DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Overview

Chapter 1, Page 1 of 11

1 1. Framework Introduction

2 1.1. Overview

3 Communities are places where people live, work, play, and build their futures. Each community has its 

4 own identity based on its location, history, leadership, available resources, and the people who live and 

5 work there. Successful communities provide their members with the means to meet essential needs as 

6 well as pursue their interests and aspirations. 

7 All communities are subject to disruptive events. Across the nation, communities experience disruptions 

8 from weather events, infrastructure failures, cyber-attacks, technological accidents, sea level rise, or other 

9 disruptive events. Buildings and infrastructure systems are vital to community prosperity and health. If 

10 these systems fail or are damaged, essential services are interrupted. Depending on the magnitude and 

11 duration of the disruptive event, communities may experience anything from temporary interruptions in 

12 services to a permanent loss of businesses and relocation of residents. 

13 Community resilience is the ability of a community to prepare for anticipated hazards, adapt to changing 

14 conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Communities are looking for ways to 

15 become more resilient to disasters. This framework focuses on community resilience planning for the 

16 built environment, where the performance goals for the physical infrastructure systems are informed by 

17 the needs of the residents and social institutions. The built environment includes buildings and 

18 infrastructure systems, including power, communication, water and wastewater, and transportation 

19 systems. 

20 Communities are increasingly aware of the need to become proactive and take steps to improve their 

21 resiliency, by preparing for anticipated hazards, adapting to changing conditions, and withstanding and 

22 recovering rapidly from disruptions. Changing conditions include the effects of aging infrastructure 

23 systems and climate change, such as sea level rise in coastal areas. In a resilient community, a hazard 

24 event at the design level should cause only local disruptions that the community can tolerate without long25 term detrimental effects. If an unanticipated or extreme event occurs, the resilience planning and 

26 preparation should reduce the extent of disruption and recovery time. Additionally, communities that have 

27 a well-developed resilience plan are prepared to recover in a way that improves sustainability and 

28 resilience.

29 The Disaster Resilience Framework provides communities with a methodology to plan for resilience by 

30 prioritizing improvements to buildings and infrastructure systems based on their importance in supporting 

31 social institutions and economic functions in the community. Communities should implement resilience 

32 plans as a part of their long-term community planning process. Integrated long-term planning and 

33 implementation of measures to improve resilience can benefit community goals, such as providing an 

34 attractive, vibrant place to live for residents and a reliable environment for businesses to locate. A 

35 resilient community also provides day-to-day benefits to communities by reducing daily disruptions if 

36 improved design and construction practices are adopted. Even if it is many years before a significant 

37 hazard occurs, the community‟s resilience plan will continue to improve the performance of buildings and 

38 infrastructure systems to other hazards, including interdependencies and cascading effects of system 

39 failures.

40 This community resilience methodology has a set of core activities for developing a community resilience 

41 plan, presented in Chapters 2 to 9: 

42  Characterize Social Dimensions of the Community 

43  Characterize Built Environment and Hazards 

44  Plan for Community Resilience

45  Develop Strategies for Existing Built Environment
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Defining Communities

Chapter 1, Page 2 of 11

46  Develop Strategies for New Built Environment

47 Community resilience planning for the built environment requires input from all stakeholders, including 

48 local government, owners and operators of buildings and infrastructure systems, and residents with equal 

49 representation from the community‟s social institutions and economic functions. When all interests and 

50 needs are addressed in a comprehensive evaluation at the community level, communities develop a 

51 transparent, supportable path forward that is embraced and supported by everyone. Additionally, precious 

52 resources can be allocated based on a community-wide evaluation that prioritizes needed improvements.

53 1.2. Defining Communities

54 Communities are highly variable and diverse, with geographic areas and populations ranging from small, 

55 rural communities to large, urban, dense communities. Communities also differ by their histories, 

56 cultures, social make-up, businesses, industries, and access to and availability of resources. 

57 The Community Capitals Framework, depicted in Figure 1-1, describes community assets and resources 

58 in terms of various forms of capital: natural, built (physical), financial (economic), human, social, 

59 political, and cultural. Each of the community capitals are interrelated and interact with each other, and 

60 can be considered the collective set of assets available within a given community. 

61

62 Figure 1-1: The Community Capitals Framework (Flora et al, 2008).

Community capitals are described as:163

64  Natural – resources such as air, land, water, minerals, oil, and the overall stability of ecosystems

65  Built – buildings and infrastructure systems within a community

66  Financial – financial savings, income, investments, and available credit at the community-level

67  Human – the knowledge, skills, health and physical ability of community members 

68  Social – social networks, associations, and the trust generated by them among groups and 

69 individuals within the community

70  Political – having access to resources and the ability/power to influence their distribution; also, 

71 the ability to engage external entities in efforts to achieve goals

 

1 Ritchie, Liesel A. and D.A. Gill, “Considering Community Capitals in Disaster Recovery and Resilience.” 

http://www.riskinstitute.org/peri/component/option,com_deeppockets/task,catContShow/cat,86/id,1086/Itemid,84/.
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Community Resilience

Chapter 1, Page 3 of 11

72  Cultural – language, symbols, mannerisms, attitudes, competencies, and orientations of local 

73 community members/groups.

74 Knowledge about each type of capital in a community provides stakeholders with valuable information, 

75 as it contributes to understanding about the community‟s well-being, sustainable development, and 

76 resilience. Awareness of community capitals helps identify short-term and long-term benefits, whether or 

77 not a hazard event occurs, and provides input to mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery plans 

78 and investments. 

79 While all the types of capitals are important to each community, this report focuses primarily on built 

80 capital (buildings and infrastructure systems), with consideration of how built capital supports other 

81 capitals within a community. The needs of citizens and social institutions, government, industry, and 

82 business should help define functional requirements for a community‟s buildings and infrastructure 

83 systems, as illustrated in Figure 1-2. For instance, after a significant hazard event, will residents be able to 

84 remain in their homes? Can governments communicate with residents to inform them and support 

85 recovery efforts? Will businesses and industries be able to resume operations within a reasonable period? 

86 These types of social needs determine the performance expected from a community‟s buildings and 

87 infrastructure systems. However, functional requirements at the community level are often not explicitly 

88 established. 

89

90 Figure 1-2: Social activities, such as individual citizens and social institutions, business and 

91 government define the functional requirements of the community buildings and infrastructure systems.

92 A resilience plan offers a community answers and available alternative options. There may be multiple 

93 solutions or multiple stages to meet a requirement, including alternative or temporary solutions to meet 

94 the immediate need, as well as restoring a building or infrastructure system.

95 Functional buildings and infrastructure systems are necessary for communities to prosper. When 

96 buildings and infrastructure systems are damaged by hazard events, social services are interrupted, 

97 economic losses soar, and precious resources must be re-allocated to repair and rebuild. When the damage 

98 is extensive, the recovery process can be a significant drain on local residents and their resources and can 

99 be drawn out over years.

100 1.3. Community Resilience

101 The term “resilience” is used in many ways. The definition for the framework is contained in Presidential 

Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21).2102 The definition states, “The term „resilience‟ means the ability to prepare 

103 for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions.” Under this

104 broad definition, resilience includes activities already conducted by some communities, such as disaster 

105 preparedness, hazard mitigation, code adoption and enforcement, and emergency response. 

 

2

Presidential Policy Directive 21, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Community Resilience of the Built Environment

Chapter 1, Page 4 of 11

106 In the context of this framework, the phrase “prepare for and adapt to changing conditions” refers to

107 preparing for conditions that are likely to occur within the lifetime of a facility or infrastructure system, 

108 such as a hazard event, and hazard intensities or physical conditions that may change over time.

109 Depending on location, this may include effects of climate change, such as sea level rise in coastal areas

110 or a change in understanding of a hazard such as tornadoes. Changing conditions also include changes in 

111 our use of infrastructure systems. For example, increasing the use of communication and information 

112 devices leads to evolving levels of dependencies on information and power systems. Changing conditions 

113 may also include aging effects on infrastructure systems. If buildings and infrastructure systems are 

114 designed, maintained and operated properly, disruption to community functions should reduce over time, 

115 as more of the built environment will be performing at levels compatible with community resilience 

116 goals.

117 The second part of the definition, “withstand and recover quickly from disruptions,” must be examined 

118 for the anticipated range of possible hazard events. In a resilient community, a hazard event at the design 

119 level may cause local disruptions tolerated by the community without long-term detrimental effects (e.g., 

120 permanent relocation of residents or business). If an unanticipated or extreme event occurs, the resilience 

121 planning and preparation will likely reduce the extent of disruption and recovery time. Additionally, 

122 communities that have a well-developed resilience plan are prepared for the recovery process.

123 1.4. Community Resilience of the Built Environment

124 1.4.1. Resilience Concept 

125 Figure 1-3 illustrates the concept of resilience for an element of the built environment in terms of 

126 „functionality‟ versus „recovery time.‟ Functionality is a measure of how well a building or infrastructure 

127 system is able to operate and perform at its intended purpose. Recovery time provides a measure of how 

128 long a building or system function is unavailable or is operating at a reduced capacity. Recovery time also 

129 provides an indirect measure of the pre-event condition of the system, the performance of the system 

130 during the event, and the level of damage sustained.

131 Planning for resilience can minimize or even eliminate loss of functionality for a range of hazard event 

132 intensities, depending on the available solutions, resources, and priorities. For hazard events, loss of 

133 functionality occurs suddenly – on the order of minutes to days – due to physical damage to one or more 

134 systems, whereas recovery of functionality may take anywhere from hours to years. Typically, a lesser 

135 degree of lost functionality corresponds to a reduced time to full recovery. However, this simple example 

136 does not account for dependencies on other systems. 

137

138 Figure 1-3: Resilience can be expressed simply, in terms of system functionality and the time to recover 

139 functionality following a disruptive hazard event.
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Why Is Community Resilience Needed?

Chapter 1, Page 5 of 11

140 1.5. Why Is Community Resilience Needed?

141 Hazard events can disrupt community functions so extensively that they result in permanent changes. 

142 Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, and Superstorm Sandy, in 2012, both caused extensive damage across many 

143 communities that are still recovering. However, even for lesser storm events, communities across our 

144 country experience significant damage each year. There were between 45 and 81 Presidential disaster 

145 declarations each year, from January 2000 to January 2011, for floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, 

146 earthquakes, fire events, and severe storms (FEMA 2011). Many of the disaster declarations were for 

147 hazard events with loads less than current design levels. Communities need to be proactive in staying 

148 resilient and minimizing and mitigating disruptions.

149 Communities currently reduce threats and vulnerabilities through activities that include adoption and 

150 enforcement of codes, standards, and regulations, as well as preparedness, mitigation, codes and 

151 standards-based design, and emergency management. These activities are necessary and prudent, but they 

152 are not enough to make a community resilient. Community resilience also requires that the built 

153 environment maintains acceptable levels of functionality during and after events. More specifically,

154 communities should develop plans that recover the built environment to full functionality within a 

155 specified period. The recovery times are based on the role and importance of each facility or system 

156 within the community and the extent of disruption that can be tolerated while remaining functional. 

157 However, across the nation, communities continue to experience significant damage and losses, despite

158 robust adoption and enforcement of best practices, regulations, and codes and standards. This is partly 

159 because each one is developed independently for buildings and each infrastructure system and they do not 

160 address interdependencies between systems, nor community-level performance goals. As a result, 

161 integrated performance and dependencies between buildings and infrastructure systems cannot currently 

162 be addressed solely through the universal adoption of codes and regulations. 

163 Additionally, communities are primarily composed of existing construction. Buildings and infrastructure 

164 systems are built to different standards based on the understanding of the hazards at the time. Many of the 

165 nation‟s infrastructure systems are reaching the end of their useful service life or operating in a degraded 

166 state. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is committed to protecting the health, safety, and 

167 welfare of the public. As such, ASCE is equally committed to improving the nation‟s infrastructure

168 systems. To document the national needs, a Report Card is issued to evaluate the condition and 

169 performance in 16 categories for infrastructure systems, assigning letter grades that are based on physical 

170 condition and needed investments for improvement. In 2013 (ASCE 2013), the overall Grade was a D+ 

171 with estimated investment of $3.6 trillion needed by 2020. Further, not all of these systems are operated 

172 and maintained as intended, some operate beyond design lifetimes, and the replacement rate for the built 

173 infrastructure is slow. While this deteriorated state is a cause for significant concern, it is also an 

174 opportunity to develop and implement a new paradigm – community resilience – when planning for and 

175 envisioning the future of each community.

176 1.5.1. Developing a Plan for Community Resilience 

177 Resilience Activities. For a community to have a resilient built environment, additional activities are 

178 needed beyond code adoption and enforcement. Figure 1-4 depicts how community resilience can be 

179 addressed at the community level. Disruptive events, including all anticipated hazards and effects of 

180 changing conditions are countered by a community resilience plan that includes performance goals for the 

181 built environment, and supporting strategies that include mitigation, response, and recovery activities.

182 Other aspects of a resilient community – security, protection, emergency response, business continuity, 

183 and other issues related to human health, safety, and general welfare – may also inform the performance 

184 goals for the built environment. Plans to improve community resilience may also include land use policy, 

185 temporary measures, and other non-structural approaches.
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Why Is Community Resilience Needed?

Chapter 1, Page 6 of 11

186 Mitigation through Land Use Planning. Land use planning is an important part of community planning 

187 and mitigation measures. Building and infrastructure design and construction are just one part of a 

188 comprehensive community development process that involves both new and renewed development. For 

189 communities that are built out, or are concerned about areas already constructed, there are two resilience 

190 options: (a) implement land use planning and redevelopment strategies to reduce the potential damage and 

191 disruption before a hazard event if there is political will and resources to do so and (b) develop plans for 

192 alternate land use/redevelopment strategies as part of the recovery process (return of functions and 

193 repairs/rebuilding). These options are part of hazards-based community development processes, 

194 particularly in geologic and flood-prone hazard areas.

195

196 Figure 1-4. Community resilience can be achieved over time by developing performance goals and 

197 implementing methods to mitigate, resist, or recover from damage imposed by hazards, degradation, 

198 and climate change effects.

199 Hazards. Many older systems are difficult to improve through mitigation or design improvements. 

200 Therefore, it is helpful for communities to understand how their built environment (buildings and 

201 supporting infrastructure systems) will respond to a range of hazard levels or intensities. A hazard that 

202 occurs several times during the life of the system, such as every 10 to 20 years, is not expected to cause 

203 significant damage, and is referred to as a Routine Hazard event in this framework. Expected Hazard

204 events, or design-level hazard events, may occur over the service life of a system. At a minimum, 

205 buildings are anticipated to remain stable during a hazard event, so that occupants can evacuate safely. 

206 However, the building may need to be repaired or replaced, depending on the hazard event and the extent 

207 and type of damage. Occasionally, Extreme Hazard events occur with a greater level or intensity than the 

208 Design Hazard. A system‟s capacity may be exceeded and cause widespread, cascading damage to other 

209 systems. These varying levels of hazard should all be considered with appropriate levels of emergency 

210 response and recovery plans.

211 Performance Goals. Inclusion of desired performance goals versus anticipated performance of the built 

212 environment to hazard events, and expected recovery sequences, time, and costs provides a complete 

213 basis for communities to allocate resources and prioritize improvements. Ideally, community resilience 

214 planning should integrate with long-term plans for economic development to achieve improved social and 

215 economic well-being in the long term. San Francisco and the state of Oregon are developing and 

216 implementing this approach for resilience planning (SPUR 2009, Yu, Wilson, and Wang 2014). 

217 Implementation. Community resilience is achieved over time through implementation of prioritized 

218 improvements occurring as funds and opportunities are available. Resilience planning at the individual 

219 system level, without a comprehensive understanding of the social and economic drivers present and the 

220 role of building or infrastructure systems in the community, may be incomplete and less effective.
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Why Is Community Resilience Needed?

Chapter 1, Page 7 of 11

221 With a resilience plan, answers and alternative options for the restoration of the built environment will be 

222 available and understood by the community. There may be multiple solutions or multiple stages to meet a 

223 requirement, including temporary or short-term solutions to meet immediate needs as well as long-term, 

224 permanent solutions that restore buildings or infrastructure systems. 

225 Core Activities. Table 1-1 lists core activities for developing a community resilience plan. The social 

226 dimensions of the community identify what functions are important to a community, and when they need 

227 to be available during or after an event. 

228 Table 1-1: Core Activities for Community Resilience

Establish Core 

Resilience Team

 Identify Chief Resilience Officer or other resilience leader

 Establish Resilience Office within community government

 Engage key stakeholders

Characterize Social 

Dimensions of the 

Community

 Identify and assess actual and desired functions of social institutions, including business, 

industry, and financial systems, based on individual/social needs met by these institutions and 

social vulnerabilities.

 Identify key stakeholders and representatives for decision making.

Characterize Built 

Environment and 

Hazards of the 

Community

 Identify and assess building and infrastructure systems, including condition, location, and 

vulnerabilities, and the ways in which the built environment support social functions.

 Identify hazard types and range of levels or intensities and changing conditions that the 

community anticipates.

 Identify key stakeholders and representatives for decision making.

Develop Plan for 

Community Resilience 

 Establish desired and expected performance goals for the built environment during and after a 

hazard event that meet needed social functions after a hazard event with input from all key 

stakeholders

 Identify and prioritize gaps in the desired performance of the built environment that need to be 

addressed to improve community resilience

Implement Strategies for 

Existing Built 

Environment

 Identify methods that may include mitigation, retrofit, or relocation options

 Prioritize strategies based on gaps in the desired performance goals 

Implement Strategies for 

New Built Environment

 Adopt provisions to improve the integrated performance of the built environment, such as land 

use, zoning, codes and standards, and local ordinances for buildings and infrastructure systems

229 Chapter 2 discusses considerations for the needs of individuals and how a community meets these needs 

230 through social institutions, including government, business, industry, health care, and education

231 institutions. Buildings and infrastructure systems that support the identified social functions are grouped, 

232 or clustered, as a subsystem. Additionally, anticipated hazards and the effects of changing conditions are 

233 identified. The desired and expected performance (i.e., recovery of function) of the clustered subsystems 

234 after a hazard event is evaluated. Significant gaps between these two performance levels are prioritized 

235 into strategies for improvement. Last, strategies are developed to address prioritized needs in the built 

236 environment. Chapter 3 offers guidance related to this process at the community level, and the basis for 

237 three hazard levels and intensities for each hazard. Chapters 5 to 9 provide a more detailed overview of 

238 buildings and infrastructure systems‟ performance in hazard events of all sizes, how they may affect 

239 community resilience, primary codes, standards, and regulations, and strategies for setting performance 

240 goals and determining prioritization and improvement of mitigation efforts.

241 Resilience Guidance, Metrics and Tools. Chapter 10 summarizes available guidance, metrics, and tools 

242 for assessing community resilience. The chapter presents three types of community resilience metrics: 

243 recovery times for restoring function in building and infrastructure systems; economic metrics that 
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Other Federal Activities Supporting Resilience

Chapter 1, Page 8 of 11

244 represent business, tax base, income, local services and amenities; and sustained growth, and social 

245 metrics that represent survival, safety and security, sense of belonging, and growth and achievement. The 

246 chapter further reviews examples of existing community resilience assessment tools and identifies the

247 primary metrics used in each method.

248 1.6. Other Federal Activities Supporting Resilience 

249 1.6.1. The National Preparedness Frameworks 

250 For the last several years, the Federal Government worked to improve the resilience of the nation to 

251 disruptive events such as natural and human-caused hazards. This effort resulted in a number of guidance 

252 documents and tools for use to assess threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities in buildings and infrastructure 

253 systems and to develop approaches to reduce or eliminate those vulnerabilities. In particular, the Federal 

254 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was tasked through Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National 

255 Preparedness to produce a series of frameworks to address the spectrum of prevention, protection, 

256 mitigation, response, and recovery. This section provides a brief overview of the Presidential Policy 

257 Directive 8 frameworks and the relationship of the NIST Disaster Resilience framework to those 

258 documents.

259 On March 30, 2011, the President issued Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8), on National 

Preparedness.

3

260 PPD-8 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a National Preparedness 

261 Goal, establish a National Preparedness System, build and sustain preparedness, and submit a National 

262 Preparedness report annually.

263 The National Preparedness Goal, developed in response to PPD-8 is:

264 “A secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to 

265 prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose 

the greatest risk.”4266

The National Preparedness Goal further established 31 core capabilities necessary to achieve the goal.

5

267

268 These core capabilities are organized into five mission areas: Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, 

269 Response, and Recovery. Each mission area has a framework document that describes the roles and 

270 responsibilities of the whole community.

271  Individuals, families, and households

272  Communities

273  Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

274  Private sector entities

275  Local governments

276  State, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments

277  Federal Government

278 With the exception of the National Prevention Framework, which specifically addresses, “the capabilities 

necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threatened or actual act of terrorism,”6279 the remaining framework 

280 documents address protection, mitigation, and response to all hazards – natural and human-caused. The 

281 National Response Framework, while structured somewhat differently to address the roles that state, tribal 

282 and, especially, the federal government play in supporting recovery following a major event. The 

 

3

Presidential Policy Directive, PPD-8 – National Preparedness, http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-nationalpreparedness.

4 National Preparedness Goal, https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-goal.

5 National Preparedness Goal, Core Capabilities, https://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities.

6 National Prevention Framework, http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1913-25045-

6071/final_national_prevention_framework_20130501.pdf, page 1. 
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Disaster Resilience Framework and Supporting Activities

Chapter 1, Page 9 of 11

283 documents also emphasize the role of community and local government in recovery and especially in pre284 event planning for the recovery.

285 The PPD-8 framework documents distinguish between community and local government. The PPD-8 

286 documents consider communities as “unified groups that share goals, values, or purposes, and may 

operate independently of geographic boundaries or jurisdictions.” 287 7 When NIST refers to “community” in 

288 the Disaster Resilience Framework, it refers to an entity defined by a clear geographical boundary and a 

289 governance structure capable of making or influencing decisions that affect resilience. The NIST Disaster 

290 Resilience Framework recognizes the importance of these organizations to community resilience, but 

291 relies on the local government to coordinate closely with these organizations when establishing plans and 

292 priorities for the built environment, so that these organizations are able to carry out their roles in support 

293 of response and recovery when disruptive events occur. 

294 The NIST Disaster Resilience Framework complements the PPD-8 framework documents by providing a 

295 methodology and specific guidance for developing a prioritization plan, at the local level, to reestablish

296 the function of buildings and infrastructure following a disruptive event, so as to meet the societal goals 

297 of the community. The Disaster Resilience Framework allows communities to consider interdependencies 

298 among buildings, infrastructure and the social and economic systems present in the community. The 

299 Disaster Resilience Framework also considers potential downstream cascading effects that occur from

300 disruptions in these systems. The Disaster Resilience Framework provides a critical to identify and 

301 address opportunities to enhance resilience.

302 1.6.2. Disaster Mitigation Assessment

303 Nearly 24,000 communities, representing 80% of the people in the United States, have developed 

mitigation plans in accordance with FEMA Disaster Mitigation Assessment guidance8304 , based on the 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 20009305 . As mitigation is a component of resilience, these communities are 

306 taking substantive steps toward planning for resilience. A planning process that includes a detailed 

307 consideration of the built environment as outlined in the Disaster Resilience Framework and incorporates 

308 ongoing mitigation planning provides a comprehensive understanding of community resilience.

309 With the existing community mitigation planning structures, expanding the scope to resilience is the next 

310 logical step. Those already involved in mitigation activities have similar types of roles and responsibilities 

311 needed for resilience. The mitigation planning process emphasizes public participation in vetting 

312 mitigation strategies with targets, actions and priorities. Community resilience plans can be built around 

313 existing mitigation plans using the framework techniques related to the built environment.

314 1.7. Disaster Resilience Framework and Supporting Activities

315 1.7.1. Disaster Resilience Framework

316 The framework addresses resilience at the community scale, and provides an adaptable process for 

317 communities of varying size and complexity. Communities have a governance structure that can lead 

318 development, manage resources, and enforce codes, standards, regulations and other policies. In 

319 implementing mitigation and recovery planning, community resilience planning aims to engage the whole 

320 community to transform their interdependencies into opportunities for progressive investments in their 

321 future that have tangible, everyday benefits with big payoffs.

322 Resilience of the built environment can be assessed at local, regional, or national scales, depending on the 

323 infrastructure systems under consideration and the entity conducting the assessment. For instance, many 

324 electric power systems provide service to a region with a number of communities. A resilience assessment 

 

7 National Protection Framework, http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1406717583765-

996837bf788e20e977eb5079f4174240/FINAL_National_Protection_Framework_20140729.pdf, page 6.

8

https://www.fema.gov/multi-hazard-mitigation-plan-status

9

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/4596
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, Disaster Resilience Framework and Supporting Activities

Chapter 1, Page 10 of 11

325 by the power company of its system would likely be at a regional scale. However, a community receiving 

326 service from the power company would assess the resilience of its infrastructure systems within the 

327 community boundaries, based on individually established needs and performance goals. Part of the 

328 community resilience plan should include coordination with and input from the power company to inform 

329 the community performance goals. While a community will not own all the infrastructure systems 

330 operating within its boundaries, their plans should include input from building and infrastructure system 

331 owners. 

332 The framework provides guidance on how to identify a community‟s social functions and establish 

333 supporting performance goals for recovery of function for the built environment. Achieving a resilient 

334 built environment requires the participation of many parties, from decision makers to system operators 

335 and users of the systems. Thus, this framework is intended for several audiences: community-level 

336 decision makers, owners and operators of buildings and infrastructure systems, and planners and 

337 designers of the built environment. 

338 The executive summary provides an overview of why community resilience should be incorporated into 

339 community development plans, community resilience activities, and how other ongoing plans, such as 

340 mitigation plans, can be incorporated into community resilience plans. Chapters 2 to 4 provide 

341 community level guidance for resilience planning and describe the process for setting performance goals, 

342 identifying hazards and vulnerabilities, and planning for recovery after a hazard event. These chapters 

343 should inform those tasked with developing community level plans and coordinating with owners and 

344 operators of infrastructure systems and organizations. Chapters 5 to 9 offer specific resilience guidance 

345 for buildings and infrastructure systems and Chapter 10 provides guidance on available resilience tools 

346 and metrics.

347 Chapter 2 supplies guidance on the types of social functions and vulnerabilities that a community may 

348 need to address following a disaster event, including education, health care, economic and government 

349 functions, and on how social needs can help define the performance goals for the built environment.

350 Chapter 3 presents guidance on developing integrated performance goals for recovery of the community, 

351 independent of hazards. In other words, the community needs to envision how it wants to function during,

352 and recover after, an event. It is strongly recommended that communities define performance goals for 

353 several levels of a hazard: routine hazards, expected hazards, and extreme hazards. When the performance 

354 goals are evaluated for each hazard level, different vulnerabilities may be identified.

355 Chapter 4 addresses known interdependencies between infrastructure systems, and identifies the types of 

356 cascading events that may occur given the failure of an individual infrastructure system. Knowledge of 

357 possible dependencies will improve recovery planning.

358 Chapters 5 to 9 describe the process in more detail for buildings, building clusters and infrastructure 

359 systems (i.e., transportation, power, communication, and water and wastewater systems), with a focus on 

360 owners and operators. The guidance includes considerations for determining desired and expected 

361 performance goals for recovery of function, based on the guidance provided in Chapter 3. These chapters 

362 also describe the types of systems that should be considered and the regulatory environment under which 

363 they are designed. Primary codes, standards, tools, and best practices are also identified.

364 Chapter 10 provides an annotated listing of available metrics and tools to support resilience planning and 

365 implementation.

366 Due to the significant breadth of stakeholders and knowledge required to develop this report, NIST 

367 consulted experts in each of the infrastructure domains, held a series of workshops to engage a number of 

368 stakeholders across the country, and solicited public comments during the framework development.
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Framework Introduction, References

Chapter 1, Page 11 of 11

369 1.7.2. Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

370 A Disaster Resilience Standards Panel (DRSP), representing the broad spectrum of the stakeholder 

371 community, will support the further framework development and refinement. The DRSP will operate as 

372 an independent organization for the broad range of stakeholders to address community resilience issues. 

373 Stakeholder interests include community planning, disaster recovery, emergency management, business 

374 continuity, insurance/re-insurance, state and local government, design, construction, and maintenance of 

375 buildings and infrastructure systems (water and wastewater, energy, communications, transportation), and 

376 standards and code development. The DRSP will also develop Model Resilience Guidelines for 

377 communities to enhance their disaster resilience. 

378 1.7.3. Model Resilience Guidelines

379 The Model Resilience Guidelines will promote best practices and help communities develop their own 

380 disaster resilience plan. Expected topics include: 

381  Disaster-Resilient Performance Goals for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems

382  Evaluating Community Disaster Resilience

383  Procedures for Achieving Resilience Performance Goals

384  Prioritizing Risk Reduction Activities at the Community Level 

385 1.8. References

386 FEMA (2011) Presidential Disaster Declarations, January 10, 2000 to January 1, 2011, 

387 https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=12383

388 Flora, C.B, M. Emery, S. Fey, C. Bregendahl (2008) Community Capitals: A Tool for Evaluating 

389 Strategic Interventions and Projects. Pp. 1186-1187 in Goreham ed., Encyclopedia of Rural America: The 

390 Land and People. Millerton, N.Y.: Grey House Publishing

391 McAllister, T.P. (2013) Developing Guidelines and Standards for Disaster Resilience of the Built 

392 Environment: A Research Needs Assessment, NIST TN 1795, National Institute of Standards and 

393 Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899.

394 NAC (2012) Disaster Resilience, A National Imperative, The National Academies Press, Washington 

395 D.C., www.nap.edu

396 PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, March 30, 2011. 

397 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical398 infrastructure-security-and-resil

399