A Framework for Enhancing Resilience of Community by Expediting ...

A Framework for Enhancing Resilience of Community
by Expediting Post Disaster Recovery
Abhijeet DESHMUKH 1 and Makarand HASTAK 2
1 PhD student, school of civil engineering, Purdue University
(550 Stadium Mall Drive, School of Civil Engineering, West Lafayette, IN 47906-2051, United States
E-mail:deshmukh@purdue.edu
2 Professor and Head, Construction Engineering & Management, Purdue University,
550 Stadium Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN, 47906-2051,
E-mail: hastak@purdue.edu
This paper presents a framework for increasing resilience of a community by expediting disaster recovery
through capacity building and enhancing infrastructure performance. The framework provides a unique
approach to integrate the results available from loss assessment tools and locally available data such as
existing capacities, capacities required and important social and economic activities.
The research is based on the interrelationship between communities, industries and related critical
infrastructure. Provision of necessary serviceability level of related critical infrastructure to sustain important
social and economic activities and mitigating losses through capacity building will help in recovering within a
desired time frame.
The proposed framework will enable the development of a decision making model that will allow city
managers, emergency planners and industry people to recognize the important critical infrastructure, their role
in disaster preparedness and capacities required for minimizing social and economic impact which will further
help in developing mitigation strategies.
The decision making model will utilize relevant information related to infrastructure and community
attributes available from loss assessment tools such as HAZUS-MH and local data for develop effective
mitigation strategies to recover within the required time frame.
Key Words: resilience, recovery phases, social and economic impact, infrastructure, disasters.
1. INTRODUCTION
Recent studies have shown that the world is becoming vulnerable to numerous natural disasters such as
hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. It is also predicted that the frequency of such events will increase in the coming
years making the communities across the world highly vulnerable to disasters.
The impact of natural disasters is further escalated by failures of critical infrastructure in the region. Such
failures are closely related to the conditions of critical infrastructure. The majority of infrastructure throughout
the U.S. has been weakened due to age and deteriorated conditions, making them vulnerable to natural disasters.
The 2009 ASCE Report Card for infrastructure gives an average grade of D to U.S. infrastructure signifying a
need for urgent rehabilitation ASCE 1) . Leavitt et al. 2) have argued that the failure of multiple infrastructure
systems escalated the impact of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Flood protection systems such as levee, canal
systems, etc., were constructed to safeguard New Orleans. However, these systems were poorly maintained and
did not withstand the impact of the hurricane resulting in widespread damage to New Orleans. Disasters and
aging interdependent infrastructure will increase impact making communities less resilient to disasters Leavitt et
al. 2) .
-362-

This observation was apparent during the 2010 Haiti earthquake which had a catastrophic magnitude of 7.0
Mw. Its epicenter was near the town of Leogane, approximately 16 miles west of Port-au-Prince, Haiti's capital
(Fig.1). The earthquake occurred at 4:53 PM local time on January 12; and, by January 24, at least 52
aftershocks, including one measuring 5.9 Mw, were recorded USGS 3) . The earthquake caused major damage to
Port-au-Prince, Jacmel, and other settlements in the region. Amongst the widespread devastation and damage
throughout Port-au-Prince, vital infrastructure, i.e., civil, civic and social infrastructure necessary to respond to
the disaster was severely damaged or destroyed including all hospitals in the capital, the international airport,
and the Port-au-Prince seaport. The main highway linking Port-au-Prince with Jacmel remained blocked for ten
days after the earthquake, hampering delivery of aid to Jacmel NY
Times 4) . In this research, infrastructure will be classified into three
different types, i.e., civil infrastructure such as utility systems,
transportation systems, etc., civic infrastructure such as hospitals,
emergency centers, etc. and social infrastructure such as religious
centers, homes, etc.
the earthquake including healthcare, transportation,
telecommunications, water supply, utilities, and waste disposal. It
took nearly two weeks for the medical relief and supplies to reach
the disaster affected areas in Haiti Des Roches et al. 5) . Haiti was not
resilient enough to restore livelihood and recover as desired, from
the aftermath of the earthquake.
Fig.1 Map of Haiti
Soon after the earthquake, many countries and international donor organizations pledged to provide monetary
aid to Haiti as debt relief and it was expected that with the inflow of abundant resources, Haiti would undergo an
expedited recovery smoothly transitioning between recovery phases, i.e., from emergency phase to short term
recovery and from short term recovery to long term recovery.
Due to inefficient provision of infrastructure services, even today there are more than 500,000 people living in
temporary shelter and are victims of food security TIME 6) . Additionally, Haiti did not have enough resources,
i.e., machines and equipment, skilled manpower, security personnel, medical relief and supplies, etc. to support
not only the recovery and restore the necessary infrastructure required but also to sustain the important activities
required to restore the livelihoods of the people.
In this research, the resources available in post disaster situation are identified as the capacity of the
community. Ability of the community to acquire and utilize additional capacity for mitigating impacts in post
disaster situation is defined as capacity building.
The United Nations damage assessment and loss assessment (DALA) methodology and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-MH are some of the loss damage and loss assessment tools
used to assess the damage in terms of physical, social and economic aspects. The information provided is helpful
in seeking external funds from donor organizations but does not provide an approach on how the damages can be
minimized by using the existing capacities of the community.
This paper proposes a research framework for enhancing resilience of community through enhancement of
infrastructure services and necessary capacity building. The research framework provides an approach to
integrate the inform
HAZUS-MH and locally available data in terms of technical, social and economic aspects for expediting
community recovery.
This research is based on the thesis that the resilience of a community can be enhanced by (i) improving the
serviceability of infrastructure necessary and (ii) building required capacity to sustain (i) activities specific to
recovery phase (i.e., emergency response, short term recovery or long term recovery) and (ii) activities critical
for community livelihood that make social and economic contribution that will minimize the duration of overall
recovery.
The activities specific to recovery phases such as debris removal, sheltering of survivors, etc. are crucial for
minimizing the direct impact of a natural disasters. In this research, these activities are defined as recovery
activities. Similarly, activities such as commuting, shopping, businesses when performed make social and
-363-

economic contribution. These activities are defined as sustaining activities.
In this research, resilience of a community to natural disasters is defined as the ability of a community to
expedite community recovery by improving the serviceability of related infrastructure and effective capacity
building to mitigate phase specific social and economic impacts.
2. PRIOR RESEARCH WORK
(1)Emergence of Resilient Communities
Recently, post disaster management agencies have been researching ways that would enable communities to
recover with little or no external assistance Manyena 7) . This was one of the several reasons for United Nations to
adopt the concept of resilience in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations
and communities to disasters. Adapting and recovering from the impacts of the disaster is a core essence of
resilience.
(2)Defining and Quantifying Resilience
UNISDR 8) has
resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner,
including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions. They have
provided a 10 point checklist that will help communities prepare, plan and adapt better to disasters. Communities
especially in the developing countries will be greatly benefitted and better prepared to minimize disaster related
social and economic impacts.
In United States, the September 2001 attacks led to focus the efforts on ensuring the optimal delivery of
infrastructure services following a disruptive event. The Critical Infrastructure Task force (CITF) recommended
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to focus on Critical Infrastructure Resilience (CIR) as their
primary objective.
The concept of resilience is not new in the field of research and because the concept of resilience has been
used in many fields, it has made it difficult to have a common definition Mayunga 9), Cutter et al. 10) . Resilience
has some attributes such as capacity, capability or ability of the system to cope with a disruptive event
Mayunga 9) , Vugrin 11) , Manyena 7) , Cutter et al. 10) .
(3)Quantifying Resilience
Several methodologies have been proposed to quantify and measure resilience of different systems such as
infrastructure and communities to disasters. Bruneau et al.12) have proposed a conceptual framework to quantify
seismic resilience of communities. The framework assesses community resilience by measuring degraded quality
of infrastructure over time and uses three complementary measures, i.e., reduced failure probabilities, reduced
consequences from failures and reduced time to recovery.
Miles and Chang13) have developed a simulation model based on fragility curves to measure seismic
resilience of communities. They have developed a simulation model, ResilUS that uses markov chains to model
recovery with respect to time for assessing seismic resilience of community. The model is based on the
relationship between the recovery parameters and recovery activities of infrastructure and services. This model
evaluates losses at the business level rather using the census data.
Resilience can be measured using various indicators of a community Cutter et al.10). A unique approach to
measure resilience using existing capacities of communities is proposed by Cutter et al.10). They have proposed
a methodology to evaluate resilience of communities in the present condition based on a set of indicators.
However, Cutter et al.10) have pointed out that national data source is often outdated and unable to gauge the
impacts at local level. Also, if local data is used, it might be difficult to provide comparative results.
Resilience can also be quantified using vulnerability of an organization Dalziell and McManus14). They
suggest that the systems resilience can be enhanced by increasing their adaptive capacity either by incorporating
system redundancy in design that will enable the system to sustain the required function or by increasing
-364-

The research mentioned earlier focuses on the attributes of a community such as ability and capacity of a
community to respond and adapt to the disruptive event. However, the research does not emphasize the role of
recovery effort necessary for any system to respond and adapt to a disruptive event. Vugrin et al.11) have
proposed a framework to measure resilience. The framework comprises of two components, i.e., systemic impact
ollowing
disruption. The framework proposed by the author is unique as it is one of its kinds to include recovery effort in
measuring resilience.
Community resilience is a complex process because of the dynamic interaction between various entities.
Literature also emphasizes the importance of infrastructure systems in post disaster situation and impact of
infrastructure performance on community development. There is modest knowledge on categorizing recovery
process based on the impacts arising over time and mitigating them by enhancement of related infrastructure
services.
As mentioned earlier, a community will have different recovery phases and each phase will have a specific
need. Some activities and indicators are very critical and need to be performed for minimizing social and
economic impact at a specific time. The impacts of the communities can be minimized if the performance of
infrastructure is enhanced up to a certain necessary level that would be sufficient for the community to transit
from one recovery phase to other within the desired time. This research will help in identifying the factors
affecting the duration of recovery.
AZUS-MH and UN damage and loss assessment
(DALA) methodology provide a damage and loss assessment report. This information when complemented by a
specific approach on prioritizing losses and restoring related infrastructure services using required capacity will
enable the decision makers to prepare better recovery strategies.
(4)Disaster Impact Mitigation Support System (DIMSuS)
The underpinnings of this research are based on the previous research of Oh15) and Deshmukh et al.16).
Oh15) has developed a disaster impact mitigation support system (DIMSuS) for identifying region specific
disaster mitigation strategies based on the inter-relationships between infrastructure and communities and
associated industries in terms of technical, social, and economic dependencies. DIMSuS comprises of criticality,
vulnerability, and severity modules which are the key metrics for the framework to understand how critical
infrastructure, industries, and communities are inter-related and how impacts due to natural hazards can be
measured.
The information obtained from using DIMSuS is useful for a specific scenario. However, DIMSuS does not
provide a time based analysis to mitigate the impact on community due to reduced infrastructure services and
capacity building.
3. DIFFERENT PHASES OF RECOVERY
A disaster affected community undergoes different phases of recovery. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in the United States classifies the recovery phase of a disaster affected community into three
temporal phases: emergency response phase, relief phase and recovery phase Comerio17).
Mayunga9) has classified the recovery phases into four categories, i.e., pre disaster, disaster, restoration and
long term recovery. Emergency response is focused on addressing the immediate humanitarian needs of the
actions in these phases include evacuation, emergency rescue, provision of food, water, shelter, etc. The duration
of the phase can last from 24 hours to 1 week Comerio17). The emergency phase is followed by the short term
recovery phase that involves rehabilitation and would focus on restoration of both critical and civic infrastructure
services to help sustain community livelihood and businesses which typically lasts 1 week to 6 months
Comerio17).
-365-

Post Disaster Recovery Phases
Recovery
Recovery Activities
Debris Removal
Sheltering of survivors
Reconstruction
Emergency
Phase
Short Term Recovery
Sustaining Activities
Businesses
Livelihood
Commuting
Access to medical services
Long Term Recovery
Fig.2 Phases in Community Recovery
Time
Finally, the community will undergo long term
recovery that involves the construction of destroyed
buildings and infrastructure which may last between 6
months to 10 years Comerio17). Additionally, provision of
proper hygiene, food and water throughout the recovery
and reconstruction phase minimizes the occurrence of
epidemics and diseases in the disaster affected areas.
(1)Post Disaster Recovery Phases
(a)Attributes of Community Recovery and Utilization
of Capacities
In post disaster recovery, impacts will be
prioritized and mitigated based on their urgency. These
impacts can be categorized under different recovery phases. As discussed earlier, a post disaster recovery
consists of three main phases, i.e., emergency phase, short term recovery and long term recovery.
Community recovery is favorable when the impacts are mitigated within desired time. This is possible
when:
The community is able to mitigate the impacts arising as primary impacts with proper utilization of the
existing capacities and available serviceability level of the infrastructure.
The community is able to enhance the serviceability level of infrastructure up to the necessary level that
would enable minimizing the secondary impacts within desired time.
(b)Traits of Resilient Community
Timely mitigation of impacts in one phase will lead to the transition of a community from one phase to the
other. Thus, a community will undergo an effective and within time, post disaster recovery. Such communities
portray the traits of a resilient community.
Depending on the intensity and type of disaster, Comerio17) have provided a time frame for each phase for
community recovery (Table 1).
In this research, the above mentioned phases are analogous to emergency phase, short term recovery and long
Table 1 Duration of recovery phases
Disaster Type and Intensity
Phase Small and concentrated Disaster Large and complex
Emergency 24hrs 1 week
Relief Phase 1 week Up to 6 months Overlap
Recovery Phase Few months to as long as 10 years
term recovery (Fig.2). The ideal recovery period for each phase is assumed to be within the observed periods
with respect to small and large disasters. For example, the ideal recovery rate for the emergency phase is
considered to be between 24 hrs and 1 week. Additionally, the serviceability level of infrastructure system
required at the end of each phase will be obtained from the restoration curves developed using ATC18).
Restoration curves are described on the percentage of an infrastructure component that is expected to be
operational as a function of time after disasters.
However, the community may be unable to recover within the desired time because of the following:
The community may not have enough capacities required to mitigate the impacts within time.
The available infrastructure services are insufficient to provide assistance to mitigate the impacts.
-366-

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(1) Data Types and Modes of Data Collection
Relevant data sources, data types and different aspects of data would be identified and the relationship
between community and industry sustenance will be established with the attributes of the related critical
infrastructure.
Fig.3 Research Framework
Based on the research needs, data types will be of technical, social and economic aspects (Fig.3).
Identification of post-disaster circumstances of critical infrastructure.
Collection of data points affected by disasters such as serviceability level of basic critical infrastructure,
relationship between social/economic impacts of communities and reliance with critical infrastructure.
Arising impacts of community in every phase.
o Social/Economic impacts, activities and functions of communities.
Emergency Response and required infrastructure for recovery and restoration
o Identification of infrastructure and its service enhancement by emergency agencies,
governments and non-profit organization.
Data for the research will be collected through survey, personal interviews and results generated from
HAZUS-MH for a particular disaster. Government officials responsible for emergency preparedness, engineers,
policy makers, nonprofit organization personnel will be interviewed to collect the necessary post disaster
recovery data.
(2) Use of HAZUS-MH
This research aims at taking advantage of the already existing HAZUS-MH tool. HAZUS-MH uses the
national database for transportation, utility systems and census data for communities Scawthorn et al.19). The
datasets obtained from HAZUS-MH are obtained by conducting analysis for a given region affected by a
disaster.
A hypothetical situation was created in which Marion County, Indiana is stuck by an earthquake of intensity
8.5Mw at a depth of 5.5km. Based on the data available through HAZUS-MH, a damage assessment report was
generated. Some of the results obtained from the analysis are listed below:
Fig.4 Households without service (result obtained from HAZUS-MH using hypothetical situation)
The information available from HAZUS-MH, for example, as shown in Fig.4 can be used in aiding recovery
process of the community. For example, the damage to the buildings and debris generated can be estimated. The
important activity of the community such as rebuilding houses may only be executed once the debris from the
site is removed.
-367-

Therefore, the debris removal may be an important activity of the community in the emergency phase and can
be expedited if the roads and bridges are made functional after the disaster to enable the transportation of debris
outside the community.
Based on the above relationship, a decision model will be developed that will incorporate the results from
HAZUS-MH and will aid the decision makers at various administration level to prepare better community
recovery strategies by allocating resources efficiently for enhancing infrastructure performance. Additionally,
the results generated in HAZUS-MH include infrastructure functional and performance loss, physical damage
which are obtained as a function of time.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF DECISION MAKING MODEL
(1)Assessing the enhancement of Resilience and Capacity Building
If additional capacities could be provided and the services of infrastructure enhanced, the recovery rate in each
phase would be expedited. A hypothetical situation is explained where a community is undergoing through a
post disaster recovery. The above research concept is explained using the emergency phase. The information
with respect to infrastructure, community and capacity available in the emergency phase only are illustrated in
Table 2. The assessment of enhancement of resilience and capacity building is explained via the following steps.
Important
Activities in post
disaster
community
a. Evacuation
and rescue
mission
b. Provision of
basic
supplies
c. Temporary
shelter,
etc..
Infrastructure
Types
Civil
Table 2 Emergency phase for the hypothetical situation
a. Water
b. Electricity
c. Transportation
systems
Civic
a. Hospitals
b. Emergency
centers
Social
a. Homes, etc.
Post Disaster
Serviceability
(Measured in
Terms of
damage)
(obtained from
HAZUS-MH)
Gap in
required
serviceability
50% 5%
Resources Available
Resour
ces
Capacity
(#)
Resources
Required
(to
mitigated
impacts
within ideal
time)
Trucks 2 4
EMS
vehicles
Hospital
beds
5 20
150 300
Duration of
the phase
with available
resources
Exceeding
the ideal
recovery
period
(a) Step1: Identification of impacts
and important social and economic
activities.
The important activities of each phase
will be identified. For example, some of
the important activities of the
emergency phase may include, rescue
missions, provision of medical services,
temporary shelter, debris removal, etc.
(b) Step2: Identification of related
infrastructure and capacities
required
Once the important activities
have been identified, the related critical
infrastructure and capacities necessary
to sustain the activities. Additionally,
the existing serviceability level of infrastructure in post disaster situation and the capacities to enhance the
serviceability will be identified. As shown in Table 2, the activities can be sustained using 50% serviceability
level of water system. Also, the resources required to mitigate the impacts are indicated in the resources column.
For example, the community hospital has 150 beds to accommodate the victims. At the same time, the hospital
will be able to function using 50% of the water system services.
(c) Step3: Estimation of time required to mitigate the impacts and sustain activities
Based on the available capacities and infrastructure serviceability level, time required to sustain activities
completely will be determined. This will also help in determination of the duration of a given phase. Based on
the capacities available, the emergency phase might complete in 10 days using the serviceability level of various
infrastructure systems and the existing capacities which exceeds the desired completion period.
(d) Step4: Estimation of additional capacities and infrastructure services enhancement required for phase
completion within desired time
The timely execution and completion of recovery phases may require the enhancement of services of critical
infrastructure and acquisition and utilization of additional capacities.
The infrastructure services may not be sufficient to enable phase completion within the desired time. For
example, the bridges may be able to provide 30% serviceability that might not be sufficient to sustain the major
activities efficiently. An additional 30% of bridge serviceability might be required to complete the emergency
-368-

Infrastructure performance
Pre disaster situation
t0
Ideal Recovery Period
t1 t4 t2
Enhanced Recovery Rate (Capacity Building)
Post disaster situation
Recovery e Rate
with available
capacities
t0 = time when the recovery starts, t1 = Ideal Recovery time, t2 = Ideal Recovery time, t3 = recovery time based
on available capacities and infrastructure services, t4 = recovery time based on capacity building and enhance of
infrastructure performance
Fig.5 Assessing enhancement of resilience
t3
Time (t)
phase within the desired time.
Similarly, the community has 2
trucks and 2 cranes to support
activity of the emergency
phase. The available capacities
might be insufficient to
complete the activities within
the required time. In order to do
so, a total of 4 trucks and 5
cranes might be required to
mitigate the impacts in required
time. Thus, addition of 2 trucks
and 3 cranes is required to build
the necessary capacity for
sustaining the activities.
(e) Step5: Enhancement of
resilience and capacity building
Capacity Building during recovery and enhancement of infrastructure serviceability will expedite recovery
focusing on the reduction in the recovery period. Based on the proposed thesis, Fig.5 illustrates an approach for
assessing resilience by expediting community recovery. The reduction in time due to capacity building and
enhancement of infrastructure serviceability will enhance the resilience of the community to disasters.
6. EXPECTED RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
Based on the phase specific impacts, mitigation strategies can be proposed that will enable communities to
better respond to natural disasters.
o Prioritizing rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure towards impacts of affected communities and
industries with respect to the recovery phase.
o Focused towards provision of rapid disaster relief by identification of most critical infrastructure which
connects areas affected by disasters.
o Current situation of resource allocation and capacity building (i.e., medical supplies, mobile field
hospitals, food, drinking water, temporary shelters and basic utilities, etc.) based on the affected or
limited infrastructure.
o Provide information for the long term planning for city redevelopment based on prioritized critical
infrastructure and their location.
o Identifying and fortifying the existing critical infrastructure to protect communities and industries against
potential disasters in the future.
This paper proposes a research framework for developing a decision model that will enable communities to
expedite post disaster recovery by capacity building that will facilitate enhancement of critical infrastructure
performance necessary to sustain important activities in the post disaster period. Additionally, this research will
also develop a framework to strategically allocate required resources for expediting recovery process.
The research will provide a scientific approach in integrating results from loss assessment methodologies that
exists today in a decision making model that would enable effective allocation of available resources for not only
addressing the impacts of the community by enhancing the performance of related critical infrastructure.
Additionally, this research will integrate data available from loss assessment tools such as DALA methodology
and HAZUS-MH developed by FEMA with the locally available data such as existing capacities, important
social and economic contributing activities that will enable decision makers to prepare better mitigation
strategies and expedite the recovery process. The foundation of this research is based on the previous work done
by Oh15) and Deshmukh16) that focuses on identifying the importance of restoring critical infrastructure for
minimizing social and economic impacts.
-369-

REFERENCE
2) Leavitt, W. and Kiefer, J.: Infrastructure Interdependency and the Creation of a Normal Disaster: The Case of Hurricane Katrina and
the City of New Orleans, Public Works Management Policy 2006; vol. 10 pp 306-314, 2006.
3) United States Geological Survey (USGS): Magnitude 7.0 Haiti Region, <
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010rja6/>, accessed April 2012.
4) NY Times. Haiti Relief Effort Faces
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/world/americas/15relief.html?_r=1&scp=14&sq=haiti+earthquake+2010&st=nyt>, accessed on
April 10, 2012.
5) DesRoches, R., Comerio, M., Eberhard, M., Mooney, W. and Rix, G.: An overview of the 2011 Haiti Earth
Earthquake Spectra 27, pp. S1-S21, 2011.
m/time/world/article/0,8599,1968576,00.html> , accessed
on April 10, 2012.
7) Manyena B.: The concept of resilience revisited, Disasters vol.30, pp 433450, 2006.
8) United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).: Building a Local Government Alliance For Disaster Risk
Reduction: The Incheon Declaration,. Summary from 11-13 August 2009, Incheon
9) Mayunga, J.S.: Understanding and applying the concept of community Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building,
Munich, Germany,22-28 July, 2007.
10) Cutter S, Burton C. and Emrich C. (2010). Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions, Journal Homeland
Security Emergency Management, vol. (7), pp124, 2010.
11) Vugrin E., Warren E., Ehlen M., and Camphouse R.,: A Framework for Assessing the Resilience of Infrastructure and Economic
Systems, In K. Gopalakrishnan and S. Peeta (Ed.), Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems, pp.(77-115). Springer,
2010.
12) Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R.,
seismic resilience of communities, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 19, 733752, 2003.
13) Miles, S. and Chang, S.: ResilUS: A Community Based Disaster Resilience Model, Cartography and Geographic Information
Science, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 36-51(15), 2011.
14) Dalziell, E. and McManus, S.: Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptive Capacity: Implications for System Performance, International
Forum on Engineering Decision Making, Stoos, Switzerland, 2004.
15) Oh, E.: Impact Analysis of Natural Disasters on Critical Infrastructure, Associated Industries, and Communities, PhD Dissertation,
Purdue University, USA, 2010.
16) Deshmukh, A. Oh, E. and Hastak, M.: Impact of flood damaged critical infrastructure on communities and industries, Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 1 Iss: 2, pp.156 175, 2011.
17) Comerio, M.: Disaster hits home: new policy for urban housing recovery. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1998.
18) Applied Technology Council (ATC): Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Redwood City, CA, 1985.
19) Scawthorn, C., F., Flores, P., Blais N., Seligson, H., Tates, E., Chang, S., Mifflin, E., Thomas, W., Murphy, J., Jones, C. and
Lawrence M.: HAZUS-MH Flood Loss Estimation Methodology. II. Damage and Loss Assessment, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 7,
No. 2, pp. 72-81, 2006.
-370-