Demonstrate Concepts of Community Resilience

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

Fatih Demiroz and Thomas W. Haase

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

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

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

Introduction

Resilience has become a central concept for those engaged in the practice of emergency and disaster management. President Obama, for example, issued Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8, which called for the strengthening of the country’s security and resilience ‘through systematic preparation for the threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation, including acts of terrorism, cyber-attacks, pandemics, and catastrophic natural disasters’ (United States 2011, 1). In line with the aspirations of PPD-8, the United States’ Department of Homeland Security and Department of State identified resilience to be a core component of their National Preparedness Plan and National Security Strategy (United States 2010, 2011). These developments have not been restricted to the United States. According to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which was adopted by the international

CONTACT Fatih Demiroz [email protected] Department of Political Science, Sam Houston State University, Humanities and Social Sciences Building, 1901 Avenue I, Box 2149, Huntsville Texas 77341-2149, USA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 2019, VOL. 45, NO. 3, 308–327 https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1541796

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

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

In parallel with the emergence of resilience as a public policy priority, scholars and governments undertook efforts to develop a consensus on how resilience should be conceptualised, promoted,measured, and assessed (Cutter 2016; Olson 2011; National Research Council 2011, 2012). Notwithstanding the contributions of these efforts, resilience remains an elusive concept. There are two reasons for this intellectual quandary. First, investigations of resilience have not progressed in a unified or systematic fashion. Rather, the concept of resilience has been used to investigate or explain a variety of social and natural phenomena (Comfort, Boin, and Demchak 2010). As a result, ‘resilience’ has come to encompassmultiple meanings, which differ depending on the circum- stances and contexts in which the word is employed (Manyena 2006, 2014).

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 309

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

Literature review

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

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

310 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 311

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

Community capital:

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

Economic capacity:

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

Institutional capacity:

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

Infrastructure capacity:

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

Ecological capacity:

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

312 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 313

to their closeness, which is a numerical representation of how frequently words are used together. For example, if two keywords are commonly used together (e.g., disaster mitigation and built environment), then it is likely that these words will be clustered together. In other words, when keywords have a high closeness score, they are highly associated, and are often clustered. An advan- tage of MCA is that the method is not subject to restrictive data reduction assumptions connected to the analysis of continuous data (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017; Cuccurullo, Aria, and Sarto 2016).

Although innumerable number of peer-reviewed journals have published research on resilience, journals whose missions focus on fields such as public administration, political science, sociology, psychology, humanitarian inter- vention, and civil engineering were excluded from consideration. This ana- lytical boundary was drawn for two reasons. Theoretically, this study was driven by an interest in the development and evolution of resilience think- ing as experienced by emergency and disaster management scholars and their practitioner audience. Practically, because there are numerous peer- reviewed journals and books fall outside of the SCOPUS database, it is not possible to develop a dataset that would enable us to capture the full range of publications that address resilience thinking. We recognise that this analytical boundary limits our ability to map the content and structure of resilience thinking in its entirety. Thus, we caution against generalising this article’s findings to fields other than emergency and disaster management. Recognising this limitation, a more comprehensive analysis of publications that address resilience thinking will be the focus of subsequent research.

Findings

The SCOPUS dataset contained 1,096 separate articles by a total of 2,863 authors. Looking at the dataset in its entirety, these 2,863 authors use 2,729 different keywords to classify their articles. Additionally, the average citation count per article equals 12.53 citations (median = 3), which signifies there are few articles with high numbers of citations andmany articles with few citations. Shifting the focus to authorship, the dataset contains 171 single-authored articles on resilience. The other 925 articles are co-authored by a total of 2,692 different individuals. The average number of co-authors per article is 3.17 (standard deviation = 2.16), which suggests that resilience articles tend to be the result of collaborative research efforts. Summary statistics of these data are presented in Table 3.

Growth of the resilience literature

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

314 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 315

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

Keyword conceptual boundaries

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

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

11 8 12 15

16 12

30 35

41

70

100

117

152

161

217

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

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

316 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

We then conducted the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) of the keywords included in our dataset. The conceptual structure of the keywords associated with the resilience articles included in this study is presented in Figure 2. These data indicate that the articles included in our analysis can be organised into three primary clusters, which represent the intellectual structure of resilience thinking as addressed by emergency and disaster management journals. While a comprehensive review of the content of these three clusters is beyond the scope of this article, a few illustrative examples demonstrate the diversity, breadth, and intellectual thrust of thework undertaken in each cluster.

The first cluster contains keywords associated with articles that empha- sise the ecological and environmental aspects of resilience. Drawing from concepts that overlap with the transformational work of Holling (1973), this cluster is comprised of 22 separate keywords. The representative keywords identified in this cluster include adaptation, disaster risk, culture, sustainabil- ity, resistance, drought, adaptive capacity, social-ecological systems, adaptive management, sea level rise, disturbance, and climate change adaptation. While the articles that fell into this cluster address a variety of topics, the cluster contains three important sub-themes. First, there is an emphasis on social-ecological systems (Olsson, Folke, and Berkes 2004) as well as an emphasis on the indicators of resilience in the social, ecological, and built environment (Norton et al. 2009). Second, several articles address environ- mental conditions related to climate change (Lo and Chan 2017) and hazards (Thomalla and Larsen 2010), as well as topics such as risk (Govind 2016) and vulnerability (Joakim, Mortsch, and Oulahen 2015). Another set of articles focus on system disturbances (Reice, Wissmar, and Naiman 1990), and considered how systems might respond to a disturbance, for example, through resistance (McEntire 2003), adaption (Djalante, Holley, and Thomalla 2011), or learning (Berkes 2007).

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

Rank Author

Keywords Frequency Rank Author

Keywords Frequency

1 Resilience 321 14 Emergency Management 31 2 Disaster 116 15 Risk Management 30 3 Vulnerability 96 16 Tsunami 28 4 Disaster Risk Reduction 63 17 Earthquake 25 5 Flood 61 18 Built Environment 23 6 Climate Change 60 19 Recovery 21 7 Community Resilience 45 20 Social Capital 21 8 Disaster Resilience 40 21 Disaster Recovery 20 9 Community 35 22 Preparedness 17 10 Adaptation 33 23 Adaptive Capacity 16 11 Natural Disaster 33 24 Sustainability 16 12 Risk 32 25 Climate Change Adaptation 15 13 Disaster Management 31

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 317

The second cluster is comprised of keywords associated with articles that address the concepts and analytical tools used to support public policy and administrative decision-making. This cluster is comprised of 36 separate key- words, including disaster risk management, collaboration, governance, urban planning, stakeholders, and risk analysis. One of the tools discussed by authors in this cluster is collaboration. For instance, Mandal et al. (2016) consider the importance of collaboration for maintaining the capacity within logistics and supply chains. A similar argument is advanced by Fitzpatrick andMolloy (2014), who explore the how non-governmental organisations contribute to the devel- opment of community resilience. Authors within this cluster also discuss the role of governance, and how it can help or hinder the development and implementation of resilience strategies (Jones, Oven, and Wisner 2016; Wanie and Ndi 2018). Another tool that receives extensive attention is urban planning, as authors would explore case studies where urban planning (or the lack thereof) helps or hinders the promotion of resilience (Valdes and Purcell 2013). Finally, shifting the focus to the analysis of stakeholders, Perera,

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

318 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

Discussion

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 319

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

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

Building upon this point, policymakers should note that context matters when it comes to understandings of, and prescriptions for, resilience (Goidel et al. this issue). Simply put, there is no single recipe for the development of resilience. The steps that taken to promote resilience in one community may not work outside of that community’s contextual environment. This is because each community is unique. Even when two communities are geographically situated next to each other, they may still be separated by regional differences, jurisdictional differences, linguistic differences, cultural differences, as well as differences in risk perception, and governmental capacity. Such differences must be acknowledged and taken into consideration. This means that policy- makers who are involved in emergency and disaster management planning must understand the context of their community, including its hazards, risks, demographic characteristics, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. In some communities, the promotion of resilience might require the construction of infrastructure that can mitigate risk. In other communities, the promotion of resilience might only require public education, thereby empowering the mem- bers of the community to manage their own risk.

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

320 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

Conclusion

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 321

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

This article’s findings indicate that research efforts should be directed towards to development of resilience knowledge that can inform public policy. We do not suggest that contemporary resilience scholarship has not created usable knowledge. Rather, we suggest that scholars more fully embrace the interdisciplinary nature of resilience thinking and seek oppor- tunities to cross the disciplinary silos that exist within the emergency and disaster management literature that is related to the topic of resilience. For example, the complex adaptive systems perspectives explored by ecologists could provide emergency management and public administration scholars with insights as to how to promote adaptation and change within the social and organisational systems central to our communities (Thoren 2014).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

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

Notes on contributors

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

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

References

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

322 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 323

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cutter, S. L., K. D. Ash, and C. T. Emrich. 2014. “The Geographies of Community Disaster Resilience.” Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 29 (November): 65–77. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goidel, K., J. Horney, P. Kellstedt, E. Sullivan, and S. Brown. 2019. “Perceptions of Disaster Resilience in Four Texas Coastal Communities”. Local Government Studies 45 (03): 413–432.

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

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

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

324 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

Jacsó, P. 2010. “Metadata Mega Mess in Google Scholar.” Online Information Review 34 (1): 175–191. doi:10.1108/14684521011024191.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 325

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

326 F. DEMIROZ AND T. W. HAASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 327

Copyright of Local Government Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.