consolidation of resilience concepts and practices for ... · stakeholders involved in crisis...

Project number: 653289

Project duration: June 2015 – May 2018

Project Coordinator: Ivonne Herrera, SINTEF

Website: www.h2020darwin.eu

HORIZON 2020: Secure Societies

TOPIC DRS-7-2014

Crisis and disaster resilience – operationalising resilience concepts

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION ACTION

D1.1– Public

ADAPT TO SURVIVE

Expect the unexpected and know how to respond

Consolidation of resilience concepts and practices for crisis management

VERSION Version 0.6

DATE 15-DEC-2015

ABSTRACT The DARWIN project aims to develop state of the art resilience guidelines and innovative training modules for crisis management. The guidelines, which will evolve to accommodate the changing nature of crises, are developed for those with responsibility of protecting the population or critical infrastructure/services from policy to practice. This deliverable describes a catalogue of concepts and approaches to resilience that have been identified as a result of two major studies: 1) a systematic literature survey (SLR) has been conducted on concepts and approaches to resilience from a range of disciplines, identifying associated indications of maturity of operationalization or implementation into practice (for example, through guidelines and tools), and 2) an interview study of relevant stakeholders involved in crisis management, identifying resilience and brittleness aspects from significant crises and everyday practices. Particular focus is on grouping results of the analysis of resilience definitions, theories, models, concepts, practices guidelines and needs. Other aspects of resilience approaches are also summarized. Overall, a wide diversity of approaches was found in the literature, and the interviews revealed practices that contained aspects typically included in the literature under the label of resilience. Readers from industry and researchers can use this document as a body of knowledge organized per topic. Up to know, we did not find a similar systematic literature review in the areas of resilience, community resilience, resilience engineering and crisis management. This consolidated catalogue serves as a foundation for the evaluation of most promising resilience concepts and approaches, specification of requirements for resilience management guidelines, development of resilience guidelines and pilot study definition within the DARWIN project.

KEYWORDS: Resilience, Crisis Management, Review, Air Traffic Management, Health care

DELIVERABLE ID D1.1

SYGMA ID D1

DISSEMINATION LEVEL PU

DELIVERABLE TYPE R

D1.1 – Consolidation of resilience concepts and practices for crisis management

The research leading to these results has received funding from Horizon 2020, the European Union's Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (H2020/2014-2020) under grant agreement n° 653289.

2 of 138

AUTHORSHIP AND APPROVAL INFORMATION

EDITOR Rogier Woltjer / FOI

DATE 15-DEC-2015

CONTRIBUTORS Rogier Woltjer / FOI Björn Nevhage / FOI Susanna Nilsson / FOI Per-Anders Oskarsson / FOI Jonas Hermelin / FOI Jiri Trnka / FOI Mirko Thorstensson / FOI Kristoffer Darin Mattsson / FOI Ivonne Herrera / SINTEF Tor Olav Grøtan / SINTEF Matthieu Branlat / SINTEF Christian Frøystad / SINTEF Inger Anne Tøndel / SINTEF Marie Moe / SINTEF Bruria Adini / BGUOdeya Cohen / BGU Nela Marks / BGU Sabina Giorgi / ISS Luca Rosi / ISS Valentina Cedrini / ENAV

DATE 30-NOV-2015

REVIEWED BY Peter Förster / TUBS Rebecca Forsberg, Carl-Oscar Jonson / KMC

DATE 9-DEC-2015

APPROVED BY Ivonne Herrera / SINTEF

DATE 15-DEC-2015

ETHICS BOARD REVIEW REQUIRED? SECURITY BOARD REVIEW REQUIRED?

NO NO



3 of 138

Release history VERSION DATE VERSION DESCRIPTION / MILESTONE DESCRIPTION

0.1 01-NOV-2015 PCOS proposed, with many sections with detailed content

0.2 16-NOV-2015 Intermediate proposed, approximately 80% complete

0.3 26-NOV-2015 External proposed

0.4 08-DEC-2015 External revised

0.5 11-DEC-2015 External approved

0.6 15-DEC-2015 Review comments addressed by the Editor. Minor changes and version released by the Coordinator

*The project uses a multi-stage internal review process, with defined milestones. Milestone names include terms (in bold) as follows:

• PCOS proposed: Describes planned content and structure of different sections. Document authors submit for internal review.

• PCOS revised: Document authors produce new version in response to internal review comments. • PCOS approved: Internal project reviewers accept the document.

• Intermediate proposed: Document is approximately 50% complete – review checkpoint. Document authors submit for internal review.

• Intermediate revised: Document authors produce new version in response to internal reviewer comments. • Intermediate approved: Internal project reviewers accept the document.

• External proposed: Document is approximately 100% complete – review checkpoint. Document authors submit for internal review.

• External revised: Document authors produce new version in response to internal reviewer comments. • External approved: Internal project reviewers accept the document.

• Released: Executive Board accepts the document. Coordinator releases the deliverable to the Commission Services.



4 of 138

Members of the DARWIN consortium ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Stiftelsen SINTEF (SINTEF) NO-7465 Trondheim Norway www.sintef.com

Project Coordinator / Technical Manager: Ivonne A. Herrera [email protected] +47 906 80 634

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

TechnischeUniversitätBraunschweig (TUBS) DE-38106 Braunschweig Germany www.tu-braunschweig.de

Contact: Thomas Feuerle [email protected]

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Carr Communications (CARR) Dublin 4 Ireland www.carrcommunications.ie

Contact: Eddie Shaw [email protected]

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Deep Blue Srl (DBL) IT-00198 Rome Italy www.dblue.it

Contact: Luca Save [email protected]

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ENAV S.p.A IT-00138 Rome Italy www.enav.it

Contact: Giancarlo Ferrara [email protected]

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Instituto Superiore de Sanità (ISS) IT-00161 Rome Italy www.iss.it

Contact: Luca Rosi [email protected]

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (FOI) SE-16490 Stockholm www.foi.se

Contact: Rogier Woltjer [email protected]

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Katastrofmedicinskt Centrum (KMC) SE-58330 Linköping Sweden www.regionostergotland.se/kmc

Contact: Rebecca Forsberg rebecka.forsberg@ regionostergotland.se

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) IL-8410501 Beer Sheva Israel http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/

Contact: Bruria Adini [email protected]

http://www.sintef.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tu-braunschweig.de/


http://www.carrcommunications.ie/


http://www.dblue.it/


http://www.enav.it/


http://www.iss.it/


http://www.foi.se/


http://www.regionostergotland.se/kmc

mailto:rebecka.forsberg@%20regionostergotland.se

mailto:rebecka.forsberg@%20regionostergotland.se

http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/




5 of 138

Table of contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Purpose of the document ............................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Intended readership ..................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Structure of this document ........................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Relationship to other deliverables ................................................................................................ 12 1.6 Acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 12

2 Literature review ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Introduction and background ....................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Search and review process .............................................................................................. 16 2.2.2 Step 1: Planning phase .................................................................................................... 19 2.2.3 Step 2: Conducting phase ................................................................................................ 19 2.2.4 Step 3: Analysis/synthesis ............................................................................................... 22

2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 General information about articles in the database ....................................................... 23 2.3.2 Definitions of resilience ................................................................................................... 26 2.3.3 Theories, concepts or models relevant to resilience....................................................... 32 2.3.4 Practices, guidelines or information on needs from stakeholders/end-users ................ 65 2.3.5 Tools for resilience .......................................................................................................... 78 2.3.6 Methods and strategies to evaluate or assess resilience ................................................ 79 2.3.7 Geographical management scales (local, regional, national or international) ............... 79 2.3.8 Domains addressed ......................................................................................................... 81 2.3.9 Key DARWIN areas ........................................................................................................... 84 2.3.10 Community resilience and resilience management ........................................................ 86 2.3.11 Resilience capabilities ...................................................................................................... 86 2.3.12 Specific types of events ................................................................................................... 87 2.3.13 Context of study (simulations/actual event/...)............................................................... 89 2.3.14 Important/useful references (snowballing) .................................................................... 89

3 Interview study .............................................................................................................................. 90 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 90 3.2 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 90 3.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 91

3.3.1 Health-care and emergency and crisis management organizations ............................... 91 3.3.2 Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) ........................................................................ 98



6 of 138

4 Conclusions and way forward ....................................................................................................... 104 4.1 Main findings .............................................................................................................................. 104 4.2 Limitations of the review ............................................................................................................ 105

4.2.1 Systematic literature review.......................................................................................... 105 4.2.2 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 106

4.3 Contribution and further work ................................................................................................... 106

5 References ................................................................................................................................... 108

Table of Figures Figure 1. Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process. 18

Figure 2. Scopus search query 20

Figure 3. Number of included articles for each year 23

Figure 4. Number of articles that addressed five or several countries 25

Figure 5. Map that illustrates the geographical places addressed in the articles. 25

Figure 6. Ontology of resilience definitions 29

Figure 7. Classification of definitions according to actions 30

Figure 8. Frequencies of phases identified in definitions of resilience 32

Figure 9. TRL distribution for Concept Category A: Link between Community Resilience and other efforts 34

Figure 10. TRL distribution for Concept Category B: Continuity and persistence of critical services and functions 35

Figure 11. TRL distribution for Concept Category C: Attention to vulnerable groups 36

Figure 12. TRL distribution for Concept Category D: Generic characteristics of resilience concept 37

Figure 13. TRL distribution for Concept Category E: Special characteristics of Community Resilience 39

Figure 14. TRL distribution for Concept Category F: Sensitivity to social and cultural foundations 41

Figure 15. TRL distribution for Concept Category G: Resilience in context of compliance, planned protection and risk management 42

Figure 16. TRL distribution for Concept Category H: Resilience of critical infrastructure 43

Figure 17. TRL distribution for Theory Category A: Link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities 46

Figure 18. TRL distribution for Theory Category B: Sources of resilience 47

Figure 19. TRL distribution for Theory Category C: Contextual conditioning of resilience 49

Figure 20 TRL distribution for Theory Category D: Assessment of community resilience in face of disaster 51

Figure 21 TRL distribution for Theory Category E: Core principles of resilience theory (system) 51

Figure 22. TRL distribution for Theory Category F: Integrating properties of Community Resilience with other institutionalized efforts 53



7 of 138

Figure 23 TRL distribution for Theory Category I: Cross-scale interactivity (at junctions) 55

Figure 24 TRL distribution for Theory Category J: Critical infrastructure resilience 56

Figure 25 TRL distribution for Theory Category K: Sensitivity to indigenous and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices 57

Figure 26 TRL distribution for Theory Category L: Stress management for human actors in disaster management 58

Figure 27 TRL distribution for Model Category A: Factors of resilience 59

Figure 28 TRL distribution for Model Category B: Human behavior and group cohesion 60

Figure 29 TRL distribution for Model Category C: Measure and evaluate resilience 61

Figure 30 TRL distribution for Model Category D: Practices and guidelines 63

Figure 31 TRL distribution for Model Category E: Resilience in a broader context 64

Figure 32. Number of articles that addressed five geographical management scales 80

Figure 33. Number of articles that addressed each combination of more than one geographical management scale 81

Figure 34. Distribution of articles for each domain 82

Figure 35. Numbers of articles that addressed each of the subcategories identified from the category “other domain” 84

Figure 36. Venn diagram that illustrates the relation between articles that were classified as addressing more than one of the three key DARWIN areas. Boxes provides IDs of articles for each intersection between key DARWIN areas. 85



8 of 138

List of Tables Table 1. List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2. List of terms ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 3. Number of articles that addressed each continent, and the distribution between continents in percent ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 4. Number of countries addressed in five or more articles. Percentage refers to the distribution between addressed countries ......................................................................................................................... 24

Table 5. Frequencies of domains identified in the definitions of resilience ................................................... 27

Table 6. Frequencies of entities identified in definitions of resilience ........................................................... 27

Table 7. Frequencies of event types identified in definitions of resilience ..................................................... 30

Table 8. Categories of tools for resilience that were addressed and number of references that addressed each category. Percent refers to the distribution between the categories .................................................... 79

Table 9. Distribution in number and percent of articles that addressed each of the geographical management scales ......................................................................................................................................... 80

Table 10. Number and percent of articles that addressed each of the combinations of more than one geographical management scale ..................................................................................................................... 80

Table 11. Distribution in number and percent of articles each domain ......................................................... 82

Table 12. Numbers of articles that addressed each of the subcategories identified from the category “other domain” and the distribution in percent between these categories .............................................................. 83

Table 13. Number, and percentage of accepted SLR articles, that addressed one or several key DARWIN areas ................................................................................................................................................................ 84

Table 14. Number, and percentage of accepted DoA articles, that addressed one or several key DARWIN areas. ............................................................................................................................................................... 85

Table 15. Number and percentages of accepted articles that addressed one or combinations of the four key DARWIN areas ................................................................................................................................................. 86

Table 16. Specific types of events that were addressed. Number refers to number of articles that addressed the specific type of event, and percentage to the distribution between the specific types of events that were addressed ............................................................................................................................................... 87

Table 17. Specific events that were addressed that were addressed by more than one article .................... 88

Table 18. Number of articles that addressed each type of contexts, and the distribution between these articles ............................................................................................................................................................. 89



9 of 138

Executive Summary This deliverable describes a catalogue of concepts and approaches to resilience that have been identified as a result of two major studies: 1) a systematic literature survey (SLR) has been conducted on concepts and approaches to resilience from a range of disciplines, identifying associated indications of maturity of operationalization or implementation into practice (for example, through guidelines and tools), and 2) an interview study of relevant stakeholders involved in crisis management, identifying resilience and brittleness aspects from significant crises and everyday practices.

A total amount of 440 articles are identified as relevant for further synthesis and analysis. In addition, 91 relevant articles from the DARWIN Description of Action (DoA) were revisited. Common topics in the form of concepts, theories and practices emerged from the literature. A brief selection of these topics are presented here (the reader is referred to specific parts of the catalogue for further information):

• Resilience definitions: delineated actions that must be implemented to achieve resilience. Classification of definitions based on actions address adaptability, bounce back, sustain adaptability, absorption and prevention

• The generic characteristic of the resilience concept’s premise of complexity is inherent to all papers. In this topic key issues include presence of disturbances, potential of cascading effects, applicability to non-crisis situations and that the dynamics of the situation and resilience responses are inseparable

• The literature shows that the resilience domain put emphasis on the phases before and during the event when addressing needs and issues, and on both planning and responding when discussing solutions and practices

A remarkable number of articles (130 representing 44% of the SRL articles) address methods and strategies to assess resilience. Many models are interested in devising measurement and evaluation of resilience factors such as community resilience, teams, investment efficiency and infrastructures. Models also aim at providing recommendations and guidelines at a practice level, addressing generic resilience, community resilience and design for resilience. 266 articles from the complete review relates to one or more of the resilience capabilities to anticipate, monitor, respond and adapt (77% SLR and 84% DoA).

Tools proposed for resilience are of diverse nature and with different level of details and application. Tools cover aspects such as visualization of information, communications, information sharing and training. Fewer articles cover assessment of resilience command and control and decision support.

Regarding maturity of the approaches identified in the literature, the general level of maturity is toward the lower half of the maturity spectrum reflecting the need to bring progress in this area toward more mature approaches.

The notion of complexity is transversal to practically all of the general characteristics associated with the “resilience” concept. Among the more specific characteristics of relevance to disaster management professionals, community resilience is distinguished by the fact that it is constituted on cultural, social and civic "community" facets rather than a formally managed organization or institution. Theories found in the literature describe sources of resilience, which may be built, natural, individual, social, cultural, economic or institutional. They also describe core principles to which a resilient system, or parts thereof, must function in order to work, including some overarching, holistic principles for how various sources and components of resilience can be arranged and mobilized in order to function resiliently.

Among the needs identified in the literature, emphasis is placed on preparation for events as one of the main pillars in resilience management. The need to respond during an event is also well addressed, and in various forms. The involvement of different stakeholders is a reoccurring theme associated with these needs. Solutions and practices described in a number of papers specifically include: planning as an essential part in preparedness; training and education; collaboration on all levels (local, state and federal level). Emphasis is put on solutions or actions for better information sharing and communication.



10 of 138

Among the difficulties that need to be managed, because they are essential parts of crisis management and disaster reduction, the literature mentions especially: relationships and involvement of relevant stakeholders, interdependencies, and communities’ low capacity to respond.

The interviews also highlight the practices that indicate a degree of resilience, flexibility and adaptability to the circumstances in practice. Important elements to consider in crisis management include cultural awareness with respect to individuals and organizations, a structure with possibility to be reinforced when needed, competence and authority to act and improvise when plans no do not cover the ongoing situation. An interesting issue is that the reliance on procedures in some organisations is stronger than in others. The degree of adaptation to procedures also varies among organisations, as well as the support that is expressed that the procedures provide, which may also vary for different phases of crisis management. Working groups that at national and regional levels develop guidelines and procedures and adapt or implement them at regional or local levels seem to be a common way of organizing guideline development. Resilience management should thus address everyday work, complexity, dynamics of the events and the need to be flexible and stay flexible and not trapped into getting more procedures. Learning practices in place are generally based on events that previously have been managed. Training exercises and drills are performed regularly for most organisations.

The target audience for the catalogue presented in this deliverable is both industry and researchers. Readers from industry and researchers can use this document as a body of knowledge organized per topic. They can look into the topics and find studies and elements with potential relevance to their context of operations or as baseline for further work in the area of resilience and crises management. There is to the authors’ knowledge no previous similar systematic literature review in the area of resilience and crises management with the same scope and level of detail and rigorousness. The work presented in this deliverable delineates the landscape of research within resilience and crisis management. This consolidated catalogue serves as a source of information for evaluation of the most promising resilience concepts and approaches, specification of requirements for resilience management guidelines, development of resilience guidelines and pilot definitions within the DARWIN project.

About the project: The DARWIN project aims to develop state of the art resilience guidelines and innovative training modules for crisis management. The guidelines, which will evolve to accommodate the changing nature of crises, are developed for those with the responsibility of protecting population or critical services from policy to practice.

The guidelines address the following resilience capabilities and key areas:

• Capability to anticipate • Mapping possible interdependencies • Build skills to notice patterns using visualisations

• Capability to monitor • Identify resilience related indicators, addressing potential for cascade • Establish indicators that are used and continuously updated

• Capability to respond and adapt (readiness to respond to the expected and the unexpected) • Conduct a set of pilot studies • Investigate successful strategies for resilient responses

• Capability to learn and evolve • Explore how multiple actors and stakeholders operate in rapidly changing environments • Enable cross-domain learning on complex events

• Key areas: social media and crisis communication; living and user-centred guidelines; continuous evaluation and serious gaming



11 of 138

1 Introduction The DARWIN project aims to develop state of the art resilience guidelines and innovative training modules for crisis management. This document describes the initial results of the project.

1.1 Background In recent years crises and disasters (such as Eyjafjallajökull and Deepwater Horizon in 2010, Fukushima Daiichi in 2011) have made it obvious that a more resilient approach to preparing for and dealing with such events is needed. DARWIN will improve response to expected and unexpected crises affecting critical infrastructures and social structures. It addresses the management of both man-made events (e.g. cyber-attacks) and natural events (e.g. earthquakes). The main objective is the development of European resilience management guidelines. These will improve the ability of stakeholders to anticipate, monitor, respond, adapt, learn and evolve, to operate efficiently in the face of crises.

The concept of resilience has been used in a wide variety of ways in the literature, both in a large variety of research disciplines and some concepts that are related to resilience are in practices in society and industry. Therefore the DARWIN project has been initiated with a survey of resilience approaches, collected in a catalogue with a database of concepts, summarized in this document. Based on a selection of promising concepts (identified in further tasks of WP1), generic resilience guidelines will be developed and evaluated (in WPs 2-4).

1.2 Purpose of the document The central research question addressed in this deliverable is which suggested and operational approaches to resilience and associated practitioner needs can be identified.

The purpose of the document is to provide a catalogue of concepts and approaches to resilience that have been identified as a result of two major studies conducted within Task 1.1 of DARWIN:

1) A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) has been conducted on concepts and approaches to resilience from a range of disciplines. To the extent possible, indications of maturity of operationalization or implementation into practice (for example, through guidelines and tools) are presented.

2) An interview study of relevant stakeholders involved in crisis management has been performed, identifying resilience and brittleness aspects from significant crises and everyday practices.

In both studies, specific attention has been given to the domains of the DARWIN pilot studies of WP4, that is, air traffic management and health care. However, in line with the DARWIN ambition to develop generic resilience guidelines, the systematic literature review identified approaches from a number of other domains, such as disaster and crisis management, infrastructure, community resilience, transportation, industry, and energy production and transportation.

The results form a catalogue of state-of-the-art resilience-related concepts and approaches, as well as practices and needs derived from significant crises and everyday practices of crisis response organizations.

1.3 Intended readership The intended readership are actors that are interested in issues concerning crisis management, e.g. crisis response practitioners from safety- and security-critical complex domains, the research communities involved with the various aspects of resilience and crisis management research and application, and the project partners of DARWIN.

1.4 Structure of this document Chapter 2 summarizes the method and main results from the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and describes the catalogue of results from scientific literature that has been constructed. Chapter 3 summarize the method and main results from the interview studies at various stakeholders. Chapter 4 concludes the main results of these two studies. Chapter 5 provides the references of the text. Appendix A provides the



12 of 138

references of the articles included in the SLR. Appendix B provides the references included from the DoA. Appendix C provides the SLR question template, and Appendix D the interview question template. Appendix E summarizes the categories of resilience definitions.

1.5 Relationship to other deliverables The catalogue of resilience concepts and approaches described here, and, mostly, as created in the database that is synthesised and summarized in this deliverable, will be used in D1.2 to be evaluated and in D1.3 to be considered for requirements of resilience guidelines, used in the development of guidelines in WP2 (D2.1-D2.4), the development of tools in WP3 (D3.1-D3.4), and the implementation and evaluation of guideline pilot studies in WP4 (D4.1-D4.4). The database, of which this catalogue deliverable is synthesis and a summary, will thus be used throughout DARWIN, and is constructed to facilitate further and more specific queries not presented here. These queries can aid in the answering of specific research questions and identifying material for further development in future work packages of DARWIN.

The DARWIN project management procedures and practices include templates and processes ensuring that personal data is processed legally and fairly (documented in the DoA and D7.4). For this purpose, a generic interview guide is available to DARWIN that has been approved by the Norwegian directorate of data protection addressing topics associated with resilience concepts, approaches, guidelines and risk management strategies. This generic interview guide has been adapted to this survey’s needs. The adaptation process involved iterations between academic partners as well as with experts within the consortium representing end-users.

1.6 Acronyms and abbreviations An explanation of acronyms and abbreviations can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. List of abbreviations

Abbreviations Explanation

ANSP Air Navigation Service Providers

ANT actor-network theory

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCO Air Traffic Controllers

ATM Air Traffic Management

AoRA action-oriented resilience assessment

BCP Business Continuity planning

BGU Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

CART Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit

CCA Crisis Coordination Arrangements

CCRAM Conjoint Community Resilience Assessment Measurement

CI Critical infrastructure

CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection

CDCRF Climate-related Disaster Community Resilience Framework

CL checklist



13 of 138


CZ the Czech Republic

CR Community Resilience

DRR disaster risk reduction

CTA Controlled Time of Arrival

DoA Description of Action

DRIVER DRiving InnoVation in crisis management for European Resilience

EFPD Environment and First Prevention Department

EMS Emergency Medical Services

EPCIP European Program on Critical Infrastructure Protection

EU European Union

FBO faith-based organization

FR Fire and Rescue Services

FCM Fuzzy Cognitive Map

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FR Fire and Rescue

FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency

FRAM Functional Resonance Analysis Method

GIS Geographic Information System

HeadSec Head of Security

HCC health care coalitions

IBCDRP Integrated Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Planning

HCC health care coalitions

HEMO Health-care and Emergency/crisis Management organization

HFC Home Front Command

HMO Health Maintenance Organization

HOSP Hospital

ICT Information and Communication Technology

ICS Incident Command System

IS Israel

IT Italy

JCS Joint Cognitive Systems



14 of 138


LHD Local Health Departments

MIRM Italian Ministry of Interior Risk manager

MOH Israeli Ministry of Health

MPR Municipal Police of Rome (IT MPR)

NCSOE Network Centric Service Oriented Enterprise

NDCP Italian National Department of Civil Protection

NEO Network Enable Operations

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NO, CP Norwegian National Directorate of Civil Protection

NIMS National Incident Management System

OD Organizational Development

OpsMgr Operations Manager

PAHO Pan American Health Organization

PH Public Health Services

RI resilience index

RM Resilience Matrix

SE Sweden

SLR Systematic Literature Review

PCCIP President′s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection

PDD Presidential Decision Directive

RPD Rich Picture Diagram

REDS Readiness Exercises and Disaster Simulation

RRI Rural Resilience Index

SafetyMgr Safety Manager

SES Socio-Ecological System

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SLR Systematic Literature Review

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SoS System of Systems

SyRes Systemic Resilience Model

TCL Target Capabilities List



15 of 138


WP Work Package

US, USA United States of America

UTL Universal Task List

WHO World Health Organization

Table 2. List of terms

Term Explanation

Concept A set or conjunction of characteristic features/entities related to a common scope and rationale that is (at least partly) entangled with or concerns the scope of DARWIN, and with a presumed coherence related to an overall and wide understanding of "resilience". What are the characteristic features put together, and how do they incorporate the idea of "resilience"?

Issues Represent problems, difficulties or factors that need to be managed (by a suggested solution) in order to fulfill one or several needs. What are the barriers to fulfill the need?

Model An inventory of interrelated items that claim to represent/operationalize a theory/concept, or parts thereof, (possibly) with a procedure or algorithm for their application. What is the inventory, and how can it be utilized?

Needs Represent something that is essential for someone to be able to achieve a certain goal or task. The ultimate goal of resilience could be thought of as ensuring safety and security. However, this goal needs to be scrutinized and divided into subcategories. Consequently, needs exist on different levels. What does one need to be able to achieve a certain goal?

Solutions Represent some kind of a way forward to overcome one or several barriers, an intervention (which could be a method, tools, framework etc.). What could be incorporated (method, tools, framework etc.) in order to overcome one or several issues/barriers?

Theory A claimed/hypothetical correlation, order or causal relationship between a set of phenomena, issues or factors that associated with a (resilience) concept. What are the typical relationships and regularities that are worthwhile to pay attention to?

Practices Represent a solution that has been incorporated/implemented in a real environment. What has been incorporated in order to overcome one or several issues/barriers?



16 of 138

2 Literature review There are several ways to conduct reviews of literature depending on the goal of the review, from broad snowball based searches of exploratory nature to highly systematic reviews where terms and scope is specified in detail beforehand. In order to identify resilience concepts, methods and definitions in the literature, a systematic literature review was conducted.

2.1 Introduction and background Systematic literature reviews are in general used to identify, evaluate and interpret available research within a specific area of interest (Biolchini et al 2005; Kitchenham 2004 and 2007; Dybå at al, 2007 and 2008). One criterion for a systematic literature review is that the literature search is undertaken according to a systematic and pre-defined strategy (Kitchenham. 2007). The general features of a systematic review include a definition of a review protocol, a defined search strategy in order to detect relevant literature, documentation of the strategy, and description of criteria for inclusion and exclusion of results.

The two main phases of a systematic review process are the planning phase, where the need for the review is identified and the protocol developed, and the conducting phase, where the research of interest is identified, studies selected and assessed, data extracted and a final synthesis conducted (Kitchenham. 2004).

2.2 Method The method for the systematic literature review conducted in this project was based on the method described by Kitchenham (2004). This section describes the method used and the steps taken in order to conduct the review.

2.2.1 Search and review process The method described by Kitchenham (2004) includes 4 basic steps: planning, conducting, data extraction/synthesis and reporting as described and exemplified below.

1. Planning phase o Search strategy

Define research questions Define inclusion/exclusion criteria (i.e. peer-reviewed articles, exclude results in

domains such as mathematics, bio-chemistry etc.) Define and evaluate search query/ies Identify seminal papers that must be found with the final search string/s

2. Conducting phase o Creating a research strategy

Choose databases/alternate sources Use search string Evaluate initial results Redefine search string and redo search

o Document the search o Develop research data extraction form based on research questions:

For data/study inclusion For analysis of results/data extraction For each search result save search string and number of hits in the database Comment if seminal papers have been included or missed

o Study selection 3. Data extraction/synthesis phase

o Analyse results of literature search and review forms.



17 of 138

o Identify themes/categories/different perspectives 4. Reporting/recommendation phase

o Summarize results

Figure 1 gives an overview of the process described in this section.



18 of 138

Figure 1. Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process.



19 of 138

The remainder of this section describes each step and its outcome in the process in further detail. The main steps included are the planning phase and the search phase. In the search phase several sub-tasks were conducted and each are described below.

2.2.2 Step 1: Planning phase The main task during the planning phase was to develop a search strategy which included the following actions:

• Define research questions; • Define inclusion/exclusion criteria (i.e. peer-reviewed articles, exclude results in domains such as

mathematics, bio-chemistry, etc.); • Define and evaluate search query/ies; • Identify seminal papers that must be found with the final search string(s).

The main input to the planning phase of the systematic literature review was the research question defined in the Description of Action, which was refined to the following questions:

• Which (consolidated groups of) definitions of resilience are used in the literature (in relevant disciplines)?

• Which (consolidated groups of) concepts, methods and approaches to resilience can be identified from literature (in relevant disciplines)?

• Which (consolidated groups of) practices and significant events of particular stakeholders, with specific attention to health care and air traffic management, can be identified in the literature (in relevant disciplines)?

The main goal of the SLR was to identify relevant concepts, theories and methods in the literature that can inform the development of guidelines in relation to resilience management in Europe. In the first stage of planning a series of search queries formulated to encompass the scope of DARWIN’s research questions. The SCOPUS database was used for the SLR and in order to limit the results several constraints (i.e. inclusion and exclusion criteria) were set up in the database search. An iterative approach was used in order to define a relevant search query that would yield a representative, yet manageable amount of literature for further analysis. Each iteration for the query was assessed based on the resulting number of papers, and whether or not they returned results from a selection of relevant journals and publications. An additional check was also made to ensure the query returned seminal papers already identified.

During the planning phase a spreadsheet for data extraction was developed based on the aim of the SLR. The spreadsheet included fields for bibliographical information (name, publication, year published, authors etc as well as number of citations) and in total 22 questions regarding the content of the paper and its relevance to DARWIN. A full list of questions can be found in Appendix C.

2.2.3 Step 2: Conducting phase The search query was based on title, abstract and keywords in Scopus and was in the initial search limited to peer-reviewed articles. The search was also limited to the following domains: computer science, engineering, health professions, medicine, business, agricultural science, psychology, arts and humanities, nursing, decision science, multidisciplinary studies, environmental studies.

The first query used returned a total of 5560 hits which is an unmanageable amount of hits for the scope and time frame of this literature review. Thus a reduction of the results was necessary. A modified search string, stated in Figure 2 gave 1692 results.



20 of 138

Figure 2. Scopus search query

These 1692 results were reduced further by an additional inclusion criterion that papers published before 2014 had to have at least 2 citations. This excluded an additional 361 papers resulting in a total amount of 1331 papers, which were exported to a spreadsheet (including abstracts) for further analysis.

2.2.3.1 Identifying relevant articles In order to continue with analysis in the data extraction spreadsheet an initial review based on abstracts was conducted and additional articles excluded.

Three reviewers (one from each partner, FOI, SINTEF, and BGU) read the abstracts and assessed the relevance of the article in order to identify relevant articles among the 1331 in the spreadsheet. First, a random selection of 20% of the abstracts were selected and all three reviewers read the same abstracts and made a choice to either exclude or include the article. During the process the inclusion/exclusion criteria were iterated in order to reach agreement between the reviewers’ decisions. When the inclusion/exclusion criteria refinement no longer resulted in higher agreement decisions, which was after 20% of the abstracts, the inclusion/exclusion criteria based on abstract review were finalized. The final criteria for inclusion/exclusion based on abstract are as follows:

• Inclusion criteria – the article is/has: o Relevant theory/concepts, or o Relevant practice/empirically, or o Relevant method, or o Relevant tool (technical or otherwise), or o Relevant metric (including indicators or other assessment methods), or o Relevant for 2 or more of the above reasons.

• Exclusion criteria – findings/content of the article: o Includes only lessons learned from a specific event or set of events without synthesizing

some kind of theory or concepts related to resilience management; or o Is not generalizable to resilience management, e.g.

purely technically oriented papers in another research discipline (i.e. not socio-technical resilience management), that describe the resilience of for example a technical (physical, digital, …) or biological system, or

discuss specific operational models not generalizable to aspects of resilience management, or

not generalizable to the types of crises that DARWIN aims to address (e.g. any disruption of the “normal”); or

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( resilien* AND ( "safety management" OR "security management" OR "crisis management" OR "crisis response" OR "disaster management" OR "disaster response" OR "disaster relief" OR "emergency management" OR "emergency response" OR "contingency management" OR "contingency response" OR "business continuity" OR "critical infrastructure" OR "community resilience" OR "resilience engineering" OR "contingency planning" OR "incident response" OR "incident command" OR "emergency preparedness" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SRCTYPE , "j" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MEDI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENGI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "AGRI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "COMP" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "PSYC" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "NURS" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "HEAL" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MULT" ) )



21 of 138

o Describe processes of “traditional” vulnerability/risk/hazard/threat analysis, rather than proposing/investigating a “new” resilience perspective; or

o Long-term processes or trends in society that have limited relevance for resilience management for or beyond the influence of the intended customers/users of the DARWIN project, e.g. globalization, climate change; or

o Does not include any of the Include criteria.

After the exclusion/inclusion criteria were finalized the remaining 80% of the article abstracts were reviewed by all three reviewers and if at least two of the three reviewers decided that an article should be included in the full paper review the article was included. After the initial review of abstracts by the three reviewers a total number of 440 articles remained and were allocated to a full paper reviewer.

2.2.3.2 Full paper review The 440 articles that were found to be within the research scope were the basis for further analysis (i.e., to be analysed by reviews through the review form).

The first question in the review spreadsheet was whether or not the article should be included after having read the full paper. The exclusion/inclusion criteria for relevance and quality used by each full paper reviewer (partly overlapping with the abstract inclusion/exclusion criteria above, but note that some more questions on for example quality could be answered now after full reading) were:

• Relevance: o Papers on lessons learned from a specific event or set of events without synthesizing some

kind of theory or concepts related to resilience management; or o Papers in another research discipline, i.e. not socio-technical resilience management, e.g.

that describe the resilience of a technical (physical, hardware, software, …) or biological system (e.g. a certain species or population of organisms), or not generalizable to the types of crises that DARWIN aims to address (other disruptions of the “normal”, e.g. closing of rural schools due to lack of students); or

o Papers on purely “traditional” vulnerability/risk/hazard/threat analysis, rather than proposing/investigating a resilience perspective; or

o Papers on purely long-term processes or trends in society that have limited relevance for DARWIN resilience management, or that are beyond the influence of the intended stakeholders addressed by the DARWIN project, e.g. the effects of globalization or climate change.

• Quality: o Empirical papers with a clearly inadequate description of the methods used to analyse data,

methods that are clearly not grounded in the data; or o Theoretical papers with a clearly inadequate or not sound description of theories and

concepts, or which are not grounded in relevant literature; or o Papers that don't provide clearly stated findings with credible results and justified

conclusions.

The total number of reviewed articles as part of the SLR was 419 (21 of the 440 articles could not be accessed within the time frame of the task). Of these, 122 (29%) were excluded after full article review, which means that the number of articles included for the analysis was 297 (71%). FOI reviewed 159 articles, SINTEF 126, and BGU 134. (References to these articles is provided by their ID in brackets (ID), i.e. (276) for article with ID 276. The reviewed and included SLR articles are referenced in Appendix A.)

In order to take some of the pre-knowledge of the consortium into account, from the DARWIN Description of Action (DoA), 77 articles and reports were extracted, and reviewed according to the same criteria and



22 of 138

questions as for the SLR. Of these, 43 articles were included in the review (30 were rejected, 4 could not be found). FOI reviewed 26, SINTEF reviewed 25, BGU reviewed 26.

Note however that the DoA articles are not included in the general quantitative results description, as they were not selected in the same methodological way as the SLR articles were selected. Also, the categories of results in the remainder of this text were generated based on the SLR data, to be representative of the systematic review method. Where appropriate, these results have however been supplemented by DoA results, as indicated in the presentation of results, and fully traceable to SLR or DoA. (References to these articles is provided by their DoA-ID in brackets (DoA-ID), i.e. (DoA27) for article with ID DoA27. The reviewed and included DoA articles are referenced in Appendix B.)

For the articles included, the full review template was filled out. In total the template included 22 questions with mainly drop-down answers (yes/no or other predefined answers) with possibility to elaborate each answer. The questions related to general information about the article, such as if it describes actual events, specific geographical regions, includes empirical data and reference or description of tools relevant for assessing resilience. Other questions related to qualitative aspects, such as whether the article presents theoretical concepts, guidelines or approaches to resilience of relevance for the scope of DARWIN. The reviewers were also asked to assess the maturity of presented concepts or approaches related to an adapted TRL (Technology Readiness Level) scale. Appendix C contains the full review template. This step generated what can be considered a database of information for further analysis.

2.2.4 Step 3: Analysis/synthesis The spreadsheet used during the full paper review was used as basis for analysis. Several of the questions allowed for descriptive, quantitative analysis of the results of which the main analyses presented in the results section of this chapter.

Based on the answers in the review spreadsheet further consolidating qualitative analysis was conducted mainly regarding three clusters of questions: 1) resilience definitions; 2) theories, models, and concepts; and 3) practices, guidelines, and needs.

The qualitative analysis was done through iterative work in workshops were several of the reviewers took part. The results of the analysis and workshops are described below in the following sections where the research questions are also revisited.

2.3 Results This section describes a number of quantitative and qualitative analyses made based on the information gathered in the database. The section also serves as an outline presenting the categories in the database, which can be used to make combinations of searches for later Tasks and Work Packages. The main categories described in this section are:

- Definitions of resilience - Theories, concepts or models relevant to resilience - Practices, guidelines or information on needs from stakeholders or end-users - Tools for resilience - Methods and strategies to evaluate or assess resilience - Geographical management scales (local, regional, national or international) - Domains address - Key DARWIN areas - Community resilience and resilience management - Resilience capabilities - Specific types of events - Context of study (simulation or actual event) - Important or useful references (snowballing)



23 of 138

In general, if future tasks wish to search the catalogue database for answering specific questions by searching the articles that are of particular interest, analysts can access the reviews with a simple lookup of a combination of Yes/No answers, to select relevant articles and get access to the explanatory texts from the reviews. For example, the database allows a search for articles in the ATM category, published before 2010, that address response, that contain a tool, with theories or concepts implemented at a certain maturity level, etc.

Regarding quantitative analyses it should be noted that percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent, which is why the sum of the percentages is not always exactly 100.

2.3.1 General information about articles in the database This section gives a quantitative summary of the contents of the database based on two general parameters: the year of publication and the geographical location of the studies.

2.3.1.1 Publication year The 297 accepted SLR papers were published between 1998 and 2015. The number of articles from each year is depicted in Figure 3, which shows that most articles were recent. For example 266 (90%) of the articles were published between 2008 and 2015, and 123 (41%) were published 2014-2015.

Figure 3. Number of included articles for each year

2.3.1.2 Geographical location In the review 210 (71%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing a specific geographic location, whether describing an actual crisis or event, or addressing for instance approaches to resilience or emergency management.

The number of times each continents was addressed in the articles that addressed a geographic location is presented in Table 3. Note, some articles included information from more than one continent, which is the reason why the total number of times that the continents were addressed is larger than the number of articles that addressed a specific geographical location.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1998200020012003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Number of articles

Year



24 of 138

Table 3. Number of articles that addressed each continent, and the distribution between continents in

percent

Continent Number Percent

North America 87 39%

Asia 52 23%

Europe 37 17%

Australia 31 14%

South America 7 3%

Africa 5 2%

Oceania 1 1%

Worldwide 2 1%

Total 222 100%

In the articles that addressed a geographic location 59 different countries were represented. The total number of times these countries were made reference to was 247. The countries that were addressed in 5 or more articles are presented in Table 4 and in Figure 4.

Table 4. Number of countries addressed in five or more articles. Percentage refers to the distribution between addressed countries

Country Number Percent

USA 71 29%

Australia 20 8%

Great Britain 18 7%

New Zealand 13 5%

Canada 11 4%

India 7 3%

China 6 2%

Japan 6 2%

Brazil 5 2%

Indonesia 5 2%

Iran 5 2%

Other 80 35%

Total 247 100%



25 of 138

Figure 4. Number of articles that addressed five or several countries

All geographic locations addressed in SLR articles are presented in the map in Figure 5. Note that articles with identical locations are only indicated by one marker. The markers are as specific as the geographic location addressed in the article (i.e. an article addressing Europe has a marker in the middle of Europe, an article addressing Spain has a marker in the middle of Spain, and an article addressing Stockholm has a marker on Stockholm), which is the reason that there are a large number of markers in some countries.

Figure 5. Map that illustrates the geographical places addressed in the articles.

Places addressed in SLR articles with red markers and in DoA articles with yellow markers (map generator: Multiplottr.com, map data: Google).



26 of 138

In the review 22 (51%) of the accepted DoA articles were classified as addressing a specific geographic location. These locations have been added to the map in Figure 5.

2.3.2 Definitions of resilience In the SLR database a specific category relates to the definition of resilience described in the reviewed articles. This section elaborates on the description of the main categories of the definitions of the term “resilience” that were identified in the literature.

Defining the term "resilience" is a challenging task. The original definition was provided by physicists more than three centuries ago, denoting the "ability of an object to absorb and then release energy, when deformed elastically" (276). Nonetheless, since the 17th century and onwards, the term has been utilized by numerous professions, signifying a multi-sectoral adoption of a variety of meanings, uses and aims. In accordance with this diversity, the definitions of the term "resilience" were analysed based on six main characteristics, as follows:

1) domain (what is the professional discipline?);

2) the resilient entity (which system/entity is described as resilient; what is resilient?);

3) the ontology of resilience (what type of property is resilient/in what way is it resilient?);

4) actions aimed to achieve resilience (what measures are taken to achieve the resilience?);

5) type of event (what type of event does the system aim to be resilient against?); and

6) phases of resilience (when is the system resilient?).

Overall, 300 definitions were identified in the literature review. The breakdown of the identified definitions into various categories is presented in Appendix E.

The definitions concerning resilience that were identified in the articles that were included in DARWIN’s DoA were analyzed in order to recognize any additions to what was originally found in the SLR. The definitions that were already included in the SLR were excluded from the analysis. Overall, eight additional definitions were identified. (These DoA definitions are described separately from the 300 definitions of the SLR in the text below.)

The method used for this classification is the following:

1. The various definitions that were mentioned in the articles identified in the SLR (by means of question 22, see Appendix C) were read for all papers.

2. All definitions were documented, in a separate row in an excel spreadsheet. 3. Both the ID number of the article as well as the original source of each definition were identified and

recorded, in order to enable the identification of definitions that were used in several articles as well as to allow going back and analysing the definition, if needed.

4. The information was categorized according to the various components of the definition, as detailed above.

5. When too many categories were identified, such as concerning actions that were described in the definitions, the categories were then synthetized and described in order to group them into representative, main groups of categories.

2.3.2.1 Domain In 137 out of 300 (46%) definitions, the domain of the resilience could be identified. The inability to identify the domain in the majority of the definitions may indicate that many components of resilience are common to different disciplines and thus, regardless of the specific entity and/or domain that are referred to, the basic term "resilience" is appropriate. The definition of resilience was most frequently derived from two major domains – community resilience (accounted for 26% of the definitions) and ecological resilience (accounted for 16% of the definitions). The frequencies of domains identified as part of the definition are presented in



27 of 138

Table 5.

Table 5. Frequencies of domains identified in the definitions of resilience

NO. Domain Number of definitions %

1. Community 35 25% 2. Ecology 24 17% 3. Infrastructure 13 9% 4. Social 1 1% 5. General (all-encompassing) 11 8% 6. Engineering 9 7% 7. Organizational 7 5% 8. Economics 5 4% 9. Business 3 2% 10. Psychology 3 2% 11. Urban (municipal) 3 2% 12. Disaster 3 2% 13. Health 2 1%

Others* 5 3%

Total number of definitions which mention domains 137

*Others: Network, Physics, Geography, Emergency management, epidemic

In only one definition of the eight DoA definitions the domain was mentioned, referring to socio-ecological resilience.

2.3.2.2 Entity In 261 out of the 300 (87%) definitions, the entities could be identified. The entities were classified to 14 main categories, as presented in table 5. The definition of resilience was most frequently derived from two major entities – system (accounted for 45% of the definitions) and community (accounted for 28% of the definitions). The frequencies of identifying the various entities as part of the definition are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Frequencies of entities identified in definitions of resilience

Entity Numbers of

definitions % No.

No. Entity Number of dedinitions %

1 System 118 45% 2 Community 74 28% 3 Individual 34 13% 4 Organization 20 8%



28 of 138

Entity Numbers of

definitions % No. 5 Society 13 5% 6 General (all encompassing) 12 5% 7 Population 7 3% 8 Infrastructure 6 2% 9 Institution 5 2%

10 Economy/ Business 4 1% 11 Urban 4 1% 12 Resources 3 1% 13 Hospital 3 1% 14 Actors/ crisis management 3 1%

15 Others* 8 3%

Total number of definitions which mention entity 261

*Others: hazard-affected bodies, family, hospital, mediating structures, activity settings, object, variable, household

Five out of the eight DoA definitions included reference to the entity, four focusing on systems and one that referred to the resilience of a “body”.

2.3.2.3 Ontology of resilience 279 out of the 300 (93%) definitions included reference to the ontology of the term resilience, i.e. included the mention of what type of property/factor is resilient, and/or in what way the system achieves or maintains its resilience. 255 (91%) definitions focused solely on one factor, including 119 definitions that defined ability (for example, "ability of a community to rebound from a disaster" (1410)) as the only factor; 70 that defined capacity (such as "capacity of a system to absorb disturbance" (1435)) as the sole factor; 18 defined capability (for example, "capability of an organization to minimize impact of severe disruptions" (1253)); 12 focused on process (such as "resilience as an adaptive process" (715)); and 5 focused on property (for example, "resilience of a system is an emergent property related to performance variability" (1360)) 24 definitions included two or more factors. Some factors were included in only one or two definitions, such as function (for example, "facility that remains functioning" (1448)), development, skills and knowledge (included in 2 definitions), as well as structure, continuity, growth, feature, or stability that were mentioned in only one definition. The extent of the inclusion of the various factors in the definitions is displayed in Figure 6.



29 of 138

Figure 6. Ontology of resilience definitions

Concerning the ontology, out of the eight DoA definitions, two definitions included the term “ability”, two other definitions referred to “capability” and two additional ones focused on “capacity”. The two remaining definitions did not include any reference to the ontology of the term resilience.

2.3.2.4 Actions aimed to achieve resilience 292 out of the 300 (97%) definitions delineated the actions that must be implemented in order to achieve resilience. The vast majority of the definitions included two or more actions that related to what needs to be implemented in order to achieve/maintain resilience. Numerous actions were depicted, ranging from activities that should be applied in order to prevent and/or avoid the disaster even before its materialization, to actions that should be employed in order to bounce back and rebound from the disaster, after it already materialized. Over 45 actions were identified, such as absorb, release, adjust, persist, retain, respond, etc. Considering the diversity, the different actions were classified to five main categories (derived from combining categories by Longstaff, 2013, and Woods, 2015), based on the common characteristics of activities as follows: 1) actions directed at preventing the negative impact of the event. This category includes terms such as prevent, protect, avoid or reduce the impact; 2) ability to absorb the events and/or their implications, including actions such as absorb, resist, maintain a desirable state, strengthen, struggle; 3) actions aimed at adapting to, anticipating or responding to the events, including adjust, cope, deal, engage, etc.; 4) actions aimed at achieving sustained adaptability and thrive, including return to routine, sustain, persist, and withstand; 5) actions pertaining to the capacity to bounce back after the event. This category includes terms such as bounce back, rebound, recover or regenerate (Longstaff, 2013; Woods, 2015). The frequencies of the various actions are presented in Figure 7.

ability: 132 (47%)

capacity: 79 (28%)

capability: 23 (8%)

process: 16 (6%) property: 5 (2%)

others: 32 (11%)

Ontology of Definitions

ability

capacity

capability

process

property

others



30 of 138

Figure 7. Classification of definitions according to actions

Regarding actions that are aimed to achieve resilience, out of the eight DoA definitions, one definition did not include any actions that are needed to be implemented in order to achieve resilience while two other definitions included two such actions. The remaining five definitions included one specific action that is required. Overall, actions aimed at adapting to or adjusting to events were included in five definitions, while the ability to absorb the events as well as actions pertaining to the capacity to bounce back after the event were each included in two definitions. The additional two categories of action, i.e. actions directed at preventing the negative impact of the event and actions aimed at achieving sustained adaptability, were not mentioned.

2.3.2.5 Types of events 266 out of 300 (89%) definitions mentioned the types of events that the entities have to be resilient to. The types of events are categorized to 18 main types, as presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Frequencies of event types identified in definitions of resilience

No. Type Numbers of definitions %

1. Change 40 15% 2. Disaster 40 15% 3. Disturbance 31 12% 4. Disruptions 24 9% 5. Adversity 27 10% 6. Stress 22 8% 7. Shock 22 8% 8. Crisis 18 7% 9. Uncertainty 11 4%

35 (13%)

51 (18%)

152 (54%)

50 (17%)

96 (34%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

prevention absorption adaptibility sustainedadaptability

bounce back

definitions

Categories of Action

Classification of definitions based on actions



31 of 138

No. Type Numbers of definitions %

10. Hazard 8 3% 11. Challenge 6 2% 12. Misfortune 5 2% 13. Emergency events 4 2% 14. Perturbation 4 2% 15. Major mishap 4 2% 16. Catastrophic event 3 1% 17. Deformation 3 1% 18. Danger 3 1%

19. Others* 21 7%

Total number of definitions which mention events' types 266 100%

*Others: interdependent system; hardship; risk; creation of robust flexible processes; destruction; deviation from targeted system performance levels; injury; displace from equilibrium; expected and unexpected conditions; external influence; extreme events; illness; ongoing political violence; oppressive systems; problem; threatening event; poor circumstances; health emergencies, vulnerability, unsatisfactory condition.

The types of events that were mentioned in the eight DoA definitions were diverse. Disturbance was the only definition that was mentioned more than once (included in two definitions). The other events were mentioned in only one definition, including unexpected event, damaging blow, misfortune, change, impact, stress, sudden demand, future and perturbation.

2.3.2.6 Phases of resilience In 276 out of 300 (92%) definitions, the phases that are referred to in the definitions of resilience could be identified (for example, the “after” in “the ability to… overcome difficulties within significant adversities after trauma” (1)). Among 56% of the definitions, more than one phase was mentioned. The frequencies of the various phases that were identified as part of the definition are presented in Figure 8.

Out of the eight DoA definitions, three definitions referred to resilience in the midst of the event (“during”), while other three referred to both “during and after”. One definition included reference only to the time following the event (“after”), while one definition did not refer to the phase at all.



32 of 138

Figure 8. Frequencies of phases identified in definitions of resilience

2.3.3 Theories, concepts or models relevant to resilience The term "concept" is widely used with multiple meanings, not at least in scientific literature. It is therefore necessary to state more precisely what it implies in the context of this SLR, in which the concrete challenge is to collect information from a plethora of literature and pragmatic interests for "resilience", related to a diversity of scientific disciplines, all of which with presumed relevance for the scope of DARWIN.

The Collins English Dictionary1 defines "concept" as "a general idea or notion that corresponds to some class of entities and that consists of the characteristics or the essential features of the class", and as "the conjunction of all the characteristic features of something".

Our definition of "concept" is as follows:

Concept: A set or conjunction of characteristic features/entities related to a common scope and rationale that is (at least partly) entangled with or concerns the scope of DARWIN, and with a presumed coherence related to an overall and wide understanding of "resilience". What are the characteristic features put together, and how do they incorporate the idea of "resilience"?

Correspondingly, "theory" and "model" are defined as follows:

Theory: A claimed/hypothetical correlation, order or causal relationship between a set of phenomena, issues or factors that associated with a (resilience) concept. What are the typical relationships and regularities that are worthwhile to pay attention to?

Model: An inventory of interrelated items that claim to represent/operationalize a theory/concept, or parts thereof, (possibly) with a procedure or algorithm for their application. What is the inventory, and how can it be utilized?

1. The various definitions that were mentioned in the articles identified in the systematic literature review (by means of question 17, see Appendix C) was read for all papers, while in many cases the abstracts gave additional relevant information.

1 Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003). Retrieved November 5 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concept

After , 25 (9%) Before, 14 (5%)

Before & during, 7 (3%)

Before, during & after, 59 (21%)

During & after, 86 (31%)

During, 85 (31%)

Phases of resilience



33 of 138

2. Information on concepts, theories and models was identified and extracted in three different columns (one for each). ID-numbers were kept in order to be able to go back and analyse it further if needed.

3. The information was categorized; this initially led to a large number of categories (especially for concepts and theories). A stepwise reduction process (2 steps for concepts, 1 step for theories) resulted in 8 (representative, main) categories for concepts, 11 categories for theories and 5 categories for models.

A description of the main categories for the concepts, theories and models found in the literature is given below.

2.3.3.1 Concepts To repeat the definition of Concept used here is: A set or conjunction of characteristic features/entities related to a common scope and rationale that is (at least partly) entangled with or concerns the scope of DARWIN, and with a presumed coherence related to an overall and wide understanding of "resilience". What are the characteristic features put together, and how do they incorporate the idea of "resilience"?

The following categories of Concepts have been identified:

A. Link between Community Resilience and other efforts

B. Continuity and persistence of critical services and functions

C. Attention to vulnerable groups

D. Generic characteristics of resilience concept

E. Special characteristics of Community Resilience

F. Sensitivity to social and cultural foundations

G. Resilience in context of compliance, planned protection and risk management

H. Resilience of critical infrastructure

The overall concept of resilience maintains and gains prominence in a diversity of contexts related to the domain of crisis management. The emphasis and primacy of issues may differ among these contexts, but a large number of common denominators enable us to encircle some general characteristics of resilience as an overarching idea (category D). At the same time, there is a substantial body of knowledge on resilience from a community perspective (in category E), that is, grounded and resting on "naturalistic" human relations and a social fabric rather than the more formal and directed intent and effort of a managed organization or institution with a specific purpose. The conjunction of community resilience and other "professional" efforts (e.g., professional crisis management or public health services) in terms of the ability of the latter to understand and "play with" community resilience may be of utmost importance in crisis situations (category A). However, communities exist in many forms, and there is a possibility that important contributors to resilience from specific communities may evade a too narrow conception of community. Hence, we also specifically address (category F) the need to be sensitive to the extraordinary social and cultural aspects, e.g., stemming from indigenous sources. In a similar vein, but with an opposite concern, resilient action must also encompass the ability to appreciate the needs of vulnerable groups that may be lost by the average view of need for help and relief (category C). In addition, the "resilience of resilience" is emphasized in terms of special attention to the persistence of key resources, not at least human resources that may be exhausted during action (category B). In a similar vein, the resilience of critical infrastructures for society as a whole is emphasized in a specific category (category H). Finally, the almost inevitable contextual mediation and conditioning of resilient performance from other paradigms with other orientations, namely compliance, planned protection and risk management, is framed by category G.



34 of 138

A. Link between Community Resilience and other efforts

Community Resilience (CR) is a distinctive domain associated with resilient properties on unique premises (see Category E below for elaboration). In this category A, specific links with other areas of effort, relevant to the scope of DARWIN, are identified.

From a total of 340 reviewed papers, 19 papers were associated with this category. A TRL value was assessed for 18 of these. The distribution of TRL values is illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9. TRL distribution for Concept Category A: Link between Community Resilience and other efforts

The key issues are about the linking of Community Resilience (document id in parenthesis):

• to area Business Continuity Planning (61) • to the decision-making processes related to reconstruction of infrastructure (157) • to the role of public libraries in the community resource network for disaster recovery (280) • to professional disaster and emergency management actors (293; 1129), including the use of

principles of organizational development (OD) to enhance interactions with communities (1124) , and the setup of a disaster communication hub between callers with unmet needs and community services at disaster sites and evacuation destinations (789)

• as support to future planning decisions on cities' scheduled expansion (440) • with interdependencies between health care and broader social systems and how they intersect to

promote health and resilience before, during and after a crisis (569) • to supporting and fostering of healthy individuals and families (652) • to how organizational resilience can be a source of competitiveness and a driver of cultural adaptive

capacity (707) • to coordination of multi-agency responses during large scale emergencies (831) • to the role of schools as an important link between children, families and the wider community

(1157)

0

1

2

3

4

5

TRL1 TRL2 TRL3 TRL4 TRL5 TRL6 TRL7 TRL8 TRL9

TRL distribution for Concept Category A: Link between Community Resilience and other efforts



35 of 138

• to understand the importance of community-based environmental justice organizations for building grassroots infrastructure for effective disaster planning and to ensure that a foundation exists to advance recovery efforts, particularly in situations when government infrastructure and support is lacking or diminishing (1136)

• Building blocks of a theory of crisis management (DoA42) • Use of and collaboration through social media during crises (DoA78; DoA79; DoA80; DoA83);

factors affecting the media use during crises (DoA79); emergency management and monitoring available information through social media (DoA86; DoA87)

• Social networks play a crucial role in the spread of information, and network structure affects dynamics of information (DoA83); flow to utilize social media as a communication platform among government, emergency responders and the public in crisis (DoA84)

B. Continuity and persistence of critical services and functions

The persistence and continuity of (and within) critical functions and services are easily taken for granted in disaster planning. Hence, they are focused specifically.

From a total of 340 reviewed papers, 5 papers were associated with this category. A TRL value was assessed for 5 of these. The distribution of TRL values is illustrated in Figure 10

Figure 10. TRL distribution for Concept Category B: Continuity and persistence of critical services and functions

The key issues are (document id in parenthesis):

• Area business continuity planning (61) • Resilient business process management (1153) • Stress of risk managers (1628) • Psychological preparedness and emergency response willingness of local public health department

and hospital workers (780)

0

1

2

3


TRL distribution for Concept Category B: Continuity and persistence of critical services and functions



36 of 138

• Safe and resilient health organizations/hospitals (1372; 1448)

C. Attention to vulnerable groups

In a crisis/disaster situation, sensitivity to special needs and vulnerabilities may be hard to maintain, and possibly be lost in the "average" categorization of needs and issues. Hence, vulnerable groups are explicitly addressed as "clients" of resilience.


Figure 11. TRL distribution for Concept Category C: Attention to vulnerable groups


• to reduce vulnerability of high-risk populations and marginal groups, e.g. the frail elderly, disabled, disadvantaged, children, youth and families, and empowering the most vulnerable to prepare themselves for emergencies and other critical events (266; 278; 1064; 1324)

• to reach the marginalized groups under reconstruction processes, especially in urban areas (1060) • in evacuation process of nursing homes (1199) • however, it is also argued that instead of creating new mechanisms for implementing community-

based adaptation, there are multiple opportunities for augmenting current programs to address the health risks of climate change (1293)

0

1

2

3


TRL distribution for Concept Category C: Attention to vulnerable groups



37 of 138

D. Generic characteristics of resilience concept

A large number of common denominators for the overall "resilience" concept are recognized as relevant for DARWIN. The premise of complexity is inherent in practically all of them.


Figure 12. TRL distribution for Concept Category D: Generic characteristics of resilience concept


• The concept of "resilience" presumes the presence of disturbance (63), potential cascading effects are intrinsic (82) and it challenges linear approaches to risk and vulnerabilities, e.g., for (complex) interdependent infrastructures (807); it simultaneously stressing specifics ("manage everything") and aiming at general capabilities ("manage anything") (66), the latter requiring appreciation of variability, attention to "normal work" and a wide range of factors, as well as to "adaptive traps" (12; 95; DoA69); resilience is much more than mitigation and recovery, and more about (a deeper issue of) "best-possible" restoration (1279); resilience is based on vulnerability, risk, assessing, monitoring, adapting, extended or changing conditions, multiple authorities, multi-disciplinary approaches, shifting relationships, distributed decision making, flexibility, agility, mitigation, preparedness, moderate and long time frames in outlook and planning, accumulated, historical, layered, or comparative use of information, communicating with communities, public information (DoA29); four abilities are necessary for resilient performance: respond, monitor, learn, anticipate (DoA64), based on these an assessment grid can be established (DoA35); common traits are to foresee and avoid, to cope with ongoing trouble, and to recover (DoA68); resilience can also be a component of Agility (together with responsiveness, versatility, flexibility, innovativeness and adaptability (DoA65)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


TRL distribution for Concept Category D: Generic characteristics of resilience concept



38 of 138

• The resilience concept is applicable to non-crisis domains (e.g. persistent problems in schools) (217) • Communications management within the conjunction of collaborating parties is important and can

be framed as Operational vs Strategic - and Resilience vs Reputation (blame avoidance) - oriented typologies (410; 491), as with trust as a central feature (1416)

• The dynamics of the situation/threat and the resilient response are inseparable (468); a resilient system is sentient and reflective, adjusting to and match conditions (259); external risks are unavoidable and impossible to predict, the concern should therefore be the resilience of the organization (DoA67)

• Resilience is a central faculty of a total preparedness scheme (422;874); the system-of-systems perspective positions resilience in a role outside/beyond prevalent approaches of risk management (464); disaster resilience may be seen as the ‘shield’, ‘shock absorber’ or buffer that moderates the outcome (1513) and how a system behaves near a boundary (DoA53); as a concept it demands sensitivity to the changing meaning and implications of an incident according to the interest of a government or regime (1662), while practitioners within construct the meaning of disaster resilience differently, embedded in diverse storylines and discourses (149); the performative politics of resilience places resilience within a wider politics of (in)security that seeks to govern risk by folding uncertainty into everyday practices that plan for, pre-empt, and imagine extreme events (65)

• Resilient skills may be trained by means of template scenarios that include work constraints (335); shared mental models allow anticipation of the needs of others (993); foresight is needed (957)

• Formal structures that can be transformed under crisis conditions and accommodate improvisation (689;1662), herein ways to reuse surviving resources (1223); role improvisation is an especially demanding and crucial issue (715)

• Resilience concepts can be combined and scaled (e.g. socio-ecological, built environment), encompassing an orientation towards "new hazards" in many forms (701; 753; 852; 864; 1036; 1063; 1219; 1254; 1274; 1326; 1431; 1479; 1484; 1573); bridge areas and drive (adaptive) improvements, e.g. for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (444; 757), for infrastructures, institutions and communities, demonstrating the salience of a functions-based rather than an asset-based approach (924); Resilience Engineering principles can be effectively translated to the Air Traffic Management domain (108); the Panarchy concept of adaptive cycles can bridge the concepts of resilience, fragility and stabilisation (103;795); the relation between academic perspective vs broader public perspectives on the concept of resilience is shaped by discourses on natural hazards and resilience in news media (373)

• When strategical control is only partially supported at higher levels, Joint Cognitive Systems (JCS) offer a mixture of opportunistic and tactical control in daily operations (376)

• Urban environments (resilient cities) can be early adopters and demonstrators, e.g. in terms of transformative adaptation due to the explicit inclusion of increasing climate change risks in the rebuilding effort (484; 1636), but in practice the needed elements are often fragmented (1409)

• Five patterns of a drift toward failure as defenses erode in the face of production pressure (DoA03) • Bridges adaption and resistance (DoA37) • Resilience should address the movement moves from the probable and into the possible. Attributes

of resilience include intuition, improvisation, expecting the unexpected, examine preconceptions, thinking out of the box, taking advantage of luck (DoA49); demands top level commitment, awareness, preparedness, just culture, learning culture and opacity (DoA61); we can distinguish between resilience and successful performance. Resilience therefore require to redefine success (DoA70)

• Resilience as a component of Agility (DoA65) • Some goals must be deferred in order to achieve others and perform resiliently (DoA70) • Learning might be made difficult by pattern-distancing through differencing (DoA74)



39 of 138

• Key issues for measuring resilient performance: achievable, measurable, qualitative, quantitative means, relevance, specific, time-bound (DoA91)

E. Special characteristics of Community Resilience

Community resilience is commensurate with the general resilience concept (D), but is distinguished by the fact that it is constituted comparatively more on cultural, social and civic "community" facets rather than a formally managed organization or institution. There is a substantial literature on these issues, and it is kept as a separate category because disaster management professionals need to understand the specificities of community resilience in order to collaborate in a fruitful manner.


Figure 13. TRL distribution for Concept Category E: Special characteristics of Community Resilience


• Shared responsibility; whole-of-community approach; 'community capital' (9; 79; 123) at different scales (1159); learning from experiences in terms of previous disasters of the same kind (793); collective efficacy and cohesion promoting post-disaster adaptation (58); community resilience and social coherence can be linked by staged models(122); social resilience at the national scale characterized by individuals’ well-being, sense of patriotism, trust in state leadership, and curbed by the level of fear (414); using local political/religious leaders as a link in order to uphold and draw on the actual sense of community and the communal narratives that gives meaning (1088); a role to play in the continuum of disaster preparedness, response and recovery (1252)

• A combination of designed solutions (266), individual agents (837) influenced by "sense of place" (264;764), social resilience, economic resilience, institutional resilience and physical resilience, community capital, socio-economic agents, families and neighborhood of households (764), influenced by the forms of social and economic capital available (163; 238; 595; 701; 1064; 1159;

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


TRL distribution for Concept Category E: Special characteristics of Community Resilience



40 of 138

1410) and population wellness (1435) and thus a dynamic entity (764); a civic responsibility in a risk democracy (1396); as a networked process based on trust (1456); with a limited reach expressed as resilience i) of something ii) to something iii) to an endpoint (276); as a grass-root response opting for autonomous autonomy, rejecting "external" options (324), enhancing inclusion and self-reliance at community level (344); taking the emergent and relational nature of communities into account (282); as a means of ensuring social stability in the face of crises (539) by incorporating equity and social justice considerations (613); a capacity to thrive in an environment of change and an important indicator of social sustainability (1248); processes putting people at its centre that empowers them and strengthens their capabilities and resilience (1060); 'people-focused' planning methodologies that move beyond planning for to planning with all segments of society (1324)

• Levers for creating community resilience (225), with attention to natural and social sources of adaptive capacity (290), stimulating adaptive capabilities of youth and families instead of focusing on deficits (1064); with a variety of possible pathways to recovery (439); founded on community partnered participatory research (628) and inclusive approaches (942;1484;1550); strengthening infrastructural or physical resilience by deploying “soft” adaptation measures (864); utilizing social media, informal and formal networks (852; 1064; 1595); dependent on supply chain resilience and critical infrastructure/key resource resilience which in turn is dependent on public-private relationships (1335); benefitting from community-wide and regional partnership building, e.g. health-care coalitions (168) and public-health planning processes (939)

• Informed by a sociological perspective; the notion of social capital, its proper features, dynamics and processes within different groups of people (701)

F. Sensitivity to social and cultural foundations

In some situations and contexts, resilience must be attached to an enhanced and deepened sensitivity to cultural and social traits that are typical for the (community) resilience (E) of a specific civic or indigenous community. This extended reach is equally applicable for traditional, indigenous culture and "new" urban/megacities aspects phenomena.




41 of 138

Figure 14. TRL distribution for Concept Category F: Sensitivity to social and cultural foundations


• Beliefs and cultural traditions that are vital resources for resilience, but may shape differently the resilience of survivors and the disaster management for handling of dead bodies (38)

• Collaborative activities between local health departments and community-based organizations and faith-based organizations (456)

• Adaptive capacity is enhanced by pre-existing forms of community leadership: the potential value of indigenous traditions and technologies regarding the shaping of contextually relevant disaster management and risk reduction strategies (238); extreme dependency on specific factors, e.g. specific economic sources, may imply that community resilience may be an illusion, leading to complacency about the need for adaption to multiple factors of change

• Improving evacuation procedures through cultural understanding and adaptation to local customs, by including traditional local leaders and "elders" in both planning and acting phases of emergency evacuations (1281)

• Resilience action areas that cities must consider in order to strengthen their ability to anticipate, prepare for and respond to sudden as well as slow onset impacts (837); Considering the multitude of components, processes, and interactions that take place within and beyond a city's physical, logical (i.e. legal), and virtual (cyberspace) boundaries (754); systemic properties of urban ecosystems (1036)

• Megacities as a "new" particular social and cultural space of community resilience where major social relations and risk reduction actions take place through a collaborative pattern, not based on a top down organizational models (701)

0

1

2

3

4

5


TRL distribution for Concept Category F: Sensitivity to social and cultural foundations



42 of 138

G. Resilience in context of compliance, planned protection and risk management

Although resilience surely is a whole concept in its own right at the abstract level, in practice it often has to be implemented in a context of prevalent paradigms that are differently, even contradictory oriented. It is therefore important to address the coexistence and conditioning and mediation from concepts like proceduralism, bureaucratic values, planning and contingencies, and risk management.


Figure 15. TRL distribution for Concept Category G: Resilience in context of compliance, planned protection and risk management


• Disaster resilience is an enhancement of prevalent emergency management (79;1160); efforts of building (climate change) resilience are jeopardized by top-down reactive approaches, while needing participatory bottom-up approaches (1212); there is a need to position (community) resilience (regarding flood risk) relative to the rationalist and constructivist paradigm contexts for interpreting evidence and developing theory (245); forms of inherent resilience capacity exist prior to the formulation of formal contingency plans (851); resilience can be embedded in "disaster cycle" as complete area of management, national risk register (1160)

• Bureaucratic values affect the ability of agents to adapt to the challenges of crises (365) • Exploration of resilience and action research improves the quality and effect of the risk assessment

(740) • Need to supplement rule adherence with management strategies to deal with the unexpected

(DoA71); A process of reconciliation between "best practice" and emerging resilient performance, in a hierarchical context, is possible (777)

0

1

2

3

4

5


TRL distribution for Concept Category G: Resilience in context of compliance, planned protection and risk management



43 of 138

• Balancing protective and resilience actions through system-level analysis will provide a means to improve the overall efficiency of regional and national preparedness (1375).

• As a strategy of relationship building, collaborative risk management and information sharing will be under-developed and limited by market competition, incompatible institutional cultures, and legal, logistical and political constraints, processes should better delineate risks and identify how governments can work with industry, and acknowledge the paradox between trust and transparency, the role of small- and medium-sized enterprise, and how risk management processes can vary (688)

• Assessment of individual vulnerability and protective-measure values for high-risk critical infrastructures and key resources is extended as the topic of resilience is emerging as a necessary focus in risk management and infrastructure protection. The scope of (resilience) assessment is the ability of systems to withstand specific threats and return to normal operations after degradation (897); Comparative simulations have indicated that groups with the most domain expertise remained committed to presumed procedures ("rule-and –role" retreat) and did not perform (resilient-wise) as well as other groups. Training should go beyond procedures and address generic competencies related to unexpected and escalating situations (1300)

• Resilience guidelines can build on existing risk assessment and risk mapping (DoA23) • The link between risk, vulnerability and resilience (DoA40); vulnerability indicators for measuring

the vulnerability of coastal communities and their recovery (DoA85)

H. Resilience of critical infrastructure

The resilience of critical infrastructures (transportation, energy, supplies, ICT) is treated as a separate category.


Figure 16. TRL distribution for Concept Category H: Resilience of critical infrastructure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


TRL distribution for Concept Category H: Resilience of critical infrastructure



44 of 138


• Resilience of a community or region to a given extreme event scenario, in terms of all its critical infrastructure (CI) systems, reflect the potential for interdependent failures in these systems (449); encompassing cascading failures and ripple effects, interdependencies, interdependency types, resistant capacity, absorptive capacity, restorative capacity (342); the need for collaboration between infrastructure operators (1500); limitations (and side-effects) of foreknowledge, checklist and contingencies implies that resilience must be developed from and beyond that context (1645); theories from criminology and political science adapted to study exogenous security risks for energy supply chains (279); studying direct/indirect impact of heatwaves on urban infrastructure, including cascade effects (862)

• Road network vulnerability assessment can be based on fragile factor interdependencies (451) • CI is the essential underlying systems and facilities upon which the health, safety, security or

economic well-being, and the effective functioning of government rely. A common strategy will provide a comprehensive and collaborative approach to enhancing the resiliency of critical infrastructure (688), but need to take into account influence also from external agents, and cover all the resilience dimensions (62); a Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) program is about ensuring that services vital to the society continue to function (DoA16); effective response will depend on the adaptive behavior of citizens, front-line workers and middle managers (DoA39)

• Concept of resilient design, interdependency planning, implementation of lessons learnt (1021); a framework consisting of a (new) definition of system resilience, calculation of resilience costs, and qualitative resilience analysis (1066); a Protective Measures Index, Resilience Index and Criticality Index as part of an Enhanced Critical Infrastructure Protection initiative (1221); restoration of electric power after the WTC 2001 attack used to frame a set of factors shaping organizational resilience (60); core competency model to develop a curricula to enhance critical infrastructure security and resilience (261)

• The need to take a holistic approach when evaluating and implementing measures in CI. The HHM Hierarchical Holographic Modell identifying interdependencies in infrastructure and preparedness in the society (1375)

2.3.3.2 Theories To repeat the definition of Theory: A claimed/hypothetical correlation, order or causal relationship between a set of phenomena, issues or factors that associated with a (resilience) concept. What are the typical relationships and regularities that are worthwhile to pay attention to?

Note that labeling of the Concepts, Theories and Models sections is independent. There is no connection intended between "Concept n" and "Theory n".

The following categories of Theories have been identified:

A. Link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities

B. Sources of resilience

C. Contextual conditioning of resilience

D. Assessment of community resilience in face of disaster

E. Core principles of resilience theory (system)

F. Integrating properties of Community Resilience with other institutionalized efforts



45 of 138

G. Special attention to "non-average" stakeholders, clients and populations

H. Categorization of needs in disaster situations

I. Cross-scale interactivity (at junctions)

J. Critical infrastructure resilience

K. Sensitivity to indigenous and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices

L. Stress management for human actors in disaster management

A theoretical range of inventories, relationships and regularities that can contribute to the implementation of resilience are proposed by the theoretical categories. A wide variety of sources of resilience is identified (category B), along with some core principles on how a resilient system can be comprehended, organized and built (category E). The link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities (category A) is vital in order to justify using resources on preparations for resilience, while the dynamics of the contextual conditioning of resilience (category C) is crucial in order to understand the constraints that may be met in the effort of building resilience. The special challenges related to accommodating sensitivity to indigenous and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices (category K) is useful for community resilience as well as "organized and mobile" resilience. The other way around, schemes are useful to assess and categorize needs in disaster situations in a general way (category H), but also to mobilize special attention to "non-average" stakeholders, clients and populations (category G). Understanding of interactivity at junctions (category I) contribute to the building of cross-scale resilience, and to the special case of integrating properties of community resilience with other institutionalized efforts (category F). A scheme of assessment of community resilience in face of disaster (category D) may be of vital importance for any effort of preparedness. In a similar vein, principles for stress management related to human actors in disaster management (category L) as well as the specifics of critical infrastructure resilience (category L) are important contributors to the "resilience of resilience" in action.

A. Link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities

Category A conduce the claim that investment in pre-disaster resilience is beneficial for post-disaster resilience, whatever the "onset" of the disaster. However, there are no papers that convey solely this category.




46 of 138

Figure 17. TRL distribution for Theory Category A: Link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities


• Built, natural and social assets for human well-being in normal circumstances are a resource for adaptation to changed circumstances. Pre-disruption adaptive capacity improvement makes a difference (290); the combination of pre-disaster community factors and post-disaster actions contributes to affect successful recovery (439); vulnerability of social-ecological systems should be reduced by preparing for resilience (444); crucial importance of understanding the urban environment as a complex and interconnected system in order to consider actual and potential adaptation responses both before and after the event (62); adaptive capacity based on readiness capabilities and variables influencing capacity (299)

• Community engagement exercises clarify motivations and inform action plans (628); readiness strategies facilitate adaptive response to disaster stress (1628)

• Infrastructure providers benefit from joint preparation (1500)

B. Sources of resilience

This category conduce the various claims of sources that can are available and can be activated to build and nurture resilience. These sources may be Built, Natural2, Individual, Social, Cultural, Economic or Institutional.


2 Or physical

0

1

2

3

4

5


TRL distribution for Theory Category A: Link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities



47 of 138

Figure 18. TRL distribution for Theory Category B: Sources of resilience


• Human mobility in steady states can possibly predict the perturbations of movements in a disaster situation (202); individual resilience is promoted by social connectedness and a sense of place (264, 231) and other facets of community resilience (792); community-partnered activities can host forums for implementing community resilience beyond enhanced individual preparedness toolkits (628, 303), e.g., related to big events (830); networking as a mechanism addresses local self-organisation, community training and communication technology (1395); the relation between trust and an organization's preparedness and internal coordination of crisis communication, and the effectiveness of its leadership (1416); media and communication perspectives (communication ecology, public relations, and strategic communication (88); specific cultural aspects are also part of the social fabric that shape individual's perceptions (1); leadership, particular/outstanding decisions and shared stories is a valuable repository (13); business continuity management advances and intersects with resilience principles (1040); the "practices that natural resource-dependent residents deploy to cope with disruptions" can be recognized as inherent resilience (DoA11).

• Resilience to traumatic experience connected to disaster work comprise three components: dispositional, cognitive, and environmental (1670); for team resilience (243), improvisation (285) leadership and cooperation with other teams are important (169); when role improvisation is needed, resilience may be decreased by lack of language skills, lack of domain knowledge and lack of sufficient organizational structure of the tasks (715).

• Resilience is multi-scalar but can be 'unpacked' by different levels of technical (924;1245), social and economic components, including inter-connectivity of local and regional, employing a systemic and holistic perspective (924); diversified services and resources increases resilience (299;344); resilience demands an interaction of sources (287;807) with sensitivity to constraints goal conflicts and sacrifice decisions (1360); a concept of "invulnerable development" addresses all phases usually included in resilience (prevention, mitigation, planning, response) (1633); a concept of attenuation seeks to establish "islands" with less cascading potential (466); a large number of factors can be

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


TRL distribution for Theory Category B: Sources of resilience



48 of 138

understood by fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs) that consider interactions between them (302); some organizations, e.g., public libraries, are seen as essential community organizations (280); interventions to enhance community resilience should (a) use a multihazard approach relevant to the local context, (b) utilize community assessment, (c) focus on community engagement, (d) adhere to bioethical principles, (e) emphasize both assets and needs, and (f) encourage skill development (72); enhanced cooperation among critical infrastructures operators (1500); systematic surveillance and reduction of unforeseen events, together with guidelines for assessing countermeasures (DoA12); go from "real time" development of procedures/algorithms to self-organization and shift in mental framework (DoA68); the tradeoffs in resilience like optimality vs adaptive capacity, efficiency vs thoroughness, revelation vs reflection, acute vs chronic goal responsibility, concentrated vs distributed action (DoA51); attribution of what has caused a crisis affects how the crisis is perceived, communication efforts and crisis management (DoA76).

• The original resilience concepts formulated in the natural sciences has come to be embraced and harnessed by the social, but there are reasons to be cautious about the uncritical application of resilience thinking to social systems and contexts (89); need to be sensitive to how practitioners frame, construct and make sense of resilience ideas in the context of changes in institutional arrangements for disaster risk management (149); nevertheless, it is argued that a critical social infrastructure implies understanding how dynamic elements at the micro level influence community capacity, from which levers for actions where can be determined, and interventions can facilitate collaborative action (569; 1129; 1404). The interconnectedness of hard and soft systems at the micro level is important (569); understanding that vulnerability is also nested (444) in complex systems (862); according to sociological theories, social cohesion, social relationships and social capital are connected to all stages of the disaster process (701); appreciation of human agency requires analyses of resilience to be less deterministic since a social system can purposefully postpone effects of ecological disruption; human agency is distributed unequally; humans imagine and can anticipate; and can act collectively (614); three capacities of social systems (adaptive, coping, and participative) constitute social resilience. The concept of resilience help overcome an orientation tied together with the concept of vulnerability, that blocks social capacities for the mitigation of disasters (753); equity and social justice is likely to be a precondition for social resilience (613); Social media can be used to assist organizations in following best practices in risk and crisis communication (DoA78).

• By focusing on economic, institutional, natural, physical and social dimensions, it is observed that signs of resilience flourish along urban fringes (440); by focusing on public engagement in problem solving and the development and use of local assets to address community needs, four interrelated domains are claimed to contribute to community resilience: connection and caring, resources, transformative potential, and disaster management (652); community-based activities develop cohesion and thereby indirectly build coherence, but without addressing (place-based) social cohesion it might be self-defeating (122); voices from the community may show the road to recovery from a natural disaster through five implementation strategies: attend to their areas of greatest social vulnerability, let local people engaged in every aspect of the recovery process, utilize pre-existing organizational networks and relationships, promote and protect naturally occurring social supports, and be flexible in the face of unknowns (796); community stakeholders can identify (built, natural, and social) assets that could facilitate adaptation to changed circumstances (a "new normal") (290); humanitarian organizations need to be sensitive to both formal and informal matters in the actual situation (75); multiple pathways to recovery exist, but are sensitive to demographic compositions (439); organizational conditions make a difference (689; 60); bonding and bridging strategies for inter-organizational collaboration determine how patterns of organizational relations might enhance the level of organizational resilience in each hierarchical and horizontal emergency management network (218).



49 of 138

• Various forms of improvisation (285) and ingenuity of front-line operators is essentially a "last resort" when automated systems are part of the scenario (140); group training of community resilience principles result in longitudinal changes in inter-organizational linkages among community organizations, community member responses in table-top exercises, and changes in household level community resilience behaviors and attitudes (225); role-playing exercises as tool for learning and training (DoA55); community-based initiatives' ability to scale up in disaster situations have shown to be dependent on government support (1047); appropriate communication may lessen the risk and aid disaster recovery by means of providing strategic information from the environment that could reduce uncertainty (410).

• Supply chain resilience and management linked to exogenous security threats and disruption strategies of oil and gas supply chains, including interaction between governments and energy supply chains (279).

C. Contextual conditioning of resilience

This category accommodates modes and ways in which resilient properties influence, or are influenced/mediated by, other paradigms with other preferences (e.g., compliance, planning), and how they can meet.


Figure 19. TRL distribution for Theory Category C: Contextual conditioning of resilience


• Crisis experience expose that central bureaucracies often are intransigently well-entrenched in their bureaucratic value-sets, based on (structural and fiscal) efficiency and procedural rationality. These

0

1

2

3


TRL distribution for Theory Category C: Contextual conditioning of resilience



50 of 138

are not supportive of the preconditions of adaptations; virtual redundancy can be understood as a means through which crisis managers partially (or symbolically) seek to balance redundancy with efficiency. To achieve virtual redundancy, mutual aid relationships are developed with network partners beyond budgetary borders. Mutual appreciation of a shared risk may provide common ground for this (365).

• Strategies of relationship building, collaborative risk management and information sharing are under-developed and limited by market competition, incompatible institutional cultures, and legal, logistical and political constraints. Improvements should be made on better delineate risks and identify how governments can work with industry, and acknowledge the paradox between trust and transparency, the role of small- and medium-sized enterprise, and how risk management processes can vary (688).

• A conceptual resilience framework address the planning for resilience to the impacts of stressors (within cities) which requires an evaluation of the vulnerable components (of cities), an understanding of the key processes, procedures, and interactions that organize these components and develop the capacity to address various structuring of components and their interactions (754).

• The familiarity with rules, procedures and domain knowledge may condition resilience in surprising ways. Moderate domain experience may be compensated by generic competencies to successfully manage unexpected and escalating situations. Groups with high domain experience and strong rule orientation may be over-committed to presumed procedures and roles, and might not "accept" exceptional conditions (1300); a framework for conditions and enablers to implement adaptations (262).

• Indicators combining safety and economy (DoA56). • Identify critical elements that are needed in order to adapt to changes in preconditions and how to

deal with unexpected situations (DoA71).

D. Assessment of community resilience in face of disaster

Community resilience turns out to be a major factor in most considerations of disasters. This category reflects the wish and need to be able to assess the level of community resilience in advance.


0

1

2


TRL distribution for Theory Category D: Assessment of community resilience in face of disaster



51 of 138

Figure 20 TRL distribution for Theory Category D: Assessment of community resilience in face of disaster


• The Conjoint Community Resilience Assessment Measurement (CCRAM) estimates the ability of a community to be resilient in the face of disaster, by focusing on physical components and components related to individual's perception about his/her community (539).

• The role of self-efficacy, problem-focused coping, sense of community and age in predicting resilience to the social consequences of volcanic hazard , suggesting that resilience should be conceptualised and managed in a contingent rather than a prescriptive manner (1656).

E. Core principles of resilience theory (system)

This category conduce various proposals on the core principles to which a resilient system, or parts thereof, must function in order to work, including some overarching, holistic principles for how various sources and components of resilience can be arranged and mobilized in order to function resiliently. The category also rest on a conceptual dimension concerning the level(s) of ambition to be associated with the label of "resilience".


Figure 21 TRL distribution for Theory Category E: Core principles of resilience theory (system)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6


TRL distribution for Theory Category E: Core principles of resilience theory (system)



52 of 138

• Resilience implies multiple meanings both in terms of recovery time from disturbances and the capacity to absorb them. Abrupt and surprising changes in complex socio-ecological systems that are prone to disturbances inflict qualitative and quantitative alterations in systems' structures and processes (1219); resilient endpoints related to acute stressors tend to emphasize the return to normal ("as-you-were"), whereas endpoints related to chronic stressors tend more towards "as-you-should-be" (276); the label 'resilience' can be understood as four principal concepts with different aspirations: (i) resilience as rebound from trauma and return to equilibrium, (ii) resilience as a synonym for robustness, (iii) resilience as the opposite of brittleness, i.e., as graceful extensibility when surprise challenges boundaries, (iv) resilience as network architectures that can sustain the ability to adapt to future surprises as conditions evolve (97); resilience as hierarchical (strategic vs tactical and opportunistic control) (376); architectural framework for resilience and survivability of communication networks (1245); the difference between resilience as stressing specifics, and as a general capacity (66).

• Diversity contributes to resilience. Different forms of capital can take different roles, and cross-scale interactions matter. Experimentation and learning are thus needed to build adaptive capacities (123; 777; 1219); resilience should be theoretically understood as a salutogenesis3 within a systems theory perspective. An "up-stream" approach based on an asset-lens empower citizens, and representatives from different organizations can devise solutions to support needs through innovative activation of the assets (278); disasters can be windows of opportunity for sustainability. Community resilience processes can be enacted in alternative social practices, e.g., ecovillages, comprising communication, cooperation, cohesion, coping, credibility and credo (324).

• The four cornerstones of resilience anticipating, monitoring, responding and learning) (389) is an example of an overarching holism; Adaptive cycles and "panarchy" attempt to explain (resilient) responses to abrupt and sudden changes over time (1219). It is necessary to elicit and focus on disruption and recovery over time, rather than uncertainties regarding system function at a given point in time. Information sharing, iteration, and learning among the participants provide the basis for more informed estimates of system robustness and recovery regarding interdependent failures (449).

• The inseparability of 1) the dynamics of a situation/threat and 2) the resilient response in escalating situations demands attention to both short- and long-term dynamics of the operational context. A meso-level principle of distributed and emergent cognition ("in the wild") can have a bridging impact between scales (468) and enforce strategic and tactical control in ten absence of strategic control (376); attention should be directed to how the system fails in its performance. System functions are intrinsically coupled synchronically and diachronically in ways that may affect the ability to respond to extreme conditions (666).

• Complex situations are different from complicated ones (777); Multi-functionality implies that a complex system may produce other positive outputs than those intended, (123).

F. Integrating properties of Community Resilience with other institutionalized efforts

Community resilience turns out to be a major object of attention in the literature. This category F conduce various proposals on how community resilience can be supportive of, or benefit from other crisis management efforts that are institutionalized or managed outside the (normal) confines of the notion of community.

3 That is, as a genesis of "health"; the opposite of "pathogenesis" (the genesis of disease)



53 of 138


Figure 22. TRL distribution for Theory Category F: Integrating properties of Community Resilience with other institutionalized efforts


• For integration with traditional health services, the importance of metrics for evaluation and strategic planning purposes is described (613); the prospect of transformational leadership (113).

• Community resilience can support [official HC] policies through facilitated partnerships. Community engagement exercises clarify motivations and inform action plans, barriers (e.g., trust in government), and strategies for building community resilience can be identified. (628); grassroots groups can assume responsibility for reconstructing an area, experiencing a spontaneous and autonomous way of action and exploiting local skills, knowledge and resources (107); joint work with objectives between academic health center, local health departments (LHDs), and faith-based organizations (FBOs) (303).

• (Community-driven) Social media expand capacity to deliver information, extend the reach of official messages and limit the psychological damage caused (970); incorporating media and communication perspectives (communication ecology, public relations, and strategic communication (88).

G. Special attention to "non-average" stakeholders, clients and populations

Principles and functions to cater for the "non-average" in populations and situations may be useful

From a total of 340 reviewed papers, 2 papers were associated with this category. A TRL value was assessed for none of these.

0

1

2

3


TRL distribution for Theory Category F: Integrating properties of Community Resilience with other institutionalized efforts



54 of 138


• A 'mutual help' cultural practice affects children's response to crisis (1). • Links between different networks of care are important to avoid discontinuities that could endanger

older people's health and well-being (185).

H. Categorization of needs in disaster situations

While the principles and practice of "triage" is well established in the medical sphere, principles for categorization of needs are believed to be potentially useful also in other disaster management contexts.

From a total of 340 reviewed papers, 1 paper was associated with this category. A TRL value was assessed for none.


• A conceptual framework guide the development of central hypotheses related to decision-making in nursing homes and other healthcare facilities related to evacuation. There is however still need to better understand how disaster plans can be adapted to meet the needs of frail elders and other residents in nursing homes. Information on health outcomes would allow administrators and others to more appropriately weigh the balance of risks and benefits associated with evacuation (1199).

I. Cross-scale interactivity (at junctions)

As resilience is a relatively boundless concept with many and interrelated meanings, understanding cross-scale interactivity is an area of interest in its own respect.




55 of 138

Figure 23 TRL distribution for Theory Category I: Cross-scale interactivity (at junctions)

The key issues are document id in parenthesis):

• Attention is drawn not only to formal interactivity, but also informal interactivity between networks of care (185).

• Organizational partnership involves increasing and enhancing the linkages and collaborations between government and non-governmental organizations (225), also in the field of security (830); the interaction among personal beliefs about preparing, community characteristics influencing how risk beliefs and risk management strategies are developed, and the relationship between the community and health information sources, concerning pandemic situations (1404).

• When community-based initiatives build capacity of groups to demand change from the government, the lack of government support may cause that these groups are not able to effectively act in partnership or cooperation with the government. This impacts their ability to scale up (1047).

• Supply chain resilience and management linked to exogenous security threats and disruption strategies of oil and gas supply chains, including interaction between governments and energy supply chains (279).

J. Critical infrastructure resilience

Attention to critical infrastructure resilience is inevitable.


0

1

2

3


TRL distribution for Theory Category I: Cross-scale interactivity (at junctions)



56 of 138

Figure 24 TRL distribution for Theory Category J: Critical infrastructure resilience


• Information sharing, iteration, and learning among the participants provide the basis for more informed estimates of infrastructure system robustness and recovery regarding interdependent failures. Results demonstrate the vital importance of cross-sectoral communication to develop shared understanding of regional infrastructure disruption in disasters (449).

• A framework to assess the interdependent vulnerability of road network failures by means of fuzzy cognitive maps and geographic information systems, incorporating functional and spatial interactions. Vulnerability will be underestimated if interdependency is neglected (451).

K. Sensitivity to indigenous and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices

We already have established theoretical categories that address the sources of resilience (B) and the core principles of resilient systems (E). Both include the special type of constitution and coherence typical for community resilience that was given a specific conceptual category (E). Still, as also signified by the conceptual category F4, even in the domain of community resilience there is an inherent danger of gravitating towards simplistic stereotypes of "communities", in which attention to indigenous, cultural and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices is lost. Hence, we use this category K as a placeholder to maintain necessary attention to theoretical contributions to this issue.

From a total of 340 reviewed papers, 4 papers were associated with this category. A TRL value was assessed for 1 of these. The distribution of TRL values is illustrated in Figure 24

4 Sensitivity to social and cultural foundations of community resilience

0

1

2

3


TRL distribution for Theory Category J: Critical infrastructure resilience



57 of 138

Figure 25 TRL distribution for Theory Category K: Sensitivity to indigenous and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices


• The Mori disaster response to the Christchurch earthquakes and subsequent urban recovery process, being collaborative, effective and shaped by 'kaupapa' (cultural values), constitutes an exemplar of best practice with potential value for shaping similar disaster management and risk reduction strategies (238).

• Three points with relevance for resilience in social-ecological systems: (1) Time as a threshold vs. avoiding quick fixes, (2) Trading risks: specified vs. general resilience, (3) Response origination: building local general resilience, and general resilience in central agencies. In the latter the need is to allow improvisation, and failure, during times of crisis.

• NGOs can contribute positively (1392).

L. Stress management for human actors in disaster management

As already signified by the conceptual category B (Continuity and persistence of critical services and functions), there is a danger of taking the continuity and persistence of critical contributors to resilience for granted. This may be boiled down to the risk of putting too much expectation, stress and burden on the individual person. Hence, we use this category L as a placeholder to maintain necessary attention to theoretical contributions to this issue.


0

1

2


TRL distribution for Theory Category K: Sensitivity to indigenous and other "non-professional" domains of experience and practices



58 of 138

Figure 26 TRL distribution for Theory Category L: Stress management for human actors in disaster management


• Perceived levels of psychological preparedness and support may impact response willingness in severe scenarios. This relationship is also influenced by perceived self-efficacy and perceived family preparedness (780).

• Readiness strategies are developed that facilitate an adaptive response to disaster stress of emergency managers (1628).

• Anticipating and planning for how individuals behave must be rooted in actual situations and not on ideas that have little or no counterpart in real life (DoA77).

2.3.3.3 Models Model: An inventory of interrelated items that claim to represent/operationalize a theory/concept, or parts thereof, (possibly) with a procedure or algorithm for their application. What is the inventory, and how can it be utilized?

The following categories of Models have been identified:

A. Factors of resilience

B. Human behavior and group cohesion

C. Measure and evaluate resilience

D. Practices and guidelines

E. Resilience in a broader context

A number of models are found that aim at encircling an inventory of components of resilience that can be utilized for different purposes. Some models factorize resilience for the purpose of description but also

0

1

2


TRL distribution for Theory Category L: Stress management for human actors in disaster management



59 of 138

intervention (category A). Other models describe human behavior and group cohesion in specific situations (category B). Other models are directed at measurement and evaluation of community resilience, teams, investment efficiency and infrastructures (category C). A number of models (category D) are intended for recommendation and guidance at a practice and design level. Finally, category E conveys models that address the need to balance opposing rationalities, manage processes of reconciliation between resilience and "best practice" in the intersection between the foreseen/expected and the unexpected.

A. Factors of resilience

This category accommodates the factor-oriented models of resilience in general, of team, community and infrastructure resilience, but also factor-oriented intervention approaches.


Figure 27 TRL distribution for Model Category A: Factors of resilience


• A five-factor model of community resilience (57); a six-factor model of community resilience (539); an adaptive capacity model outlining key psychological and social factors that influence community hazard preparedness (238); a model of community assets which support adaptive capacity to respond and recover from adverse events (278); FEMA's Risk MAP (Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning) process, a model approach in which stakeholders identify built, natural, and social assets (290); a consensus reached by Delphi on a community resilience framework involves seven to fourteen criteria in each of six identified dimensions (293); a community resilience model comprise pre-disaster community factors and post-disaster actions (439); a "five capitals" model of sustainability (820).

• A systemic resilience model (SyRes) of 4 areas (77); Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) (666); a (fuzzy) model determining the most important among all Resilience Engineering

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


TRL distribution for Model Category A: Factors of resilience



60 of 138

factors (302); a (meso level) distributed and emergent cognition ("in the wild") model that mediate the interactivity between actors (468); "resilience" as a faculty of preparedness including the absorbing, buffering, and response capacities (422); for clarity of scope, it is recommended always to discuss "resilience" as i) of something ii) to something iii) to an endpoint (276).

• A 6-dimension taxonomy of components of team resilience(169). • Infrastructure resilience characterization composed of assessment of the node vitality and agility

(343); road network vulnerability determined by fuzzy cognitive maps and geographic information systems for functional and spatial interactions, based on eleven fragile factors (451); a practical approach to characterize a community's infrastructure vulnerability and resilience (449).

• A Climate Disaster Resilience Index framework in 5 X 4 dimensions (440). • Potential points of intervention to promote population health and resilience (569); a Communities

Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART) is a model of community intervention in 4 phases (652). • Model in 8 key domains of hospital resilience with binary variables, and analysable using descriptive

statistics such as frequencies (252). • An Integrated Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Planning (IBCDRP) allocate internal and

external resources to both resuming and recovery plans simultaneously (78).

B. Human behavior and group cohesion

Models of human behavior and group cohesion.


Figure 28 TRL distribution for Model Category B: Human behavior and group cohesion


0

1

2


TRL distribution for Model Category B: Human behavior and group cohesion



61 of 138

• The center of mass and the radius of gyration of each individual's movements during perturbation states and steady states are highly correlated, following truncated power law distributions (202); a threat-and efficiency-oriented behavioral model with focus on collection of attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported response willingness (780).

• Common ground can be developed in three phases (37); the views of older people and service providers may be used to explore resilience of infrastructures and service agencies (185); community Disaster Resilience can be structured on four levers: education, engagement, self-sufficiency, and partnership (225).

• Processes of proactive change that are implemented by communities-of-place, rather than simply as reactions to external shocks or events (614).

C. Measure and evaluate resilience

This category accommodates models that devise measurement and evaluation of community resilience, teams, investment efficiency and infrastructures.


Figure 29 TRL distribution for Model Category C: Measure and evaluate resilience


• A stochastic model of resilience on the speed/rapidity of system recovery, including cascading effect of problems along the network (156); indicators for vulnerability and resilience assessment (163); model of community stability and functioning before and after disaster (264); evaluation model for measuring and "unpacking" community resilience (344); community resilience assessed by questionnaire on implementation of different actions to reduce the risk/vulnerability in the

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


TRL distribution for Model Category C: Measure and evaluate resilience



62 of 138

community (815); WHO Toolkit to assess health-system capacity for crisis management (832); a conceptual framework to assess the resilience of a community by and integrating the institutional, legal and social capacities to cope and recover from a natural hazardous event (6); a composite index of community resilience to disasters and its geographic variability (327); the Military Installation Resilience Assessment model applies risk and resilience principles to evaluate whole systems, focusing on interconnections and their functionality in facilitating response and adaptation, including the socio-ecological perspective of resilience (16).

• A Resilience Matrix (RM) framework utilizes local stakeholder-informed metrics and accommodates explicit reference to temporality of disruptive events, using both qualitative and quantitative metrics. Results reveals opportunities to prioritize investments and collaborate among responsible parties (10); Set of metrics covering social, economic, institutional, infrastructural, community-based, and environmental dimensions of resilience, validity is addressed via real (USA) cases (69).

• Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale (604); loss-recovery curve for community resilience. Resilience hierarchy (102); survey tool to identify strengths and weaknesses and to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of resilience strategies and investments (707); three-step model to calculate the cost to national economics of infrastructure systems destruction due to natural disaster, and economy’s resilience to the disaster when buffered by alternative resiliency investments (943); community resilience framework (1280) for an earthquake prone area (792;854); the Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART), a survey instrument for (self-) assessment of community resilience (567); a Climate-related Disaster Community Resilience Framework (CDCRF) to assess the level of (community) resilience and the ability to enhance the coping capability when experiencing disaster (793); a composite resilience index against climate related disasters with special applications to the coastal rural communities in the developing world (46); a framework for measuring hospital disaster resilience using factor analysis (233).

• Three ways of improving a team's performance and hence resilience when forced to improvise due to lack of personnel in one or more required competence areas (715); threat-and efficacy-oriented behavioral model of attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported response willingness (780).

• Coherence model for interdependent resilient infrastructures (99;361); mathematical modelling to optimize (reconfigurable) transportation systems (486); mathematical model for quantitatively assessing the resilience of critical infrastructure systems (1043); Algorithm for assessment of water distribution system's readiness (1332); Protective Measures Index + Resilience Index + Criticality Index (1221); use of Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in order to measure resilience of ATM systems (1032).

D. Practices and guidelines

This category conveys model-based recommendations and guidelines at a practice level, addressing generic resilience, community resilience and design for resilience.




63 of 138

Figure 30 TRL distribution for Model Category D: Practices and guidelines


• Recommendations on four (generic) properties of resilience (anticipation, monitoring, responding and learning) at individual, team and school level (217).

• Review of several guidelines for supporting community resilience (72); a set of promising practices (stakeholder engagement, communicating value and purpose, simplifying processes, formalizing connections, and incentivizing participation) (168); a post-disaster case as a paradigmatic example of a community-based response to an external shock (324); an example from a large urban county on how to implement a community resilience framework in public health practice (613); community-partnered participatory research to support workgroups in developing community resilience action plans (628); implications for library and emergency management practice (280); guidelines to improve the effectiveness of school natural hazard programs (1340); the Community Resilience Framework for simultaneously creating supportive environments for health and increasing community capacity for adaptation to climate-related stressors. It can be used by Municipal Public Health Planners as a guide in building community resilience to climate change (939); models of risk perceptions, evacuation and actions, disaster recovery regarding the role of community in the continuum of disaster preparedness (1252).

• A range of design possibilities to enable disaster response and reduce the vulnerability of the elderly (266); framework for a holistic approach to designing, planning, and managing for resilience by including an evaluation of cultural and process dynamics within cities as well as their physical elements (754); resilience approach that bridges various scales of interventions and analysis, with numerous time scales (phases) and many sectors of intervention (158); principles for design of resilient systems, including architecture of resilient enterprise information (1249); a model of recursive learning in crisis (1198).

• a holistic resilience framework in order to improve their resilience level of a nuclear plant (critical infrastructure) by taking into account internal and external agent, defined in close collaboration with the general management of plant to facilitate its implementation in practice (62); a generic supply chain resilience framework that guide managers when directing resources and planning for building

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


TRL distribution for Model Category D: Practices and guidelines



64 of 138

the capabilities required in each phase of disaster management, while remaining strategically focused (369); supply chain resilience and risk management with exogenous security threats and disruption strategies of oil and gas supply chains, including interaction between governments and energy supply chains (279), also associated with business continuity (1195); twelve policies that help to enhance the resilience level of all the stakeholders involved in crisis management, using information gathered from experts and examining several case studies (699); specific guidelines for policymakers with the objective to develop and enhance cooperation among critical infrastructures operators (1500); guidance to include Resilience Engineering principles in methodology for safety assessment of functional changes in Air Traffic Management (ATM) (108); a method for scenario-based training based on template scenarios targeting resilience skills (335); lessons learnt from resilience engineering applied to case study to extract recommendations by which incident management for open access international rail transport may be improved (287).

E. Resilience in a broader context

This category conveys models that address the need to balance opposing rationalities, manage processes of reconciliation between resilience and "best practice" in the intersection between the foreseen/expected and the unexpected, integrate resilience measures with prevalent approaches both theoretically and practically (including indexing of critical infrastructures), and capture the impact of broadening the risk assessment process by including a resilience perspective.


Figure 31 TRL distribution for Model Category E: Resilience in a broader context


0

1

2

3

4


TRL distribution for Model Category E: Resilience in a broader context



65 of 138

• A set of key issues to understand and develop the balancing act between technical-rationalist thinking refracted by the public service ethos, and the need to be adaptive/resilient (365).

• Seven pathways to achieve adaptive and integrated disaster resilience are identified, targeting scholars, policy makers and practitioners (526).

• A resilience-informed risk assessment process seems to have improved the knowledge of emergency response supporting resilience (740).

• Description of a process of reconciliation between "best practice" and emerging resilient performance, in a hierarchical context (777).

• Case studies of implementation of (urban climate change) resilience-building measures in specific (Asian) cities, highlighting tensions and challenges, providing an empirical base of practice available for learning and guide further refinement of both theory and practice (837).

• A targeted questionnaire to produce individual vulnerability and protective-measure values for high-risk critical infrastructures and key resources is extended with a comprehensive methodology that uses uniform and consistent data to develop a resilience index (RI) (897).

• A three-parted model of resilience (a parallel view of changes in ongoing events, actors' sensemaking and control functions, and the technologies used for sensemaking and control) is focused on the response to both foreseen and actual process changes (953).

• A comprehensive child-Oriented preventive resilience program (in four parts; health/mental health, population, information and school resilience) in Israel based on lessons learned from communities exposed to war, terrorism and disaster (595).

2.3.4 Practices, guidelines or information on needs from stakeholders/end-users This section describes needs, issues, solutions, and practices that have been identified in the set of SLR and DoA articles.

The following definitions of categories were used:

Needs represent something that is essential for someone to be able to achieve a certain goal or task. The ultimate goal of resilience could be thought of as ensuring safety and security. However, this goal needs to be scrutinized and divided into subcategories. Consequently, needs exist on different levels. What does one need to be able to achieve a certain goal?

Issues represent problems, difficulties or factors that need to be managed (by a suggested solution) in order to fulfill one or several needs. What are the barriers to fulfill the need?

Solutions represent some kind of a way forward to overcome one or several barriers, an intervention (which could be a method, tools, framework etc.). What could be incorporated (method, tools, framework etc.) in order to overcome one or several issues/barriers?

Practices represent a solution that has been incorporated/implemented in a real environment. What has been incorporated in order to overcome one or several issues/barriers?

The following method was used:

1. The qualitative description of question 18 as well as the abstract was read for all papers; in many cases the abstracts gave more information relevant to needs, issues, solutions and practices.

2. Information on needs, issues, solutions and practices was identified and extracted in four different columns (one for each). Each ID-number was kept in order to be able to go back and analyze it further if needed.

3. The information was categorized; this led to a large number of categories (especially for needs, issues and solutions).



66 of 138

4. The categories were then synthetized and described in order to get representative, main groups of categories.

Here follows the description the main categories of the needs, issues, solutions and practices found in the literature.

2.3.4.1 Needs Needs represent something that is essential for someone to be able to achieve a certain goal or task. The ultimate goal of resilience could be thought of as ensuring safety and security. However, this goal needs to be scrutinized and divided into subcategories. Consequently, need exists on different levels. The question that we try to answer here is: What does one need to be able to achieve a certain goal?

The main categories of needs that were found are:

A. Prioritize B. Develop strategies C. Support Recovery D. Prepare for events E. Adaptation F. Coordination G. Clarification of roles H. Involve stakeholders I. Ensure health, safety & security J. Define, assess and compare resilience K. Situation understanding L. Respond M. Mitigation N. Logistics O. Understand/recognize local needs/diversity/perception/resources P. Information sharing

A. Prioritize

Prioritizing (between for instance different actions/measures before, during and after an adverse event) could be divided into at least three distinct needs: 1) assessing priorities (157), 2) balancing actions, for instance between measures towards resilience versus protection or between measures addressing unknown versus known threats (1375; 13), and 3) setting priorities, deciding on how to proceed and implement the prioritization decisions (157). It is important to understand how certain policies effects both in short and long terms (540).

B. Develop strategies

Strategies are needed (1628; 25; 225; 789) in the preparing phase, which is before an adverse event has happened. They need to be adaptive in order to be useful in a changing world and give information to managers in their work of setting directions for the system (organization etc.) (25). Existing strategies, for example those developed for disaster risk reduction, need to include the concept of resilience in a systematic way (9; 1479). Strategies are highlighted as important instruments for organizations in measuring results (225) and deciding on what is acceptable losses (1479) A holistic approach; one that includes socio-ecological system resilience in “traditional resilience engineering”, is sometimes expressed as a need (16). It is important to understand how certain policies effects both in short and long terms (540), and to seek a proactive approach (that for instance could be equipped with a decision support framework).



67 of 138

C. Support Recovery

Recovery is one of the phases in crisis and resilience management, which begins in the aftermath of a crisis or alike. Several papers highlight the need of supporting recovery, usually is this need expressed as the need of a “higher-level” of authority (e.g. the national level) to support a “lower-level” of authority (e.g. the local/community level) (1470; 1434; 1550; 9; 61; 1620; 182; 299; 1136).

D. Prepare for events

Preparing for events (the “objects”), such as crisis, disasters, catastrophes an alike is one of the main pillars in resilience management. Several papers include preparing as an important need (781; 1434; 238; 1550; 9; 82; 837; 1357; 830;287;12; 993; 1340; 464; 1392; DoA55; DoA74). Some organizations or system levels have adopted a worst-case-scenario approach (830), (although one could always make a scenario even worse by changing some of the variables in the scenario). Nevertheless, anticipating these types of events is an important part of the preparation (837). In the preparations phase collaboration with other entities (parts of an organization, systems, and communities etc.) is a crucial step (853; 238; 61; 1447; 1156; 572) and this means the entities need to develop for instance networks of agencies (1156) and other arrangements (572). In a broader societal perspective collaboration between civil defence and communities is needed (238). Preparing for events also includes to be able to learn from experience, understand incidents and anticipate their changing adaptive capacity (287), capture the knowledge of those affected by crisis (58) as well as training and preparing for instance emergency management personnel for (role) improvisation (285).

E. Adaptation

In many cases an entity (individual, organization, system etc.) need to adapt (9; 264; 1431; 493; DoA70; DoA71) to be able to respond to unforeseen events (140), and this may include some kind of improvisation (140; 365) or ad hoc solutions. Applying solutions even though vital resources are not available might be needed (493). Adaptive capacity, such a sharing staff and resources with other entities (168) or using locally available resources (185; 852) is needed and constitute one of the characteristic features of resiliency (1431; 182; 796; 1210; 793). Coping and recovery capacities may result in adaptive capacity (793). Sometimes adaptability is also linked to flexibility (95; 12); flexibility may include a need to be able to make decisions on the fly and resolve issues quickly as there is significant financial cost associated with inaction (95). Adaptation is necessarily in order to respond to unforeseen events (140; 1300).

F. Coordination

Usually, there is a need to coordinate measures between different stakeholders during a crisis or disastrous event (61; 1599; 1620; 218; 993). This may include stressing the coordinating role of the upper levels of organizations; a coordinating role of the national and provincial governments is critical to the building of a resilient community in terms of inter-organizational collaboration, and demonstrate the steering role of the national and provincial governments with regard to resilience (218).

G. Clarification of roles

Two papers explicitly express the need to clarify roles between involve stakeholders and/or systems/technologies (such as ICT) (27; 121).

H. Involve stakeholders

Involving different stakeholders is a reoccurring theme in the literature (157; 572; 740; 815; 1620; 434; 757; 1564; 1212; 12; 1404; 464; 1625). A stakeholder is here defined any entity that is either directly or indirectly affected by a crisis or disastrous event. It could also be anyone that is involved in the preparation, mitigation, response or recovery phases. Several papers advocate for a multi-stakeholder involvement or engagement (see for instance 815) and this may include stakeholders from governmental agencies, academia, communities, private organizations and NGO's. Some refer to these involvement as “formation of social capital” (976). The need to involve communities is commonly addressed in the literature. Local stakeholder



68 of 138

need to be engaged in the planning phase and/or during the response phase (217; 278; 294; 311; 526; 1157; 1324) (which is also true for the regional level (1564)), be able to give input in resilience assessments, and be given the adequate resources and responsibilities in order to manage their own crisis preparedness and response (185; 526; 796; 1210; 1324; 1599). Local resources are considered as core capacities in resilience management (837). Governmental agencies and other public authorities may need to support businesses (private sector) in their continuity work (311; 61; 815). Many businesses have already adopted the private sector’s equivalent to risk- and vulnerability management: Business Continuity planning (BCP). Involving different stakeholder can lead to a shared responsibility between different actors (976) and support the empowerment of the involved stakeholders (185; 526; 796; 1210; 1324; 1599). Officials need to find their counterparts in terms of responsibility and authority to be able to make effective operational decisions (287). A culture of collaboration and cooperation between different levels of responders and communities (217; 294; 526; 1281) is needed

I. Ensure health, safety & security

Ensuring health, safety and security is an overall goal in resilience management and community resilience (1434; 302; 25; 1156; 323; 1449). Responsible actors and effected people need to understand why and how crisis and disastrous events develop (1620; 1470). It is important that all involved and effected people retain and hold a sense of connection (1620), otherwise severe negative psychological impacts may follow. Reducing vulnerabilities in the face of natural hazards is needed (807). Mental health is a key issue during a disaster (781;303;1561). Responsible actors need to address and support key daily needs and basic necessities of the effected population (766) and enable livability for the residents living in the disaster area (266; 324). Some people, such as old people, are particularly vulnerable (185; 266) to certain events (e.g. heat waves) and adequate measures for these need to be taken. Another vulnerable group is the first responders, such as the fire fighters working during the 9/11 terrorist attack; these people received both immediate consequences (many of them died in the fires) and long-term consequences (such as cancer or post-traumatic stress) (1434). Certain entities are considered especially important during the response phase of an event (such as health care) while others are considered as high-risk environments (such as Nuclear power plants) in which a failure here could lead to a crisis or disastrous event. Therefore, all these entities need to be prepared and develop plans (831; 302). All involved actors need to be able to quickly respond in order to minimize the impacts on health, safety and security (766; 1335).

J. Define, assess and compare resilience

Defining, assessing and comparing resilience are the first steps in resilience management and community resilience. To define resilience is important in order to assure that everyone is talking about the same thing, and is a cornerstone for effective communication. Assessing and comparing are needed in order to for instance estimate baseline resilience and measure progress toward resilience enhancement (16; 122), capture the essence of resilience, to identify the stressors (754), and to examine the factors that contribute to resilience (264), which are important in order to identify the most effective measure to actually increase resilience. Comparing different entities could be a motivator and one could follow the progress over time. Best practices could be highlighted and serve as guiding examples. In this work, it is important to understand the nexuses between risk, vulnerability, and policy for the future of resilience discourse (54), to evaluate risks (1124), to create national risk registers (1160), and to gain insight in into risk perception (for instance risk perception with respect to climate change which relates to an organization's understanding of the risks associated with climate change and its impacts) (75). Assessment could also include assessing (and implementing) security measures (DoA12), guidance on elaboration of risk assessments and risk mapping (DoA23) as well as measuring brittleness and evaluation of cost-effectiveness of countermeasures (DoA56).

K. Situation understanding

During and crisis or disastrous event the responsible actors need to have a good understanding of the situation (1434). This understanding includes knowing what resources are available (and where they are),



69 of 138

what resources could be available, (278), understanding and making sense of the ongoing event (140) and knowing what other actors are doing or are supposed to be doing

L. Respond

The need to respond during an event is a very broad need, and is addressed in various forms in the literature (781; 1434; 1550; 157; 569; 572; 1199; 1620; 389; 1220; 666; 1671; 265; 231; 218; 15; 1467; 75; DoA39; DoA69). Many of the other needs described above and below are either directly or indirectly addressing the need to respond. Some features in responding are effective leadership (265), responding in a timely manner (Although thus can jeopardize practice that fosters resilience (231)) (218; 231; DoA03), better, faster, and more comprehensive emergency organizational infrastructure responses in low-income urban environments (15) and empowering local communities (1467; 58; 614; DoA20; DoA78).

M. Mitigation

Mitigation - in this context – means minimizing the impact of crisis and disastrous event. This need is addressed in several of the papers (1470; 9; 61; 264; 1479; 163; 1392). More specifically these papers usually address the need of implementing mitigation measures.

N. Logistics

Logistics is usually an important part of crisis and resilience management, and includes for instance providing/maintain adequate resources and supplies (in a timely manner) (1156; 1054; 389; DoA78), reallocation of human resources (1220) and maintain functionality of critical systems and services during a disturbance (16).

O. Understand/recognize local needs/diversity/perception/resources

A reoccurring theme in the literature is the need to understand and recognize the local needs/diversity/perception/resources (245; 781; 72; 777; 1199; 1620; 121). The local context is often neglected, even though it is vital if the response and recovery are to be executed in an acceptable and effective way (781). Regulations need to be more inclusive of the specific needs and economic aspirations of affected groups, rather than relying primarily on major political and business leaders to develop plans with cursory community input. Broader examination of neighborhood activism regarding rebuilding, barriers and opportunities posed by political and state entities, and the connection between environmental hazards and public health infrastructure problems (1136). Crisis and disastrous event usually have some kind of local impact, directly or indirectly, but the diversity and uniqueness of the different local communities are not to a satisfactory level addressed (72; 282). Also the unique needs of certain groups or individuals (such as rescuers, witnesses, survivors or organizations) are not recognized (1620; 540), according to the literature. All this may lead to a low community acceptance/trust of authorities which in turn may lead to ineffective response (72). There also is a need to understand interdependencies between sectors and stakeholders. Trust is a reoccurring need, and ethical considerations is needed when involving with highly politicized local and regional situations (1088).

P. Information sharing

Information gathering and sharing are bottlenecks during a crisis or alike (64; 853; 61; 1447; 613; 715; 1124; 939; 88). In order share information in an effective manner there needs to be an atmosphere of trust among actors and the public (1447; 1595; 294), misunderstandings need to be avoided (715), and pre-existing information flows between entities need to be in place (205; 1470). Also crisis communication (not only information) between authorities and the public is an important part of an effective crisis management (168; 205; 291; 491; 13; 307; 1167; 75; 245; 993; DoA48; DoA78). In this communication there might be language barriers that need to be managed.



70 of 138

2.3.4.2 Issues Issues represent problems, difficulties or factors that need to be managed (by a suggested solution) in order to fulfill one or several needs. The question that we try to answer here is: What are the barriers to fulfill the need?

The main categories of issues that were found are:

A. Role ambiguity B. Lack of adequate information or the presence of faulty information C. Time constraints D. Economic constraints E. Cognitive constraints F. Poor relationships, involvement and commitment G. Organizational constraints H. Cultural constraints I. Political constraints J. Training/exercise/experiences K. Trade-offs and conflicting goals L. Lack of useful tools and assessments M. Challenges

A. Role ambiguity

Role ambiguity, or unclear/uncertain roles, is a problem that may lead to deficiencies in information sharing and collaboration (853).

B. Lack of adequate information or the presence of faulty information

During a crisis or disaster information sharing might become an issue. There are usually several agencies/stakeholders involved and problems in information sharing between them can arise (688; 853). Sometimes only partial information is given (449). Communication can be extremely difficult due to for instance lack of infrastructure and basic IT-solutions (13). New social media could be useful during a crisis and alike but one should also be cautious in using these the usage is often not well rehearsed (1167), which can result in unexpected consequences.

C. Time constraints

Time is usually a limited resource during the response phase of a crisis or disastrous event. There might not be time to consider different alternatives which can lead to an ineffective crisis management (157). Interventions may take too long, and be ineffective when they are actually implemented (72).

D. Economic constraints

Interventions or measures might not be possible due to limited economic funds (168; DoA12), which is a particularly a problem in low-income countries. The cost of collaboration is also an issue; joint action might not happen if organizations do not recognize the potential benefit over cost (218). Also, it might been seen as not favorable to invest in security measures even though it might be necessary in times when production pressures are high (DoA03).

E. Cognitive constraints

During crisis or disastrous event people’s cognitive abilities, or mental abilities and processes, may be reduced due to stress (1156) or over- and underload (853). Outdated and unsuitable mental models can for instance negatively affect the response (853). Poor mental models may also result in over-emphases of certain stakeholder’s perceptions (245), lead to neglection/underestimation of the needs of other groups and



71 of 138

individuals (1559). There might also be deficiencies in the understanding of how individuals approach risky situations and how they behave in emergencies as well how knowledge is acquired, valued, disseminated, adopted and retained. Also, there might be lack of adequate and contextual knowledge (1300; 373), which include for instance knowledge of organizational resources (1220) and situational awareness (853). Also, the public may be unaware of the risks of certain health threats and don't know who to contact in case of problem (DoA20).

F. Poor relationships, involvement and commitment

Good relationships and involvement of relevant stakeholders are essential parts of crisis management and disaster reduction. In order to tackle for instance a natural disaster, cross-border relationships and partnerships may be needed. However, the literature gives examples of situations that this has not been the case because of lack of trust (853; 1447; 1129; 540) and confidence (1129) between actors, who do not recognize the competence and responsibility of each another (1317), or insufficient awareness of the other actors (853). Lack of trust among organizations create complexities that limit the effectiveness of the response (540). All this together can result in a lack of representation of specific groups or members (238;107). Since there likely are not sufficient time during a crisis to build such relationships, they need to be in place beforehand (1317). In many cases the private sector is excluded (1564; 540) which may impair a comprehensive approach to emergency management (1564) and result that stakeholders prepare and respond to disasters on their own terms (1564).

G. Organizational constraints

Organizations do – in general – not dimension their day-to-day operations to withstand crisis and disastrous event; which may be a result of that redundancy is costly. Stakeholders might have low capacity to self-design (1210) (for instance to design their own crisis management) and one single stakeholder may have limited capacity to handle a crisis on their own (61; 285); the impact of disasters can overwhelm the response capabilities of a single organization (218) or local community (231), which calls for collaboration and cooperation. Due to organizational differences such collaboration might be difficult to achieve (853). Transboundary risks need harmonized responses between stakeholders (205), which in turn are depended on for instance a clarity of roles, modes of coordination and communication. Actors at the local and national levels could be very different; some have a top-down chain-of-command structure while others have a bottom-up approach (831; 9; 614). A nation cannot create strong, resilient and supportive communities on its own (614). There are challenges when for instance a low-income community tries to implement international developed assistance since the pre-conditions to include this may not be there

H. Cultural constraints

There are some problems that stem from different cultural standpoints/context, which may impair crisis management: language barriers (291), low acknowledgement of different cultural approaches (238) and a strong focus on human error (e.g. finding scapegoats) (1326). Low mindfulness of the needs of victims can result in dehumanizing of the victims (1561) and lead to ineffective/counterproductive measures such as sending old clothes to the victims. Also abuse of power might be an issue, for instance the prospect that parties demonstrate their power and influence through their access to and distribution of aid (1088).

I. Political constraints

Sometimes bureaucratic barriers and political constraints lead to an ineffective crisis management (1470). Social and political pressure can lead to sub-optimal resource management. One paper gives an example of this: placement of medical camps solely based on social and political pressures, rather than medical needs (1561).

J. Training/exercise/experiences

Several papers state that there is an absence of adequate training and exercises (168; 205; 15; 1340). Exercises that involve several countries are usually rare (205), other than perhaps in the military context.

http://sv.bab.la/lexikon/engelsk-svensk/pre-conditions



72 of 138

Crisis, disasters and alike are fortunately rare, but this also means that actors do not have any real life experience. The use of tacit knowledge, the management of disturbances, and interaction among for instance first responders are therefore not tested (389; 1447; 1630). The issue here might be that such exercises are expensive and time-consuming.

K. Trade-offs and conflicting goals

Making trade-offs is usually needed during a crisis or disastrous event, but also during day-to-day operations. Responsible actors need to consider and decide how they should focus their actions between: day-to-day operations versus resilience (1431); well-entrenched bureaucratic value-sets (relating to efficiency and procedural rationality) versus resilience (365); planning versus plans (831); flexibility versus standardized procedures (831); and reactive approach versus proactive approach (831). There might be mismatches between these different goals (conflicts) (853; 1360; 95; 1409) but also discrepancies between responsibility and resources (9).

L. Lack of useful tools and assessments

Risk identification and management tools are sometimes of limit use in resilience because they rely upon foreseeable factor analyses of steady-state systems with predictable hazard frequencies and severities (16; 344). This predictable may cloud or detract from the efforts to better understand a systems emergent capabilities to withstand disruptions that are unforeseeable (16). Traditional approaches to risk identification and analysis produce linear, narrow and static risk profiles which fail to consider complex sub-system interdependencies (807). Previous attempts at quantification of resilience have not incorporated place-specific indicators or differential weighting of indicators for prioritization of resilience enhancement actions (604). Existing community resilience assessment methods lack explicit reference to temporality of disruptive events and often use standard metrics that may not be universally appropriate (10)

M. Challenges

There are several challenges that may lead to problems in crisis management and disaster reduction. For instance: large uncertainties in how to act during a crisis and disastrous event and their extension in time and space (1630); growing competition between actors (between businesses etc.) (688; 540; 95); growing depopulation (344); ageing population, or other vulnerable groups (344; 15); growing urbanization (815; 484); growing low-income areas (864); increased number of crisis and disasters (293; 264; 807; 78); potential for cascading/escalating effects (82; 540); lack of anticipation of escalation (1588); the large number of sectors and actors that need to cooperate in order to manage a crisis or alike (from local to international actors) (82); climate change (484) and interdependencies (1375; 942; 307). Large scale disasters challenge decentralized, integrated planning environments based on bottom-up approaches (231). Communities may have low capacity to respond (102; 781; 15), and need support, but overbearing aid can also destroy self-esteem and delay the rehabilitation process (1561). Also, existing hardship (such as poverty) may be further exacerbated by a disaster or crisis. Another challenge is that it may be impossible to predict a disruption's, disaster’s or crisis’s nature, time and extent (78;464). Interconnected risk may not be foreseeable at the disaster preparedness level, and may only be observed at the time of disaster response which leads to higher level of complexity (464). New media allows stakeholders to become increasingly more involved in the crisis communication sense-making process; crisis communication is therefore less controllable for a single organisation (DoA48). Also, the increased complexity surrounding extreme events makes current metrics of safety harder to use (DoA56).



73 of 138

2.3.4.3 Solutions and practices Solutions represent some kind of a way forward to overcome one or several barriers, an intervention (which could be a method, tools, framework etc.). The question that we try to answer here is: What could be incorporated (method, tools, framework etc.) in order to overcome one or several issues/barriers?

Practices represent solutions that has been incorporated/implemented in a real environment. The question that we try to answer here is: What has been incorporated in order to overcome one or several issues/barriers?

The following categories of solutions and practices were found:

A. Collaboration B. Coordination C. Information/communication/information channels D. Integration E. Involve/engage F. Joint briefing G. Learning H. Measure/assess resilience I. Planning J. Responses K. Training and education

A. Collaboration

Collaboration was mentioned generally in a number of papers (526; 1136; 1410; 323; DoA74; DoA78). Examples of potential solutions that can enhance collaboration are: Disaster preparedness-focused health care coalitions (HCC); Discussions and plans of ways to minimize risk (976); strong relationships (1281); mechanisms for joint and shared assessments (1599); self-organizing networks (218); identification of how governments can work with industry (688); identification of factors important in the work with community resilience intervention (72); provision of fundamental building blocks for improving social support structures, promoting social cohesiveness, and improving shared understanding of protective actions that improve community well-being, whether in day-to-day routines or in an crisis or alike (613); hierarchical collaboration (218). One solution to better grasp collaborative resilience for instance during and after a war, an actor-network theory (ANT)-informed understanding is introduced in one paper (27). This theory can for instance help practitioners to better understand the role of ICTs in supporting collaborative resilience (27). Another potential solution for collaboration is a disaster-resistant community-based program, which may facilitate joint collaboration between the public and private sectors and enhances the level of local emergency responses (218).

Practices

1. Tight cooperation between businesses and community (1281) (for instance community and airline cooperation in the case of evacuating affected areas)

2. Actor-network theory (ANT) (to understand collaborative resilience during and after a war).

B. Coordination

Coordination was mentioned generally in a number of papers (1484; 75). Coordination may include: coordination of damage mitigation measures and recovery actions by stakeholders, including individual



74 of 138

enterprises, industrial area managers, local authorities, and infrastructure administrators, to allow business continuation of the industrial area as a whole (61); development of institutional coordination mechanisms and capacity support (837); A central hub and coordination by the upper levels of government or a certain organization (218).

C. Information/communication/information channels

General information and communication aspects were mentioned in two papers (526; 75). Solutions or actions for better information and communication may include: informing others of warnings and disaster risks (976;245); share information and collaborate on all levels (local, state and federal level) (1335;1199;279); functional communication of emergency warning system, interagency communications, media communications, and public information dissemination (766); records of personnel data (1220); decentralized trust model which enhance reliable information dissemination in large-scale disasters (1447); specific information on the unique issues, specific vulnerabilities, and threats to different groups (1559); guidance on risk and crisis communication requirements across Europe to help with the communication process (in this case following an acute chemical incident) (205); two-way knowledge and learning flow between humanitarian and commercial organizations (369); Communication tools and decision support which can provide tools to assist with the understanding of real-time development of incidents (287); Shared decision support tools (287); supplementary/complimentary tools and methods for communication (13); social media (1167); a revised community resilience model, including: four components: communication systems and resources, community relationships, strategic communication processes, and community attributes (88); Communicate with honesty, candor, and openness, meet the needs of the media and remain accessible and communicate with compassion, concern, and empathy (DoA78).

Practices

1. Supplementary tools and methods for communication (13) (in this case phone calling tree system, text messages, word-of-mouth, posted signs, messages to local authorities and daily announcements through local media. Schools also used a physical message board to allow individuals to post and receive messages from friends and family members; this exchange became a communication hub for the community).

2. Texas 2-1-1 (a disaster communication hub between callers with unmet needs and community services at disaster sites and evacuation destinations). (789)

D. Integration

Examples of potential integrated solutions or actions which may benefit resilience are: Integration of local or rural technologies into national civil defence emergency management policies (238); integrated and measurable multiagency safety management function (which must be in place in the incident command system before a crisis or alike occurs) (1434); climate change sensitive land use and urban planning (837); comprehensive, integrated risk management approach (231; 1564; 78); vertical (strategic and policy-driven) and horizontal (within and between different tiers of government) (231); incorporation of methodologies grounded in socio-ecological system (SES) resilience into traditional risk approaches (16); integration of environmental justice and sustainability into disaster planning policies, disaster prevention policies (1136). Guidelines of resilience need to clearly define how they complement other approaches, such as risk assessments and risk mapping (DoA23).

Practices

1. Integration of climate change risks into resilient planning (864;862) 2. Incorporation of new technologies that can visualize infrastructure, cities and their vulnerabilities

(830) (for instance GIS (geographic information system)).



75 of 138

E. Involve/engage

Examples of potential solutions or actions which may lead to a higher involvement/engagement of communities are: developing guidelines of how public and private actors should interact during and after a crisis or disaster (1335); committing more resources and strengthen multi-stakeholder collaboration at the local level; placing the community at the center of an integrated and adaptive approach to disaster risk reduction (DRR) and Crisis Coordination Arrangements (CCA) (526); create an Academic/Faith Partnership collaborative model (781); looking at businesses as members of the whole community and how they can increase their involvement in the whole community process (311); harmonize disaster management strategies and effectively coordinate the allocation of community resources and expertise across all local response agencies (1220); involve as many actors as possible (102; 1410; 299; 1409); co-developed and co-owned emergency response and recovery processes by first responder practitioners, scientists, and local communities (294; 1279); Increase and improve social networks , leadership and support systems (976); encourage skill development (72; 287); dialogue (1574; 75); connecting communities with pre-existing community infrastructure (58); engaging local communities, they are best placed to identify local risks and trouble spots, and have access to local resources and equipment that can be mobilised prior to predicted events (323); features of the process include: realisation from the local community that they are at potential risk; acceptance that they will often be the first to be aware of any problem and are best placed to deal with it rather than ‘wait’ for the emergency services to arrive; gaining an understanding of how statutory agencies work during the response stage and who is responsible for what and what potential assistance is (or is not available); the building of trust and relationships between a local community and the statutory agencies (323); people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others (614).

Practices

1. Trust and respect for the leaders and authorities (1) 2. Mutual help (1) (everybody have the view that you should help others in the community). 3. Strong local government (1)

F. Joint briefing

Joint briefing is a solution that could support a shared understanding during a crisis or disastrous event and provide a room for reflection and discussion (715).

G. Learning

Responsible actors could create opportunities to learn about tradeoffs and consequences from deliberate exposure to disturbances (389); conduct post-event learning to improve the readiness (976); post-disaster "time compression" which can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of disaster management processes and governance frameworks (231).

H. Measure/assess resilience

Several of the suggested solutions found in the literature aim at measuring or assessing resilience. Some examples are: evaluation model for measuring community resilience; it is important to look at the different parts of resilience and not only on an overall assessment to be able to identify these effective measures (differences might not be identified and acknowledged (344); Rural Resilience Index (RRI) (79); characterization of a community's infrastructure vulnerability and resilience in disasters, which resembles probability elicitation with multiple experts, however, it elicits disruption and recovery over time, rather than uncertainties regarding system function at a given point in time (449); a set of indicators measuring RRI, Community Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI) (25); assessment of community stability and functioning before and after a disaster (264); action-oriented resilience assessment (AoRA) consisting of 63 actions



76 of 138

(815); Universal Task List (UTL) and Target Capabilities List (TCL). The TCL could help regions to assess their capabilities to fulfill the most important preparedness tasks (1375); indicators for assessing resilience that help the practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and disaster managers (163); Resilience Matrix (RM) framework, which utilizes local stakeholder-informed metrics aligned with the temporal stages of the National Academy of Science definition of disaster resilience (10); rich picture diagrams (RPDs) (807); develop and use local scale resilience estimates; find the level of acceptable risk (1564); evaluation of security measures (and their cost effectiveness, since their cost effectiveness usually increases in the long run) by their ability to be "diverse applicability to unforeseen events" and (DoA12); develop new metrics that can indicate when the brittleness of a system increases and the cost-effectiveness of measures (DoA56).

Practices:

1. Guidelines for assessing the following as part of a safety assessment for air traffic management: subjects: 1. work-as-done,2. varying conditions, 3. signals and cues (for anticipation, monitoring, response), 4. goal trade-offs, 5. adaptive capacity, 6. coupling and interactions, 7. timing, pacing, and synchronization, 8. under-specification and approximate adjustments (guidance material has been proposed as part of the safety assessment methodology of Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR), and as stand-alone guidance for ATM design processes. support functional changes in ATM) (108)

2. A questionnaire to assess and delineate the nature of community resilience (in this case across three low socio-economic neighbourhoods in the Western Cape) (1611)

I. Planning

Planning is an essential part in preparedness. It can improve the ability at all levels of organizations to create processes that are robust and flexible (302) and improve self-efficacy (780;1210;1561). Some suggestions found in the literature of solutions or steps in planning are: develop a hierarchy of measures (157); eliminate barriers to action (1470); establish an effective priority system (1470); utilize community assessment (72); anticipate likely hazards within planning scenarios and prepare asset inventories to facilitate making timely safety decisions (1434;287); area Business Continuity Management, which is a cyclic process of risk assessment including sharing risk and impact information, determining a common strategy of risk management, implementing and monitoring the planned action; adopt an all hazard-approach (205;72); develop a community resilience framework (293); emergency management and early warnings system (837); develop institutional strategies that are aimed at dealing with complexities and uncertainties by integrating DRR, CCA and development (526); 'people-focused' planning methodologies that move beyond planning for to planning with all segments of society, including the most vulnerable and marginalized groups that are more readily overlooked (1324); participatory planning with institutional actors where both initial response organizations, as well as institutions involved in longer term recovery are involved in emergency response exercises (1484); create resilient continuity plans (311); strengthening polycentric governance (526); adopt a non-intervention approach, using existing structures (1333); conduct pre-deployment medical review to ensure "fitness for duty" for workers that considers the following: (1) personal risk factors, (2) hazards likely to be associated with particular field locations, and (3) risks involved with assigned tasks (e.g., workload and pace, work/rest cycles, available resources, and team/supervisory dynamics) (1434); address worker health surveillance, medical monitoring, and availability of medical care (including mental health services) (1434); collaborative modeling and software simulation methodologies, simulation models to show the consequences of certain policies in the short and long terms (540); National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS) (299); strengthen communities’ skills and capacities (149); Use of major events to bootstrap initiatives for increased capability of crisis management (830); developing a diverse set of management options (1129); develop a generic supply chain resilience framework (369); flexible adaptation pathways approach into the municipality's climate action strategy (484).



77 of 138

Practices

1. Incorporation of disaster risk assessment and business continuity plans (61) 2. Developed networks of various groups and stakeholders (185) (Policy-makers and practitioners,

including emergency planners, should enable and facilitate local (community/neighborhood etc.) response).

3. Letters of agreement (1573) (ensuring that resources are available during an adverse event). 4. Natural Disaster Resilience Program in Queensland, Australia (149) 5. Use of major events to bootstrap initatives for increased capability of crisis management 6. Flexible adaptation pathways approach into the municipality's climate action strategy (484) 7. National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS) (299) 8. Disruption mitigation strategies (include safety stocks, re-routing, capacity, communication,

product switch, portofolio, contracts and business relationships) (279). 9. Comprehensive portfolio of strategies to deal with scarcity of oil and gas resources (implemented

in European Union) (279) 10. Framework that incorporate System of Systems (SoS) and complex systems thinking (to inform a

sense-making framework to distinguish between approaches to known/knowable and unknown risks; framework was used in South Australia on three different scales of the SoS: community, NGOs and government) (464)

11. Cyclone Preparedness Program (trained volunteers facilitate emergency response and proper use of the multi-purpose shelters) (1392).

12. 1996 US President′s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) (comprehensively reviewed and recommended many national policies for protecting CISs to assure their continued operations). (342)

13. 1998 Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) no.63. (342) 14. European Program on Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) (342) 15. Critical Infrastructure Program for Modeling and Analysis in Australia (342) 16. The National Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program in Canada (342) 17. The Project of Dutch Approach on Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Netherlands (342) 18. The Critical Infrastructure Resilience Program in the UK (342) 19. Critical Infrastructure Protection Implementation Plan in Germany (342) 20. Australian policies and guidelines: National Security Statement (2008); the National Disaster

Resilience Framework (2008-09), Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy (2010), National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2010) (1160)

J. Responses

Some suggestions found in the literature of solutions or steps which could improve the response during an crisis or a disastrous event are: decentralized technology and infrastructure at a community-level (290); basic response mechanisms should be in place and work in a more or less autonomous fashion including: warning, mobilization, registration, evacuation, sheltering, emergency medical care and after care, search and rescue, protection of property and information dissemination (1502); create command centers, which may include a central collection point for information and an organizational structure with a common cognitive map (1470;493); Network Enable Operations (NEO) and Network Centric Service Oriented Enterprise (NCSOE) (853); ongoing real-time guidance to incident leadership at all levels of government (1434); and web-enabled system of tools, resources and resilience knowledge (102); strict adherence to the PAHO/WHO guidelines (1561); incident command system (ICS) (993).



78 of 138

Practices

1. Temporary solutions (1470) (such as temporary command centers). 2. Discouragement of non-essential travel to and from an affected area (185) (for instance to reduce

the chances of vehicles becoming stuck in the snow or ice). 3. Alternative use of available work force (185) (for instance can milkmen, postmen, and paper

deliverers get information about elderly people in need of help). 4. Prioritizing people’s key daily needs (185) (for instance, help with personal care prioritized over

laundry or ironing). 5. Ongoing awareness of others and the existing deficiencies (1573) 6. Strict adherence to the PAHO/WHO guidelines (1561) (proved to be cost-effective in terms of

resource allocations and disaster responses, and also convinced decision-makers of the inappropriateness of certain measures. Unnecessary mass vaccinations, mass disposal of bodies without identification, and an influx of untrained volunteers were avoided.)

K. Training and education

Training and education were generally mentioned in a number of papers (389; 1434; 781; 140; 15; 121; 66; 299; 1670; DoA55). Some suggestions found in the literature of solutions or steps which could improve training and education are: organize exercises at the EU level (205); develop policy of training personnel for taking on different roles, for them to understand the formal responsibilities, handovers and team coordination (715); “train-the-trainer” approach which enhances individual competencies in the provision of psychological first aid and in disaster planning for their respective communities (781); hands-on instruction in the use of assigned protective equipment (1434); pre-event and just-in-time disaster-worker training on likely hazards and organizational assets for hazard monitoring (1434); generic guidelines for conducting exercises (in this case involving major chemical incidents) (205); training series on social media and community engagement (291); prior disaster training and exercises, for instance scenario exercises (1156; 1199; 1431); develop training materials for public health professionals (there exist a web-page (http://cietoolkit.fs-server.com/) which provide training material, guidance and scenario, more precisely: "Exercise cards using scenarios which can be used in table top training exercises involving multidisciplinary and multi-agency groups for scenario training) (205); training and exercising of plans (205); conduct readiness exercises and disaster simulation (REDS) (1431); specific training to be able to keep track of changes in the joint log while conducting their own work (715); five-stage method for designing SBT (scenario-based training) from the resilience engineering view (335); behavioral exercises (287); develop school hazard education programs (1340); concept of community resilience should be introduced into public health education (1088); training that could cover for example: 1) participative and supportive management style, 2) acknowledging and accepting staff needs, 3) identifying and meeting staff needs, 4) communication, 5) planning and contingent plan implementation skills, 6) delegation, 7) managing uncertainty and ambiguity; 8) managing recovery and the return to routine performance (1670).

Practices

1. Scenario-based exercises as instruments to prepare for worst-case futures (830) 2. Developed and regularly practiced emergency preparedness plans (1157) 3. School hazard education programs (1340) (developed by emergency management authorities)

2.3.5 Tools for resilience In the review 42 (14%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as including tools for resilience. 10 categories of tools were identified. Tools that were difficult to categorize where categorized as not specified.



79 of 138

For 4 of the references that were classified as addressing a tool the description of the tool was insufficient and thus classified as not specified. Categories of tools and number of references that addressed each category is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Categories of tools for resilience that were addressed and number of references that addressed each category. Percent refers to the distribution between the categories

Tool Number Percent

Visualisation of information 8 17%

Communication tool 3 7%

Information sharing 3 7%

Training tool 3 7%

Assessment of resilience 2 4%

Command and control 2 4%

Decison support 2 4%

Warning system 2 4%

Expert system 1 2%

Sharing of information 1 2%

Other 15 33%

Not specified 4 9%

Total 46 100%

In the review 1 (2%) of the accepted DoA articles was classified as including tools for resilience. The addressed tool was related to monitoring of social media.

2.3.6 Methods and strategies to evaluate or assess resilience In the review 130 (44%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as including method and strategies to evaluate or assess resilience. As these assessment methods are most often linked to theories, concepts, and models, or practice, guidelines, solutions, or tools, this list of answers is not further specified here. The database is though searchable for this criteria to get an explanation, possibly in combination with other search queries.

In the review 6 (14%) of the accepted DoA articles were classified as including method and strategies to evaluate or assess resilience.

2.3.7 Geographical management scales (local, regional, national or international) In the review 231 (78%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as including a geographical management scale. Five geographical management scales that could be addressed: local, regional, national,



80 of 138

international, and more than one. The distribution in number and percent of articles that addressed each of the management scales is presented in Table 9, and in Figure 32.

Table 9. Distribution in number and percent of articles that addressed each of the geographical management scales

Management scale Number Percent

Local 101 44%

Regional 19 8%

National 31 13%

International 5 2%

More than one 75 32%

Total 231 100%

Figure 32. Number of articles that addressed five geographical management scales

The category “more than one” that was addressed in 75 of the articles could be divided in six different combinations of the four principal management scales. However, for 7 of these articles no information about levels of management scale was given. Number of articles that was classified as addressing each of these combinations of geographical management scales is presented in Table 10 and in Figure 33.

Table 10. Number and percent of articles that addressed each of the combinations of more than one geographical management scale


Local - Regional 15 20%



81 of 138


Local - National 20 27%

Local - International 18 24%

Regional - National 8 11%

Regional - International 0 0%

National - International 7 9%

No information 7 9%

Sum 75 100%

Figure 33. Number of articles that addressed each combination of more than one geographical management scale

In the review 19 (44%) of the accepted DoA articles were classified as including a geographical management scale.

2.3.8 Domains addressed In the review 168 (58%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing one of the domains healthcare, aviation, both domains, or other domains. Number of SLR articles that addressed each of the four alternatives and the distribution in percent between the alternatives is presented in Table 11 and in Figure 34.



82 of 138

Table 11. Distribution in number and percent of articles each domain

Domain Number Percent

Aviation 8 5%

Healthcare 56 33%

Aviation and healthcare 2 1%

Other domain 102 61%

Total 168 100%

Figure 34. Distribution of articles for each domain

The category “other domain” was divided into 18 subcategories. Some answers were difficult to classify and were assigned the categories various and other, and for one article no information was given. The reason why the number of subcategories sums to 108, while there was only 102 articles with the category “other domain” is that 6 of these articles described two domains. Number of articles that addressed each subdomain and the distribution between these categories in percent is presented in Table 12 and in Figure 35.



83 of 138

Table 12. Numbers of articles that addressed each of the subcategories identified from the category “other domain” and the distribution in percent between these categories

Domain Number Percent

Natural disaster 19 18%

Infrastructure 17 16%

Community resilience 15 14%

Crisis management 6 6%

Transportation 6 6%

Industry 5 5%

Power supply 5 5%

General disaster work 4 4%

Nuclear 4 4%

Organizational 3 3%

School 3 3%

Communication 2 2%

Energy 2 2%

General resilience 2 2%

Railway 2 2%

Environment 1 1%

Maritime 1 1%

Terrorism 1 1%

Other 6 6%

Various 2 2%

Not specified 1 1%

War 1 1%

Total 108 100%



84 of 138

Figure 35. Numbers of articles that addressed each of the subcategories identified from the category “other domain”

In the review 18 (42%) of the accepted DoA articles were classified as addressing one of the domains healthcare (2, 5%), aviation (4, 9%), both domains (0), or other domains (12, 28%).

2.3.9 Key DARWIN areas In the review 123 (41%) of the he accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing one or several of the 3 key DARWIN areas social media and crisis communication, living and user centric guidelines, or continuous evaluation and serious games.

Number and percentages of articles that were classified to address one of the three DARWIN key area, or combinations of the three Key DARWIN areas are reported in Table 13. Note, since more than one area is addressed in several references, summing the total number of articles for the different combinations is not relevant.

Table 13. Number, and percentage of accepted SLR articles, that addressed one or several key DARWIN areas

Key Darwin areas Number Percent

SC. Social media and crisis communication 73 25%

LC. Living and user centric guidelines 32 11%

CS. Continuous evaluation and serious games 48 16%

SC & LC 14 5%

SC & CS 12 4%

LC & CS 10 3%

SC & LC & CS 6 2%



85 of 138

IDs of articles that were classified as addressing combinations of more than one of the three key DARWIN areas are depicted in the Venn diagram in Table 13. As can be seen, all intersections except for the intersection between “social media and crisis communication” and “living and user centric guidelines” have identical IDs of articles, which means that these combinations of the key DARWIN areas were addressed in the same articles.

Figure 36. Venn diagram that illustrates the relation between articles that were classified as addressing more than one of the three key DARWIN areas. Boxes provides IDs of articles for each intersection between key DARWIN areas.

In the review 20 (47%) of the he accepted DoA articles were classified as addressing one or several of the 3 key DARWIN areas social media and crisis communication, living and user centric guidelines, or continuous evaluation and serious games (Table 14).

Table 14. Number, and percentage of accepted DoA articles, that addressed one or several key DARWIN areas.


SC. Social media and crisis communication 16 37%

LC. Living and user centric guidelines 4 9%

CS. Continuous evaluation and serious games 2 5%

SC & LC 2 5%

SC & CS 0 0%

Social media and crisis

commuication

Living and user centric guidelines

Continuous evaluation and serious

games

57, 79, 291, 311, 323, 440, 526, 652, 688, 852, 953, 1274, 1434, 1447

57, 79, 652, 852, 1274, 1434

57, 79, 652, 852, 1274, 1434

57, 79, 652, 852, 1274, 1434



86 of 138


LC & CS 0 0%

SC & LC & CS 0 0%

2.3.10 Community resilience and resilience management Two main areas that have been defined in DARWIN as the main research areas are community resilience and resilience management. Community resilience here refers to resilience for example of the general public, of members of the community, of the community as a whole, and the role of volunteers in the resilience of the community. Resilience management is about the resilience of professional actors involved in handling crisis, e.g., first responders, employees in crisis management organizations, air traffic controllers. In the review 140 (47%) of the accepted articles were classified as addressing community resilience (general public/volunteers). In the review 176 (59%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing Resilience management (professional actors). Note that 75 of the accepted SLR articles (25%) addressed both community resilience and resilience management.

In the review of the accepted DoA articles 13 (31%) were classified as addressing community resilience (general public/volunteers) and 23 (54%) as addressing Resilience management (professional actors). Note that 8 (19%) of the accepted DoA articles addressed both community resilience and resilience management

2.3.11 Resilience capabilities In the review 230 (77%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing one or more of the four resilience capabilities: a) anticipate, b) monitor, c) respond and adapt, and c) learn and evolve. Number of articles that were classified to address each of the four resilience capabilities, or combinations of the four resilience capabilities, and how many percent of the accepted articles that belonged to each category is reported in Table 13. Note, since more than one resilience capability is addressed in several references, summing the total number and percentages of articles for the different combinations is not relevant.

Table 15. Number and percentages of accepted articles that addressed one or combinations of the four key DARWIN areas

Resilience capabilities Number Percentage

Anticipate 114 38%

Monitor 69 23%

Respond and Adapt 181 61%

Learn and Evolve 109 37%

Anticipate, Monitor 52 18%

Anticipate, Respond 86 29%

Anticipate, Learn 61 21%

Monitor, Respond 52 18%

Monitor, Learn 39 13%

Respond, Learn 83 28%



87 of 138

Resilience capabilities Number Percentage

Anticipate, Monitor, Respond 42 14%

Anticipate, Monitor, Learn 35 12%

Anticipate, Respond, Learn 51 17%

Monitor, Respond, Learn 32 11%

Anticipate, Monitor, Respond, Learn 26 9%

In the review 36 (84%) of the accepted DoA articles were classified as addressing one or more of the four resilience capabilities: a) anticipate (19, 44%), b) monitor (24, 56%), c) respond and adapt (27, 63%), and c) learn and evolve (20, 47%).

2.3.12 Specific types of events In the review 155 (52%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing specific types of event. Note since several articles addressed more than one specific type of event, the number of specific types of events that were addressed is larger than the number of articles that addressed specific events. Number of articles that described each type of events is reported in Table 16.

Table 16. Specific types of events that were addressed. Number refers to number of articles that addressed the specific type of event, and percentage to the distribution between the specific types of events that were addressed

Type of event Number Percent

Hurricane/Storm 32 16%

Earthquake 27 13%

Flooding 25 12%

Tsunami 12 6%

Extreme weather 9 4%

Terrorist attack 9 4%

Natural disaster 8 4%

Nuclear accident/incident 7 3%

General disasters 6 3%

General resilience 6 3%

Power failure 6 3%

War 5 3%

Epidemic 4 2%

Extreme temperature 4 2%

Flight crash/incident 4 2%

No information 4 2%



88 of 138

Type of event Number Percent

Oil spill 4 2%

Volcanic erruption/ash clouds 4 2%

Industry accident/incident 3 2%

Infrastructure accident/problem 3 2%

Railway accident/incident 3 2%

Drought 2 1%

Fire 2 1%

Hospital 2 1%

Sports events 2 1%

Tornado 2 1%

Crisis management 1 1%

General transportation 1 1%

Landslide 1 1%

Maritime accident/incident 1 1%

Mining accident 1 1%

Riot 1 1%

Snowfall 1 1%

Space travel accident 1 1%

Total 203 100%

Of the articles that address a specific type of event, 39 articles also addressed one or several specific events. In all 61 specific events were addressed. Of these events 5 specific events were addressed by more than one article, see Table 17.

Table 17. Specific events that were addressed that were addressed by more than one article

Specific type of event Number

Hurricane Katrina, 2005 11

9/11 5

Fukushima nuclear accident 3



89 of 138

Specific type of event Number

Hurricane Mitch, Honduras, 1998 2

Hurricane Rita 2

2.3.13 Context of study (simulations/actual event/...) In the review 176 (59%) of the accepted articles were classified as addressing context of study. Number of articles that addressed each type of context, and the distribution between these articles, is reported in Table 18.

Table 18. Number of articles that addressed each type of contexts, and the distribution between these articles

Context of study Number Percent

Actual events 112 64%

Simulation 17 10%

Hypothetical events 23 13%

More than one 8 5%

Other 16 9%

Total 297 100%

In the review 20 (47%) of the accepted SLR articles were classified as addressing specific types of event.

2.3.14 Important/useful references (snowballing) References identified during the so-called ”snowballing”, identifying a maximum of 3 articles that are judged to be useful in DARWIN, have been collected. The current review does not include these, but they have been identified so that future tasks and work packages, such as Task 1.3, WP2, and WP4 have the opportunity to follow-up and include in-depth concepts and references from this body of literature.



90 of 138

3 Interview study One of the main objectives of DARWIN is to develop general guidelines for resilience management. An important aspect of guidelines is their applicability in real world contexts. The systematic literature review allows for a broad analysis of prevalent approaches, tools and methods described in the literature. To complement these results, an interview study was conducted with relevant stakeholders involved in crisis management.

3.1 Introduction A series of interviews has been conducted identifying on resilience and brittleness aspects from significant crises and everyday practices of crisis response organizations and the general public. Specific attention has been given to the domains of the pilot studies, that is, air traffic management and health care and emergency management, as all interviewees were working in these domains. The interviews focus on practices and approaches to resilience and related needs. 3.2 Method A generic interview guide associated with resilience concepts, approaches, guidelines and risk management strategies was generated as part of WP7 (see Section 1.5). This generic interview guide has been adapted to this survey’s needs. The adaptation process involved iterations between academic partners as well as with experts within the consortium representing end-users. The interview guide is included in Appendix 0. The interview was structured into seven blocks of questions:

1. The interviewee’s role and responsibilities of the organization (what kind of actor was studied?) 2. Situations where the resilience concept may be relevant (whether the studied actor has experienced

situations where resilient capability may have impact on the outcome of the operations conducted by the actor)

3. Preparing for and managing resilience-relevant situations (overall framework of how the formal and tacit knowledge to plan for, handle and learn from resilience-relevant situations is structured/organized by the actor)

4. Coping with disturbances, in general (describes the kind of content (operational approaches) that can be found in the procedures, guidelines and practices used by the actor)

5. Coping with disturbances in specific situations, four common cases (case experiences and the case’s effects on the actor’s operations, regarding preparedness, response, and learning):

1. Volcano eruption and ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull 2010, an example of a natural disaster, with effects on several domains, such as disturbances in air traffic, people displaced, medical transport affected.

2. Nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant and radioactive cloud in the atmosphere 2011, an example of a technological disaster, initiated by a natural disaster, with a public concern due to the experience from e.g., Chernobyl.

3. Ebola pandemic 2014-2015, as a recent example of a pandemic, with effects on for example transports of patients to Europe, public health concerns, operations in Africa.

4. Millennium bug regarding 1 January 2000, as an example of IT, infrastructure interdependencies, risk for disturbances and cascading effects in IT-based systems.

6. Coping with disturbances in specific situations, actor-specific cases (what the actor deems significant from a resilience perspective, regarding preparedness, response, and learning, based on specific cases)

7. Practitioner needs (identifies the top three needs that the interviewee sees from a resilience perspective, and recommendations for DARWIN)

The interviews were in practice performed as semi-structured interviews where the blocks and the questions guided the interview but at the same time questions could be adjusted somewhat in order and focus depending on the experience and role of the interviewee and their answers and discussion topics raised. The interviews were performed by two interviewers, one leading the interview and one taking notes.



91 of 138

3.3 Results The results show a great diversity in responses to the questions, as well as a number of commonalities. As this document is meant to bring to the surface the guidelines and practices that were identified, the richness of the answers is reflected in the presentation of results, contributing to the catalogue of resilience practices, approaches, concepts and needs. The results for the Health-care and Emergency/crisis Management organizations (HEMOs) is presented in Section 3.3.1. The results for the Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) is presented in Section 3.3.2. The results presented here focus specifically on the resilience aspects chosen as foci for the interview, rather than a general overview of crisis management structures. (For general principles of structures in crisis and disaster management in Europe, see DRIVER D82.11 Crisis Management Organisations and Capabilities report (DRIVER, 2015).)

3.3.1 Health-care and emergency and crisis management organizations Representatives from different organizations (Fire and Rescue Services, FR; Emergency Medical Services EMS) with crisis management responsibilities have been interviewed by FOI in Sweden (SE) and the Czech Republic (CZ). Also included in part are interviews from ISS in Italy: National Fire Corps – Head Office for Emergency and Technical Rescue – NBCR Risk manager (IT NFCRM), the Complex Operative Unit – Regional Agency for Sanitary Emergencies (IT EMS), Municipal Police of Rome (IT MPR), and the National Department of Civil Protection (IT NDCP).

An interview with a representative Norwegian National Directorate of Civil Protection is included (NO CP) was performed by SINTEF in Norway. Five healthcare and emergency management officials were interviewed by BGU. All interviewees are senior directors of various healthcare system's entities, representing the following institutions/roles: Chief Executive Officer of an acute-care hospital (IS HOSP); director of the Emergency & Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of Health (IS MOH); Chief Physician of the Home Front Command (IS HFC); Chief Physician of a Health Maintenance Organization (IS HMO), director of the Public Health Services (IS PH).

Compilation and analysis was performed by FOI, SINTEF and BGU.

BLOCK I - General information about the actor

Major points noted:

• There are regulations for emergency response organizations to follow [SE FR; SE EMS; CZ FR; CZ EMS, all IS HEMOs]

• All the organizations are integrated in the emergency response system and their function in routine and emergency is regulated and directed by the Ministry of Health [all IS HEMOs].

• Actors are integrated parts of Crisis Management Structures/Integrated Rescue Systems in their regions [SE FR; SE EMS; CZ FR; CZ EMS; IT EMS; IT MPR]

• The actors take part in multi-level planning structures [SE EMS; IT NDCP; IT NFCRM] • All organizations are continuously involved in planning, training and exercise programs aimed at

assuring emergency preparedness [all IS HEMOs; IT NDCP; IT NFCRM]. • Participates in writing guidelines and regulations [IT NDCP] • All organizations have guidelines, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and regulations, that are

reviewed and approved by the national level [all IS HEMOs]. • In a (national) crisis situation the organisation is involved through two "main pillars":

The first is a dialogue with the county governor/authority to ensure necessary resources and identify the needs for crisis support [NO CP]



92 of 138

The other one, which the Informer represents, is the leadership of civil defence (where the informer is one of the leaders). Specific responsibility is for material resources, logistics and protection of personnel in Norwegian engagements in crisis management [NO CP].

BLOCK II - Experience of situations where the resilience concept may be relevant

The main results are the following:

• Some organizations recognize these situations [SE FR, SE EMS, CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT EMS, IT MPR, IT NFCRM, NO CP, all IS HEMOs]

• The organizations plan and prepare for this type of situations through redundant infrastructure (such as radio communication systems) and dedicated guidelines and procedures [SE FR, CZ FR, CZ EMS]

• It is however customary to utilise internal resources in the department, from other parts of the organization or from other directorates in order to adapt to the situation [NO CP]

• There can be a problem with resources competition between normal duties and special events [SE EMS].

• Provincial Headquarter can require a doubling of shift hours. Resilience can be enhanced by sharing the available resources between the different headquarters [IT NFCRM]

• Lack of own resources is the main critical situation [IT MPR; IT EMS] • The emergency system is so resilient by the possibility to organize an appropriate response plan by

experts, politicians and volunteers for occurring specific events [IT NDCP] • Volunteers associations is one of the most interesting aspects of the Italian system [IT NDCP] • There are guidelines to prioritize activities, scale up situations and request and handle extra resources

[SE FR, SE EMS, CZ FR, CZ EMS] • There are frequent events where the system, routines and plans are activated [SE EMS, CZ EMS] • Need to maintain an ongoing alert [all IS HEMOs] • Reallocation of resources is needed in significant emergency events [IS, MOH] • There are many situations and many sets of challenges. The most important one is the ability to have

an overall overview, debriefings and manage to distance oneself enough to keep calm, not dive into details, and leave details to those who are responsible for them. [NO CP, IS HOSP]

• Additional elements that should be considered include information management and dissemination to the public, by a well-recognized and respected authority, training and exercises of the population [IS HFC], and e resilience of the employees – their commitment to their families versus the workplace. [IS HMO].

• It is a big challenge to handle large amounts of information; it is difficult to distinguish what is important from what is less important. SIM is a tool that is used today which is useful in many ways, but it doesn't solve this specific challenge (logs lots of information). [NO CP]

• There is an average of 4-5 crises abroad per year. The directorate participates in national events 200-300 times a year. The organisation is made to be capable of handling this kind of situation handling with focus on observing and describing. [NO CP]

• Involved in numerous mass casualty events, periods of conflicts, pandemics, the campaign against outbreak of poliomyelitis [all IS HEMOs], as well as during severe weather conditions [IS HFC]

• Prolonged emergencies are difficult to handle in order to fulfil requirements and describe the resources that are needed. It is necessary to have the right competency available over time. For example, the Ebola crisis (end 2014- start 20515) was more than half a year. This involves using a (long-term) crisis task force with regular meetings. [NO CP]

BLOCK III – Preparing for and managing resilience-relevant situations in general



93 of 138

A summary of the main findings:

• There is a standard for how to establish a task force and dedicated contingency plans for handling the most usual themes and situations; who must do what and what must be done. [NO, CP]

• Most organizations has regulated guidelines for meeting specific crisis situation [ALL IS HEMOs], even though stated that not all situation can be met by complete plans. [SE FR, CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT EMS, IT MPR, IT NDCP].

• There are no detailed plans for a concrete situation, but rather for which functions must be performed; what shall be logged; how to rescue, implement logistics etc. During crisis handling, it is always necessary to improvise; plans cannot cover everything. If the deadlines are short, you need to improvise more often. [NO CP; IT NDCP; IT MPR]

• Guidelines remain constant; procedures are adapted, and they complement each other [IS, HFC; 4] • Procedures and guidelines are transformed into checklists that are immediately available [IS, HFC;

Chief Phys, HFC] • Evaluation of emergency preparedness and after action reviews, based on structured tools, is

conducted annually or following crises to verify appropriateness of the procedures to the realistic needs (ALL IS HEMOs]

• All major missions are evaluated afterwards and plans are modified or other things that need to be done in routines. This is done continuously. [NO, CP]

• Many plans are documented as written instructions or guidelines. Some organization has guidelines as well as plans and checklists. They apply on different levels of command [SE FR, CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT EMS, IT MPR, IT NDCP]

• Guidelines and policies build upon national policies and guidelines from different government agencies [SE FR, IT NDCP, IT MPR, IT NFCRM, IS HOSP, IS HMO, IS PH]

• Development of the plans are often made by specific working groups and are based on laws, rules and regulations formed by other agencies or authorities [CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT EMS, SE FR, IT NDCP]

• National policies and guidelines are developed by dedicated working groups and are held on a rather general level. Detailed planning of specific guidelines and procedures take place at regional level [CZ FR, CZ EMS]

• Many state that the plans are based on experiences from real incidents [CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT NDCP, IT MPR], and that they are tested in training exercises which also are used for implementation [CZ EMS]

• Guidelines and procedures are developed based on literature review, experience, professional committees and lessons learnt in drills; maintained in printed and electronic formats and include reference to personnel, checklists, responsibilities and tasks. [all IS HEMOs]

• Guidelines refer to existing models and literature at international and European level [IT EMS; IT NDCP]

• A specialist staff updates the procedures. The procedures are based on the organisations experience with handling crises and military/police experience. [NO CP, IT NDCP; IT NFCRM]

• Swedish medical services have focused Lean Production, which is not suitable for Emergency Medicine [SE EMS]

• Assuring resilience management necessitates "Top-Down" approach, in which stakeholders adopt common "disaster language and terminologies" [IS HOSP]

• The employees are required to read and verify knowledge concerning procedures when they are accepted to work. [IS HFC]

• Knowledge of the system and experience should help handle a crisis [IT NDCP] • Organization has lack of guidelines for specific situations but focuses highly trained personnel in key

positions [SE EMS, IT NDCP]



94 of 138

• The guidelines and procedures were used in various emergency events, and improvement in function was noted from one event to the next, displaying the learning trend. [IS, HOSP]

• During an emergency, the operation is mainly based on the procedures; these should be modified according to the dynamics of the situation [IS, HMO]

BLOCK IV - Coping with disturbances in general terms

The main points extracted from the interviews were the following:

• All the approaches mentioned are used by the organization [SE FR, SE EMS, CZ FR, CZ EMS] • The use of these approaches is described in guidelines and procedures or has the form of informal

practices [SE FR, IT MPR, CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT EMS] • These approaches are defined in general terms at the national level as well as in the more detailed

form, which takes place at the regional level [CZ FR, CZ EMS; IT NDCP] • The approach is defined according to the type of event, based on availability of resources that are

centrally controlled [IS HOSP, IS HMO, IS PH, IT NDCP] • Approaches are seeing the "large picture", assuring that the response is more than the minimally

required [IS HFC] • Approaches are derived from routine practices, SOPs and past experience [IS HMO, IS PH; IT

NDCP; IT MPR; IT NFCRM] • All situations follow a similar handling procedure [SE EMS] • Clear guidelines for operation are needed, without abolishing creativity and maintaining

relationships between actors [IS MOH] • The main approach for emergency response is coordination among stakeholders [IS MOH, IT

NFCRM, IT EMS] • Integration is achieved through overall situation awareness, coordination and synchronization

between systems, and joint training exercises. [IS MOH] • Each individual request for assistance in crises is considered; some can be resolved locally (e.g. by

supplying material or resources); otherwise it might be necessary to set up a task force or reinforce the organisation where the need has arisen and dimensioned with respect to what one thinks the situation will require. [NO CP]

• When scaling up the first measure is to reinforce the various levels, e.g. by reinforcing a local level with resources from the neighbouring district, or from national resources. If further scaling up is needed, the line organisation is reinforced with a crisis task force at the top level (DSB). If necessary, it can be further reinforced with resources from the own department (in DSB) or from others (e.g. HR capacity, communications or others) [NO CP]

• The thing that prevents progress is missing clarification, decisions or waiting for transport, resources or other things that don't arrive. [NO CP]

• The idea is that decisions should be made at the lowest (possible) level, but sometimes you have to wait (e.g. if something else gets squeezed in) [NO CP]

• During an emergency, it is important that people be proficient in the approaches [IS HMO] • There are dedicated training programs for specific personnel [SE EMS, CZ EMS; IT EMS; IT

NDCP] • There are no training program, but personnel is expected to be familiar with routines [CZ FR] • There are training programmes that address coordination and problem solution. Training is done

regularly, as a rule 2 times a year. There is a lot of practicing, both with role improvisations and within known specialist staff or competency area [NO CP]

• A best practice should be training and informing citizens around the procedures to respect in case of emergency, since they could prevent the emergency procedure and operative approach. Guidelines



95 of 138

should be addressed to citizens: when an emergency occurs, its success also depends on how people act and react [IT EMS; IT MPR; IT NDCP]

• Very important to include and share all the relevant/interface groups and being proactive by transparency, spokesman ship and communication from the preparedness phase [IS PH]

BLOCK V - Coping with disturbances in specific situations, four common cases

Regarding the four common cases in the interview guide, the following points were discussed:

• Volcano eruption: o Analyzed and made plans for non-existing possibilities for air-transporting patients [SE

EMS] o Developed predictive models able to identify potential consequences in Italian areas [IT

EFPD] • Nuclear accident:

o A number of exercises and tests were performed in connection to this emergency at the nuclear power plant that is located in the region [CZ FR]

o Special event. Developed information and plans for ER [SE EMS] o Information to the public [SE EMS, IT MIRM]

• Ebola pandemic: o Guidelines and procedures were used based on materials published by the WHO and past

experience in disaster management [all IS HEMOs] o A number of exercises executed to test capabilities. Assessment of relevant guidelines and

procedures. Acquisition of additional equipment [CZ FR, CZ EMS] o Information to personnel and preparedness measures. Participated in a real operation

handling a suspected case of Ebola. Operations base on existing plans, procedures and guidelines for CBRN-operations [SE FR, SE EMS]

o Fire brigades where used to escort patient carrying vehicles [IT NFCRM] o Use same routines for management and prevention as for all infectious diseases [IT EMS] o Every kind of emergency at international level has an impact on our operational response [IT

NDCP] o Lots of lessons learned that are still being implemented [SE EMS] o Lesson learnt from the Ebola pandemic is the need to work under pressure, with

organizations that do not work together daily in routine; thus, infrastructure and collaboration mechanisms should be prepared in advance [IS MOH]

o In situations that are a mixture of routine and emergency, such as the Ebola crisis, the emergency management is based on routine practices [IS HMO]

o The foundation is the general setting up of a crisis task force and the corresponding guidelines. Relating to Ebola it started as ordinary support and gradually the scope of things increased. [NO CP]

o There was a need for training and a more permanent crisis task force to reinforce the general safety on site and for personnel. More focus on the personnel side and the requirements to the safety track was learned. [NO CP]

o There were more comprehensive safety evaluations than "normal" in the cooperation talks (e.g. with UK agencies); a completely new agreement was drawn up which described what each country should do in the Ebola situation. Many new participants and many new routines that had to be made, and a completely different "delivery". Continuous dialogue with the Health Directorate was part of this [NO CP]



96 of 138

o The operational approach is changed with respect to previous routines and there are proposals for organisational changes based on the experience from this mission [NO CP]

• Millennium bug: o Preparedness measures, additional resources on duty. Since then planning for and

reoccurring exercises on blackouts [SE FR, SE EMS, CZ FR, CZ EMS, IT EMS, all IS HEMOs]

o Bug 2000 was characterized by a very structured preparedness, effective procedures and a well-trained response system. [IS HOSP, IS MOH, IS PH].

• Necessary conditions for success of Ebola pandemic and Millennium bug commitment and recruit of the senior management [ALL IS HEMOs].

BLOCK VI - Coping with disturbances in specific situations, actor-specific cases

A number of cases specific for the actors were discussed. Some of the main findings are the following:

• The emergency situations so far have been within the scope of our system capability. Problems have occurred when un-anticipated situations has occurred, like malfunctioning IT-support [SE EMS]

• The organization identifies accidents/emergencies at SEVESO sites, large traffic accidents on highways and railways, blackouts (IT/power), and harsh weather induced large scale rescue operations as situations where this kind of operational approaches are extra needed [SE FR, CZ FR]

• Large traffic accidents on highways and evacuation of hospitals are situations where this kind of operational approaches are needed [CZ EMS]

• During L’Aquila earthquake the National Fire Corps has established a hierarchical structure for managing resources directly on site in case of large calamities, in order to better coordinate intervention actions together with the Civil Protection Dept [IT MIRM]

• Usually unsuccessful procedures concern plans developed by Municipalities [IT NDCP] • Guidelines were not used, only experience and intuition that come from other smaller codified and

formalized situations of intervention [IT MPR] • The biggest challenge was the Ebola crisis particularly with respect to maintaining efforts and

resources over time. More focus on procedures that help personnel establish an overall system on site, following up of travelling personnel, debriefing on return. This required adaptation of both old arrangements and personnel [NO CP]

• There is a need to establish crisis support from the Department of Justice which identifies requirements for lower levels, e.g. emergency staffing within the various directorates and the ability to continuously respond to the public [NO CP]

• The organisation must be able to respond faster, and set up a crisis task force more quickly in a more dynamic way. Effort must be reported continuously [NO CP]

• Crisis management is especially important during a prolonged emergency. There is a need to consider reinforcement, surge capacity for unexpected conditions [NO CP]

• Flexibility and improvisation of procedures compensates for gaps and the solutions can be adapted on the spot [IS HMO]

• "Battle management" is gut feeling, handling situations and taking decisions "here and now". The management must have certain preparedness for doing things differently and the challenge of communicating this in the organisation. Tries to make the leaders as independent as possible [NO CP]

• There were intercultural challenges between organisations where the lowest (possible) level in civil protection should support its personnel. Routines had to be changed continuously [NO CP]



97 of 138

• In the municipalities they use the concept of "neighbour support" – the ability to go to a neighbouring district to give support. If this is not enough, the situation is scaled up to national level. [NO CP]

• Procedures and checklists are support tools, classified for the various scenarios, according to the size and complexity of the event [IS HOSP, IS MOH, IS PH]

• Procedures and guidelines need to be clear, non-judgmental, organized and not open for interpretation [IS PH]

• The procedure is an excellent tool for the preparedness phase. In the event itself, there is a need to adapt the procedure to the changing reality [IS HOSP; IT NDCP]

• Professional committees, “After Action Reviews”, disseminating lessons learnt and conclusions to all stakeholders, international conferences and maintaining collaborations are the means for promoting effective disaster management [IS MOH, IS HFC, IS PH]

• Use of procedures during emergencies is activated immediately upon recognition of the situation as an emergency; if needed, they are modified based on lessons learnt [IS MOH, IS HFC)

• Exercising gives an effective response to the need to integrate the procedure and to develop personal relations between managers of response organizations [IS, HFC]

• The approach influences the event management as it enables to see the "big picture", and increases trust between responders and the assisted population [IS, HFC]

• Centralization and management facilitates to assist more populations [IS, HFC] • An approach is effective when it's implemented and provides a good response. It should be based on

the structure of the organization [IS HMO] • It is important to exercise the procedures and approaches and modify them as needed. [IS HMO]

BLOCK VII - Needs and conclusion

All interviewees contributed their perceptions concerning the main current needs as well as the priorities for the future. The following needs (and recommendations for DARWIN) were identified:

• Safety and security must be addressed more in the future. There is a clear need of validated guidelines and procedures. Such support is needed for, more or less, all situations, which are nor “standard” or “ordinary” situations. There is need for both generic as well as “hand on”/specific guidelines. Guidelines regarding different types of assessments are extra needed [SE FR, CZ FR]

• Validated procedures or lessons learned from real emergencies, especially for situations, which have not been experienced by the organization before. Exercises do not provide the correct picture of the actual capabilities as well as needs. It is difficult to prepare for something that has never happened before [CZ FR, CZ EMS]

• Specific procedures that can be simply applied without the need of knowing advanced theories or reading large theoretical text [CZ FR]

• Effective procedures [IS HMO] • Quality indicators for evaluation of operational procedures are needed [SE EMS] • One challenge is to maintain qualified personnel due to high mobility among experienced staff

members [SE EMS] • Training and exercises should be implemented [IS HFC, IS HMO] • Experienced system operation [IS PH] • More efficient data exchange systems and better inter-institutional communication [IT MIRM] • Management of the Regional Agency should be significantly improved [IT EMS] • Reform the organization and its legislation in order to foster the organization evolution and to

contrast the resistance to change [IT MPR]



98 of 138

• Cultural awareness among citizens: it is fundamental that citizen is himself the first responder [IT NDCP; IT MPR; IT EMS]

• Have routines and a structure that are known to all involved as a basis for handling a situation [NO, CP]

• Allocation of needed resources [IS HMO] • Modified levels of services in accordance to the situation [IS HOSP] • Consideration of the diversity of the systems [IS HFC] • Be able to reinforce all parts of the structure when it is needed, when a specific event occurs and

where there is a need for reinforcement [NO CP] • Competence and authority, roles and understanding; this affects the ability to act and handle

situations when one cannot follow the rulebook or when plans don't cover the situation. This is called "battle management", with foundation and independent comprehension to accomplish measures [NO CP]

• The ability to recognise early that/when procedures or routines do not cover the whole situation. All levels in the organisation must understand the need to and be prepared to "release" themselves from planned activities when/if necessary [NO CP]

• The ability to plan for the next event (not specific, but be prepared) [NO CP] • Ability to improve, recognize limitations, admit failures and know how to create out of it appropriate

work modules, capacity building and learning capability [IS MOH] • Be on constant alert [IS MOH] • Being proactive by transparency, spokesman ship and communication [IS PH, IS HFC] • Cooperation between the different groups [IS PH] • National resilience is dependent on trust in the leadership and between responders and victims [IS

MOH, IS HFC] • Three pillars for resilience: awareness of the importance of resilience; capacity building; flexibility

to adapt to changes [IS HOSP] • Need for learning from experience in a more systematic way. Currently the organization reflects on

what is happened informally within spontaneous groups [IT NDCP] • The integration and coordination between the different responders involved in the emergency

management system should be implemented [IT EMS]

3.3.2 Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) Six representatives of four European Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) were interviewed by researchers from two of the DARWIN partners, SINTEF and FOI. The respondents in the interviews all had functions within safety management, security management and operational management. The interviews are summarised below in blocks based on the themes of the interview questions: 1) General information about the actors, 2) Experience of situations where the resilience concept may be relevant, 3) Preparing for and managing resilience-relevant situations in general, 4) Coping with disturbances in general terms, 5) Coping with disturbances in specific situations, four common cases, 6) Coping with disturbances in specific situations, actor-specific cases, and finally, 7) Needs and conclusion.

BLOCK I - General information about the actors

The interviewees work in different positions in the ANSPs, some are managers, others are more like consultants, and they work in a variety in safety management, security management, or operational.

• ANSP are involved in the management of crises at two different levels: at a national level, as one of the actors in a wider political decision board in the context of large events (e.g., civil aviation event); at a local level, running the crisis cell for the operational management of events affecting specific



99 of 138

areas (e.g., airport only). The ANSP is required to have contingency plans to deal with events at both levels. [ANSP1; HeadSec (Head of Security)]

• During crises/emergencies, the interviewee would act as risk expert in support of operations and the interviewee’s supervisor would support the crisis management group [ANSP2; SafetyMgr (Safety Manager)]

• The interviewees’ work on is the safety and security group. When it comes to crisis the interviewees are not directly involved in the crisis management. The interviewees are more like “consultants” for specific safety aspects [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• In the Ash cloud disaster, there was a kind of decision board (consortium) at high level, the ministry and the ANSP is an actor together with others (e.g. airlines). In this decision board there are different interests e.g. airlines want to fly the aircraft (above or below clouds), the ANSP more responsible towards ensuring safe separation of aircraft. In this consortium, ANSP provides inputs from their perspective e.g. availability to handle or divert traffic to other airports [ANSP3;SafetyMgt]

• Operational Managers carry the main operational responsibility in coordinating the resolution of a crisis. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• The regulator regulates what services should be delivered, the ANSP decides how these should be delivered [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Software platform for logging incident events, visible for all relevant and responsible roles, expected that relevant actors take appropriate action [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Mix of many different actors involved in different events may induce a lot of coordination, besides airlines and other ATC units also including space operations, general aviation, UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Cooperation with other actors works especially well in case of clear separation in responsibilities between different stakeholders, well-aligned goals and agendas, mutual understanding and no competing goals [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

BLOCK II - Experience of situations where the resilience concept may be relevant

The interviewees easily recognized the characteristics of crises given as examples in two examples of crises the ANSP faced in recent years, both concerning major exceptional failures and everyday “micro-crises”.

• A technical fault in the electrical system affected the provision of ATM first at the local airport, and ultimately at the national level due to deep interconnections between major airspace blocks. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• A major failure of network services led to total blocking of services such as air-ground communication, and highlighted the ANSP’s dependence to the 3rd party network provider. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• National operational contingency plans describe who does what, at what point. In the crises they have faced, they haven’t had issues of resources: they have a roster-based way to manage resources in such situations, which lays down roles in order to have functions available. Plans contain contact lists so that somebody fulfils the tasks. [ANSP2;SafetyMgr]

• One event that is considered to be a crisis to an actor might not be a crisis to another actor. Example: Virus issues SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome), how to treat air traffic in that situation, the airport is involved on how to treat the infected people, but from the ATM perspective, it is more about how to handle the aircrafts. [ANSP3;SafetyMgt]

• The main focus is to see how the system works in everyday operation. Micro-crisis aim to be understood better, e.g. how a controller might “lose their mental picture of the traffic” and regains control of the situation. The time scale is short 10-30 min, it is a local crisis, very isolated, could be almost everyday, it is about how to deal with the situation and uncertainties and how to handle unexpected situations, setting giving priorities, and informing other stakeholders. [ANSP3;SafetyMgt]



100 of 138

• Facing disturbances to own organizations or infrastructure – There are checklists for different scenarios, but the real crisis is when there are no plans or high uncertainty about the situation [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• A severe personal crisis for one the staff can have a great effect on the work situation [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• A decrease in airspace capacity (flow management) is the standard solution if necessary, due to e.g. resource constraints [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Managing additional external resources, e.g., contractors, can be an issue [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

BLOCK III – Preparing for and managing resilience-relevant situations in general

• The approach to crisis situations is based on the ISO 22301 standard (business continuity standardization). [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• A crises experienced led to the decision to implement a procedure-based view of crisis management, especially defining required common recovery points and time objectives that local-only contingency plans lack. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• Major points to consider include clear plans to inform the public; necessity to first understand the nature and scope of the crisis to determine what other parts might be affected; ensuring minimum level of service provision to essential entities through service level agreements; consideration of interdependencies (including cross-border) for critical infrastructure protection. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• Plans exist at three levels: local, national, crisis management. Types of response depend on the level in the organization: at the operational level, a degraded mode checklist is used when something happens; at the unit level, there are defined processes and procedures; at higher levels, they can rely on the national contingency plan. [ANSP2;SafeMgr]

• The ANSP practices through a desktop exercise or large-scale exercise once a year. They have used such exercise to replay a crisis [ANSP2;SafeMgr]

• Regarding larger crises have lists organized indicating who needs to be contacted and when, including e.g. for technical or political issues. For big crisis, there is specific infrastructure and facilities, and procedures flexible enough to be adapted to different kind of situations. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• The interviewees personally not interested on low-probability events, consider resilience not applicable. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• Organization has turned away from being checklist dependent, and turned to having a broader knowledge in all personnel and increased teamwork, although many situations do have checklists. Checklists and procedures help to start from the right spot. There is inherent complexity where events can’t be fully anticipated. Procedures often are not fully useful and then have to be used as “skeletons” to base actions on rather than follow them slavishly. This is why broad knowledge is essential. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Learning goes mainly through deviation reports through the Safety Management System: Sometimes hard to connect all events to SMS, but there are organizational ways to handle other types of feedback than deviation reports: Meetings, logbooks, different ways to give feedback, and debriefings after every shift [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

BLOCK IV - Coping with disturbances in general terms



101 of 138

• The update of business continuity plans is based on the consideration of all plausible scenarios (including low probability events) to deal with internal actions, accidental failures or acts of God. It is important to consider those scenarios separately and together. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• Management of crisis involves: coordination at a political level for strategic decisions and financial aspects; and/or technical decisions on management of resources to meet operational goals (short, medium, long term). [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• Drill tests and exercises are very important to build participants’ experience in dealing with crisis situations they are not expecting. The value of exercises includes the highlighting of interdependencies. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• In a technical failure event a few years ago, they relied on improvisation to progressively reestablish traffic level. The system failure itself took only about 30 min, but the situation spanned 5 to 6 weeks due to a hard to identify and diagnose faulty circuit (intermittent). One major issue was about keeping the system up vs. being able to monitor and investigate the fault. [ANSP2;SafeMgr]

• The Überlingen accident remarked the importance on having two controllers. Time has passed (13 years after the accident) and today this is solution is seen as too expensive, it seems the situation is normalized of the previous situation. The trend is to eliminate and have less controllers. The system would not be flexible enough to handle next event or different kind of situation. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• The flexibility part is still missing in the resilience engineering debate, how we are flexible enough to handle different situations. On one side solutions can be expensive but on the other side you need to keep enough flexibility in the system. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• For front line operations improvisation is normal work. There are plenty of disturbances; micro-crises. From the outside you don’t see these, everything looks very smooth. The issue is to understand operations. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• It is important that guidelines are easy to understand, they reflect the priorities of the company and consider a high degree of uncertainty. Long guidelines would not be very helpful. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt]

• Cascading effects, can occur by evolving from the many small events and variations in daily operations in this complex environment [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• It is important that the regulator understands work-as-done [ANSP4;OpsMgr] • Situations lacking a Plan B are not appreciated by the staff, but they are very rare. ATC Officers

(ATCOs) always think in terms of plan B, C,… This is also why uncertainty contributes to crisis, it is difficult to plan with. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Interdependencies and interactions between actors play a major role. Conflicting interests and goals from different actors can be challenging [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Human empathy in the staff is an actual engine for driving evolution [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

BLOCK V - Coping with disturbances in specific situations, four common cases

• The most significant type of event was the IT event. The event the ANSP experienced in 2006 lead to two main measures to provide redundancy and manage interdependencies: the development of a specialized network, highly redundant, with separate regional wires, etc.; the creation of a standard level agreement through contract and regular tests with telecom providers. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• Guidelines and procedures would cover volcanic eruption event, as well as IT event. For pandemic-type events, they don’t have specific procedures. They have a “strategy” which is laid out in the form of a set of questions aimed to guide decision. Fukushima-type doesn’t appear relevant. (ANS-2)

• Volcano eruption – Steep learning curve from the first event. Airlines wanting to fly in uncontrolled airspace were a problem there was no working solution. Stakeholders all had different information. A major question was which sources of information to trust. The second Icelandic was handled very well. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]



102 of 138

BLOCK VI - Coping with disturbances in specific situations, actor-specific cases

• A critical ability, e.g., in major crises related to software, is that organizations can roll back to previous configurations and recover immediately to previously functioning systems. Abandoning legacy software; and segregation of duties, of networks, in order to have part of organization always in place. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• In the context of Information Security, the organization relies on the implementation of the ISO 27001 standard (rare in Europe), which includes points about conducting forensics and learning from incidents. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• Because of the transversal nature of the notion of service, it is important to consider together quality management system, safety management system and security management system. [ANSP1;HeadSec]

• After the technical event, the ANSP thought processes and procedures needed to be enhanced and made more robust, which involved, especially, clarifying them at the individual level. [ANSP2;SafeMgr]

• IT events might be related to updates. Pre-testing, validation, back-ups, and planning of introduction are especially important [ANSP2;SafeMgr]

• Working towards a solution is key. The “why” (for example of a technical problem) is secondary. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• Including space weather prognosis could be considered as part of checklist. [ANSP4;OpsMgr] • Mutual understanding of each other’s goals in the situation is a success factor. This understanding of

goals needs to be established during daily operations beforehand [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

BLOCK VII - Needs and conclusion

The main needs and recommended foci for DARWIN to consider were the following:

• Impact analysis and asset involvement (services, survivability) [ANSP1;HeadSec] • Integration of safety and security, and consideration of their time sensitivity and relevance at highest

levels of management (not just at local level) [ANSP1;HeadSec] • Importance of training and implement plans successfully [ANSP1;HeadSec] • Preparation and practice are key. Processes and procedures need to be well documented and

practiced. [ANSP2;SafeMgr] • Organizations need to make sure to document, record and analyze events. This understanding enable

to gather lessons learned. [ANSP2;SafeMgr] • For outages, it is not possible to cover everything. You need at least a basic set of procedures you

can rely on. • You need to assume that you’ll be forever refining those processes and procedures.

[ANSP2;SafeMgr] • Not interested in extreme situations, but instead work in practice and doing activities that help

people to do everyday job. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt] • Need to take into account flexibility. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt] • Address normal work, complexity, taking into account dynamics of the situation. [ANSP3;

SafetyMgt] • Moving away perspective from traditional root cause, Swiss Cheese. [ANSP3; SafetyMgt] • Interested on dynamics of the situation and gradients and counter gradient, migration and production

pressure [ANSP3; SafetyMgt] • How to be flexible and stay flexible and not trapped only on getting more procedures [ANSP3;

SafetyMgt]



103 of 138

• Ensure priorities and common goals between stakeholders and support communication of these. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]

• How to support the human empathetic aspects of work and crises. [ANSP4;OpsMgr]



104 of 138

4 Conclusions and way forward This section gives a brief summary of the results and limitations of the SLR and interview study as well as conclusions related to continued work.

4.1 Main findings This deliverable describes a catalogue of concepts and approaches to resilience that have been identified as a result of two major studies: 1) a systematic literature survey (SLR) has been conducted on concepts and approaches to resilience from a range of disciplines, identifying associated indications of maturity of operationalisation or implementation into practice (for example, through guidelines and tools), and 2) an interview study of relevant stakeholders involved in crisis management, identifying resilience and brittleness aspects from significant crises and everyday practices.

The overall concept of resilience maintains and gains prominence in a diversity of contexts related to the domain of crisis management. This diversity of contexts was also displayed in the 300 definitions of resilience that were identified in the systematic literature review. The definitions differed in both the components that were included as well as by the scope that the term covered, emphasizing the different needs and complexities that are embedded in the concept of "resilience" and resilience management. The most common domains are community resilience as well as ecological resilience, but rising dominance can be detected in additional domains that have been emerging, most notably engineering resilience and infrastructure resilience. The emphasis and primacy of issues may differ among these contexts, but a large number of common denominators enable us to encircle some general characteristics of resilience as an overarching idea.

Two major entities, system and community, were identified as dominant concerning the element that is resilient which reflects the holistic view of the concept of resilience. The vast majority of definitions clearly demarcated the mechanism for achieving resilience, with two major applications – ability and capacity, constituting the most commonly included terms. These two mechanisms clearly display the aim of creating and sustaining resilience over time, through capacity-building. This tendency is also well illustrated in the two major actions that were found as dominant in achieving resilience; i.e. actions aimed at adapting to the situation and those that focus on bouncing back. Only a fraction of the definitions direct to actions that are targeted to prevention. The eclectic assortment of events to be resilient to reflects the transition of the concept of resilience from focusing solely on biology to a significant expansion to social perspectives and disaster risk reduction. This is also evident in the diverse phases encompassed in the definitions of resilience, signifying that the resilience approach not only centres on change, but rather promotes a proactive response to various situations, at all periods of time.

Concepts and theories include a substantial body of knowledge on resilience from a community perspective that is, grounded and resting on “naturalistic” human relations and a social fabric rather than the more formal and directed intent and effort of a managed organization or institution with a specific purpose. The interplay between community and practitioner resilience may be of utmost importance in crisis situations. A wide range of critical factors for both of these perspectives, from social factors such as cultural aspects and vulnerable groups, to socio-technical systems’ aspects of resilience for example in critical infrastructure, are highlighted. The interaction between resilience and other paradigms with other orientations that may be in contrast with resilience principles, namely compliance, planned protection and risk management, has also come to the forth.

The literature review indicates that researchers within the resilience domain put emphasis on the phases before and during the event when addressing needs and issues, and on both planning and responding when discussing solutions and practices. The overall need of resilience could be seen as the need to ensure the health, safety and security of people and other entities. There are dependencies among the needs tied to being resilient. For instance: in order to respond well to a crisis or disaster several stakeholders need to interact beforehand, and to do this the diversity of these stakeholders has to be understood and their specific needs



105 of 138

recognized. The three needs (related to health, safety and security) are the most frequently described needs in the reviewed literature. Several of the issues or problems identified concern these three needs.

Many of the solutions and most of the practices involve two phases of crisis management, planning and responding, but the literature review and interviews also identified many solutions and practices involving information and communication, involvement and engagement of stakeholders as well as measuring or assessing resilience. Also, there are a few solutions and practices which aim at improving education and training of personnel and other stakeholders.

Regarding the maturity of the approaches described in the literature, the general level of maturity is toward the lower half of the maturity spectrum, roughly between the concept and early demonstration stages. A number of mature approaches has been found, however, with fully applicable and working methods and with a number of identified practical applications. The maturity of concepts, theories, and models has been documented in somewhat more detail, although it has been difficult to establish a uniform evaluation of maturity because of the diversity of approaches found.

The interviews also highlight the practices that indicate a degree of resilience and adaptability to the circumstances in practice. Interesting issues are the reliance on procedures that in some organisations is stronger than in others, and that the degree of adaptation to procedures varies, as well as the support that is expressed that the procedures provide, which may vary for different phases of crisis management. A common way of organizing guideline development is through working groups that at national and regional levels develop guidelines and procedures that are adapted or implemented at regional or local levels. Learning practices are generally in place based on events that are managed. Training exercises and drills are performed regularly for most organizations.

Theories point to core principles on how a resilient system can be comprehended, organized and built. The link between pre-disaster and post-disaster resilient capabilities is vital in order to justify using resources on preparations for resilience, while understanding the constraints that may be met in the effort of building resilience. Understanding of interactivity at junctions contributes to the building of cross-scale resilience, and to the special case of integrating properties of community resilience with other institutionalized efforts. Assessment of resilience and integration of its principles into training and practice programs may be of vital importance for any effort of implementing resilience, as well as stress management related to human actors and specifics of critical infrastructure resilience are important contributors to resilience in action.

4.2 Limitations of the review The work described in this deliverable has been an extensive collaborative effort related to a very broad and relatively unexplored field of research. As such, the review has some limitations that are discussed in this section.

4.2.1 Systematic literature review The SLR resulted in a large database of data in the form of reviewers’ answers to a list of questions reaching beyond the scope of WP1, and well beyond of T1.1. This deliverable focuses on the results of the SLR that were necessary and sufficient to identify concepts and approaches to resilience from a selected set of disciplines. The analysis also aimed at answering the research question to which extent the concepts have been operationalised into guidelines and tools. The main results of the review thus concentrate on definitions of resilience, on concepts, theories, and models, and on needs, issues, and solutions as well as on practices. The SLR included other questions as well, however these are mainly summarised in this report. This data will be used for further identification of combinations of research questions, as part of further tasks and work packages (T1.2, T1.3, WP2-4), where specific answers may need to be researched, for example which tools have been used in which domains, which concepts are used for which levels of crisis management, which geographical areas focus on which types of crisis events, etc. These combinations of questions, have not been addressed here and are for further consideration in later tasks and work packages, as the database for such queries has been created. Furthermore, many combinations of the analysis topics would be imaginable for



106 of 138

further investigation, but the current task has focused on building up the catalogue of approaches and consolidating the answers within various categories of analysis.

The SLR may be considered to give an overview of world-wide approaches, with all continents addressed and a wide range of countries represented. However, because only English literature was searched, there may be a bias towards English-speaking countries in the SLR. Within the context of an EU-project this bias is virtually impossible to rule out completely. However, the interview study partly compensated for this by having interviews in the native language with local decision makers.

4.2.2 Interviews The focus for the interviews is on health-care and emergency/crisis management and on air traffic management as the domains of focus of the DARWIN project. The emphasis was on health-care and emergency/crisis management. A geographical balance was obtained given the limited resources to perform the interviews, and the organisational diversity in health-care and emergency/crisis management also seems to justify the choice of focus on that domain. The questions asked have been of a general nature and the aspects have given useful input into what could be called resilience practices, as many of the principles of resilience in the literature could be recognised in the answers of the interviewees. The practices that were identified were by their nature rather diverse, so that comparison of results across cases (domains, but also within domains) is difficult and out of scope. This is also the case because interviews were run in parallel and the purpose of the interviews was not to compare specific questions with specific expected answers, but rather to capture the diversity of approaches and trigger associations to the resilience concepts in the interviewees’ diverse experience.

4.3 Contribution and further work The main focus of the T1.1 was to identify concepts, theories and approaches in the literature, as well as among practitioners, that are relevant for the development of resilience guidelines. The database of information regarding resilience literature created and presented in this deliverable will be a crucial resource for further exploration of the resilience concept from different perspectives throughout the DARWIN-project. A key challenge of the DARWIN project is to methodologically evaluate the results of this deliverable in order to select appropriate concepts and approaches to be transformed into requirements for the resilience management guidelines. The main challenges that have been identified from the extensive literature survey may be summarised by the following points:

• Incorporating the wide cross-domain and cross-research-discipline aspects of resilience that have been identified. The diversity of the concept may be its strength but it could also be a hinder in developing practical guidelines that have a specific purpose.

• Establishing a scope of the resilience concept that is applicable to the wide range of the DARWIN generic guidelines, maintains substantial content to be distinguishable from other established concepts, yet is specific enough to be operationalised into domains of application.

• Taking into account the interplay between community resilience and resilience management by practitioner organis

• ations, thereby exploring the interface and applying a consistent set of concepts to both. • Developing guidelines at different scales that can be implemented from the international to the local

level. • An approach to the balance between the support that guidelines and procedures can give and the

need for adapting guidelines and procedures to the situation, i.e. being sufficiently generic, meaningful, and practical at the same time.

• A range of operational needs identified in this review that have been associated with resilience, which are issues that may also be general inherent difficulties in crisis management that the resilience concept in the literature is designated to provide solutions for.

Readers from the industry can use this document as a map of knowledge where findings are organized per topic. Readers can refer to a specific topic finding relevant studies. Practitioners in the industry can then see



107 of 138

which aspects of the studies can be applied to their field of interest. Readers in the academia and research can use this document as a body of knowledge presenting topics that are relevant for resilience and crises management. The topics direct towards areas where future research is expected.

Readers from the DARWIN project can use concepts, practices and approaches as lay the foundation to the next steps of the project. The direct and immediate implementation will be realized in T1.2 (Evaluation of resilience concepts for crisis management), through a methodological evaluation of the concepts, practices and approaches that were identified and delineated in this document (D1.1). Utilizing the comprehensive and complementary results of the scientific SLR on the one hand and the interviews of practitioners on the other hand also facilitate the initial identification of appropriate and/or most commonly used and generalizable resilience concepts, and thus allow to progress towards their transformation into relevant and valid sets of requirements for resilience guidelines (T1.3, Requirements for guidelines from practitioner and academic perspectives). More so, as the output of D1.1 serves as a catalogue of concepts, practices, solutions and approaches for resilience and resilience management, it will serve as a basis to adapt them into guidelines for resilience management (WP2, Development of evolving resilience management guidelines) that will be easily used by end users across Europe. Considering that D1.1 includes input from researchers as well as from practitioners increases the feasibility of an efficient adaptation of the concepts into resilience management guidelines (WP2). Another task that will be significantly impacted by the outputs of D1.1 is T3.3 (Training tutorials for resilience management), as the identified concepts will be embedded in the training tutorials that will be developed in WP3. The D1.1 contains elements from actual crises that can be considered while designing the pilot demonstration based on realistic situations in WP4 (Training tutorials for resilience management).



108 of 138

5 References Biolchini, J., Mian, P. G., Natali, A. C. C., & Travassos, G. H. (2005). Systematic review in software engineering. System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Technical Report ES,679(05), 45.

DRIVER. (2015). D82.11 Crisis Management Organisations and Capabilities report. Draft online report.

Dybå, T, Dingsøyr, T. (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology

Dyba, T., Dingsøyr I., Hanssen G.K. (2007). Applying systematic reviews to diverse study types: an experience report, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering andMeasurement (ESEM’07), IEEE Computer Society, Madrid, Spain, pp. 225–234.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401. NICTA Technical Report 0400011T.1. Keele, UK: Keele University.

Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of systems and software, 80(4), 571-583.

Longstaff, P. H., Koslowski T. G., Geoghegan W. (2013). Translating Resilience: A Framework to enhance communication and implementation. In: Proceedings of the fifth Symposium on Resilience Engineering, Resilience Engineering Association.

Woods D. D. (2015). Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 141, 5–9.



109 of 138

A Appendix: Systematic Literature Review References Full reference list of the selected articles. Ordered by ID.

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr.

1 Taylor, H. and Peace, R.

Children and cultural influences in a natural disaster: Flood response in Surakarta, Indonesia 2015

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13

6

Gonzlez-Riancho, P. and Gerkensmeier, B. and Ratter, B.M.W. and Gonzalez, M. and Medina, R.

Storm surge risk perception and resilience: A pilot study in the German North Sea coast 2015

Ocean and Coastal Management 112

9

Singh-Peterson, L. and Salmon, P. and Baldwin, C. and Goode, N.

Deconstructing the concept of shared responsibility for disaster resilience: a Sunshine Coast case study, Australia 2015 Natural Hazards

10 Fox-Lent, C. and Bates, M.E. and Linkov, I.

A matrix approach to community resilience assessment: an illustrative case at Rockaway Peninsula 2015

Environment Systems and Decisions 35 2

12

Shirali, G.A. and Motamedzade, M. and Mohammadfam, I. and Ebrahimipour, V. and Moghimbeigi, A.

Assessment of resilience engineering factors based on system properties in a process industry 2015

Cognition, Technology and Work

13

Bishop, W.E. and Fifolt, M. and Peters, G.B. and Gurley, D.K. and Collins, L.

Perceptions and experiences of K-12 educational leaders in response to the 27 April 2011 tornadoes 2015

School Leadership and Management

15 Kraushar, M.L. and Rosenberg, R.E.

A Community-Led Medical Response Effort in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy 2015

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness

16

Sikula, N.R. and Mancillas, J.W. and Linkov, I. and McDonagh, J.A.

Risk management is not enough: a conceptual model for resilience and adaptation-based vulnerability assessments 2015

Environment Systems and Decisions 35 2

21 Binder, S.B. and Baker, C.K. and Barile, J.P.

Rebuild or Relocate? Resilience and Postdisaster Decision-Making After Hurricane Sandy 2015

American Journal of Community Psychology

25 Yoon, D.K. and Kang, J.E. and Brody, S.D.

A measurement of community disaster resilience in Korea 2015

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

27 Wang, X. and Li, Y.

Understanding collaborative resilience from continuous disruption: an actor-network perspective 2015

Behaviour and Information Technology

37

Kuziemsky, C.E. and O'Sullivan, T.L.

A model for common ground development to support collaborative health communities 2015

Social Science and Medicine 128

38

Ibrion, M. and Parsizadeh, F. and Naeini, M.P. and Mokhtari, M. and Nadim, F.

Handling of dead people after two large earthquake disasters in Iran: Tabas 1978 and Bam 2003 - Survivors' perspectives, beliefs, funerary rituals, resilience and risk 2015


45 Fisher, L.

Disaster responses: More than 70 ways to show resilience 2015 Nature 518 7537

46 DasGupta, R. and Shaw, R.

An indicator based approach to assess coastal communities resilience against climate related disasters in Indian Sundarbans 2015

Journal of Coastal Conservation 19 1

54

Dahlberg, R. and Johannessen-Henry, C.T. and Raju, E. and Tulsiani, S. Resilience in disaster research: three versions 2015

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 32

57 Pfefferbaum, R.L. and Assessing Community Resilience: An 2015 American Behavioral 59 2



110 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. Pfefferbaum, B. and Nitima, P. and Houston, J.B. and Van Horn, R.L.

Application of the Expanded CART Survey Instrument With Affiliated Volunteer Responders

Scientist

58

Thornley, L. and Ball, J. and Signal, L. and Lawson-Te Aho, K. and Rawson, E.

Building community resilience: learning from the Canterbury earthquakes 2015 Kotuitui 10 1

60 Mendonça, D. and Wallace, W.A.

Factors underlying organizational resilience: The case of electric power restoration in New York City after 11 September 2001 2015

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

61

Baba, H. and Watanabe, T. and Miyata, K. and Matsumoto, H.

Area business continuity management, a new approach to sustainable local economy 2015

Journal of Disaster Research 10 2

62

Labaka, L. and Hernantes, J. and Sarriegi, J.M.

Resilience framework for critical infrastructures: An empirical study in a nuclear plant 2015


63 Elms, D. Improving community resilience to natural events 2015


64

Haworth, B. and Bruce, E.

A Review of Volunteered Geographic Information for Disaster Management 2015 Geography Compass 9 5

65 Brassett, J. and Vaughan-Williams, N.

Security and the performative politics of resilience: Critical infrastructure protection and humanitarian emergency preparedness 2015 Security Dialogue 46 1

66 Borell, J.

Manage everything or anything? Possible ways towards generic emergency management capabilities 2015

Journal of Disaster Research 10 2

69 Burton, C.G.

A Validation of Metrics for Community Resilience to Natural Hazards and Disasters Using the Recovery from Hurricane Katrina as a Case Study 2015

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 1

72

Pfefferbaum, B. and Pfefferbaum, R.L. and Van Horn, R.L.

Community Resilience Interventions: Participatory, Assessment-Based, Action-Oriented Processes 2015

American Behavioral Scientist 59 2

75

Gero, A. and Fletcher, S. and Rumsey, M. and Thiessen, J. and Kuruppu, N. and Buchan, J. and Daly, J. and Willetts, J.

Disasters and climate change in the Pacific: adaptive capacity of humanitarian response organisations 2015

Climate and Development 7 1

77 Lundberg, J. and Johansson, B.J.E. Systemic resilience model 2015


78

Sahebjamnia, N. and Torabi, S.A. and Mansouri, S.A.

Integrated business continuity and disaster recovery planning: Towards organizational resilience 2015

European Journal of Operational Research 242 1

79 Cox, R.S. and Hamlen, M.

Community Disaster Resilience and the Rural Resilience Index 2015


82 Parker, C.F.

Complex negative events and the diffusion of crisis: Lessons from the 2010 and 2011 icelandic volcanic ash cloud events 2015

Geografiska Annaler, Series A: Physical Geography 97 1

88

Houston, J.B. and Spialek, M.L. and Cox, J. and Greenwood, M.M. and First, J.

The Centrality of Communication and Media in Fostering Community Resilience: A Framework for Assessment and Intervention 2015


89

Cheshire, L. and Esparcia, J. and Shucksmith, M.

Community resilience, social capital and territorial governance [Resiliencia comunitaria, capital social y gobernanza territorial] 2015 Ager

18

95 Lay, E. and Branlat, M. and Woods, Z.

A practitioner's experiences operationalizing Resilience Engineering 2015




111 of 138


97 Woods, D.D.

Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering 2015


99

Robert, B. and Morabito, L. and Cloutier, I. and Hmond, Y.

Interdependent critical infrastructures resilience: Methodology and case study 2015

Disaster Prevention and Management 24 1

102

White, R.K. and Edwards, W.C. and Farrar, A. and Plodinec, M.J.

A Practical Approach to Building Resilience in Americas Communities 2015


103 Manyena, S.B. and Gordon, S.

Bridging the concepts of resilience, fragility and stabilisation 2015


107 Forino, G. Disaster recovery: narrating the resilience process in the reconstruction of LAquila (Italy) 2015

Geografisk Tidsskrift - Danish Journal of Geography 115 1

108

Woltjer, R. and Pinska-Chauvin, E. and Laursen, T. and Josefsson, B.

Towards understanding work-as-done in air traffic management safety assessment and design 2015


111 Filippini, R. and Silva, A.

IML: An Infrastructure resilience-oriented modeling language 2015

IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 45 1

113 Valero, J.N. and Jung, K. and Andrew, S.A.

Does transformational leadership build resilient public and nonprofit organisations? 2015


115 Ferrer, B. and Conley, L. Commentary: Boston strong: The role of community resilience 2015

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 21

121

Walsh, L. and Craddock, H. and Gulley, K. and Strauss-Riggs, K. and Schor, K.W.

Building health care system capacity: Training health care professionals in disaster preparedness health care coalitions 2015

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 30 2

122

Townshend, I. and Awosoga, O. and Kulig, J. and Fan, H.Y.

Social cohesion and resilience across communities that have experienced a disaster 2015 Natural Hazards 76 2

123 Robinson, G.M. and Carson, D.A.

Resilient communities: Transitions, pathways and resourcefulness 2015 Geographical Journal

140 Meshkati, N. and Khashe, Y.

Operators' Improvisation in Complex Technological Systems: Successfully Tackling Ambiguity, Enhancing Resiliency and the Last Resort to Averting Disaster 2015

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 23 2

149

Aldunce, P. and Beilin, R. and Howden, M. and Handmer, J.

Resilience for disaster risk management in a changing climate: Practitioners' frames and practices 2015

Global Environmental Change 30

156 D'Lima, M. and Medda, F.

A new measure of resilience: An application to the London Underground 2015

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

157 MacAskill, K. and Guthrie, P.

A hierarchy of measures for infrastructure resilience learning from post-disaster reconstruction in Christchurch, New Zealand 2015


158

Lizarralde, G. and Valladares, A. and Olivera, A. and Bornstein, L. and Gould, K. and Barenstein, J.D.

A systems approach to resilience in the built environment: The case of Cuba 2015 Disasters 39 s1

163

Ainuddin, S. and Routray, J.K. and Ainuddin, S.

Operational indicators for assessing vulnerability and resilience in the context of natural hazards and disasters 2015

International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 18 1

168

Walsh, L. and Craddock, H. and Gulley, K. and Strauss-Riggs, K. and Schor, K.W.

Building health care system capacity to respond to disasters: Successes and challenges of disaster preparedness health care coalitions 2015




112 of 138


169 Van der Beek, D. and Schraagen, J.M.

ADAPTER: Analysing and developing adaptability and performance in teams to enhance resilience 2015


182

Vugrin, E.D. and Verzi, S.J. and Finley, P.D. and Turnquist, M.A. and Griffin, A.R. and Ricci, K.A. and Wyte-Lake, T.

Modeling hospitals' adaptive capacity during a loss of infrastructure services 2015

Journal of Healthcare Engineering 6 1

185

Wistow, J. and Dominelli, L. and Oven, K. and Dunn, C. and Curtis, S.

The role of formal and informal networks in supporting older people's care during extreme weather events 2015 Policy and politics 43 1

202 Wang, Q. and Taylor, J.E.

Quantifying human mobility perturbation and resilience in hurricane sandy 2014 PLoS ONE 9 11

205

Duarte-Davidson, R. and Orford, R. and Wyke, S. and Griffiths, M. and Amlt, R. and Chilcott, R.

Recent advances to address European Union Health Security from cross border chemical health threats 2014

Environment International 72

217

Schelvis, R.M.C. and Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. and Bos, E.H. and Wiezer, N.M.

Exploring teacher and school resilience as a new perspective to solve persistent problems in the educational sector 2014

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice

218 Jung, K. and Song, M.

Linking emergency management networks to disaster resilience: bonding and bridging strategy in hierarchical or horizontal collaboration networks 2014 Quality & Quantity

225 Eisenman, D.

The Los Angeles County Community Disaster Resilience Project - a community-level, public health initiative to build community disaster resilience 2014

International journal of environmental research and public health 11 8

231 Mamula-Seadon, L. and McLean, I.

Response and early recovery following 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes: Societal resilience and the role of governance 2015

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

233

Zhong, S. b and Clark, M. and Hou, X.-Y. and Zang, Y. and Fitzgerald, G.

Validation of a framework for measuring hospital disaster resilience using factor analysis 2014

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11 6

238 Kenney, C.M. and Phibbs, S.

A Mori love story: Community-led disaster management in response to the tautahi (Christchurch) earthquakes as a framework for action 2015

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

243

Gomes, J.O. and Borges, M.R.S. and Huber, G.J. and Carvalho, P.V.R.

Analysis of the resilience of team performance during a nuclear emergency response exercise 2014 Applied Ergonomics 45 3

245

Birkholz, S. and Muro, M. and Jeffrey, P. and Smith, H.M.

Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management 2014

Science of the Total Environment 478

252

Zhong, S. and Hou, X.-Y. and Clark, M. and Zang, Y.-L. and Wang, L. and Xu, L.-Z. and Fitzgerald, G.

Disaster resilience in tertiary hospitals: A cross-sectional survey in Shandong Province, China 2014

BMC Health Services Research 14

259 Hollnagel, E.

Resilience engineering and the built environment 2014

Building Research and Information 42 2

261 Smith, K. Designing flexible curricula to enhance critical infrastructure security and resilience 2014

International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 7 1

262

Rankin, A. and Lundberg, J. and Woltjer, R. and

Resilience in everyday operations: A framework for analyzing adaptations in high-risk work 2014

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 8 1



113 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. Rollenhagen, C. and Hollnagel, E.

264 Boon, H.J. Disaster resilience in a flood-impacted rural Australian town 2014 Natural Hazards 71 1

265

Cesta, A. and Cortellessa, G. and De Benedictis, R.

Training for crisis decision making - An approach based on plan adaptation 2014

Knowledge-Based Systems 58

266 Birks, F. and Prater, K.

Adapting to global change: Ageing, urbanisation and resilience 2014 Architectural Design 84 2

276

Allmark, P. and Bhanbhro, S. and Chrisp, T.

An argument against the focus on Community Resilience in Public Health 2014 BMC Public Health 14 1

278

O'Sullivan, T.L. and Corneil, W. and Kuziemsky, C.E. and Toal-Sullivan, D.

Use of the structured interview matrix to enhance community resilience through collaboration and inclusive engagement 2014

Systems Research and Behavioral Science

279

Urciuoli, L. and Mohanty, S. and Hintsa, J. and Boekesteijn, E.G.

The resilience of energy supply chains: A multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to Europe 2014

Supply Chain Management 19 1

280 Veil, S.R. and Bishop, B.W.

Opportunities and challenges for public libraries to enhance community resilience 2014 Risk Analysis 34 4

282 Barrios, R.E. 'Here, I'm not at ease': Anthropological perspectives on community resilience 2014 Disasters 38 2

285 Lundberg, J. and Rankin, A.

Resilience and vulnerability of small flexible crisis response teams: Implications for training and preparation 2014

Cognition, Technology and Work 16 2

287 Collis, L. and Schmid, F. and Tobias, A.

Managing incidents in a complex system: A railway case study 2014


290

Freitag, R.C. and Abramson, D.B. and Chalana, M. and Dixon, M.

Whole community resilience: An asset-based approach to enhancing adaptive capacity before a disruption 2014

Journal of the American Planning Association 80 4

291

D'Ambrosio, L. and Huang, C.E. and Kwan-Gett, T.S.

Evidence-based communications strategies: NWPERLC response to training on effectively reaching limited English-speaking (LEP) populations in emergencies 2014

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 20

SUPPL. 5

293 Alshehri, S.A. b and Rezgui, Y. and Li, H.

Delphi-based consensus study into a framework of community resilience to disaster 2014 Natural Hazards 75 3

294 Amaratunga, C.A.

Building community disaster resilience through a virtual community of practice (VCOP) 2014

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 5 1

299 Zukowski, R.S.

The impact of adaptive capacity on disaster response and recovery: Evidence supporting core community capabilities 2014


302

Azadeh, A. and Salehi, V. and Arvan, M. and Dolatkhah, M.

Assessment of resilience engineering factors in high-risk environments by fuzzy cognitive maps: A petrochemical plant 2014 Safety Science 68

303

Lee McCabe, O. and Semon, N.L. and Thompson, C.B. and Lating, J.M. and Everly, G.S. and Perry, C.J. and Moore, S.S. and Mosley, A.M. and Links, J.M.

Building a national model of public mental health preparedness and community resilience: Validation of a dual-intervention, systems-based approach 2014

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 8 6

307 Smith, K. and Lawrence, G. b

Flooding and food security: A case study of community resilience in Rockhampton 2014 Rural Society 20 3

308 Tappenden, K.M.

The district of North Vancouver's landslide management strategy: Role of public involvement for determining tolerable risk and increasing community resilience 2014 Natural Hazards 72 2



114 of 138


311 Grimm, D. Whole community planning: building resiliency at the local level. 2014

Journal of business continuity & emergency planning 7 3

321 Adamou, C. Business continuity management in international organisations. 2014


322 Chen, H. and Maki, N. and Hayashi, H.

Disaster resilience and population ageing: The 1995 Kobe and 2004 Chuetsu earthquakes in Japan 2014 Disasters 38 2

323 Andrew, R.M. and Knight, K.L.

Briefing: Plan, predict and be proactive - Lostwithiel, UK floods case study 2014

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water Management 167 1

324 Fois, F. and Forino, G.

The self-built ecovillage in L'Aquila, Italy: Community resilience as a grassroots response to environmental shock 2014 Disasters 38 4

327 Cutter, S.L. and Ash, K.D. and Emrich, C.T.

The geographies of community disaster resilience 2014

Global Environmental Change 29

335

Saurin, T.A. and Wachs, P. and Righi, A.W. and Henriqson, E.

The design of scenario-based training from the resilience engineering perspective: A study with grid electricians 2014

Accident Analysis and Prevention 68

342 Ouyang, M.

Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems 2014

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 121

343

Petrenj, B. and Trucco, P.

Simulation-based characterisation of critical infrastructure system resilience 2014

International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 10

42067

344 Steiner, A. and Markantoni, M.

Unpacking community resilience through capacity for change 2014

Community Development Journal 49 3

361 Hmond, Y. and Robert, B.

Assessment process of the resilience potential of critical infrastructures 2014


04-mar

365 Stark, A. Bureaucratic values and resilience: An exploration of crisis management adaptation 2014 Public Administration 92 3

369 Scholten, K. and Scott, P.S. and Fynes, B.

Mitigation processes - antecedents for building supply chain resilience 2014

Supply Chain Management 19 2

373 Leitch, A.M. and Bohensky, E.L.

Return to 'a new normal': Discourses of resilience to natural disasters in Australian newspapers 2006-2010 2014

Global Environmental Change 26 1

376 Praetorius, G. and Hollnagel, E.

Control and resilience within the maritime traffic management domain 2014

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 8 4

389

Fairbanks, R.J. and Wears, R.L. and Woods, D.D. and Hollnagel, E. and Plsek, P. and Cook, R.I.

Resilience and resilience engineering in health care. 2014

Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources 40 8

410 Le Roux, T. DR4 communication in the South African context: A conceptual paper 2014

Public Relations Review 40 2

414 Gal, R. Social resilience in times of protracted crises: An Israeli case study 2014

Armed Forces and Society 40 3

422 - Introduction to preparedness 2014 Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 42 14

434 Johnson, C. and Blackburn, S.

Advocacy for urban resilience: UNISDR's Making Cities Resilient Campaign 2014

Environment and Urbanization 26 1

439 Jordan, E. and Javernick-Will, A. and Amadei, B.

A qualitative comparative analysis of neighborhood recovery following Hurricane Katrina 2014


440

Joerin, J. and Shaw, R. and Takeuchi, Y. and Krishnamurthy, R.

The adoption of a climate disaster resilience index in Chennai, India 2014 Disasters 38 3

444

Lei, Y. and Wang, J. and Yue, Y. and Zhou, H. and Yin, W.

Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective 2014 Natural Hazards 70 1



115 of 138


445 Nakanishi, H. and Black, J. and Matsuo, K.

Disaster resilience in transportation: Japan earthquake and tsunami 2011 2014


449

Chang, S.E. and Mcdaniels, T. and Fox, J. and Dhariwal, R. and Longstaff, H.

Toward disaster-resilient cities: Characterizing resilience of infrastructure systems with expert judgments 2014 Risk Analysis 34 3

451 Hsieh, C.-H. and Feng, C.-M.

Road network vulnerability assessment based on fragile factor interdependencies in spatial-functional perspectives 2014

Environment and Planning A 46 3

456

Glik, D.C. and Eisenman, D.P. and Donatello, I. and Afifi, A. and Stajura, M. and Prelip, M.L. and Sammartinova, J. and Martel, A.

Reliability and validity of the Assessment for Disaster Engagement with Partners Tool (ADEPT) for local health departments 2014

Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) 129

464 Cavallo, A. and Ireland, V.

Preparing for complex interdependent risks: A System of Systems approach to building disaster resilience 2014


466

Reniers, G.L.L. and Sörensen, K. and Khan, F. and Amyotte, P.

Resilience of chemical industrial areas through attenuation-based security 2014

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 131

468 Bergström, J. and Dekker, S.W.A.

Bridging the macro and the micro by considering the meso: Reflections on the fractal nature of resilience 2014 Ecology and Society 19 4

484 Rosenzweig, C. and Solecki, W.

Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways in New York: Lessons from a first-responder city 2014


491 Olsson, E.-K.

Crisis Communication in Public Organisations: Dimensions of Crisis Communication Revisited 2014


493 Guarnieri, F. and Travadel, S.

Engineering thinking in emergency situations: A new nuclear safety concept 2014

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 70 6

510

Leykin, D. and Lahad, M. and Cohen, O. and Goldberg, A. and Aharonson-Daniel, L.

Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure-28/10 Items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): A Self-report Tool for Assessing Community Resilience 2013

American Journal of Community Psychology 52

42067

526

Djalante, R. and Holley, C. and Thomalla, F. and Carnegie, M.

Pathways for adaptive and integrated disaster resilience 2013 Natural Hazards 69 3

539

Cohen, O. and Leykin, D. and Lahad, M. and Goldberg, A. and Aharonson-Daniel, L.

The conjoint community resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for emergencies 2013

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 9

540

Hernantes, J. and Rich, E. and Laug, A. and Labaka, L. and Sarriegi, J.M.

Learning before the storm: Modeling multiple stakeholder activities in support of crisis management, a practical case 2013

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 9

567

Pfefferbaum, R.L. b and Neas, B.R. and Pfefferbaum, B. and Norris, F.H. f and van Horn, R.L.

The Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART): Development of a survey instrument to assess community resilience 2013

International Journal of Emergency Mental Health 15 1

569

O'Sullivan, T.L. and Kuziemsky, C.E. and Toal-Sullivan, D. and Corneil, W.

Unraveling the complexities of disaster management: A framework for critical social infrastructure to promote population health and resilience 2013

Social Science and Medicine 93

572

Chen, J. and Chen, T.H.Y. and Vertinsky, I. and Yumagulova, L. and Park, C.

Public-private partnerships for the development of disaster resilient communities 2013




116 of 138


595

Hamiel, D. and Wolmer, L. and Spirman, S. and Laor, N. c

Comprehensive Child-Oriented Preventive Resilience Program in Israel Based on Lessons Learned from Communities Exposed to War, Terrorism and Disaster 2013

Child and Youth Care Forum 42 4

602 Ireni-Saban, L. Challenging Disaster Administration: Toward Community-Based Disaster Resilience 2013

Administration and Society 45 6

604

Frazier, T.G. and Thompson, C.M. and Dezzani, R.J. and Butsick, D.

Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale 2013 Applied Geography 42

613

Plough, A. and Fielding, J.E. and Chandra, A. and Williams, M. and Eisenman, D. and Wells, K.B. and Law, G.Y. and Fogleman, S. and Magaa, A.

Building community disaster resilience: Perspectives from a large urban county department of public health 2013

American Journal of Public Health 103 7

614 Skerratt, S.

Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: Evidence from community land ownership 2013

Journal of Rural Studies 31

628

Wells, K.B. and Tang, J. and Lizaola, E. and Jones, F. and Brown, A. and Stayton, A. and Williams, M. and Chandra, A. and Eisenman, D. and Fogleman, S. and Plough, A.

Applying community engagement to disaster planning: Developing the vision and design for the Los Angeles county community disaster resilience initiative 2013

American Journal of Public Health 103 7

652

Pfefferbaum, R.L. and Pfefferbaum, B. and Van Horn, R.L. and Klomp, R.W. and Norris, F.H. and Reissman, D.B.

The communities advancing resilience toolkit (CART): An intervention to build community resilience to disasters 2013

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 19 3

666 Hollnagel, E. and Fujita, Y.

The Fukushima disaster-systemic failures as the lack of resilience 2013

Nuclear Engineering and Technology 45 1

688 Quigley, K. Man plans, God laughs: Canada's national strategy for protecting critical infrastructure 2013

Canadian Public Administration 56 1

689 Boin, A. and van Eeten, M.J.G. The Resilient Organization 2013

Public Management Review 15 3

699

Labaka, L. and Hernantes, J. and Laug, A. and Sarriegi, J.M.

Enhancing resilience: Implementing resilience building policies against major industrial accidents 2013


02-jan

701 Lucini, B. Social capital and sociological resilience in megacities context 2013


707 Lee, A.V. and Vargo, J. and Seville, E.

Developing a tool to measure and compare organisations' resilience 2013

Natural Hazards Review 14 1

715 Rankin, A. and Dahlbck, N. and Lundberg, J.

A case study of factor influencing role improvisation in crisis response teams 2013


740 Johnsen, S.O. and Veen, M.

Risk assessment and resilience of critical communication infrastructure in railways 2013


753 Lorenz, D.F. The diversity of resilience: Contributions from a social science perspective 2013 Natural Hazards 67 1

754 Desouza, K.C. and Flanery, T.H.

Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework 2013 Cities 35

757

Bahadur, A.V. and Ibrahim, M. and Tanner, T.

Characterising resilience: Unpacking the concept for tackling climate change and development 2013

Climate and Development 5 1

766 Kennedy, G. and Richards, M. and Disaster mitigation: initial response. 2013

Southern medical journal 106 1



117 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. Chicarelli, M. and Ernst, A. and Harrell, A. and Stites, D.

777

Dekker, S. and Bergström, J. and Amer-Wåhlin, I. and Cilliers, P.

Complicated, complex, and compliant: Best practice in obstetrics 2013


780

Errett, N.A. and Thompson, C.B. and Catlett, C. and Gwon, H. and Barnett, D.J. and Semon, N.L. and Hsu, E. and Balice, R.D.

Assessment of psychological preparedness and emergency response willingness of local public health department and hospital workers 2012


781

McCabe, O.L. and Mosley, A. and Langlieb, A. and Kaminsky, M.J. and Marum, F. and Gwon, H.S. and Everly Jr., G.S. and Links, J.M.

Community capacity-building in disaster mental health resilience: A pilot study of an academic/faith partnership model 2012


789

Bame, S.I. and Parker, K. and Lee, J.Y. and Norman, A. and Finley, D. and Desai, A. and Grover, A. and Payne, C. and Garza, A. and Shaw, A. and Bell-Shaw, R. and Davis, T. and Harrison, E. and Dunn, R. and Mhatre, P. and Shaw, F. and Robinson, C.

Monitoring unmet needs: Using 2-1-1 during natural disasters 2012

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43

6 SUPPL.5

792 Ainuddin, S. and Routray, J.K.

Community resilience framework for an earthquake prone area in Baluchistan 2012

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 1

793


Assessing community resilience to climate-related disasters in Chennai, India 2012

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 1

795 Amundsen, H.

Illusions of resilience? An analysis of community responses to change in northern Norway 2012 Ecology and Society 17 4

796

Onstad, P.A. and Danes, S.M. and Hardman, A.M. and Olson, P.D. and Marczak, M.S. and Heins, R.K. and Croymans, S.R. and Coffee, K.A.

The road to recovery from a natural disaster: Voices from the community 2012

Community Development 43 5

803 McCormick, S. After the cap: Risk assessment, citizen science and disaster recovery 2012 Ecology and Society 17 4

807

Loosemore, M. and Chow, V.W. and McGeorge, D.

Modelling the risks of extreme weather events for Australasian hospital infrastructure using rich picture diagrams 2012

Construction Management and Economics 30 12

815


Action-oriented resilience assessment of communities in Chennai, India 2012

Environmental Hazards 11 3

820

Montgomery, M. and Broyd, T. and Cornell, S. and Pearce, O. and Pocock, D. and Young, K.

An innovative approach for improving infrastructure resilience 2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering 165 6

822 Andrew, R. Building community resilience 2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil 165 6



118 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. Engineering

830 Boyle, P. Risk, Resiliency, and Urban Governance: The Case of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games 2012

Canadian Review of Sociology 49 4

831

Lee, A.C.K. and Phillips, W. and Challen, K. and Goodacre, S.

Emergency management in health: Key issues and challenges in the UK 2012 BMC Public Health 12 1

832

Bayntun, C. and Rockenschaub, G. and Murray, V.

Developing a health system approach to disaster management: A qualitative analysis of the core literature to complement the WHO Toolkit for assessing health-system capacity for crisis management 2012 PLoS Currents

837

Brown, A. and Dayal, A. and Rumbaitis Del Rio, C.

From practice to theory: Emerging lessons from Asia for building urban climate change resilience 2012


851 Colten, C.E. and Hay, J. and Giancarlo, A.

Community resilience and oil spills in coastal Louisiana 2012 Ecology and Society 17 3

852 LaLone, M.B.

Neighbors Helping Neighbors: An Examination of the Social Capital Mobilization Process for Community Resilience to Environmental Disasters 2012

Journal of Applied Social Science 6 2

853 Petrenj, B. and Lettieri, E. and Trucco, P.

Towards enhanced collaboration and information sharing for critical infrastructure resilience: Current barriers and emerging capabilities 2012


03-feb

854 Ainuddin, S. and Routray, J.K.

Earthquake hazards and community resilience in Baluchistan 2012 Natural Hazards 63 2

862 McEvoy, D. and Ahmed, I. and Mullett, J.

The impact of the 2009 heat wave on Melbourne's critical infrastructure 2012 Local Environment 17 8

864 Sovacool, B.K. Expert views of climate change adaptation in the Maldives 2012 Climatic Change 114 2

874 Hmond, Y. and Robert, B.

Preparedness: The state of the art and future prospects 2012


875 Hong, P. and Huang, C. and Li, B.

Crisis management for SMEs: Insights from a multiple-case study 2012

International Journal of Business Excellence 5 5

897

Petit, F.D. and Eaton, L.K. and Fisher, R.E. and McAraw, S.F. and Collins III, M.J.

Developing an index to assess the resilience of critical infrastructure 2012

International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 16

03-jan

898

Levac, J. and Toal-Sullivan, D. and O'Sullivan, T.L.

Household emergency preparedness: A literature review 2012

Journal of Community Health 37 3

910

Rogers, C.D.F. and Bouch, C.J. and Williams, S. and Barber, A.R.G. and Baker, C.J. and Bryson, J.R. and Chapman, D.N. and Chapman, L. and Coaffee, J. and Jefferson, I. and Quinn, A.D.

Resistance and resilience - paradigms for critical local infrastructure 2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer 165 2

924

Sovacool, B.K. and D'Agostino, A.L. and Meenawat, H. and Rawlani, A.

Expert views of climate change adaptation in least developed Asia 2012

Journal of Environmental Management 97 1

928

Huber, G.J. and Gomes, J.O. and De Carvalho, P.V.R.

A program to support the construction and evaluation of resilience indicators 2012 Work 41

SUPPL.1

939 Bajayo, R. Building community resilience to climate change through public health planning 2012

Health Promotion Journal of Australia 23 1

942 Olwig, M.F. Multi-sited resilience: The mutual construction 2012 Applied Geography 33 1



119 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. of "local" and "global" understandings and practices of adaptation and innovation

943 Hill, H. and Wiener, J. and Warner, K.

From fatalism to resilience: Reducing disaster impacts through systematic investments 2012 Disasters 36 2

953

Lundberg, J. and Trnqvist, E. and Nadjm-Tehrani, S.

Resilience in sensemaking and control of emergency response 2012

International Journal of Emergency Management 8 2

957

Shirali, G.H.A. and Motamedzade, M. and Mohammadfam, I. and Ebrahimipour, V. and Moghimbeigi, A.

Challenges in building resilience engineering (RE) and adaptive capacity: A field study in a chemical plant 2012

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 90 2

970

Taylor, M. and Wells, G. and Howell, G. and Raphael, B.

The role of social media as psychological first aid as a support to community resilience building. A Facebook study from 'Cyclone Yasi Update' 2012

Australian Journal of Emergency Management 27 1

976 Dufty, N. Using social media to build community disaster resilience 2012


987

Boon, H.J. and Cottrell, A. and King, D. and Stevenson, R.B. and Millar, J.

Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters 2012 Natural Hazards 60 2

993

McCarthy, D.M. b and Chiampas, G.T. and Malik, S. and Cole, K. and Lindeman, P. and Adams, J.G.

Enhancing community disaster resilience through mass sporting events 2011

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 5 4

1006 Lundborg, T. and Vaughan-Williams, N.

Resilience, Critical Infrastructure, and Molecular Security: The Excess of "Life" in Biopolitics 2011

International Political Sociology 5 4

1021

Giovinazzi, S. and Wilson, T. and Davis, C. and Bristow, D. and Gallagher, M. and Schofield, A. and Villemure, M. and Eidinger, J. and Tang, A.

Lifelines performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of resilience 2011

Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44 4

1032 De Carvalho, P.V.R.

The use of Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in a mid-air collision to understand some characteristics of the air traffic management system resilience 2011

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 11

1036 Gotham, K.F. and Campanella, R.

Coupled vulnerability and resilience: The dynamics of cross-scale interactions in post-Katrina new Orleans 2011 Ecology and Society 16 3

1040 Speight, P. Business continuity 2011 Journal of Applied Security Research 6 4

1043 Vugrin, E.D. and Camphouse, R.C.

Infrastructure resilience assessment through control design 2011

International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 7 3

1047 Johnson, C.

Kernels of change: Civil society challenges to state-led strategies for recovery and risk reduction in turkey 2011


1054 VanVactor, J.D. Cognizant healthcare logistics management: Ensuring resilience during crisis 2011


1059 Vargo, J. and Seville, E. Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: Finding the silver lining 2011

International Journal of Production Research 49 18

1060 Schilderman, T. and Lyons, M.

Resilient dwellings or resilient people? Towards people-centred reconstruction 2011


1063 Castleden, M. and McKee, M. and Murray, Resilience thinking in health protection 2011

Journal of Public Health 33 3



120 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. V. and Leonardi, G. b

1064 Ungar, M.

Community resilience for youth and families: Facilitative physical and social capital in contexts of adversity 2011

Children and Youth Services Review 33 9

1066

Vugrin, E.D. and Warren, D.E. and Ehlen, M.A.

A resilience assessment framework for infrastructure and economic systems: Quantitative and qualitative resilience analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane 2011

Process Safety Progress 30 3

1084 Walker, B. and Westley, F.

Perspectives on resilience to disasters across sectors and cultures 2011 Ecology and Society 16 2

1088

Nuwayhid, I. and Zurayk, H. and Yamout, R. and Cortas, C.S.

Summer 2006 war on Lebanon: A lesson in community resilience 2011 Global Public Health 6 5

1089 Hall, H.L.

Fukushima Daiichi: Implications for carbon-free energy, nuclear nonproliferation, and community resilience 2011

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7 3

1109 Rose, A. Resilience and sustainability in the face of disasters 2011

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 1

1124 Lalonde, C. Managing crises through organisational development: A conceptual framework 2011 Disasters 35 2

1129 Lpez-Marrero, T. and Tschakert, P.

From theory to practice: Building more resilient communities in flood-prone areas 2011


1136

Morello-Frosch, R. and Brown, P. and Lyson, M. and Cohen, A. and Krupa, K.

Community voice, vision, and resilience in post-Hurricane Katrina recovery 2011 Environmental Justice 4 1

1153 Antunes, P. and Mouro, H.

Resilient business process management: Framework and Services 2011

Expert Systems with Applications 38 2

1156

Wyche, K.F. and Pfefferbaum, R.L. and Pfefferbaum, B. and Norris, F.H. and Wisnieski, D. and Younger, H.

Exploring community resilience in workforce communities of first responders serving katrina survivors 2011

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 81 1

1157

Johnston, D. and Tarrant, R. and Tipler, K. and Coomer, M. and Pedersen, S. and Garside, R.

Preparing schools for future earthquakes in New Zealand: Lessons from an evaluation of a Wellington school exercise 2011


1159 Miles, S.B. and Chang, S.E.

Resil US: A community based disaster resilience model 2011

Cartography and Geographic Information Science 38 1

1160 Rogers, P.

Development of Resilient Australia: Enhancing the PPRR approach with anticipation, assessment and registration of risks 2011


1167 Keim, M.E. and Noji, E. Emergent use of social media: a new age of opportunity for disaster resilience. 2011

American journal of disaster medicine 6 1

1168

Furniss, D. and Back, J. and Blandford, A. and Hildebrandt, M. and Broberg, H.

A resilience markers framework for small teams 2011


1195 Blos, M.F. and Wee, H.M. and Yang, J.

Analysing the external supply chain risk driver competitiveness: a risk mitigation framework and business continuity plan. 2010


1198 Elliott, D. and Macpherson, A.

Policy and practice: Recursive learning from crisis 2010

Group and Organization Management 35 5



121 of 138


1199 Dobalian, A. and Claver, M. and Fickel, J.J.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Department of Veterans Affairs: A conceptual model for understanding the evacuation of nursing homes 2010 Gerontology 56 6

1203 Achour, N. and Price, A.D.F.

Resilience strategies of healthcare facilities: Present and future 2010


1210

Mitchell, A. and Glavovic, B.C. and Hutchinson, B. and MacDonald, G. and Roberts, M. and Goodland, J.

Community-based civil defence emergency management planning in Northland, New Zealand 2010

Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies 2010 1

1212 O'Brien, G. and O'Keefe, P.

Resilient responses to climate change and variability: A challenge for public policy 2010

International Journal of Public Policy 6

42067

1219 Gunderson, L. Ecological and human community resilience in response to natural disasters 2010 Ecology and Society 15 2

1220

Paturas, J.L. and Smith, D. and Smith, S. and Albanese, J.

Collective response to public health emergencies and large-scale disasters: putting hospitals at the core of community resilience. 2010


1221 Fisher, R.E. and Norman, M.

Developing measurement indices to enhance protection and resilience of critical infrastructure and key resources. 2010


1223

Hu, X. and Salazar, M.A. and Zhang, Q. and Lu, Q. and Zhang, X.

Social protection during disasters: Evidence from the Wenchuan earthquake 2010 IDS Bulletin 41 4

1245

Sterbenz, J.P.G. and Hutchison, D. and etinkaya, E.K. and Jabbar, A. and Rohrer, J.P. and Schller, M. and Smith, P.

Resilience and survivability in communication networks: Strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines 2010 Computer Networks 54 8

1248 Magis, K. Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability 2010

Society and Natural Resources 23 5

1249 Zhang, W.J. and Lin, Y. On the principle of design of resilient systems - application to enterprise information systems 2010

Enterprise Information Systems 4 2

1252 Patterson, O. and Weil, F. and Patel, K.

The role of community in disaster response: Conceptual models 2011

Population Research and Policy Review 29 2

1253 Parsons, D.

Organisational resilience: Parsons argues that a modern organisation's ability to survive and prosper against the flow-on effects of natural disasters will depend on its resilience capacity 2010


1254 Stephenson, A. and Vargo, J. and Seville, E.

Measuring and comparing organisational resilience in Auckland: Stephenson, Vargo and Seville report on a web-based survey tool that allows organisations to measure and compare organisational resilience 2010


1274 Gifuna, J.F. and Karydasb, D.M.

Organizational attributes of highly reliable complex systems 2010

Quality and Reliability Engineering International 26 1

1279 McCreight, R. Resilience as a goal and standard in emergency management 2010

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7 1

1280 Sherrieb, K. and Norris, F.H. and Galea, S.

Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience 2010

Social Indicators Research 99 2

1281

Veland, S. and Howitt, R. and Dominey-Howes, D.

Invisible institutions in emergencies: Evacuating the remote indigenous community of Warruwi, Northern Territory Australia, from Cyclone Monica 2010




122 of 138


1293 Ebi, K.L.

Facilitating climate justice through community-based adaptation in the health sector 2009 Environmental Justice 2 4

1300

Bergström, J. and Dahlström, N. and van Winsen, R. and Lützhöft, M. and Nyce, J. and Dekker, S.

Rule-and role-retreat: An empirical study of procedures and resilience 2009

Journal of Maritime Research 6 3

1317

Crichton, M.T. and Ramsay, C.G. and Kelly, T.

Enhancing organizational resilience through emergency planning: Learnings from cross-sectoral lessons 2009


1318 Somers, S. Measuring resilience potential: An adaptive strategy for organizational crisis planning 2009


1324 Hutton, D. Putting the puzzle together: Reducing vulnerability through people-focused planning 2009

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 134

42067

1326 Madni, A.M. and Jackson, S.

Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering 2009 IEEE Systems Journal 3 2

1332 Nazif, S. b and Karamouz, M.

Algorithm for assessment of water distribution system's readiness: Planning for disasters 2009

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135 4

1333 Tadele, F. and Manyena, S.B.

Building disaster resilience through capacity building in Ethiopia 2009


1335

Stewart, G.T. and Kolluru, R. and Smith, M.

Leveraging public-private partnerships to improve community resilience in times of disaster 2009

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 39 5

1340 Dufty, N. Natural hazards education in Australian schools: How can we make it more effective? 2009


1359 Chen, S.-C. and Wu, C.-Y. and Wu, T.-Y.

Resilient capacity assessment for geological failure areas: Examples from communities affected by debris flow disaster 2009

Environmental Geology 56 8

1360

Gomes, J.O. and Woods, D.D. and Carvalho, P.V.R. and Huber, G.J. and Borges, M.R.S.

Resilience and brittleness in the offshore helicopter transportation system: The identification of constraints and sacrifice decisions in pilots' work 2009


1372 Geelen-Baass, B.N.L. and Johnstone, J.M.K.

Building resiliency: Ensuring business continuity is on the health care agenda 2008

Australian Health Review 32 1

1375

Haimes, Y.Y. and Crowther, K. and Horowitz, B.M.

Homeland security preparedness: Balancing protection with resilience in emergent systems 2008 Systems Engineering 11 4

1389 Arbuthnot, K.

A command gap? A practitioner's analysis of the value of comparisons between the UK's military and emergency services' command and control models in the context of UK resilience operations 2008


1392 Khan, M.S.A. Disaster preparedness for sustainable development in Bangladesh 2008


1395 Jennison, V. Networking to improve community resiliency in disaster planning and response 2008

International Journal of Public Policy 3

42130

1396 Veil, S.R. Civic responsibility in a risk democracy 2008 Public Relations Review 34 4

1399 Keim, M.E.

Building Human Resilience. The Role of Public Health Preparedness and Response As an Adaptation to Climate Change 2008

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 5

1404

Paton, D. and Parkes, B. and Daly, M. and Smith, L.

Fighting the flu: developing sustained community resilience and preparedness. 2008

Health promotion practice 9

4 Suppl

1405 Cutter, S.L. and Barnes, L. and Berry, M. and

A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters 2008




123 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. Burton, C. and Evans, E. and Tate, E. and Webb, J.

1409 Colten, C.E. and Kates, R.W. and Laska, S.B.

Three years after Katrina: Lessons for community resilience 2008 Environment 50 5

1410

Schoch-Spana, M. and Courtney, B. and Franco, C. and Norwood, A. and Nuzzo, J.B.

Community resilience roundtable on the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 21 (HSPD-21) 2008

Biosecurity and Bioterrorism 6 3

1416 Longstaff, P.H. and Yang, S.-U.

Communication management and trust: Their role in building resilience to "surprises" such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and terrorism 2008 Ecology and Society 13 1

1431

McManus, S. and Seville, E. and Vargo, J. and Brunsdon, D.

Facilitated process for improving organizational resilience 2008


1434 Reissman, D.B. and Howard, J.

Responder safety and health: Preparing for future disasters 2008

Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 75 2

1435

Norris, F.H. and Stevens, S.P. and Pfefferbaum, B. and Wyche, K.F. and Pfefferbaum, R.L.

Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness 2008

American Journal of Community Psychology 41

42006

1439

Paton, D. and Gregg, C.E. and Houghton, B.F. and Lachman, R. and Lachman, J. and Johnston, D.M. and Wongbusarakum, S.

The impact of the 2004 tsunami on coastal Thai communities: Assessing adaptive capacity 2008 Disasters 32 1

1447

Kostoulas, D. and Aldunate, R. and Pena Mora, F. and Lakhera, S.

A nature-inspired decentralized trust model to reduce information unreliability in complex disaster relief operations 2008

Advanced Engineering Informatics 22 1

1448

Albanese, J. and Birnbaum, M. c and Cannon, C. and Cappiello, J. and Chapman, E. and Paturas, J. and Smith, S.

Fostering disaster resilient communities across the globe through the incorporation of safe and resilient hospitals for community-integrated disaster responses 2008


1449

Rooze, M. and Netten, J. and De Ruyter, A. and De Vries, M. and Helsloot, I. and De Soir, E. and Selwood, P. and Schenk, H. and Hustinx, P. g and Olinder, H.

Prioritizing care during the acute phase: The prominent role of basic psychosocial life support 2008

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 23

1456

Norris, F.H. and Stevens, S.P.

Community resilience and the principles of mass trauma intervention 2007 Psychiatry 70 4

1467 Gaillard, J.-C. and Le Masson, V.

Traditional societies' response to volcanic hazards in the Philippines: Implications for community-based disaster recovery 2007

Mountain Research and Development 27 4

1470 Weeks, M.R. Organizing for disaster: Lessons from the military 2007 Business Horizons 50 6

1479

Bosher, L. and Carrillo, P. and Dainty, A. and Glass, J. and Price, A.

Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment: Towards a strategic agenda for the United Kingdom 2007 Disasters 31 3

1484 Baker, D. and Refsgaard, K.

Institutional development and scale matching in disaster response management 2007 Ecological Economics 63

42038

1500

Hollman, J.A. and Mart, J.R. and Jatskevich, J. and Srivastava, K.D.

Dynamic islanding of critical infrastructures: A suitable strategy to survive and mitigate extreme events 2007


1502 Boin, A. and McConnell, A.

Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: The limits of crisis management 2007

Journal of Contingencies and 15 1



124 of 138

id Authors Title Year Journal Vol. Nr. and the need for resilience Crisis Management

1513 Manyena, S.B. The concept of resilience revisited 2006 Disasters 30 4

1550 Pardasani, M.

Tsunami reconstruction and redevelopment in the Maldives: A case study of community participation and social action 2006


1559

Markenson, D. and Reynolds, S. and Krug, S.E. and Bojko, T. and Dolan, M.A. and Frush, K.S. and O'Malley, P.J. and Sapien, R.E. and Shaw, K.N. and Shook, J.E. and Sirbaugh, P.E. and Yamamato, L.G. and Ball, J. and Brown, K. and Bullock, K. and Kavanaugh, D. and Mace, S.E. and Tuggle, D.W. and Hagan Jr., J.F. and Balsam, M.J. and Gorman, R. and Lynch, J. and McMillan, J. and Olness, K. and Peck, G. and Redlener, I. and Schonfeld, D. and Shannon, M. and Cooper, L.Z. and Edwards, E.S. and Johnston, C. and Tellez, S. and Hicks, M. The pediatrician and disaster preparedness 2006 Pediatrics 117 2

1561 Roy, N.

The Asian tsunami: Pan-American health organization disaster guidelines in action in India 2006


1564 Hardenbrook, B.J. The need for a policy framework to develop disaster resilient regions 2005


1573

Aguirre, B. and Kendra, J. and Dynes, R.R. and Connell, R.

Institutional resilience and disaster planning for new hazards: Insights from hospitals 2005


1579 Allenby, B. and Fink, J. Toward inherently secure and resilient societies 2005 Science 309 5737

1588 Medd, W. and Marvin, S.

From the politics of urgency to the governance of preparedness: A research agenda on urban vulnerability 2005


1595 Bernard, E.N.

The U.S. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program: A successful State-Federal partnership 2005 Natural Hazards 35 1

1599 Wahlstrom, M. Overview of the tsunami disaster 2005 Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 20 6

1611

Ahmed, R. and Seedat, M. and Van Niekerk, A. and Bulbulia, S.

Discerning community resilience in disadvantaged communities in the context of violence and injury prevention 2004

South African Journal of Psychology 34 3

1620 Riddell, K. and Clouse, M.

Comprehensive Psychosocial Emergency Management promotes recovery 2004


1625

Dawes, S.S. and Cresswell, A.M. and Cahan, B.B.

Learning from Crisis: Lessons in Human and Information Infrastructure from the World Trade Center Response 2004

Social Science Computer Review 22 1



125 of 138


1628 Paton, D. Stress in disaster response: A risk management approach 2003


1630 Wybo, J.-L. and Lonka, H.

Emergency management and the information society: How to improve the synergy? 2003


1631

Klein, R.J.T. and Nicholls, R.J. and Thomalla, F. c

Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? 2003

Environmental Hazards 5

02-jan

1633 McEntire, D.A.

Searching for a holistic paradigm and policy guide: A proposal for the future of emergency management 2003


1636 Godschalk, D.R. Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities 2003


1640 Kendra, J.M. and Wachtendorf, T.

Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center Disaster: Reconstituting New York City's emergency operations centre 2003 Disasters 27 1

1645 Sternberg, E. Planning for resilience in hospital internal disaster 2003


1656 Paton, D. and Millar, M. and Johnston, D.

Community resilience to volcanic hazard consequences 2001 Natural Hazards 24 2

1662 Hills, A. Revisiting institutional resilience as a tool in crisis management 2000


1670 Paton, D. and Smith, L. and Violanti, J.

Disaster response: Risk, vulnerability and resilience 2000


1671 Mallak, L. Putting organizational resilience to work 1998 Industrial Management (Norcross, Georgia) 40

6 NOV./DEC.

B Appendix: DoA Review References Full reference list of the included articles that originate from the DoA. Ordered by DoA-ID.

DoA-ID Reference

DoA02 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). (2009). UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.

DoA03

Woods, D. D. (2003). Creating foresight: How resilience engineering can transform NASA’s approach to risky decision making. Testimony on the future of NASA for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, John McCain, Chair. Washington, D.C.http://ergonomics.osu.edu/pdfs/Press%20Releases/Press%20Release%20Oct03-Creating%20Foresight.pdf

DoA05 De la Torre L. E., Dolinskaya I. S., & Smilowitz K.R. (2012). Disaster relief routing: integrating research and practice. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 46, 88–97.

DoA10

SINTEF. (2011). Deepwater Horizon-ulykken: Årsaker, lærepunkter og forbedringstiltak for norsk sokkel (SINTEF A19148). (Only abstract available in English, Project for the Norwegian Petroleum Authorities)

DoA11 Colten, C.E., Hay J., & Giancarlo A. (2012). Community Resilience and Oil Spills in Coastal Louisiana. Ecology and Society 17 (3).

DoA12

Kitamura, M. (2011). Extraction of Lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident based on a Resilience Engineering Perspective, in Proceedings of the 4th Resilience Engineering International Symposium, Sophia Antipolis, 8 - 10 June, Sophia – Antipolis, France

DoA15 Eriksson, P. & Barck-Holst, S. (2005). Critical Infrastructure Protection Policy in the EU and in Sweden – a comparative analysis. (FOI-R--1793--SE). Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI.

DoA16

European Union (EU, 2013) Working Document on a New Approach to the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, SWD (2013) 318 Final.



126 of 138

DoA-ID Reference

DoA19

Vanderford, M. L. (2004). Breaking new ground in WMD risk communication: The pre-event message development project. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism-Biodefense Strategy Practice and Science, 2(3), 193-194.

DoA20

Wray R. J., Becker, S. M., Henderson, N., Glik, S. M., Jupka, K., Middleton, S. (2008) Communicating with the public about emerging health threats: lessons from the Pre-Event Message Development Project, American Journal of Public Health. 98(12),

DoA22 Sacco, G. M. (2006). Dynamic taxonomies and guided searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(6), 792-796.

DoA23 European Commission (2010) Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management. Available at:http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2017833%202010%20INIT

DoA28 Barillo, D. J., & Wolf, S. (2006). Planning for Burn Disasters: Lessons Learned From One Hundred Years of History. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 27(5), 622-634.

DoA29 Levy J. K., & Gopalakrishnan, C. (2010) A Policy-Focused Approach to Natural Hazards and Disasters. Special Issue of Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2(4), 211-211..

DoA34

Øien, K., Massaiub, S., Tinmannsvik, R. K., & Størseth, F. (2010). Development of early warning indicators based on Resilience Engineering. International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference, 10 PSAM.

DoA35 Hollnagel, E. (2010). How Resilient Is Your Organisation? An Introduction to the Resilience Analysis Grid (RAG). Sustainable Transformation: Building a Resilient Organization, May 2010, Toronto, Canada.

DoA37 Alexander, D.E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 2707-2716.

DoA39

Boin, A., & McConnell, A. (2007). Preparing for Critical Infrastructure Breakdowns: The Limits of Crisis Management and the Need for Resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1), 50–59.

DoA40 Scholz, R. W., Blumer, Y. B., & Brand, F. S. (2012). Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective. Journal of risk research, 15(3), 313-330.

DoA42 Topper, B., & Lagadec, P. (2008). Fractal Crises – A New Path for Crisis Theory and Management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(1), 4–16.

DoA48

Stephens, K. K., & Malone, P. C. (2009). If the organizations won’t give us information…: The use of multiple new media for crisis technical translation and dialogue. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2), 229–239

DoA49

Epstein, S., (2008). Unexampled events, resilience and probabilistic risk assessment. In E. Hollnagel, C. Nemeth, S. Dekker, Resilience Engineering Perspectives, Volume 1: Remaining Sensitive to the possibility of failure. (pp. 49-59) Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

DoA51 Hoffman, R.R., & Woods, D.D. (2011) Simon´s Slice: Five fundamental trade-offs that bound performance of human work systems. 10th International conference of naturalistic desicion making.

DoA53 Woods, D. D. (2006). Essential characteristics of resilience. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 21–34). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

DoA55

Woltjer, R., Trnka, J., Lundberg, J., & Johansson, B. (2006). Role-playing exercises to strengthen the resilience of command and control systems. In G. Grote, H. Günter, & A. Totter (Eds.), Trust and control in complex socio-technical systems: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE13) (pp. 71–78). Zürich, CH: EACE and ACM.

DoA56

Woods, D. D., Herrera, I., Branlat, M., & Woltjer, R. (2013). Identifying Imbalances in a Portfolio of Safety Metrics: The Q4-Balance Framework for Economy-Safety Tradeoffs. In I. Herrera, J. M. Schraagen, J. Van der Vorm, & D. Woods (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Resilience Engineering Association Symposium (pp. 149–154). Soesterberg, NL: Resilience Engineering Association.

DoA61

Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI). (2001). “Final report on Leading Indicators of Human Performance”. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2001. 1003033.

DoA64

Hollnagel, E. (2009). The four cornerstones of resilience engineering. In: C. Nemeth, E. Hollnagel, & S. Dekker (Eds.), Resilience Engineering Perspectives, vol. 2, Preparation and Restoration. Aldershot, UK.: Ashgate.

DoA65 SAS-085. (2013). C2 Agility - Task Group SAS-085 Final Report (NATO STO Technical Report STO-



127 of 138

DoA-ID Reference TR-SAS-085).

DoA67 Mikes, A., & Kaplan, R (2014). Towards a Contingency Theory of Enterprise Risk Management. Harvard Business School working paper, No 13-063.

DoA68 Westrum, R. “A typology of resilience situations”. (2006). in E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience Engineering--Concepts and Precepts (pp. 55-66). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

DoA69

Woods, D. D., & Branlat, M. (2011). Basic patterns in how adaptive systems fail. In E. Hollnagel, J. Paries, D. D. Woods, & J. Wreathall (Eds.), Resilience Engineering in Practice (pp. 127 - 144). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

DoA70

Cook, R. I., & Nemeth, C. (2006). Taking things in one’s stride: Cognitive features of two resilient performances. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 205-221). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

DoA71

Tinmannsvik, R. K., Albrechtsen, E., Bråtveit, M., Carlsen, I.M., Fylling, I.J., Hauge, S., Haugen ,S., Hynne, H., Lundteigen, M.A., Moen, B.E., Okstad, E.H., Onshus, T., Sandvik, P.K, & Øien, K. (2011). Deepwater Horizon-ulykken: Årsaker, lærepunkter og forbedringstiltak for norsk sokkel. (SINTEF report A19148).

DoA74

Cook, R. I., Woods, D., D. (2006). Distancing through differencing: An obstacle to organizational learning following accidents In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods. & N. Levenson (Eds.), Resilience Engineering (pp. 70 - 76). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

DoA76 Wester, M. (2009). Cause and consequence of crisis: how perception can influence communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(2), 118-125.

DoA77 Wester, M. (2011). Fight, flight or freeze: assumed reactions of the public during a crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19 (4), 207-211.

DoA78

Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A Work-In-Process Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110–122.

DoA79

Austin, L., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188–207.

DoA80 Dabner, N. (2012). “Breaking Ground” in the use of social media: A case study of a university earthquake response to inform educational design with Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 69–78.

DoA81 Huang, C.-M., Chan, E., & Hyder, A. A. (2010). Web 2.0 and Internet Social Networking: A New tool for Disaster Management? - Lessons from Taiwan. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

DoA82

Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2011). Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 6–13.

DoA83

Lerman, K., & Ghosh, R. (2010). Information Contagion: An Empirical Study of the Spread of News on Digg and Twitter Social Networks. Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 90-97).

DoA84 Simon T, Goldberg A, Aharonson-Daniel L, Leykin D, Adini B. (2014). Twitter in the Cross Fire – the use of social media in the Westgate Mall terror attack in Kenya. PLOS One 9(8).

DoA85 Birkmann J, & Fernando N. (2008). Measuring revealed and emergent vulnerabilities of coastal communities to tsunami in Sri Lanka. Disasters 32(1), 82-105.

DoA86

Artman, H., Brynielsson, J., Johansson, B. J. E., & Trnka, J. (2011). Dialogical Emergency Management and Strategic Awareness in Emergency Communication. In Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM Conference. Lisbon: ISCRAM.

DoA87

Nilsson, S., Brynielsson, J., Granåsen, M., Hellgren, C., Lindquist, S., Lundin, M., & Quijano, M. N. (2012). Making use of New Media for pan-European Crisis Communication. In L. Rothkrantz, J. Ristvej, & Z. Franco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International ISCRAM Conference. Vancouver, BC: ISCRAM.

DoA91 Boyle, R. (2009) Performance reporting: Insight from international practice. IBM Center for The Business Government.



128 of 138

C Appendix: Systematic Literature Review Questions The final version of the questions answered for each article can be found in this appendix.

Nr Information Description

General information (generated automatically from the database search)

1 Id id-number 2 hash 3 Title Title of article 4 Authors Full list of authors 5 Year Year of publication 6 Journal Journal in which the articles was published 7 Volume Volume 8 Number Number 9 DOI Digital Object Identifier System

10 URL Link to the Web Page 11 Citations Number of times the article have been cited 12 Abstract Full abstract

13 Search string The search string in Scopus that was used to identify the paper

Reviewer of full paper

14 Reviewing organisation of full paper

BGU, FOI or SINTEF

15 Reviewer of full paper Full name of the reviewer



129 of 138

Inclusion/exclusion after reading full paper

16 Include/Exclude (1/0) after reading the full paper

Does the paper seem relevant/valuable to DARWIN after reading the full paper? If Exclude (0), please elaborate/explain why referring to the criteria below, and state any other relevant information or reflections. If you are unsure if you should exclude a paper, contact your local SLR PoC or any of the reviewers of abstracts, for discussion. Exclusion criteria regarding Relevance: o Papers on lessons learned from a specific event or set of events without synthesizing some kind of theory or concepts related to resilience management. OR o Papers in another research discipline, i.. not socio-technical resilience management, e.g. that describe the resilience of a technical (physical, hardware, software, …) or biological system (e.g. a certain species or population of organisms), or not generalizable to the types of crises that DARWIN aims to address (other disruptions of the “normal”, e.g. closing of rural schools due to lack of students). OR o Papers on purely “traditional” vulnerability/risk/hazard/threat analysis, rather than proposing/investigating a resilience perspective. OR o Papers on purely long-term processes or trends in society that have limited relevance for DARWIN resilience management, or that are beyond the influence of the intended stakeholders addressed by the DARWIN project, e.g. the effects of globalization or climate change. Exclusion criteria regarding Quality: o Empirical papers with a clearly inadequate description of the methods used to analyze data, methods that are clearly not grounded in the data. OR o Theoretical papers with a clearly inadequate or not sound description of theories and concepts, or which are not grounded in relevant literature. OR o Papers that don't provide clearly stated findings with credible results and justified conclusions.



130 of 138

Review questions

17 Does the paper include any theories, concepts or models relevant to resilience?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable). A theory often consists of several concepts, methods and models. A model is a representation of something, here related to the assessment or evaluation of resilience. A good (sufficient for qualitative analysis) example is: "Niggs (1995) model of recovery process ((1) Restoration, (2) replacement reconstruction and (3) commemorative betterment and developmental reconstruction)". This explanation is sufficient because it contains the name of the model or its “inventor”, the subject/purpose, and the main elements (concepts). It could be added if it is a conceptual model or a computational/mathematical one, for example. A non-sufficient (needs more information) example is: "business continuity management". It is useful to mark what branch of research is used, but we would need more specifics on theory/model/concepts, see above

18 Does the paper include any practices, guidelines or information on needs from stakeholders/end-users, relevant to resilience?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable). Practices are here defined as descriptions of ways of working, which may or may not be formally decided upon. Guidelines may take many forms, such as checklists, descriptions of methods, manuals, principles, policy suggestions, etc. Stakeholders/users may include crisis mangement organisations, but also the general public.

19 Does the paper include any methods and/or strategies that may be used to evaluate or assess resilience?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable). A method is here defined as a way of proceeding or doing something in a systemetic or regular manner, here related to the assessment or evaluation of resilience. An indicator or metric is here considered a method for evaluating or assessing. Methods can be implemented in various ways, for example IT-tool for assessing/evaluating resilience. The purpose of this question is to list any information specifically on how to assess or evaluate resilience.

20 Are there any technical tools designated to build or enhance resilience?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable). By technical tools we mean IT-systems, web-based tools, networks or similar tools. The purpose of this question is to list any technical tool that focus on enhancing or building resilience specifically. Tools that are constructed with the purpose of only assessing/evaluating resilience are instead covered/listed in question 19.

21 Does the paper include any empirical data relevant to resilience?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable).



131 of 138

22 Does the paper include a definition/s of resilience?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable). If the paper proposes an own definition, please paste it in, using "quotation marks" and page number (Authors' name, Year of publication, p. X). If the paper refers to (a) definition(s) proposed by others (possibly in addition to proposing an own definition), please also paste each of the referenced definitions in, using "quotation marks", along with the reference to the source of the definition (Authors' name, Year of publication). Use // or Alt+Enter to seperate the references in the cell. Please mark the definition that is actually used by the paper or argumented for as being the most appropriate definition, with an asterisk (*) (in case of several definitions of which one is preferred by the authors). For example (one own definition (preferred/used*), plus one referenced): * "The intrinsic ability of the ATM/ANS functional system to adjust its functioning and performance goals, prior to, during, or following varying conditions." (Woltjer, Pinska-Chauvin, Laursen, & Josefsson, 2015, p. 120). “the intrinsic ability of a system to adjust its functioning prior to, during, or follow ing changes and disturbances, so that it can sustain required operations under both expected and unexpected conditions.” (Hollnagel, 2011, p. xxxvi).

23 Does the paper address a specific geographical management scale (local, regional, national or international)?

Yes/No. If Yes, please list your answer. If more than one, please elaborate.

24 Does the paper address/include any specific geographical location?

Yes/No. If Yes, please list your answer. state the city/region/country/continent (one or more) The purpose of this question is to check if we have achieved the DARWIN aim of conducting a "world-wide" survey, we want information on the specific location (if applicable). In the end, we want to cover as many different geographical areas as possible and thereby justify that we indeed have done a world-wide (hopefully general applicable) survey.

25 Is any specific domain addressed (Yes healthcare, Yes ATM or Aviation, Yes both, Yes other, No)?

If Yes, other: please list your answer. Other domains could for instance be rail safety, nuclear power, transportation (other than aviation). If for instance healthcare and another domain are included/addressed in the paper select Yes healthcare and then list both domains in the right column.

26 Is the key DARWIN area: Social media and crisis communication addressed?


27 Is the key DARWIN area: Living and user centric guidelines addressed?

Yes/No. If Yes, please elaborate or explain and/or list your answer (if applicable). The focus is on living, for instance information on guidelines that are updated in a systematic way, and how to make guidelines user centric.

28 Is the key DARWIN area: Continuous evaluation and serious games addressed?




132 of 138

29 Does the paper focus on Community resilience (general public/volunteers)?


30 Does the paper focus on Resilience management (professional actors)?


31 Does the paper include/address the resilience capabilitiy Anticipate (which is one of the resilience capabilities used in Darwin)?

Yes/No. Anticipate here refers to: Anticipate threats, opportunities and cascade effects. It is not only about identifying single events, but how parts may interact and affect each other.

32 Does the paper include/address the resilience capabilitiy Monitor (which is one of the resilience capabilities used in Darwin)?

Yes/No. Monitor here refers to: Monitor in a flexible way the system’s own performance and external conditions with focus on what is essential to the operation

33 Does the paper include/address the resilience capabilitiy Respond and Adapt (which is one of the resilience capabilities used in Darwin)?

Yes/No. Respond and adapt here refer to: Respond and adapt to expected and unexpected crisis in a robust and flexible manner.

34 Does the paper include/address the resilience capabilitiy Learn and Evolve (which is one of the resilience capabilities used in Darwin)?

Yes/No. Learn and evolve here refer to: Learn and evolve from experience of actual events, successes and failures, what to learn and how the learning is reflected in the organization.

If the paper includes empirical data, answer the following questions:

35 Does the paper adress any specific type of event/disaster/emergency/crisis?

For instance Floodings, Epidemics, Fires, Hurricanes, Airline accidents, Terrorism etc.

36 In what context has the case/event/disaster/emergency/crisis been studied (simulations/actual event/...)

Does the paper describe an actual cricis event, a simulation, or hypothetical events? If "More than one" or "Other", please list your answer. If "Actual event" or "Simulation", please list the name of the event (e.g. Katrina) or simulation (e.g. C3Fire).



133 of 138

If the paper includes theories, concepts, models or methods, answer the following questions:

37 What is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for the theory, concept and methods presented in the paper?

TRL: Technology Readiness Level (TRL) proposed in H2020 used for technologies is adapted to DARWIN resilience concepts/methods/guidelines to assess maturity as follows: TRL1. Lowest maturity of concepts and methods. No application of the concepts. TRL2. Concepts formulated with some precision including some case applications. TRL3. Analytical studies, feasibility against current/expected regulation and policy aspects analysed. Examples include concepts that are representative for DARWIN end-users view. TRL4. Resilience concept and/or methods have been validated in simulations or workshops in one or more security sectors (low fidelity). TRL5. Resilience concepts are integrated in working practices with reasonably realistic supporting elements so that the systems can be tested in a simulated environment. TRL6. Representative resilience concepts are tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a concept demonstration. TRL7. Resilience concepts and guidelines near or at operational application. For example, a demonstration of actual concept application in an emergency preparedness exercise operational environment. TRL8. Resilience concepts and associated guidelines are ready for actual use in operational environment (qualified) but not yet in actual use. TRL9. Resilience concepts and associated guidelines operational in an actual environment.

Snow-balling

38 Are there any important/useful references in the paper? (List maximum 3 references)

This is called snow-balling, one paper leads to the finding of other interesting papers, books, proceedings etc. List a maximum of three (3) references that the article suggests are the most relevant, and which you think are essential for DARWIN to follow-up on, and copy and paste the full reference from the reference list (or write them manually) in one cell. A suggestion is to highlight the reference when you are reading the text and simultanously copy and paste (or write manually) the reference. Use // or Alt+Enter to seperate the references in the cell. Don't spend too much time on making the formatting or referencing perfect.

Additional information

39 Do you want to add anything? Here you can write comments, interesting reflections or other thoughts for consideration in DARWIN, that are not covered in the previous questions



134 of 138

D Appendix: Interview guide The interview guide used can be found in this appendix.

DARWIN T1.1 Interview guide

Checklist before interview

Information letter concerning DARWIN project handed out, informed consent signed

Roles are agreed beforehand, one performs the interview and another takes notes

Duration of the interview is agreed

Short introduction by the interviewer about the project before start

Interview

Block I – General information about the actor

Aim: Provides an answer to what kind of actor studied

Questions e.g.

QI-1. Describe your organizations responsibilities in an emergency/crisis

- Strategic and/or operational focus

- Policy-making, regulation, planning and/or response focus

- Relations and interactions with other stakeholders

- Participation in/responsibility for coordination bodies (e.g., regional coordination function)

QI-2. Describe your organizations mandate in an emergency/crisis

QI-3. Describe your organizations tasks in an emergency/crisis

QI-4. Describe your role in the organization

Comments/notes:

Block II – Experience of situations where the resilience concept may be relevant

Aim: Provides an answer to whether the studied actor has experienced situations where resilient capability may have impact on the outcome of the operations conducted by the actor.

Background

DARWIN focuses on how different emergency/crisis management actors plan for, manage, and learn from certain types of situations, while responding to an emergency/crisis.

The situations where the resilience concept may be relevant are characterized by the need for the ability to “resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of disturbances and changes in a timely and efficient manner, including through adaptation and restoration of basic structures and functions”. [Adapted from UNISDR, 2009; Hollnagel, 2011].



135 of 138

Examples of such situations are:

1. facing disturbances to own organization or infrastructure, 2. having a lack of own resources, 3. managing additional external resources, 4. reallocation of tasks between different actors, meaning one actor being helped by, or helping another actor by,

performing/coordinating that actor’s tasks. Questions

QII-1. Do you recognize these types of situations from your organization and the emergencies/crises your organization has been involved in?

QII-2. Are there any other situations that are examples of this characterization?

QII-3. Describe, in general terms, your experience with these types of situations. Could you give examples of relatively recent emergencies/crises where such situations occurred?

Note: the emergencies/crises mentioned here may be used for discussion in Block VI.

Comments/notes:

Block III – Preparing for and managing resilience-relevant situations in general

Aim: describes the overall framework of how the formal and tacit knowledge to plan for, handle and learn from resilience-relevant situations is structured/organized by the actor

Background

Guidelines refer to principles and instructions that show or tell how something should be done, for example, indication of procedures by which to determine a course of action.

Procedures are sets of instructions or forms of conduct in other to perform or enforce series of actions in a certain way of order, for example, a series of steps to enforce a legal right.

“Informal” practices relate to an established or accepted ways of doing something that is not formally or officially regulated or described, for instance, in guidelines and procedures.

Questions e.g.

QIII-1. Do you do any planning or preparations for this kind of situations? Do you develop any procedures and guidelines or use “informal” practices for that purpose?

-Could you describe these procedures and guidelines /practices, if these exist?

-In which form are these documented?

-Who develops these procedures and guidelines/practices and how are these implemented?

-Are these procedures and guidelines/practices based on any specific literature/models/books? Which?

QIII-2. If you don’t have any procedures and guidelines/practices, do you see a need for such decision-support in order to be better prepared to handle the situations described above?

QIII-3. What is the general experience from using these procedures and guidelines /practices, looking at the emergencies/crises that have occurred relatively recently [see QII-1]? Do the decision-makers and managers see any benefits of having such procedures, guidelines or practices, or do they rather improvise in such situations?



136 of 138

QIII-4. How do you match the process of developing procedures and guidelines/ practices with the operational experience from such situations? Do you have a dedicated function to learn from experience (what works well and what doesn’t), within or outside of your organization?

Comments/notes:

Block IV – Coping with disturbances in general terms

Aim: describes the kind of content (operational approaches) that can be found in the procedures, guidelines and practices used by the actor

Background

When the (resilience-relevant) situations described above, occur, there are a number of approaches to handle these from the operational point of view.

Approaches can be any method, way of working, or practice. Approaches may be described in a guideline or procedure.

An example of such an approach is to redefine operational goals (e.g. reduce ambition level) or reallocate decision rights in a specific emergency/crisis, or adjust performance standards (e.g. only life-saving activities) within entire area of responsibility.

Questions

QIV-1. Could you elaborate on your approaches? Which approaches do you use? Are these somehow related to circumstances and characteristics of the emergency/crisis such as:

• Scale of the emergency/crisis • Cascading (knock-on, snowball) effects • Capacity and experience/skills of the available resources • Capacity and experience/skills of the command and control / management organization • Interdependencies among actors • Coordination among different organizational levels of coordination, planning, and intelligence/monitoring of the

situation (anticipate, monitor, respond) QIV-2. Please elaborate on how these approaches are developed and implemented.

• Are these documented in written form, or are these informal? • Who develops these approaches? • If you don’t have any such approaches, do you see a need for them?

QIV-3. What is the general experience from using these approaches, when actual situations occur? Do you see any benefits of having such approaches available, or do they rather improvise in such situations?

QIV-4. Do you use any education/training programs to learn how to apply these approaches? Who develops and provides these programs?

Comments/notes:



137 of 138

Block V– Coping with disturbances in specific situations, four common cases

Aim: identifies the actor’s experiences regarding a set of four common cases and their effects on the actor’s operations, regarding preparedness, response, and learning.

Background

In the project, we also focus on specific emergencies/crises, and how different actors in Europe may have been affected and handled the consequences of these. In order to be able to compare actors from different countries, we focus on four specific events. These emergencies/crises are:

1. Volcano eruption and ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull 2010 • [natural disaster] • [disturbances in air traffic, people displaced, medical transport affected]

2. Nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant and radioactive cloud in the atmosphere 2011 • [technological disaster, initiated by a natural disaster] • [public concerned due to the experience from Chernobyl]

3. Ebola pandemic 2014-2015 • [pandemics] • [transports of patients to Europe, public health concerns, operations in Africa]

4. Millennium bug 2000 • [IT, infrastructure interdependency] • [risk for disturbances and cascading effects in IT-based systems]

QV-1. Could you elaborate, for emergency/crisis [1-4] (see all four above [interviewees are likely to have most experience from one or two of these cases]):

• How your guidelines and procedures were used and practices applied before and during the emergency/crisis? • How your operational approaches were used to cope with the effects of the emergency/crisis? • How do you identify and analyze experienced and lessons to be learned from the emergency/crisis and the discussed

situations [in Block II]? • Based on the emergency/crisis, have your guidelines, procedures and practices updated or developed further? How? • Based on the emergency/crisis, have your operational approaches updated or developed further? How?

Comments/Notes

Block VI– Coping with disturbances in specific situations, actor-specific cases

Aim: give answers regarding what the actor deems significant from a resilience perspective, regarding preparedness, response, and learning, based on specific cases.

Background:

Please identify three specific significant emergencies/crises that was particularly significant with respect to your organization, and where guidelines, procedures and practices, or operational approaches:

• Were successfully applied and gave positive effect. • Were applied but did not give the intended positive effect. • Were not available, or difficult or impossible to apply in the particular situation, substantial improvisation was

necessary. [Consider the emergencies/crises mentioned in Block II / QII-2]

Questions

QVI-1 – Could you elaborate, for emergency/crisis [1-3] (for all three above):

• How your guidelines and procedures were used and practices applied before and during the emergency/crisis? • How your operational approaches were used to cope with the effects of the emergency/crisis? • Why were they particularly [1] successful, [2] unsuccessful, [3] not applicable? Why? And what were the

consequences of this experience?



138 of 138

• How do you identify and analyze experienced and lessons to be learned from emergencies/crises and the discussed situations [in Block II]?

• Based on the experience from the emergency/crisis, have your guidelines, procedures and practices and operational approaches been updated or developed further? How?

Comments/notes:

Block VII – Needs and conclusion

Aim: identifies the top three needs that the interviewee sees from a resilience perspective.

QVII-1 – Based on what we have discussed, what do you see as the three main needs today and in future that you see as priority and would like to see addressed.

QVII-2 – Do you want to add anything more?

Comments/notes:

Thank you.



139 of 138

E Appendix: Index for classifying definitions of resilience in the SLR

No. Domain Entity Ontology Actions Type Phases

1 Community System Ability prevention Change Before

2 Ecology Community Capacity Absorption Disaster Before, during

3 Infrastructure Individual Capability adaptability Disturbance

Before, during,

after

4 Social Organization Process Sustained adaptability Disruptions During

5 General Society Property Bounce back Adversity During, after

6 Engineering General Other Stress After

7 Organizational Population Shock

8 Economics Infrastructure Crisis

9 Business Institution Uncertainty

10 Psychology Economy/ Business Hazard

11 Urban Urban Challenge

12 Disaster Resources Misfortune

13 Health Hospital Emergency events

14 Other Actors/ crisis management Perturbation

15 Other Major mishap

16 Catastrophic event

17 Deformation

18 Danger

19 Other



140 of 138

consolidation of resilience concepts and practices for ... · stakeholders involved in crisis...

Documents