State of The Research in Community Resilience: Progress and Challenges

Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
ISSN: 2378-9689 (Print) 2378-9697 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsri20
State of the research in community resilience:

progress and challenges
Maria Koliou, John W. van de Lindt, Therese P. McAllister, Bruce R.

Ellingwood, Maria Dillard & Harvey Cutler
To cite this article: Maria Koliou, John W. van de Lindt, Therese P. McAllister, Bruce R.
Ellingwood, Maria Dillard & Harvey Cutler (2018): State of the research in community resilience:
progress and challenges, Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547
Published online: 08 Jan 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsri20
Download by: [178.59.147.126] Date: 08 January 2018, At: 01:00

Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547
State of the research in community resilience: progress and challenges

Maria Kolioua , John W. van de Lindtb, Therese P. McAllisterc, Bruce R. Ellingwoodb, Maria Dillardc and
Harvey Cutlerd
a
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; bCenter of Excellence for Risk-Based Community
Resilience Planning, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA; cEngineering
Laboratory, Community Resilience Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; dDepartment of Economics,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Community resilience has been addressed across multiple disciplines including environmental Received 25 May 2017
sciences, engineering, sociology, psychology, and economics. Interest in community resilience Accepted 14 December 2017
gained momentum following several key natural and human-caused hazards in the United States KEYWORDS
and worldwide. To date, a comprehensive community resilience model that encompasses the Community resilience; critical
Downloaded by [178.59.147.126] at 01:00 08 January 2018
performance of all the physical and socio-economic components from immediate impact through infrastructure; computable
the recovery phase of a natural disaster has not been available. This paper summarizes a literature general equilibrium
review of previous community resilience studies with a focus on natural hazards, which includes economic models; disaster
primarily models of individual infrastructure systems, their interdependencies, and community recovery; social systems
economic and social systems. A series of national and international initiatives aimed at community
resilience are also summarized in this study. This paper suggests extensions of existing modeling
methodologies aimed at developing an improved, integrated understanding of resilience that can
be used by policy-makers in preparation for future events.
Introduction response, preparedness and security, mitigation, risk com-

munication, and recovery of communities from physical,
Natural and human-caused hazards can result in signif-
economic and social disruptions. Over time, community
icant damage and disruption to communities, including
their buildings, distributed infrastructure systems, the resilience began to address the long-term impacts on com-
economy, and the availability of social services. The con- munities following events, rather than solely focusing on
cept of community resilience, which includes planning individual facilities or organizations. A community per-
for, resisting, absorbing, and rapidly recovering from dis- spective gives the necessary context for developing the
ruptive events (PPD-21, 2013), has gained traction over desired performance and recovery of individual facilities
the last decade around the world. In the United States, and organizations, and their role in community recovery.
national and local programs and research on community Concurrently, research addressed resilience gaps iden-
resilience has been influenced by the local and national tified after each hazard event, though the research goals or
impacts of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the 1994 Northridge focus often varied widely with regards to resilience con-
Earthquake, the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon cepts. Until recently, despite the broad interest engendered
terrorist attacks, 2005 Hurricane Katrina, the 2011 Joplin, by recent hazard events and research funding initiatives,
MO tornado, 2012 Superstorm Sandy (McAllister, 2016), there has been little coordinated effort to address the
2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, as well as complex interactions between physical, social, and eco-
worldwide the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy Earthquake, 2011 nomic infrastructure that enable community resilience.
Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake, 2011 Great East Instead, most studies have focused on a single hazard
Japan Earthquake, 2016 Central Italy Earthquake have (often earthquakes) or specific infrastructure (e.g. health
motivated resilience research. Community resilience care facilities).
concepts evolved after each of these natural disasters, as A number of federal agencies have programs that con-
resilience programs increasingly addressed emergency tribute to community resilience that address emergency
CONTACT Maria Koliou [email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
response, preparedness and security, mitigation, risk com- recent examples addressing the resilience of specific
munication, and recovery of communities from physical, infrastructure systems.
economic, and social disruptions. For example, in the US, The first definition in Table 1 is from Holling (1973),
recent programs by the National Institute of Standards who is often credited with being one of the first researchers
and Technology (NIST) are developing science-based to define resilience as the ability of ecological systems to
methods, tools, and guidance for community resilience. absorb and bounce back from external shocks. This notion
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also of bouncing back has been often criticized as being too
addressing critical infrastructure and community resil- narrow, and only reproducing vulnerabilities (Barnett,
ience through programs in the Office of Infrastructure 2001; Doorn, 2017; Jordan & Javernick-Will, 2013).
Protection and FEMA’s National Preparedness Goal Gordon (1978) offers a similar approach when addressing
and Framework. In Europe, the Joint Research Center the resilience of physical structures, whether engineered
(JRC) has developed the Geospatial Risk and Resilience or natural, and their ability to resist, absorb, or deflect
Assessment Platform (GRRASP), which focuses on geo- energy loadings while they maintain their form and struc-
spatial technologies and computational tools for the anal- ture. Timmerman (1981) also drew directly from Holling
ysis and simulation of critical infrastructure resilience (1973), and was one of the first to think of resilience to
assessment. disasters and hazards, again focusing on the abilities of
In this paper, a multidisciplinary perspective on com- systems to recover from a hazardous event. The focus on
munity resilience to natural hazards is presented through resistance to impact and rapid recovery remains central to
a review of current resilience initiatives and a represent- most definitions of resilience, including both Mileti (1999)
ative body of literature, with a focus on the built envi- and Paton and Johnston (2001), who observed that when
ronment, social, and economic institutions and functions dealing with social systems, the ability to effectively utilize
that depend on the built environment. First, definitions physical and economic resources with limited depend-
of resilience by multiple disciplines (engineering, soci- ence on external (extra-local) resources promotes rapid
ology, and economics) are presented for comparison. recovery.
Next, research supporting resilience models, tools, and The first decade of the new century was marked by the
metrics at various scales (national, regional, and local) addition of critical dimensions –human and social factors
are reviewed. Finally, research on resilience of physical, – to the concept of resilience, particularly when addressing
social, and economic systems is presented, followed by a resilience to hazard events. For example, Folke et al. (2002)
discussion of critical gaps and research needs to enable suggested that the inclusion of human and social factors as
and improve community-level resilience assessment and part of socio-ecological systems required the acknowledg-
assurance. The focus of this paper is on publically available ment of learning and adaptation as critical components of
documents; therefore, some government related studies resilience. From this perspective, resilience is not simply
may not be included such as documents from Europe and the ability to resist or absorb systemic shocks and to rap-
Asia. idly recover from impacts, but also learn to adapt to future
shocks and vulnerabilities. Rose and Liao (2005) extended
the work of Folke et al. (2002) by decomposing resilience
Definitions of resilience
into two components. The first component is inherent
The concepts of resilience in general and resilience to resilience where the economy naturally substitutes out of
hazard events in particular have found wide application damaged infrastructure such as building into more flexi-
in a host of disciplines, including psychology and psychi- ble factors, such as labor, which minimizes the economic
atry, public health-related sciences, and environmental impact of the hazard. The second component is referred
sciences, engineering, and the broader economic, social, to as adaptive resilience where economic policies can be
and behavioral sciences (Haimes, 2009; Hicks-Masterson implemented quickly such as providing information to the
et al., 2014; Klein, Nicholls, & Thomalla, 2003; Manyena, market to coordinate suppliers and demanders of critical
2006; Norris et al., 2008). These concepts have been goods and services. Bruneau et al. (2003) offered a com-
applied to phenomena of varying scales and complexity, prehensive focus on social system resilience with a strong
from components of engineered public infrastructure emphasis on the built environment, and suggested that
systems, or social groups to systems and networks of resilient systems are robust or resistant to hazards, rapidly
systems such as communities, socio-ecological systems, recover when impacted, and reduce future impact through
regional economies, and networks of infrastructure sys- learning and adaptation as part of the recovery process.
tems. Table 1 offers a number of alternative definitions, This work draws on engineering and social research find-
chronologically ordered, drawn from the broad social, ings regarding pre-existing physical vulnerabilities such as
engineering, and disaster sciences literature including weak building codes/standards and social vulnerabilities
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 3
Table 1. Representative definitions of resilience.

Source Summary of resilience definition
Holling (1973) A measure of the ability of systems to absorb changes of state, driving variables, and parameters and
persist
Gordon (1978) The ability to store strain energy and deflect elastically under a specified loading condition without break-
age or deformation
Timmerman (1981) Resilience is the measure of a system’s or part of the system’s capacity to absorb and recover from occur-
rence of a hazardous event
Mileti (1999) Ability to withstand an extreme natural event without suffering devastating losses, damage, diminished
productivity, or quality of life, and without a large amount of assistance from outside the community
Adger (2000) The capability of communities to resist external shocks to their social infrastructure.
Paton and Johnston (2001) The ability to pick up and utilize physical and economic resources for effective recovery following hazards
Folke et al. (2002) Resilience for social-ecological systems is related to three different characteristics: (a) the magnitude of
shock that the system can absorb and remain in within a given state; (b) the degree to which the system
is capable of self-organization, and (c) the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and
adaptation
Bruneau et al. (2003) The ability of social units (organizations, communities) to mitigate hazards, contain the effects of disasters
when they occur, and carry out recovery activities in ways that minimize social disruption and mitigate
the effects of future earthquakes
Walter (2004) Resilience is the capacity to survive, adapt, and recover from a natural disaster. Resilience relies on under-
standing the nature of possible natural disasters and taking steps to reduce risk before an event as well as
providing for quick recovery when a natural disaster occurs. These activities necessitate institutionalized
planning and response networks to minimize diminished productivity, devastating losses, and decreased
quality of life in the event of a disaster
Rose and Liao (2005) The adaptive response to hazards in order to enable individual and communities to avoid potential losses
Adger et al. (2005) The ability of systems following disasters to self-organize, with the capacity to learn from and adapt to
disruptions
UN/ISDR (2005) Resilience is the capacity of a system, community, or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by
resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This
is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase this ca-
pacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures
Resilience Alliance (2007) Ecosystem resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a
qualitatively different state that is controlled by different set of processes. Thus, a resilient ecosystem can
withstand shocks and rebuild itself when necessary. Resilience in coupled social-ecological systems, the
social systems have the added capacity of humans to learn from experience and anticipate and plan for
the future
Maguire and Hagan (2007) Social resilience is the capacity of social entity e.g. group or community to bounce back or respond positive-
ly to adversity. Social resilience has three major properties, resistance, recovery, and creativity
Cutter et al. (2008) The ability of a social system to respond and recover from disasters and include those inherent conditions
that allow the system to absorb impacts and cope with an event, post-event, and adaptive processes that
facilitate the ability of the social system to reorganize, change, and learn in response to a threat
Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8, 2011) The ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to
emergencies
National Academies (2012) The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events
Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21, 2013) The ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from
disruptions, including the ability to withstand and recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally
occurring threats or incidents
such as disparate access to resources necessary to antici- a community’s infrastructure system, such as healthcare
pate, cope, and respond to disasters. According to Bruneau (e.g. Cimellaro, Reinhorn, & Bruneau, 2010 and Kirsch
et al. (2003), rapid recovery or restoration to pre-impact et al., 2010), transportation (Adams, Bekkem, & Toledo-
conditions is problematic if pre-existing vulnerabilities are Durán, 2012), or power/energy transmission (Ouyang
not remedied; rather, resilient recovery includes adapta- and Dueñas-Osorio, 2012). In these cases, there is a ten-
tion or mitigation to reduce future disaster vulnerabilities. dency to focus on the narrower dimensions of resistance
This tripartite view of resilience – reducing impacts to impacts and restoration to pre-existing conditions.
or consequences, reducing recovery time, and reduc- These contrasts in emphasis will become evident in sub-
ing future vulnerabilities – has been prevalent over the sequent discussions of research below. Nevertheless, it is
last decade, although there are certainly variations in clear that the general focus of the broader research com-
emphasis. The tendency in many recent definitions is to munity, particularly as it relates to resilience to hazard
address all three dimensions of resilience when consider- events is on the three key dimensions of resilience. Indeed,
ing broader social systems, such as communities (Adger, this broader perspective is clearly seen worldwide efforts
Hughes, Folke, Carpenter, & Rockström, 2005; Cutter et to promote resilience to hazard events. The IPCC (2007,
al., 2008; Maguire and Hagen 2007; Resiliency Alliance 2014) defined resilience as ‘the ability of a social or eco-
2007; UN/ISDR, 2005; Walter, 2004). The exceptions logical system to absorb disturbances while retaining the
appear to be when addressing particular components of same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity
4 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
of self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress power, water, transportation, and communication systems
and change.’ In the US, the term resilience was defined that support other critical sectors such as emergency ser-
in Presidential Policy Directives (PPD)-8 (2011) as ‘the vices, critical manufacturing, food and agriculture, and
ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and public health.
rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies.’ PPD- The US Federal government has worked to improve the
21 (2013) expanded the definition to ‘the ability to prepare resilience of communities by developing guidance docu-
for and adapt to changing conditions and to withstand and ments and tools. The Federal Emergency Management
recover rapidly from disruptions.’ These PPDs established Agency (FEMA 2015a, 2015b), in response to PPD-8,
common definitions for use by federal agencies and fed- developed methodologies and a National Preparedness
erally sponsored research for resilience guidance, tools, Goal and Framework to address prevention, protection,
and metrics. Finally, the US National Academies (2012) mitigation, response, and recovery of communities, indi-
also defined resilience as ‘the ability to prepare and plan viduals, families, businesses, local governments, and the
for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to federal government. The NIST has developed two planning
adverse events.’ guides for community resilience based on a national out-
reach effort, the Community Resilience Planning Guide
for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (NIST, 2015a)
Community resilience initiatives on
and the Community Resilience Economic Decision Guide
international, national, regional, and local levels
for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (NIST, 2015b).
The concept of resilience has also had an impact on These documents provide a comprehensive process for
how Federal, State, and local government agencies communities to plan and implement resilience measures
have responded to natural disasters. Resilience can be that address the community physical, social, and economic
addressed at a range of scales, depending on the impact systems based on a metric of ‘recovery time to function’
and consequences related to loss of function or service of a for all community systems. Gilbert (2010) conducted a
given facility or system within a larger ‘system-of-systems,’ literature survey and developed an annotated bibliogra-
and the presence of a governance structure for funding, phy of resources of data and tools to inform development
decisions, and implementation. Examples of each scale of of resilience methodologies for structures and commu-
resilience planning are provided in the discussion below, nities. A critical assessment of nine methodologies used
but there are many programs and initiatives that are not for measuring the resilience of social and physical sys-
addressed here. tems in communities was conducted by Lavelle, Ritchie,
International initiatives include the United Nations Kwasinksi, and Wolshon (2015).
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Resilience One important issue found in most of the reviewed
Scorecard (UNIDSR 2014) as well as the Rockefeller methodologies is the relatively weak integration of phys-
Foundation 100 Resilient Cities. The Rockefeller ical infrastructure resilience metrics with social and
Foundation 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) initiative economic systems. To remedy this weakness, a concep-
(Rockefeller, 2016) is dedicated to helping communities tual framework for assessing community resilience that
around the world become more resilient to physical, social, included physical, social, and economic systems was
and economic challenges. This initiative began in 2013 developed by Kwasinski, Trainor, Wolshon, and Lavelle
by providing resources to support community resilience (2016). The hierarchical structure of that framework
plans and implementation. The 100RC initiative supports explicitly considers the integration of social systems and
the view of resilience that includes not just sudden events infrastructure systems and differentiates these systems
or shocks – earthquakes, fires, floods, etc. – but also the from the services that they provide. A study of social insti-
chronic stresses – unemployment, food, lack of affordable tutions and societal needs and how they should inform the
housing, water shortages, and lack of transportation – that performance goals of buildings and infrastructure systems
weaken communities. assessed (a) performance requirements between codes,
Critical infrastructure systems are addressed at a standards, and guidelines for buildings and infrastructure
national scale in the United States, where goals and conse- systems (Kwasinski et al., 2016), (b) societal expectations
quences, as well as design, mitigation, and recovery plans and tolerances for service disruptions, and (c) interde-
to minimize the impact and disruption of function, can be pendencies between infrastructure systems (Applied
assessed. The DHS (DHS, 2016a) provides strategic guid- Technology Council, 2016). These studies and the NIST
ance to public and private partners and coordinates the planning guides are initial products of the Community
effort to promote the security and resilience of the nation’s Resilience Program (McAllister, 2015) that is developing
critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure includes six- science-based methodologies, tools, and metrics to sup-
teen critical sectors identified by DHS (2016b), including port community resilience.
Regional resilience efforts are addressing common infrastructure systems, such as power and water, and crit-
needs or resources between several communities or coun- ical facilities such as hospitals. Resilience (R) was defined
ties, such as water sources, fuel supplies, or recovery plans. mathematically by Bruneau et al. (2003) as:
For example, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region
t0 +t1
(PNWER) launched the Regional Disaster Resilience
and Homeland Security Program in November 2001 ∫ (1)
R= Q(t)∕t1 dt
with the goal of improving their ability to withstand, t0
recover, and protect its critical infrastructure from all
hazards (PNWER, 2016). Based in Seattle, Washington, where Q(t) is the functionality which is measured as a
PNWER is a statutory organization of international dimensionless function of time, t1 is the control time of
scope, which was formed in 1991 by legislatures of the the system, and to is the time of occurrence of event, E.
northwest states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, A comprehensive conceptual model of recovery that
Oregon, and Canadian provinces including the territo- establishes relationships among community households,
ries of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Yukon, neighborhoods, businesses, and infrastructure systems
and Northwest Territories. As another example, the DHS (including electric power, transportation, and water) was
Regional Resiliency Assessment Program (RRAP, 2016) proposed by Miles and Chang (2006). The main goal of
works with communities and regions to conduct cooper- their study was to investigate community recovery and
ative assessments of select critical infrastructure within a associated operational levels, such as business and house-
designated geographic area and regional analyses of sur- hold income, the year of building construction, and build-
rounding infrastructure. ing retrofit.
A number of resilience initiatives by communities The PEOPLES resilience framework (Renschler et al.,
and states, non-profit organizations, and researchers 2010) was based on the work of Bruneau et al. (2003) and
have focused on improving community resilience with included seven dimensions for assessing community resil-
guidance or assessment methodologies. Some examples ience. These dimensions are: population and demograph-
of guidance documents include the SPUR Framework ics, environment/ecosystem, organized governmental
(2009), NOAA’s Coastal Resilience Index (Sempier, Swann, services, physical infrastructure, lifestyle and community
Emmer, Sempier, & Schneider, 2010), the Community competence, economic development, and social-cultural
and Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI) Community capital. Arcidiacono, Cimellaro, and Reinhorn (2011)
Resilience System (2013), the Oregon Resilience Plan introduced a software platform to evaluate community
(Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission, resilience to hazard events using the PEOPLES frame-
2013), the Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit work, which was used in a case study of the 2009 L’Aquila
(CART) (Pfefferbaum et al., 2013), and the Baseline earthquake in Italy, making comparisons between four
Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) (Cutter, different recovery scenarios.
Burton, & Emrich, 2010). In an extension of the study of Miles and Chang
(2006), Miles (2011) proposed a conceptual model that
used a database of infrastructure loss and restoration data
Facility and system resilience
that varied in time and space to support evaluation of
This section reviews studies on community resilience with community resilience metrics. Concurrently, Miles and
the main focus on: (i) resilience frameworks, (ii) physical Chang (2011) developed the ResilUS model, which uses
infrastructure systems (buildings, water, power, and trans- fragility curves to model economic loss and probabilistic
portation), (iii) social systems, and (iv) economic systems. approaches (i.e. Markov chains) to model recovery over
time. This model was calibrated with data from the 1994
Northridge earthquake.
Resilience frameworks
The NIST six-step process for community resilience
In the context of seismic hazard, Bruneau et al. (2003) planning (NIST, 2015a) articulates an approach/meth-
proposed a general framework for quantifying the seis- odology that helps communities prioritize improvements
mic resilience of communities, which identified the key in the performance of their physical infrastructure dur-
resilience components as ‘reduced failure probabilities,’ ing and after a hazard event, as well as the availability
‘reduced consequences from failures,’ and ‘reduced time to of social and economic institutions that depend on the
recovery.’ This framework included quantitative measures built environment. As shown in Figure 1, resilience of
of robustness, rapidity, resourcefulness and redundancy physical infrastructure systems can be expressed in terms
(R4). The framework also proposed the integration of tech- of time to recover functionality. This simple metric works
nical, organization, social, and economic dimensions for well across disciplines, but must consider uncertainties
6 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
due to the condition of existing systems and the plans characterizing the resilience based on given system state,
and resources available for recovery. The six steps provide in the immediate aftermath of a disruption, as well as for a
a rational framework for organizing research across and selected recovery strategy by proposing resilience metrics.
within disciplines, such as setting performance goals at the The proposed mathematical framework was applied for
community level for physical, social, and economic sys- the reinforced concrete bridge retrofitted with fiber-rein-
tems, evaluating the anticipated performance of existing forced polymers.
infrastructure systems, establishing design and mitigation Based on the studies available in the literature, it is
criteria for primary hazards, conducting risk assessment suggested that work is needed with focus on three tasks:
for community-scale impacts and consequences, and set- (i) to generalize existing frameworks for climate-related
ting performance goals and metrics for recovery of func- hazards, (ii) to correlate social and economic attributes
tionality at the community scale. in resilience frameworks, and (iii) to develop risk-in-
Recently, the Centerville Virtual Community was formed decision-making tools. With the exception of the
developed by Ellingwood et al. (2016) to be used as a recent study on Centerville, the majority of the studies
community resilience testbed and enable development of available in the literature have focused on quantifying
a fully integrated decision framework to achieve commu- the recovery and resilience of communities subjected to
nity resilience. That model accounted for interacting phys- seismic loads. There is an imminent need to generalize
ical, social, and economic infrastructure systems (Cutler, existing frameworks to study the post-disaster recovery
Shields, Tavani, & Zahran, 2016; Guidotti et al., 2016; Lin and resilience trajectories of communities impacted
& Wang, 2016; Unnikrishnan & van de Lindt, 2016) in by climate-related hazards (e.g. tornado, hurricanes,
a community exposed to earthquake and tornado haz- flood, and tropical storms). Such a need was further
ards, and introduced a decision framework to determine highlighted by the recent Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
optimal strategies for minimizing economic losses and Maria. Furthermore, the existing resilience frameworks
population dislocation (Zhang & Nicholson, 2016). The have been focused on recovery associated with economic
Centerville Testbed demonstrated that it was feasible and attributes including economic losses, restoration costs,
practical to consider the performance of interdependent and business status; however, there is a need to correlate
physical, social, and economic systems in an integrated the social impact of post-disaster recovery (population
community resilience assessment. dislocation, school absence etc.) with economic attrib-
Gardoni (2017) introduced a stochastic life cycle anal- utes for predicting post-disaster recovery trajectory of
ysis formulation to capture the impact of deterioration communities. Finally, there is a need to develop risk-in-
processes as well as repair and recovery strategies on the formed decision-making end-user tools to be considered
engineering systems in terms of performance measures for optimizing and prioritizing sustainable and retrofit
like instantaneous reliability and resilience. Sharma, solutions for different infrastructure systems as well as
Tabandeh, and Gardoni (2017) proposed a mathematical emergency response actions targeting risk and vulnera-
formulation for performing resilience analysis through bility reduction.
Figure 1. Resilience measured in terms of time to recovery of functionality for physical infrastructure systems should include the existing
condition of the system, the intensity of the hazard, the damage and loss of functionality, and the ability to recovery rapidly (McAllister,
2016).
Physical infrastructure systems to portfolio of commercial or residential buildings, they

are presented together in this section representing the
System interdependencies
building infrastructure resilience research.
Numerous researchers have developed comprehensive
Based on the work of Bruneau et al. (2003), Cimellaro,
models and empirical approaches to assess the physical
Christovasilis, Reinhorn, De Stefano, and Kirova (2010)
interdependencies of infrastructure systems, including
formulated a framework to quantify resilience with a
buildings, transportation systems, lifelines, and critical
recovery model that incorporated direct and indirect
facilities (e.g. Zimmerman, 2001, 2004; Zimmerman
losses to key physical infrastructure within a commu-
& Restrepo, 2006), based on the fundamental work
nity and its population. This framework was developed
by Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly (2001). Menoni,
for evaluating the resilience of critical facilities such as
Pergalani, Boni, and Petrini (2002) introduced a model
hospitals, military buildings, and infrastructure systems,
to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of infrastructure
which can significantly affect the recovery process as well
facilities exposed to earthquake hazards accounting for
as community decisions and policies. The framework
interconnected physical, functional, and organizational
was used to conduct case studies of a typical hospital in
factors. Paton and Johnston (2006) introduced a numerical
California as well as of a network of health care facilities in
quantification of the infrastructure system dependencies
the Memphis, Tennessee area. Cimellaro, Christovasilis, et
based on an empirical approach that assumes the degree of
al. (2010) further extended the concepts of previous stud-
interdependency is a function of the level of dependency.
ies and introduced the idea of a resilience-based design
Bigger, Willingham, Krimgold, and Mili (2009) compiled
(RBD) framework, which informs the design of individual

a large number of complex interdependencies among elec-
structures on the basis of community resilience consider-
tric power systems, water and wastewater utilities, natural
ations. Furthermore, Bruneau and Reinhorn (2007) inves-
gas and petroleum fuel systems, and communications and
tigated the operational and physical resilience of acute
transportation networks dealing with services losses in the care facilities, recognizing that the key dimension of these
2004 Florida hurricane season. Furthermore, Delamare, facilities is not just engineering parameters but broader
Diallo, and Chaudet (2009) proposed a model to account societal attributes that were included in the study.
for the interdependencies of electrical and telecommuni- A damage and loss-of-function survey tool to assess the
cation networks and examined the effects on each system. impact of the 2010 Chilean earthquake on the functions
Poljanšek, Bono, and Gutiérrez (2012) evaluated the gas of the public hospital system was developed by Mitrani-
and electricity transmission network interdependency in Reiser et al. (2012). Their tool can be applied to hospitals
Europe using the strength of coupling of the intercon- anywhere to standardize future assessment of hospital per-
nections with the seismic response. Dueñas-Osorio and formance following seismic events, including the impact
Kwasinski (2012) proposed to form and compute an inter- of damage to structural and nonstructural components,
dependency index as an empirical equation that depends utility services, and equipment, as well as loss of supplies
on the maximum positive value of the cross correlation and personnel.
function (CCF) of the two data series. More recently, Mimura, Yasuhara, Kawagoe, Yokoki, and Kazama
Guidotti et al. (2016) proposed a methodology based on (2011) investigated the recovery and reconstruction pro-
a six-step probabilistic approach to model dependent and cess focusing on adaptation plans following the Great East
interdependent networks in order to assess their recovery Japan earthquake and tsunami. An analytical, reliabili-
process. This methodology was applied to the Centerville ty-based approach to quantify the resilience of a group
Virtual Community Testbed (Ellingwood et al., 2016). The of buildings based on robustness and restoration rapidity
main outcome of this study was the quantification of the following a seismic event was proposed by Bonstrom and
loss of functionality and delay in the recovery trajectory Corotis (2014). Parameters that accounted for the relia-
of the potable water distribution network and the electric bility problem were spatially correlated seismic intensity,
power network. structural response, and duration of post-hazard recovery
for certain buildings. This method was used to evaluate the
Buildings and critical infrastructure resilience of a group of buildings in San Francisco follow-
A significant number of studies, which focused on evalu- ing an earthquake. A mathematical model based on a mul-
ating the concept of resilience and identifying metrics for ti-criteria approach was developed by Zobel and Khansa
physical infrastructure, have been conducted over the last (2014) to capture the tradeoffs between the robustness of
two decades. The main focus of these studies has been on a system and the rapidity of its recovery, when multiple
the building infrastructure with an even heavier focus on hazard or emergency events are occurring. An example
healthcare facilities. Although health care facilities (i.e. using the proposed model compared the relative resilience
hospitals) are studied as individual buildings compared of five different scenarios associated with houses affected
8 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
by a multi-event disaster. A framework that incorporated a community following other natural disasters that are
probabilistic building performance limit states to assess mainly climate-related and may have a devastating impact
community resilience following an earthquake was intro- on the community.
duced by Burton, Deierlein, Lallemant, and Lin (2015).
The limit states for functionality and recovery included Lifeline systems
damage triggering inspection, damage permitting con- Power systems. A number of studies conducted over
tinued occupancy with loss of functionality, damage not the last decade have focused on resilience, particularly
allowing continued occupancy, irreparable damage, and recovery processes, of power systems. The focus of
collapse. The framework was used to assess the likely these studies has been on simulating post-earthquake
post-earthquake recovery of shelter-in-place housing for restoration of electric power networks by: (i) investigating
residential buildings. methods to improve the restoration process in terms of
Mieler, Stojadinovic, Budnitz, Comerio, and Mahin economic losses (Davidson & Çagnan, 2004) and (ii)
(2015) introduced a conceptual framework, which is used quantifying the resilience of water and electric systems
to associate community-level resilience objectives with based on loss estimation models (Chang, Pasion,
specified design targets referring to individual systems Tatebe, & Ahmad, 2008; Chang & Shinozuka, 2004).
or components. This framework was applied to proof-of- Recent studies have investigated through probabilistic
concept application focusing on the seismic performance frameworks the resilience of power systems (Mensah
of a new residential structure. Lin, Wang, and Ellingwood & Dueñas-Osorio, 2015; Ouyang & Dueñas-Osorio,
(2016) introduced a methodology to relate risk-informed 2014; Ramachandran, Long, Shoberg, Corns, & Carlo,
performance criteria of individual building structures to 2015; Unnikrishnan & van de Lindt, 2016) following
broader community resilience objectives and therefore wind-hazard events as well as their interdependency
relate community goals to design codes and standards metrics with telecommunications services (Reed, Kapur,
requirements. The proposed methodology was applied & Christie, 2009). Ouyang and Dueñas-Osorio (2011,
to a set of two residential building inventories. 2012) and Ouyang, Dueñas-Osorio, and Min (2012)
Based on the studies available in the literature on investigated the recovery of smart grid systems through
buildings and critical infrastructure, the following gaps a three-step resilience framework applied to the case
are identified for future work: (i) studies focusing on resil- study of the power transmission grid in Harris County,
ience assessment of buildings other than hospitals or acute TX.
facilities, (ii) studies to correlate infrastructure damage Despite these studies on the performance, interde-
with social and economic functions disruption and recov- pendency, and recovery of electric power systems, further
ery, (iii) studies focusing on natural hazards other than efforts are suggested (i) to identify dependencies between
earthquakes, and (iv) studies focusing on adaptation and the power systems and social and economic systems of a
learning. Despite the large number of studies focusing on community and (ii) to develop metrics for community
the resilience assessment of buildings and critical facil- resilience that can assess the impact of power recovery on
ities, it is suggested that there is still a need for studies community resilience. Societal aspects (e.g. business dis-
that evaluate the interdependencies between the physical ruption and household functionality) impacted by power
infrastructure and community well-being (social and eco- outages need to be quantified as part of the recovery tra-
nomic systems) following a hazard event. Furthermore, jectory of a community.
there is a need for studies that evaluate the recovery
trajectory of physical infrastructure and the functions Water and wastewater systems. The recovery and
served, such as housing people and providing essential resilience of water distribution networks has been
services. Such studies would focus on the recovery of investigated by first introducing the concept of a resilience
building infrastructure other than hospitals or residen- index (RI) (Piratla, Ariaratnam, Arnaout, & Slavin, 2013)
tial buildings, including commercial buildings (e.g. banks, defined as the ratio of the surplus internal power to the
strip malls, grocery centers), educational buildings (e.g. maximum power that could be dissipated internally
schools, universities, libraries), and government buildings (Todini, 2000), and was further explored for more
(e.g. police stations, city halls, community centers). The sophisticated indices including: (i) the network resilience
recovery of such facilities affects the recovery of the com- index (NRI) that incorporates the effects of both surplus
munity considerably accounting for social and economic power and reliable loops (Prasad & Park, 2004); (ii) the
attributes. Additionally, virtually all studies reported in modified resilience index (MRI) (Jayaram & Srinivasan,
the literature have focused on the community resilience 2008), which accounts for the design and rehabilitation
assessment after a strong seismic event. Therefore, it is of multiple sources of supply; and (iii) the index of
evident that there is a need to examine the resilience of network resilience (INR) which is based on the network
topology (Pandit & Crittenden, 2012). More recently, an Further studies are needed on the recovery of natural
RI was introduced to account for three combined indices, gas systems. The interdependency of these systems with
the number of users temporarily without water service, electric and water/wastewater systems needs to be iden-
the capacity of the water network, and the water quality tified and quantified to account for the increasing use of
(Cimellaro, Tinebra, Renschler, & Fragiadakis, 2015). natural gas for electricity generation. Furthermore, the
The resilience of the water systems in terms of perfor- performance and recovery of the gas systems impacted
mance loss, recovery time, and recovery cost of the water by wind storms and floods requires models that can
network, while also incorporating a hydraulic analysis of simulate the complex fuel supply network (e.g. pipe-
the damaged network was investigated through stochas- lines, port facilities, fuel delivery, airport operation, train
tic simulation approach (Gay, 2013; Gay & Sinha, 2012). operation etc.) using reliability methods to account for all
Several key aspects of drinking water system resilience the uncertainties associated with the operational needs
have been identified as critical to the recovery process of the gas systems. The October 2015 gas leak in Aliso
including the water distribution system redundancy, Canyon (California) demonstrated that malfunctions in
structural stability and integrity of water systems, and the natural gas system can constitute hazards in and of
backup power of water facilities (Matthews, Piratla, & themselves. Failure of critical infrastructure may not only
Matthews, 2014), which were used to identify appro- reduce provision of services directly, but also degrade the
priate improvements needed to make the water systems level of other services in an indirect fashion (e.g. housing).
resilient for multiple hazards (Davis, 2014). Guidotti et A recently published NIST report (Applied Technology
al. (2016) used a methodology based on a six-step prob- Council, 2016) presents a comprehensive critical assess-
abilistic approach to evaluate the direct effects of seismic ment of infrastructure systems (electric power, gas and
events on the functionality of a potable water distribution liquid fuel, telecommunications, water and wastewater
network, and the cascading effects of the damage of the systems) and their performance during past natural haz-
electric power network on the potable water distribution ard events. In that report, a summary of codes, standards,
network. Finally, studies have been conducted on risk and guidelines for each system is provided along with dis-
management for capital budgeting of infrastructure assets cussions on societal considerations, interdependencies,
in which waterway infrastructure projects were prioritized and lessons from disasters. Finally, the gaps and deficien-
to maximize resilience and minimize consequential dam- cies for each system are identified and future research
ages derived from certain economic, environmental, and needs and considerations suggested.
social criteria (Connelly, Thorisson, James Valverde, &
Lambert, 2016). Transportation systems. A number of studies have
To further advance the resilience of water and waste- focused on the resilience of freight transportation
water systems, studies focusing on evaluation of societal networks during the last two decades. Murray-Tuite
expectations and the expected performance of these sys- (2006) performed a study to examine the influence
tems when subjected to hazards are needed. Important of ten transportation resilience parameters, including
research aspects include assessing water quality across the redundancy, diversity, efficiency, autonomous
community. components, strength, collaboration, adaptability,
mobility, safety, and the ability to recover quickly from
Natural gas systems. Resilience studies of gas a hazard event. This study showed that accounting
distribution systems have focused on the seismic only for traffic flow does not accurately represent
performance and vulnerability of gas pipelines when transportation resilience and as many as ten dimensions
subjected to permanent ground deformations and need to be taken into consideration since the findings
liquefaction (Choo, Abdoun, O’Rourke, & Ha, 2007; were specific to the sample network and were not able
Jeon & O’Rourke, 2005; O’Rourke & Deyoe, 2004; to be generalized to any transportation system. Nair,
O’Rourke et al., 2014; Xie et al., 2013). Several studies Avetisyan, and Miller-Hooks (2010) investigated the
have also addressed risk assessment methods for natural intermodal (IM) freight operations of a port, while the
gas distribution networks, including quantitative and resilience of freight transportation networks, including
qualitative methods (e.g. Esposito et al., 2015; Han & pre-disaster preparedness and post-disaster recovery
Weng, 2011; Makowski & Mannan, 2009; Poljanšek actions, was studied by Miller-Hooks, Zhang, and
et al., 2012; Yuhua & Datao, 2005). A recent study by Faturechi (2012), Faturechi and Miller-Hooks (2014),
the Applied Technology Council (2016) focused on and Chan and Schofer (2015) for rail networks. Chen
identifying the current standard and guidelines for liquid and Miller-Hooks (2012) proposed an indicator,
and gas systems as well as lessons learned from recent computed through a stochastic mixed-integer program,
disasters. to quantify the recovery of intermodal freight transport
10 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
by accounting for the impact of the recovery activities. infrastructure systems, economic and social systems, (ii)
Zhang and Miller-Hooks (2014) proposed a stochastic, to develop models accounting for multiple transportation
time-dependent integer approach utilizing recursive networks and their interactions, and (iii) to assess urban
functions for assessing a rail-based freight transportation resilience accounting for rail and light rail transit systems.
system’s resilience. Vugrin, Turnquist, and Brown (2014) The studies on transportation systems mainly focused on
introduced an optimization methodology in order to post-event evaluation of these systems and policies to
identify the optimal recovery measures and maximize identify an improved or optimal recovery path. Research
the resilience of disrupted transportation networks. studies focusing on the functionality of the transportation
Bocchini, Frangopol, Ummenhofer, and Zinke (2013) systems after a hazard event accounting for their inter-
and Decò, Bocchini, and Frangopol (2013) proposed a action with other infrastructure systems as well as their
risk assessment framework that was mainly focusing on social and economic impact and post-event adaptation are
transportation networks and bridge systems. Furtado and needed. Furthermore, development of multi-modal mod-
Alipour (2014–2024) presented a methodology to prior- els of transportation systems and networks that include
itize important bridges and allocate additional resources ports and harbors, airports, interfacing rail, and truck dis-
for repair in order to enhance post-earthquake response tribution systems is suggested. Finally, urban commuting
and increase the resilience of the transportation network. populations in large cities depend heavily on rail and light
This methodology was applied in a case study to the San rail transit to commute between their homes and places
Francisco Bay area highway network. The damage to the of work; the role played by commuter transit in urban
road network as well as the interdependency between a resilience has yet to be considered.
hospital and the road networks were accounted for in their
study. Cavallaro, Asprone, Latora, Manfredi, and Nicosia
Social systems
(2014) presented a model of urban system accounting
for transportation systems and networks to quantify the The concept of resilience has a lengthy history of being
post-earthquake resilience and compare the ability of dif- applied in a number of social science disciplines and fields
ferent reconstruction strategies in restoring the original within a range of topical areas including: children and
performance of the urban system. Franchin and Cavalieri families (Fothergill & Peek, 2015; Landau, 2007; Peek,
(2015) introduced a metric of network-based resilience 2008; Ungar & Eli, 2000), social problems (Clauss-Ehlers
based on the evolution of efficiency of communication & Levi, 2002; Doron, 2005), class and urban studies
between citizens during the reallocation of displaced pop- (Sánchez-Jankowski, 2008), rural sociology (Varghese,
ulation after the event accounting for the transportation Krogman, Beckley, & Nadeau, 2006), disaster recovery and
network impact. Alipour and Shafei (2016) proposed a management (Stallings, 2006), and terrorism and security
comprehensive numerical framework for assessing the (Shamai, Shaul, & Guy, 2007). Many existing applications
seismic resilience of highway bridge networks exposed of resilience with social science are focused on individuals
to deterioration aging mechanisms. The highway network or households as the unit of analysis, though work at the
bridge system of Los Angeles and Orange County, CA, community level is the focus of this paper. A commonality
was used as a testbed for this study and resilience metrics of these social conceptions of resilience lies in the exami-
were obtained following three different retrofit strategies. nation of the subject in relation to a stressor (e.g. divorce,
Recently, Zhang, Wang, and Nicholson (2017) intro- job loss, economic decline) or shock (e.g. tornado, hurri-
duced a resilience-based methodology to optimize the cane, oil spill). These diverse applications inform the use
scheduling of the post-event recovery actions of road- of the concept of resilience in the area of social impacts,
bridge transportation networks. This methodology response, and recovery to hazards.
accounts for network topology, redundancy, traffic flow, Researchers have approached social studies of resil-
damage level, and available resources, while the total ience in several ways, including conceptual studies aimed
recovery time (TRT) and the skew of the recovery tra- at informing definitions and conceptual frameworks
jectory (SRT) are considered to quantify the rapidity and of resilience (e.g. Cutter et al., 2008; Marshall, Fenton,
efficiency of the road-bridge network recovery. The appli- Marshall, & Sutton, 2007); theoretical studies aimed
cability of the proposed methodology was demonstrated at achieving a better understanding of resilience (e.g.
using a hypothetical bridge network of 30 nodes and 37 Morrow, 2008; Obrist, Pfeiffer, & Henley, 2010); method-
bridges subjected to seismic hazard. ological studies aimed at providing a means of measuring
Despite the large number of studies conducted on resilience (e.g. Cutter et al., 2010; Lam, Reams, Li, Li, &
transportation systems’ post-disaster recovery and Mata, 2015); and empirical studies that attempt to identify
resilience, more studies are suggested to be conducted: factors associated with social systems response or recov-
(i) to account for transportation system with other ery in communities experiencing hazards (e.g. Olshansky,
2001; Olshansky, Johnson, Horne, & Nee, 2008; Thornley, linkages between related concepts of resilience, risk, and
Ball, Signal, Lawson-Te Aho, & Rawson, 2014; Zhang & sustainability. Lindell and Prater (2003) presented a con-
Peacock, 2009). Across all study types, significant effort ceptual model of community disaster impacts that linked
has focused on community vulnerability and disaster physical and social impacts to the factors that reduce these
recovery, both concepts that are associated with the resil- impacts and thereby increase resilience.
ience of social systems. Maguire and Cartwright (2008) introduced a meth-
Social scientists have attempted to theoretically and odology for communities to conduct their own resil-
conceptually situate resilience within the broader con- ience assessments that included vulnerabilities as well
text of disaster and natural hazards research (Colten, as resources and adaptive capacities. The assessment was
Kates, & Laska, 2008; Morrow, 2008; Norris, Stevens, intended to support collaboration between governmental
Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008; Tierney, 2009). agencies and communities and improved policies follow-
Considerable research efforts have tackled the developing hazard events. Cutter et al. (2008) introduced a place-
ment of conceptual frameworks and definitions for social based model for disaster resilience at the community level,
resilience. Gunderson, Holling, Peterson, and Pritchard while also evaluating the importance of various factors in
(2001) proposed a model based on a hierarchical structure recovery. Miles (2014) introduced a community resilience
where natural and human systems were linked. Berkes and framework that accounts for the well-being, identity, ser-
Ross (2013) worked on integrating two important areas vices, capitals (WISC) of a society and aims at forecasting
of research on community resilience – social-ecological resilience under future events as well as assessing resil-
systems and the psychology of development and mental ience matrices of past disasters.
health in order to advance the theoretical understanding The next body of social systems related research is
of the concept. Marshall et al. (2007) proposed a concep- methodological in nature and has focused on the chal-
tual model to investigate the relationship between natural lenge of measuring resilience. A number of research
resource dependency and social resilience. In this model, efforts, which are often tied directly to resilience, have
factors such as occupational attachment, employability, contributed to measuring and comparing vulnerability for
and business size were associated with higher resource communities (Birkmann, 2006; Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley,
dependency and lower resilience. In Magis (2010) review 2003). Cutter et al. (2003) proposed SoVI, a social vul-
of the social definition of community resilience, com- nerability index using principal components analysis to
munity resilience is associated with the existence, devel- combine a large number of factors into a single composite
opment, and engagement of community resources by score at the county level. Peacock et al. (2011) provided
community members following a disaster. their own method for assessment of social vulnerability at
Obrist et al. (2010), conceiving of resilience as a process, the census block group level. In both cases, this assessment
developed a multi-layered social resilience framework that work is bolstered by community vulnerability mapping,
emphasized the interactions between enabling factors (e.g. which results in a valuable tool for resilience planning
public attention, government support) and capacities (e.g. (Van Zandt et al., 2012). These methods are not based
coping, adapting, solution generating) operating at differ- on specific hazard risks, but instead focus on the general
ent levels of the environment and society. Social agents, demographic characteristics that make a community more
such as individuals, families, or organizations, need a vulnerable to any hazard.
combination of social, economic, and cultural capitals Assessment methodologies for measuring resilience
and capacities to be resilient. Jordan and Javernick-Will have also been developed. Cutter et al. (2010) presented
(2012) conducted an extended literature review on the a methodology known as BRIC (Baseline Resilience
definitions of community resilience and recovery in order Indicators for Communities) for assessing baseline resil-
to assess the indicators common in the measurement of ience using composite indicators of social, economic,
each concept. This work addresses the conflation of sev- institutional, infrastructure, and community capacities.
eral concepts related to resilience, including vulnerabil- The methodology was applied to FEMA’s Region IV which
ity, community capacity, and recovery. The most cited includes eight southeastern US states. The research high-
indicators of community resilience in their study were lighted spatial variation in disaster resilience; for exam-
poverty, construction method, government agency com- ple, metropolitan areas exhibit higher scores on resilience
mitment, attachment to place, education, recovery funds, metrics compared to rural areas, but it should be noted
and access to information; these indicators were organ- that many of these metrics focus heavily on social science.
ized by infrastructure, social, economic, institutional and Lam et al. (2015) propose the RIM (Resilience Inference
recovery strategy categories. Similarly, Birkmann’s (2006) Model), which uses exposure, damage, and recovery indi-
comprehensive review of vulnerability included differing cators to depict the relationship between vulnerability and
conceptual frameworks, indicators for measurement, and adaptability. Cluster and discriminant analysis are then
12 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
used to derive resilience rankings. RIM has been applied process of recovery as well as the pre-event function of
in the US for the county (Lam et al., 2015) and census resilience. Innovative methodologies for empirically link-
block group (Cai, Lam, Zou, Qiang, & Li, 2016) scales. ing factors associated with both the recovery of the social
Empirical studies typically employ either a mostly qual- system and physical infrastructure will support holistic
itative, case study methodology or a quantitative meth- studies of community resilience. Studies that examine
odology to study multiple cases with statistical analyses. other linkages between the social and physical systems
Using quantitative methods, Zhang and Peacock (2009) (e.g. adaptive capacity, probability of failure) at earlier
studied single-family housing recovery, housing sales, phases of the event timeline are also of value. At present,
and property abandonment after Hurricane Andrew the isolation of these studies leads to conclusions and/or
to understand differences among neighborhoods with recommendations that are not evaluated in terms of the
different socioeconomic characteristics. Recovery tra- complex interdependencies between social and physical
jectories were found to be dependent on demographic, infrastructure systems or the full range of solutions avail-
socioeconomic, and housing characteristics. Chang (2010) able to a community. By filling critical gaps in studies of
proposed a framework to evaluate empirical patterns of the resilience of social systems, the science will be posi-
urban disaster recovery (including business and economic tioned to support optimization of strategies for commu-
recovery) using statistical indicators and applied that nity resilience.
framework to assess recovery following the 1995 Kobe,
Japan earthquake. Bevington et al. (2011) presented a mul-
Economic systems
ti-disciplinary study, including economic, environmental,

housing, and social elements of the community recovery For many years, researchers used Input-Output (I-O) eco-
estimation, to inform an understanding of community nomic models to compute direct and indirect economic
resilience. This mixed method study included multiple losses due to natural disasters disruption (e.g. Boisvert,
study events (Hurricanes Charley and Katrina), com- 1992; Okuyama, Hewings, & Sonis, 2004; Rose, Benavides,
munities, and scales in the investigation. Cox and Perry Chang, Szczesniak, & Lim, 1997). I-O models have been
(2011) used qualitative methods in rural communities of combined with engineering models and available empir-
Canada affected by a wildfire to examine the importance ical data, and used successfully to connect economic
of context and culture on disaster recovery, including impacts with: (1) transportation networks (e.g. Cho et
considerations of the role of social media accounts, iden- al., 2001; Gordon et al., 2004; Sohn, Hewings, Kim, Lee,
tity, housing, and work availability. Thornley et al. (2014) & Jang, 2004), (2) infrastructure networks (e.g. Rose et
presented qualitative case studies of six communities al., 1997), and (3) comprehensive disaster models (e.g.
following the Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand HAZUS (2003) and Okuyama (2007)). More recently,
and identified common factors affecting their resilience Galbusera, Azzini, Jonkeren, and Giannopoulos (2016)
through an investigation of the recovery process. introduced an approach to estimate economic resilience
Based on the studies available in the literature, it is sug- associated with the elasticity of the sectors regarding ser-
gested that work is needed along three primary tracks: vice perturbation by using a dynamic inoperability I-O
(i) to investigate conceptual frameworks using empirical model with inventories. Galbusera et al. (2016) also pre-
studies, (ii) to test and validate indicators of community sented an optimization study for assigning the inventory
resilience, and (iii) to develop and advance methods for levels needed to enhance the economic resilience after
integration of physical infrastructure performance with critical events. Rose and Liao (2005) state that ‘I-O anal-
associated social systems. With tracks (i) and (ii), the ysis is characterized by a linear and rigid response, almost
development of new frameworks and indicators may be devoid of behavioral content.’ More specifically, I-O mod-
required. Furthermore, methodological advancements els hold wages and prices constant; therefore, they can
should include models that account for the complexity of adequately model demand-side shocks but have difficulty
the social system, interdisciplinary research linking social modeling impacts to supply like loss of buildings and dis-
and economic systems with physical infrastructure and ruptions to water and electricity.
the natural environment, and longitudinal studies. The An outgrowth of I-O models is computable general
utilization of multi-level models would support the meas- equilibrium (CGE) models which assume that firms max-
urement of variability in resilience across scales, such as imize profits and households maximize welfare as a guide
individual, household, neighborhood, and community. to making economic decisions. Whereas, I-O models
Increased use of longitudinal studies would improve assumed that resources were infinite, CGE models for-
assessment of the full recovery trajectory and the long- mally acknowledge that there are limitations to supply of
term social impacts of both stressors and major shocks. resources so a natural disaster can limit the availability of
These studies would provide insight into the dynamic resources. Rose and Liao (2005) investigated the flexibility
of a CGE model to examine both short-run and long-run County assessor data described each parcel in terms of
outcomes due to natural disasters. They decompose resil- its size (acres), the value of the land and the value of the
ience into two components: structure (commercial or residential building) on the par-
(1) Inherent: Ability under normal circumstances (e.g. cel. This allowed the damage to infrastructure estimated
the ability of individual firms to substitute other inputs by the civil engineering models to be directly fed into the
for those curtailed by an external shock, or the ability of
CGE model.
markets to reallocate resources in response to price sig-
nals), and (2) Adaptive: Ability in crisis situations due to Econometric models based on time-series data, have
ingenuity or extra effort (e.g. increasing input substitu- been suggested as statistically rigorous tools that can fore-
tion possibilities, or strengthening the market by provid- cast economic losses with relatively good accuracy. Regional
ing information to match suppliers without customers to econometric models have been considered for estimation
customers without suppliers).
of losses in natural disasters including Hurricanes Hugo
It is identified that viewing resilience into inherent and (Guimaraes, Hefner, & Woodward, 1993), Andrew (West
adaptive components is a useful way to study natural & Lenze, 1994), and Katrina (Hallegatte, 2008), as well as
disasters. the Northridge earthquake (Rose & Lim, 2002). The main
Tsuchiya, Tatano, and Okada (2007) developed a focus of these studies was the economic losses from busi-
spatial CGE model to examine the impact of transpor- ness interruption, which were found to increase considera-
tation disruptions for a hypothetical Tokai-Tonankai
bly compared to direct losses. In addition to these rigorous
earthquake in Japan. Boyd and Ibarraran (2009) and
models for estimating economic losses, there have been a

Berrittella, Hoekstra, Rehdanz, Roson, and Tol (2007)
significant number of simplistic surveys supporting loss
use a CGE model to examine how weather events cause
estimation (e.g. Tierney, 1995, 1997). These surveys are
droughts and impact the economic activity. Hallegatte and
empirical in nature, and have been characterized as being
Przyluski (2010) argued that a hybrid of a CGE model and
I-O model is necessary to examine natural disasters where less comprehensive, inconsistent, and possibly influenced
price stickiness is imposed in the CGE model. by survivor bias. These approaches offer elasticity estimates
A limiting factor of both I-O and CGE modeling is the on household migration and substitution patterns between
quality of the data that is available to evaluate the impact labor and capital which are used in CGE to increase per-
of a natural disaster. Chang and Rose (2012) and Meyer formance accuracy.
et al. (2013) maintained that high-quality data has to be There are several limitations of CGE models that still
collected to do any meaningful analysis on resilience and need to be addressed. CGE models are typically based
recovery. Meyer et al. (2013) described an effort carried out on annual data, but it is important to be able to iden-
in the European Union (EU), ‘Costs of Natural Hazards’ tify impacts over a shorter period of time. Rose and Liao
(CONHAZ). This approach looked at the impacts of floods, (2005) suggested that limiting behavioral responses by
storms, and coastal hazards and collected data on hous- reducing key elasticities may represent a shorter period
ing, industry, transport, agriculture, the environment, and of time than a year. It is also important to build spatial
human health. CONHAZ divided the data requirements CGE models since a natural disaster will have uneven
into direct costs (damage to infrastructure), business inter- impacts across a community and these differences will
ruption costs, indirect costs where economies outside the
have important impacts on the economic consequences of
damaged area can be affected, intangible costs that are not
the disaster. A CGE model is an equilibrium-based anal-
directly measured, and mitigation costs. Chang and Rose
ysis and it is common that following a disaster, such as
(2012) made similar assertions to Meyer et al. (2013), but
Hurricane Katrina, causes such a large amount of damage,
they extended the analysis by maintaining that any serious
it may be hard to imagine that the economy can return to
attempt to model recovery must be linked with the recovery
of households, institutions, and other aspects of the commu- equilibrium in any reasonable amount of time.
nity. Both Chang and Rose (2012) and Meyer et al. (2013) Okuyama and Santos (2014) recommended using the
maintained that CGE models are the preferred method of social accounting matrix (SAM) to obviate this problem.
estimating costs and recovery patterns of natural hazards. A SAM is a method to organize the data for households,
Cutler et al. (2016) introduced a dynamic spatial CGE firms, and the government in a consistent way to demon-
(DSCGE) model that combines the use of engineering strate the interactions between all three entities. The SAM
and economic models to assess the economic, demo- is a necessary step to use a CGE model. Okuyama and
graphic, and fiscal impacts of a natural disaster. Cutler et Santos (2014) suggested shocking the SAM with losses
al. (2016) attempted to address the concerns of Chang and to physical capital and associated income streams due to
Rose (2012) and Meyer et al. (2013) by constructing an the hazard and if the SAM is interactive enough, disequi-
extensive data-set which includes county assessor’s data. librium effects may be estimated.
14 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
Research needs, future directions, and closure and recovery with several case studies to demonstrate or
calibrate the methodologies. However, methods to eval-
Despite the large number of studies reported in the liter-
uate community resilience need methods to adequately
ature focusing on community resilience assessment, there
characterize the community building portfolio as well
are still significant gaps in knowledge and an imminent
as approaches that account for damage, social needs and
need for future research. These gaps are summarized
impacts, economic loss, dependencies, and recovery of
below in four themes, as earlier organized in this docu-
function. For example, engineering models and econom-
ment, and are associated with future research directions.
ics simulation tools (e.g. CGE) could be integrated to esti-
mate the spatial and temporal recovery of the building
Resilience frameworks stock and its impact on social and economic systems. At
Despite the ongoing research efforts in the engineering, this point, infrastructure, social, and economic models
sociology, and economic disciplines, much remains to be are developed independently. These models need to be
done to advance the integration of a ‘system-of-systems’ coupled in a time-varying recovery analysis to assess the
that includes physical, social, and economic aspects of resilience of a community.
community resilience. There are currently no general
frameworks accounting for multi-disciplinary aspects Lifeline systems
of community resilience and limited metrics to quantify Studies have been conducted on distributed infrastruc-
community resilience. When combined, current work ture systems, including electrical power, gas, and water
conducted for single systems has resulted in inconsisten- networks, to address their risk, reliability, and recovery.
cies of concepts, definitions, and theoretical propositions. Despite the number of studies for each individual sys-
Interdependencies between the built-environment, social, tem, there is still a lack of knowledge about dependencies
and economic aspects should be further characterized and between systems and how their combined performance
quantified to advance models and metrics for assessing affects the recovery of a community. An important aspect
community resilience. Community resilience models in the recovery of infrastructure systems is that the recov-
should simulate interdependent physical infrastructure ery time scales of power, gas, and water systems may
systems, and supported social and economic systems. differ significantly. This is primarily attributed to differ-
While analytical methods and metrics to assess individual ent design criteria for each system that can then affect
system performance for hazard events are reasonably well transportation, residential, economic, and social services.
developed, much research remains to be done to develop A better understanding of how recovery time scales of
methods and metrics that account for interdependencies dependent systems affect community recovery is required.
and resilience at the community scale. Transportation systems research has focused on post-
Resilience at the national, regional, and local scales has event activities and policies to improve the restoration of
been investigated by academics, government agencies, and services. Opportunities for research in this area include the
the professional community, and considerable knowledge performance and recovery of intermodal transportation
has been gained, particularly over the last decade. Many of systems and the dependence of disrupted transportation
the studies focused on community resilience of physical networks on other infrastructure systems (i.e. electrical,
infrastructure for seismic events, presumably as a result water, and gas). Additionally, the effect of disrupted trans-
of available funding. There has not been a similar empha- portation networks on societal needs should be coupled
sis on evaluating resilience of physical infrastructure for with economic models to capture the disruption from a
other natural hazards including tornadoes, hurricanes perspective beyond traffic flow downtime.
and coastal storm surge, riverine floods, and tsunamis.
Although community resilience goals are hazard-agnostic Social systems
(i.e. specified times for education, health care, or businesses
to recover their functionality (NIST, 2015a)), assessment of Social sciences research is needed to investigate existing
the anticipated performance of the physical infrastructure conceptual frameworks and indicators of community resil-
and supported systems require community-level models ience using empirical studies and validation techniques, to
that simulate system performance for a given hazard event, develop new frameworks and indicators where needed, and
as well as their spatial and temporal recovery. to develop and advance methods and quantitative models
for integrating physical infrastructure performance with
associated social systems. Methodological advancements
Physical infrastructure systems are needed so that statistical and, ultimately, computational
Buildings and critical infrastructure models account for the complexity of the social system at
The cited research for buildings and critical facilities has multiple spatial (e.g. household, community, region) and
proposed frameworks for assessment of performance temporal scales. To continue to advance understanding of
economic systems, economics research is needed to fully Notes on contributors

couple economic models with both engineering and social Maria Koliou is an assistant professor at the Zachry
science models in time-varying resilience analyses. This Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University,
work would support an accurate assessment of the recov- U.S.A. Her research interests span the fields of structural
ery of a community subjected to hazards. dynamics, earthquake engineering, and multi-hazard perfor-
mance-based design for system functionality and community
resilience. Through these areas, her research focuses on devel-
Economic systems oping novel sustainable structural designs against natural and
man-made hazards and formulating fundamental mathemati-
Economic resilience has been extensively studied and cal frameworks to assess system functionality and community
economic models (e.g. CGE, I-O models) have been resilience.
developed to quantify post-disaster economic function John W van de Lindt is George T Abell Distinguished
accounting for engineering model outputs. However, the Professor in Infrastructure and Co-Director of the Center for
currently considered economic models are not fully inte- Excellence in Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning
grated with social and engineering models in a time-vary- in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
ing resilience analysis. Therefore, enhanced models able to at Colorado State University. Over the past two decades, his
research has sought to improve the built environment by
couple all aspects of resilience analyses are needed in order
focusing on performance-based engineering of building sys-
to accurately evaluate recovery paths following a disaster. tems exposed to earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis,
In summary, research on integrated physical, social, and floods. He has served on a number of committees for the
and economic systems at the community scale, with the American Society of Civil Engineers and collaborates with
inclusion of interdependencies and recovery of functions, economist and sociologists to study and better understand
is needed to advance current practices and knowledge. A community resilience.
science basis for developing methods, tools, and metrics Therese McAllister is the Community Resilience Group Leader
will substantially improve and better support resilient and Program Manager in the Materials and Structural Systems
decision-making by communities. Research Division of the Engineering Laboratory (EL) at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). She
The performance and interdependencies of phys- is the federal program officer for the NIST funded Center of
ical, social, and economic systems are highly complex. Excellence, Center for Risk-Based Community Resilience
Furthermore, the anticipated performance and recovery of Planning led by Colorado State University. Her current
community institutions is highly uncertain in most com- research focuses on community resilience, with an emphasis
munities, as there are limited tools to support planning on the integrated performance of physical infrastructure sys-
tems and interdependencies with social and economic systems.
and assessment at the community scale. With inherent
She has expertise in structural reliability, risk assessment, and
limitations in economic and personnel resources, meth- failure analysis of buildings and infrastructure systems.
ods, and tools for assessing and mitigating the impact of
Bruce R Ellingwood is College of Engineering Eminent Scholar
hazard events on community systems and resilience must
and Co-Director of the Center for Excellence in Risk-Based
be risk-informed to optimize public and private invest- Community Resilience Planning in the Department of Civil
ments. Models for community resilience assessment must and Environmental Engineering at Colorado State University.
be accompanied by improved methods that incorporate His main research and professional interests involve the appli-
dependencies and temporal uncertainties in support of cation of probability and statistics to structural engineering,
risk-informed decision-making. particularly to structural reliability theory and probabilistic
risk assessment. He is internationally recognized as an author-
ity on the technical development and implementation of prob-
Acknowledgements ability-based codified structural design standards.
Professor Walter G. Peacock is acknowledged for his contri- Maria Dillard is a social scientist within the Engineering
butions in editing portions of this manuscript focusing on the Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and
definitions of community resilience. Technology. Maria’s research includes community response to
hazards and chronic stressors and the development of meth-
ods for measurement and modeling community resilience,
Disclosure statement well-being, and vulnerability. Her work is focused on the inte-
gration of social, economic, physical, and natural systems in
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. research on disasters and recovery.
Harvey Cutler is a professor of Economics in the Department
Funding of Economics at Colorado State University. His research spe-
cializes in econometrics, computable general equilibrium
Funding for this study was provided as part of the cooperative modeling of economic systems, and understanding the impact
agreement 70NANB15H044 between the National Institute of of economic growth variables on urban and regional systems.
Standards and Technology (NIST) and Colorado State University. He is also involved in using the effects of natural disasters on
16 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
the built environment from civil engineering models and inte- Boisvert, R. (1992). Indirect losses from a catastrophic
grating these impacts into economic models. The objective is earthquake and the local, regional, and national interest.
to derive optimal mitigation policies in response to natural Indirect Economic Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake,
disasters. 207–265.
Bonstrom, H, & Corotis, R. B. (2014). “First-order reliability
approach to quantify and improve building portfolio
ORCID resilience.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8),
C4014001.
Maria Koliou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0686-493X Boyd, R., & Ibarraran, M. E. (2009). Extreme climate events
and adaptation: An exploratory analysis of drought in
Mexico. Environment and Development Economics, 14(3),
References
371–395.
Adams, T. M., Bekkem, K. R., & Toledo-Durán, E. J. (2012). Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke,
Freight resilience measures. Journal of Transportation T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., … von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A
Engineering, 138(11), 1403–1409. framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–
related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364. 752.
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Bruneau, M., & Reinhorn, A. (2007). Exploring the concept
Rockström, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal of seismic resilience for acute care facilities. Earthquake
disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036–1039. Spectra, 23(1), 41–62.
Alipour, A., & Shafei, B. (2016). Seismic resilience of Burton, H. V., Deierlein, G., Lallemant, D., & Lin, T. (2015).
transportation networks with deteriorating components. Framework for incorporating probabilistic building
Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), C4015015. performance in the assessment of community seismic
Applied Technology Council. (2016). Critical assessment of resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8),
lifeline system performance: Understanding societal needs C4015007.
in disaster recovery (NIST GCR 16-917-39). Gaithersburg, Cai, H., Lam, N. S. N., Zou, L., Qiang, Y., & Li, K. (2016).
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Assessing community resilience to coastal hazards in the
Arcidiacono, V., Cimellaro, G. P., and Reinhorn, A. (2011). lower Mississippi River Basin. Water, 8(2), 46.
A software for measuring disaster community resilience Cavallaro, M., Asprone, D., Latora, V., Manfredi, G., & Nicosia,
according to the PEOPLES methodology. In Proceedings of V. (2014). Assessment of urban ecosystem resilience through
the 3rd International Conference on Computational Methods hybrid social-physical complex networks. Computer-aided
in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(8), 608–625.
(COMPDYN 2011) (pp. 26–28). Chang, S. E., & Rose, A. Z. (2012). Towards a theory of
Barnett, J. (2001). Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island economic recovery from disasters. International Journal of
countries: The problem of uncertainty. World Development, Mass Emergencies and Disasters.
29(6), 977–993. Chan, R., & Schofer, J. (2015). Measuring transportation system
Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: Toward resilience: Response of rail transit to weather disruptions.
an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), Natural Hazards Review, 17(1), 5015004.
5–20. Chang, S. E. (2010). Urban disaster recovery: A measurement
Berrittella, M., Hoekstra, A. Y., Rehdanz, K., Roson, R., & Tol, framework and its application to the 1995 Kobe earthquake.
R. S. J. (2007). The economic impact of restricted water Disasters, 34(2), 303–327.
supply: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Water Chang, S. E., Pasion, C., Tatebe, K., & Ahmad, R. (2008). Linking
Research, 41(8), 1799–1813. lifeline infrastructure performance and community disaster
Bevington, J., Hill, A., Davidson, R., Chang, S., Vicini, A., resilience: Models and multi-stakeholder processes. Buffalo,
Adams, B., & Eguchi, R. (2011). Measuring, monitoring NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
and evaluating post-disaster recovery: A key element in Research, MCEER-08-0004.
understanding community resilience. In Proceedings of Chang, S. E., & Shinozuka, M. (2004). Measuring improvements
2011 ASCE Structures Congress. in the disaster resilience of communities. Earthquake
Bigger, J. E., Willingham, M. G., Krimgold, F., & Mili, L. (2009). Spectra, 20(3), 739–755.
Consequences of critical infrastructure interdependencies: Chen, L., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2012). Resilience: An indicator
Lessons from the 2004 hurricane season in Florida. of recovery capability in intermodal freight transport.
International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 5(3), 199– Transportation Science, 46(1), 109–123.
219. Cho, S., Gordon, P., Moore, I., James, E., Richardson, H.
Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote W., Shinozuka, M., & Chang, S. (2001). Integrating
disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and transportation network and regional economic models to
definitions. Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: estimate the costs of a large urban earthquake. Journal of
Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, 1, 9–54. Regional Science, 41(1), 39–65.
Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D. M., Ummenhofer, T., & Zinke, T. Choo, Y. W., Abdoun, T. H., O’Rourke, M. J., & Ha, D. (2007).
(2013). Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Remediation for buried pipeline systems under permanent
Toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ground deformation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
20(2), 04014004. Engineering, 27(12), 1043–1055.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). Delamare, S., Diallo, A.-A., & Chaudet, C. (2009). High-level
Seismic resilience of a hospital system. Structure and modelling of critical infrastructures’ interdependencies.
Infrastructure Engineering, 6(1–2), 127–144. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 5(1–2), 100–
Cimellaro, G. P., Christovasilis, I. P., Reinhorn, A. M., De 119.
Stefano, A., & Kirova, T. (2010). L’Aquila earthquake of DHS. (2016a). Critical infrastructure security. Retrieved from
April 6, 2009 in Italy: Rebuilding a resilient city to withstand https://www.dhs.gov/topic/critical-infrastructure-security
multiple hazards. Technical Report-multidisciplinary Center DHS. (2016b). Critical infrastructure sectors. Retrieved from
for Earthquake Engineering Research, MCEER Technical https://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors
Rep.—MCEER-10, 10. Doorn, N. (2017). Resilience indicators: Opportunities
Cimellaro, G., Tinebra, A., Renschler, C., & Fragiadakis, M. for including distributive justice concerns in disaster
(2015). New resilience index for urban water distribution management. Journal of Risk Research, 20(6), 711–731.
networks. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), Doron, E. (2005). Working with Lebanese refugees in a
C4015014. community resilience model. Community Development
Clauss-Ehlers, C. S., & Levi, L. L. (2002). Violence Journal, 40(2), 182–191.
and community, terms in conflict: An ecological approach Dueñas-Osorio, L., & Kwasinski, A. (2012). Quantification
to resilience. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, of lifeline system interdependencies after the 27 February
11(4), 265–278. 2010 Mw 8.8 offshore Maule, Chile, earthquake. Earthquake
Colten, C. E., Kates, R. W., & Laska, S. B. (2008). Three years after Spectra, 28(S1), S581–S603.
Katrina: Lessons for community resilience. Environment: Ellingwood, B. R., Cutler, H., Gardoni, P., Peacock, W. G., van
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 36– de Lindt, J. W., & Wang, N. (2016). The centerville virtual
47. community: A fully integrated decision model of interacting
Community and Regional Resilience Institute. (2013). physical and social infrastructure systems. Sustainable and
Community resilience system. Community and Regional Resilient Infrastructure, 1(3–4), 95–107.
Resilience Institute (CARRI 2013) Community Resilience Esposito, S., Iervolino, I., d’Onofrio, A., Santo, A., Cavalieri,
System. Retrieved from http://www.resilientus.org/recent- F., & Franchin, P. (2015). Simulation-based seismic risk
work/community-resilience-system, http://www.resilientus. assessment of gas distribution networks. Computer-aided
org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/CRS-Final-Report.pdf Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(7), 508–523.
Connelly, E., Thorisson, H., James Valverde, L. Jr., & Lambert, Faturechi, R., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2014). A mathematical
J. (2016). Asset risk management and resilience for flood framework for quantifying and optimizing protective
control, hydropower, and waterways. ASCE-ASME Journal actions for civil infrastructure systems. Computer-aided
of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(8), 572–589.
Engineering, 2(4), 04016001. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2015a,
Cox, R. S., & Perry, K.-M. E. (2011). Like a fish out of water: February 6). National preparedness goal. Washington,
Reconsidering disaster recovery and the role of place and DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/
social capital in community disaster resilience. American nationalpreparedness-goal
Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3–4), 395–411. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2015b). National
Cutler, H., Shields, M., Tavani, D., & Zahran, S. (2016). planning frameworks, National Prevention Framework.
Integrating engineering outputs from natural disaster Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.
models into a dynamic spatial computable general fema.gov/national-planning-frameworks.
equilibrium model of Centerville. Sustainable and Resilient Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling,
Infrastructure, 1(3–4), 169–187. C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social development: Building adaptive capacity in a world
vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science of transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. Environment, 31(5), 437–440.
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2015). Children of Katrina. Austin:
Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for University of Texas Press.
understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Franchin, P., & Cavalieri, F. (2015). Probabilistic assessment
Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606. of civil infrastructure resilience to earthquakes. Computer-
Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(7), 583–
resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. 600.
Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Furtado, M., & Alipour, A. 2014–2024. Enhancement of post-
7(1), 1547–7355. earthquake resilience of bridge networks with prioritization
Davidson, R. A., & Çagnan, Z. (2004). Restoration modeling and accelerated repair strategies. Proceedings of the Structures
of lifeline systems. Research Progress and Accomplishments, Congress 2014, ASCE.
2003–2004. Galbusera, L., Azzini, I., Jonkeren, O., & Giannopoulos, G.
Davis, C. A. (2014). Water system service categories, post- (2016). Inoperability input-output modeling: Inventory
earthquake interaction, and restoration strategies. optimization and resilience estimation during critical
Earthquake Spectra, 30(4), 1487–1509. events. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk Uncertainty Engineering
Decò, A., Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D. M. (2013). A probabilistic Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 2(3), B4016001.
approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Gardoni, P. (Ed.). (2017). Risk and reliability analysis: Theory
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(10), and applications. Chicago, IL: In Honor of Prof. Armen Der
1469–1487. Kiureghian.
18 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
Gay, L. F., & Sinha, S. K. (2012). Novel resilience assessment Jayaram, N., & Srinivasan, K. (2008). Performance-based
methodology for water distribution systems. In Proc., optimal design and rehabilitation of water distribution
pipelines 2012 innovations in design, construction, operations, networks using life cycle costing. Water Resources Research,
and maintenance, doing more with less (pp. 61–69). American 44(1).
Society of Civil Engineers. Jeon, S.-S., & O’Rourke, T. D. (2005). Northridge earthquake
Gay, L. F. (2013). Development of a resilience assessment effects on pipelines and residential buildings. Bulletin of the
methodology for networked infrastructure systems using Seismological Society of America, 95(1), 294–318.
stochastic simulation, with application to water distribution Jordan, E., & Javernick-Will, A. (2012). Measuring community
systems (Ph.D. dissertation), Virginia Polytechnic Institute resilience and recovery: A content analysis of indicators.
and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, 2190–
Gilbert, S. W. (2010, September). Disaster resilience: A guide to 2199.
the literature, NIST Special Publication 1117. Gaithersburg, Jordan, E., & Javernick-Will, A. (2013). Indicators of
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. community recovery: content analysis and Delphi approach.
Gordon, J. (1978). Structures, or why things don’t fall Natural Hazards Review, 14(1), 21–28.
downPenguin books. Harmondsworth: Da Capo Press. Kirsch, T. D., Mitrani-Reiser, J., Bissell, R., Sauer, L. M.,
Gordon, P., Moore II, J. E., Richardson, H. W., Shinozuka, M., Mahoney, M., Holmes, W. T., & de la Maza, F. (2010). Impact
An, D., & Cho, S. (2004). Earthquake disaster mitigation for on hospital functions following the 2010 Chilean earthquake.
urban transportation systems: An integrated methodology Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 4(2),
that builds on the Kobe and Northridge experiences. 122–128.
Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters, 205– Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience
232. to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Global
Guidotti, R., Chmielewski, H., Unnikrishnan, V., Gardoni, Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5(1),
P., McAllister, T., & van de Lindt, J. (2016). Modeling the 35–45.
resilience of critical infrastructure: The role of network Kwasinski, A., Trainor, J., Wolshon, B., & Lavelle, F. M. (2016).
dependencies. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 1(3– A conceptual framework for assessing resilience at the
4), 153–168. community scale (NIST GCR 16-001). Gaithersburg, MD:
Guimaraes, P., Hefner, F. L., & Woodward, D. P. (1993). Wealth National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi:10.6028/
and income effects of natural disasters: An econometric NIST.GCR.16-001
analysis of Hurricane Hugo. The Review of Regional Studies, Lam, N. S. N., Reams, M., Li, K., Li, C., & Mata, L. (2015).
23(2), 97–114. Measuring community resilience to coastal hazards along
Gunderson, L., Holling, C., Peterson, G., & Pritchard, L. (2001). the northern Gulf of Mexico. Natural Hazards Review,
Resilience. London: Wiley. 17(1), 04015013.
Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the definition of resilience in systems. Landau, J. (2007). Enhancing resilience: Families and
Risk Analysis, 29(4), 498–501. communities as agents for change. Family Process, 46(3),
Hallegatte, S. (2008). An adaptive regional input-output model 351–365.
and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Lavelle, F. M., Ritchie, L. A., Kwasinksi, A., & Wolshon, B.
Katrina. Risk Analysis, 28(3), 779–799. (2015). Critical assessment of existing methodologies for
Hallegatte, Stephane, & Przyluski, V. (2010). The economics of measuring or representing community resilience of social and
natural disasters: Concepts and methods. Policy Research physical systems (NIST GCR 15-1010). Gaithersburg, MD:
working paper; no. WPS 5507. World Bank. © World Bank. National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi:10.6028/
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/3991 NIST.GCR.15-1010
License: CC BY 3.0 IGO Lin, P., & Wang, N. (2016). Building portfolio fragility functions
Han, Z., & Weng, W. (2011). Comparison study on qualitative to support scalable community resilience assessment.
and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 1(3–4), 108–122.
gas pipeline network. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Lin, P., Wang, N., & Ellingwood, B. R. (2016). A risk de-
189(1–2), 509–518. aggregation framework that relates community resilience
HAZUS. (2003). Earthquake loss estimation methodology. goals to building performance objectives. Sustainable and
Washington, DC: Technical manual, National Institute of Resilient Infrastructure, 1(1–2), 1–13.
Building for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2003). Assessing community
Hicks-Masterson, J., Peacock, W. G., Van Zandt, S., Grover, H., impacts of natural disasters. Natural Hazards Review, 4(4),
Schwarz, L. F., & Cooper, J. (2014). Planning for community 176–185.
resilience: A handbook for reducing vulnerability to disasters. Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of
Washington, DC: Island Press. social sustainability. Society and Natural Resources, 23(5),
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological 401–416.
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1–23. Maguire, B., & Cartwright, S. (2008). Assessing a community’s
IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. capacity to manage change: A resilience approach to social
Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the forth assessment. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate Maguire, B., & Hagan, P. (2007). Disasters and communities:
change. Geneva: Author. Understanding social resilience. Australian Journal of
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Emergency Management, 22(2), 16–20.
Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth Makowski, A., & Mannan, S. (2009). Fuzzy logic for piping
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate risk assessment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
change. Geneva: Author. Industries, 22(6), 921–927.
Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Morrow, B. H. (2008). Community resilience: A social justice
Disasters, 30(4), 433–450. perspective. Oak Ridge, TN: CARRI Research Report.
Marshall, N. A., Fenton, D. M., Marshall, P. A., & Sutton, S. Murray-Tuite, P. M. (2006). A comparison of transportation
(2007). How resource dependency can influence social network resilience under simulated system optimum and
resilience within a primary resource industry. Rural user equilibrium conditions. In Proceedings of the 38th
Sociology, 72(3), 359. Conference on Winter Simulation (pp. 1398–1405).
Matthews, E., Piratla, K., & Matthews, E. (2014). Disaster Nair, R., Avetisyan, H., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2010). Resilience
resilience of drinking water infrastructure systems to framework for ports and other intermodal components.
multiple hazards. In Proceedings of the Structures Congress Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
2014 (pp. 2312–2317). ASCE. Research Board, 2166, 54–65.
McAllister, T. P. (2015). Community resilience of the built National Academies. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national
environment. In Structures Congress (pp. 1518–1529). imperative – Summary. Committee on science, engineering
McAllister, T. (2016). Research needs for developing a risk- and public policy. Author. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/
informed methodology for community resilience. Journal of html/13457/13457_summary.pdf
Structural Engineering, 142(8), C4015008. NIST. (2015a, October). Community resilience planning
Menoni, S., Pergalani, F., Boni, M., & Petrini, V. (2002). guide for buildings and infrastructure systems, volumes I
Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: A systemic and II. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST Special Publication 1190.
approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9– Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v1.
12), 1199–1208. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v2
Mensah, A. F, & Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2015). “Efficient resilience NIST. (2015b, October). Community resilience economic
assessment framework for electric power systems affected by decision guide for buildings and infrastructure systems.
hurricane events.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), Gaithersburg, MD: NIST Special Publication 1197. doi:
C4015013. 10.6028/NIST.SP.1197
Meyer, V., Becker, N., Markantonis, V., Schwarze, R., van den Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F.,
Bergh, J., Bouwer, L., … Hallegate, S. (2013). Assessing the & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a
costs of natural hazards-state of the art and knowledge gaps. metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster
Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13(5), 1351– readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology,
1373. 41(1–2), 127–150.
Mieler, M., Stojadinovic, B., Budnitz, R., Comerio, M., & Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi-layered social
Mahin, S. (2015). A framework for linking community- resilience a new approach in mitigation research. Progress in
resilience goals to specific performance targets for the built Development Studies, 10(4), 283–293.
environment. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1267–1283. Okuyama, Y. (2007). Economic modeling for disaster impact
Mimura, N., Yasuhara, K., Kawagoe, S., Yokoki, H., & Kazama, analysis: Past, present, and future. Economic Systems
S. (2011). Damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake Research, 19(2), 115–124.
and Tsunami-a quick report. Mitigation and Adaptation Okuyama, Y., Hewings, G. J., & Sonis, M. (2004). Measuring
Strategies for Global Change, 16(7), 803–818. economic impacts of disasters: Interregional input-output
Miles, S. B. (2011). The role of critical infrastructure in analysis using sequential interindustry model. Modeling
community resilience to disasters. In Proceedings of the Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters, 77–101.
Structures Congress (pp. 1985–1995). Okuyama, Yasuhide, & Santos, Joost R. (2014). Disaster impact
Miles, S. B. (2014). Theorizing community resilience to and input–output analysis. Economic Systems Research,
improve computational modeling. In Proceedings of 26(1), 1–12.
the vulnerability, uncertainty, and risks quantification, Olshansky, R. B., Johnson, L. A., Horne, J., & Nee, B. (2008).
mitigation, and management (pp. 2636–2645). American Longer view: Planning for the rebuilding of New Orleans.
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(3), 273–
Miles, S. B., & Chang, S. E. (2006). Modeling community 287.
recovery from earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 439– Olshansky, R. B. (2001). Land use planning for seismic safety:
458. The Los Angeles County experience, 1971–1994. Journal of
Miles, S. B., & Chang, S. E. (2011). ResilUS: a community based the American Planning Association, 67(2), 173–185.
disaster resilience model. Cartography and Geographic Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission. (2013,
Information Science, 38(1), 36–51. February). The Oregon resilience plan: Reducing risk and
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural improving recovery for the next Cascadia earthquake and
hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry tsunami. Salem, OR. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.
Press. gov/OMD/OEM/osspac/docs/Oregon_Resilience_Plan_
Miller-Hooks, E., Zhang, X., & Faturechi, R. (2012). Measuring Final.pdf.
and maximizing resilience of freight transportation O’Rourke, M., & Deyoe, E. (2004). Seismic damage to
networks. Computers & Operations Research, 39(7), 1633– segmented buried pipe. Earthquake Spectra, 20(4), 1167–
1643. 1183.
Mitrani-Reiser, J., Mahoney, M., Holmes, W. T., de la Llera, J. C, O’Rourke, T. D., Jeon, S., Toprak, S., Cubrinovski, M., Hughes,
Bissell, R., & Kirsch, T. (2012). A functional loss assessment M., van Ballegooy, S., & Bouziou, D. (2014). Earthquake
of a hospital system in the Bío-Bío province. Earthquake response of underground pipeline networks in Christchurch,
Spectra, 28(S1), S473–S502. NZ. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 183–204.
20 M. KOLIOU ET AL.
Ouyang, M., & Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2011). Resilience modeling Ramachandran, V., Long, S., Shoberg, T., Corns, S., & Carlo,
and simulation of smart grids. In Proceedings of the Structures H. (2015). Framework for modeling urban restoration
Congress (pp. 1996–2009). resilience time in the aftermath of an extreme event. Natural
Ouyang, M., & Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2012). Time-dependent Hazards Review, 16(4), 04015005.
resilience assessment and improvement of urban Reed, D., Kapur, K. C., & Christie, R. D. (2009). Methodology
infrastructure systems. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal for assessing the resilience of networked infrastructure.
of Nonlinear Science, 22(3), 033122. IEEE Systems Journal, 3(2), 174–180.
Ouyang, M., Dueñas-Osorio, L., & Min, X. (2012). A three- Renschler, C., Frazier, A., Arendt, L., Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn,
stage resilience analysis framework for urban infrastructure A., & Bruneau, M. (2010, July 25–29). Developing the
systems. Structural Safety, 36–37, 23–31. ‘PEOPLES’resilience framework for defining and measuring
Ouyang, M., & Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2014). Multi-dimensional disaster resilience at the community scale. In Proceedings
hurricane resilience assessment of electric power systems. of the 9th US national and 10th Canadian conference on
Structural Safety, 48, 15–24. earthquake engineering (9USN/10CCEE). Toronto.
Pandit, A., & Crittenden, J. C. (2012). Index of network Resilience Alliance. (2007). Research on resilience in social-
resilience (INR) for urban water distribution systems. 2012 ecological systems a basis for sustainability. Retrieved
Critical Infrastructure Symposium, Arlington, VA, doi: February 17, 2007, from http://www.resalliance.org/576.php
10.13140/2.1.2826.9442 Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2001).
Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (2001). Disasters and communities: Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical
Vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Magazine, 21(6), 11–25.
10(4), 270–277. Rockefeller. (2016). 100 Resilient Cities. Retrieved from http://
Paton, D., & Johnston, D. M. (2006). Disaster resilience: An www.100resilientcities.org/#/-_/

integrated approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Rose, A., Benavides, J., Chang, S. E., Szczesniak, P., & Lim, D.
Publisher. (1997). The regional economic impact of an Earthquake:
Peacock, W. G., Grover, H., Mayunga, J., Van Zandt, S., Brody, Direct and indirect effects of electricity lifeline disruptions.
S. D., Kim, H. J., & Center, R. (2011). The status and trends Journal of Regional Science, 37(3), 437–458.
of population social vulnerabilities along the Texas coast Rose, A., & Liao, S. Y. (2005). Modeling regional economic
with special attention to the Coastal Management Zone resilience to disasters: A computable general equilibrium
and Hurricane Ike: The coastal planning atlas and social analysis of water service disruptions. Journal of Regional
vulnerability mapping tools. College Station, TX: Hazard Science, 45(1), 75–112.
Reduction and Recovery Center. Rose, A., & Lim, D. (2002). Business interruption losses from
Peek, L. (2008). Children and disasters: Understanding natural hazards: Conceptual and methodological issues in
vulnerability, developing capacities, and promoting resilience the case of the Northridge earthquake. Global Environmental
– An introduction. Children Youth and Environments, 18(1), Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 4(1), 1–14.
1–29. RRAP. (2016). Regional Resiiency Assessment Program.
Pfefferbaum, R., Pfefferbaum, B., Van Horn, R. L., Klomp, R. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/regional-resiliency-
W., Norris, F. H., & Reissman, D. B. (2013). The communities assessment-program
advancing resilience toolkit (CART): An intervention to Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (2008). Cracks in the pavement: Social
build community resilience to disasters. Journal of Public change and resilience in poor neighborhoods. Berkeley:
Health Management & Practice, 19(3), 250–258. University of California Press.
Piratla, K. R., Ariaratnam, S. T., Arnaout, S., & Slavin, L. Sempier, T. T., Swann, D. L, Emmer, R., Sempier, S. H, & Schneider,
(2013). Performance evaluation of resilience metrics for M. (2010, November). “Coastal community resilience index:
water distribution pipeline networks. In ASCE Pipelines A community self-assessment. MAGSP-08-014. Retrieved
(pp. 330–339). from http://www.gulfofmexicoalliance.org/projects/files/
PNWER. (2016). The Center of Regional Disaster Resilience. 83Community_Resilience_Index.pdf
Retrieved from http://www.regionalresilience.org/ Shamai, M., Shaul, K., & Guy, E. (2007). Social systems and
Poljanšek, K., Bono, F., & Gutiérrez, E. (2012). Seismic personal reactions to threats of war and terror. Journal of
risk assessment of interdependent critical infrastructure Social and Personal Relationships, 24(5), 747–764.
systems: The case of European gas and electricity networks. Sharma, N., Tabandeh, A., & Gardoni, P. (2017). Resilience
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(1), 61– analysis: A mathematical formulation to model resilience of
79. engineering systems. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure,
PPD-8. (2011, March 30). Presidential policy directive, PPD- 1–19. doi:10.1080/23789689.2017.134525
8 – National preparedness. The White House. Retrieved Sohn, J., Hewings, G. J., Kim, T. J., Lee, J. S., & Jang, S.-G.
from http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8- (2004). Analysis of economic impacts of an earthquake on
national-preparedness transportation network. Modeling Spatial and Economic
PPD-21. (2013, February 12). Presidential policy directive/ Impacts of Disasters, 233–256.
PPD-21. The White House. Retrieved from http://www. SPUR-San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential- Association. (2009). ―When is a Building Safe Enough?.
policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil In San Francisco urban research association, Issue 479,
Prasad, T. D., & Park, N.-S. (2004). Multiobjective genetic February 2009, 654 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA.
algorithms for design of water distribution networks. Retrieved from http://www.spur.org, http://www.spur.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_Seismic_
130(1), 73–82. Mitigation_Policies.pdf
Stallings, R. A. (2006). Causality and “Natural” disasters. vulnerability to enhance housing and neighborhood
Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 35(3), 223–227. resilience. Housing Policy Debate, 22(1), 29–55.
Thornley, L., Ball, J., Signal, L., Lawson-Te Aho, K., & Rawson, Vugrin, E. D., Turnquist, M. A., & Brown, N. J. (2014). Optimal
E. (2014). Building community resilience: Learning from recovery sequencing for enhanced resilience and service
the Canterbury earthquakes. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal restoration in transportation networks. International Journal
of Social Sciences, 1–13. of Critical Infrastructures, 10(3–4), 218–246.
Tierney, K. J. (1995). Impacts of recent US disasters on Walter, J. (Ed.). (2004). World disaster report 2004: Focus on
businesses: The 1993 Midwest Floods and the 1994 Northridge community resilience. Geneva: International Federation of
Earthquake(Preliminary Paper #230). University of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
Delaware Disaster Research Center. West, C. T., & Lenze, D. G. (1994). Modeling the regional impact
Tierney, K. J. (1997). Business impacts of the Northridge of natural disaster and recovery: A general framework and
Earthquake. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, an application to Hurricane Andrew. International Regional
5(2), 87–97. Science Review, 17(2), 121–150.
Tierney, K. J. (2009). Disaster response: Research findings and Xie, X., Symans, M. D., O’Rourke, M. J., Abdoun, T. H.,
their implications for resilience measures. Oak Ridge, TN: O’Rourke, T. D., Palmer, M. C., & Stewart, H. E. (2013).
CARRI Research Report. Numerical modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected
Timmerman, P. (1981). Vulnerability, resilience and the to normal faulting: A case study. Earthquake Spectra, 29(2),
collapse of society: A review of models and possible climatic 609–632.
applications. Toronto: Canada University of Toronto. Yuhua, D., & Datao, Y. (2005). Estimation of failure probability
Todini, E. (2000). Looped water distribution networks design of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree
using a resilience index based heuristic approach. Urban analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
Water, 2(2), 115–122. 18(2), 83–88.

Tsuchiya, S., Tatano, H., & Okada, N. (2007). Economic Zhang, X., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2014). Scheduling short-term
loss assessment due to railroad and highway disruptions. recovery activities to maximize transportation network
Economic Systems Research, 19, 147–162. resilience. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 29(6),
UN/ISDR. (2005). Hyogo framework for 2005–2015: Building 04014087.
the resilience of the nations and communities to disasters Zhang, Y., & Peacock, W. G. (2009). Planning for housing
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from recovery? Lessons learned from Hurricane Andrew.
www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official-docs/Hyogo- Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(1), 5–
framework-action-english.pdf 24.
Ungar, M., & Eli, T. (2000). Drifting toward mental health: Zhang, W., & Nicholson, C. (2016). A multi-objective
High-risk adolescents and the process of empowerment. optimization model for retrofit strategies to mitigate direct
Youth and Society, 32(2), 228–252. economic loss and population dislocation. Sustainable and
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reductio. (2014, March Resilient Infrastructure, 1(3–4), 123–136.
10). Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities, Based on the ― Zhang, W., Wang, N., & Nicholson, C. (2017). Resilience-based
Ten Essentials‖ defined by the United Nations International post-disaster recovery strategies for road-bridge networks.
Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) for Making Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 1–10.
Cities Resilient. Developed for The United Nations Office for Zimmerman, R. (2001). Social implications of infrastructure
Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) by IBM and AECOM, network interactions. Journal of Urban Technology, 8(3),
Version 1.5. Retrieved from http://www.unisdr.org/2014/ 97–119.
campaign-cities/Resilience%20Scorecard%20V1.5.pdf Zimmerman, R. (2004). Decision-making and the vulnerability
Unnikrishnan, V. U., & van de Lindt, J. W. (2016). Probabilistic of interdependent critical infrastructure. In Systems, Man
framework for performance assessment of electrical and Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on
power networks to tornadoes. Sustainable and Resilient (Vol. 5, pp. 4059–4063). IEEE.
Infrastructure, 1(3–4), 137–152. Zimmerman, R., & Restrepo, C. E. (2006). The next step:
Varghese, J., Krogman, N. T., Beckley, T. M., & Nadeau, S. Quantifying infrastructure interdependencies to improve
(2006). Critical analysis of the relationship between local security. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures,
ownership and community resiliency. Rural Sociology, 2(2–3), 215–230.
71(3), 505–527. Zobel, C. W., & Khansa, L. (2014). Characterizing mul-
Van Zandt, S., Peacock, W. G., Henry, D. W., Grover, H., ti-event disaster resilience. Computers & Operations Research,
Highfield, W. E., & Brody, S. D. (2012). Mapping social 42, 83–94.

State of The Research in Community Resilience: Progress and Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of The Research in Community Resilience: Progress and Challenges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of The Research in Community Resilience: Progress and Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure

ISSN: 2378-9689 (Print) 2378-9697 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsri20

State of the research in community resilience:

Maria Koliou, John W. van de Lindt, Therese P. McAllister, Bruce R.

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547

Published online: 08 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [178.59.147.126] Date: 08 January 2018, At: 01:00

State of the research in community resilience: progress and challenges

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Introduction response, preparedness and security, mitigation, risk com-

CONTACT Maria Koliou [email protected]

Table 1. Representative definitions of resilience.

Physical infrastructure systems to portfolio of commercial or residential buildings, they

(RBD) framework, which informs the design of individual

ti-disciplinary study, including economic, environmental,

models for estimating economic losses, there have been a

economic systems, economics research is needed to fully Notes on contributors

Paton, D., & Johnston, D. M. (2006). Disaster resilience: An www.100resilientcities.org/#/-_/

Water, 2(2), 115–122. 18(2), 83–88.

You might also like