Institutional Support for Combining Multiple Knowledge Systems in Planning for Community Resilience to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards

  • Jennifer HelgesonEmail author
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


A given community may be considered as a system of systems (i.e., socio-economic networks and supporting physical infrastructure); if there is failure in one part, it is likely that the entire system will be disrupted. Planning and preparations for and response to natural, human-made and technological hazards often competes with other community priorities. Resilience planning challenges actors relevant to the decision-making process across knowledge systems relevant to the community which span the technical/scientific (e.g., transport networks, utilities), faith-based, NGO, local government, and media, among other sectors. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a six-step process that provides a practical and flexible approach to help community actors to jointly set priorities and allocate resources to manage risks facing the community. This process helps communities think through and plan for their social and economic needs, their hazard risks, and recovery of the built environment by encouraging co-production of knowledge and solutions throughout the resilience planning. This chapter overviews that six-step process and illustrates the first three steps using a case study example in Colorado, USA. The NIST “Economic Decision Guide for Infrastructure Systems” (EDG) is also introduced, as its seven-step process helps the collaborative resilience planning team in a community decide among possible resilience planning alternatives, including market and non-market values. It also introduces the importance of including the co-benefits that accrue to the community as a product of planning for resilience, even when a disaster has not yet occurred.


  1. Becker N, Helgeson J, Katz D (2014) Once there was a river: a benefit–cost analysis of rehabilitation of the Jordan River. Reg Environ Chang 14(4):1303–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Friedman M, Savage LJ (1952) The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility. J Polit Econ 60(6):463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gilbert SW, Butry D, Helgeson J, Chapman R (2016) Community resilience economic decision guide for buildings and infrastructure systems. NIST Special Publication, 1197. Available at:
  4. Kitolelei JV, Sato T (2016) Analysis of perceptions and knowledge in managing coastal resources: a case study in Fiji. Front Mar Sci 3:189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Leighty W, Cigler B, Dodge W, Hatry H, Raub W, Springer C, Springer E (2011) Improving the national preparedness system: improving the national preparedness system. Available at:
  6. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2017) NIST community resilience economic decision guide for buildings and infrastructure systems brochure. Available at:
  7. National Research Council (2012) Disaster resilience: a national imperative. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. NIST Special Publication 1190 (2016) Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems, vols I and II. Available at: and
  9. Rodin J (2014) The resilience dividend: being strong in a world where things go wrong. Public Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Sato T (2014) Integrated local environmental knowledge supporting adaptive governance of local communities. In: Alvares C (ed) Multicultural knowledge and the university. Multiversity India, Mapusa, pp 268–273Google Scholar
  11. Schuster E, Doerr P (2015) A guide for incorporating ecosystem service valuation into coastal restoration projects. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Chapter, DelmontGoogle Scholar
  12. Sei-Ching JS (2011) Chapter 8 towards agency–structure integration: a person-in-environment (PIE) framework for modelling individual-level information behaviours and outcomes. In: Spink A, Heinström J (eds) New directions in information behaviour, Library and information science, vol. 1. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 181–209Google Scholar
  13. U.S. Census Bureau (2012) Census Bureau Reports there are 89,004 local governments in the United States. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations