COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PLANNING GUIDE

An Overview of the Community Resilience Planning Guide

for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems

Toward a More

Resilient Community
OVERVIEW

Despite the high costs and disruptions from natural, technological, and 

human-caused hazards, most communities don’t consider their vulnerability 

to be a priority compared with other, more pressing demands. 

Some communities may not plan, thinking it will be too expensive. Others 

may take planning steps, but lack a comprehensive, risk-based approach 

that is tailored to their community’s need for maintaining vital services. In both 

cases, they miss opportunities to protect lives, livelihoods, and quality of life. 

That is the problem the Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings 

and Infrastructure Systems addresses, offering a practical approach for 

leaders to improve their community’s resilience. 

This “Guide-at-a-Glance” is a brief introduction to this new resource from the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

RESILIENCE PAYS 

Community Resilience is the ability of a community to prepare for anticipated

hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly 

from disruptions.

Think of resilience planning as preventive care, but for the buildings and the 

infrastructure systems—the “built environment”—that are facing disaster risks. 

These are the structures and technological “systems” that residents rely on 

for essential services and most activities of daily living, and that underpin the 

social and economic fabric of their community. By planning, prioritizing, and 

acting, communities can improve their resilience over time, in a cost-effective 

manner consistent with their long-term development goals.

If a disruptive event does strike, communities with resilience plans will 

be ready to respond, recover, and then build back better if rebuilding is 

necessary. Beyond equipping them to maintain and restore vital services, 

communities that plan and carry out resilience strategies will be better 

prepared for future events, making them more attractive to businesses and 

residents alike.

The Guide is a “living” document that will be updated as we learn from 

experience and through research. The Guide can be downloaded at 

www.nist.gov/el/resilience/guide.cfm.

1
2

The Guide was developed 

by NIST in collaboration 

with public and private 

stakeholders from 

state, local, and federal 

governments, utilities, 

regulators, standards 

developers, industries, 

and academia.

It provides an adaptable, 

flexible method that allows 

any community to develop 

individualized long-term 

resilience plans and 

goals, based on available 

resources and needs. It 

details a six-step planning 

process that a community 

can use to tailor to its 

particular circumstances.

The following pages 

explain more about the 

recommended six steps.

Just taking the first step can 

help your community move 

toward greater resilience. 

The complete Guide follows 

the process as it is put into 

practice in the hypothetical 

city of Riverbend, USA. 
3

PARTNERING FOR SUCCESS

The most effective community resilience efforts are championed 

by a planning team. The team provides leadership throughout 

the process and engages stakeholders and the broader 

community. Local government is the logical convener. 

Your team also needs a designated community official working 

with the team to collaborate with other public and private 

organizations and individuals.

County, state, or federal agencies with facilities or infrastructure 

in the community, as well as public and private owners and 

operators of buildings and infrastructure systems, should be part 

of the team. It also is important to include local businesses and 

industries, social organizations, and other community groups.

Typical local government representatives come from:

• Community development

• Public works

• Emergency response 

• Building departments

FORM A COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TEAM

Teams must be fully inclusive, right from the start. Local government 

should take the lead, but planning teams must be truly collaborative 

undertakings, with inclusive participation at all phases. 

CAUTION

CITY COUNCIL

PLANNING TEAM

communi- buildings energy

cations

water and

wastewater

hazards social transportation

dimensions
4

SEEING THE BIG PICTURE

It is critical to have a solid understanding of your community’s 

entire preparedness situation. That involves characterizing its 

social dimensions and its built environment, and identifying 

dependencies between and among the social services that 

make life in your community possible and desirable. The 

connections between those services and the built environment 

also must be identified.

Social functions address the needs of individuals and institutions, 

including:

• Government

• Business and industry

• Financial

• Media organizations 

• Religious, cultural and community services

Identify buildings and infrastructure systems that support these 

social functions, then group, or cluster, these systems into 

subsets that support common functions. 

Take the time to inventory 

the social characteristics 

of your community, 

including the requirements 

and condition of the 

built environment, 

as you prepare to 

address hazard risks. 

When it comes to hazard events and disaster planning, communities 

tend to plan in a shorter time horizon, focusing on immediate postdisaster steps needed to respond to the need for food, water, and 

shelter rather than on longer-term social and economic needs. 

CAUTION

UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION
5

CUSTOMIZE

Every community has its own long-term goals for resilience. 

Some examples include the following:

• Attracting business investment or 

major educational institutions

• Expanding recreational facilities 

while addressing the need to 

make more appropriate use of 

land at risk of flooding

• Strengthening the ability of 

government and critical facilities 

to function after hazard events

Whatever your situation, determining 

and getting agreement on those 

goals from your key stakeholders is a 

critical part of this planning process.

Remember, your resilience goals 

should include both your built 

environment and social dimensions. 

State explicitly how different types of 

construction are expected to perform 

in different hazard events, based on 

how they will affect members of your 

community. 

For example, planners may decide that critical facilities should 

experience little interruption or damage in a design hazard 

event since these facilities are needed to support recovery and 

emergency services to the rest of the community. It might be 

MATCHING HAZARDS 

AND COMMUNITY 

PERFORMANCE

A community’s performance 

can be evaluated at three 

levels for each hazard:

• Routine

• Design

• Extreme

This helps a community 

understand how the built 

environment will perform 

and recover over a range of 

hazard types and levels. It is 

vital information to community 

leaders as they set priorities and 

implementation strategies for 

resilience. 

The Guide offers explanations of 

these three levels for each major 

type of hazard.

DETERMINE GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Social goals may be too readily assumed, rather than stated explicitly. 

Be careful not to assume the performance of a particular structure 

or infrastructure system. Conduct a thorough assessment, including 

consultation with key stakeholders. 

CAUTION
6

important for certain transportation routes, like key bridges, to 

remain serviceable compared with other routes, especially if they 

happen to carry critical water supply lines to your people.

Goals should be independent of particular hazards. After all, the 

community’s needs ideally will be fulfilled regardless of the type 

of hazard the built environment experiences. 

IDENTIFY HAZARDS

Once performance goals are set, identify the prevailing hazards 

in your area. Only then is the likely as-built performance 

determined—in terms of expected recovery time—for each 

group, or cluster, of buildings and infrastructure systems that 

supports social needs. 

A summary table from the Riverbend, USA example in the Guide

shows how the anticipated performance of the built environment 

compares to the community’s desired performance goals for a 

design earthquake event.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Where we want to be

Where we are now

Critical Facilities

Buildings

Transportation

Energy

Water

Wastewater

Communication

Days

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-24

Mos

24+

RECOVERY TIME

90%

90%

X

X

X

90% X

90%

90%

90%

X

X

The table indicates that Riverbend’s buildings had some of the largest 

resilience gaps. Wastewater was another. The Guide walks users through 

the preparation of similar matrices for their sectors that include buildings 

and infrastructure systems at each level of hazard event: Routine, Design, or 

Extreme [see text box on previous page].
7

PLAN DEVELOPMENT

CLOSING THE GAPS

With performance goals and anticipated performance in hand, 

“resilience gaps” become readily apparent. The Planning 

Team then sets priorities for closing those gaps based on the 

community’s larger goals, using both long- and short-term 

investments. 

Administrative policies as well as construction investment 

solutions are identified at this point—based on priorities—and 

are designed to address specific needs for the community to 

mitigate damage and to optimize recovery time. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Where we want to be

Where we are now

Critical Facilities

Buildings

Transportation

Energy

Water

Wastewater

Communication

Days

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-24

Mos

24+

RECOVERY TIME

90%

90%

X

X

X

90% X

Closing the gap

90%

90%

90%

X

X

Resources for addressing gaps in community resilience are always 

constrained. It is important that your community consider longer-term 

resilience and possible cost avoidance, along with other factors. For 

example, in making land use-related decisions, it also is critical that 

vulnerable populations’ needs are taken into account.

CAUTION
8

ADMINISTRATIVE 

SOLUTIONS CAN BE 

LOW COST, YET 

EFFECTIVE

Among options communities 

may want to consider:

• Integrating resilience 

plans with the General 

Plan as well as plans for 

Emergency Operations, 

Land Use, Infrastructure, 

Transportation, Housing, 

Economic Development, 

and Sustainability. 

• Integrating resilience plans 

with the FEMA Mitigation 

Plan and prioritizing 

mitigation grant requests. 

• Developing processes 

and guidelines for postevent assessments and 

repairs that will accelerate 

the evaluation process, 

including the designation of 

buildings that can be “used 

during repair” after an event.

• Collaborating with adjacent 

communities, including 

mutual aid during response 

and recovery phases.

• Developing education and 

awareness programs to 

enhance understanding, 

preparedness, and 

opportunities for community 

resilience.

Administrative activities tend to carry 

low implementation costs but can 

yield significant long-term benefit 

[see text box]. 

Land-use planning is a typical 

administrative tool. Strategies can 

be adopted before a hazard event 

takes place, reducing potential 

damage and disruption. 

Alternative land use and 

redevelopment strategies may be a 

key part of the resilience planning 

process for many communities. For 

example, they are often relied upon 

in seismic and flood-prone hazard 

areas.

Solutions can be temporary or 

permanent. The key is to be 

thoughtful about creating the right 

mix of solutions that will match 

priorities and available resources.
9

PREPARING FOR ACTION

By this stage, the goals, 

characteristics, and needs 

of the community, from 

both the social and built 

environment perspectives, 

have been identified and 

assessed. Resilience gaps 

also have been identified, 

and the team has created 

and prioritized administrative 

and construction solutions.

Now is the time to prepare a plan that documents all of those 

in a way that is meaningful to community stakeholders, so they 

can review and comment on the proposed approach. No two 

communities will do this the same way. 

Ideally, the process is inclusive, transparent, and deliberative, 

and the resulting plan is actionable and has the support of the 

community-at-large. 

PLAN PREPARATION, REVIEW & APPROVAL 

It is tempting to prepare plans in piece-meal fashion, focusing on just a 

few aspects of the resilience plan or to consider infrastructure sectors 

individually. It is also easy to get bogged down in details. By being 

inclusive, transparent, and deliberative there is a greater chance that 

the plan will be understood, appreciated and supported by the larger 

community. After all, the community will need to embrace and otherwise 

support the plan.

CAUTION
10

MOVING FORWARD

If the team has done a thoughtful job in its assessment, plan 

preparation, and review—and if it has successfully engaged 

its key stakeholders—the community will begin executing the 

administrative and construction solutions in the approved plan. 

Typically, work begins quickly on short-term solutions while 

longer-term plans are worked on, likely in conjunction with other 

local, state, federal, tribal, and regional government jurisdictions. 

However, your work is not done. It 

is important for the community to 

evaluate the plan periodically and to 

update or fine-tune it. 

Someone—potentially some 

members of the Planning Team—

must own this part of the process. 

Also, maintaining communications 

with the community-at-large is 

crucial. Take nothing for granted.

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION & MAINTENANCE

The team has likely generated a lot of momentum while doing the 

analysis and during plan development and review. Its leadership may 

be exhausted, and implementation may be turned over to individual 

departments of the local government, or to the owners and operators of 

key infrastructure systems, with minimal tracking or coordination. With 

no single resilience leader for the community, implementation may be 

suboptimal and the community’s resilience plan will probably not be fully 

achieved, exposing your community to greater risks of damage from 

future hazard events. 

CAUTION
11

WHAT TO EXPECT

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is committed to its 

investment in community resilience planning, ensuring that the Guide remains 

relevant and useful. To meet this goal, NIST is working in several ways to help 

you to put the full Guide into practice:

• The Guide and companion documents and tools can be downloaded at 

www.nist.gov/el/resilience.

• NIST has Guide Briefs which provide methods and best practices to 

complement the Guide, with additional rationale, guidance, and references 

for implementing the six steps in the planning process

• An online tool, known as EDGe$ (based on the Economic Decision Guide), 

helps with selecting cost-effective, infrastructure-based community 

resilience projects. The tool offers an easy-to-follow approach describing 

the cost and benefits for multiple resilience options that a community may 

be considering.

• Multiple communities—of different jurisdictional type and sizes—across 

the country are now using the Guide to plan for improved resilience as 

they address a variety of potential hazard events. See the Success Stories 

capturing the highlights of their experiences, including lessons learned at 

www.nist.gov/el/resilience.

OTHER ASSISTANCE

Improving community resilience isn’t easy; there are no magic answers. 

The Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure 

Systems walks you through a process that is likely to help. This “Guide-at-aGlance” offers a quick overview of the process.

For more information and answers to your questions about the Guide, and to 

receive regular updates, contact resilience@nist.gov.

Have a suggestion? Please forward your observations and ideas to: 

resilience@nist.gov.

December 2018