Theconceptofresilience-abibliometricanalysisoftheemergencyanddisastermanagementliterature.pdf

The concept of resilience: a bibliometric analysis ofthe emergency and disaster management literature

Fatih Demiroz and Thomas W. Haase

Department of Political Science, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

ABSTRACTResilience has become an important concept in the fields of emergency anddisaster management. Despite the increased use of resilience in the academicand public policy arenas, the intellectual topography of this subject as itrelates to emergency and disaster management contexts remains under-inves-tigated. This article provides a snapshot of the intellectual structure of resi-lience studies. Using bibliometric data collected from 20 emergency anddisaster management journals, this article argues that the interdisciplinarynature of resilience research comes from its historical roots. The findings alsodemonstrate that resilience research in the emergency and disaster manage-ment fields is organised into three primary clusters: environmental and eco-logical issues, emergency and disaster management, and public policy andadministration. The article concludes with implications for policymakers, aswell as recommendations for future research.

KEYWORDS Resilience; community resilience; emergency management; disaster management;bibliometric analysis; homeland security

Introduction

Resilience has become a central concept for those engaged in the practice ofemergency and disaster management. President Obama, for example, issuedPresidential Policy Directive/PPD-8, which called for the strengthening of thecountry’s security and resilience ‘through systematic preparation for the threatsthat pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation, including acts ofterrorism, cyber-attacks, pandemics, and catastrophic natural disasters’(United States 2011, 1). In line with the aspirations of PPD-8, the UnitedStates’ Department of Homeland Security and Department of State identifiedresilience to be a core component of their National Preparedness Plan andNational Security Strategy (United States 2010, 2011). These developmentshave not been restricted to the United States. According to the SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which was adopted by the international

CONTACT Fatih Demiroz [email protected] Department of Political Science, Sam HoustonState University, Humanities and Social Sciences Building, 1901 Avenue I, Box 2149, Huntsville Texas77341-2149, USA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES2019, VOL. 45, NO. 3, 308–327https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1541796

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

community on 18 March 2015, the pursuit of disaster resilience has not onlybecome a priority for action for national governments, it has also become apriority for local governments, the private sector, and other community stake-holders (Aitsi-Selmi et al. 2015; Kelman and Glantz 2015; Reinhardt andChatsiou this issue; Drennan and Morrisey this issue).

In parallel with the emergence of resilience as a public policy priority,scholars and governments undertook efforts to develop a consensus on howresilience should be conceptualised, promoted,measured, and assessed (Cutter2016; Olson 2011; National Research Council 2011, 2012). Notwithstanding thecontributions of these efforts, resilience remains an elusive concept. There aretwo reasons for this intellectual quandary. First, investigations of resilience havenot progressed in a unified or systematic fashion. Rather, the concept ofresilience has been used to investigate or explain a variety of social and naturalphenomena (Comfort, Boin, and Demchak 2010). As a result, ‘resilience’ hascome to encompassmultiple meanings, which differ depending on the circum-stances and contexts in which the word is employed (Manyena 2006, 2014).

Second, the nebulous nature of the resilience concept has attractedscholars from fields such as crisis management, ecology, psychology, secur-ity studies, sociology, computer science, and public administration to thesubject. While the efforts of these scholars have created a rich tapestry ofresilience perspectives, some of which have been converted into publicpolicy goals, these perspectives are built upon a multitude of definitionsand conceptualisations, some of which are mutually exclusive (Comfort,Boin, and Demchak, 2010; Cutter 2016). Consequently, the resilience litera-ture has become difficult to navigate, and by extension, to understand howthe schools of resilience thinking are organised and relate to one another, ifat all. Without a conceptual map, those interested in resilience may missopportunities to understand what resilience may or may not mean. Theymay also miss opportunities to advance resilience thinking, either by seek-ing opportunities to identify and resolve definitional or conceptual gaps orby learning from resilience scholarship that exists within different intellec-tual domains. To address these shortcomings in the resilience literature, thisarticle maps the intellectual structure of resilience thinking as it is discussedwithin the fields of emergency and disaster management (Carpenter et al.2001). The findings generated by this analysis will not only provide insightsinto the substance and intellectual boundaries of resilience research, theywill also provide guidance to local and state officials who are interested inthe development, implementation, and evaluation of resilience policies.

The remainder of this article is organised as follows: The next sectionprovides a brief review of the resilience literature, describing how contempor-ary scholarship has conceptualised resilience, the attributes or properties ofresilience, and the factors that promote or inhibit resilience. In Section 3, wereview the methods we employed to collect and analyse the data used to

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 309

conduct our investigation of resilience thinking within emergency and disastermanagement journals. Here we also explain why, despite the breadth anddepth of the resilience literature, we limited the focus of this study to the fieldsof emergency and disaster management. Then, in Section 4, we report thefindings generated by this study, which reveal the diversity and complexity ofresilience thinking as it is has been explored by emergency and disastermanagement scholars. In Section 5, we discuss the implications of these find-ings and advance recommendations for how to promote resilience as a focus ofscholarship and public policy. Section 6 brings the article to a close.

Literature review

Contemporary discussions of resilience, especially those related to disasterand emergency management, are built upon the work of the ecologist C. S.Holling. In his exploration of stability and change in ecological systems,Holling (1973) conceptualises resilience as a measure of an ecological system’s‘ability to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters,and still exist.’ Disaster management researchers and policymakers haveadopted derivatives of Holling’s conceptualisation of resilience. For example,in their exploration of how to strengthen communities against seismic risk,Bruneau et al. (2003b, 735) defines resilience as ‘as the ability of social units(e.g., organisations, communities) to mitigate hazards, contain the effects ofdisasters when they occur, and carry out recovery activities in ways thatminimise social disruption and mitigate the effects of future earthquakes.’Similarly, Comfort, Boin, and Demchak (2010, 9) define resilience as the‘capacity of a social system (e.g., an organisation, city, or society) to proac-tively adapt to and recover from disturbances that are perceived within thesystem to fall outside the range of normal and expected disturbances’.

Although there has been substantial emphasis on the promotion of resi-lience as a public policy goal, researchers and policymakers have yet to reacha consensus on the precise meaning of resilience (Manyena 2006, 2014). Thedefinitional challenge is, in part, related to the differences in which research-ers have come to conceptualise resilience (de Bruijne, Boin, and van Eeten2010). For instance, one line of scholarship frames resilience as a system’scapacity to resist a disturbance. Scholars that explore this line of inquiry tendto have backgrounds in engineering and computer science, and they oftenargue that resilience can be promoted through system redundancy (Bruneauet al. 2003a) or the use of reinforced construction techniques (Chang et al.2010). A second line of scholarship frames resilience as a system’s capacity toabsorb a disturbance, in other words, to ‘bounce back’ or ‘return to’ the statusquo. Scholars that explore this line of inquiry often focus on how social capital(Aldrich 2011) and government institutions (Davis and Robbin 2015) canfacilitate the rapid restoration of social and lifeline services in the days and

310 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

weeks after a disaster. A third line of scholarship frames resilience as asystem’s capacity to adapt, or bounce forward, in response to a disturbance(Manyena et al. 2011). This line of inquiry explores how disasters serve as a‘catalyst for change’ (Paton and Johnston 2006), or more specifically, how thecollection and distribution of information after a disaster event can helpsystems of organisations to learn to adapt their structure and activities with-out a loss of capacity (Comfort, Boin, and Demchak 2010).

There is also a divergence in the resilience literature on what constitutesthe attributes or properties of resilience. For instance, in her analysis ofcommunity resilience along the Gulf Coast, Ross conceptualises resilienceas a set of capacities and processes that facilitate adaptation (Ross 2013).According to Ross (2013), resilience is driven by four different attributes.These attributes include the use of improvisation to identify local solutionsto community problems, the effective coordination of resources to ensurethat community needs are met, and community engagement activities thatgenerate ‘buy-in’ from decision-makers, critical stakeholders, and commu-nity groups. The fourth attribute is endurance, which means that disasterrecovery activities emphasise long-term solutions for the community inquestion. Others adopt a different approach, for example, by arguing thatresilience has four fundamental properties: robustness, redundancy, resour-cefulness, and rapidity (Tierney and Bruneau 2007).

The resilience literature also focuses on questions of measurement, asscholars have sought to identify and operationalise the factors, or domains, ofresilience. This line of inquiry focuses on the identification of the communityassets, referred to as capital, that contribute to the existence or development ofresilience. As an illustrative example, the Community Disaster ResilienceFramework (CDRF), developed by Peacock et al. (2010), considers the role ofsocial, economic, physical, and human capital towards resilience within each ofthe four phases of the disaster cycle. Likewise, the Baseline Resilience Indicatorsfor Communities (BRIC) model explores six different domains, which includesocial, economic, housing and infrastructure, institutional, community, andenvironmental considerations (Cutter, Ash, and Emrich 2014). As a final exam-ple, Ross (2013) argues there are six dimensions of resilience: social capacity,community capital, economic capacity, institutional capacity, infrastructurecapacity, and ecological capacity. These dimensions are summarised in Table 1.

Perhaps because of the breadth of perspectives that fall under the label ofresilience thinking, the concept of resilience has been readily adopted andapplied to problems in the fields of emergency and disaster management.Examples include maritime security (Sauser, Mansouri, and Omer 2011), freighttransportation (Adams, Bekkem, and Toledo-Durán 2012), economic losses(Cardona et al. 2008), the training of emergency services personnel (Varkerand Devilly 2012), housing (Ahmed 2016), and critical infrastructure systems(Croope and McNeil 2011). Notwithstanding the importance of the findings

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 311

generated by the scholars who investigate such issues, the complexity andcontinued expansion of the resilience literature are obstacles that must benavigated before local and national officials can fully leverage resilience think-ing and undertake the actions necessary to realise potential of resilience as apublic policy goal.

Methods

We employed bibliometric research tools to investigate the substance andstructure of resilience thinking in the emergency and disaster managementliterature. Bibliometric research tools can be applied to author and journalcitations and other metadata to evaluate the performance and effectivenessof research institutions, academic journals, and individual scholars (Zhao andStrotmann 2015). According to Cronin (1984, 25), citations represent ‘frozenfootprints on the landscape of scholarly achievement.’More precisely, citationscan reveal connections between an individual author and a subject, topic,methodology, school of thought, and other authors (Adams et al. 2016). AsZhao and Strotmann (2015, 2) indicate, researchers can use citation analysis to:‘(1) assess information sources and evaluate scholarly contributions, (2) mapresearch fields to study their intellectual structures, (3) track knowledge flowsand the diffusion of ideas, (4) study users and uses of scholarly literature, and (5)assist with information organisation, representation, and retrieval.’

We initiated data collection by securing a list of emergency and disastermanagement journals prepared by North Dakota State University’sDepartment of Emergency Management (2017). This list identifies 24 peer-reviewed journals whose missions focus on the publication of empirical andtheoretical scholarship in the fields of emergency and disaster management(North Dakota State University 2017). To ensure we captured the broadestrange of publications, we checked whether the metadata needed to com-plete this study could be extracted from either the SCOPUS database or theWeb of Science (WoS) database. The SCOPUS database contained twenty of

Table 1. The six dimensions of resilience (Ross 2013, 94 and 95).Social capacity: The aggregation of a community’s characteristics, including age, educational

levels, wealth, and language capacity that translate to able, mobile, andresource-enabled individuals in the event of a disaster.

Communitycapital:

Refers to the connectedness of community members that enable cooperationand collaboration in disaster planning, response and recovery.

Economiccapacity:

Refers to the robustness and diversity of a community’s economy.

Institutionalcapacity:

Concerns the plans and preparations a community has made for disasters.

Infrastructurecapacity:

Refers to a community’s basic public service capacity in terms of shelter, roads,and medical facilities that may be needed in the event of a disaster.

Ecologicalcapacity:

Speaks to how community development has affected natural coastal barrierssuch as wetlands.

312 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

the twenty-four journals. In contrast, the WOS database only containedfourteen of the twenty-four journals. Additionally, we did not use GoogleScholar because of concerns about data indexing, comprehensiveness, andaccessibility (Jacsó 2010, 2005). We therefore used the metadata from theSCOPUS database to conduct our analysis. The journals indexed in theSCOPUS database and included in this study, as well as the journals not-indexed in SOCPUS, are identified in Table 2.

To collect the data needed for our analysis, we searched the twenty journalsindexed in SCOPUS for articles that contained the keywords resilience, resiliency,and resilient in their titles, abstracts, or author identified keywords. After weexcluded non-research publications such as book reviews, editorials, and com-mentaries from our results, we were left with 1,096 relevant resilience articles.We downloaded themetadata for these articles from the SCOPUS database. Webegan our analysis of the metadata using the Bibliometrix package that isavailable for R, an open source programming language used to conductstatistical analysis (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017). We used Bibliometrix to calculatebibliometric statistics, including summary statistics of the articles analyzed,citation counts and rankings, and the keyword analysis.

To analyse the keywords, we used Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA),which is a data analysis technique that can be applied to categorical data. Weselected MCA because it can be used to identify the thematic structures thatexist within a set of keywords. The MCA technique clusters keywords according

Table 2. Alphabetical list of emergency and disaster management journals indexed inSCOPUS, 1984–2018.Journal name ISSN number

Disaster Prevention and Management 0965–3562Disasters 1467–7717Environmental Hazards 1878–0059Environmental Management 1432–1009International Journal of Disaster Resilience in The Built Environment 1759–5908International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2212–4209International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2192–6395International Journal of Emergency Management 1741-5071International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 0280-7270Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 2072-845XJournal of Crisis and Contingencies Management 1468-5973Journal of Disaster Research 1881-2473Journal of Emergency Management 1543-5865Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 1547-7355Natural Hazards 1573-0840Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 1684-9981Natural Hazards Review 1527-6996Risk Analysis 1539-6924Risk Management 1743-4637Risk, Hazards, & Crisis in Public Policy 1944-4079Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management Not IndexedJournal of Natural Disaster Science Not IndexedRevista Internacional de Desastres Naturales, Accidentes e Infrastructura Civil In SpanishDisaster Communications – A Frontiers Journal Not Indexed

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 313

to their closeness, which is a numerical representation of how frequently wordsare used together. For example, if two keywords are commonly used together(e.g., disaster mitigation and built environment), then it is likely that thesewords will be clustered together. In other words, when keywords have a highcloseness score, they are highly associated, and are often clustered. An advan-tage of MCA is that the method is not subject to restrictive data reductionassumptions connected to the analysis of continuous data (Aria and Cuccurullo2017; Cuccurullo, Aria, and Sarto 2016).

Although innumerable number of peer-reviewed journals have publishedresearch on resilience, journals whose missions focus on fields such as publicadministration, political science, sociology, psychology, humanitarian inter-vention, and civil engineering were excluded from consideration. This ana-lytical boundary was drawn for two reasons. Theoretically, this study wasdriven by an interest in the development and evolution of resilience think-ing as experienced by emergency and disaster management scholars andtheir practitioner audience. Practically, because there are numerous peer-reviewed journals and books fall outside of the SCOPUS database, it is notpossible to develop a dataset that would enable us to capture the full rangeof publications that address resilience thinking. We recognise that thisanalytical boundary limits our ability to map the content and structure ofresilience thinking in its entirety. Thus, we caution against generalising thisarticle’s findings to fields other than emergency and disaster management.Recognising this limitation, a more comprehensive analysis of publicationsthat address resilience thinking will be the focus of subsequent research.

Findings

The SCOPUS dataset contained 1,096 separate articles by a total of 2,863authors. Looking at the dataset in its entirety, these 2,863 authors use 2,729different keywords to classify their articles. Additionally, the average citationcount per article equals 12.53 citations (median = 3), which signifies there arefew articles with high numbers of citations andmany articles with few citations.Shifting the focus to authorship, the dataset contains 171 single-authoredarticles on resilience. The other 925 articles are co-authored by a total of2,692 different individuals. The average number of co-authors per article is3.17 (standard deviation = 2.16), which suggests that resilience articles tend tobe the result of collaborative research efforts. Summary statistics of these dataare presented in Table 3.

Growth of the resilience literature

As indicated in the literature review, contemporary interests in the concept ofresilience emerged during the 1970s. Scholars writing in the fields of

314 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

emergency and disaster management, however, did not begin to embraceresilience thinking until the end of the twentieth century. The resilienceresearch published by these scholars can be grouped into three periods, asFigure 1 indicates. The first period falls between 1984 and 2002, when thenumber of resilience publications totals 5 or fewer articles per year. The averagenumber of publications during this period is 2.4 articles per year. The secondperiod falls between 2003 and 2008, when interest in resilience thinkingexpanded after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. During this period,authors published 74 articles (or an average of 12.33 articles per year) onresilience. The third period began in 2009, when the number of publishedresilience articles doubled the number published in 2008 (30 articles versus 12articles). After 2009, the number of resilience publications further increased,reaching 100 articles in 2013. By 2017, the publication rate doubles, with thepublication of 217 articles on resilience. Together, these data indicate that atotal of 923 resilience articles were published in disaster and emergencymanagement journals between 2009 and 2017, which represents an averageof 102.55 resilience articles per year.

The trends revealed in Figure 1 correspond with the integration of theresilience concept into government policies and the expansion of resilienceresearch. As noted by Kahan (2015), the United States government did not fullyembrace resilience until 2007, when the Homeland Security Council maderesilience a component of critical infrastructure protection in the second edi-tion of the National Strategy for Homeland Security. In 2008, Congress expressedan interest in resilience and declaredMay 2008 as the ‘ResilienceMonth’ (Kahan2015, 7). Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security integrated resi-lience into its 2008–2014 strategic plan, and various government agencies andresearch institutions began to publish reports that emphasised resilience(Kahan 2015). The government’s interest in resilience became even moresalient with the publication of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review andPresidential Policy Directive – 8 in 2010, which embraced resilience as a centralgoal of emergency and disaster management policy at the national level.

Table 3. Summary bibliographic statistics for emergency and dis-aster management journals indexed in SCOPUS, 1984–2018.Articles 1,096Sources (Journals) 20Author’s Keywords 2,729Period 1984–2018Average citations per article 12.53Authors 2,863Authors of single authored articles 171Authors of multi authored articles 2,692Articles per Author 0.383Authors per Article 2.61Co-Authors per Articles 3.17

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 315

Similar shifts have occurred at the local level (Change et al. 2018) and theinternational level (Windsor et al. this issue). For example, the internationalcommunity adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015,which made resilience a policy priority for public, private, and non-profitstakeholders (United Nations 2015).

Keyword conceptual boundaries

The next step in our analysis investigated whether the keywords used by theauthors to classify their resilience articles clustered around general themes.The twenty-five most prevalent keywords associated with the articles in ourdataset are identified in Table 4. These data indicate that the most prevalentkeywords, in descending order, are resilience (which appeared in 30% ofarticles), disaster (10.6%), vulnerability (8.75%), disaster risk reduction (5.75%),flood (5.56%), and climate change (5.48%). In terms of thematic clusters,several of the keywords can be grouped together by disaster type andenvironmental conditions, for example, floods (5.56%), climate change(5.48%), tsunami (2.55%), and earthquakes (2.28%). Another thematic clustercentres on elements of the disaster cycles, including preparedness (1.55%),mitigation (1.36%), disaster preparedness (0.9%), and recovery (1.9%). Overall,however, the keywords analysis indicates that resilience research under-taken by emergency and disaster management scholars focuses on issuesrelated to vulnerability (8.75%), management (7.48%), communities (3.19%),adaptation (3%), risk (3%), and risk management (2.73%).

1 1 1 15 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 4 5 4

11 812 15

1612

3035

41

70

100

117

152

161

217

0

50

100

150

200

250

1984

1985

1986

1988

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Figure 1. Annual number of resilience articles published in emergency and disastermanagement journals indexed in SCOPUS, 1984–2018.

316 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

We then conducted the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) of thekeywords included in our dataset. The conceptual structure of the keywordsassociated with the resilience articles included in this study is presented inFigure 2. These data indicate that the articles included in our analysis can beorganised into three primary clusters, which represent the intellectual structureof resilience thinking as addressed by emergency and disaster managementjournals. While a comprehensive review of the content of these three clusters isbeyond the scope of this article, a few illustrative examples demonstrate thediversity, breadth, and intellectual thrust of thework undertaken in each cluster.

The first cluster contains keywords associated with articles that empha-sise the ecological and environmental aspects of resilience. Drawing fromconcepts that overlap with the transformational work of Holling (1973), thiscluster is comprised of 22 separate keywords. The representative keywordsidentified in this cluster include adaptation, disaster risk, culture, sustainabil-ity, resistance, drought, adaptive capacity, social-ecological systems, adaptivemanagement, sea level rise, disturbance, and climate change adaptation.While the articles that fell into this cluster address a variety of topics, thecluster contains three important sub-themes. First, there is an emphasis onsocial-ecological systems (Olsson, Folke, and Berkes 2004) as well as anemphasis on the indicators of resilience in the social, ecological, and builtenvironment (Norton et al. 2009). Second, several articles address environ-mental conditions related to climate change (Lo and Chan 2017) andhazards (Thomalla and Larsen 2010), as well as topics such as risk (Govind2016) and vulnerability (Joakim, Mortsch, and Oulahen 2015). Another set ofarticles focus on system disturbances (Reice, Wissmar, and Naiman 1990),and considered how systems might respond to a disturbance, for example,through resistance (McEntire 2003), adaption (Djalante, Holley, and Thomalla2011), or learning (Berkes 2007).

Table 4. Most prevalent author keywords for resilience articles published in emergencyand disaster management journals indexed in SCOPUS, 1984–2018.

RankAuthor

Keywords Frequency RankAuthor

Keywords Frequency

1 Resilience 321 14 Emergency Management 312 Disaster 116 15 Risk Management 303 Vulnerability 96 16 Tsunami 284 Disaster Risk Reduction 63 17 Earthquake 255 Flood 61 18 Built Environment 236 Climate Change 60 19 Recovery 217 Community Resilience 45 20 Social Capital 218 Disaster Resilience 40 21 Disaster Recovery 209 Community 35 22 Preparedness 1710 Adaptation 33 23 Adaptive Capacity 1611 Natural Disaster 33 24 Sustainability 1612 Risk 32 25 Climate Change Adaptation 1513 Disaster Management 31

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 317

The second cluster is comprised of keywords associated with articles thataddress the concepts and analytical tools used to support public policy andadministrative decision-making. This cluster is comprised of 36 separate key-words, including disaster risk management, collaboration, governance, urbanplanning, stakeholders, and risk analysis. One of the tools discussed by authorsin this cluster is collaboration. For instance, Mandal et al. (2016) consider theimportance of collaboration for maintaining the capacity within logistics andsupply chains. A similar argument is advanced by Fitzpatrick andMolloy (2014),who explore the how non-governmental organisations contribute to the devel-opment of community resilience. Authors within this cluster also discuss therole of governance, and how it can help or hinder the development andimplementation of resilience strategies (Jones, Oven, and Wisner 2016; Wanieand Ndi 2018). Another tool that receives extensive attention is urban planning,as authors would explore case studies where urban planning (or the lackthereof) helps or hinders the promotion of resilience (Valdes and Purcell2013). Finally, shifting the focus to the analysis of stakeholders, Perera,

Figure 2. Conceptual map of author keywords in resilience articles published inemergency and disaster management journals indexed in SCOPUS, 1984–2018.

318 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

Adeniyi, and Babatunde (2017) argue that the development of resiliencedepends on the extent to which built environment professionals understandthe needs and skills possessed by the stakeholders in given community.

The third cluster is comprised of keywords associated with themes central tothe field of emergency and disaster management. This cluster, the largestcluster identified in our analysis, contains 41 separate keywords. This clusterincludes keywords such as flood, risk perception, urban resilience, disaster riskreduction, disaster management, preparedness, hurricanes, crisis management,evacuation, and social media. More specifically, these articles contain generaldiscussions about resilience in the emergency and disaster management con-text (Hirata 2017). Other articles contain specific discussions about the relation-ship between resilience, social vulnerability, floods, and evacuation policy (Vink,Takeuchi, and Kibler 2014), or explore how risk perception and risk manage-ment affects the resilience of special needs populations (Engelman et al. 2017).Many articles also explore how to strengthen a community’s capacity tomanage the four phases of disaster management: preparedness (Bowles,Anderson, and Vaughan 2016), mitigation (Wilson and Cole 2007), response(Liu et al. 2016), and recovery (Mannakkara and Wilkinson 2016). In terms ofgeographical emphasis, this cluster contains articles with keywords that refer-ence countries throughout Asia and Oceania, including Australia (Ryan et al.2018), New Zealand (Kwok et al. 2016), Japan (Achour et al. 2014), thePhilippines (Uy, Takeuchi, and Shaw 2012), and China (Chang et al. 2010).

Discussion

Public policy makers who are interested in resilience, especially those thatwork at the state and local levels of government, seek the means to minimiseand overcome the risks and impacts of hazards through the development ofresilient communities. Communities, however, are complex and dynamicconstructions that are comprised of natural and built environments (wetlands,residential areas, rivers, levies, etc.), individuals, and economic, political, andsocial institutions. Given the findings presented above, it is critical that policy-makers approach discussions about resilience with caution, not because theresilience literature does not have much to offer. Rather, it is for precisely theopposite reason, because the resilience literature may have too much to offer.Accordingly, we believe that these findings have three primary implicationsfor policymakers (and researchers) interested in resilience thinking.

First, those who seek to promote community resilience need to be awarethat the resilience literature is vast and diverse. Given the distance thatseparates the intellectual clusters within the resilience literature, policymakersshould note that the findings and recommendation advanced by researchscholars and consultants may be driven by assumptions and resilience con-ceptions that are informed by a single intellectual cluster. As our findings

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 319

suggest, resilience articles differ in terms of in terms of their substantivecontent and intellectual impact. Thus, to really understand resilience thinking,especially cutting-edge resilience thinking, a basic familiarity with the his-tories, assumptions, and foci of the different intellectual groups (clusters) sub-groups that make up the structure of resilience thinking is essential.

Second, those interested in resilience thinking must also be aware thatdefinitions and conceptualisations of resilience not only differ but they alsomatter. Despite more than 30years of contemporary interest in resiliencethinking, the explorations of remain in an early stage of development. This isevidenced by the fact that there are multiple, and at times competing, defini-tions of resilience. Some definitions emphasise structural resilience (resistance),some emphasise elasticity (bouncing back), while others emphasise adaptation(bouncing forward). The point is not that any one of these definitions shouldtake precedent. Rather, it is that these definitions are based upon differentassumptions about how a resilient system operates, and more importantly,how a system will recover from a disturbance (Carlson 2018). While a unifyingdefinition or conceptualisation of resilience may never emerge (Kahan 2015),those who seek to strengthen the resilience of their communities must takecare to adopt the definitions and conceptualisations that match the specificneeds of their community. For example, whereas the structural conceptualisa-tion of resiliencemay be appropriate for discussions about the construction of alevee system, this conceptualisation may not be appropriate for discussionsabout how to strengthen social and technical systems, which may need toabsorb or adapt to different types of disruptions.

Building upon this point, policymakers should note that context matterswhen it comes to understandings of, and prescriptions for, resilience (Goidelet al. this issue). Simply put, there is no single recipe for the development ofresilience. The steps that taken to promote resilience in one community maynot work outside of that community’s contextual environment. This is becauseeach community is unique. Even when two communities are geographicallysituated next to each other, they may still be separated by regional differences,jurisdictional differences, linguistic differences, cultural differences, as well asdifferences in risk perception, and governmental capacity. Such differencesmust be acknowledged and taken into consideration. This means that policy-makers who are involved in emergency and disaster management planningmust understand the context of their community, including its hazards, risks,demographic characteristics, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. In somecommunities, the promotion of resilience might require the construction ofinfrastructure that can mitigate risk. In other communities, the promotion ofresilience might only require public education, thereby empowering the mem-bers of the community to manage their own risk.

This study confirms the conventional wisdom that the emergency anddisaster management literatures do not provide a unified approach to

320 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

questions about resilience. The general implication that can be taken from thisfinding is that there is, to date, no single way to define, measure, and promoteresilience in our communities. Consequently, policymakers must be aware ofthe complex nature of resilience thinking, and equally important, possess theknowledge needed to navigate multiple, and often conflictual, streams ofresilience literature. Failing to recognise the realities of the resilience literaturecan place policymakers at risk of adopting policy goals that are vague or evenincompatible with the goals pursued by different jurisdictions and organisa-tions (Reid and Botterill 2013). Additionally, policymakers run the risk of adopt-ing and implementing resilience programs that cannot be evaluated in terms oftheir effectiveness, which may lead to the inefficient use of resources.

Conclusion

This article presents the findings of a bibliometric analysis of 1096 articles onresilience published in twenty emergency and disaster management journalsbetween 1984 and 2018. The findings indicate that the concept of resiliencereceived increased attention towards the beginning of the twenty-first century,but particularly after 2008. The United States government seems to have playeda role in this interest through the provision of policies and resources thatsupported resilience research efforts (Brose 2015; Institute of Medicine 2015;Magsino 2009; National Research Council 2002, 2011; Olson 2011; NationalResearch Council 2012). Additionally, the findings generated by our keywordanalysis revealed that the resilience literature, as it exists within the fields ofemergency and disaster management, is organised into three clusters. AsFigure 2 indicates, these three clusters were classified as the ecological cluster(cluster 1), the emergencymanagement cluster (cluster 2), and the public policyand administration cluster (cluster 3).

Our substantive analysis of these clusters reveals that ecologists are espe-cially involved in resilience research and they are followed by scholars whofocus on the built environment and disaster mitigation. Like the findingsreported by other bibliographic investigations into the resilience literature(Janssen et al. 2006; Janssen 2007), we believe that these results reflect thedevelopment and evolution of resilience studies over time, especially as thesediscussions relate to issues of emergency and disaster management. While earlystudies of resilience were conducted by ecologists, and they continue to makesubstantial contributions to our understandings of resilience, the findings alsoreveal the increasing influence of resilience scholars from domains such aspublic policy, public administration, and network governance. The cluster find-ings also parallel previous research in another important way. The fact that theintellectual structure of resilience scholarship in the fields of emergency anddisaster management is divided into three clusters reflects supports the con-ventional wisdom that resilience research remains situated within distinct

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 321

scholarly disciplines, each of which adopt different approaches to the conceptof resilience (Janssen et al. 2006). While this situation is understandable, giventhe growth and interdisciplinary nature of the subject, it does pose challengesfor policymakers and researchers who are interested in learning aboutresilience.

This article’s findings indicate that research efforts should be directedtowards to development of resilience knowledge that can inform publicpolicy. We do not suggest that contemporary resilience scholarship has notcreated usable knowledge. Rather, we suggest that scholars more fullyembrace the interdisciplinary nature of resilience thinking and seek oppor-tunities to cross the disciplinary silos that exist within the emergency anddisaster management literature that is related to the topic of resilience. Forexample, the complex adaptive systems perspectives explored by ecologistscould provide emergency management and public administration scholarswith insights as to how to promote adaptation and change within the socialand organisational systems central to our communities (Thoren 2014).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of Political Science, the College ofHumanities and Social Sciences, and the Center for the Study of Disasters andEmergency Management, Sam Houston State University.

Notes on contributors

Fatih Demiroz is an assistant professor of public administration at Sam Houston StateUniversity. His research focuses on resilience, crisis and disaster management, com-plex systems, social and organizational networks, and governance.

Thomas W. Haase is an assistant professor of public administration at theDepartment of Political Science at Sam Houston State University, where his teachingportfolio includes courses on international disaster management, community andsocial resilience, and program evaluation. His research focuses on issues of disastermanagement, community resilience, and public administration education.

References

Achour, N., M.Miyajima, F. Pascale, and A. D. F. Price. 2014. “Hospital Resilience to NaturalHazards: Classification and Performance of Utilities.” Disaster Prevention andManagement: an International Journal 23 (1): 40–52. doi:10.1108/DPM-03-2013-0057.

322 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

Adams, T., K. Bekkem, and E. Toledo-Durán. 2012. “Freight Resilience Measures.”Journal of Transportation Engineering 138 (11): 1403–1409. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000415.

Adams, W. C., D. Lind Infeld, K. L. Wikrent, and O. Bintou Cisse. 2016. “NetworkBibliometrics of Public Policy Journals.” Policy Studies Journal 44 (May): S133–51.doi:10.1111/psj.12149.

Ahmed, I. 2016. “Housing and Resilience: Case Studies from the Cook Islands.”International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 7 (5): 489–500.doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2015-0047.

Aitsi-Selmi, A., S. Egawa, H. Sasaki, C. Wannous, and V. Murray. 2015. “The SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Renewing the Global Commitment toPeople’s Resilience, Health, and Well-Being.” International Journal of Disaster RiskScience 6 (2): 164–176. doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9.

Aldrich, D. P. 2011. “The Power of People: Social Capital’s Role in Recovery from the 1995Kobe Earthquake.” Natural Hazards 56 (3): 595–611. doi:10.1007/s11069-010-9577-7.

Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017. “Bibliometrix : An R-Tool for Comprehensive ScienceMapping Analysis.” Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

Berkes, F. 2007. “Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessonsfrom Resilience Thinking.” Natural Hazards 41 (2): 283–295. doi:10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7.

Bowles, R., G. S. Anderson, and C. Vaughan. 2016. “Building Resilient Communities: AFacilitated Discussion.” Journal of Emergency Management 14 (4): 233–243.doi:10.5055/jem.2016.0289.

Brose, D. 2015. Developing a Framework for Measuring Community Resilience:Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

Bruneau, M., S. Chang, R. Eguchi, G. Lee, T. O’Rourke, A. Reinhorn, M. Shinozuka, K.Tierney, W. A. Wallace, and D. von Winterfeldt. 2003b. “A Framework toQuantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities.”Earthquake Spectra 19 (4): 733–752. doi:10.1193/1.1623497.

Bruneau, M., S. E. Chang, R. T. Eguchi, G. C. Lee, T. D. O’Rourke, A. M. Reinhorn, M.Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W. A. Wallace, and D. von Winterfeldt. 2003a. “A Frameworkto Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities.”Earthquake Spectra 19 (4): 733–752. doi:10.1193/1.1623497.

Cardona, O. D., M. G. Ordaz, M. C. Marulanda, and A. H. Barbat. 2008. “Estimation ofProbabilistic Seismic Losses and the Public Economic Resilience – An Approach fora Macroeconomic Impact Evaluation.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12: 60–70.doi:10.1080/13632460802013511.

Carlson, E. 2018. “Vigilant Resilience: The Possibilities for Renewal throughPreparedness.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 23 (2): 212–225. doi:10.1108/CCIJ-04-2017-0030.

Carpenter, S., J. Brian Walker, M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. “From Metaphor toMeasurement: Resilience of What to What?” Ecosystems 4 (8): 765–781.doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9.

Chang, Y., S. Wilkinson, E. Seville, and R. Potangaroa. 2010. “Resourcing for aResilient Post-Disaster Reconstruction Environment.” International Journal ofDisaster Resilience in the Built Environment 1 (1): 65–83. doi:10.1108/17595901011026481.

Change, R., A. Greer, H. Murphy, W. Tristan, and S. Melton. 2018. “EarthquakePreparedness in Oklahoma: Local Government Strategies to Address and

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 323

Emerging Hazard.” In Southern Political Science Association Annual Conference. NewOrleans, LA.

Comfort, L. K., A. Boin, and C. C. Demchak . 2010. Designing Resilience: Preparing forExtreme Events. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cronin, B. 1984. Citation Process: Role and Significance of Citations in ScientificCommunication. London: Taylor Graham.

Croope, S. V., and S. McNeil. 2011. “Improving Resilience of Critical InfrastructureSystems Postdisaster Recovery and Mitigation.” Transportation Research Record2234: 3–13. doi:10.3141/2234-01.

Cuccurullo, C., M. Aria, and F. Sarto. 2016. “Foundations and Trends in PerformanceManagement. A Twenty-Five Years Bibliometric Analysis in Business and PublicAdministration Domains.” Scientometrics 108 (2): 595–611. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1948-8.

Cutter, S. L. 2016. “The Landscape of Disaster Resilience Indicators in the USA.”Natural Hazards 80 (2): 741–758. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1993-2.

Cutter, S. L., K. D. Ash, and C. T. Emrich. 2014. “The Geographies of CommunityDisaster Resilience.” Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions29 (November): 65–77. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005.

Davis, G. L., and A. Robbin. 2015. “Network Disaster Response Effectiveness: The Caseof ICTs and Hurricane Katrina.” Journal of Homeland Security and EmergencyManagement 12 (3): 437–467. doi:10.1515/jhsem-2014-0087.

de Bruijne, M., A. Boin, and M. van Eeten. 2010. “Resilience: Exploring the Conceptand Its Meanings.” In Designing Resilience: Preparong for Extreme Events, Edited byLouise K. Comfort, Arjen Boin, and Chris C. Demchak, 13–32. Pittsburgh, PA:University of Pittsburgh Press.

Djalante, R., C. Holley, and F. Thomalla. 2011. “Adaptive Governance and ManagingResilience to Natural Hazards.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2 (4).doi:10.1007/s13753-011-0015-6.

Drennan, L., and L. Morrisey. 2018. “Resilience Policy in Practice – Surveying theRole of Community Based Organisations in Local Disaster Management”. LocalGovernment Studies 45 (03): 328–349. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2018.1541795.

Engelman, A., S. L. Ivey,W. Tseng, and L. Neuhauser. 2017. “Risk Perception and PerceivedSelf-Efficacy of Deaf and Hard-Of-Hearing Seniors and Young Adults in Emergencies.”Journal of Emergency Management 15 (1): 7–15. doi:10.5055/jem.2017.0309.

Fitzpatrick, T., and J. Molloy. 2014. “The Role of NGOs in Building SustainableCommunity Resilience.” International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the BuiltEnvironment 5 (3): 292–304. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-01-2014-0008.

Goidel, K., J. Horney, P. Kellstedt, E. Sullivan, and S. Brown. 2019. “Perceptions ofDisaster Resilience in Four Texas Coastal Communities”. Local Government Studies45 (03): 413–432.

Govind, P. J. 2016. “Looking Forward 10 Years after Katrina: Managing Climate Riskand Uncertainty through Building Systematic Resilience in New Orleans PostHurricane Katrina.” International Journal of Emergency Management 12 (3): 284–303. doi:10.1504/IJEM.2016.079020.

Hirata, N. 2017. “Has 20 Years of Japanese Earthquake Research Enhanced SeismicDisaster Resilience in Kumamoto?” Journal of Disaster Research 12 (6): 1098–1108.doi:10.20965/jdr.2017.p1098.

Holling, C. S. 1973. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review ofEcology and Systems 4: 1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.

324 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities afterDisasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, D.C.:National Academies Press.

Jacsó, P. 2005. “Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons.” Online Information Review 29(2): 208–214. doi:10.1108/14684520510598066.

Jacsó, P. 2010. “Metadata Mega Mess in Google Scholar.” Online Information Review34 (1): 175–191. doi:10.1108/14684521011024191.

Janssen, M. A. 2007. “An Update on the Scholarly Networks on Resilience, Vulnerability,and Adaptation within the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.”Ecology and Society 12 (2): 9. doi:10.5751/ES-02099-120209.

Janssen, M. A., M. L. Schoon, W. Ke, and K. Börner. 2006. “Scholarly Networks onResilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation within the Human Dimensions of GlobalEnvironmental Change.” Global Environmental Change-Human and PolicyDimensions 16 (3): 240–252. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.001.

Joakim, E. P., L. Mortsch, and G. Oulahen. 2015. “Using Vulnerability and ResilienceConcepts to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.” Environmental HazardsJanuary: 1–19. doi:10.1080/17477891.2014.1003777.

Jones, S., K. J. Oven, and B.Wisner. 2016. “A Comparison of the Governance Landscape ofEarthquake Risk Reduction in Nepal and the Indian State of Bihar.” InternationalJournal of Disaster Risk Reduction 15: 29–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.10.011.

Kahan, J. H. 2015. “Resilience Redux: Buzzword or Basis for Homeland Security.”Homeland Security Affairs, 11. https://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1728289920?accountid=7065.

Kelman, I., and M. H. Glantz. 2015. “Analyzing the Sendai Framework for Disaster RiskReduction.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6 (2): 105–106.doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0056-3.

Kwok, A. H., E. H. Emma, J. B. Doyle, D. Johnston, and D. Paton. 2016. “What Is ‘SocialResilience’? Perspectives of Disaster Researchers, Emergency ManagementPractitioners, and Policymakers in New Zealand.” International Journal of DisasterRisk Reduction 19 (October): 197–211. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.013.

Liu, Y., K. Yin, L. Chen, W. Wang, and Y. Liu. 2016. “A Community-Based Disaster RiskReduction System in Wanzhou, China.” International Journal of Disaster RiskReduction 19: 379–389. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.009.

Lo, A. Y., and F. Chan. 2017. “Preparing for Flooding in England and Wales: The Roleof Risk Perception and the Social Context in Driving Individual Action.” NaturalHazards 88 (1): 367–387. doi:10.1007/s11069-017-2870-y.

Magsino, S. L. 2009. Applications of Social Network Analysis for Building CommunityDisaster Resilience: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National AcademiesPress. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3378515.

Mandal, S., R. Sarathy, V. R. Korasiga, S. Bhattacharya, and S. G. Dastidar. 2016.“Achieving Supply Chain Resilience: The Contribution of Logistics and SupplyChain Capabilities.” International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the BuiltEnvironment 7 (5): 544–562. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-04-2016-0010.

Mannakkara, S., and S. Wilkinson. 2016. “Selecting an Institutional Mechanismfor Building Back Better: Lessons from Victorian Bushfires Recovery.”International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19: 273–279. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.025.

Manyena, S. B. 2006. “The Concept of Resilience Revisited.” Disasters 30 (4): 434–450.doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2006.00331.x.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 325

Manyena, S. B. 2014. “Disaster Resilience: A Question of ‘Multiple Faces’ and ‘MultipleSpaces’?” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 8: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.12.010.

Manyena, S. B., G. O’Brien, P. O’Keefe, and J. Rose. 2011. “Disaster Resilience: ABounce Back or Bounce Forward Ability?” Local Environment 16 (5): 417–424.doi:10.1080/13549839.2011.583049.

McEntire, D. A. 2003. “Searching for A Holistic Paradigm and Policy Guide: A Proposalfor the Future of Emergency Management.” International Journal of EmergencyManagement 1 (3): 298–308. doi:10.1504/IJEM.2003.003295.

National Research Council. 2002. National Earthquake Resilience: Research,Implementation, and Outreach. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience ThroughPrivate-Public Collaboration. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 2012. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative.Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13457.

United Nations. 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Sendai,Japan: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf.

North Dakota State University. 2017. “Primary Emergency Management Journals.”Higher Education Institution Website. Primary Emergency ManagementJournals. https://www.ndsu.edu/emgt/professional_development_resources/key_journals/.

Norton, D. J., J. D. Wickham, T. G. Wade, K. Kunert, J. V. Thomas, and P. Zeph. 2009. “AMethod for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters RestorationPlanning.” EnvironmentalManagement 44 (2): 356–368. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9304-x.

Olson, S. 2011. Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters: The Perspectivefrom the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi: Summary of a Workshop.Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. “Adaptive Comanagement for BuildingResilience in Social-Ecological Systems.” Environmental Management 34 (1): 75–90. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7.

Paton, D., and D. Johnston. 2006. Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Peacock, W. G., S. D. Brody, W. A. Seitz, W. J. Merrell, A. Vedlitz, S. Zahran, R. C. Harriss,and R. Stickney. 2010. Advancing Resilience of Coastal Localities: Developing,Implementing, and Sustaining the Use of Coastal Resilience Indicators: A FinalReport. College Station, TX: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center.

Perera, S., O. Adeniyi, and S. O. Babatunde. 2017. “Analysing Community Needs and Skillsfor Enhancing Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment.” International Journal ofDisaster Resilience in the Built Environment 8 (3). doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2015-0046.

Reice, S. R., R. C. Wissmar, and R. J. Naiman. 1990. “Disturbance Regimes, Resilience,and Recovery of Animal Communities and Habitats in Lotic Ecosystems.”Environmental Management 14 (5): 647–659. doi:10.1007/BF02394715.

Reid, R., and L. C. Botterill. 2013. “The Multiple Meanings of ‘Resilience’: An Overviewof the Literature.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 72 (1): 31–40.doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12009.

Reinhardt, G., and K. Chatsiou. this issue. “Inter-Sectoral Shifts in Public ServiceProvision: Emergency and Fire Services in Essex County, UK”. Local GovernmentStudies.

326 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

Ross, A. D. 2013. Local Disaster Resilience: Administrative and Political Perspectives.Routledge Research in Public Administration and Public Policy. New York, NY:Routledge.

Ryan, B. J., R. C. Franklin, F. M. Burkle, E. C. Smith, P. Aitken, K. Watt, and P. A. Leggat. 2018.“Ranking and Prioritizing Strategies for Reducing Mortality and Morbidity fromNoncommunicable Diseases Post Disaster: An Australian Perspective.” InternationalJournal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27: 223–238. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.009.

Sauser, B., M. Mansouri, and M. Omer. 2011. “Using Systemigrams in ProblemDefinition: A Case Study in Maritime Resilience for Homeland Security.” Journal ofHomeland Security and Emergency Management 8 (1). doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1773.

Thomalla, F., and R. K. Larsen. 2010. “Resilience in the Context of Tsunami EarlyWarning Systems and Community Disaster Preparedness in the Indian OceanRegion.” Environmental Hazards 9 (3): 249–265. doi:10.3763/ehaz.2010.0051.

Thoren, H. 2014. “Resilience as a Unifying Concept.” International Studies in thePhilosophy of Science 28 (3): 303–324. doi:10.1080/02698595.2014.953343.

Tierney, K., and M. Bruneau. 2007. Conceptualizing and Measuring Resilience, 5.United States. 2010. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

Washington, D.C.: ExecutiveOffice of the President. http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/2010.pdf.United States. 2011. Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8: National Preparedness.

Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.pdf.

Uy, N., Y. Takeuchi, and R. Shaw. 2012. “An Ecosystem-Based Resilience Analysis ofInfanta, Philippines.” Environmental Hazards 11 (4): 266–282. doi:10.1080/17477891.2012.688794.

Valdes, H. M., and P. H. Purcell. 2013. “Guidance on Resilience in Urban Planning.”International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 4 (1): 247–255.doi:10.1108/ijdrbe.2013.43504aaa.002.

Varker, T., and G. J. Devilly. 2012. “An Analogue Trial of Inoculation/ResilienceTraining for Emergency Services Personnel: Proof of Concept.” Journal of AnxietyDisorders 26 (6): 696–701. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.01.009.

Vink, K., K. Takeuchi, and K. M. Kibler. 2014. “A Quantitative Estimate of VulnerablePeople and Evaluation of Flood Evacuation Policy.” Journal of Disaster Research 9(5): 887–900. doi:10.20965/jdr.2014.p0887.

Wanie, C. M., and R. A. Ndi. 2018. “Governance Issues Constraining the Deploymentof Flood Resilience Strategies in Maroua, Far North Region of Cameroon.” DisasterPrevention and Management: an International Journal 27 (2): 175–192. doi:10.1108/DPM-12-2017-0300.

Wilson, T. M., and J. W. Cole. 2007. “Potential Impact of Ash Eruptions on Dairy Farmsfrom a Study of the Effects on a Farm in Eastern Bay of Plenty, New Zealand;Implications for Hazard Mitigation.” Natural Hazards 43 (1): 103–128. doi:10.1007/s11069-007-9111-8.

Windsor, L., G. Cupit, A. Hampton, and A. Windsor. this issue. “Local Politics in anInternational Context: Causes and Consequences of Ungoverned Spaces inMemphis, TN”. Local Government Studies.

Zhao, D., and A. Strotmann. 2015. “Analysis and Visualization of Citation Networks.”Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 7 (1): 1–207.doi:10.2200/S00624ED1V01Y201501ICR039.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 327

Copyright of Local Government Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.