Premium
Workforce/Population, Economy, Infrastructure, Geography, Hierarchy, and Time (WEIGHT): Reflections on the Plural Dimensions of Disaster Resilience
Author(s) -
Santos Joost,
Yip Christian,
Thekdi Shital,
Pagsuyoin Sheree
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/risa.13186
Subject(s) - resilience (materials science) , hierarchy , dimension (graph theory) , risk analysis (engineering) , population , workforce , critical infrastructure , conceptual framework , risk management , computer science , management science , engineering , business , sociology , political science , economics , computer security , social science , management , economic growth , mathematics , physics , demography , pure mathematics , thermodynamics , law
The concept of resilience and its relevance to disaster risk management has increasingly gained attention in recent years. It is common for risk and resilience studies to model system recovery by analyzing a single or aggregated measure of performance, such as economic output or system functionality. However, the history of past disasters and recent risk literature suggest that a single‐dimension view of relevant systems is not only insufficient, but can compromise the ability to manage risk for these systems. In this article, we explore how multiple dimensions influence the ability for complex systems to function and effectively recover after a disaster. In particular, we compile evidence from the many competing resilience perspectives to identify the most critical resilience dimensions across several academic disciplines, applications, and disaster events. The findings demonstrate the need for a conceptual framework that decomposes resilience into six primary dimensions: workforce/population , economy , infrastructure , geography , hierarchy , and time (WEIGHT). These dimensions are not typically addressed holistically in the literature; often they are either modeled independently or in piecemeal combinations. The current research is the first to provide a comprehensive discussion of each resilience dimension and discuss how these dimensions can be integrated into a cohesive framework, suggesting that no single dimension is sufficient for a holistic analysis of a disaster risk management. Through this article, we also aim to spark discussions among researchers and policymakers to develop a multicriteria decision framework for evaluating the efficacy of resilience strategies. Furthermore, the WEIGHT dimensions may also be used to motivate the generation of new approaches for data analytics of resilience‐related knowledge bases.