Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 1

Robustness and Resilience

-- Two Key Concepts for a Sustainable Built Environment

Bo L. O. EDLUND   Bo Edlund, born 1936, received his

Professor em. civil engineering and PhD degrees
from Chalmers University of
Chalmers Univ. of Technology   Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. He is
Göteborg, Sweden Professor emeritus at Chalmers. His
bo.edlund@chalmers.se   main area of research is related to
steel and timber structures, especially
buckling, stability, and safety.

Summary
The first item is Robustness of structures, which has drawn much attention during the past
decade. In this paper special interest will be paid to accidental loading and extreme events like
natural hazards. The part dealing with Resilience is related to Natural Hazards and Disasters
and their influence on the built environment and society. One section deals with vulnerability
and resilience of communities, especially in urbanized areas. The paper is of conceptual
character and contains some critical review of some past work. It will show the importance of
using relevant and clear concepts.
“Today, as civil and structural engineers, we should feel the urgency of our role in mitigating
the threats to urban areas caused by climate change and natural disasters” [1].
Keywords: robustness; structures; resilience; urban environment; sustainability.

1. Introduction
The term ‘Robustness of structures’ was not a well-known concept among structural
engineers in the mid-1990s. At that time there was a widespread reluctance to discuss ‘robust
structures’, because many engineers meant that such structures would be heavy and clumsy.
Since then it has been the object of systematic studies and research during about a decade. In
fact, some of the characteristics of robustness (e.g. redundancy and ductility of joints) had
been studied earlier using another terminology for several years, namely ‘progressive
collapse’, which was inspired by some failures of buildings, where a local damage was
progressively spreading to a partial collapse. In these cases, the consequence of the damage
became disproportionate to the causes of the damage.
The second item “Resilience” relates to properties of a system subject to external
disturbances. The system can be an environmental (ecological), structural (mechanical) or
social system. A resilient system has the property to regain its basic function and structure
after the disturbance has been removed. This should also be valid even for a rather severe
disturbance. This concept can also be used to discuss ‘the role of structural engineers in the
evaluation and prevention of social risks’. Related concepts are preparedness, vulnerability
and risk. One application is “Resilient Cities”, which is a good example of Human Urbanism.
It has become more and more important to consider low-probability high-impact events. Such
“Black Swan” events are almost impossible to predict. However, “instead of trying to
anticipate these events we should reduce our vulnerability to them”  [2].  It is probably wiser to
focus on the consequences, i.e. to try to evaluate the possible impact of such extreme events.
See further the book by Taleb [3].
In this paper we define ‘sustainable’ in its original wider meaning: ‘endure without giving
away’, ‘keep sound continuously’. For a built environment to be sustainable it should thus be
both robust and resilient.
2 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

2. Robustness of Structures
2.1 Introduction
In 1996, robustness was not a well-known concept among structural engineers. However, the
writer, then chairman of the IABSE TC, proposed ‘robust’ as one keyword for the theme of
the IABSE Symposium in Rio (scheduled for 1999). A couple of TC members objected and
meant that robust structures would be associated with properties like ‘heavy, sturdy and
clumsy’. In 1997, there still seemed to be a widespread reluctance to discuss ‘robust
structures’ at an IABSE conference. Consequently, the Scientific Committee for the Rio
Symposium finally decided not to include anything about ‘robust’ in the theme. A few years
later (in 2005), however, a Workshop on ‘Robustness of Structures’ was organized by IABSE
Working Commission 1 together with JCSS, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety. Since
then that theme has been the object of systematic studies and research. Selected papers from
that Workshop were published in SEI 2006, issue 2, e.g. [4-7]. The Workshop was a great
success and gave impetus to the research project COST Action TU0601: “Robustness of
Structures”, which has had participants from 25 countries (2006-2011).
In two recent IABSE Publications there are groups of papers presenting results from the
project COST Action TU0601, namely 1.) five papers in the Report from the IABSE-IASS
Symposium 2011, e.g. [8-10] and 2.) seven papers in SEI 2012/1, pp. 66-111, among others
[11-16]. See further http://www.cost-tu0601.ethz.ch.
In special issues of two International Journals (Stahlbau 2010/8 and Engineering Structures
2011, p. 2957 ff.) there are several articles on robustness and related topics of Steel structures
[17-19] and Timber structures [20-22] respectively.
“The concept of robustness is strongly related to internal structural characteristics such as
redundancy, ductility and joint behaviour”. Further, it is essential to analyze the consequences
of a structural failure, which normally depend on the specific possible (dynamic) scenario,
often starting with a triggering event [15, 23].

2.1.1 Definitions – Robust, Robustness

Robust.- “Capable of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions”; e.g.
<robust software>. “A system is robust if it can withstand arbitrary damage” [6].
Robustness.- As a starting point we can look for the opposite of robustness, for instance
vulnerability and fragility. However, we should need a proper definition, although there are
basic articles on robustness, which lack a clear, explicit definition of the term.
In modern structural design codes there is a requirement based on experience from
‘progressive collapse’: that ‘the consequence of damages to structures should not be
disproportionate to the causes of the damages’.
Robustness is: 
“-the properties of systems that enables them to survive unforeseen circumstances” [24] .
“-the ability of a structure to survive after some initial damage” [12].
“-a property that makes buildings not suffer disproportionate collapse” [10].
“-considered as an attribute of a system that relates to its ability to fulfil its function in the
face of adverse events.” [16]. Probabilistic modelling of adverse events for a given system in
a certain context was made by Vrouwenfelder et al. (2012) [12]. Such events can be caused by
unforeseeable, unrecognized or neglected actions. See further [12].
“There is still some controversy about the exact meaning of structural robustness. However,
consensus exists that structural robustness encompasses the performance of structures as
systems in regard to their ability to sustain damage without collapsing”[8]. 
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 3

 A rule of thumb when designing for robustness [16]: “The capacity to absorb energy is
considered one of the key factors to achieve robustness”.

2.1.2 ‘Robust Design’

In Structural Engineering: When designing robust structures we should use the term Design
for Robustness. On the other hand, within the field of Quality Engineering there is a term
‘Robust Design’ with a special definition. It concerns the quality requirement to keep the
relatively small variations of key parameters, e.g. dimensions of a mass-produced component,
within certain prescribed tolerances. Another example is where the key parameter is ‘product
appearance’ of a car and the designer aims at ‘visual robustness’ [25].

2.1.3 Other Definitions of Robustness in Science and Technology

Maes et al. (2006) [4] have reviewed the concept of robustness in some different but related
disciplines like Control Theory, Software Engineering, Statistical Inference, and Quality
Control of pharmaceutical procedures.
In Town Planning, methods have been developed to assess the robustness of a residential area
or neighbourhood when coping with external or internal threats [26]. There robustness is
defined as the society’s capacity for preventing serious events – and reducing the negative
consequences if they should occur (Social, ecological and technical robustness).
Sometimes you can find unusual use of the term robustness in Structural Engineering. In [27]
redundancy of structures is connected to the concept of robustness to uncertainty, which is
defined as ‘the degree to which reality can deviate from the design-base models and data
without violating the functional requirements of the structure. It is partly reminding of the
ideas for ‘Robust Design’ in section 2.1.2. Such uncommon use of the term robustness within
Structural Enginering leads to confusion and should be avoided.

2.2 Robustness and Vulnerability

Since it is difficult to quantify robustness, an interesting alternative approach would be to
examine the weaknesses of a structure or structural system, i.e. its vulnerability. However,
vulnerability has been defined differently in different contexts [6].

3. Resilience
3.1 Introduction
This chapter mainly deals with the resilience of systems:
Definition.- Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its
basic function and structure.
There are essentially three main applications of the concept of resilience to systems, namely
for the following three different categories, each with its perspective, focus and bias:
(1) Resilience for ecosystems [28];
(2) Resilience for social systems [28, 29]; and
(3) Engineering resilience (for industrial systems and the like) [30].
Recently, Haimes [31] has investigated these and other related concepts (preparedness,
vulnerability and risk). He characterizes ‘resilience engineering’ as “a paradigm for safety
management that focuses on how to help people cope with complexity under pressure…”
Then there is (4) Human resilience, which refers to the human individual. In psychology,
resilience is related to the idea of an individual's tendency to cope with stress and adversity.
“It describes an active process of self-righting, learned resourcefulness and growth” [32]. 
The resilience perspective has been used as an approach to study the dynamics of ecological,
social or related complex systems, e.g. social-ecological systems [33]. Special interest will
4 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

here be paid to the resilience of communities with respect to disasters. One aim is to build
reliable infrastructures which are able to resist large scale disasters. A strong community
should have ‘a blend of economic, environmental, and social conditions that can be
maintained over time and enable the community and its members to adapt to changing
conditions’.

3.1.1 Definitions – Resilience of systems

Quantification: (i)  the amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still remain within the
same state or domain of attraction  and (ii) the degree to which the system is capable of self-
organisation.
“Capable of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions.”

3.1.2 Definitions – Hazards and Disasters. Mega-disasters

Natural Hazards are uncontrollable natural events (Flooding, earthquake, tsunami, etc.).
Disaster is the consequence, the realization of a hazard. Disasters may be classified based on
their primary cause: for example natural, technical, health and social disasters. Natural:
caused by natural hazards. Technical (Failure of buildings, bridges, dams; Airplane crash etc).
Disasters may happen due to the fact that all societies at random intervals face “geophysical,
climatological, and technological events that reveal their physical and social vulnerabilities.”
To meet these hazards, “societies engage in activities and develop technologies that are
designed to provide protection from such threats.. and prepare to meet ‘the unexpected’
(Tierney et al., 2001) [34].” A conference report with a broad perspective on disaster
prevention and related issues to ensure safer cities [35], is available in a book from the World
Bank. Torn and Pasman [36] have described the situation for engineers and politicians, who
cope with problems of Natural Disaster Risk and Resilience, when planning for disaster
response operations and Structural Risk Reduction (SRR).There is an instructive IABSE
online E-learning lecture about SRR by Grundy [37]. For extremely large and complex
disasters, ‘Mega-disasters’, the term catastrophes has been proposed by Oliver [38]. It is the
field for International Disaster Management, see Coppola [39].

3.1.3 Definitions – Mitigation, Vulnerability, and Disaster Resilience

Disaster mitigation (hazard mitigation) includes actions taken before a disaster to reduce
vulnerability and is related to the concept of disaster risk reduction, to preparedness and
organisation for emergency response and post-disaster recovery, For a discussion of these
topics, see Tierney et al. [34].
There is a “need for a paradigm shift from quantification and analysis of the hazard to the
identification, assessment and ranking of vulnerabilities”[40]. It is thus important “for the
promotion of a culture of disaster resilience” to measure vulnerability and to develop
indicators to reduce risk and the vulnerability of societies at risk. Adger [41] and Cannon et
al. [42] have studied vulnerability in a situation of Global Environmental Change.
It is thus a challenge how to measure disaster resilience from a variety of research
perspectives. Cutter et al. [43] present a new framework, the disaster resilience of place
(DROP) model, designed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the
local or community level. Poland (2009) [44] aims at building disaster resilient communities.
For a specific kind of hazard we may for instance develop tsunami-resilient communities
(Bernard et al., 2005) [45, 46]. In the USA a National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program
(NTHMP) was formed in 1997 [45] with that purpose and also a tsunami warning system etc.

3.2 Resilient Cities

Here we discuss resilient communities with a focus on the urban environment.
Godschalk [47] proposes the concept of resilient city and describes a strategy of urban hazard
mitigation. Coaffee [48] also notices the growing importance of the resilience concept, but
combines it with risk and defines “environmentally sustainable cities”. The 2010 Global
Forum on Urban Resilience resulted in 53 papers [49], which form a large source of valuable
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 5

information on the broad topic with some bias on Adaptation and Climate Change. Vale and
Campanella [50] make “a global tour of disaster and recovery”  and ask if it is possible for a
city to be rebuilt without being resilient. They link ‘post-disaster urbanism’ with Human
Resilience and psychological aspects, which is also the focus for Paton et al. [32].
Recently, Coyle (2011) [51] has presented a comprehensive action plan for regions and
communities with special reference to the USA. The “Primer” by Prasad et al. [52] is also
intended for practical use with e.g. Sound Practice examples of Adaptation and Mitigation.
The book by Pelling (2003) [29] is on the vulnerability of cities. Cf. also Torn & Pasman [36].
Concerning the risk of flooding in seaside cities or port cities the vulnerability of existing or
planned structures or infrastructures should be discussed [35, 41, 53]. Special considerations
must be paid to the protection of underground structures like tunnels. There are several books
about improving community resilience based on the experience from Hurricane Katrina 2005,
e.g. Lansford et al. [54] and Verchick [55]. The latter extensively develops his thoughts
behind the proposed three keywords or ‘Commandments’: Go Green, Be Fair, Keep Safe.
Resilience and Transformation. - In recent discussions of resilient communities with a focus
on the urban environment, there has been concern about the problem of peak oil, the growth
of cities and increasing road traffic [56], [57]. That’s why it has been proposed to think in
terms of a transformation to a society with more railroad transport, less car traffic and more
use of mass transport in the cities and to build more routes for bicycles and pedestrians.

3.3 Built Environment as a Social-Ecological system

The resilience perspective is more and more used as an approach for understanding the
dynamics of social–ecological systems [33].  Recently, studies of coupled Human-
environment systems aim at a more holistic approach. Moffat and Kohler (2008) investigate
the built environment as a complex social-ecological system between the natural and the
cultural [58], cf. Rubino [59]. Examples of related work: Crane et al. (2010) [60] apply
resilient thinking to the reconstruction of the Haitian State and Berkes (2007) [61] uses that
kind of thinking to reduce vulnerability when considering change and uncertainty.

4. Discussion
Since there is no generally accepted definition for Robustness, several different alternative
definitions have been given in section 2. In contrast, the concept of Resilience, although it is
more far-reaching and is used in various different application areas, has a common conceptual
basis for the definitions in all these areas.

5. Conclusions
The concept of robustness of structures has been found to be important and useful in structural
design and should be the object for further research.
The different aspects of hazards, vulnerability, disaster risk reduction, and resilience are
important and need further investigations.
The concept of resilience has found increasing and widespread applications in different areas
dealing with risk, hazards, and disaster risk reduction.

References

[1] KOH H.-M., "Preparation for Urbanization and Climate Change", Structural
Engineering International, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012, p. 7 (Editorial).
[2] TALEB N.N., GOLDSTEIN D.G., and SPITZNAGEL M.W., "The Six Mistakes
Excecutives Make in Risk Management", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87, No. 10,
2009, pp. 78-.
6 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

[3] TALEB N., The black swan : the impact of the highly improbable. Allen Lane,
London, 2007, xxviii, 366 p.
[4] MAES M.A., FRITZSONS K.E., and GLOWIENKA S., "Structural Robustness in the
Light of Risk and Consequence Analysis", Structural Engineering International, Vol.
16, No. 2, 2006, pp. 101-107.
[5] SMITH J.W., "Structural Robustness Analysis and the Fast Fracture Analogy",
Structural Engineering International, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006, pp. 118-123.
[6] AGARWAL J., ENGLAND J., and BLOCKLEY D., "Vulnerability Analysis of
Structures", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006, pp. 124-128.
[7] STAROSSEK U., "Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nomenclature and
Procedures", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006, pp. 113-117.
[8] FABER M.H. and NARASIMHAN H., On the Assessment of Robustness -- a Status
and an Outlook, in IABSE-IASS Symposium 2011. 2011, IABSE: London. p. 28 (+ 9
pp. in CD-ROM).
[9] CHRYSSANTHOPOULOS M.K., JANSSENS V., and IMAM B.M., Modelling of
Failure Consequences for Robustness Evaluation, in IABSE-IASS Symposium 2011.
2011, IABSE: London. p. 31 (+ 8 pp. in CD-ROM).
[10] CANISIUS T.D.G., Structural Robustness Design in Eurocodes, in IABSE-IASS
Symposium 2011. 2011, IABSE: London. p. 32 (+ 8 pp. in CD-ROM).
[11] SORENSEN J.D., RIZZUTO E., NARASIMHAN H., and FABER M.H.,
"Robustness: Theoretical Framework", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 22,
No. 1, 2012, pp. 66-72.
[12] VROUWENVELDER T., LEIRA B.J., and SYKORA M., "Modelling of Hazards",
Structural Engineering International, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012, pp. 73-78.
[13] IZZUDDIN B.A., PEREIRA M.F., KUHLMANN U., RÖLLE L., et al., "Application
of Probabilistic Robustness Framework: Risk Assessment of Multi-Storey Buildings
under Extreme Loading", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012,
pp. 79-85.
[14] KUHLMANN U., RÖLLE L., IZZUDDIN B.A., and PEREIRA M.F., "Resistance and
Response of Steel and Steel-Concrete Composite Structures in Progressive Collapse
Assessment", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012, pp. 86-92.
[15] JANSSENS V., O'DWYER D.W., and CHRYSSANTHOPOULOS M.K., "Assessing
the Consequences of Building Failures", Structural Engineering International, Vol.
22, No. 1, 2012, pp. 99-104.
[16] AGARWAL J., HABERLAND M., MILAN H., SYKORA M., et al., "Robustness of
Structures: Lessons from Failures", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 22, No.
1, 2012, pp. 105-111.
[17] KUHLMANN U. and HAUKE B., "Robustheit – Bewertungsmethoden und
konstruktive Ansätze im Stahlbau", Stahlbau, Vol. 79, No. 8, 2010, pp. 545-546.
[18] FABER M.H., THÖNS S., NARASIMHAN H., and SCHUBERT M., "Risikobasierter
Ansatz zur Bewertung der Robustheit von Bauwerken", Stahlbau, Vol. 79, No. 8,
2010, pp. 547-555.
[19] IZZUDDIN B.A., "Robustness by design – Simplified progressive collapse assessment
of building structures", Stahlbau, Vol. 79, No. 8, 2010, pp. 556-564.
[20] SØRENSEN J.D., "Framework for robustness assessment of timber structures",
Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 11, 2011, pp. 3087-3092.
[21] DIETSCH P., "Robustness of large-span timber roof structures — Structural aspects",
Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 11, 2011, pp. 3106-3112.
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 7

[22] MUNCH-ANDERSEN J. and DIETSCH P., "Robustness of large-span timber roof

structures — Two examples", Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 11, 2011, pp.
3113-3117.
[23] IMAM B.M. and CHRYSSANTHOPOULOS M.K., "Causes and Consequences of
Metallic Bridge Failures", Structural Engineering International, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012,
pp. 93-98.
[24] KNOLL F. and VOGEL T., Design for robustness Structural Engineering Documents
(SED). Vol. SED 11. IABSE (International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering), Zurich, Switzerland, 2009.
[25] FORSLUND K., Evaluating the effects of variation on product appearance through
visual robustness, in Product and Production Development (Institutionen för produkt-
och produktionsutveckling). 2011, Chalmers University of Technology: Göteborg. p.
x, 86 pp + 8 appended papers.
[26] BERGLUND B., FLODIN C.-E., and LARSSON B., The Invincible Town, Robustness
at Neighbourhood Level. Swedish Agency for Civil Emergency Planning, Stockholm,
2001.
[27] KANNO Y. and BEN-HAIM Y., "Redundancy and Robustness, or When Is
Redundancy Redundant?", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 9, 2011,
pp. 935-945.
[28] GUNDERSON L.H. and HOLLING C.S., Panarchy : understanding transformations
in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, 2002, xxiv, 507 p.
[29] PELLING M., The Vulnerability of Cities : Natural Disasters and Social Resilience.
Earthscan, London, 2003, xi, 212 p.
[30] HOLLNAGEL E., WOODS D.D., and LEVESON N., Resilience engineering :
concepts and precepts. Ashgate, Aldershot, 2006, 397 p.
[31] HAIMES Y.Y., "On the Definition of Resilience in Systems", Risk Analysis, Vol. 29,
No. 4, 2009, pp. 498-501.
[32] PATON D., SMITH L., and VIOLANTI J., "Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and
resilience", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2000, pp. 173-179.
[33] WALKER B.H. and SALT D., Resilience thinking : sustaining ecosystems and people
in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, 2006, 174 s.
[34] TIERNEY K.J., LINDELL M.K., and PERRY R.W., Facing the Unexpected :
Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press,
Washington, D.C., 2001, xi, 306 p.
[35] KREIMER A., ARNOLD M., and CARLIN A., Building safer cities : the future of
disaster risk. Disaster risk management series ; no. 3. World Bank, Washington, D.C.,
2003, xxi, 299 p.
[36] TORN P. and PASMAN H.J., "How to Plan for Emergency and Disaster Response
Operations in View of Structural Risk Reduction", in Resilience of Cities to Terrorist
and other Threats, PASMAN H.J., AND IGOR A. KIRILLOV, Editor. Springer
Netherlands, 2008, p. 343-379.
[37] GRUNDY P. Disaster Risk Reduction and the Structural Engineer. IABSE E-learning
Lectures 2008 L07]; www.iabse.ethz.ch/e-learning/L07/player.html.
[38] OLIVER C.E., Catastrophic disaster planning and response CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Fla., 2011.
[39] COPPOLA D.P., Introduction to International Disaster Management, 2nd ed.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2011.
[40] BIRKMANN J.E., Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards disaster
resilient societies. United Nations University Press, New Delhi, 2006, xxvi, 524 p.
8 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

[41] ADGER W.N., "Vulnerability", Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2006,
pp. 268-281.
[42] CANNON T. and MÜLLER-MAHN D., "Vulnerability, resilience and development
discourses in context of climate change", Natural Hazards, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2010, pp.
621-635.
[43] CUTTER S.L., BARNES L., BERRY M., BURTON C., et al., "A place-based model
for understanding community resilience to natural disasters", Global Environmental
Change, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2008, pp. 598-606.
[44] POLAND C.D., "Building Disaster Resilient Communities", STRUCTURE Magazine,
Vol., No., 2009, pp. 29-31.
[45] BERNARD E.N., Developing Tsunami-Resilient Communities: The National Tsunami
Hazard Mitigation Program. Springer, Dordrecht, 2005.
[46] JONIENTZ-TRISLER C., SIMMONS R.S., YANAGI B.S., CRAWFORD G.L., et al.,
"Planning for Tsunami-Resilient Communities ", Natural Hazards, Vol. 35, No. 1,
2005, pp. 121-139.
[47] GODSCHALK D.R., "Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities", Natural
Hazards Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2003, pp. 136-143.
[48] COAFFEE J., "Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities", Energy
Policy, Vol. 36, No. 12, 2008, pp. 4633-4638.
[49] OTTO-ZIMMERMANN K.E., Resilient cities: cities and adaptation to climate
change. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011.
[50] VALE L.J. and CAMPANELLA T.J., The resilient city : how modern cities recover
from disaster. Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, 376 s.
[51] COYLE S., Sustainable and resilient communities : a comprehensive action plan for
towns, cities, and regions. Wiley series in sustainable design. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.,
2011, xii, 403 p.
[52] PRASAD N., RANGHIERI F., and SHAH F., Climate resilient cities : a primer on
reducing vulnerabilities to disasters. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2009, xxiii,
157 s.
[53] WISNER B., BLAIKIE P.M., CANNON T., and DAVIS I., At risk : natural hazards,
people's vulnerability and disasters, 2nd ed. Routledge, London, 2004, xix, 471 p.
[54] LANSFORD T., COVARRUBIAS J., and CARRIERE B., Fostering Community
Resilience : Homeland Security and Hurricane Katrina. Ashgate Publishing Group,
Farnham, Surrey, GBR, 2010.
[55] VERCHICK R.R.M., Facing catastrophe : environmental action for a post-Katrina
world. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. ; London, 2010, x, 322 p.
[56] NEWMAN P., BEATLEY T., and BOYER H., Resilient cities : responding to peak
oil and climate change. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2009, xiii, 166 p.
[57] HOPKINS R., The transition handbook : from oil dependency to local resilience.
Green, Totnes, 2008, 240 p.
[58] MOFFATT S. and KOHLER N., "Conceptualizing the built environment as a social–
ecological system", Building Research & Information, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2008, pp. 248-
268.
[59] RUBINO B., Building resilience beyond the passive house era : project-based change
and innovation towards the social-ecological performance of the built environment.
Swedish experiences. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 2009, x, 98 s.
[60] CRANE K., DOBBINS J., and MILLER L.E., Building a More Resilient Haitian
State. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2010.
[61] BERKES F., "Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from
resilience thinking", Natural Hazards, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 283-295.