DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Executive Summary

Executive Summary, Page 1 of 6

1 Executive Summary 

2 Developing a Disaster Resilient Plan. In the United States, there are always a handful of individual 

3 communities working to recover from a hazard event. Whether due to severe weather, fire, floods or 

4 earthquakes, each community will eventually need to recover from a hazard event. All communities 

5 recover, but the length of recovery and the ultimate outcome depends on planning, preparedness, 

6 mitigation, response, and facilitation of the recovery. A disaster resilient community recovers quickly and 

7 to a better state than before the event occurred. An unprepared community often faces decades of 

8 recovery and may never achieve full restoration.

9 Envisioning a Better Outcome. Communities are overwhelmed with issues, policies, and regulations that 

10 need to be addressed. Each demands time and investment to resolve. Dealing with low probability-high 

11 consequence hazard events is often a low priority without a government mandate or recent event that 

12 focuses community interests. These stories illustrate the reality: resilience planning makes a major 

13 difference in how well community recovery is executed and illustrates why it should become part of 

14 normal planning and operations.

15 Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has multiple sources of natural hazards: floods, severe 

16 weather, tornadoes, severe windstorms, and heat waves. The city is also just downstream from a 

17 commercial nuclear power facility. The community has a well exercised evacuation plan for dealing with 

18 a nuclear disaster. Those plans played a large role during the flooding of 2008 when the river crested at 

19 well above its predicted 500-year flood event (http://www.cedar-rapids.org/city-news/flood-recovery20 progress/floodrecoveryplans/Pages/FloodRecoveryTimeline.aspx). No lives were lost in that event 

21 because the evacuation plans were in place (NRC 2012). In addition, because the City Council and City 

22 Manager instituted a community engagement process to develop a shared vision and planning system 

23 months before the 2008 flood, they successfully responded to the flooding. Currently, they are rapidly 

24 implementing their Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, which is improving the community’s resilience for 

25 flooding events (CARRI 2013).

Downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa, during the 2008 Floods 

that Crested at 31 Feet 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/flooding-putscedar-rapids-iowa-water-article-1.292913

Cedar Rapids, Iowa Resilience Plan 

http://corridorrecovery.org/rcrp/04_flood_

management_map.asp)

Figure 1. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Executive Summary

Executive Summary, Page 2 of 6

26 Chile. Chile is a country that knows earthquakes well. 

27 After a massive event in 1960, the country developed and 

28 continued to update stringent building codes and 

29 emergency response procedures. In 2010, the country 

30 experienced a similar major seismic event that caused 

31 damage from Santiago in the North to 

32 Conception 500 miles to the south and generated a large 

33 tsunami. New emergency response procedures that grew 

34 out of hat experience, along with greatly improved 

35 building standards that had been in place for 50 years,

36 resulted in much less damage, especially to high-rise 

37 residential buildings. Power restoration began to critical 

38 infrastructure within days; within a few months over 

39 50,000 provisional homes had been constructed; and 

40 within three years infrastructure repairs were complete. 

41 Within four years, nearly all subsidized home rebuilding projects were complete. Even though this 

42 extreme event caused widespread damage to older buildings and infrastructure systems, the extent of 

43 modern construction and the response and recovery plans that were in place allowed the communities,

44 with the assistance of the national government, to manage the event and rapidly build back in a way that 

45 is better prepared for the next seismic event (Britannica.com 2015).

46 New Orleans, Louisiana. Hurricane 

47 Katrina (2005) followed a scenario that 

48 had been frequently predicted and was 

49 the focus of multiple State and Federal 

50 response exercises. One scenario even 

51 envisioned a levee breach. However, 

52 numerous communities and industrial 

53 facilities that support national fuel 

54 supplies were severely damaged. 

55 Communities either did not understand 

56 the threat posed by storm surge or 

57 ignored the predictions and did not 

58 prepare at the local level for response 

59 and recovery (APA 2014). The lack of 

60 suitable design codes, response plans, processes to coordinate various local, state, and Federal agencies, 

61 and local leadership stalled the recovery. In New Orleans, the local government now has the New Orleans 

62 Redevelopment Authority (NORA, http://www.noraworks.org/ ) that supports land stewardship, 

63 commercial revitalization, and affordable housing. Organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Make-it64 Right Foundation, and Rebuilding Together New Orleans (RTNO 2015, http://www.rtno.org/) have, in 

65 cooperation with local government and community leaders, made significant, though somewhat 

66 controversial, strides in aiding homeowners to return to their communities and rebuild their lives. 

67 However, the population is at approximately 75% of its pre-Katrina levels after 10 years (APA 2014) and 

68 it may be decades before New Orleans fully recovers from the event.

69 The Resilient Community. The concept of setting recovery goals for community resilience is easy to 

70 understand but requires detailed development and involvement by all stakeholders. Community resilience 

71 addresses the complex interactions of people, the services they need, and the local economy that sustains 

72 life and drives growth. Community resilience requires a governance structure that sets direction and 

73 provides services, and a built environment that supports the community’s social institutions. The built 

Figure 2. Santiago Chile Skyline. A 

Resilient City in a Resilient Nation. 

(en.wikipedia.org)

Figure 3. NGO Make-it-right reconstruction plans for New 

Orleans 9th Ward (www.makeitright.org) 
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Executive Summary

Executive Summary, Page 3 of 6

74 environment is the foundation of recovery; governance sets the direction; financing governs the pace; and 

75 the community provides the support and will to make improvements. 

76 Disaster resilience planning must eventually include in depth understanding of a community’s interwoven 

77 social, political, and economic systems; how they are supported by the built environment; a clear 

78 understanding of their vulnerability and damage for expected hazard events; and how any damage will 

79 impact community recovery. The most useful plans are developed by a broad cross section of planners 

80 and stakeholders and include a sufficient level of detail that informs specific short and long term actions 

81 aimed at improving resilience over time. 

82 This Disaster Resilience Framework provides a methodology and supporting detail to help communities 

83 understand and characterize their social community and built environment, and how to link the 

84 community’s social institutions with the built environment. With that understanding, the resilience plan 

85 can identify the buildings and infrastructure systems and the levels of functionality needed during and 

86 after a hazard event, including recovery plans to restore community functionality. The gaps between 

87 desired and anticipated performance of the physical infrastructure are prioritized, and strategies are 

88 developed to implement the resilience plan. The framework provides guidance on developing a 

89 community-level resilience plan, with specific guidance for identifying the social aspects of resilience, 

90 their dependence on buildings and infrastructure systems, and is compatible with FEMA Mitigation plans.

91 Striving for community disaster resilience need not be expensive, but the process is unique for each 

92 community and will take time both to implement and to accrue benefits. The process to achieve disaster 

93 resilience requires concentration; persistence; a willingness to understand the present effectiveness of the 

94 social institutions, governance, economics, the buildings, and infrastructure systems; and the 

95 consequences for the community that an actual hazard event will trigger. The intersection of a 

96 community’s daily needs and the anticipated damage from hazard events forms the basis for resilience 

97 planning. 

98 Short term plans can be developed for emergency and interim solutions that can be implemented if the 

99 event occurs tomorrow. Long term plans provide the roadmap for eventually achieving disaster resilience. 

100 It begins by envisioning a better outcome, understanding your community, developing a resilience plan, 

101 and initiating implementation.

102 Many communities have Mitigation Plans, which are required by FEMA since the passage of the Disaster 

103 Mitigation Act in 2000 (DMA 2000). These plans are complementary to Community Resilience Planning 

104 outlined in the framework. A combination of FEMA-directed mitigation planning and the resilience 

105 planning described in this framework provides a first step toward becoming a disaster resilient 

106 community.

107 Understanding Your Community and its Built Environment. Communities are gatherings of people who 

108 need places to live, work, find security, and a sense of belonging so they can grow and achieve. All 

109 communities have a common set of social institutions in place to meet the needs of individuals and 

110 households. While common in description, they are organized and delivered uniquely in each community. 

111 Individual needs and social institutions are described in Chapter 2 and include Family and Kinship, 

112 Economic, Government, Health Care, Education, Community service organizations, Religious 

113 Organizations and others that support belief systems, and the media. When considering a community’s 

114 social institutions and their dependence on the built environment, it is important to recognize and address 

115 social vulnerability and inequity since all people do not have equal access to the social institutions nor do 

116 they have the same needs. This becomes especially critical after a hazard event occurs.

117 Linking a community’s social institutions to the built-environment is illustrated in Chapter 2. People need 

118 housing, kids need schools, neighborhoods need retail districts, businesses need suitable facilities and 
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Executive Summary

Executive Summary, Page 4 of 6

119 everyone needs healthcare, a transportation network, electricity, fuel, water, sewer systems and 

120 communication tools. Any disruption in availability of these services needs immediate attention, even 

121 without a hazard event. 

122 In a perfect world, hazard events would not cause serious disruptions or damage to the built environment 

123 or its support of individuals and social institutions. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Most of the built 

124 environment in the nation does not have the ability to remain in service after significant hazard events 

125 occur, even though most people are not prepared to be on their own after disruptive events. This reality is 

126 demonstrated every time a significant hazard event occurs. Most communities try to rebuild as quickly as 

127 possible to restore damaged buildings and infrastructure, sometimes waiving code enforcement, with no 

128 time to develop improved reconstruction plans. The significant amount of funding available for rebuilding 

129 becomes a lost opportunity without a plan to improve community resilience.

130 In reality, only a fraction of the built environment is essential in the first few days after a significant 

131 hazard event, primarily to support emergency response. More of the built environment needs to be 

132 functional in the subsequent weeks and months of recovery. The key question is, “When do the buildings 

133 and infrastructure systems that support each social institution needs to be fully restored to service?” The 

134 desired time for recovery of community functions is the performance goal. The difference between the 

135 current anticipated performance and the desired performance is the key question to be answered during 

136 resilience planning.

137 Developing a Community Resilience Plan. The NIST framework provides a methodology for developing 

138 a Community Resilience Plan that accounts for social aspects of resilience when setting performance 

139 goals and recovery plans for the built environment. For example, the buildings and infrastructure systems 

140 that support emergency response typically include hospitals, police and fire stations, and emergency 

141 response centers. Housing and neighborhoods need to be restored within weeks with special attention to 

142 vulnerable populations. Once people are safe, recovery attention turns to restoring government, business, 

143 industry, education, general healthcare, and other services. Desired performance goals in terms of 

144 recovery times for community functions are set, informed by 

145 social issues. The current anticipated performance of the existing 

146 infrastructure may indicate longer recovery times than identified 

147 in the plan and that cause significant impediments to community 

148 recovery. 

149 Understanding the gaps between desired and actual performance 

150 are determined for specific clusters of buildings and infrastructure 

151 systems and can then inform short and long terms solutions. In 

152 the short term, these gaps can be addressed with interim plans for 

153 emergency response and temporary actions. In the long term, new 

154 construction can be designed to the designated performance goals 

155 and the existing infrastructure can be retrofit as appropriate. 

156 Recognizing the balance between pre-event and post-event 

157 actions and resource allocation is a key outcome of the process. 

158 Not all buildings and systems need to be mitigated or retrofit to 

159 current standards to achieve resilience. 

160 Figure 4 shows a flow chart of the Community Resilience 

161 Planning process. First steps include establishing the core 

162 resilience planning team, determining social assets and 

163 identifying key social needs for community recovery, and 

164 determining physical infrastructure assets and natural resources 

165 that support the key social needs. With this community 

Figure 4: Flow Chart for 

Developing Resilience Plan
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Executive Summary

Executive Summary, Page 5 of 6

166 information, the community resilience plan is developed with the following steps: 1) establish 

167 community-level performance goals, 2) determine anticipated performance of infrastructure clusters; 3) 

168 complete the performance matrix, and 4) identify and prioritize gaps between the desired and anticipated 

169 performance for the clusters and each hazard. Once the gaps are prioritized, the community can develop 

170 strategies to mitigate damage and improve recovery of functions across the community. 

171 The built environment is a complex and highly interdependent system of systems. Buildings generally 

172 house the functions that support the social institutions. Their functionality after a hazard event not only 

173 depends on the condition of the building but also on the infrastructure systems that service it. Roads are 

174 needed to access the building, and electricity, water, sewer systems, and communication networks are 

175 needed to let it operate and function as intended.

176 Infrastructure systems are also highly interdependent with each other. For example, the electrical power 

177 system needs roads for their crews to access damaged areas and restore power, water for cooling, and 

178 communication networks for repair coordination, etc. The framework presents considerations and 

179 examples of interdependencies that may need to be addressed when setting performance goals for 

180 recovery of community functions. Substantial background information is also provided about buildings 

181 and infrastructure systems, as well as guidance for setting performance goals, and strategies for 

182 improvement of infrastructure systems for new and existing construction.

183 Figure 4 is further developed through a description of core activities for developing a community 

184 resilience plan in Table 1. The social dimensions of the community are reviewed to identify important 

185 functions for the community, and when they need to be available during or after a hazard event. This 

186 includes considerations for the needs of individuals and social, government, business, industry, and 

187 financial institutions. Buildings and infrastructure systems that support the identified social functions are 

188 grouped, or clustered, as a subsystem. Additionally, anticipated hazards and the effects of changing 

189 conditions are identified. The desired and expected performance (i.e., recovery of function) of the 

190 clustered subsystems after a hazard event is evaluated. Significant gaps between these two performance 

191 levels are prioritized for strategies for improvement. Last, strategies are developed to address prioritized 

192 needs in the built environment.

193 Table 1. Core Activities for Community Resilience

Characterize Community’s 

Social Dimensions

 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 Community’s 

Built Environment and 

Hazards

 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 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
DISASTER RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

75% Draft for San Diego, CA Workshop

11 February 2015

Executive Summary

Executive Summary, Page 6 of 6

194 This process is conducted at the community level for each hazard, with supporting detailed plans for 

195 buildings and infrastructure systems. Each hazard is evaluated at three hazard levels to help comunities 

196 understand performance across a reasonable range of expected hazard levels or intensities. For instance, a 

197 hazard event is likely to occur near the design level as well as below and above the design level over a 50 

198 to 100 year period. Communities need to understand how their social systems and built environment will 

199 perform and recover over the range of hazard levels. A detailed overview of buildings and infrastructure 

200 systems is provided that addresses system performance for hazard events, how performance may affect 

201 community resilience, a review of primary codes, standards, and regulations, and possible strategies for 

202 setting performance goals and determining prioritization of resilience efforts. There is also a summary of 

203 available guidance, metrics, and tools for assessing community resilience. 

204 Community Resilience and Mitigation Planning. Nearly 24,000 communities, representing 80% of the 

205 people in the United States, have developed mitigation plans in accordance with Federal Emergency 

206 Management Agency (FEMA) guidance. As mitigation is a component of resilience, these communities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 Chapter 2 of the framework provides a methodology for understanding communities and their needs from 

216 the built environment. Chapter 3 describes a process for doing a risk assessment of the built environment 

217 which then informs both short and long term implementation planning. In FEMA’s Local Mitigation 

218 Planning Handbook, the Hazard Mitigation Plan has 9 Tasks, from defining the planning area and team 

219 through Creating a Safe and Resilient Community, that are compatible with the resilience activities 

220 described in the framework. 

221 Additionally, FEMA was tasked through Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) on National 

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

223 mitigation, response, and recovery. Each Mission Area has a framework document associated with it that 

224 describes the roles and responsibilities of the whole community. The NIST Disaster Resilience 

225 Framework complements the PPD-8 framework documents by providing a methodology and specific 

226 guidance for developing a prioritization plan, at the local level, for recovering the function of buildings 

227 and infrastructure following a disruptive event to meet the societal goals of the community. The Disaster 

228 Resilience Framework allows a community to consider the interdependencies among buildings, 

229 infrastructure and the social and economic systems present in the community and consider the 

230 downstream cascading effects that can occur due to disruptions in these systems.