and tsunami.
From 1980 to 2008 the country was hit by 65 disasters
which caused some 6747 deaths and economic damage of
almost US$ 3.8 million. On average 8.7 million people are
affected by disasters each year [51]. Of the 43 million
people living in Tanzania, 33% live below the basic needs
poverty line and 18% below the food poverty line [63].
Agriculture employs around 80% of the Tanzanian work-
force, and is the major livelihood of the rural people.
Hence, climatic hazards like droughts can cause frequent
severe and widespread food shortages [51].
The Tanzanian government, in an effort to reduce
poverty and livelihood vulnerability to hydro-
climatological events, established the Tanzania Social
Action Fund (TASAF) in 2000. The project is currently in
its second phase. TASAF I was completed in 2005 and
TASAF II was expected to be completed by 2012. The key
focus of TASAF is poverty reduction through capacity
building and grassroots institutional development, sup-
porting decision making, resource mobilization and man-
agement, communication, and conict resolution. By
promoting community-based targeting, participatory
wealth ranking, and local focus group discussions, TASAF
seeks to identify those vulnerable groups who are most in
need of support. Among the indicators used are head of
households literacy, school dropout rate, female-headed
households, and lack of job opportunities [64].
The program was reinforced after the particularly
devastating drought of 2008. The Tanzanian government,
in partnership with the United Nations and various
international agencies and NGOs, responded by creating
the Accelerated Food Security Program. Such program
60 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
disbursed about US$ 220 million to be divided among
different projects, including TSAF II, which was given US$
30 million. This additional nancing allowed TASAF to
implement social protection mechanisms and enhanced
food security for the poor and most vulnerable house-
holds in the worst-hit districts. Three main mechanisms
have been developed: (a) Public Works Programs, namely
cash transfers through short-term employment in public
work projects focused on conservation and the restoration
of natural resources indispensable for food security and
livelihoods (e.g., water management, reforestation of
degraded areas, and the rehabilitation of community
roads); (b) Community Development Initiatives, to
enhance social services (e.g., building schools and improv-
ing water sources management); (c) Social Support Pro-
grams (SSP), grants to capacity building programs
vulnerable groups such as disabled and elderly (e.g.,
training physically disabled people in bee keeping, poul-
try farming, and nancial and business management
skills).
From September 2009 to March 2010, TASAF has
funded 172 sub-projects valued at over US$ 2.8 million,
which, along with another 66 sub-projects (US$ 1 million)
of the local government authorities, has helped some
43,068 individuals avoid food insecurity, and the program
is steadily approaching its set targets [64]. A relevant lesson
learned for quick and effective implementation of TASAF
programs was the need for strong public awareness-raising
campaigns to focus sub-projects to prevent crisis and
promote longer-term food security. Currently, TASAF II is
paying special attention to communication strategies to
distribute various materials through print media and broad-
casting radio programs through zonal radio stations. Once
empowered, communities are expected to demand, imple-
ment, and monitor activities that contribute to mitigating
food crises and improving livelihoods.
In sum, micro-nancial institutions granted loans to
enhance living conditions (e.g., diversifying sources of
income through the stabilization of land in rural areas,
such as the programs in Kenya and the Philippines),
protect coastal areas (Sri Lanka), improve housing safety
(Bangladesh, Vietnam and India), and lower social vulner-
ability (Honduras and Tanzania). These programs in the
long-term should improve local economies, increase
social capital, and lower vulnerability to disasters,
strengthening individuals abilities and contributing to
creating more diversied and resilient societies.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The ecological and socio-economic parallels presented
above (summarized in Fig. 1) and the micronance best
practice case studies selected (Table 1), suggest that more
effective resource recirculation mechanisms may signi-
cantly enhance a natural or human systems ability to
cope with changes and extreme events. Ecosystem resi-
lience theory explains how effective cycling of matter and
energy, through processes such as the microbial loop,
helps ecological systems overcome changes induced by a
disturbance. They do this by fostering trophic interac-
tions, high connectance, and high functional diversity and
by supporting a high number of coexisting species.
Similarly, nancial resource circulation and distribution
mechanisms, such as microcredit, microinsurance, and
social funds, by promoting a high number of economic
and social networks, local trade and collaborations, and
supporting a high number of diversied economic enti-
ties, may help socio-economic systems reduce disaster
risk.
Undoubtedly, as the microbial loop can lead to nega-
tive effects (such as bacterial competition), micronance
can also produce negative effects. For example, a rapid
increase in individuals and households market access,
say through economic globalization, may increase income
inequality and possibly lead, among other things, to
greater biodiversity losses [65]. Yet more gradually intro-
duced market access through micronance mechanisms
may strengthen social networks (by increasing interac-
tion, producing new norms, and fostering trust among
community members) and encourage or even require
environmental conservation behavior.
Wild, Millinga and Robinson [66] point out that envir-
onmental governance via micronance is possible but not
automatic; to effectively support individual or household
businesses a micronance program has to function nan-
cially, but to effectively support individual or collective
environmental management actions such a program has
to function socially. In other words, if individuals, house-
holds, and solidarity groups are making prot and work-
ing together, then improved environmental governance is
possible.
The triple-bottom-line concept of prot, people and
planet [67], which emerged in recent years in the micro-
nance sector, suggests an increased awareness by fund-
ing institutions of the necessity of tying nancial viability
to environmental sustainability [68]. Promoting sustain-
able human development that is respectful of the envir-
onment is critical to effective disaster prevention.
Conservation of natural capital (biodiversity, ecosystems
services, etc.) and development of built capital (infra-
structure), human capital (health, knowledge, etc.), and
social capital (formal and informal networks among
people) are central to reducing natural disaster vulner-
ability [69,70]. Indeed, micronance programs with a
long-term vision of sustainable development, cautiously
offering access to nancial services to poor individuals,
households and communities, may ensure a balanced
growth of these four capitals.
The outcomes of the micronance programs discussed
in this paper included: (i) environmental protection and
restoration, (ii) environmental education and sustainable
land use management, (iii) housing and infrastructural
strengthening and renewal, (iv) hazard understanding
and awareness, (v) capacity building, (vi) community
empowerment, (vii) economic diversity, (viii) social pro-
tection and solidarity networks, (ix) integration of local
knowledge and practices into development and disaster
risk, and (x) protective behaviors. In the end, these
programs increased individual and community resistance
and resilience to disasters.
More research is needed to better clarify how micro-
nance programs may strengthen communities ability to
 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
cope with disasters by decreasing the dependency of the
local community on external resources, fostering the
growth and diversication of local economic activities
and their assets, and increasing the scope of local socio-
economic networks. Further investigation is also needed
to understand how microcredit programs that foster the
creation of social networks built on trust and relation-
ships between borrowers can forge a new collective
consciousness and group solidarity (the particular soli-
darity of disaster survivors) and prompt action to produce
change.
Although working primarily at the level of individuals,
micronance mechanisms may increase a communitys
self-understanding as an ecological communitynot a
collection of individuals, but an ecosystem with commu-
nal responsibility, able to respond to complex collective
issues like disasters. Surely, micronance alone cannot
produce durable change; to be sustainable these pro-
grams need the support of broader development pro-
grams and policies that foster collaboration among
institutions, civil society, and economic enterprises. We
invite further debate on this matter.
References
[1] Zimmerer KS. Human geography and the new ecology: the prospect
and promise of integration. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 1994;84:10825.
[2] Levin S, Barrett S, Aniyar S, Baumol W, Bliss C, Bolin B, et al.
Resilience in natural and socio-economic systems. Environment
and Development Economics 1998;3(2):22234.
[3] Gunderson LH, Holling CS, editors. Panarchy: understanding trans-
formation in human and natural system. Washington, DC: Island
Press; 2002.
[4] Berkes F, Folke C, editors. Linking social and ecological systems:
management practices and social mechanisms for building resili-
ence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
[5] Rykiel Jr EJ. Towards a denition of ecological disturbance.
Australian Journal of Ecology 1985;10:3615.
[6] Carpenter SR, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N. From metaphor to
measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 2001;4:
76581.
[7] McCann K. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 2000;405:22833.
[8] Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. Catastrophic
shifts in ecosystems. Nature 2001;413:5916.
[9] Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nystrom M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B,
et al. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2003;1:48894.
[10] Scheffer M, Carpenter SR. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems:
linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
2003;18:64856.
[11] Azam F. Microbial control of oceanic carbon ux: the plot thick-
ness. Science 1998;280:6946.
[12] Kassen R, Buckling A, Bell G, Rainey PB. Diversity peaks at inter-
mediate productivity in a laboratory microcosm. Nature 2000;406:
50812.
[13] Alexander DE. Principles of emergency planning and management.
New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
[14] Oliver-Smith A, editor. Natural disasters and cultural responses,
studies in third world societies. Williamsburg: College of William
and Mary; 1986.
[15] Maskrey A. Disaster mitigation: a community-based approach,
development guidelines no. 3. Oxford: Oxfam; 1989.
[16] Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. At risk: natural hazards.-
Peoples vulnerability, and disasters. London: Routledge; 1994.
[17] Bolin RC. The Northridge earthquake: community-based approaches
to unmet recovery needs. Disasters 1998;22(1):2138.
[18] Cannon T. Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of natural
disasters. In: Varley A, editor. Disasters, development and environ-
ment. New York: Wiley; 1994.
61
[19] Watts M. On the poverty of theory: natural hazards in context. In:
Hewitt K, editor. Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of
human ecology. Boston: Allen and Unwin; 1983.
[20] Hewitt K. The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In: Hewitt K,
editor. Interpretations of calamity: from the viewpoint of human
ecology. London: Allen and Unwin; 1983.
[21] Quarantelli EL. What should we study? questions and suggestions
for researchers about the concept of disasters International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 1987;5:732.
[22] Quarantelli EL. What is a disaster? International Journal of Mass
Emergency and Disasters 1995;13(3):22130.
[23] Bates FL, Peacock WG. Disasters and social change. In: Dynes RR,
Demarchi B, Pelanda C, editors. The sociology of disasters. Milan:
Franco Angeli Press; 1987.
[24] Varley A. The exceptional and the everyday: vulnerability analysis
in the international decade for natural disaster reduction. In: Varley
A, editor. Disasters, development and environment. New York:
Wiley; 1994.
[25] Morrow BH. Identifying and mapping community vulnerability.
Disasters 1999;23(1):118.
[26] Kahn ME. The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income,
geography, and insititutions. Review of Economics and Statistics
2005;87(2):27184.
[27] Kellenberg DK, Mobarak AMushq. Does rising income increase or
decrease damage risk from natural disasters? Journal of Urban
Economics 2007;63(3):788802.
[28] Young OR, Berkhout F, Gallopin GC, Janssen MA, Ostrom E,
Van der Leeuw S. The globalization of socio-ecological systems:
an agenda for scientic research. Global Environmental Change
2006;16:30416.
[29] Smith K, Petley DN. Environmental hazards.Assessing risk and
reducing disasters. New York: Routledge; 2009.
[30] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-
tion). Hyogo framework for action 20052015: building the resi-
lience of nations and building the resilience of nations and
communities to disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction,
2005. Available from: /http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyo
go-framework-for-action-english.pdfS; 2012 [accessed 27.03.12].
[31] Pantoja E. Micro nance and disaster risk management: experi-
ences and lessons learned.Mimeo. Washington, DC: World Bank;
2002.
[32] UNOCHA (United Nations Ofce for the Coordination of Humani-
tarian Affair), OCHA in 2009. Annual Plan and Budget. Geneva,
Switzerland, 2009. Available from: /http://ochaonline.un.org/Abou
tOCHA/OCHAin2009/tabid/5153/language/en-US/Default.aspxS;
2012 [accessed 27.03.12].
[33] Yunus M. Banker to the poor: micro-lending and the battle against
world poverty. Philadelphia: Public Affairs; 2003.
[34] Ranking KN. Governing development: neoliberalism, microcredit, and
rational economic woman. Economy Society 2001;30(1):1837.
[35] Gibson K. Women, identity and activism in Asian and Pacic
community economies. Development 2002;45(2):7492.
[36] Ahlin C, Jiang N. Can micro-credit bring development? Journal of
Development Economics 2008;86(1):121.
[37] Aheeyar MM. Cash grants and micronance in livelihood recovery:
experiences from tsunami-affected areas of Sri Lanka. London:
Overseas Development Institute; 2006.
[38] Dhar Chakrabarti P, Kull G, Bhatt D. Disaster risk mitigation:
potential of micronance for tsunami recovery. Southasiadisas-
ters.net. Special issue no. 7. AIDMI; 2005. p. 16.
[39] Mechler R, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Peppiatt D. Microinsurance for
natural disaster risks in developing countries: benets, limitations
and viability. Available from: /http://www.climateinsurance.org/
upload/pdf/Mechler2006_MI_for_NatDis.pdfS; 2006 [accessed
27.03.12].
[40] Linnerooth-Bayer J, Mechler R, Insurance against losses from
natural disasters in Developing Countries. Background paper for
United Nation World Economy and Social Survey (WESS); 2008.
[41] ODonnell J. Global assessment reportpractice review on innova-
tions in nance for disaster risk management. In: Proceedings of
the Provention Consortium; 2009. p. 25.
[42] Levin S. Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Perseus
Books: Reading, Massachusetts; 1999.
[43] Dunne JA, Williams MN, Martinez ND. Network structure and
biodiversity loss in food webs, robustness increases with connec-
tance. Ecology Letters 2002;5:55867.
[44] Montoya JM, Pimm SL, Sole RV. Ecological networks and their
fragility. Nature 2006;442:25964.
62 F. Marincioni et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 4 (2013) 5262
[45] Yodzis P. The connectance of real ecosystems. Nature 1980;284:
5445.
[46] Gilbert A. Connectance indicates the robustness of food webs when
subjected to species loss. Ecological Indicators 2009;9:7280.
[47] Azam F, Fenchel T, Field JG, Gray JS, Meyer-Reil LA, Thingstad F. The
ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 1983;10:25763.
[48] Cho BC, Azam F. Major role of bacteria in biogeochemical uxes in
the oceans interior. Nature 1988;332:4413.
[49] Gibson-Graham JK. Area studies after poststructuralism. Environ-
ment and Planning A 2004;36:40519.
[50] Barboza GA, Barreto H. Learning by association: microcredit in
Chiapas, Mexico. Contemporary Economic Policy 2006;24(2):
31631.
[51] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-
tion). Disaster statistics; 2010. Available from: /http://www.pre
ventionweb.netS [accessed 27.03.12].
[52] CUDS (Center of Urban Development Studies). Housing micro-
nance initiatives: synthesis and regional summary: Asia, Latin
America and Sub-Saharan Africa with selected case studies. Regio-
nal Summary Report Harvard Universitys Graduate School of
Design. Cambridge, MA, USA; 2000.
[53] Grameen Bank; 2009. Available from: /http://www.grameen-info.
org/index.?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=503S.
[accessed 27.03.12].
[54] Duran J. Kenyan droughts: a community based approach with Micro-
credits, published by UN/ISDR in: invest to prevent disaster. Available
from: /http://www.unisdr.org/eng/public_aware/world_camp/2005/
docs/case-study-Kenya.pdfS; 2005 [accessed 27.03.12].
[55] Enarson E. Gender and natural disasters. infocus programme on
crisis response and reconstruction.Working paper 1. International
Labour Organization, Geneva. Available from: /http://www.unisdr.
org/eng/library/Literature/7566.pdfS; 2000 [accessed 27.03.12].
[56] Development Workshop France (DWF). Mobilising revolving funds
for preventive housing reinforcement against cyclone and ood
damage in Viet Nama key to reducing economic losses. Analysis
and proposal for a credit scheme. Preliminary report. ECHO
DIPECHO/ European Commission Department of Humanitarian
Affair; 2008.
[57] ADB (Asian Development Bank). Tsunami a year after. Rebuilding
communities. Available from: /http://www.adb.org/Documents/
Periodicals/ADB_Review/2005/vol37-6/rebuilding-communities.pdfS;
2005 [accessed 27.03.12].
[58] Pandya M, Mitchell T, Shah A. Transferring risk through micro-
insurance, microcredit and livelihood relief; best practice case
studies. Ahmedabad, India: All India Disaster Mitigation Institute;
2006. p. 60.
[59] MAConcepcion Hina-Antonio. Potential of micronance in the
context of disaster risk mitigation: Philippine experience. Paper
presented at the international conference on disaster risk mitiga-
tion: potential of micronance in tsunami recovery, 1415 October,
2005. India Habitat Center, New Delhi, India; 2005.
[60] CARD MRI (Center for Agriculture and Rural Development and
Mutually Reinforcing Institutions). Available from: /http://www.
cardbankph.com/cmdi/courseOffering.phpS; 2010 [accessed 27.03.12].
[61] Warren D. Coping with a natural disaster: hurricane mitch and the
Honduran social investment fund. Spectrum Magazine. World Bank.
/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSF/Resources/395669-11242-
28420001/1563161-1164132865623/Warren_MitchSF_SPectrum
Fall2003.pdfS; Fall 2003.
[62] Delaney PL, Shrader E. Gender and post-disaster reconstruction:
the case of hurricane Mitch in Honduras and Nicaragua. Draft
Report, World Bank; 2000. p. 58.
[63] UNDP (United Nations Development Program), Human develop-
ment index ranking. Available from: /http://hdr.undp.org/en/sta
tisticsS; 2009 [accessed 27.03.12].
[64] World Bank. Natural disaster and crises response by the Tanzania
social action fund. Available from: /http://siteresources.world
bank.org/INTSF/Resources/CBDRM_Toolkit_Case_Study_TASAF.pdfS;
2010 [accessed 27.03.12].
[65] Kramer D, Urquhart G, Schmitt K. Globalization and the connection of
remote communities: a review of household effects and their biodi-
versity implications. Ecological Economics 2009;68:2897909.
[66] Wild R, Millinga A, Robinson J. Micronance and environmental
sustainability at selected sites in Tanzania and Kenya. Summary
report (2008). Available from: /http://www.eldis.org/vle/upload/
1/document/0811/Micronance%20in%20East%20Africa%20WWF%
20Care%20LTS.pdfS; 2012 [accessed 27.03.12].
[67] Araya MC, Christen RP. Micronance as a tool to protect biodiver-
sity hot-spots. Washington, DC: CGAP; 2004.
[68] Rippey P. Micronance and climate change: threats and opportu-
nities. CGAP focus note 53. Washington. DC. CGAP. Available from:
/http://www.cgap.org/publications/micronance-and-climate-
change-threats-and-opportunitieS; 2009 [accessed 27.03.12].
[69] Costanza R, Farley J. Ecological economics of coastal disasters:
introduction to the special issue. Ecological Economics 2007;63:
24953.
[70] Ray-Bennett NS. The role of microcredit in reducing womens
vulnerabilities to multiple disasters. Disasters 2009;34(1):24060.