Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of Communities

This paper proposes a conceptual and measurement framework to quantitatively assess the disaster resilience of communities. The concept of resilience suggests a much broader framework than simply reducing monetary losses. Resilience can be conceptualized along four interrelated dimensions: technical, organizational, social, and economic. Evaluating community resilience and the degree to which mitigation and preparedness activities further resilience goals requires a multidisciplinary approach and quantitative measures. This paper proposes measures that relate the impacts of potential earthquakes to multi-dimensional performance standards. The approach is demonstrated in a case study of the Memphis, Tennessee, water delivery system. An earthquake loss estimation model provides a starting point for quantifying resilience. The analysis compares two retrofit strategies and finds that only one improves resilience over the status quo. While the resilience framework can be useful for guiding mitigation and preparedness efforts, further research is needed to fully implement the concept. INTRODUCTION The policies, practices, and theories of disaster management have in recent years increasingly promoted the goal of achieving disaster-resilient communities. In the late 1990s, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) instituted Project Impact, a program to encourage communities to better understand their risks, engage in education, and invest in mitigation activities through public-private partnerships (FEMA, 2000; Nigg et al., 2000). A synthesis of scholarship in the hazards field also emphasized fostering community resilience as a key goal in halting the rapid growth of disaster losses (Mileti, 1999). In that context, it defined a disaster-resilient community as one that " can withstand an extreme natural event with a tolerable level of losses " and one that " takes mitigation actions consistent with achieving that level of protection. " (p.5)