Broader Dimensions of Economic Resilience

Abstract

Overall, there are more commonalities than differences in the various definitions of resilience. All definitions relate to reducing losses from disasters. All emanate from a survival motivation. Nearly all emphasize the importance of adaptive behavior. Most view resilience as a process and emphasize the need to expand resilience capacity at multiple levels. Most emphasize interactions within a broader community. Most stress the importance of natural, societal and/or produced resources and their wise utilization in a crisis. Moreover, there are few inconsistencies between the definitions. They differ mainly in terms of some unique terrain they stake out from their own discipline. This is one of the reasons we have chosen a broad definition of resilience at the outset. It is better to consider the union of the various sets of definitions, as opposed to just their intersection, in order to capture all of the potential benefits of his important concept when made operational as a strategy to reduce losses. Cutter (Nat Hazards 80:741–758, 2016) has noted that the integration of the various disciplines in resilience analysis that is deficient. She suggests that it is the spatial sciences that hold the most promise in this regard.