Introduction

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) is a holistic tool for understanding how
households use diverse assets to sustain their living in the face of external pressures (Twig,
2001). It identifies five key types of capital – human, natural, financial, social, and physical –
that people draw upon to cope with risks and shocks (Chambers & Conway 1992). In disaster
contexts, these capitals shape community resilience and vulnerability. The SLF emphasizes the
assets and strategies that enhance disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. This
paper first explains the five SLF capitals and their relevance to disaster resilience, then discusses
the vulnerability context (shocks, trends, seasonality) and DRR implications. It analyzes the
framework through a Social Capital Theory lens, highlighting how networks and institutions
bolster livelihood resilience. Next, the role of SLF in the DRR cycle is examined, and SLF is
compared to other models, notably Blaikie et al.’s Pressure-and-Release (PAR) model. Real-
world examples illustrate SLF’s strengths and limitations. A detailed case study of a drought-
affected community in Zambia then applies SLF and social capital concepts, evaluating
successes, limitations, and challenges. Finally, the paper concludes with a synthesis of findings
and recommendations.
The Five Capitals in SLF and Disaster Resilience
SLF’s core insight is that sustainable livelihoods depend on a portfolio of assets. The five
capitals are defined as: Human capital (skills, knowledge, health, ability to work); Social capital
(networks, group membership, trust, institutional linkages); Natural capital (land, water, forests,
environmental resources); Physical capital (infrastructure and tools such as housing, roads, water
systems); and Financial capital (cash, savings, credit, remittances). Each is crucial for disaster
resilience. For example, healthy, educated individuals (human capital) can better plan and rebuild
after crises; social capital (e.g. community groups) enables sharing of information and mutual aid
during floods or earthquakes; natural capital (e.g. forests, soil fertility) can buffer hazards like
landslides or drought; physical capital (bridges, levees, clinics) reduces exposure; and financial
capital (savings, insurance) provides a safety net for recovery. As Twig (2001) notes, “assets are
destroyed and created as a result of the trends, shocks and seasonality of the vulnerability
context,” and understanding an asset pentagon helps identify livelihood strengths and
weaknesses.
Relevance to Disaster Resilience
Each capital contributes to resilience in specific ways. Human capital (education, health) enables
people to learn risk-reduction strategies, diversify livelihoods, and recuperate from injuries. For
instance, health and nutrition are critical during droughts to maintain people’s capacity to work;
agricultural training (knowledge) helps adopt drought-resistant crops. Natural capital provides
ecosystem services that reduce hazard impacts; trees on slopes lessen landslide risk, healthy soil
retains water during drought, and ample grazing land supports pastoral livelihoods even in poor
rainfall years. Social capital – the focus of our theoretical analysis – is vital: dense networks and
norms of reciprocity allow rapid dissemination of warnings and collective action (e.g.
community flood defenses). Physical capital such as roads and storage facilities lowers disaster
losses and speeds recovery (e.g. good roads allow food aid delivery after storms). Financial
capital (savings, credit access) gives households the liquidity to invest in preparedness (like
buying seed or drilling wells) and to replace lost assets (stocking shops, covering medical costs).
Vulnerability Context: Shocks, Trends, Seasonal Changes
SLF explicitly situates livelihoods within a vulnerability context. This context comprises shocks
(sudden disasters like cyclones, earthquakes), trends (long-term changes such as population
growth, economic shifts, climate change), and seasonality (predictable cyclical changes like
rainy seasons, market fluctuations). These factors shape exposure and stresses on livelihoods. For
instance, in farming communities the annual “lean season” of food scarcity is a seasonal stress;
in the long term, a trend might be declining soil fertility or shifts to urban wages. Shocks include
floods, fire, conflict or droughts – events that can rapidly deplete assets.
Understanding this context is vital for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The frameworks urges us
to identify which shocks and hazards a community faces, which long-term trends are making it
more vulnerable (e.g. rising floods due to climate change or over-extraction of groundwater), and
how seasonal patterns (such as cyclone season) threaten livelihoods.
Social Capital Theory and Livelihood Resilience
Social capital theory posits that social networks, norms, and institutions constitute a form of
capital that individuals and communities can draw upon (Putnam 2000). It is one of SLF’s five
capitals, reflecting how relationships of trust, group membership and reciprocity empower
households (Twig, 2001). Social capital is typically decomposed into bonding ties (close
connections, e.g. family, neighbors), bridging ties (wider networks like cross-community
associations), and linking ties (connections to formal institutions or authorities). Foundational
theorists defined it in various ways: Hanifan (1916) emphasized goodwill and social intercourse;
Bourdieu saw social capital as “actual or potential resources” embedded in networks; Coleman
focused on resources in social structures that facilitate action. In livelihood terms, social capital
includes things like mutual support groups, cooperative membership, local savings circles, and
access to extension networks.
Social capital critically influences livelihood resilience. Research shows that where strong
networks exist, communities recover faster from shocks. For example, Zhao et al. (2024) identify
social learning, collective action, information sharing and mutual responsibility as key
mechanisms by which social capital promotes disaster resilience. In a disaster, social capital
enables communities to: share vital information (e.g. flood warnings, firefighting knowledge),
organize communal relief (collectively raising funds or building defences), coordinate resources
(sharing tools or labor), and provide emotional support. In rural settings, farmers with dense
kinship networks often have kin-based loan arrangements in bad years; villagers may share water
or transport surplus to those hit by a drought.
Empirical studies confirm social capital’s role. Sarker et al. (2019) note that in many places
“livelihood resilience… integrates livelihood systems with resilience” and highlight that
“livelihood resilience system requires… social networks”. The Frontiers review (Zhao et al.,
2024) underscores that social capital fosters disaster preparedness by improving risk awareness
and response planning. Additionally, social capital helps people access information and credit
(linking capital) – e.g. neighbors telling each other about a mobile bank or government assistance
program.
SLF Contributions to the DRR Cycle
SLF is inherently proactive, focusing on building capacities before disasters occur, and also
supports post-disaster recovery. In preparedness, households and communities with robust assets
are naturally better prepared: families with financial capital have savings for emergency supplies,
those with physical capital might have safer storm-proof shelters, and those with high human
capital (education, knowledge) may undertake drills or install lightning rods. Social capital plays
a key role in preparedness by facilitating early warning dissemination and community drills. For
example, collectivized grain banks (financial + social capital) in Africa have helped communities
withstand famines.
In mitigation, SLF suggests strengthening the asset base to reduce disaster impacts. The UNDP-
affiliated working paper notes that “ensuring livelihood security is an integral part of a
sustainable approach to disaster mitigation” (Twig, 2001). This means, for instance, diversifying
livelihoods so that a flood or drought hits only part of the portfolio. Enhancing natural capital
(e.g. reforestation) can also mitigate climate impacts. Importantly, SLF reminds planners that
reducing vulnerability requires looking at people’s strengths: e.g. investing in rural roads
(physical capital) also helps communities cope with storms by easing supply deliveries.
During response, strong livelihood capitals aid immediate relief. Communities often self-
organize to help each other (social capital). A family with livestock (natural/financial capital) can
share meat; those with vehicles (physical capital) can transport the injured. Local knowledge
(human capital) guides effective response – for instance, villagers knowing which ground stays
dry during floods. In many disasters, pre-existing NGOs or cooperatives (social/organizational
capital) are the first responders, using their local connections to distribute aid.
In recovery, SLF helps frame rebuilding. Households will use their remaining assets to restore
livelihoods – e.g. selling off stock or drawing on savings (financial capital), soliciting labor from
kin networks (social capital) – and seek aid to fill gaps. Relief programs that align with SLF (e.g.
providing seeds and tools) essentially replenish natural, physical or financial capital to jumpstart
recovery. By analyzing livelihoods after a disaster (e.g. using a pentagon diagram of asset levels
pre- and post-disaster) (Solidarités International, 2017), aid agencies can identify which capitals
need replenishment. Recovery programs that ignore certain capitals often fail: for example,
rebuilding homes (physical capital) without restoring water access (natural capital) misses a
critical piece of resilience.
Comparing SLF and the Pressure-and-Release (PAR) Model
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) and Blaikie et al.'s Pressure-and-Release (PAR)
model (also known as the Access model) offer different but complementary perspectives on
disaster risk and resilience (Twig, 2001). The PAR model conceptualizes disasters as the
intersection of natural hazards and human vulnerability, explaining vulnerability through a
“progression” from root causes (e.g., political, economic processes), to dynamic pressures (e.g.,
unstable markets, macroeconomic policies), to unsafe conditions (e.g., living in hazardous areas).
Disasters occur when these pressures meet a hazard (Twig, 2001).
SLF, in contrast, is asset-based and household-focused, emphasizing how to build resilience by
strengthening capitals rather than diagnosing the root causes of vulnerability. While PAR focuses
on macro-structures and power relations to explain why vulnerability exists, SLF concentrates on
improving household and community resilience by addressing assets. PAR operates at a broader
scale, analyzing societal pressures, while SLF focuses on localized, household-level
interventions (Twig, 2001). Additionally, PAR’s normative focus is on structural changes to
reduce vulnerability, whereas SLF emphasizes capacity-building through asset accumulation,
while also acknowledging the role of transforming institutions (Twig, 2001). Outcomes also
differ: PAR seeks to reduce vulnerability by addressing root causes, while SLF aims for
improved livelihood outcomes like food security and income (Twig, 2001).
Despite these differences, the models can complement one another. PAR highlights the need to
address systemic issues, such as land tenure and corruption, to ensure household-level resilience-
building efforts are effective. Meanwhile, SLF emphasizes the importance of grassroots
capacities, such as farmers’ knowledge, in disaster risk reduction (DRR). Both models stress the
importance of increasing access to resources: PAR’s “Access model” examines governance of
access to land and capital, while SLF focuses on expanding access to the five capitals (Twig,
2001). In practice, PAR is often used to analyze vulnerability drivers, while SLF is applied to
design interventions that enhance community-level resilience.

Examples of SLF in DRR

Prior to Hurricane Mitch in 1998, the Lempira Sur project had introduced sustainable agricultural
practices and strengthened local governance structures. As a result, the region experienced
increased resilience, continued grain surpluses, and was able to provide aid to other affected
areas, demonstrating the effectiveness of SLF in disaster preparedness (Neely, Sutherland, and
Johnson, 2004).
However, SLF approaches can have limitations. By focusing on local assets, they may underplay
structural constraints. For instance, in Malawi’s 2015 floods, even households with strong social
ties lost homes because national infrastructure failed; SLF-oriented relief that only rebuilt houses
(physical capital) had to be followed by efforts to address drainage systems (structural issue).
These examples suggest SLF’s strength lies in its people-centered analysis, but caution that it
should not ignore larger forces or the potential for hazards to exceed local coping capacities.
Case Study: Zambia Drought – SLF and Social Capital in Action
Context and Vulnerability
Zambia is highly prone to drought. Historically, southern and western regions have suffered
multi-year dry spells (the longest on record lasting over 100 months) (FAO, 2024). Climate
change has intensified these trends: the severe 2019–2020 drought left over 2.3 million Zambians
facing food insecurity and even sparked cholera outbreaks due to water scarcity (Othering &
Belonging Institute, n.d.). About 80% of Zambia’s food comes from 1.5 million smallholder
farmers who depend on rain-fed agriculture (Othering & Belonging Institute, n.d.). Thus, a
community in rural Zambia – for example, in Monze District of Southern Province – typically
relies on maize and millet crops, a few livestock, and remittances. During a drought, crop
failures erode natural capital (soil moisture, crop stocks) and financial capital (income, savings).
Long trends of higher temperatures and variable rains increase vulnerability. The timing of the
dry season is also critical (seasonal context), as it determines planting and harvesting schedules.
SLF Analysis of the Community
Applying SLF to a drought-hit Zambian community, we examine its capitals:
 Human capital: Farmers’ traditional knowledge of drought-resistant crops and irrigation.
Education levels are mixed; lack of climate forecasting skills can hamper adaptation.
Limited health and nutrition (a drought stressor) may reduce labor capacity.
 Natural capital: Rainfall patterns and fertile land are fundamental. In a drought, water
reserves (groundwater, ponds) are drawn down. Land degradation (overuse) can reduce
yields. Local natural assets (rivers, wetlands) can buffer some impact if managed well.
 Physical capital: Infrastructure like boreholes, granaries, roads. Often rural Zambia has
limited irrigation infrastructure; most fields are rain-dependent. Water tanks or wells can
save crops in dry spells, but many villages lack these (a key vulnerability).
 Financial capital: Many households have minimal savings. Microcredit and remittances
(from city relatives or copper mining income) can provide some emergency funds.
However, drought reduces income, so savings are often eroded during crises.
  Social capital: This is especially notable. In many villages, membership in church
groups, cooperatives, or local savings clubs is strong. Family networks often support each
other. Traditional chiefs and local NGOs play roles. These networks facilitate sharing
food, information (e.g. mobile weather alerts), and joint action (like digging communal
wells).
When drought strikes, social capital becomes a lifeline. Households share remaining grain with
kin; neighbors help rebuild chicken coops. Trust and reciprocity allow a farmer to borrow seed
from a friend for next planting season. Local institutions (a farmers’ association or village
committee) may organize tractor-sharing or petition the government for aid. In Social Capital
Theory terms, strong bonding capital (family ties) provides immediate support, bridging capital
(cooperative membership) opens up aid channels, and linking capital (connections to NGOs or
government extension) brings external resources.
Social Capital in Practice: A Zambia Example
A concrete illustration comes from UNDP’s project in Monze District (March 2025). Here,
villagers formed Community Savings Groups to pool money and lend at low interest. As one
farmer (Polite Masaka) recounts, members pay small shares into a communal fund, which is then
shared at intervals. In six months, Polite saved about ZMW 1,360 and received ZMW 12,900
(with interest) in a payout. She used these funds to diversify her livelihood: from a subsistence
crop plot she expanded to a “mixed farm” with **25 chickens, 7 pigs, 6 guinea fowl, and 10
goats”. This transformation exemplifies SLF in action: the savings group (social capital)
increased her financial capital, enabling her to invest in physical assets (livestock) and thus
bolster food security. It also enhanced her human capital (she gained livestock-rearing skills) and
natural capital (animal manure improves her fields). Her diversified assets make her livelihood
much more resilient to the next drought.
This case reveals clear successes of the SLF approach. By valuing existing assets and networks,
development actors could leverage what people already had. The savings group built on
villagers’ strong communal ties (social capital) and willingness to cooperate. It concretely
increased all five capitals: financial (savings fund), social (stronger group cohesion), physical
(livestock, tools purchased), natural (livestock complement crops), and human (skills in finance
and animal husbandry). As a result, this community is better prepared for drought: they have
savings to buy drought-tolerant seed or pump water, and livestock to eat or sell if crops fail. This
aligns with SLF’s goal of strengthening livelihood security and supports DRR by reducing
vulnerability before the next shock.
Importantly, the intervention was participatory, fitting SLF’s ethos. Villagers identified credit
access and emergency funds as their priorities, so they themselves organized the groups. This
empowerment of local institutions (processes/structures in SLF terms) means resilience is
community-owned, not imposed. The case also shows how addressing one capital (financial)
through social means had multiplier effects across the livelihood.
Limitiations
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) in Zambia faces several limitations and
challenges. One major issue is the exclusion of the poorest individuals, as interventions like
savings groups often require initial capital or social standing to participate, leaving the most
marginalized behind and potentially widening inequality. Additionally, SLF focuses heavily on
local assets while underemphasizing broader structural issues, such as Zambia’s reliance on rain-
fed agriculture. Systemic solutions, like irrigation policies, are necessary to address these
underlying challenges. Environmental challenges also pose a significant limitation for SLF.
Extreme events, such as the 2024 El Niño-induced drought, overwhelmed local capacities and
required national-level responses, like international aid, which SLF alone cannot provide.
Sustaining the gains from SLF is another challenge, as recurring droughts can deplete natural
resources, such as pasture and water, reversing progress. Furthermore, group dynamics in
savings groups can erode if too many members default on loans during hard times, highlighting
the need for strong governance, which SLF does not inherently guarantee. SLF also tends to
underplay vulnerability factors like seasonal stress and repayment timing, which can disrupt
livelihoods if not carefully managed. Finally, the framework often focuses on short-term coping
strategies, such as recovering assets, while neglecting long-term adaptation measures like
agroforestry or addressing broader climate and water governance issues. Although SLF
strengthens micro-level resilience, its ability to tackle systemic, environmental, and governance
challenges remains limited.

Conclusion
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework offers a comprehensive lens for DRR by focusing on
the assets and strategies that people already possess. Its five capitals – human, natural, financial,
social, and physical – capture the multifaceted nature of resilience. Coupled with Social Capital
Theory, SLF emphasizes that networks and institutions critically shape how communities
withstand and recover from disasters. In the DRR cycle, SLF informs preparedness (through
asset-building), mitigation (through strengthening capacities), response (leveraging social
cohesion), and recovery (guiding asset replenishment). Compared to models like PAR, SLF is
more micro-level and people-centric, though both approaches highlight different aspects of
vulnerability.
The Zambia drought case demonstrates how a social capital strategy (community savings groups)
can rapidly increase financial and physical assets, dramatically improving resilience to climate
shocks. Yet this case also reveals SLF’s limitations: asset-building alone cannot substitute for
needed structural changes (like irrigation infrastructure or land policy) and may not fully address
severe, systemic drought. SLF programs must therefore be part of a broader DRR strategy that
includes policy reforms and hazard management.
SLF is a powerful framework for understanding and enhancing resilience at the community level.
By highlighting where people’s strengths lie, it enables more targeted DRR interventions.
However, disaster risk reduction ultimately requires integrating this local approach with higher-
level actions on vulnerability trends and institutional support. Strengthening livelihoods through
the five capitals and social networks is essential – but so too is ensuring that wider systems
empower those communities to survive and thrive in a changing climate.
References

 Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London.
 Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts
for the 21st Century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
 Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods
Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development, London.
 FAO (2024) Zambia – Drought Portal: Historical Drought. Food and Agriculture
Organization, [online] [Accessed May 2025].
 Neely, C., Sutherland, K., and Johnson, J. (2004) Do sustainable livelihoods approaches
have a positive impact on the rural poor? A look at twelve case studies. LSP Working
Paper 16. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
 Othering & Belonging Institute, n.d. Zambia: Case Studies on Climate Displacement.
[online] Berkeley: University of California. Available at:
[Link]
 Sarker, S., et al. (2019) “Vulnerability and livelihood resilience in the face of natural
disaster: a conceptual model.” Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(6):
12769–12785.
 Twigg, J. (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters. Benfield Greig
Hazard Research Centre, for the Disaster Mitigation Institute (DMI).
 UNDP Zambia (2025) Saving Against Climate Shocks. United Nations Development
Programme (Zambia) article, 10 March 2025.
 Zhao, G., Zhao, F., Feng, L., et al. (2024) “How does social capital facilitate community
disaster resilience? A systematic review.” Frontiers in Environmental Science,
12:1496813.
 Zhao, Y., Fan, J., Liang, B. & Zhang, L. (2023) “Research on the relationship between
social capital and sustainable livelihood: evidence from reservoir migrants in China.”
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10:1358386.