Framework Considerations for Community Resilient ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172

7th 7th International International Conference Conference on on Building Building Resilience; Resilience; Using Using scientific scientific knowledge knowledge to to inform inform policy policy and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand Thailand

Framework Framework Considerations Considerations for for Community Community Resilient Resilient Towards Towards Disaster in Malaysia Disaster in Malaysia a* a b Noraini Noraini Omar Omar Chong Chonga*,, Khairul Khairul Hisyam Hisyam Kamarudin Kamarudina,, Siti Siti Nurhuda Nurhuda Abd Abd Wahid Wahidb a a

UTM RAZAK SCHOOL of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Kuala Lumpur Campus, Kuala UTM RAZAK SCHOOL of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Kuala Lumpur Campus, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Lumpur, Malaysia b bSchool of Professional and Continuing Education (UTM SPACE), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Kuala Lumpur Campus, Kuala School of Professional and Continuing Education (UTM SPACE), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Kuala Lumpur Campus, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract Abstract

Natural disaster has led to adversity resulted from its physical (immediate on-set) and social (long-term) impact. Natural disaster has led to adversity resulted from its physical (immediate on-set) and social (long-term) impact. Physical impacts majorly involved human casualties and loss or damages to properties and infrastructure. Meanwhile, Physical impacts majorly involved human casualties and loss or damages to properties and infrastructure. Meanwhile, among social impacts to society are the psychosocial, socio-demographic, socioeconomic, and socio-politic among social impacts to society are the psychosocial, socio-demographic, socioeconomic, and socio-politic disturbances. Reducing the risk and impact of the disaster therefore, requires various efforts to prepare and empower disturbances. Reducing the risk and impact of the disaster therefore, requires various efforts to prepare and empower the community through the implementation of disaster risk reduction (DRR) during and after a disaster as it is proven the community through the implementation of disaster risk reduction (DRR) during and after a disaster as it is proven that the community themselves are first responders when disasters strike. An excellent example would be the Kobe that the community themselves are first responders when disasters strike. An excellent example would be the Kobe earthquake where most of the victims survived due to prompt actions taken by members of their community. This earthquake where most of the victims survived due to prompt actions taken by members of their community. This indicates that a well-informed community i.e. with high level of awareness and sound knowledge on disaster indicates that a well-informed community i.e. with high level of awareness and sound knowledge on disaster preparedness and mitigation played crucial role in preventing greater incident of human casualties and reduce sociopreparedness and mitigation played crucial role in preventing greater incident of human casualties and reduce socioeconomic loss to the community. Therefore, building a resilient community has become part of DRR initiatives. economic loss to the community. Therefore, building a resilient community has become part of DRR initiatives. Review of literature, however, suggests that there are gaps in implementation due to lack of understanding of resilient Review of literature, however, suggests that there are gaps in implementation due to lack of understanding of resilient community concept and suitable community-based approach in promoting a community resilience spirit towards community concept and suitable community-based approach in promoting a community resilience spirit towards disaster. This paper is prepared to discuss the framework considerations for building disaster resilient community in disaster. This paper is prepared to discuss the framework considerations for building disaster resilient community in Malaysia from three (3) perspectives of DRR namely; (1) resilient community’s main capitals; (2) key drivers to Malaysia from three (3) perspectives of DRR namely; (1) resilient community’s main capitals; (2) key drivers to community resilience and; (3) key deliverables of disaster-resilient community. community resilience and; (3) key deliverables of disaster-resilient community. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review responsibility of Elsevier the scientific of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience. © 2018 The under Authors. Published by Ltd. committee Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

* *

Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-019-939-1020; fax: +6-03-2180-5380. Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-019-939-1020; fax: +6-03-2180-5380. E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.022

166 2

Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172 Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Keywords: community resilience, natural disaster, framework, community capital, disaster risk reduction

1. Introduction In recent years, there has been an increased attention to the issues of building community resilience towards natural disaster. Various attempts have been made to understand how human or community systems should respond to internal and external disturbances. The increased phenomena of globalisation, neo-liberal ideologies resulting in the spread of global capitalism induced human and community transitional process to even the remotest parts of the world. Wilson [1] further mentioned that there is tangible evidence that the world is amplified by globalisation, climate change, population growth and the increasing movement of people within, as well as across countries and continents. There is a growing concern on the environmental and social disturbances relating to globalisation and climate change including increasing carbon emission, biodiversity loss and habitat destruction and disasters resulted from human-induced activities as well as natural process [2,3]. Natural disaster’s physical (immediate on-set) and social (long-term) impact has led to adversity with the physical impact majorly involved human casualties, and loss or damages to properties and infrastructure. Among social impacts to society are the psychosocial, socio-demographic, socioeconomic, and socio-politic disturbances. Therefore, to reduce the risk and impact of the disaster requires various efforts to prepare and empower the community. Reducing the risk and impact of the disaster therefore, requires various efforts to prepare and empower the community. Among these efforts may include the implementation of disaster risk reduction (DRR) during and after a disaster as it is proven that the community themselves are the first responders when disasters strike. A well-informed community, i.e. with high level of awareness and sound knowledge on disaster preparedness and mitigation played crucial role in preventing greater incident of human casualties and reduce socio-economic loss to the community. Therefore, building a resilient community has become part of DRR initiatives. Review of literature, however, suggests that there are gaps in implementation due to lack of understanding of resilient community concept and suitable community-based approach in promoting a community resilience spirit towards disaster. In this light, there is an increasing role for determination on the concept of community resilience towards disaster including identification of potential framework in building resilience at community level. Understanding towards the community resilience concept, according to [4], might potentially assist community preparedness, response and recovery in the short term from disaster. This paper is prepared to discuss the framework considerations for building disaster resilient community in Malaysia from the three perspectives of DRR namely; (1) resilient community’s main capitals; (2) key drivers to community resilience and; (3) key deliverables of disaster resilient community. 2. Concept of Community Resilience The term ‘resilience’ is rapidly gaining wide attention in social development and also becoming a popular subject matter for research topic [1,5]. It would be possible that the notion of resilience might potentially to enhance global community interest towards sustainable development concept (if not replace the concept) and also to become the buzzword in policy making and academic discourses [1]. Review of literature indicates that the term ‘resilience’ first emerged in 1973 during Holling’s research on ecology field [5, 6]. Since then, the term had gained popularity and claims a wider usage and adoption across various research field and discipline. Scholars begin to incorporate and define the term resilience to suit their research fields; as resilience is understood as a process and outcome that will result in an ideal condition [1, 7]. In a more recent development, the term resilience has captured attention of social scientists conducting research on social and community development, particularly in understanding the resilience pathways at the local and community level [8, 9].


167 3

2.1. Defining Resilient Community The term ‘resilience’ has been used in various research discipline and field. However, the term resilience is defined by researcher to suit their research interest as much as possible. The first researcher that introduce the term in ecology has defined resilience as “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationship between population or state variable” [6]. Resilience is now defined in a much comprehensive way to include “the involvement of the development of the ability or capacity to build back better after a disaster”. This paper suggests that the definition of a resilient community is constructed on four (4) attributes, namely: (1) Strength – As most scholars define resilience as ‘ability’, ‘capability’, and ‘capacity’. It refers to the strength that a community possesses in terms of resources or capital either it is inherent or developed over time to a better readiness in facing disturbances. As community is defined as a group of people, therefore, collective actions of all individuals within the group is essential since community resilience and individual resilience are interwoven [10]. (2) Capital – Wilson [1] identified community capital or resources into three (3) main components; namely economic capital, social capital and environmental capital. A community with strong capitals i.e. having all three (3) capitals will presumably show stronger resilience spirit and will bounce back better when disturbance occur. Furthermore, a community with a well-developed capital also will be easier in resilience discovery [7]. (3) Temporal – Resilience can also be attributed to a temporal factor i.e. time consumed by the community in order to get back (recover) to its original state of structure, function, and system or to develop further in the economic, social and environmental capital. Time consumption for a community to recover is the focus of the community resilience assessment [13,14]. (4) Level of Achievement - There are four (4) achievements of resilience [14] namely: (1) ‘Bounce back better’: (2) ‘Bounce back’: (3) ‘Recover, but worse than before’: and (4) ‘Collapse’ (Refer to Figure 1). Resilience can be divided into five (5) spatial scale; namely: household/individual, local, regional, national and global community [1,15]. Community resilience involves multiple pathways that intertwine at a range of scales [16]. Capital or resources is one of the main key elements of a resilient community and it exists in local level (household/individual and local community level) [17]. A community that is resilient towards disaster will be able to recover in much shorter time due to lower damage level and vice versa [18]. Therefore, it is necessary to build a resilient community right from the individual and local community level. UNISDR [19] also recognised that local community capacity provide fundamental inputs in disaster risk reduction and it is important to focus on how to strengthen their capacity in order to build a strong resilient community. 2.2. Assessment of Resilient Community Many researchers in resilience field of study explains the level of resilience with specific references to capital/resources component (vertical axis) and time component (horizontal axis) [1,15,20,21] (Figure 1). The capital/resources axis represents economic, social and environment components of a community. The notion is that the more capital a community possess, the more resilient a community will become in the event of a disaster [1]. These capitals can be developed through the process of mitigation and preparedness in disaster management cycle [20]. Meanwhile, the horizontal axis represents the time consumed by the community to revert to the original state or build back better prior to the disaster. Based on Figure 1, four (4) achievements of resilience are proposed namely: (1) ‘bounce back better’ which refers to the community that able to absorb disturbance and functions better than the state of before disaster; (2) ‘ Bounce back’ refers to the community able to get back just to the original state before disaster: (3) ‘Recover, but worse than before’ means when the community hardly get back to the state before disaster and resulted in capacity decreased:

168 4


and (4) ‘Collapse’ indicate that the community hardly faced the disaster and come to the state that there are incapable of functioning [14]. The schematic concept of resilient community is illustrated in such a way that the resilience level of a community, whether strong or weak; can be assessed based on set of indicators. Monitoring of community performance against disturbances would assist community in planning and responding (taking actions) in developing community resilience so they are ready for further disturbances. In this light, when a disturbance occurs, that particular community will require shorter recovery time. Hence, they are able to ‘bounce back better’ or ‘bounce back’ in terms of structure, function, and system using their community capitals. In contrast, the other opposing two states of recovery and collapse indicate that the community has a weak resilience or not in a state to be resilient at all.

Rapidity

Fig. 1. Resilience concept in schematic (adaption [1,15,22]).

2.3. Conceptual Considerations for Resilience Community towards Disaster Resilience is a process of linking a set of adaptive capacities [1]. Numerous studies have discussed the relation of natural disaster that impacted the community physical and social adaptive capacities [20]. These includes identification of capitals that are needed for the community to be able to recover from disturbances, and also integrating both the concept of resilience which believe to be the driver to enhance the ability, and to build back better as the desirable outcome [1,23,24,25,26]. Figure 2 shows the proposed conceptual framework for resilience community towards natural disaster based on reviews of the literature. The community emBRACE Framework [26] is based on the research done in five different European countries; Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Central Europe, Northern England, and London. The authors have asserted that the framework can be applied and adapted to different hazard types, scales and socio-economic. In real world application, however in most of the cases, the general framework will require some adjustments before it could be fitted into local context due to the different cultural background, hazard types and socio-political context. In this light, further research is needed to further conceptualise and specifying community resilience framework hence enabling its application in various context of community resilience in future. As suggested by Gil-Rivas and Kilmer, community context varies in terms of historical, socio-political, and institutional forces [23]. Similar observation also emerged from the Malaysian governance system/structure point of view with diverse cultural background, economic background, different perspective and understanding towards resilience concept among community, etc. which requires for establishment of a specific framework which could translate the disaster resilient concept into practice through integration with local needs and readiness.


169 5

As shown in Figure 2, Malaysia as one of the country that rectifies to the International Sendai Framework for DRR, had strengthen its proactive roles in translating international framework into local context through the establishment of Melaka Declaration on DRR in 2011 [26,27]. Four (4) main area of concern embedded into Melaka Declaration that in line with International Sendai Framework are including; (1) disaster management mechanism at national level; (2) maintaining critical infrastructure; (3) ensuring the safety of school and health facilities through regular assessment; and (4) creating awareness of disaster risk reduction through education and training programs.

Fig. 2. Proposed Conceptual Framework for Resilient Community Towards Disaster in Malaysia.

Malaysia practice three-tier governmental system which consists of federal, state and local level administrations (Figure 2). As conforming to mentioned three tiers, the planning system under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) also applying a similar system i.e. involving the three level of administrations [28,29]. At the federal level, apart from the National Physical Plan (NPP), there is also a policy document that emphasises on rural development by providing a policy to guide and coordinate the planning in the rural area particularly the National Rural Physical Policy 2030 (NRPP). The NRPP has outlined five (5) core initiatives to develop the rural area and among those that related to DRR is the Rural Environmental Management (REM). The REM includes the needs for establishment of effective disaster risk management and increasing the government agencies and rural community capacity and preparedness towards disasters. Discussions on the proposed conceptual framework for building resilient community towards disaster as mentioned in Figure 2 is divided into three main circles or action areas namely: (1) area 1 – to identify and measure the current state of disaster resilient rural community capitals (DRRC); (2) area 2 – to determine key drivers of DRRC; (3) area 3 – to determine key deliverables of DRRC (refer to Table 4). The main concern in building resilient community towards disaster is made up of understanding on three main capital namely economic, social and environmental [1]. With reference to [1,13], this paper proposed the list of detail elements for each capital of DRRC which might potentially be used in assessing community current state (refer to Table 1).

170 6


Table 1. Resilient community indicators (adopted from [1,4,30,31] Component Economic

Social/Cultural

Environment/Physical/Infrastructure/Institution

§ Economic well-being/advantage

§ Close interaction between people

§ High levels of bio-diversity

§ Diversified income streams/Diversify source of income

§ Ability to rely on neighbors at times of crisis

§ Good water quality and availability

§ Low dependency on external funds

§ Availability of skills training and education

§ Diversified business § Structure § Security § Dynamism

§ Sustainable soil management § Predictable agricultural yields

§ Availability of multiple services

§ Sustainable management of environment resources in rural community/natural assets (environment and resources

§ Low level of corruption

§ Localized energy supplies

§ Good communication between stakeholder groups

§ Low carbon footprint

§ Good health and sanitation

§ Female empowerment/empowerment of ethnic/religious minorities § Open-minded community § Good and transparent land ownership regulations

§ Multifunctional environmental resources § Infrastructure robustness and redundancy § Infrastructure efficiency § ICT infrastructure § Transportation

§ Stakeholders in control of development trajectories

§ Land use Planning and urban design

§ Strong governance structure at multiple geographical scales

§ Contingency, emergency, and recovery planning

§ Leadership and participation

§ Social structure

§ Collaboration

§ Community bonds, social support and social institutions

§ Research and Development

§ Safety and wellbeing § Equity and diversity

§ Regulation and enforcement § Education and training

§ Local culture

Based on Figure 2, the state of community capitals (social, economic, and environmental capitals) is essential for the particular community to be resilient towards disaster even though possession level for each capital might be different between one community to another [1,16]. Nevertheless, the community capitals need to be utilised in its full capacity in order to create community resilience towards disasters. Meanwhile, the role of driven force is vital as to enhance the utilisation of community’s capitals. Literature review has indicated that four (4) key drivers are required for building resilient community namely; (1) Adaptive capacity building and empowerment; (2) Diversification and integration of socio-economic activities; (3) Stakeholders collaboration; and (4) Presence of indicators and framework for monitoring the community resilience progress. The key drivers require both internal and external resources of a certain community which related to the resilience concept of panarchy (nested relationships) [33]. By developing capitals and enhanced key drivers, ultimately, resilient community will achieve four key deliverables including: (1) Ability to secure basic needs; (2) Ability to adapt to change; (3) Ability to mitigate and minimise vulnerability; and (4) Ability to move out from poverty (as illustrated in Figure 2). 3. Conclusion This paper reviews the concept of resilient community based on assessment framework of resilience. There is four scenarios generated as to explain state of community resiliency namely ‘bounce back better’ (very strong resilient), ‘bounce back’ (strong resilient), ‘recover but worse than before’ (weak resilient) and ‘collapse’ (very weak resilient). Understanding the different scenarios could greatly assist affected community and/or any related agencies in planning


171 7

for a disaster preparedness, response and mitigation process with particular considerations of the capital possess by the community, as well as the time factor (before, during and after) for a community to remain their vital systems and functions prior to the disasters. This paper explains the proposed framework for building resilient rural community (DRRC) including description of main components of the framework, processes involved in promoting community resilience with reference to DRR processes. It is expected that the proposed framework could add values, role and institution involved and the linkages between planning system, DRR initiatives and disaster resilience rural community. Three areas/circles that construct the community resilience are also explained in detail including community current state, key drivers of DRRC and key deliverable of DRRC. The framework also emphasises on both the process for building DRRC as well as the outcomes of DRRC. The framework highlights the need for a community to identify their own capitals (economic, social and environmental) (Area 1), followed by allowing intervention by key drivers of DRRC related to stakeholder’s collaboration, adaptive capacity building, integrative local economic activities and presence of indicators for monitoring of performance of DRRC (Area 2). The outcomes from overall process of building DRRC which also termed as the key deliverables mentioned by this framework would expect the community to be able to adapt to change, to mitigate and minimise vulnerability through the establishment of mitigation and preparedness measures, thus move out from poverty as the community gain economic strength through the recovery of livelihood. It is hoped that the review of literature regarding community resilience will serve as a solid basis for further research on disaster risk management. In effect, this would also increase government agencies and rural community preparedness towards disaster in NRPP 2030 and thus contribute to the achievement in building resilient community towards disaster. References [1]

Wilson, Community Resilience and Environmental Transitions. Routledge, 2011.

[2]

J. Urry, Climate change and society. 2011.

[3]

M. Pelling, Adaptation to Climate Change from resilience to tranformation. 2011.

[4]

S. L. Cutter, K. D. Ash, and C. T. Emrich, ‘The geographies of community disaster resilience’, Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 29, pp. 65– 77, Nov. 2014.

[5]

C. Folke, ‘Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses’, Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 253–267, 2006.

[6]

C. S. Holling, ‘Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems’, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 1973.

[7]

K. Magis, ‘Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability’, Soc. Nat. Resour., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 401–416, Apr. 2010.

[8]

R. J. Chaskin, ‘Resilience, Community, and Resilient Communities: Conditioning Contexts and Collective Action’, Child Care Pract.,

[9]

K. Gow and D. Paton, The phoenix of natural disasters : community resilience, vol. 6, no. 1. 2008.

vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–74, Jan. 2008. [10]

F. Norris, K. Sherrieb, S. Galea, and B. Pfefferbaum, ‘Capacities that Promote Community Resilience : Can We Assess Them ?’, Pap. Present. 2nd Annu. Dep. Homel. Secur. Univ. Netw. Summit, Washington, DC., 2008.

[11]

B. Smit and J. Wandel, ‘Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability’, Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 282–292, 2006.

[12]

A. Sharifi, ‘A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience’, Ecol. Indic., vol. 69, pp. 629–647, Oct. 2016.

[13]

S. Meerow, J. P. Newell, and M. Stults, ‘Defining urban resilience: A review’, Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 147, pp. 38–49, Mar. 2016.

[14]

S. Akter and B. Mallick, ‘The Poverty-Vulnerability-Resilience Nexus: Evidence from Bangladesh’, Ecol. Econ., vol. 96, pp. 114–124, Dec. 2013.

[15] [16]

F. Berkes and H. Ross, ‘Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach’, Soc. Nat. Resour., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5–20, Jan. 2013. S. Skerratt and A. Steiner, ‘Working with communities-of-place: Complexities of empowerment’, Local Econ., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 320– 338, May 2013.

[17]

A. J. Imperiale and F. Vanclay, ‘Experiencing local community resilience in action: Learning from post-disaster communities’, J. Rural Stud., vol. 47, pp. 204–219, Oct. 2016.

[18]

P. M. Orencio and M. Fujii, ‘A localized disaster-resilience index to assess coastal communities based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP)’, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 62–75, 2013.

[19]

UNISDR, ‘Building Disaster Resilient Communities: Good Practices and Lessons Learned’, Network, pp. 1–67, 2007.

[20]

M. K. Lindell and C. S. Prater, ‘Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters’, Nat. Hazards Rev., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 176–185,


172 8 Nov. 2003. [21] [22]

M. Bruneau and A. M. Reinhorn, ‘Overview of the resilience Concept’, Proc. 8th US Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng., no. 2040, pp. 2–6, 2006. H. Boon, ‘Investigation rural community communication for flood and bushfire preparedness’, Aust. J. Emerg. Manag., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 17–25, 2014.

[23]

V. Gil-Rivas and R. P. Kilmer, ‘Building Community Capacity and Fostering Disaster Resilience’, J. Clin. Psychol., vol. 0, no. 12, 2016.

[24]

J. C. Kulig, D. S. Edge, I. Townshend, N. Lightfoot, and W. Reimer, ‘Community resiliency: Emerging theoretical insights’, J. Community Psychol., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 758–775, Aug. 2013.

[25]

G. M. Mathbor, ‘Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters The role of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and management’, Int. Soc. Work, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 357–369, 2007.

[26]

S. Kruse, T. Abeling, H. Deeming, M. Fordham, J. Forrester, S. Jülich, A. N. Karanci, C. Kuhlicke, M. Pelling, L. Pedoth, and S. Schneiderbauer, ‘Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards - the emBRACE framework’, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., pp. 1–20, May 2017.

[27]

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), ‘Malaysia commits to maintain safety of cities, schools and hospitals in lead-up to 2011 Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction’, Press Article, 2011.

[28]

C. T. Tan, A. B. Rawshan, F. P. Koh, C. S. Lim, and R. Ismail, ‘Memperkukuhkan Ketahanan Nasional Melalui Pengurangan Risiko Bencana di Malaysia: Peranan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan, Hospital dan Sekolah’. Institute Alam Sekitar dan Pembangunan (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2013.

[29]

D. K. Khailani and R. Perera, ‘Mainstreaming disaster resilience attributes in local development plans for the adaptation to climate change induced flooding: A study based on the local plan of Shah Alam City, Malaysia’, Land use policy, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 615–627, 2013.

[30]

C. S. Ho and M. S. Taib, ‘Planning System in Malaysia’, Jt. TUT-UTM Semin. Sustain. Dev. Gov., pp. 1–13, 2008.

[31]

K. H. Kamarudin, K. A. Razak, I. Ngah, M. S. Ibrahim, and A. Harun, ‘Chapter 3 Review of Conceot of Community Resilience and Livelihood Sustainability: the Case of Orang Asli Communities of Royal Belum-Temenggor, Gerik, Perak’, in Community Participation in Local Economic Development: Emergent Prospect for Sustainable Eco-Culture Tourism (ECT) Development for Orang Asli Community in Royal Belum-Temenggor Forest Complex Gerik, Perak, UTM Razak School of Engineering and Advanced, 2015, pp. 17–29.

[32]

A. Sharifi and Y. Yamagata, ‘On the suitability of assessment tools for guiding communities towards disaster resilience’, Int. J.

[33]

F. Berkes and H. Ross, ‘Panarchy and community resilience: Sustainability science and policy implications’, Environ. Sci. Policy, vol.

Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 18, no. October, pp. 115–124, Sep. 2016. 61, pp. 185–193, 2016.