Benchmarking agency and organizational practices in resilience decision making

Larkin, Sabrina; Fox‐Lent, Cate; Eisenberg, Daniel A.; Trump, Benjamin D.; Wallace, Sean; Chadderton, Colin.; Linkov, Igor

doi:10.1007/s10669-015-9554-5

Cited by 77 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding community resilience and vulnerability to natural disasters remains a policy priority around the world. Corporations, governments, and nonprofit organizations are investing time and resources into measuring and improving resilience across many disciplines, so much so that the term has evolved into a new identity . Quantifying resilience and vulnerability through aggregation of theoretically justified metrics has become a popular approach to aid in decision making.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Corporations, governments, and nonprofit organizations are investing time and resources into measuring and improving resilience across many disciplines, so much so that the term has evolved into a new identity. (31,(62)(63)(64) Quantifying resilience and vulnerability through aggregation of theoretically justified metrics has become a popular approach to aid in decision making. However, we show that empirical validation remains an important final step.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Effective communication builds awareness of risk and informs stakeholders about actions they can take to reduce their risk (Huang et al, 2011;Wood et al, 2012;Linkov et al, 2014;Larkin et al, 2015). Lecture-style teaching places information delivery on the lecturer, increasing the likelihood that stakeholders will receive it (Mayberry et al, 2009), but this method is found to be limited in its effectiveness (Vogel et al, 2006;Dino andWayne, 2007, Devetak et al, 2010).…”

Section: State-of-the-art In Flood Risk Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approach for improving flood risk communication using realistic interactive visualisation

Olsen

Momen

Langsdale

et al. 2016

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floods become disasters when people and property are placed in harm's way. Yet stakeholders, those at risk of flooding, often take no action to reduce their vulnerability. We demonstrated an approach for improving flood risk communication using the process of realistic interactive visualisation. Our goal was to communicate information about flood risk at the community level and increase stakeholders’ intent to take actions to reduce their risk. Realistic visualisation promotes action based on emotional connection to images. Interactive visualisation is the direct construction of the model by stakeholders. As a reference, we also tested a nationally‐recognised model designed for the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Both methods resulted in significant learning about community‐specific flood risk and risk reduction options. To maximise the intent by stakeholders to take actions to reduce risk, the realistic interactive visualisation method used in high‐quality meeting facilities performed best.

show abstract

“…However, there is a paucity of studies that evaluate CRA tools in terms of their suitability for guiding communities towards disaster resilience. One of the few studies addressing this issue has been conducted by Larkin, Fox-Lent [13]. Their study analyzes seven resilience assessment frameworks developed by the US agencies to find out if they have addressed different abilities related to planning, absorption, recovery, and adaptation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the suitability of assessment tools for guiding communities towards disaster resilience

Sharifi

Yamagata

2016

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cite this article as: Ayyoob Sharifi and Yoshiki Yamagata, On the suitability of assessment tools for guiding communities towards disaster resilience, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, http://dx. AbstractResilience is now a ubiquitous concept in many science and policy circles. It is a polysemic concept that has been defined differently in different disciplines and contexts. An often used definition, in the context of community resilience, is provided by the National Academies. According to this definition resilience is "the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from and more successfully adapt to adverse events" (the four abilities). Over the past two decades various tools have been developed for assessing community resilience. This study examines 36 selected community resilience assessment tools to find out if they are suitable for adequately addressing the four abilities of resilience. A framework, identifying various measures that can contribute to addressing each of the four resilience abilities is developed. Evaluating selected tools using this framework indicates only few of them are reasonably suitable for addressing measures related to the four resilience abilities. Overall performance of the selected tools is particularly poor in terms of addressing measures related to absorption and adaptation abilities. Detailed results related to performance of each tool are provided. Developers can use these results to understand shortcomings of their assessment tools and address them in the revised versions.

show abstract

Benchmarking agency and organizational practices in resilience decision making

Cited by 77 publications

References 10 publications

Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

An approach for improving flood risk communication using realistic interactive visualisation

On the suitability of assessment tools for guiding communities towards disaster resilience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About