Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal

Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness

Douglas PatonDavid Johnston
Article information:
To cite this document:
Douglas PatonDavid Johnston, (2001),"Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness", Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 270 - 277
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005930
Downloaded on: 14 October 2014, At: 01:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 35 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4995 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Douglas Paton, (2003),"Disaster preparedness: a social#cognitive perspective", Disaster Prevention and Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 210-216
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)

Juergen Weichselgartner, (2001),"Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited", Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 2 pp. 85-95
Tun Lin Moe, Pairote Pathranarakul, (2006),"An integrated approach to natural disaster management: Public project
management and its critical success factors", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3
pp. 396-413

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 235198 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Disasters and
communities:
vulnerability, resilience
and preparedness
Douglas Paton and
David Johnston
The authors
Douglas Paton is Associate Professor, School of
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand.
David Johnston is with the Institute of Geological and
Nuclear Sciences, Taupo, New Zealand.
Keywords
Disasters, Community planning, Disaster management
Abstract
With regard to their utility in predicting the adoption of
household hazard preparations, traditional approaches to
public education directed at increasing awareness and/or
risk perception have proven ineffective. Discusses reasons
why this may have occurred from public education,
vulnerability analysis, and community resilience
perspectives and outlines strategies for enhancing
preparedness. Describes a model of resilience to hazard
effects that has been tested in different communities and
for different hazards (toxic waste, environmental
degradation and volcanic hazards). Drawing upon the
health education literature, introduces a model for
promoting the adoption on preparatory behaviour.
Discusses links between these models, and the need for
their implementation within a community development
framework.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . pp. 270±277
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0965-3562
270
Introduction
Substantial funds are expended annually on
risk communication programmes to promote
natural hazard preparedness (e.g. storing food
and water, fixing high furniture and hot water
cylinders to walls, preparing a household
evacuation plan). The adoption of these
measures facilitates a capability for coping
with the temporary disruption associated with
hazard activity and with minimising damage
and insurance costs. Despite these efforts, the
level of preparedness within communities has
fallen short of expectations (Lindell and
Whitney, 2000), leaving households
vulnerable to subsequent hazard effects. This
paper discusses reasons why this may have
occurred and outlines strategies for enhancing
preparedness. It does so from public
education, vulnerability analysis, and
community resilience perspectives.
Public education
While considerable work has been directed to
understanding how to construct effective risk
messages (Nathe et al., 1999), care must be
taken with regard to assuming that the
provision of information on hazards or risk
will facilitate the adoption of preventive
measures. The information-action link
assumes that recipients automatically
assimilate, comprehend and utilise
information in forming and following action
plans. This assumption is often unjustified.
For example, evaluation of a volcanic risk
communication programme (Ballantyne et al.,
2000) revealed that providing hazard
information resulted in some 28 per cent of
respondents feeling less concerned about
hazards. People inferred that the source of the
information (local government) would take
responsibility for managing both the hazard
and their safety, reducing the likelihood of
their both attending to risk messages and
adopting recommendations. Problems of this
nature can be attributed to other factors.
Consistent with other instances of optimistic
bias, Johnston et al. (1999) noted that
individuals described themselves, compared
with others in their community, as being
better prepared to deal with volcanic hazard
effects. By attributing better preparedness to
self, relative to the community as a whole,
individuals may accept the need for greater
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
preparedness, but perceive this as applying to
others but not to themselves. If so, the
likelihood of their attending to information or
acting on warnings will be reduced.
Communication effectiveness can be
influenced by beliefs regarding existing
knowledge. Ballantyne et al. (2000) found that,
while 41 per cent of respondents stated a belief
in their ability to recite the information on what
to do in the event of hazard activity contained in
Yellow Pages, only 6 per cent could correctly
recite it. If people over-estimate their existing
knowledge, the likelihood of their attending to
public information will be reduced. This
observation also suggests that, while people may
recognise the existence of information, this does
not automatically mean that they will be able to
recall and use it when required. It is important
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
that the evaluation of message effectiveness in
enhancing knowledge and preparedness should
focus on assessing recall and behaviour.
Additional complications are introduced by
differences in perceived vulnerability to
hazard effects (Bishop et al., 2000; Millar et
al., 1999). These authors found that risk
perception, and support for collective
mitigation initiatives, was driven less by
hazard characteristics and more by their
current implications for their livelihood (see
Figure 1). This observation suggests that
focusing communication on tangible factors
(e.g. actions designed to protect economic
integrity or safeguard livestock), rather than
uncontrollable threats such as seismic activity
or ash fall, will facilitate action. Diversity in
the manner in which perceived risk is
Figure 1 A model of resilience to hazard effects
271
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
distributed throughout a community adds
further complexity to the communication
process and provides material upon which
social amplification processes (Kasperson,
1992) can operate. This process can both
reduce communication effectiveness and
lessen the perceived credibility of emergency
management, administrative and scientific
agencies (Johnston and Paton, 1998).
Taken together, these findings, and those of
others (e.g. Nathe, et al., 1999; Tonnes and
Tilford, 1994), suggest that public policy
approaches to hazard education may enjoy
limited success in facilitating action. In the
context of the above discussion, it is not
surprising that the link between information
provision and preparedness remains tenuous.
Notwithstanding, the provision of
information, and the capacity to do so
effectively (Nathe et al., 1999), remain
important. The above discussion highlights
the importance of both developing
communication strategies relative to the
community context within which they will be
implemented and accommodating the social
psychological factors that influence whether
people assimilate the information provided
and can act upon its recommendations,
should the need arise. One salient contextual
factor concerns vulnerability.
Vulnerability
Identifying factors which influence
vulnerability to loss and disruption from
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
hazard activity provides one mechanism for
facilitating the development of risk
communication and reduction strategies that
target the needs of specific groups. Vulnerable
groups have typically been defined with
respect to demographic (e.g. age, ethnic
minority status, poor education (Lindell and
Whitney, 2000; Kaniasty and Norris, 1995))
and environmental (e.g. economic resource
limitations, marginalised political status, and
limited social network access (Bravo et al.,
1990; Omar and Alon, 1994; Schwarzer et al.,
1994) characteristics. While tackling
vulnerability represents a worthwhile and
important mitigation strategy within a social
policy agenda, care should be exercised in its
use.
If the above factors always acted to increase
vulnerability, this would represent a viable
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
strategy. However, this need not always be the
case. For example, Millar et al (1999) found
that older adults were less vulnerable than
their younger counterparts. Similarly, Sagert
(1989) and Schwarzer et al. (1994) found an
association between ethnic minority status,
age and poor educational status and
empowerment that reduced vulnerability.
While this issue requires additional attention,
these studies indicate a need to consider the
possibility that the same factor (e.g. age,
ethnicity) can act to increase or decrease
vulnerability depending on its contingent
relationship with environmental and hazard
characteristics.
In urban contexts, the task of developing
effective communication strategies (i.e. those
consistent with recipients' beliefs and
designed to meet their needs and stimulate
appropriate action) is rendered more complex
by the diversity and distribution of vulnerable
groups throughout a city (Paton et al., 1999).
As a consequence, the most cost-effective
approach, the production and dissemination
of general messages, is rendered less effective,
because it assumes a level of community
homogeneity (e.g. with regard to
demographics, beliefs, resources etc.) that is
unrealistic (Ballantyne et al., 2000; Paton et
al., 1999). Developing effective messages, in
this context, would require identifying
individual and community vulnerability
factors, defining relationships between them
and hazard effects and then adapting
information for each group. This would
involve the complex task of translating it and
presenting it in a manner that accommodates
272
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
the preconceptions of each group, rectifies
any erroneous elements therein and in its final
form, is consistent with the beliefs, needs and
goals of each group. The research, practical
and resource implications of this approach
render it untenable.
To facilitate preparedness, an alternative
approach is required. Researchers, planners
and emergency managers must acknowledge
heterogeneity in community characteristics
and perceptual processes and develop models
that accommodate contingent relationships
between hazard effects and community,
cultural, geographical and temporal factors
within resilience models (Paton et al., 1999).
Resilience
Although all hazard events are unique, and
may differ dramatically from one another on
several dimensions, the community response
may possess sufficient similarity for this
process to be modelled (Lindell and Whitney,
2000; Paton and Bishop, 1996; Tobin, 1999;
Van den Eyde and Veno, 1999). An
important issue here concerns the paradigm
which underpins the conceptualisation of the
problems to be understood and the strategies
implemented to contain or resolve them. The
orientation of work in this area has
progressively moved from a deficit or loss
paradigm, to one emphasising community
resilience (Omar and Alon, 1994; Tobin,
1999; Van den Eyde and Veno, 1999;
Violanti et al., 2000). This alternative
paradigm has been described using terms
such as salutogenic/resilience (Antonovsky,
1993; Dunning, 1999; Tobin, 1999),
competency (Cottrell, 1976), or strengths
(Bravo et al., 1990).
A common denominator between these
conceptualisations of the response to
adversity is an acceptance of communities as
being capable of drawing upon internal
resources and competencies to manage the
demands, challenges and changes
encountered. Further, several of these
conceptualisations acknowledge the
possibility that exposure to disaster and
adversity can result in personal, community
and professional growth and development
(Bravo et al., 1990; Holman and Silver, 1998;
Kreps, 1984; Schwarzer et al., 1994). While
this shift, and the growing empirical evidence
for positive outcomes, should not be used to
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
infer the elimination of community loss and
disruption from disaster (Kaniasty and
Norris, 1999), it is important to examine
factors that promote resilience and growth
and, as far as possible, seek to intervene in
ways that facilitate resilience and growth
rather than dependence and loss.
Community resilience can be described at
several, interdependent levels. For example,
the ability of a community to ``bounce back''
and recover using its own resources requires
that attention be directed to safeguarding the
physical integrity of the built environment
and lifelines (e.g. building codes, retrofitting
buildings), and ensuring economic, business
and administrative continuity (including
emergency management and social
institutions). It also involves ensuring that
community members have the resources,
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
capacities and capabilities necessary to utilise
these physical and economic resources in a
manner that minimises disruption and
facilitates growth.
With respect to the latter, promoting
resilience (the ability to recoil effectively from
adversity and enhancing the likelihood of
exposure to adversity leading to growth)
involves strategies that utilise both personal
and environmental resources. Realising the
benefits that can accrue for their use requires,
first, a framework for modelling the factors
that influence resilience.
Tobin (1999) described a composite
model of resilience, one element of which
concerned the psychological precursors of
resilience. From a social and psychological
perspective, resilience is a function of the
operation of personal characteristics, the
ability to impose a sense of coherence and
meaning on atypical and adverse
experiences, and the existence of community
practices (e.g. supportive social networks)
which mitigate adverse consequences and
maximise potential for recovery and growth
(Violanti et al., 2000). Testing the utility of
this framework requires the identification of
variables capable of predicting community
resilience to hazard effects. Variables that fall
into this category are ``sense of community'',
``coping style'', ``self-efficacy'' and ``social
support'' (Figure 1).
Self-efficacy describes individuals' appraisal
of what they are capable of performing, and
influences people's receptivity to information
and the likelihood of their acting to deal with
hazard consequences (Bachrach and Zautra,
273
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
1985; Bishop et al., 2000; Bandura, 1997;
Lyons, 1991; Yates et al., 1999). Sense of
community (feelings of belonging and
attachment for people and places) encourages
involvement in community response
following disaster and increases access to, and
utilisation of, social networks. Individuals
who perceive themselves as having no
investment in their community may develop a
level of detachment which, following a natural
disaster, may trigger feelings of isolation,
encourage learned helplessness, and heighten
vulnerability (Bachrach and Zautra, 1985;
Bishop et al., 2000). Sense of community also
provides insight into the degree of community
fragmentation and, consequently, the level of
support likely to exist for collective
intervention or mitigation strategies. Coping
style influences how people respond to hazard
effects. Problem-focused coping (confronting
the stressor or problem) represents a
mechanism for facilitating resilience.
Emotion-focused (suppressing or denying
emotional reactions without attempting to
tackle the problem) coping strategies, on the
other hand, tend to increase vulnerability
(Bachrach and Zautra, 1985; Millar et al.,
1999; Yates et al., 1999).
Resilience and natural hazard reduction
The utility of a model is a function of its
ability to account for differences in resilience,
when assessed against a range of hazards and
communities. With respect to their predictive
utility, these variables have demonstrated
their ability to predict resilience in community
members exposed to three distinct hazards;
toxic waste, salinity and volcanic hazard
effects (Bachrach and Zautra, 1985; Bishop et
al., 2000; Millar et al., 1999). By verifying the
utility of these components against several
hazards the predictive capability of the model
is enhanced and its utility within an all-
hazards management approach is
strengthened. Further, the predictive
capability of these variables, and their
amenability to measurement, allow this model
to be used to assess community resilience,
monitor change, and provide a basis for
evaluating the effectiveness of readiness
strategies, irrespective of the hazardscape
prevailing within a specific community.
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
Resilience and preparedness
In addition to playing a role in promoting an
ability to resist and recover from natural
hazard effects, these variables may influence
hazard adjustment adoption. Bennett and
Murphy (1997) described a model linking risk
perception and risk reducing behaviour.
While perception of a threat remains a
pertinent precursor, the key factors are
action-outcome expectancies (consideration
of whether risk may be reduced) and self-
efficacy (whether the required actions are
within the capabilities of the individual)
judgements. Because people make
assumptions about the possible consequences
of action before considering engaging in that
behaviour, action-outcome expectancies
precede efficacy judgements (Figure 2). The
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
number and quality of action plans are
strongly dependent on one's perceived
competence and experience. Self-efficacy also
determines the amount of effort and
perseverance invested in risk reduction
behaviours. Finally, this behaviour is more
likely to be sustained if supported by the
social and structural environment (Tobin,
1999). This suggests that the effectiveness of
this model will be enhanced by integrating it
with the community development process.
Resilience and community development
Studies of response to hazard effects by
Bishop et al. (2000) and Millar et al. (1999)
revealed not only that the above factors
enhanced resilience, but also that their
presence was correlated with the level of
Figure 2 A model of the risk perception-risk reduction behaviour process
274
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
involvement in community activities and
functions (e.g. membership of clubs, social
action groups). From this observation can be
inferred the possibility that community risk
can be reduced, even if community members
are not engaged in risk reduction activities per
se. The more people who are involved in
community activities that engender a sense of
community, efficacy and problem solving, the
greater will be their resilience to adversity.
While additional exploration of this issue is
required, this observation opens up the
possibility of hazard mitigation strategies
being linked to community development and
the supplementing of community
development activities with specific hazard
education and reduction initiatives.
Kieffer (1984) and Paton and Bishop
(1996) described community empowerment
strategies based on community participation,
enhancing perceived control, facilitating
community identification of problems, and
developing strategies to solve or contain
problems in ways consistent with the needs,
systems and values of a specific community.
To sustain empowerment, a consensus
approach to decision making is
recommended. Participation in identifying
shared problems and developing and
implementing solutions to them facilitates the
development of problem-focused coping, a
sense of community, and commitment to
action. A focus on actively dealing with salient
issues helps foster individual and collective
efficacy. Hence, the key elements in this
community empowerment model can be
summarised in terms of the efficacy, coping,
sense of community and support constructs
outlined above.
Once a basis for empowerment is
established, the next stage involves the
identification of a community change agent,
the involvement of community members to
provide mutual support (contributing to the
development of sense of community and
social support), and opportunities to lobby
social/political agencies (contributing to the
development of efficacy and problem-focused
coping). Collective efficacy may also be a
good indicator of the level of co-operation and
assistance available within a community and
this, in turn, may constitute a measure of the
likelihood of the success of mitigation
strategies that require collective and co-
ordinated action being adopted and
implemented.
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
In relation to hazards education, this
process can be supplemented by providing
communities with hazard scenarios that
describe the potential challenges,
opportunities and threats faced by a
community from hazard activity, and the
development of strategies to capitalise on
them, or to manage or contain them. The
rarity of hazard phenomena suggests that the
process should focus on integrating hazard
education with community development and
problem solving to deal with existing or
contemporary problems, with a focus on
opportunities for growth. These scenarios can
be used to elicit their hazard perceptions, and
the information and resource requirements
necessary for their formulation and adoption
of mitigation strategies, consistent with their
beliefs, needs and goals, to capitalise on,
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
contain or minimise demands. This approach
makes it easier to accommodate the diversity
and distribution of groups within a
community by facilitating their access to
appropriate information and through
mobilising natural coping strategies rather
than attempting to develop communication
strategies to meet the needs of all possible
groups. This process is also consistent with an
all-hazards management framework. The
emergency management role involves
assimilating and co-ordinating the
perspectives/needs derived from community
consultation within a strategic context, and
seeking, as far as possible, to provide the
information and resources necessary to
sustain empowerment, self-help and
resilience. Emergency management agencies
thus act as consultants to communities rather
than directing the change process.
In addition to promoting the competence
and resilience of community members, the
adoption of a growth-oriented strategy may
provide a context conducive to sustaining
resilience over time, an important issue given
the rarity of hazard activity. For example, a
deficit or loss paradigm leads to strategies
where community members are urged to
spend money on strengthening or altering
their house or building to reduce losses from
earthquake hazards. From a growth
perspective, the focus would be on investing
in structural alterations to increase the capital
value of property, increase its resale value, or
reduce insurance costs. The focus is on
demonstrating the personal and community
benefits that accrue from engaging in certain
275
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
risk reducing activities. Similarly, this
approach would advocate focusing on the
value of local amenities and the environment
and the development of strategies directed to
maintaining perceived quality of life in
relation to hazard activity.
Maintaining empowerment, and,
consequently, the competencies that
underpin resilience to adversity, will involve
consolidating collective efficacy, coping
capabilities and support into a sense of
community identity and belonging. This will
foster and sustain an ability to respond to
adversity in a manner that minimises loss and
disruption and promotes growth. This can be
more readily accomplished through projects
and activities that sustain community
participation in problem solving. This is
particularly important if community action
initially revolved around a specific hazard
event.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of traditional approaches to
public hazard education is reduced by a
failure to accommodate the community and
social psychological factors that facilitate the
relationship between risk perception and risk
reduction behaviour. Risk management
should seek to promote resilience and
preparedness through a mix of strategies
involving communication, managing
vulnerability, and facilitating resilience and
growth. Empirical studies of communities
exposed to toxic waste, salinity, volcanic and
earthquake hazards (Bishop et al., 2000;
Lindell and Whitney, 2000; Millar et al.,
1999) suggest that efficacy, problem-focused
coping, and sense of community facilitate
resilience to adversity.
These studies support the fact that this
model of resilience has explanatory power
that transcends the specific characteristics of
the community or hazard per se.
Consequently, it can be used to predict
resilience, monitor intervention effectiveness
and community change (towards greater
resilience) within an all-hazards management
framework. To accommodate community
diversity, hazard education programmes
designed from this model should be
integrated with community development
initiatives to increase resilience, facilitate
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
self-help capabilities, and reduce reliance on
external response and recovery resources.
On a methodological level, the complex
relationship between hazard effects and
community characteristics can only be
examined systematically using longitudinal
methodology and research and intervention
designs capable of managing complex change
data (Paton and Smith, 1995). Further work
is required to explore the complex
relationship between risk perception and
preparedness. The model discussed here
represents an appropriate starting-point, but
additional work is required to identify other
variables (e.g. perceived responsibility, trust)
capable of moderating the adoption of
preparations. These variables must be
identified and their role within the model
examined.
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
Community resilience should be
conceptualised and managed in a contingent
rather than a prescriptive manner.
Understanding the nature of these contingent
relationships has implications for managing
the allocation of finite resources and for
designing risk reduction and communication
strategies. By ensuring that these strategies
are developed and delivered within a
resilience/growth framework, community
disruption can be minimised, the potential for
recovery and growth optimised, and
community development strategies can be
more readily integrated with engineering,
lifeline, public policy and emergency
management initiatives.
References and further reading
Antonovsky, A. (1993), ``The implications of salutogenesis:
an outsider's view'', in Turnbull, A. , Patterson, J.,
Behr, S., Murphy, D. et al. (Eds), Cognitive Coping,
Families, and Disability, Paul H. Brookes,
Baltimore, MD.
Bachrach, K.M., and Zautra, A.J. (1985), ``Coping with a
community stressor: the threat of a hazardous
waste facility'', Journal of Health and Social
Behaviour, Vol. 26, pp. 127-41.
Ballantyne, M., Paton, D., Johnston, D., Kozuch, M. and
Daly, M. (2000), Information on Volcanic and
Earthquake Hazards: The Impact on Awareness and
Preparation, Institute of Geological and Nuclear
Sciences Report, No. 2.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bennett, P. and Murphy, S. (1997), Psychology and Health
Promotion, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bishop, B., Paton, D., Syme, G. and Nancarrow, B. (2000),
``Coping with environmental degradation: salination
276
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
as a community stressor'', Network, Vol. 12,
pp. 1-15.
Bloom, S. (1997), Creating Sanctuary: Toward an
Evolution of Sane Societies, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Bravo, M., Rubio-Stipec, M., Woodbury, M.A. and Ribera,
J.C. (1990), ``The psychological sequelae of disaster
stress prospectively and retrospectively evaluated'',
American Journal of Community Psychology,
Vol. 18, pp. 661-80.
Cottrell, L. (1976), ``The competent community'', in Berton,
S., Kaplan, H., Wilson, R.N. and Alexander, H. (Eds),
Further Exploration in Social Psychiatry,
Basic Books, Leighton, NY.
Dunning, C. (1999), ``Post-intervention strategies to
reduce police trauma: a paradigm shift'', in Violanti,
J.M. and Paton, D. (Eds), Police Trauma:
Psychological Aftermath of Civilian Combat,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Higgins, G.O. (1994), Resilient Adults: Overcoming a Cruel
Past, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Holman E.A. and Silver, R.C. (1998), ``Getting `stuck' in
the past: temporal orientation and coping with
trauma'', Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 1146-63.
Johnston, D. and Paton, D. (1998), ``Social amplification of
risk: transient end-points'', in Lewis, G.D., Thom,
N.D., Hay, J.E. and Sukhia, K. (Eds), Risk
Assessment of Environmental End Points, University
of Auckland, Auckland.
Johnston, D.M., Bebbington, M.S., Lai, C-D., Houghton, B.
and Paton, D. (1999), ``Volcanic hazard perceptions:
comparative shifts in knowledge and risk'', Disaster
Prevention and Management, Vol. 8, pp. 118-26.
Kaniasty, K. and Norris, F.H. (1995), ``In search of altruistic
community: patterns of social support mobilization
following hurricane Hugo'', American Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 447-78.
Kaniasty, K. and Norris, F.H. (1999), ``The experience of
disaster: individuals and communities sharing
trauma'', in Gist, R. and Lubin, B. (Eds), Response to
Disaster, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.
Kasperson, R.E. (1992), ``The social amplification of risk:
progress in developing an integrative framework'',
in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds), Social Theories
of Risk, Praeger, London.
Kieffer, C. (1984), ``Citizen empowerment: a
developmental perspective'', Prevention in Human
Services, Vol. 3, pp. 9-36.
Kreps, G.A. (1984), ``Sociological inquiry and disaster
research'', in Turner, R.H. and Short, J.M. (Eds),
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 10, pp. 309-30.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2000), ``Correlates of
household seismic hazard adjustment adoption'',
Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, pp. 13-25.
Lyons, J.A. (1991), ``Strategies for assessing the potential
for positive adjustment following trauma'', Journal
of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 4, pp. 93-111.
Millar, M., Paton, D. and Johnston, D. (1999), ``Community
vulnerability to volcanic hazard consequences'',
Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 8,
pp. 255-60.
Nathe, S., Gori, P., Greene, M., Lemersal, E. and Mileti, D.
(1999), ``Public education for earthquake hazards,
natural hazards informer'', on-line publication.
 Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness
Douglas Paton and David Johnston
URL: http://www.Colorado.EDU/hazards/informer/
infrmr2/infrm2wb.htm
Omar, H. and Alon, N. (1994), ``The continuity principle: a
unified approach to disaster and trauma'', American
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 22,
pp. 273-87.
Paton, D. (1996), ``Disaster, communities, and mental
health: psychosocial influences on long-term
impact'', Community Mental Health in
New Zealand, Vol. 9, pp. 3-14.
Paton, D. and Bishop B. (1996), ``Disasters and
communities: promoting psychosocial wellbeing'', in
Paton, D. and Long, N. (Eds), Psychological Aspects
of Disaster: Impact, Coping, and Intervention,
Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
Paton, D. and Smith, L.M. (1995), ``Methodological issues
in the evaluation of psychological trauma'',
Australian Psychologist, Vol. 30, pp. 200-09.
Paton, D., Johnston, D., Gough, J., Dowrick, D., Daly., M.,
Baddon, L., Batistich, T. and Wood, I. (1999),
``Auckland volcanic risk project: report 1'', ARC
Technical Publication, No. 126, Auckland Regional
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)
Council, Auckland.
Sagert, S. (1989), ``Unlikely leaders, extreme
circumstances: older black women building
277
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 4 . 2001 . 270±277
community households'', American Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 295-316.
Schwarzer, R., Hahn, A. and Schroder, H. (1994), ``Social
integration and social support in a life crisis: effects
of macrosocial change in East Germany'', American
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 22,
pp. 685-706.
Tobin, G.A. (1999), ``Sustainability and community
resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning'',
Environmental Hazards, Vol. 1, pp. 13-26.
Tonnes, K. and Tilford, S. (1994), Health Education:
Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity, 2nd ed.,
Chapman-Hall, London.
Van den Eyde, J. and Veno, A. (1999), ``Coping with
disastrous events: an empowerment model of
community healing'', in Gist, R. and Lubin, B. (Eds),
Response to Disaster, Taylor & Francis,
Philadelphia, PA.
Violanti, J.M., Paton, D. and Dunning, C. (2000), Post-
traumatic Stress Intervention: Challenges, Issues
and Perspectives, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Yates, S., Axsom, D. and Tiedeman, K. (1999), ``The help
seeking process for distress after disasters'', in
Gist, R. and Lubin, B. (Eds), Response to Disaster,
Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jui-Sheng Chou, Jia-Huei Wu. 2014. Success factors of enhanced disaster resilience in urban community. Natural Hazards
74, 661-686. [CrossRef]
2. Francesca Fois, Giuseppe Forino. 2014. The self-built ecovillage in L'Aquila, Italy: community resilience as a grassroots
response to environmental shock. Disasters 38:10.1111/disa.2014.38.issue-4, 719-739. [CrossRef]
3. Hitomi Nakanishi, John Black, Kojiro Matsuo, Richard Haigh. 2014. Disaster resilience in transportation – Japan earthquake
and tsunami 2011. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 5:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]
4. Dilek Yilmaz Borekci, Yasin Rofcanin, Hasan Gürbüz. 2014. Organisational resilience and relational dynamics in triadic
networks: a multiple case analysis. International Journal of Production Research 1-29. [CrossRef]
5. References 287-297. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
6. Global Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 13-37. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
7. Global Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 13-37. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
8. References 287-297. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
9. Ian Convery, Bob Carroll, Ruth Balogh. 2014. Flooding and schools: experiences in Hull in 2007. Disasters n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
10. Marco Modica, Aura Reggiani. 2014. Spatial Economic Resilience: Overview and Perspectives. Networks and Spatial Economics
. [CrossRef]
11. Shohei Matsuura, Rajib Shaw. 2014. Exploring the possibilities of school-based recovery and community building in Toni
District, Kamaishi. Natural Hazards . [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)

12. Helen Ross, Fikret Berkes. 2014. Research Approaches for Understanding, Enhancing, and Monitoring Community
Resilience. Society & Natural Resources 27, 787-804. [CrossRef]
13. Dilek Yilmaz-Börekçi, Arzu İşeri Say, Yasin Rofcanin. 2014. Measuring Supplier Resilience in Supply Networks. Journal of
Change Management 1-19. [CrossRef]
14. Kelly Bergstrand, Brian Mayer, Babette Brumback, Yi Zhang. 2014. Assessing the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability
and Community Resilience to Hazards. Social Indicators Research . [CrossRef]
15. Scott C. Blum, Roxane Cohen Silver, Michael J. Poulin. 2014. Perceiving Risk in a Dangerous World: Associations between
Life Experiences and Risk Perceptions. Social Cognition 32, 297-314. [CrossRef]
16. Michael R. Greenberg, Marc D. Weiner, Robert Noland, Jeanne Herb, Marjorie Kaplan, Anthony J. Broccoli. 2014.
Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy. Risk Analysis 34:10.1111/risa.2014.34.issue-6, 997-1012.
[CrossRef]
17. Guðríður Ester Geirsdóttir, Guðrún Gísladóttir, Ásdís Jónsdóttir. 2014. Coping with storm surges on the Icelandic south
coast: A case study of the Stokkseyri village. Ocean & Coastal Management 94, 44-55. [CrossRef]
18. The concept of resilience to disasters 35-48. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
19. The concept of resilience to disasters 35-48. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
20. The concept of resilience to disasters 35-48. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
21. Mark Neal. 2014. Preparing for extraterrestrial contact. Risk Management 16, 63-87. [CrossRef]
22. John M. Anderies. 2014. Embedding built environments in social–ecological systems: resilience-based design principles.
Building Research & Information 42, 130-142. [CrossRef]
23. Karen I. Sudmeier-Rieux. 2014. Resilience – an emerging paradigm of danger or of hope?. Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal 23:1, 67-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Jacquelyn Oncescu. 2014. The impact of a rural school’s closure on community resiliency. Leisure/Loisir 38, 35-52. [CrossRef]
25. Patricia Bolton, Kim Dirks, Pat Neuwelt. 2014. Natural hazard preparedness in an Auckland community: child and community
perceptions. Pastoral Care in Education 32, 23-41. [CrossRef]
26. Dan Bulley. 2013. Producing and Governing Community (through) Resilience. Politics 33:10.1111/ponl.2013.33.issue-4,
265-275. [CrossRef]
27. Syed Ainuddin, Daniel P. Aldrich, Jayant K. Routray, Shabana Ainuddin, Abida Achkazai. 2013. The need for local
involvement: Decentralization of disaster management institutions in Baluchistan, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction 6, 50-58. [CrossRef]
28. Dr Carol Mutch and Dr Jay Marlowe, Liz Gordon. 2013. Preserving family and community: women's voices from the
Christchurch earthquakes. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 22:5, 415-424. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
29. Tagel Gebrehiwot, Anne van der Veen. 2013. Climate change vulnerability in Ethiopia: disaggregation of Tigray Region.
Journal of Eastern African Studies 7, 607-629. [CrossRef]
 30. Natalie D. Baker. 2013. Role of Explicit and Implicit Practices in the Production of Situated Preparedness for Disasters.
Natural Hazards Review 05014002. [CrossRef]
31. Samantha Jones, Komal Aryal, Andrew Collins. 2013. Local-level governance of risk and resilience in Nepal. Disasters
37:10.1111/disa.2013.37.issue-3, 442-467. [CrossRef]
32. Jaime Santos-Reyes, Alan N. Beard. 2013. Information Communication Technology and a Systemic Disaster Management
System Model. International Journal of Distributed Systems and Technologies 2:10.4018/jdst.20110101, 29-42. [CrossRef]
33. Dr Gilbert Ahamer, Julian Matzenberger. 2013. A novel approach to exploring the concept of resilience and principal drivers
in a learning environment. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal 7:2/3, 192-206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Michael R. Greenberg, Susannah Dyen, Stacey Elliott. 2013. The Public’s Preparedness: Self-Reliance, Flashbulb Memories,
and Conservative Values. American Journal of Public Health 103, e85-e91. [CrossRef]
35. Kate-Ellen J. Elliott, Christine M. Stirling, Angela J. Martin, Andrew L. Robinson, Jennifer L. Scott. 2013. Perspectives of
the community-based dementia care workforce: “occupational communion” a key finding from the Work 4 Dementia Project.
International Psychogeriatrics 25, 765-774. [CrossRef]
36. Fikret Berkes, Helen Ross. 2013. Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources 26,
5-20. [CrossRef]
37. Michael Stajura, Deborah Glik, David Eisenman, Michael Prelip, Andrea Martel, Jitka Sammartinova. 2012. Perspectives of
Community- and Faith-Based Organizations about Partnering with Local Health Departments for Disasters. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9, 2293-2311. [CrossRef]
38. Syed Ainuddin, Jayant Kumar Routray. 2012. Community resilience framework for an earthquake prone area in Baluchistan.
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2, 25-36. [CrossRef]

39. Deniz Kantur, Arzu İşeri-Say. 2012. Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework. Journal of Management
& Organization 18, 762-773. [CrossRef]
40. Jonas Joerin, Rajib Shaw, Yukiko Takeuchi, Ramasamy Krishnamurthy. 2012. Assessing community resilience to climate-
related disasters in Chennai, India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1, 44-54. [CrossRef]
41. Deniz KANTUR, Arzu İŞERİ SAY. 2012. ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: A CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATIVE
FRAMEWORK. Journal of Management & Organization 2155-2181. [CrossRef]
42. Thi My Thi Tong, Rajib Shaw, Yukiko Takeuchi. 2012. Climate disaster resilience of the education sector in Thua Thien
Hue Province, Central Vietnam. Natural Hazards 63, 685-709. [CrossRef]
43. Syed Ainuddin, Jayant Kumar Routray. 2012. Earthquake hazards and community resilience in Baluchistan. Natural Hazards
63, 909-937. [CrossRef]
44. Jonas Joerin, Rajib Shaw, Yukiko Takeuchi, Ramasamy Krishnamurthy. 2012. Action-oriented resilience assessment of
communities in Chennai, India. Environmental Hazards 11, 226-241. [CrossRef]
45. Riyanti Djalante, Frank Thomalla, Muhammad Sabaruddin Sinapoy, Michelle Carnegie. 2012. Building resilience to natural
hazards in Indonesia: progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action. Natural Hazards 62,
779-803. [CrossRef]
46. Menka Bihari, Robert Ryan. 2012. Influence of social capital on community preparedness for wildfires. Landscape and Urban
Planning 106, 253-261. [CrossRef]
47. Joëlle Levac, Darene Toal-Sullivan, Tracey L. O`Sullivan. 2012. Household Emergency Preparedness: A Literature Review.
Journal of Community Health 37, 725-733. [CrossRef]
48. Carolina Garcia, Carina J. Fearnley. 2012. Evaluating critical links in early warning systems for natural hazards. Environmental
Hazards 11, 123-137. [CrossRef]
49. Kevin R. Ronan, Kylie Crellin, David M. Johnston. 2012. Community readiness for a new tsunami warning system: quasi-
experimental and benchmarking evaluation of a school education component. Natural Hazards 61, 1411-1425. [CrossRef]
50. Daniel Henstra. 2012. Toward the Climate-Resilient City: Extreme Weather and Urban Climate Adaptation Policies in Two
Canadian Provinces. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 14, 175-194. [CrossRef]
51. Ugo Guarnacci. 2012. Governance for sustainable reconstruction after disasters: Lessons from Nias, Indonesia. Environmental
Development 2, 73-85. [CrossRef]
52. Ernest L. Molua. 2012. Climate extremes, location vulnerability and private costs of property protection in Southwestern
Cameroon. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17, 293-310. [CrossRef]
53. Jieh‐Jiuh Wang. 2012. Integrated model combined land‐use planning and disaster management. Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal 21:1, 110-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Yehong Sun, Hongjian Zhou, Jing’ai Wang, Yi Yuan. 2012. Farmers’ response to agricultural drought in paddy field of southern
China: a case study of temporal dimensions of resilience. Natural Hazards 60, 865-877. [CrossRef]
 55. Helen J. Boon, Alison Cottrell, David King, Robert B. Stevenson, Joanne Millar. 2012. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory
for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Natural Hazards 60, 381-408. [CrossRef]
56. Rachel Shannon, Max Hope, John McCloskey. 2011. The Bengkulu premonition: cultural pluralism and hybridity in disaster
risk reduction. Area 43:10.1111/area.2011.43.issue-4, 449-455. [CrossRef]
57. Riyanti Djalante, Cameron Holley, Frank Thomalla. 2011. Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2, 1-14. [CrossRef]
58. Ran Bhamra, Samir Dani, Kevin Burnard. 2011. Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International
Journal of Production Research 49, 5375-5393. [CrossRef]
59. M Kilvington, M Atkinson, A Fenemor. 2011. Creative platforms for social learning in ICM: the Watershed Talk project.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45, 557-571. [CrossRef]
60. Dianne Rahm, Christopher G. Reddick. 2011. US City Managers' Perceptions of Disaster Risks: Consequences for
Urban Emergency Management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 19:10.1111/jccm.2011.19.issue-3, 136-146.
[CrossRef]
61. Deanne K. Bird, Catherine Chagué-Goff, Anna Gero. 2011. Human Response to Extreme Events: a review of three post-
tsunami disaster case studies. Australian Geographer 42, 225-239. [CrossRef]
62. Per Becker. 2011. Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal 20:4, 423-433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Daniel Henstra. 2011. The Dynamics of Policy Change: A Longitudinal Analysis of Emergency Management in Ontario,
1950–2010. Journal of Policy History 23, 399-428. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)

64. Aini Mat Said, Fakhru'l‐Razi Ahmadun, Ahmad Rodzi Mahmud, Fuad Abas. 2011. Community preparedness for tsunami
disaster: a case study. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 20:3, 266-280. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
65. Adem Öcal, Yavuz Topkaya. 2011. Earthquake preparedness in schools in seismic hazard regions in the South‐East of Turkey.
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 20:3, 334-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Rajib Shaw, Yukiko Takeuchi, Qi Ru Gwee, Koichi ShiwakuChapter 1 Disaster Education: An Introduction 1-22. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
67. Gordon McBean, Caroline Rodgers. 2010. Climate hazards and disasters: the need for capacity building. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change 1, 871-884. [CrossRef]
68. Bob Carroll, Ruth Balogh, Hazel Morbey, Gonzalo Araoz. 2010. Health and social impacts of a flood disaster: responding to
needs and implications for practice. Disasters 34:10.1111/disa.2010.34.issue-4, 1045-1063. [CrossRef]
69. Keith G. Tidball, Marianne E. Krasny, Erika Svendsen, Lindsay Campbell, Kenneth Helphand. 2010. Stewardship, learning,
and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research 16, 591-609. [CrossRef]
70. Keren Friedman-Peleg, Yehuda C. Goodman. 2010. From Posttrauma Intervention to Immunization of the Social Body:
Pragmatics and Politics of a Resilience Program in Israel’s Periphery. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 34, 421-442. [CrossRef]
71. Katherine E. Brewton, Sharon M. Danes, Kathryn Stafford, George W. Haynes. 2010. Determinants of rural and urban family
firm resilience. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1, 155-166. [CrossRef]
72. Lorraine Williams, Andrew E Collins, Alberto Bauaze, Ross Edgeworth. 2010. The role of risk perception in reducing cholera
vulnerability. Risk Management 12, 163-184. [CrossRef]
73. Kevin R. Ronan, Kylie Crellin, David Johnston. 2010. Correlates of hazards education for youth: a replication study. Natural
Hazards 53, 503-526. [CrossRef]
74. Katherine Donovan. 2010. Doing social volcanology: exploring volcanic culture in Indonesia. Area 42:10.1111/
area.2010.42.issue-1, 117-126. [CrossRef]
75. Daniel Henstra. 2010. Evaluating Local Government Emergency Management Programs: What Framework Should Public
Managers Adopt?. Public Administration Review 70:10.1111/puar.2010.70.issue-2, 236-246. [CrossRef]
76. Yan Chang, Suzanne Wilkinson, Erica Seville, Regan Potangaroa. 2010. Resourcing for a resilient post‐disaster reconstruction
environment. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 1:1, 65-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Margarethe Kusenbach, Jason L. Simms, Graham A. Tobin. 2010. Disaster vulnerability and evacuation readiness: coastal
mobile home residents in Florida. Natural Hazards 52, 79-95. [CrossRef]
78. Deanne K. Bird, Gudrun Gisladottir, Dale Dominey-Howes. 2010. Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: Implications
for hazard, risk and emergency response education and training. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 189, 33-48.
[CrossRef]
79. SHARON M. DANES, JINHEE LEE, SAYALI AMARAPURKAR, KATHRYN STAFFORD, GEORGE HAYNES,
KATHERINE E. BREWTON. 2009. DETERMINANTS OF FAMILY BUSINESS RESILIENCE AFTER A
 NATURAL DISASTER BY GENDER OF BUSINESS OWNER. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 14, 333-354.
[CrossRef]
80. Li-ju Jang, Jieh-jiuh Wang. 2009. Disaster Resilience in a Hakka Community in Taiwan. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology
3, 55-65. [CrossRef]
81. Saut Sagala, Norio Okada, Douglas Paton. 2009. Predictors of Intention to Prepare for Volcanic Risks in Mt Merapi, Indonesia.
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 3, 47-54. [CrossRef]
82. Public Disaster Preparedness 1-41. [CrossRef]
83. Sasmita Mishra, Damodar Suar, Douglas Paton. 2009. Is Externality a Mediator of Experience–Behaviour and Information–
Action Hypothesis in Disaster Preparedness?. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 3, 11-19. [CrossRef]
84. Alison Cottrell. 2009. Women's Vulnerabilty to a Seasonal Hazard: Their Capacity to Adapt and Their Resilience. Journal
of Pacific Rim Psychology 3, 4-10. [CrossRef]
85. Shaul Kimhi, Yohanan Eshel. 2009. Individual and Public Resilience and Coping With Long-Term Outcomes of War1.
Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research 14, 70-89. [CrossRef]
86. Benjamin R. Bates, Brian L. Quick, Aaron A. Kloss. 2009. Antecedents of intention to help mitigate wildfire: Implications
for campaigns promoting wildfire mitigation to the general public in the wildland–urban interface. Safety Science 47, 374-381.
[CrossRef]
87. Edith G. Callaghan, John Colton. 2008. Building sustainable & resilient communities: a balancing of community capital.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 10, 931-942. [CrossRef]
88. David M. Simpson, R. Josh Human. 2008. Large-scale vulnerability assessments for natural hazards. Natural Hazards 47,
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)

143-155. [CrossRef]
89. Susan L. Cutter, Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric Tate, Jennifer Webb. 2008. A
place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18, 598-606.
[CrossRef]
90. Julia Becker, David Johnston, Heather Lazrus, George Crawford, Dave Nelson. 2008. Use of traditional knowledge in
emergency management for tsunami hazard. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 17:4, 488-502.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Geoff O'Brien. 2008. UK emergency preparedness: a holistic response?. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal 17:2, 232-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Fran H. Norris, Susan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche, Rose L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. Community Resilience
as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology
41, 127-150. [CrossRef]
93. Mark B. Salter. 2007. SeMS and sensibility: Security management systems and the management of risk in the Canadian Air
Transport Security Authority. Journal of Air Transport Management 13, 389-398. [CrossRef]
94. J. S. Becker, D. M. Johnston, D. Paton, G. T. Hancox, T. R. Davies, M. J. McSaveney, V. R. Manville. 2007. Response
to Landslide Dam Failure Emergencies: Issues Resulting from the October 1999 Mount Adams Landslide and Dam-Break
Flood in the Poerua River, Westland, New Zealand. Natural Hazards Review 8, 35-42. [CrossRef]
95. Brenda L. Murphy. 2007. Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management. Natural Hazards 41,
297-315. [CrossRef]
96. Paulina Aldunce, Alejandro León. 2007. Opportunities for improving disaster management in Chile: a case study. Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal 16:1, 33-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Siambabala Bernard Manyena. 2006. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 30, 434-450. [CrossRef]
98. Liang-Chun Chen, Yi-Chung Liu, Kuei-Chi Chan. 2006. Integrated Community-Based Disaster Management Program in
Taiwan: A Case Study of Shang-An Village. Natural Hazards 37, 209-223. [CrossRef]
99. Pat Deeny, Brian McFetridge. 2005. The Impact of Disaster on Culture, Self, and Identity: Increased Awareness by Health
Care Professionals is Needed. Nursing Clinics of North America 40, 431-440. [CrossRef]
100. Geoff O'Brien, Paul Read. 2005. Future UK emergency management: new wine, old skin?. Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal 14:3, 353-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Dale Dominey-Howes, Despina Minos-Minopoulos. 2004. Perceptions of hazard and risk on Santorini. Journal of Volcanology
and Geothermal Research 137, 285-310. [CrossRef]
102. Shaul Kimhi, Michal Shamai. 2004. Community resilience and the impact of stress: Adult response to Israel's withdrawal
from Lebanon. Journal of Community Psychology 32:10.1002/jcop.v32:4, 439-451. [CrossRef]
103. YUK-HIU SZE, WAI-FONG TING. 2004. When Civil Society Meets Emerging Systemic Risks. Asia Pacific Journal of Social
Work and Development 14, 33-50. [CrossRef]
 104. Amlan Mitra, Gideon Falk, Casimir C. Barczyk. 2003. Environmental compliance by chemical facilities with Emergency
Planning and Community Right‐To‐Know Act. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 12:2, 91-96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Tara K. McGee, Stefanie Russell. 2003. “It's just a natural way of life…” an investigation of wildfire preparedness in rural
Australia. Environmental Hazards 5, 1-12. [CrossRef]
106. Jaime Santos-Reyes, Alan N. BeardInformation Communication Technology and a Systemic Disaster Management System
Model 294-308. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Waterloo At 01:23 14 October 2014 (PT)