International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Community resilience framework for an earthquake

prone area in Baluchistan
Syed Ainuddin a,n, Jayant Kumar Routray b
a
Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Department of Geography University of Baluchistan, Quetta, Pakistan
b
Department of Regional and Rural Development Planning, and Coordinator of Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management (Interdisciplinary Academic
Programme), Asian Institute of Technology

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: The development literature on hazards and disasters indicates a visible paradigm shift
Received 18 May 2012 from hazard assessment to vulnerability analysis and building community resilience.
Received in revised form This shift has taken place just after the Kobe Earthquake in 2005, which necessitated the
19 July 2012
formulation of Hyogo Framework of Actions, the global framework for disaster risk
Accepted 21 July 2012
reduction. One of the goals of this framework is to build the resilience of the
Available online 31 August 2012
communities prone to hazards and disasters. The objective of this paper is to analyze
Keywords: and review the frameworks on community resilience in the context of hazards and
Community resilience natural disasters and propose a community resilience framework for an earthquake
Framework
prone area in Baluchistan, based on the ndings of an extensive research carried out on
Earthquake
vulnerability and resilience assessment. A household questionnaire survey was con-
Disasters
Baluchistan ducted among 200 residents of Quetta city, using random sampling method. Based on
the ndings, the paper has proposed a new community resilience framework, which can
be used for upgrading the community preparedness, awareness, and nally leading to
community resilience at the local levels.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [7,31,40,41,46,51,74,75]. Therefore vulnerability of many

The risks and vulnerabilities induced by natural
hazards and disasters are on rise globally. The impacts
are severe and widespread in the areas of physical,
economic, social development, loss of life, property,
resources and overall destruction. The experiences gained
through recent disasters (Bam Earthquake 2003, Indian
Ocean Tsunami 2004, Kashmir Earthquake 2005 and Haiti
Earthquake 2009 etc.), and challenges faced by the
national and local governments, donors and many other
are thinking about disaster management principles and
practices in order to minimize the associated disaster
impacts. It is widely observed that counties around the
world are still focusing on post disaster relief approach
n
Tel.: 66 2 845212321; fax: 66 2 5162126.
E-mail address: syed.ainuddin77@gmail.com (S. Ainuddin).
individuals and communities to natural hazards continues
to increase considerably [80]. On contrary to that a paradigm
shift is seen from relief to risk assessment, preparedness and
early warning systems after the World Conference of Disaster
Reduction (1994) in Kobe Japan, where vulnerability and
resilience have become the most important ingredients for
disaster risk strategies at all levels in line with the objectives
and goals of Hyogo Framework for Action [87]. This frame-
work seeks to promote an effective integration of disaster risk
considerations into sustainable development policies and
planning [78]. Therefore community resilience to disasters
is essentially required for hazard mitigation, planning and
recovery [1,18,60,6466,81,89]. At the same time measuring
community resilience has been a real challenge for research-
ers and policy makers in the contemporary disasters litera-
ture [6,15,17,23,25,28,37]. Because there is no standard sets
of common indicators or frameworks for the community

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.07.003
26 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536

resilience assessment [25,27,56,6466,90]. Above all, com-
munity vulnerability and resilience need robust and credible
measures [3]. With this background, the paper has attem-
pted to propose a community resilience framework with
explicit indicators at the local level in the context of natural
disasters with specic reference to earthquake. This frame-
work can be used for community preparedness, awareness,
coping and recovery from earthquake hazards and disasters.
1.1. Resilience
There is a common consensus among the scholars in the
literature that resilience was introduced rst in the eld of
ecology [24,32,33,44,52], particularly in the Hollings inu-
ential paper on Resilience and stability of ecological sys-
tem [42]. Different scholars have conceptualized the term
resilience in different ways across the literature. A number
of relevant denitions used by different scholars in the
context of natural hazards and disasters are presented
below in Table 1. But the most common denition of
resilience in the context of disasters is Resilience is the
ability of a social system to respond and recover from
disasters and includes those inherent conditions that allow
the system to absorb impacts and cope with an event
[2,24,46,6466,81,85]. It is wildly acknowledged that resi-
lience has been applied to a variety of disciplines, therefore
confusions on the meaning and approaches of resilience are
the result of different epistemological orientations, concep-
tual and methodological practices. The clear understanding
about the concept of resilience vis-a -vis vulnerability is a
great challenge among the researchers because of their wide
use in different disciplines and contexts. For example, Tobin
[81] explains that sustainability and resilience for compre-
hensive hazard management is easy from a theoretical
standpoint but difcult in implementation, since the rela-
tionship between these two depends on many social,
economic, political and physical factors, while vulnerability
and resilience constitute difference but also overlapping
themes embraced by sustainability [84]. However, Jackson
[44] argues that resilience, adaptation and vulnerability are
the key terms and they are linked in some ways to one
another. Adger [3,17] argue that resilience is a part of
adaptive capacity while Smit et al., [77] considers adaptive
capacity as component of vulnerability. To [36,83] both
resilience and adaptive capacity are parts of vulnerability.
Resilience is an imbedded feature within vulnerability,
when seen as process or outcome [49], but for more
cohesive learning and decisions, it is considered as process
[18,6466]. Resilience is being applied in three broader
areas of research as an attribute. These include Ecological
Systems by [19,21,34,43,63], Social systems by [5,35,62,69].
The third one is the combination of both, put forwarded as
(DROP) Disaster Resilience of a Place Model by [24].
2. Study area and methodology
Quetta is the provincial capital of Baluchistan. It is located
in the North Western part of the province. The district lies
between 291 480 and 301 270 North latitudes and 661 140 and
671 180 East longitudes. The district is prominently mountai-
nous. Most of the earthquakes on different scales occurred
within the radius of 240 km from Quetta. At the same time
historical seismic data also conrms that the district has
been subjected to many earthquakes in the past particularly
the major one in 1935, killing almost 35,000 people in Quetta
City [68]. In addition to that the earthquake hazard map of
Pakistan also indicates its seismicity, as shown in Fig. 1. The
district has been divided into two seismic zones i.e. Zone A
(Very High Seismic Risk) and Zone B (High Seismic Risk). The
damages from the previous earthquakes in the city were
observed more in Zone A compared to Zone B [71]. The study
is exploratory based on both secondary and primary sources
of data. Both data sets were used. In fact this study is a part
of extensive research carried out on vulnerability and resi-
lience assessment in the study area. Based on the ndings of
vulnerability and resilience assessment in the study area, the
paper has tried to propose the community resilience frame-
work. Secondary data helped in understanding the overall
picture of disaster management and earthquake risks in the
study area. It was collected from various institutions and
organizations involved in disaster management related activ-
ities, with emphasis on those dealing with earthquake
hazards. The other sources include books, journal articles,
government reports, seismic maps, statistical records etc.

Table 1
Denitions of resilience.

The ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure [2]
The ability of social units to mitigate hazards, contain the effects of disasters when they occur and carry out recovery activities in ways that minimize
social disruption and mitigate the effects of future earthquakes [18]
Resilience is the ability of a social system to respond and recover from disasters & includes those inherent conditions that allow the system to absorb
impacts and cope with an event [24]
The capacity to bounce back and to use physical & economic resources effectively to aid recovery following exposure to hazards [6466]
A sustainable network of physical systems and human communities, capable of managing extreme events: during disasters, both must be able to
survive & function under extreme stress [37]
A process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation after a disturbance [60]
Resilient communities are dened as societies which are structurally organized to minimize the effects of disasters and at the same time, have the
ability to recover quickly by restoring the socio-economic vitality of the community [81]
The capacity to manage, or maintain certain functions and structures, during disastrous events [85]
Social resilience is the capacity of social groups and communities to bounce back or respond positively to adversity [48]
The ability of system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely
and efcient manner, including through the preservation & restoration of its essential basic functions [86]
Resilience is the ability of social units, organizations and communities to mitigate hazards, contain the effects of disaster, and carry out recovery
activities in ways that minimize social disruption and also mitigating the effects of future disasters [53]
The ability of the community not only to deal with adversity but also to gain strength as a result of it to recover from hazards [46]
 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
Fig. 1. Earthquake hazard map of Pakistan [70].
The primary data includes eld observations, household
surveys, and discussion with key informants through face to
face interviews. The key informants were selected from
government and other organizations, who are closely involved
in the disaster management process and city planning. The
sample size was derived on the basis of the population size
(total households) in two zones following the formula of
sample size calculation by [91] as mentioned below.
N
n households (158) are below the urban poverty line (101
1 Ne^2
Totally, 200 samples were collected and further distrib-
uted proportionally in Zone A (80 households) and Zone B
(120 households). A simple random sampling method was
used for two zones almost covering all Union Councils
(lowest unit of administration). A structured questionnaire
was used for data collection and has several components
such as socio-economic prole of the respondents, social
resilience, economic resilience, physical resilience and insti-
tutional resilience with direct relevance to measure the
vulnerability as well as resilience. Mostly the head of the
households and in some cases senior and elderly person of
the household in the absence of the head were interviewed.
The average age of the respondents are 46 and 40,
respectively, in Zone A and zone B. In terms of educational
attainment, comparatively Zone B has a better status than
Zone A in all categories (For example, Illiterate: Zone A
with 40% and 22%, in zone B, Grade 15: Zone A with 19%
and 24% in Zone B, High School: Zone A with 11% and 14%
in Zone B, College or above: Zone A with 30% and 40% in
Zone B). The most dominant primary occupation is
27
business, followed by employment and wage labor. Busi-
ness has 27% workers in Zone A and 34% in Zone B.
Employment in formal sectors shares 36% and 16% in
Zones A and B, respectively. Wage labors constitute 26% in
Zone A and 24% in Zone B. Other common occupations are
small trade, petty business and services. The average
household size is about 10 persons in both the zones. As
revealed from the survey, the average annual household
income is 741 US dollars. However, a majority of the
US dollar per house hold). This illustrates a big disparity
between the rich and the poor. Average annual household
incomes of Zone A and Zone B are 300 US dollars and 441
US dollars respectively. Regarding the housing condition,
the data reveal that 50% of the housing stock is adobe
houses1 while, 35% with unreinforced concrete, 17% con-
crete and 2% are with bamboo and wooden materials. The
adobe type of house is very unsafe because it can easily be
collapsed during earthquake. Zone A has more housing
stock of adobe type. It has been experienced during
Baluchistan earthquake in 2008 and Kashmir Earthquake
in 2005 about the impacts on adobe houses, which were
destroyed and collapsed easily than other types.
3. Community resilience in the context of disasters
Community is always considered the rst responder
to any disaster, therefore several capacities such as
1
Adobe: A type of Dwellings made of stone, clay and mud.
28 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
economic development, social capital, and community
competency are critical to community resilience [59,60].
Building community resilience is an effective way to cope
with change characterized by hazards and disasters
[13,20,38]. [6466] noticed that resilience can operate at
several independent levels, e.g., individual and commu-
nity. In their work, community resilience is described as
the ability of a community to bounce back and recover
using its own resources they argue that a resilient
community is capable of drawing upon internal resources
and competencies to manage demands, challenges and
changes encountered in the course of disaster [48,81,88].
Resilient community and socio-ecological systems adopt
diverse mechanisms to live and learn from the change and
shocks [4]. In addition to that community resilience is
required in the current global climate change context,
where community response and adaptive capacities are
the ways to handle the impacts at the local levels [30,45].
3.1. Community resilience frameworks
There are a number of models and frameworks devel-
oped in order to assess the resilience of community,
region and system but there is no common framework
or model to measure and monitor the community hazards
resilience [16,25,26,28,81,92]. However some of the mod-
els are briey explained below.
The Disaster Resilience of a Place Model (DROP), is
developed by Cutter et al. [24]. The indicators proposed
by this framework are: Wetlands acreage, Erosion rates,
Percentage of impervious surface, Biodiversity, Number of
coastal defense structures. Demographics (age, race, class,
gender, occupation), Social networks and social embedd-
edness, Community values-cohesion, Faith-based organi-
zations, Employment, Value of property, Wealth genera-
tion, Municipal nance/revenues, Participation in hazard
reduction programs, Hazard mitigation plans, Emergency
services, Zoning and building standards, Emergency
response, plans, Emergency communications, Continuity
of operations plans, Lifelines and critical infrastructure,
Transportation network, Residential housing stock and
age, Commercial and manufacturing establishments. Keep-
ing in view the existing models of community resilience,
vulnerability and their associated limitations, the current
model is developed and created specically to address the
natural hazards however it can be adopted for the other
onset hazards as well such as terrorism and technological
hazards. Apart from this theoretical framework and indica-
tors, the author also provided a number of indicators which
are tested at the national level. These indicators include
Percentage of population with college education to the
percentage population with no high school diploma, Per-
centage of non-elderly population, Percentage population
with a vehicle, Percentage population with a telephone,
Percentage population not speaking English as a second
language, Percentage population without a sensory, physi-
cal, or mental disability, Percentage homeownership, Per-
centage employed, Percentage of population not employed
in farming, shing, forestry, and extractive industries, Per-
centage of female labor force participation, Number of
physicians per 10,000 population, Percentage population
covered by a recent hazard mitigation plan, Percentage
population covered by Citizen Corps programs, Percentage
housing units that are not mobile homes, Percentage vacant
rental units, Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population,
Principal arterial miles per square mile, Number of hotels/
motels per square mile, Net international migration, Per-
centage of population born in a state that still resides in that
state, Percentage voter participation in the 2004 election,
Number of civic organizations per 10,000 population, Per-
centage of population employed in Creative class occupa-
tions [25]. In addition to that [81,82] adopted three separate
models for the assessment of community resilience of
Volcano hazard to create resilient communities. Those were
mitigation model, recovery model and structural cognitive
model. The model is a dynamic system and not necessarily
to be balanced. Each model has a list of some of the
important attributes that should be incorporated into the
analysis. These attributes/indicators are Capable agencies,
Leadership and politics, Long term commitment, Structural
changes, Societal changes, Physical location, Age, Health
Income, Gender, Social networks, Attitudinal factors, Re-
accumulation of capital, Government policies, Short term
recovery, Long term rehabilitation. Norris et al. [60] have
developed framework related to stress, resistance and
resilience over time. In which resistance occurs when
resources are robust, redundant to counteract the immedi-
ate effects. In result no dysfunction occurs. Total resistance
is thought to be rare in high event making transient
situational dysfunction the more normative result after
a disaster. Resilience occurs when resources are robust,
redundant and rapid to counteract the effects of stressor,
adapted to the altered environment, and occurs. Vulner-
ability occurs when resources were not robust, redundant or
rapid to create resistance or resilience, resulting in persis-
tent dysfunction. The more severe the event or stressor, the
stronger the resources must be to create resistance or
resilience. The proposed attributes/indicators by this frame-
work are Responsible media, Skills and infrastructure,
Trusted sources of information, Community actions, Flex-
ibility and creativity, Collective efciency empowerment,
Political partnership, Sense of community, Organizational
linkages and competition, Social and informal ties, Perceived
(expected) social support, Received (enacted) social support,
Fairness of risk and vulnerability to hazards, Level and
diversity of economic resources, Equity of resources dis-
tribution. Kulig et al. [46] argues that community resilience
is a process and this process emerges from these investiga-
tions: (a) the community experiences such as sense of
belonging and getting along; (b) this leads to an expres-
sion of a sense of community exemplied by the shared
mentality and togetherness of the community, (c) conse-
quently, some type of community action occurs, noted by
the presence of visionary leadership, the ability to deal with
change, the ability to cope with division and nally the
emergence of a community problem-solving process. The
attributes used include Availability to cope with disasters,
Getting along, Social networks, availability to cope with
change, Leadership, Community problem solving, Commu-
nity togetherness, Mentality outlook, Outside inuences i.e.,
new ideas, economic downturn, Health status. Mayunga
[52] proposed a community resilience framework based on
 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
ve capitals such as Social capital, economic capital, Human
capital, Physical capital, Natural capital. The indicators
proposed for this framework include Trust, Norms, Com-
munity networks, Income, Savings, Investments, Educa-
tional level, Health status, Skills, Information, Knowledge,
Housing, Public facilities, Business, Resources stocks, Land
and water, ecosystem. Bruneau et al. [18] developed a
conceptual framework for the seismic resilience of commu-
nities. The framework includes quantitative measures of the
ends of robustness and rapidity and the means of resource-
fulness and redundancy, and integrates also those measures
into the four dimensions of community resilience such as
technical, organizational, social and economic. They can be
used to quantify measure of resilience for various types of
physical and organizational systems. Stewart et al., [79]
proposed a framework to improve the community resilience
during disaster through partnership. The framework incor-
porates supply chain critical infrastructure and key re-
sources, economic and social resilience. Apart from that
the framework also introduces the public-private relation-
ships as facilitators of resilience during post disaster
response and recovery. US, AID (2007) developed a frame-
work to assess the resilience of the coastal community to
different hazards. The framework highlights the strength
and weaknesses and gaps in resilience that can be addressed
by the community together with government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, private sectors and other
stakeholders. It focuses largely on how to assess coastal
community resilience as a rst step in dening actions to
reduce risk, accelerate recovery and adopt change. The
Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)
framework promoted by Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
aims to reduce vulnerabilities and to strengthen peoples
capacity to cope with disaster risks. The process of CBDRM
puts the community in understanding local level risk
reduction measures as a central focus. Community takes
responsibility for all stages of the program including both
planning and implementation in the process. In the context
of climate change, resilience approach is systems oriented
and covers a broader view. In addition resilience also
provides a useful framework for analyzing adaptation pro-
cesses and also identies policy measures to be taken [57].
Apart from that a framework of resilience in the
context of volcanic hazard is put forwarded by [6466],
which argue that heterogeneity in community character-
istics and perceptual processes and develop models that
accommodate contingent relationships between hazard
effects and community, cultural, geographical and tem-
poral factors within resilience models. The attributes
used in this framework are perceived community impact;
Problem focused coping, sense of community. Above all
for comparative picture and deep understanding Table 1
presents some of the widely used and cited frameworks in
the literature of hazards and disasters. The table also
provides the nature of the framework, their attributes or
indicators along with their limitations.
4. Proposed community resilience framework
When resilience is seen in the context of earthquakes,
the role of Seismology, Earthquake Engineering, and
29
Social Science comes into play, however the goal of seismic
resilience is to integrate the information from all these
elds to reach results that are acceptable [22]. More
specically, seismically resilient community or system
can recover quickly and bounce back to normal after an
earthquake event [14,18,24,6466]. Seismic resilience
includes both the physical and social components. The
physical components such as critical infrastructures are
well articulated by [18] in his seismic resilience frame-
work, that can be utilized to reduce the likelihood of failure
of infrastructures as a result of an earthquake event. At the
community level, since all communities are different in
terms of their earthquake risk, institutional capacity, social
and political makeup, economic condition and nancial
capacity, it is necessary to rst develop an understanding
of the characteristics of the locality and community as part
of the process of determining indicators of resilience for
various components. Once determined, it is possible to
address mitigation alternatives available to meet the desired
performance levels.
The adoption of the models focused at the community
level seems to be difcult in developing countries includ-
ing Pakistan due to limitation of explicit nature of
indicators in many cases, coupled with the paucity of
data. The previous section explains some of the commu-
nity resilience frameworks proposed by a number of
researchers. Those frameworks as suggested by different
scholars focus on diverse aspects related to human and
environmental interactions directly or indirectly related
to disasters. The most prominent and cited framework of
Cutter et al. [24] proposed disaster resilience of a place model
(DROP), which provides measures at the national level. This
type of assessment becomes cumbersome at the community
level. Similarly Norris et al. [60] have proposed a framework
of resilience over time, which is broader and conceptual in
nature. In addition to that Tobin [81] proposed sustainability
and community resilience framework in a general context of
hazards. Apart from that [6466] provided a model of
resilience to hazards effects that is based on the community
perceived effects of hazard, where low risk perception results
in poor mitigation and high risk perception contribute to
Psychological resilience and preparedness.
There are a number of issues that should be sorted out
while implementing the framework at the community
level in developing countries. DTOP framework is more
generalized and broader in the context of natural hazards
and has not explicitly elaborated how it can be imple-
mented at the community level. The indicators selected
are broad and applied at the national level. This frame-
work has not followed the logical sequence of events in
the course of achieving community resilience.
In this paper an attempt has been made to propose a
new community resilience framework based on the nd-
ings of an intensive research in an earthquake prone area
of Baluchistan. The purpose is to identify the indicators
explicitly at the community level. The indicators are
veried in the eld and tested as well [9,10]. In addition
to that the proposed framework in Fig. 1 has also followed
a sequence of events in the course of achieving the
community resilience in order to have a logical connec-
tion among the various steps in the process of community
30 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
resilience. In order to cater the needs and analysis of
resilience, measurable indicators at the community level
are selected in the context of earthquake hazards and
disasters. This framework can be utilized for community
preparedness in disaster prone areas to enhance commu-
nity capacity to handle disaster impacts. Furthermore
some of the aspects of the frameworks of Cutter, Norris,
and Tobin are well reected in the proposed community
resilience framework.
The proposed framework has four sequential aspects
such as potential impacts, vulnerability, risk perception
and resilience. These all are interrelated as shown through
arrows in Fig. 1. It starts, when hazard characteristics
interact with poor social, economic, physical and institu-
tional components of the community, it will exacerbate
the community vulnerability. This section presents the
results of vulnerability analysis, their awareness and risk
perception and resilience. Vulnerability depends on both
the risk perception and resilience of the community. Risk
awareness and preparedness can either increase or lower
the community vulnerability to a considerable level. Good
community preparedness enhances the community resi-
lience and coping during and after the disaster.
4.1. Vulnerability analysis
Baluchistan has experienced severe earthquakes with
damages and causalities in the past three decades. It lies
on very high seismic zone [14,31,50,70]. The vulnerability
has been analyzed both at the community and household
levels. Relevant indicators on vulnerability were selected
for physical, social, economic and institutional sectors
based on literature review. For the assessment of com-
munitys vulnerability to earthquakes, both qualitative
and quantitative methods were applied. Both secondary
and primary data sets were used. Secondary data helped
in understanding the overall picture of disaster manage-
ment and earthquake risks in the study area. It was collected
from various institutions and organizations involved in
Disaster Management related activities, with emphasis on
those dealing with earthquake hazards. The other sources
include books, journal articles, government reports, seismic
maps, statistical records etc. The primary data includes eld
observations, household surveys, and discussion with key
informants through face to face interviews. The key infor-
mants were selected from government and other organiza-
tions, who are closely involved in the disaster management
process and city planning. Logistic Regression Model is used
to identify the signicant and inuential variables for deter-
mining household vulnerability in the study area.
The results revealed that the community is vulnerable
to earthquake hazards in the future irrespective of the
sectors and the household vulnerability is high in both the
zone A and B. The descriptive statistics also revealed that
both the social, physical and economic drivers are contribut-
ing to the household vulnerability of seismic hazards in
the area. In addition to that, the logistic regression model
indentied that three indicators out of 14, (insurance, dis-
tance to evacuation site, location, open spaces, physically
disabled people, gender, house type with construction mate-
rials used, education, population growth and social capital)
such as ownership of residential unit, income and family size
are signicantly inuencing the community vulnerability to a
greater extent [8]. These indicators also play important role
in inuencing the community vulnerability apart from the
three identied by the logistic regression model. Under-
standing vulnerability and its implications in the context of
a natural disaster is very complex unless the explanatory
variables are identied. The need for identication of such
variables arises for working towards disaster risk reduction
measures. When combining these three variables, it can be
interpreted that a large and poor household living in a rented
house is extremely vulnerable to natural hazards, such as
earthquakes. Population growth, poverty, low-quality build-
ing construction are the main factors in increasing earth-
quake risks [14,39,40,50]. Evidence from the Kashmir
Earthquake in 2005 also demonstrated that most of the
buildings that collapsed had been poorly maintained
[50,74]. In addition, high economic growth and diversica-
tion of income sources play an important role in decreasing
the household vulnerability to disasters [6,52]. The other
indicators are insurance, distance to evacuation site, loca-
tion, open spaces, physically disabled people, gender, house
type with construction materials used, education, popula-
tion growth and social capital. These indicators also play
important role in inuencing the community vulnerability
apart from the three identied by the logistic regression
model. The analyses of the selected indicators, focus group
discussions and key informant interviews have revealed
that community is equally vulnerable to the future earth-
quake impacts by multifold [8].
4.2. Risk perception and awareness
A very prominent nding in the risk literature con-
cerns actions adopted by individuals to avoid risk when
their perception of risk increases [47,76]. In addition to
that despite differences in how individuals perceive risk,
the probability of engaging in risk reduction behaviors is a
positive function of the amount of risk they perceive [61].
Setbon et al., [73] argues that there is a direct casual link
between the ood safety related risk perception and
actual behaviors. Above all risk perception does have a
link with awareness of an hazard and mitigation actions
[54]. A number of previous studies and empirical ndings
revealed that there is a relationship between the disaster
preparedness and risk perception [11,12,55,67,72]. Risk
perception of key informants, community and households
regarding earthquake hazards in Baluchistan has been
analyzed.
The analysis is based on both secondary and primary
data. Primary data was collected from the key informants
and community members by conducting face-to-face
interviews through checklists. The key informants were
selected working in the disaster management process at
the provincial, district and union council (local) levels. It
also includes those involved in the house construction
industry of Quetta such as local masons. Most of the
questions during interviews were related to earthquake
awareness, potential threat to houses, earthquake resili-
ent design of houses and important facilities, prepared-
ness and copping with earthquake hazards in the research
 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
area. Focus group discussions were also held with the
communities that how they perceive the earthquake risks
and what are the issues and problems associated with
preparedness for earthquakes in the district. For the
household survey the whole district was selected apply-
ing simple random sampling method, determined from
the total households in the district, using the formula of
Yamane [91]. In the second stage, the sample size of each
zone was determinedZone A with 80 and Zone B with
120 households in proportion to household size in respective
zones. An attempt has been made to study and understand
the risk perception behaviors of people in two different
zones, which are strikingly different in seismic behavior.
The results reveal that Risk perception to natural
hazards (particularly associated with earthquakes as
studied) is basically subjective and strongly inuenced
by socio-economic characteristics (age, education, and
income), awareness and understanding, coping and pre-
ventive mechanism with resilience capacity. This is com-
monly observed and consistent with many other studies
with few exceptions and contrasts only. The challenge for
disaster risk reduction is closely associated with risk
perception of individuals, households and community at
large for collective action. A clear and more unbiased
perception is desired which is unlikely unless strongly
attempted for providing the perfect understanding about
the potential impacts and risks through awareness build-
ing and practically simulated demonstrations at the local
and community levels. Therefore the paper suggests for a
proactive role of the agencies concerned for disaster risk
reduction and management in the country from national
to local levels in this respect. The analysis also revealed
that, people below 25 years of age and above 60 years of
age are more vulnerable to earthquake hazards due to
their mobility constraints. These results are quite consis-
tent with the previous earthquake risk perception studies.
4.3. Resilience analysis
Similar to the concept of vulnerability, resilience
neither has standardized denition nor clear assessment
methods across the literature. In this particular section
under resilience, a working denition of resilience has
been provided and developed a subjective assessment
method for giving weights to different indicators based on
their importance [9,10]. The indicators are selected based
on previous works on resilience by different scholars
related to natural disasters and having relevance to earth-
quake and subject to availability of primary and second-
ary data sources. The idea of resilience and its assessment
is still new in the contemporary literature on disasters.
Despite having shortcomings, indices still provide rele-
vant facts to the policy makers and emergency planners.
For the weighting and aggregation of indicators, the
values of all indicators are expressed in percentage which
requires no normalization process of the indicators;
therefore the normalization step is exempted. Once the
indicators are selected, the step after normalization is to
attach weights to the indicators and components. Attach-
ing weights to different indicators have been extensively
discussed in the literature that how one can determine
31
that which component or indicator is important than
other [52]. The best weights for community resilience
are those that accurately represent the relative contribu-
tion of corresponding indicators to the overall resilience.
There are two methods of determining weights to indi-
cators that weights derived through empirical testing
or weights determined by subjective assessments
[25,27,29,58]; however the literature does not provide
any evidence that which method is the best to use,
because it depends on situations where they are applied.
This study did not use empirically derived weighting
system because our data is not large enough to run the
Principle Component Analysis for weights. Therefore we
have used subjective assessment to attach weights to
selected indicators. To do that we have developed a
percentage weighting scale ranging from 0 to 1. To make
this clear, the values of the variables and indices can be
interpreted as, higher the value of the indicator, higher is
the weight and index value, and nally higher is the
resilience of that particular variable within a domain/
component or zone. The resilience factor index of any
selected indicator used under any component is worked
out as:Resilience Factor Index (RFI) of ith indicator(%
value of the ith indicator (actual)/ % value taken as the
level of the resilience of the ith indicator)
Less value or those around or close to zero should be
considered less resilient, and high values towards to 1
should be considered more resilient. For some indicators
in which high values reect low level of resilience,
precaution has been taken to make them comparable in
the same way (higher the value of a variable, higher is the
resilience) by reversing the calculation of resilience factor
index as mentioned below.
Resilience Factor Index (RFI) of ith indicator (% value
taken as the level of resilience of the ith indicator/ % value
of the ith indicator (actual).
For each indictor it has been tried to assign a particular
percentage value for the optimum level of community
resilience especially in the context of earthquake hazards
in Baluchistan. This optimum level has been developed
after reviewing extensive literature, and following eld
observations as shown in Table 2. Data of United States of
America (specically California), Japan and Pakistan were
studied intensively for making decision about resilience
level for each of the indicator.
The composite community resilience index (aggregate
index) provides the overall picture of the community resi-
lience and the sub indices of various components provide
the opportunity to compare among the components, and
individual indicators contribution to the overall community
resilience. The overall community resilience index shows
that the area has poor resilience index value in the context of
earthquake hazards and the sub indices reveled that there is
marginal difference between the two zones as far as com-
munity resilience is concerned. Based on the analysis by
zones (A: High Risk & B: Low Risk), it is revealed that there is
not much signicant difference in terms of resilience. It also
implies that both the areas have equal degree of vulner-
ability, even though they are categorized as very high risk
and low risk zones within the study area. Therefore it is
argued that if any policy measures or programs for disaster
 32
Table 2
Theoretical and applied community resilience frameworks.

Type of framework Major features of the Key attributes/indicators Theoretical/ evolved Applied in the context, Limitations
with contributors framework through empirical national/regional/local
evidences level

A place-based Ecological, social, Wetlands acreage, erosion rates, percentage of Theoretical National and local levels The framework is conceptual and broad,
Community economic, institutional, impervious surface, biodiversity, number of coastal not been tested or applied
Resilience Model infrastructure, defense structures. Demographics (age, race, class,
[24] community competence gender, occupation), social networks and social
embeddedness, community values-cohesion, faith-

S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
based organizations, employment, value of property,
wealth generation, municipal nance/revenues,
participation in hazard reduction programs, hazard
mitigation plans, emergency services, zoning and
building standards, emergency response, plans,
emergency communications, continuity of operations
plans, lifelines and critical infrastructure,
transportation network, residential housing stock and
age, commercial and manufacturing establishments
Disaster resilience Social, economic, Percentage of population with college education to the Applied National level The framework is applied at the national
indicators for institutional, percentage population with no high school diploma, level. Applying this framework in
benchmarking infrastructure and percentage of non-elderly population, percentage developing country context becomes more
baseline situations community capital population with a vehicle, percentage population with difcult. Data availability related to certain
[25] a telephone, percentage population not speaking indicators is a great constraint at the
English as a second language, percentage population community level prone to disasters
without a sensory, physical, or mental disability,
percentage homeownership, percentage employed,
percentage of population not employed in farming,
shing, forestry, and extractive industries, percentage
of female labor force participation, number of
physicians per 10,000 population, percentage
population covered by a recent hazard mitigation plan,
percentage population covered by citizen corps
programs, percentage housing units that are not mobile
homes, percentage vacant rental units, number of
hospital beds per 10,000 population, principal arterial
miles per square mile, number of hotels/motels per
square mile, net international migration, percentage of
population born in a state that still resides in that state,
percentage voter participation in the 2004 election,
number of civic organizations per 10,000 population,
percentage of population employed in creative class
occupations
Healthy and resilient Mitigation model, Capable agencies, leadership and politics, long term Applied Community level The model is in fact modied version of
communities in recovery model, commitment, structural changes, societal changes, three models such as mitigation model,
hazardous structural cognitive physical location, Age, health, income, gender, social recovery model and structural cognitive
environments [82] model networks, attitudinal factors, re-accumulation of model. Indicators for each model are not
capital, government policies, short term recovery, long explicitly elaborated. The model focuses
term rehabilitation recovery and mitigation parts but lacks in
the vulnerability analysis, which is
essential for achieving community
resilience
 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536 33

risk reduction programs/activities developed for such areas

The framework is conceptual in nature and

framework are not explained that how they

community resilience with such indicators
indicators are very board. These indicators

should be given equal priority irrespective of their degree of

The indicators in the framework are not

or attributes may not be applied unless

The indicators or attributes used in the

there are narrowed down to workable

The framework is conceptual and not

implemented at the community level
risks. Zone A is relatively less resilient as compared to Zone B
and the study recommends improvements in the social,

explicitly elaborated. Measuring

institutional and physical components by raising the aware-
ness and preparedness of people regarding earthquakes,
implementing building codes as provided in 1938s Building

becomes cumbersome
Regulation Act for Quetta city. However, need arises to
revisit the existing Building Codes and bring necessary
modications with strict implementation process. This is

were tested
very basic in order to reduce the risk of people in earthquake
variables

prone areas. In addition to that it is essentially required to

emphasize on income generating activities to reduce poverty
that will enhance community resilience to a greater extent
in the long run.
The indicators listed in Fig. 2 under vulnerability, risk
Community level

Community level

Community level

Community level

perception and resilience have been tested in an earthquake

prone area of Baluchistan that revealed the community is
extremely vulnerable to the future impacts of earthquakes.
It was reected that poor awareness and preparedness and
poor resilience may exacerbate the community vulnerability
to a considerable level. Based on the above analysis on
vulnerability, risk perception and resilience, the paper
proposes a community resilience framework for Baluchistan
in order to upgrade community preparedness, awareness to
earthquake hazards and disasters. The framework also
Theoretical

Theoretical

recommends improved awareness and preparedness, diver-

Applied

Applied

sied sources of income, implementation of building codes

and well coordinated emergency response to minimize
Interaction as collective Availability to cope with disasters, getting along, social

Hazard effects, high risk Perceived community impact, problem focused coping,
sense of community, and community problem solving, community togetherness,
networks, availability to cope with change, leadership,

disaster impacts and enhance the community coping and

business, resources stocks, land and water, ecosystem
sources of information, community actions, exibility

received (enacted) social support, fairness of risk and

Social capital, economic Trust, norms, community networks, income, savings,

mentality outlook, outside inuences i.e., new ideas,
economic resources, equity of resources distribution
Responsible media, skills and infrastructure, trusted

organizational linkages and competition, social and

investments, educational level, health status, skills,

quick recovery from earthquake hazards in the future. This

and creativity, collective efciency empowerment,

informal ties, perceived (expected) social support,

physical capital, natural information, knowledge, housing, public facilities,

particular framework can also be applied in communities

vulnerability to hazards, level and diversity of

with identical situations and prone to disaster and hazards.

political partnership, sense of community,

5. Conclusion
economic downturn, health status

The paper has reviewed literature on community resi-

lience frameworks and analyzed some the most well cited
and prominent frameworks on community resilience in
disaster literature. The analysis revealed that most of the
sense of community

frameworks were found generic and broader in the context

of environmental hazards and disasters. More specically
the variables and attributes of those frameworks were very
broad and often not workable at the community level for
measurement purposes. Therefore their application becomes
cumbersome at the community level particularly in the
community competence,
Economic development,

developing countries, where availability of data for certain

capital, human capital,
unit, expression of a

perception, low risk

indicators at the local level is a great challenge. Furthermore

community action
and social capital

they did not follow sequential order for achieving commu-

Information and
communication,

nity resilience. Therefore the proposed community resilience

perception

framework has identied explicit indicators for measuring

capital

vulnerability, risk perception and resilience at the commu-

nity level in the context of disasters and earthquake hazards.
This framework can be applied for the baseline assessment
strategy for disaster

community disaster
Community resiliency
Community resilience

A Model of resilience

of community resilience prone to hazards and disasters. In

to hazard effects

addition the proposed framework has also followed a

as a metaphor,

capacities, and

resilience [52]
readiness [60]
theory, set of

A capital based
approach on

sequential order starting from vulnerability assessment to

model [46]

risk perception and nally resilience assessment. This type of

[6466]

sequential order and process provide a clear picture of the

community under risks. This framework does not only
provide feedback to the community but also creates a chance
34 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
Fig. 2. Proposed community resilience framework.
for the policy makers, developing mitigation measures
against natural hazards. In addition to that it also provides
scope for the risk reduction strategies especially at the
community level in line with Hyogo Framework of Action.
Above all the framework can be used for upgrading com-
munity awareness, preparedness and coping during and
after the disaster strikes.
References
[1] Adam R. Dening and measuring economic resilience to disasters.
Disaster Prevention and Management 2004;13(4):30714.
[2] Adger WN. Social and ecological resilience: are they related?
Progress in Human Geography 2000;24(3):34764.
[3] Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 2006;16:
26881.
[4] Adger W Neil, Terry P Hughes, Carl Folke, Stephen R Carpenter,
Johan RockstrAzm. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters.
Science 2005;309(5737):10369.
[5] Adger WN. Sustainability and social resilience in coastal resource use.
CSERGE working paper series, Center for Social and Economic Research
on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, UK; 1997.
[6] Adger WN, Kelly PM, Winkles A, Huy LQ, Locke C. Nested and
teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 2002;31(4):35866.
[7] Ahmad S, Hossain Z, Sarwar A, Majeed R Saleem M. Drought Mitigation
in Pakistan: Current Status and Options for Future Strategies. Interna-
tional Water Management Institute working paper, no. 85; 2004.
[8] Ainuddin S, Routray JK. Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake
Prone Communities in Baluchistan. (Accepted on 11 March 2011),
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environ-
ment; 2011.
[9] Ainuddin S, Routray JK. Assessing Community Resilience of in an
Earthquake Prone Area in Baluchistan. Doctoral Thesis. Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand; 2012a.
 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
[10] Ainuddin Syed, Routray Jayant. Earthquake hazards and commu-
nity resilience in Baluchistan. Natural Hazards 2012:129.
[11] Armas I. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case
study: the historic center of the bucharest Municipality/Romania.
Natural Hazards 2008;47:397410.
[12] Armas I, Avram E. Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic
risk. case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards
2007;44:14761.
[13] Berkes Fikret. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerabil-
ity: lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 2007;41(2):
28395.
[14] Bilham R. The seismic future of cities. Bull earthquake Engineering
2009;7:83987.
[15] Birkmann J. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards
disaster resilient societies. Tokto: United Nations University Press;
2006.
[16] Birkmann J. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales:
applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental
Hazards 2007;7:2031.
[17] Birkmann J, Wisner B. Measuring the un-measurable the challenge
of vulnerability, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan 5 2006,
pp. 158.
[18] Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM,
et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the
seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 2003;19(4):
73352.
[19] Cash DW, Moser SC. Linking global and local scales: designing
dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ-
mental Change 2000;10:10920.
[20] Chang SE, Shinozuka M. Measuring improvements in the disaster
resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 2004;20(3):73955.
[21] Chapin FS, Walker BH, Hobbs RJ, Hooper DU, Lawton JH, Sala OE,
Tilman D. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science
1997;277:5004.
[22] Cimellaro PG, Reinhoren MA, Bruneau M 2006. Quantication of
Seismic Resilience. Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, April 1822, 2006, San Francisco,
California, USA 1094.
[23] Cutter LS, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J.
Community and Regional Resilience to Natural Disasters: Perspec-
tive from Hazards, Disasters and Emergency Management, CARRI
Research Report 1. Oak ridge: Community and Regional Resilience
Institute; 2008a.
[24] Cutter LS, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J. A
place-based model for understanding community resilience to
natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 2008;18:598606.
[25] Cutter LS, Burton GC, Emrich TC. Disaster resilience indicators for
benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management 2010;7(1):122.
[26] Cutter SL, Emrich CT. Moral hazard, social catastrophe: face of
vulnerability along the hurricane coasts. Annals of the American
Academy 2006;22(5):10212.
[27] Davidson MA. Designing for Disasters, Massachusetts coastal
hazards commission, NOAA coastal service center; 2006.
[28] Davidson R. An urban earthquake disaster risk index: the John A.
Blume earthquake. Engineering Center, report no. 121. Stanford,
California: Blume Center; 1997.
[29] Esty DC, Levy T, Srebotnjak Sherbinin, A. Environmental sustain-
ability index: benchmarking national environmental stewardship.
New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy; 2005.
[30] Fara K. How natural are natural disasters? vulnerability to drought
of communal farmers in Southern Namibia Risk Management
2001;3(3):4763.
[31] Farah A. Earthquake risk in the Quetta area. Geological Survey of
Pakistan 1984;3:112.
[32] Fleischhauer MI. The role of spatial planning in strengthing urban
resilience. Resilience of Cities to Terrorist and other Threats
2008;4(21):27398.
[33] Folke C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-
ecological system analysis. Global Environmental Change 2006;16:
25367.
[34] Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker BH, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunder-
son LH, Holling CS. Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in
ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and
Systematic 2004;35:55781.
[35] Freudenburg WR. Addictive economics: extractive industries and
vulnerable localities in a changing world economy. Rural Sociology
1992;57:30532.
35
[36] Gallopin G. Linkage between vulnerability, resilience and adapta-
tive capacity. Global Environmental Change 2006;16:293303.
[37] Godschalk DR. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities.
Plenary paper presented at the Urban Hazard Forum, John Jay
College, University of New York; 2002.
[38] Godschalk DR. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities.
Natural Hazard Review 2003;4(3):13643.
[39] Guha-Spair, D., Vos, F. Earthquakes: epidemiological perspective on
patterns and trends. A draft paper submitted to human casualties
in natural disasters: progress in modeling and mitigation; 2010:1-
18.
[40] Gupta I, Sinvhal A, Shankar R. Himalayan population at earthquake
earthquake risk: strategies for preparedness. Disaster Prevention
and Management 2006;15(4):60820.
[41] Halvorson SJ, Hamilton JP. Vulnerability and the erosion of seismic
culture in mountainous Central Asia. Mountain Research and
Development 2007;27(4):32230.
[42] Holling CS. Resilience and stability of ecological system. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 1973;4:123.
[43] Holling CS, Schindler DW, Walker BW, Roughgarden J. Biodiversity
in the functioning of eco-systems: an ecological synthesis. In:
Perrings et al. (editors).Biodiversity loss: economic and ecological
issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995 4483.
[44] Jackson J. Fatal attraction: living with earthquakes, the growth of
villages into mega cities, and earthquake vulnerability in modern
world. The royal Society 2006;364:191125.
[45] Keim Mark E. Building human resilience: the role of public health
preparedness and response as an adaptation to climate change.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;35(5):50816.
[46] Kulig JC, Edge DS, Joyce B. Understanding community resilience in
rural communities through multimethod research. Community
Development 2008;3(3):7794.
[47] Lepesteur M, Wegner A, Moore SA, McComb A. Importance of
publicinformation and perception for managing recreational activ-
ities in the Peel-Harvey estuary, Western Australia. Environmental
Management 2008;83(3):38995.
[48] Maguire B, Hagan P. Disasters and communities: understanding
social resilience. Emergency Management 2007;22:1.
[49] Manyena SB. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 2006;30(4):
43350.
[50] Maqsood ST, Schwarz J. Building vulnerability and damage during
the 2008 Baluchistan earthquake in Pakistan and past experiences.
Seismic Research Letters 2010;81(3):51425.
[51] Masozera M, Bailey M, Kerchner C. Distribution of impacts of
natural disasters across income groups: a case study of New
Orleans. Ecological Economics 2006;63(2):299306.
[52] Mayunga, J.S. Understanding and applying the concept of commu-
nity disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. A draft working
paper prepared for social vulnerability and resilience building,
Munich, Germany; 2007:1-16.
[53] MCEER. Engineering Resilience Solutions from Earthquake Engi-
neering to Extreme Events, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, USA; 2007.
[54] McGee TK, Russell S. Its just a natural way of life: an investigation
of wildre preparedness in rural Australia. Environmental Hazards
2003;5(1):112.
[55] Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M. Disaster preparedness and perception
of ood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 2008;28(2):16473.
[56] Morrow BH. Identifying and mapping vulnerability. Disasters
1999;23(1):118.
[57] Nelson RD, Adger WN, Brown K. Adaptation to environmental
change: contribution of a resilience framework. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 2007;32:395419.
[58] Noble M, Babita M, Barnes H, Dibben C, Magasela W, Noble S,
Ntshongwana P, Phillips H, Raman S, Roberts B, Wright G, Zungu S .
The Principle indices of Multiple deprivations for South Africa
2001, Oxford, UK; 2006.
[59] Norris FH, Susan PS. Community resilience and the principles of
mass trauma intervention. Psychiatry:Interpersonal and Biological
Processes 2007;70(4):3208.
[60] Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL.
Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and
strategy for disaster readiness. Community Psychology 2008;41:
12750.
[61] OConnor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A. Risk perceptions, general environ-
mental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk
Analysis 1999;19:3.
36 S. Ainuddin, J.K. Routray / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (2012) 2536
[62] Olick JK, Robbins J. Social memory studies: from collective
memory to historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual
Review of Sociology 1998;24:10540.
[63] Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. Adaptive co-management for building
resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management
2004;34:7590.
[64] Paton D, Fohnston D. Disasters and communities: vulnerability,
resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management
2001;10(4):2707.
[65] Paton D, Johnston D, Smith L, Millar M. Responding to hazard
effects: promoting resilience and adjustment adoption. Australian
Journal of Emergency Management 2001:4752.
[66] Paton D, Millar M, Johnston D. Community resilience to volcanic
consequences. Natural Hazards 2001;24:15769.
[67] Paul BK, Bhuiyan RH. Urban earthquake hazard: perceived seismic
risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Disasters
2009;34(2):33759.
[68] PDMA. Provincial Disaster Management Plan for Baluchistan,
Quetta, Pakistan. Provincial Disaster Management Authority; 2006.
[69] Peluso nL, humphrey CR, Fortmann LP. The rock, the beach and the
tidal pool: people and poverty in natural resource department
areas. Society and Natural Resources 1994;34:2338.
[70] PMD. Seismic hazard analysis and Zonation for Pakistan, Azad
Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan Meteorological Ofce; 2007.
[71] QDA. Quetta Urban Plan, Quetta Development Authority in Collabora-
tion with National Engineering Services Pakistan QDA, NESPAK; 1985.
[72] Rustemli A, Karancci A. Correlates of earthquake cognitions and
preparedness behavior in a victimized population. Journal of Social
Psychology 1999;139:91101.
[73] Setbon M, Raude J, Fischler C, Flahault A. Risk perception of the
mad cow disease in France: determinants and consequences. Risk
Analysis 2005;25(4):81326.
[74] Shaheen MA. Earthquake effects on educational institutions and
libraries in Azad Kashmir. Disaster Prevention and Management
2008;57(6):44956.
[75] Sharma VK. Gujarat earthquake- some emerging issues. Disaster
Prevention and Management 2001;10(5):34955.
[76] Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236(4799):2805.
[77] Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Street R. The science of adaptation: a
framework for assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change 1999;4:199213.
[78] Stanganelli Marialuce. A new pattern of risk management: the
Hyogo framework for action and Italian practise. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences 2008;42(2):92111.
[79] Stewart G, Kolluru R, Smith M. Leveraging public-private partner-
ship improve community resilience in times of disasters. Disaster
Prevention and Management 2009;39(5):34364.
[80] Thomalla Frank, Downing Tom, Spanger-Siegfried Erika, Han Guoyi,
Rockstrom Johan. Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a com-
mon approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adapta-
tion. Disasters 2006;30(1):3948.
[81] Tobin G. Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of
hazard planning? Environmental Hazards 1999;1:1325.
[82] Tobin GA, Whiteford LM. Community resilience and volcano
hazard: the eruption of Tungurahua and evacuation of the Faldas
in Ecuador. Disasters 2002;26(1):2848.
[83] Tunner B, Kasperson R, Maston P, McMarthy J, Coreel R, Christensen
L et al. A Framework for Vulnerability analysis in sustainability
science; 2003. Retrieved on September 9, 2009 from www.psas.org.
[84] Turner, B.L., IIa, B.,. 2010. Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or
paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Global Environ-
mental Change, Article in Press, G Model JGEC-789;1-7.
[85] Twigg j. Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community. Hazard
Research Center 2007;1:136.
[86] UNISDR. Terminology on disaster risk reduction.2009a: 1-13.
[87] UNISDR. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; 2009b.
[88] USAID. How resilient is your coastal community: a guide for evaluat-
ing Coastal community Resilience to Tsunami and other Hazards.
United States Agency for International Development; 2007.
[89] Walsh Froma. Traumatic loss and major disasters: strengthening
family and community resilience. Family Process 2007;46(2):20727.
[90] Weichselgartuner J. Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability
revisited. Disaster Prevention and Management 2001;10(2):8594.
[91] Yamane T. In: Statistics, an introductory analysis. 2nd ed.New
York: Harper and Row; 1967.
[92] Zhou Hongjian, Jingai Wang, Jinhong Wan, Huicong Jia. Resilience
to natural hazards: a geographic perspective. Natural Hazards
2010;53(1):2141.