Conclusion: Resilience for Whom?

  • Alessandra JerollemanEmail author


This chapter constitutes the final call to action, asking policy makers, emergency managers, disaster professionals, and other interested parties to take a closer look at the role that current policies around disasters play in creating and perpetuating injustice. As the previous chapters bring to light, disaster recovery policies and programs have routinely and repeatedly failed to prioritize human rights and failed to acknowledge the dynamic pressures and complex history of disaster risk creation in the United States. The prevailing narratives surrounding climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, both extremely pressing in the current fiscal and environmental climate, have been willfully colorblind, perpetuating existing inequalities while fostering a climate of blame. The chapter argues that the definition and framing of resilience utilized by policy makers, professionals, and communities cannot be value neutral; the question must always be asked: resilience for whom?


Capacities justice Human rights Disaster recovery Resilience 


  1. Hunold, C., & Young, I. M. (1998). Justice, Democracy, and Hazardous Siting. Political Studies, XLVI, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kelly, C., Costa, K., & Edelman, S. (2017, October). Safe, Strong, and Just Rebuilding After Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria: A Policy Road Map for Congress. Center for American Progress.Google Scholar
  3. Sloan, M., & Fowler, D. (2015). Lessons from Texas: 10 Years of Disaster Recovery Examined. Texas Appleseed.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacksonville State UniversityMetairieUSA

Personalised recommendations