A systematic review has been conducted to identify resilience-building frameworks in the context of disaster and climate change impact in Bangladesh. The selected frameworks have been developed and implemented at the field level to build resilience in combating climate change and disaster impact. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PRISMA ( Moher et al., 2009 ) method was used to select resilience-building frameworks. PRISMA focuses on ways where authors can ensure the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It does not address the conduct of systematic reviews directly or in a detailed manner for which other guides are available. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes essential items for transparent reporting of a systematic review ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). It is an established method for guiding the systematic review of academic literature and is based on four steps: Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Inclusion. The process of selecting review papers following these steps shown in Figure 1 . In the proceeding section, the key steps of selecting resilience frameworks are illustrated briefly:

Step 1—Identification stage: The keywords “Social/community resilience framework and climate change” were used to scan academic journal databases, including Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, based on title and abstract to identify all potential resilience frameworks and research articles. After an initial search of the literature, the study identified a total number of 1276 frameworks and research articles.

Step 2—Screening stage: In this stage, search limiters were used to find resilience frameworks developed and published by different organizations on their own for social resilience on climate change using their own experiences of program implications for building resilience. Frameworks that were not developed by organizations were excluded; for example, we didn’t include the frameworks that were developed by any particular researcher or a group of researchers without any organizational collaboration. Consequently, 56 relevant frameworks were selected.

Step 3—Eligibility stage: In this step, the frameworks that are not relevant in the context of Bangladesh have been left out. That means we only included those frameworks that were developed in the context of different climate-vulnerable communities of Bangladesh and which have been implemented in Bangladesh. Finally, 14 eligible frameworks were selected for detailed review.

Step 4—Inclusion stage: Six were selected for final analysis based on the detailed reviews of 14 frameworks. The final selection criteria were made on having a detailed description of frameworks, where the data regarding the framework development and implication were available. In this final stage, the rest frameworks were excluded because of the unavailability of a detailed background and the steps of the framework development considering theoretical and practical tests on the field. We only considered those reports that have been focused on solving the problem of climate-vulnerable people of different communities of Bangladesh with detailed background and development steps.

After a rigorous systematic review using the PRISMA method, the following six resilience frameworks have been selected for critical review and analysis. Those frameworks have been developed by national and international development organizations in Bangladesh named Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), Christian Aid, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Oxfam, Practical Action, and Islamic Relief. The agency named these frameworks based on their respective goals and policies. However, all framework’s focal area of intervention is climate change and disaster. Table 1 describes some of the basic facts and information regarding the selected community resilience frameworks.

A resilience framework represents a holistic approach and promotes an efficient system that ensures sustainable development, while resilience is the prerequisite for the sustainable development of a society or country. Emerging recognition is also of the fact that environmental, economic, social, capacity, and governance systems cannot be treated in isolation. For the systems to be concurrently aligned in the development paradigm focusing on resilience building, the first step is to develop a meta-metric framework that identifies indicators and their respective roles in community resilience building. A clear, comprehensive framework that not only focuses on economic indicators but includes environmental, social, capacity, and governance systems is a prerequisite. Considering this sustainable development approach, we have adopted five dimensions of a resilience framework: good governance, economic growth and sustainability, environmental sustainability, social integration & transformation, and capacity development. Sendzimir et al. (2011) note that good governance and resilience go hand in hand, with further emphasis on the fact that without the structures of good governance, resilience measures cannot be in place. Economic development is claimed to be a significant enabling environment for community resilience ( UNISDR, 2009 ) as well as emphasized in most of the resilience-building frameworks ( BRAC, 2020 ; Christian Aid, 2016 ; Islamic Relief, n.d. ; Practical Action, 2012 ; USAID, 2016 ; Oxfam, 2016 ). The resilience of social systems is related in some (still undefined) ways to the resilience of the ecological systems on which social systems depend ( Adger, 2000 ). Social capital is a key element of a community’s resilience to disasters ( The Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences of the National Research Council, 2006 ) that fosters networking and social mobilization and that, in turn, creates social transformation. Capacity lies at the heart of the resilience concept ( Greijn et al., 2015 ), repeatedly highlighted in national and international policy discourses and funding investment decisions.

Good Governance:

The World Bank introduced the concept of good governance in 1992 as an essential complement to sound economic policies and is central to creating and sustaining an environment that fosters equitable and robust development ( World Bank, 1992 ). United Nations has identified eight major characteristics of good governance: participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law ( UNESCAP, n.d. ).

Weak governance is a critical constraint to effective and equitable resilience and adaptation planning ( Fraser & Kirbyshire, 2017 ). Institutional inertia in political organizations and a historical tendency to top-down, centralized approaches to risk management also impede the ability to respond to a changing climate and devise contextually appropriate solutions. The core distinction of thinking about the governance of climate change-related shocks and stresses beyond thinking about governance for economic development or poverty alleviation, for example, is the emphasis on governing for long-term, uncertain futures (ibid). This measurable framework has identified five indicators essential for governance in a disaster situation: transparency, accountability, inclusive leadership, rights and entitlement, and the whole system approach (Shown in Table 2 ).

Good governance requires credible and trustworthy institutions built on principles of transparency and accountability, where accountability goes beyond the mere responsibility of delivering a task or service. It also means answerability if a service is not delivered in a timely and efficient manner such that it becomes a burden ( Riddihough, 2018 ). Here transparency constitutes the demand for information, the ability of citizens to obtain information, and the supply and the actual release of information by government, institutions, and NGOs ( Mitchell, 1998 ).

Inclusive leadership exhibits qualities and skills to anticipate and be responsible for the people’s rights, needs, and development challenges. Good leadership attributes are essential in creating good governance ( Bedi et al., 2014 ). Inclusive leaders embody a leadership approach that appreciates diversity, invites and welcomes everyone’s contribution, and encourages full engagement with the processes of decision-making and shaping reality. A whole-system approach ensures that the right service is delivered to the people at the right time through bottom-up planning and implementation by empowering the local authorities. It also ensures access to the people’s basic needs and empowers them to become self-sufficient and aware of any potential shocks that can be approached by climate change.

Economic Growth and Sustainability:

Sustained and inclusive economic growth can drive progress towards building resilience without compromising the environmental and social needs for the future. Resilience is the result of a holistic approach, where the ability of an economy to recover effectively from an unexpected shock is one of the central pillars of promoting resilience ( Régibeau & Rockett, 2013 ). Environmental variability can increase the risk of being dependent on particular resources through the incidence of extreme events in nature, which is argued to increase vulnerability ( Adger, 2000 ). Therefore, the role of economic growth and sustainability in supporting and influencing social resilience has been s highlighted in scholarly works. This economic growth and sustainability are identified to be dependent on four indicators: diversified livelihood options, access to financial resources, private sector engagement, and strengthening the value chain (shown in Table 2 ).

Livelihood diversification of farmers’ income sources can be an effective way to cope with the adverse impacts of environmental change ( Roy & Basu, 2020 ). Diversification also refers to attempts by individuals and households to find new ways or sources to raise income ( Hussein & Nelson, 1998 ). Access to finance is the ability of individuals or enterprises to obtain financial services, including credit, deposit, payment, insurance, and other risk management services ( Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2008 ). Another key aspect of economic growth is strengthening the value chain; it can be an effective instrument for fighting inequality, favoring higher incomes for producers, and a more balanced appropriation of value-added. In addition, it fosters productive diversification and expands participation in the segment of the production structure with the most incredible knowledge intensity or highest demand growth, which contributes to structural change ( Padilla-Perez & Villarreal, 2017 ). At its final stage, economic development and sustainability mainly focus on improving and maintaining living standards while adapting to shocks stresses, and uncertainties.

Environmental Sustainability:

Environmental sustainability could be defined as a condition of balance, resilience, and interconnectedness that allows human society to satisfy its needs while neither exceeding the capacity of its supporting ecosystems to continue to regenerate the services necessary to meet those needs nor by our actions diminishing biological diversity ( Morelli, 2011 ). Many ecologists argue that resilience is the key to biodiversity conservation and that diversity itself enhances resilience, stability, and ecosystem functioning (Schulze & Mooney, 1993; Mooney & Ehrlich, 1997; Tilman, 1997, as cited in Adger, 2000 ). This measurable framework has identified three indicators to evaluate all the selected frameworks: ecosystem service, built environment, renewable energy, and energy-efficient technology (Shown in Table 2 ).

Energy efficiency and renewable energy technology solutions can bridge action across climate change mitigation and resilience by reducing GHG emissions and supporting the electric power sector’s adaptation to increasing climate risk. Renewable energy is a significant power generation source since we can use these resources repeatedly to produce sound energy ( Kumar, 2020 ). Ecosystem services can be divided into provisioning services that provide food and water; regulating services that provide clean air, moderate extreme events, and regulate the local climate; supporting services that help maintain biodiversity and infectious disease control; and cultural services ( Lindgren & Elmqvist, 2017 ). For environmental sustainability, the most crucial function of the built environment is protecting and enhancing life (civic ecology), whether in disaster-resilient design and construction practices or disaster recovery and reconstruction activities ( Bosher et al., 2016 ). The built environment includes all physical parts of where we live and work, e.g., homes, buildings, streets, open spaces, and infrastructure ( Glanville, 2004 ).

Social Transformation:

Social transformation implies an underlying notion of how society and culture change in response to such factors as economic growth, war, or political upheavals ( Castles, 2001 ). Through this transformation, society moves from an ascribed status to resilient status. This measurable framework has identified three indicators to evaluate all the selected frameworks: networking and partnership, resource mobilization, and social capital (Shown in Table 2 ).

Social networks improve disaster recovery for residents, communities, and the nation; moreover, three types of social capital, i.e., bonding, linking, and bridging, contribute to community resilience ( Aldrich, 2017 ). It can enable collective action that can lead to the provision of needed aid and services ( Partelow, 2021 ). It also enables communities to organize in the aftermath of a disaster ( Kerr, 2018 ). Resource mobilization refers to all activities involved in securing the existing new and additional resources for the community. It also involves better using and maximizing existing resources ( Seltzer, 2016 ). Community resilience requires some specific constructs such as “connection and caring through social integration and networking,” “resource mobilization” and “community empowerment” considering cultural diversities in order to increase local capacity, social support & resources and to decrease the risk for the community ( Preker et al., 2013 ).

Capacity Development:

Capacity development is how individuals, organizations, and societies obtain, strengthen, and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their development objectives over time ( UNDP, 2007 ). At the same time, resilience is generally considered a capacity to act and adapt in the face of adversity or constraint and is the result of a complex interplay of risk and protective factors ( Danaher et al., 2014 ). Thus, capacity development is essential to reduce the dependency of a community on outsiders from forming and encourages local people to take action on local issues themselves to reduce disaster risk and to be prepared for an emergency. This measurable framework has identified five indicators to evaluate all the selected frameworks: knowledge enhancement, skill development, institutional development, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), and research and innovation (shown in Table 2 ).

The recently adopted Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 addresses knowledge and skill development-related issues and emphasizes the critical role of knowledge and skill development in disaster risk reduction to build resilience ( Weichselgartner & Pigeon, 2015 ). Capacity development of a community not only focuses on enabling all members of the community to develop skills and competencies but also focuses on institutional development with the institutional engagement of different stakeholders to take greater control of their own lives. It also contributes to inclusive local development to build a resilient community ( The University of Memphis, n.d. ) Institutional Development means creating or reinforcing an organization’s capacity to generate, allocate, and use human and financial resources effectively to attain development objectives, either public or private ( Buyck, 1991 ). Innovation through research leads to economic diversification, which increases the ability of economies to adapt to shocks. Innovation in infrastructure protects against failure and negative impacts on communities. Moreover, new research and innovative products and services could decouple economic development from environmental degradation, promoting environmental sustainability ( UNCTAD, 2019 ).

Different frameworks define the resilience approach from different angles, and accordingly, the components or elements of resilience-building are chosen for analyzing the frameworks. Nevertheless, the resilience components of these six selected frameworks can be analyzed under five dimensions, i.e., good governance, economic growth & sustainability, environmental sustainability, social transformation, and capacity development. These five major components are further divided into three to five potential sub-components that describe the key components. The first key component of good governance comprises transparency, accountability, inclusive leadership, rights & entitlement, and the whole system approach as essential sub-components. Under the economic growth and sustainability component, diversification of livelihood, access to financial resources, private sector engagement, and value chain strengthening are considered fundamental elements. Accordingly, ecosystem service, built environment, and renewable energy & energy efficient technology fabricate environmental sustainability, whereas networking & partnership, resource mobilization, and social capital edge social transformation. Finally, capacity development assembles five sub-components, i.e., knowledge enhancement, skill development, institutional development, disaster risk reduction, and research & innovation. The components of resilience are analyzed here in Table 3 to identify which features were included or excluded in each of the six selected frameworks targeted to build resilience in the context of climate change and disaster.

Good Governance: Good governance, being the heart of any system, holds priority attention in each of the six selected frameworks. All frameworks comprise the components of the whole system approach followed by accountability in the five successive frameworks except the resilience framework of Islamic Relief. The elements of rights and entitlement are included in CRF-BRAC, RF-USAID, and FRD-Oxfam. This component is also partially addressed in RF-CA, V2RF-PA, and RF-IR as these three frameworks focus on some segmented aspects only, i.e., social safety net, and access to health services. Finally, transparency and inclusive leadership are highlighted in RF-USAID, FRD-Oxfam, and CRF-BRAC, RF-CA, respectively.

Economic growth and sustainability: Sustainable economic growth is one of the essential prerequisites of resilience building that broadly comprises diversification of livelihood options, access to finance, private sector engagement, and value chain strengthening. Maintaining a stable income flow throughout the year is fundamental to being resilient, emphasized in all six selected frameworks by embodying diversified livelihood options. Value chain-related interventions obtain the second-highest priority in the five frameworks except for CRF-BRAC. Successively, access to finance gets weighted in CRF-BRAC, RF-CA, RF-USAID, and FRD-Oxfam. However, private sector engagement for economic growth is considered only in the frameworks of USAID and Oxfam.

Environmental sustainability: The selected frameworks are formulated primarily considering the context of climate change and disaster. As a result, environmental sustainability features purposefully occupy a good position in the frameworks. First, ecosystem service, which ensures both nature’s benefits to humans and the protection of the environment, is adopted in all the frameworks. At the same time, RF-USAID partly includes it by addressing environmental security aspects in its framework. As for the built environment, CRF-BRAC, RF-CA, FRD-Oxfam, and RF-IR concentrate on green and protective infrastructure. However, the integration of renewable energy and energy-efficient technology is partially found in FRD-Oxfam as it includes the clean energy aspect, while V2RF-PA only mentions the importance of technologies for livelihood improvements.

Social Transformation: This component encompasses three sub-components, i.e., networking & partnership, resource mobilization, and social capital. All the frameworks amount to strengthening and better utilization of social resources to facilitate the process of resilience except V2RF-PA. Similarly, networking & partnership accounted for five frameworks except for RF-USAID. Finally, BRAC, Christian Aid, and Islamic Relief frameworks commonly integrate resource mobilization as an essential aspect of social transformation.

Capacity Development: As reflected in the frameworks, capacity development is of utmost importance to foster the transformation towards resilience-building. Here, capacity development comprises five sub-components, i.e., knowledge enhancement, skill development, institutional development, disaster risk reduction, and research & innovation. Capacity development, knowledge enhancement, and Disaster Risk Reduction are two top-priority issues included in all six frameworks. Successively, skill development is identified as an essential element for being resilient reflected in five frameworks except for RF-CA. At the same time, CRF-BRAC, RF-CA, and RF-IR frameworks include institutional capacity development, while CRF-BRAC, FRD-Oxfam, and RF-IR count on research & innovation as part of capacity development initiatives.