Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 877–892 | Cite as

A measurement framework of community recovery to earthquake: a Wenchuan Earthquake case study

  • Jie Liu
  • Di Lu
  • Yong-liang Wang
  • Zhen-wu ShiEmail author


This paper builds a measurement framework of community recovery to earthquake as a way to measure the recovery capacity and performance of local government. First, the paper examines and documents the concept of community recovery to summarize the evidence on dimensions and indicators of community recovery. And four dimensions of community recovery—population, economy, building, and infrastructure, are established on the basis of interviewing the organizational specialists on post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. Second, this paper extents the concept of the resilience triangle to propose a two-stage stochastic program for building a measurement framework of community recovery. Third, this measurement framework is demonstrated for Wenchuan Community, China, in the context of earthquake. The results illustrate that the four dimensions of Wenchuan Community achieve vastly different recovery levels, and the economy has the lowest recovery level, which provides a robust basis to prioritize dimensions of community recovery, and reinforces the vital role and position of local governments in improving the community recovery.


Community Recovery indicator Measurement framework Earthquake China 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Project Nos. 71601042 and 71603062, the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China under the Project Nos. 16YJC630071 and 16YJC630040, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project No. 2016M601401. We are thankful to editorial support (Editor Peter Boelhouwer, Queena Qian, and Naveen Parthiban) for their useful comments on the manuscript and three anonymous reviewers of Journal of Housing and Built Environment for their valuable advice.


  1. Alesch, D. J., Arendt, L. A., & Holly, J. N. (2009). Managing for long-term community recovery in the aftermath of disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Alesch, D. J., Holly, N., Mittler, E., & Nagy, R. (2001). Organizations at risk: What happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anne, W., & Adam, R. (2011). Economic resilience lessons from the ShakeOut earthquake scenario. Earthquake Spectra, 27(2), 559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Brunsdon, D., Seville, E., & Potangaroa, R. (2011). An integrated approach: Managing resources for post-disaster reconstruction. Disasters, 35(4), 739–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FEMA. (2011). A whole community approach to emergency management: Principles, themes, and pathways for action. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  7. Jie, L., Zhenwu, S., Di, L., & Yongliang, W. (2017). Measuring and characterizing community recovery to earthquake: The case of 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Discussion paper.Google Scholar
  8. Kathleen, S., Fran, H. N., & Sandro, G. (2010). Measuring capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators Research, 99, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, B. (2014). Built-in resilience through disaster risk reduction: operational issues. Building Research and Information, 42(2), 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lyons, M., Schilderman, T., & Boano, C. (2010). Building back better: Delivering people-centred housing reconstruction at scale. England: Practical Action Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mooney, G. (2009). Problem populations, problem places. In J. Newman & N. Yeates (Eds.), Social justice: Welfare, crime and society, Maidenhead (pp. 97–128). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mulligan, M., & Nadarajah, Y. (2012). Rebuilding community in the wake of disaster: Lessons from the recovery from the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka and India. Community Development Journal, 47(3), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Infrastructure Advisory Council. (2010). A framework for establishing critical infrastructure resilience goals: Final report and recommendations by the council.Google Scholar
  14. NRC (National Research Council). (2006). Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Olshansky, R., & Chang, S. (2009). Planning for disaster recovery: Emerging research needs and challenges. Journal of Progress in Planning, 72, 200–209.Google Scholar
  16. Peacock, W. G., Kunreuther, H., Hooke, W. H., Cutter, S. L., Chang, S. E., & Berke, P. R. (2008). Toward a resiliency and vulnerability observatory network: RAVON. College Station, TX: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
  17. Reddy, S. D. (2000). Factors influencing the incorporation of hazard mitigation during recovery from disaster. Natural Hazards, 22(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Satterthwaite, D. (2011). How urban societies can adapt to resource shortage and climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1942), 1762–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tierney, K., & Bruneau, M. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring resistance: A key to disaster loss reduction. TR News, 250, 14–17.Google Scholar
  21. Whitman, Z. R., Wilson, T. M., Seville, E., Vargo, J., Stevenson, J. R., Kachali, H., et al. (2013). Rural organizational impacts, mitigation strategies, and resilience to the 2010 Darfield earthquake, New Zealand. Natural Hazards, 69, 1849–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringNortheast Forestry UniversityHarbinChina
  2. 2.Corporate Financing DepartmentGuoDu Securities Co., LtdBeijingChina
  3. 3.Harbin Power System Engineering & Research Institute Co., LtdHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations