Challenges in Sustainability | 2013 | Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Pages 72–79

DOI: 10.12924/cis2013.01020072

Review

Building Disaster Resilience: Steps Toward Sustainability

Susan L. Cutter

Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia,

SC 29208, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1 8037771590; Fax: +1 8037774972

Submitted: 2 September 2013| In revised form: 5 December 2013| Accepted: 18 December 2013 |

Published: 29 January 2014

Abstract: Disaster losses continue to escalate globally and in many regions human losses

(death, injury, permanent displacement) often exceed the economic toll. Current disaster policies

are reactive with a short-term focus―respond and rebuild as quickly as possible and in the same

way after the event. Such policies ignore the longer-term approach of building disaster-resilient

communities, in which investments made now show financial and social returns later by reducing

the impact of disasters. This article provides a vision for resilient nations in 2030 based on three

recent policy reports. It highlights the necessary steps towards achieving sustainability using the

lens of disaster resilience as the pathway towards strengthening communities' ability to prepare

and plan for, absorb, respond to, and recover from present and future disasters.

Keywords: disaster resilience; Hyogo Framework for Action; risk management; sustainable

development

1. Introduction

Some hazards, such as hurricanes, tornados, wildfires,

and avalanches occur during specific time periods of

the year, while others, like earthquakes do not. Some

hazards are place-specific―the tectonically active

Pacific Rim, coastal environments—while others,

especially severe storms, are ubiquitous and found

almost everywhere. Human-made hazards can occur

anywhere, as can health-related hazards such as pan-

demics. The result: no single person or place is totally

immune from hazards or their adverse impacts. As

more and more people move to hazardous envi-

ronments such as coasts and floodplains, the potential

for increasing disaster risk intensifies as more people

and infrastructure are placed in harm's way. In the

United States, migration to the coasts, along with an

increasing and aging population and public infra-

structure that is equally old and beyond its design

limit, set the stage for greater impacts from hazards.

This scene is replicated in many other places such as

Japan, and EU countries. In other world regions rapid

urbanization and growth of mega-cities where more

than half of the world's population now lives and where

local wealth is most concentrated are amplifying

disaster risk as well.

We need not look further back than the last couple

of years to see the escalating losses associated with

disasters. The year 2012 is considered a moderate year

for losses, with global economic losses totaling US$170

under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

billion, slightly above the ten-year average, although

fatalities were lower than normal [1]. Globally, there is

a worrisome trend in increasing weather-related

losses, a trend that is clear even when the raw data

are normalized by inflation and GDP [2]. When using

other normalization proxies (such as inflation, GNI per

capita, insurance penetration, or building stock devel-

opment) the increase remains, averaging $750 million

per year in annual losses [3]. In the U.S., the number

of individual events producing economic losses ex-

ceeding a billion dollars has increased. In 2010, for

example, there were 4 billion dollar events; in 2011

there were 14; and in 2012, there were 11 [4]. Trends

in human losses (people killed, injured, displaced, or

affected) during the last decade fluctuate and illus-

trate the effect of a single catastrophic event—2004

Indian Ocean tsunami, 2008's Cyclone Nargis, and the

2010 Haiti earthquake. Without these large events,

there is an apparent decreasing trend in disaster fa-

talities, with 2012 recording one of the lowest numbers

of fatalities from disasters in more than a decade [5].

Disaster losses are occurring at a time of slower

economic growth (regionally and globally), reductions

in coastal and riverine defenses that protect com-

munities from flooding and storm surge, and the

increasing impacts of climate change from local to

regional to global levels. The impacts of disasters are

greatest in already impoverished communities, regions,

or countries and such impacts will increase in the

future. Communities and the nations that contain

them cannot continue to shoulder the financial or

social burdens of these losses each year—they are not

sustainable in either the short or longer term [6].

Communities and nations face difficult choices (fiscal,

social, environmental) about their existing vulner-

abilities, present and future security, and quality-of-life.

This paper summarizes the actions needed to

enhance disaster resilience based on recent reports by

the United Nations [7], the UK Government Office for

Science [8], and the U.S. National Research Council

[9]. It argues that disaster resilience is the pathway

for linking disaster risk management and the long-

term sustainability of communities, through a series of

action-oriented steps that involve combinations of

top-down (internationally and nationally-driven) and

bottom-up (community-based) strategies. The idea is

certainly not new within the academic literature [10,

11], with some researchers re-conceptualizing re-

silience as "bouncing forward not bouncing back" to

some previous condition [12]. However, within the

policy realm linking disaster risk, resilience, and

sustainability, this notion is relatively new and represents

a shift in thinking regarding disaster risk management.

2. Linking Disaster Risk Management and

Sustainable Communities

Linking disaster risk management and sustainable

development begins with understanding the com-

monalities in each construct and their geographic and

temporal manifestations. Disaster risk management is

the "process that weighs policies, plans, and actions

for reducing the impact of disasters on people,

property, and the environment" ([9], p. 28). It

includes the identification of hazards and exposures,

assessments of the risk in terms of potential losses, the

development of capacities and implementation of

strategies to prevent, reduce, mitigate, recover, or pre-

pare for disasters, and evaluation of the effectiveness

of these policies and programs.

Sustainability is the potential to maintain the long

term well-being of communities based on social,

economic, and environmental requirements of present

and future generations. It stresses the inter-

dependencies of environmental protection, human

needs, and societal well-being [13,14], acknowledging

the primary goal of improving the human condition

without harming the environment. In the context of

hazards and disasters, "sustainability means that a

locality can tolerate—and overcome—damage, di-

minished productivity, and reduced quality of life from

an extreme event without significant outside

assistance" ([15], p. 4). How and where development

should proceed in communities if they are to become

sustainable begins with a set of principles that foster

sustainable mitigation. These principles maintain and

enhance environmental quality and quality of life, foster

local resilience, recognize that vibrant communities are

essential, ensure intra- and intergenerational equity,

and adopt local consensus building.

Fundamentally, resilience is a capacity measure

that can be viewed as sector-focused, systems-based,

or, applied more broadly to a community, defined as

systems of systems where the various components—

environment, infrastructure, social, economic, insti-

tutional and so forth—are integrated and mutually

supportive. There is rich and growing body of literature

on resilience, ranging from definitional clarifications to

conceptual frameworks to applications of the resilience

concept in specific environments such as cities or to

topical areas such as climate change or sustainability

[16-23]. Despite such robust research there is no

universal agreement on the specific definition of

disaster resilience, yet there is some consensus on its

broad parameters, specifically the capacity to recover

from or improve functions after a hazard event. For

example, an US NRC report defined resilience as "the

ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from,

or more successfully adapt to actual or potential

adverse eve-nts" ([9], p. 1). This is similar to the UK

Foresight report that defines resilience as "the ability of

a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb,

accommodate, or recover from the effects of a

hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, in-

cluding through ensuring the preservation, restoration,

or improvement of its essential basic structures and

functions" ([8], p. 17).

What links disaster risk management to sustainability

is resilience (Figure 1). The present focus on the

disaster cycle especially response and recovery must

be targeted more broadly on strategies to manage

disaster risk in both the long and short terms [24,25].

There are many different paths for achieving long-

term viability and self-sufficiency of communities from

a hazards and disaster perspective. Such pathways are

designed to enhance resilience by instituting a culture

of resilience through managing residual disaster risk,

reducing vulnerability, having strong leadership from

government and civil society, implementing institutional

reform of policies and practices at all levels, building

local capacity including peer-to-peer learning, de-

veloping and deploying tools and metrics for monitoring

progress, and reducing gaps in our scientific infor-

mation, data, and observation systems. Disasters

retard development gains through the destruction of

livelihoods and community assets, increase poverty,

and stimulate repopulation in high-risk (and largely

unsustainable) damaged areas. Disasters, therefore,

become perverse incentives for communities and

nations to divert from normal development processes

in order to facilitate response and recovery. From a

policy perspective then, thinking about and planning for

resilience as part of disaster risk management and

sustainable development strategies and programs be-

comes an important element in the process of achieving

sustainable and thus disaster resilient communities.

Figure 1. The path to a disaster resilient future.

3. Why is Resilience so Important Now?

Extreme natural events (either unprecedented mag-

nitudes or intensities of natural hazards, or the un-

precedented consequences of more routine hazards),

may become increasingly normal or routine under

changing climatic conditions or changes in economic

circumstances and social conditions [26]. Coupled

with the increasing interdependence and intercon-

nectedness of society, hazards, while local in origin,

can cascade into global events with national and

international policy implications [27,28].

Low probability, high consequence events including

highly improbable ones take on more policy interest

as these events become more probable [29-31]. From

a policy perspective, such events pose significant

management challenges. The complexity, intercon-

nectedness, uncertainty, and unforeseen consequences

associated with these types of events make them

difficult to solve. Incomplete or contradictory infor-

mation, changing conditions and requirements that

are not easily recognized by decision makers, and the

complex interdependencies of the individual facets of

the problem themselves raise a set of questions as to

how one can encourage investments in risk reducing

measures prior to these unthinkable or unpredictable

events [32,33]. These so-called wicked problems are

so interconnected that in solving one aspect of the

issue, another problem one might ensue. For

example, in partial response to the Fukushima Dai'ichi

nuclear meltdown, Germany announced the closure of

all of its nuclear facilities by 2020. The closure of

nuclear power plants producing electricity raises a

wicked problem for nations who are struggling to

provide safe energy and reduce greenhouse gas

emissions that contribute to climate change [34-36].

What is the alternative? What risks are involved in

that choice? Will the nation be better or worse off?

Disaster risk cannot be completely eliminated as there

will always be some residual risk that requires

management. This premise underscores that a pro-

active approach to risk management and improving

disaster resilience is the only policy and the pragmatic

option if we are to reduce the impacts of disaster

losses in the long run.

Globalization and environmental change are

normally studied independently, but it is the inter-

action of these processes that creates double

exposures which in turn explain the uneven outcomes

of disaster impacts [37]. These impacts are scale-

dependent, ranging from the local community to the

global, necessitating different governance structures

and management regimes at all geographic scales—

local, regional, national, international—and units of

analysis ranging from the individual to the state [38].

For example, the widening gap in income equality

between and within nations reduces local and national

capacities to prepare for and respond to disasters by

lowering social protection options. The eradication of

poverty is perhaps the key to achieving resilience and

more sustainable development along with socially

inclusive productive and effective governance [39].

Urbanization is escalating worldwide, leading to

decreasing resilience in world cities. In 2010, 52% of

the world's 6.9 billion inhabitants lived in urban areas,

mostly in the less developed world. By 2030, more

than 60% of the world's population (projected to be

8.3 billion) will live in urban areas, primarily in Asia

[8]. Many of the major cities are located along the

coasts, on inland waterways, or in active seismic

regions—areas susceptible to cyclones, flooding, and

earthquakes. With the increasing exposure and likely

impacts associated with climate change, globally more

people are in harm's way than ever before. Unless

cities and nations become more resilient, the disaster

toll in terms of human lives and economic losses will

escalate, potentially reversing the downward trend in

fatalities over the last decade.

Finally, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) is

nearing the end of its 10-year plan. Global consul-

tations (termed HFA2) are already underway to

develop a post-2015 disaster risk framework that

includes not only disaster risk reduction, but disaster

resilience as well. These efforts will be presented at

the World Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction in

Japan in early 2015. Simultaneously, the Millennium

Development Goals will also be completed at the end of

2015 and consultations on a post-2015 Development

Agenda also are underway. One of the universal goals,

ending poverty, has a specific disaster risk reduction

target: building resilience and reducing deaths from

natural disasters [7]. How the HFA2 goals for risk

reduction and resilience are reflected in the post-2015

Sustainable Development Goals is uncertain. The

incorporation of resilience into the preparatory

meetings on the Post-Hyogo Framework for Action

(HFA2) and the Sustainable Development Goals

illustrates how important the concept of resilience is

to both disaster risk management and sustainable

development. This linkage enables movement from

short-term thinking and strategies to longer-term,

more sustainable practices that not only empower

communities, but enable them to improve the human

condition and reduce disaster risk.

4. Building Resilience

In reviewing the key findings of the three reports [7-9]

a general scientific consensus emerges on the need for

disaster risk management and improving resilience at

all levels of governance. The main findings are

summarized in Table 1 and briefly described below.

First, reducing risk requires a process of risk iden-

tification, development of a strategy to deal with risk,

and keeping the strategy flexible and current [9,40].

Risk management also necessitates multiple col-

laborators and stakeholders and a mix of structural or

construction-related (e.g. levees, retrofitting buildings)

and non-structural (land use, insurance) tools to ensure

resilient infrastructure.

Second, there is a need to demonstrate that invest-

ments in resilience will yield measureable short/long-

term benefits, but existing disaster loss and damage

data need improvements in order to do so. For example,

there is no consistent standard for measuring losses or

which losses should be counted (e.g. deaths, property,

decline in nature's services, or cultural assets in the

community) [41-43].

Third, resilience has many different facets (eco-

nomic, infrastructure, environmental, social, insti-

tutional, organizational, psychosocial) and objects of

study (individuals, buildings, sectors, systems, com-

munities, cities) [44]. While some national and

international efforts are underway to measure com-

munity resilience [45-47], at present these efforts are

not consistent with one another and often do not agree

on what needs to be measured. Some important

elements include critical infrastructure performance

after disasters, social factors that influence the capacity

to recover, the ability of structures to withstand the

impact from disasters as related directly to building

codes and their enforcement, the ability of businesses

and markets to recover, and caring for special needs

populations in times of crises.

Fourth, communities vary in their size, composition,

and the range of hazards they are exposed to. A one-

size-fits-all strategy for enhancing resilience does not

consider the uniqueness and complexities of com-

munities' physical and social structures. Instead, efforts

should be directed towards building strong local

capacity so that community members are engaged in

disaster policy and practice, help communicate risk,

adopt risk reduction measures, and plan for the worst,

but strive for the best when a disaster hits their

community [48]. Finally, many communities and

nations do not have an overall vision or coordinating

strategy for disaster resilience. A need exists for

strong and complementary governance from local,

state, and federal policies so they don't work at cross-

purposes [49]. Policies at all levels also need to take

longer-term views rather than address short-term

political expediencies [50].

There are a number of enabling conditions that can

help foster disaster resilience at local to national

levels. First and foremost, there must be leadership

and the political will to embark on a different path for

managing disaster risk. Without such leadership,

resilience actions will be short-lived and will not

achieve the longer-term desired benefits. Another

enabling condition is governmental engagement in

risk reduction, one of the leading pillars of the Hyogo

Framework for Action (see Figure 1). Such engage-

ment should occur at all levels (from local to national)

so that the combined governmental efforts are

complimentary and working toward a common goal,

rather than working at cross-purposes. Similarly, risk

reduction should entail cross-sector linkages, involving

private interests and civil society. Communities must

be willing (and able) to engage in peer to peer

learning and to take good ideas from one place and

adapt them to their own circumstances. Lastly,

resilience must be integrated into overall planning

efforts that address infrastructure deficits, improve

livelihoods and economic opportunities, and reduce

social inequalities, ideals embodied in the Millennium

Development Goals.

Table 1. Actions to increase disaster resilience.

• Manage risks with flexible strategies and multiple tools

◦ Integrate disaster risk management and planning into day-to-day activities

◦ Encourage public-private cooperation in risk management

◦ Use complimentary approaches and tools (structural, non-structural)

◦ Develop an essential framework of codes, standards and guidelines that increase resilience of

structures

◦ Implement risk-based pricing of insurance

• Improve the accuracy and consistency of disaster data

◦ Establish and improve a national/international databases on disaster-related information

◦ Document disaster deaths, injuries, property loss, impacts on economic activity

◦ Improve valuation of community assets including ecosystem services

◦ Estimate future disaster losses for planning

◦ Improve risk management information and integrated models of exposure and vulnerability

metrics

• Measure resilience and chart progress toward achieving it

◦ Establish a baseline of resilience for nation and communities

◦ Create metrics for measuring progress and effectiveness of actions

◦ Ensure robust analyses of the effectiveness of actions and programs to build resilience

• Build strong local capacity

◦ Foster early engagement stakeholders and residents in the risk management process and

collaborative problem solving

◦ Create and financially support broad-based community resilience coalitions

◦ Ensure local governments adhere to modern zoning laws, and adopt and enforce building codes

◦ Share experiences, learn from other communities, innovate

• Create an overall vision or coordinating strategy for disaster resilience

◦ Incorporate resilience as a guiding principle in practice and programs at all government levels

◦ Review resilience policy and programs and undertake self-assessments to ensure coordination

of federal to local efforts

◦ Develop and share guidance on resilience initiatives from global to local scales;

◦ Incentivize private sector and non-governmental organizations to engage in resilience activities

Source: [7–9].

5. How Do We Get There?

Many different avenues are available for achieving the

long-term viability and self-sufficiency of communities

with respect to hazards and disasters. The pathway

for achieving the vision of a resilient nation in 2030

for the United States, for example, begins with the

aspiration to establish a culture of resilience through

leadership from the federal government with a full

and clear commitment to disaster resilience [9]. In

order to achieve such a goal a number of steps would

be needed; steps that are targeted to national and

local governments, stakeholders, and citizens. First, in

addition to this recognizable culture across the nation,

there would be the knowledge and understanding that

communities (and individuals) would be the first line

of defense in enhancing resilience by taking

responsibility for their actions in managing (or

mismanaging) disaster risk. Second, leadership is an

important component in fostering resilience, and there

would be national leadership in all federal agencies

and in Congress as well as local and state advocates

championing the values of disaster resilience. Such

leadership would insure that infrastructure systems

are upgraded and redundant in order to lessen the

impacts of disasters. It also would ensure a periodic

review of federal, state, and local programs or policies

to insure that resilience actions are supported not

reduced. Third, community-led resilience efforts would

receive federal, state, and regional investments and

support. Reliance on underfunded and solely volunteer

efforts would become the exception, not the rule.

Fourth, to more fully manage risks, local zoning

ordinances would be enacted and enforced, as would

building codes and retrofit standards. Such enforce-

ment would enhance disaster resilience at the local

level as these ordinances and codes are under local

jurisdictions, not state or federal control. Fifth, site

specific risk information would be readily available at

all scales and effectively communicated to relevant

stakeholders from local to national levels. And finally,

insurance premiums would become risk-based, so that

individuals and communities with the highest risk

would bear a greater share of the cost of risk pre-

miums. This would enable post-disaster recovery to be

funded primarily through private capital and insurance

payouts rather than federal resources. More

importantly, such actions would provide the financial

mechanism to ensure that communities and individuals

take responsibility for their risk decision making.

If these proactive steps were taken, we could see a

reduction in the per capita federal cost of responding

to disasters in the U.S. We would also see a decline in

overall disaster losses because of these long-term

investments in resilience.

Disaster resilience links disaster risk management and

sustainable development, especially in the developing

world. Unlike the national example, the global path

requires some transformative shifts in the business-as-

usual model, one that is more planet-sensitive, people-

centric, and harmonized with local-national approaches

such as those outlined above for the U.S. The five pillars

of the global transformation include: to leave no one

behind; put sustainable development at the core;

transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth; build

peace and transparent and accountable institutions; and

forge new global partnerships [51]. If such a trans-

formative shift takes place, by 2030 the world would see

increased resilience and improved quality of life. There

would be fewer people in extreme poverty, more

children living beyond the age of five, less mortality from

childbirth, more sustainable use of natural resources,

improvements in education and employment, and more

participatory governance and accountability at all levels

(local to regional to national). More significantly, such

actions would result in 220 million fewer people suffering

the crippling effects of disasters ([51], p. 19).

6. Conclusions

The present focus on the disaster cycle must be

targeted more broadly on strategies to build resilience

as the transition to sustainability. The mechanisms

involve managing disaster risk, undertaking

institutional reform of policies and practices at all

governance levels, building local capacity, devel-

opment and deployment of tools and metrics for

monitoring progress, and investment in the reduction

of gaps in our scientific information, data, and

observation systems. As the World Bank recently

stated, "the international community should lead by

example by further promoting approaches that

progressively link climate and disaster resilience to

broader development paths, and funding them

appropriately" ([52], p. 9). The most significant chal-

lenges to achieving the transformation are institutional,

political will, and leadership and these challenges exist

at global to local scales.

Enhancing disaster resilience requires the

coordinated efforts of individuals, families, commu-

nities, the private sector, and government at all levels.

The path to disaster resilience requires a blending of

top-down (global to local) and bottom-up (local to

global) approaches as no single person, agency, or

institution has all the responsibility for improving

resilience; must be a collective effort with shared

responsibilities. Achieving disaster resilience will not be

cheap or easy, but it is becoming both an economic

necessity and a moral imperative. We must have the

political will to move from the present focus on short-

term disaster response to a longer-term vision of a more

sustainable future that embodies the basic principles of

resilience as outlined here. When we have achieved

some success in enhancing our collective resilience to

disasters, we will secure the future livelihoods and

prosperity for our children's future.

References and Notes

1. MunichRe. Topics Geo 2012: Natural

Catastrophes 2012 Analyses, Assessments, Positions.

Munich, Germany. 2013. Available from: http://www.

munichre.com/publications/302-07742_en.pdf (accessed

on 15 January 2014).

2. Neumayer E, Barthel F. Normalizing economic

loss from natural disasters: A global analysis. Global

Environmental Change. 2010;21(1):13–24.

3. Eichner J. Loss trends—How much would past

events cost by today's standards? In: Topics Geo: Nat-

ural Catastrophes 2012. Munich, Germany. MunichRe;

2013. pp 56–59. Available from: http://www.munichre.

com/publications/302-07742_en.pdf (accessed on 15

January 2014).

4. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration). Billion-Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters.

Available from: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events

(accessed on 29 November 2013).

5. International Federation of Red Cross and Red

Crescent Societies. World Disasters Report 2013.

Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red

Cross and Red Crescent Societies; 2013.

6. Gall M, Borden KA, Emrich CT, Cutter SL. The

unsustainable trend of natural hazard losses in the

United States. Sustainability. 2011;3(11):2157–2181.

7. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

(UNISDR). Making Cities Resilient Report 2012. Geneva,

Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk

Reduction; 2012.

8. United Kingdom Foresight. Foresight Reducing

Risks of Future Disasters: Priorities for Decision Makers,

Final Project Report. London, UK: Government Office for

Science; 2012.

9. United States National Research Council. Disaster

Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, DC,

USA: The National Academies Press; 2012.

10. Coaffee J, Wood DM, Rogers P. The Everyday

Resilience of the City: How Cities Respond to Terrorism

and Disaster. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan (New

Security Challenges Series); 2008.

11. O'Brien K, Hayward B, Berkes F. Rethinking

social contracts: Building resilience in a changing

climate. Ecology and Society. 2009;14(2):12. Available

from: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/

(accessed on 15 January 2014).

12. Manyena SB, O'Brien G, O'Keefe P, Rose J.

Disaster resilience: A bounce back or a bounce forward

ability. Local Environment. 2011;16(5):417–424.

13. World Commission on Environment and Devel-

opment. Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press; 1987.

14. National Research Council. Our Common

Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. Washington,

DC, USA: The National Academies Press; 1999.

15. Mileti D. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment

of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington,

DC, USA: Joseph Henry Press/National Academies

Press; 1999.

16. Fiksel J. Sustainability and resilience: Toward a

systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice,

Policy. 2006;2(2):14–21.

17. Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K. Adaptation to

environmental change: Contributions of a resilience

framework. Annual Review of Environmental Resources.

2007;32:395–419.

18. Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F. Resilience to

natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Envi-

ronmental Hazards. 2003;5(1–2):35–45.

19. Vale LJ, Campanella TJ. The Resilient City: How

Modern Cities Recover from Disaster. New York, NY,

USA: Oxford University Press; 2005.

20. Tur ner II BL. Vulnerability and resilience:

Coalescing or paralleling approaches to sustainability

science? Global Environmental Change. 2010;20(4):

570–576.

21. Paton D, Johnston D. Disaster Resilience: An

Integrated Approach. Springfield, IL, USA: Charles C.

Thomas; 2006.

22. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E,

Tate E, Webb J. A place-based model for understanding

community resilience to natural disasters. Global

Environmental Change. 2008;18(4):598–606.

23. Leichenko R. Climate change and urban

resilience: Current Opinion in Environmental Sus-

tainability. 2011;3(3):164–168.

24. Rogers P. Development of resilient Australia:

Enhancing the PPRR approach with anticipation,

assessment and registration of risks. Australian Journal

of Emergency Management. 2011;26(1):54–58.

Note: the disaster cycle represents one perspective on

disaster risk management. In the US the cycle includes

preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. In

Australia disaster risk management is focused on

prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery.

25. Emergency Planning College. A Guide to GIS

Applications in Integrated Emergency Management.

London, UK: UK Government; 2005. Available from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/up

loads/attachment_data/file/61203/gis_guide_acro6.pdf

(accessed on 15 January 2014).

Note: in the UK, the integrated emergency manage-

ment six elements—anticipate, assess, prevent, pre-

pare, respond, and recover.

26. Field CB, Barrios V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken

DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK,

Allen SK, Tigno M, Midgley PM, editors. Managing the

Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of

Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New

York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2012.

27. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living with High-

Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton

University Press; 1999.

28. Perrow C. The Next Catastrophe: Reducing our

Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist

Disasters. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University

Press; 2011.

29. Clarke L. Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy

Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago, IL, USA:

University of Chicago Press; 2001.

30. Clarke L. Worst Cases: Terror and Catastrophe

in the Popular Imagination. Chicago, IL, USA:

University of Chicago Press; 2005.

31. Taleb NN. The Black Swan: The Impact of the

Highly Improbable. New York, NY, USA: Random

House; 2007.

32. Churchman CW. Wicked problems. Man-

agement Science. 1967;14(4):B141–B142.

33. Ward R, Wamsley G. From a painful past to an

uncertain future. In: Rubin CB, editor. Emergency

Management: The American Experience 1900‒2005.

Fairfax, VA, USA. Public Entity Risk Institute; 2007.

pp. 207–242.

34. King RO. Financing Recovery after a Cat-

astrophic Earthquake or Nuclear Power Incident.

Washington, DC, USA: Congressional Research Service

7–5700, Report R41968; 2011. Available from: http://

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41968.pdf (accessed on 15

January 2014).

35. Suzuki T. Deconstructing the zero-risk mindset:

The lessons and future responsibilities for a post-

Fukushima nuclear Japan. Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists. 2011;67(5):9–18.

36. Von Hippel FN. The radiological and psycho-

logical consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2011;67(5):27–36.

37. Leichenko R, O'Brien KL. Environmental

Change and Globalization: Double Exposures. New

York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press; 2008.

38. Zebrowski C. The nature of resilience.

Resilience: International Policies, Practices and

Discourses. 2013;1(3):159–173.

39. Leadership Council of the Sustainable Devel-

opment Solutions Network. An Action Agenda for Sus-

tainable Development: Report for the UN Secretary-

General. New York, NY, USA: UN Sustainable Devel-

opment Solutions Network; 2013. Available from: http://

unsdsn.org/files/2013/11/An-Action-Agenda-for-Sustain

able-Development.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2014).

40. Kunreuther HC, Michel-Kerjan EO. At War with

the Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New

Era of Catastrophes. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press; 2009.

41. Gall M, Borden KA, Cutter SL. When do losses

count? Six fallacies of natural hazards loss data.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

2009;90(6):799–809.

42. Wirtz A, Kron W, Löw P, Steuer M. The need for

data: natural disasters and the challenges of database

management. Natural Hazards. 2014;70(1):135–157.

43. Gall M, Kreft S. Measuring What Matters? A

Suitability Analysis of Loss and Damage Databases for

the Climate Change Convention Process. Bonn,

Germany: Germanwatch; 2013. Available from:

http://www.lossanddamage.net/download/6845.pdf

(accessed on 15 January 2014).

44. Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche

KF, Pfefferbaum RL. Community resilience as a

metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for

disaster readiness. American Journal of Community

Psychology. 2008;41(1–2):127–50.

Note: the list of different resiliencies and objects of

study is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather

illustrative of the range of resiliencies seen in the

literature. Community resilience emerges from the

combination of all these or what Norris et al. 2008

called adaptive capacities (economic development,

social capital, information and communication, and

community competence).

45. Sherrieb K, Norris F, Galea S. Measuring

capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators

Research. 2009;99(2):227–247.

46. Alliance Development Works. WorldRiskIndex

2012. Berlin, Germany: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft.

Available from: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/10487.

pdf (accessed on 15 January 2014).

47. Cutter SL, Burton CG, Emrich CT. Disaster

resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline con-

ditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency

Management. 2010;7(1):1–22.

48. Cutter S, Osman-Elasha B, Campbell J, Cheong

SM, McCormick S, Pulwarty R, Supratid S, Ziervogel G.

Managing the risks from climate extremes at the local

level. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken

DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK,

Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM. Managing the Risks of

Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate

Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups

I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA:

Cambridge University Press; 2012. pp. 291–338.

49. Tierney K. Disaster governance: Social,

political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources. 2012;37:341–363.

50. Comfort LK, Boin A, Demchak CC, editors.

Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events.

Pittsburgh, PA, USA: University of Pittsburg Press; 2010.

51. United Nations. A New Global Partnership:

Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through

Sustainable Development: The Report of the High-

Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015

Development Agenda. New York, NY, USA: United

Nations; 2013. Available from: http://www.post2015

hlp.org/the-report (accessed on 15 January 2014).

52. World Bank. Building Resilience: Integrating

Climate and Disaster Risk into Development. Lessons

from World Bank Group Experience. Washington, DC,

USA: The World Bank; 2013. Available from:

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/11/

18513435/building-resilience-integrating-climate-dis-

aster-risk-development-world-bank-group-experience-

vol-1-2-main-report (accessed on 15 January 2014).