Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online
Procedia at www.sciencedirect.com
Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
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
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand
practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, 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
aUTM 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
b Lumpur, Malaysia
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 socio-
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.
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
© 2018 The under responsibility
Authors. Published byof Elsevier
the scientific
Ltd. 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.
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: noraini49@live.utm.my, khisyam.kl@utm.my, nurhuda.kl@utm.my
E-mail address: noraini49@live.utm.my, khisyam.kl@utm.my, nurhuda.kl@utm.my

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 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172
2 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].
 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172 167
Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 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 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172
4 Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

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.
 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172 169
Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 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 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172
6 Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

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 § Ability to rely on neighbors at times of § Good water quality and availability
source of income crisis
§ Sustainable soil management
§ Low dependency on external funds § Availability of skills training and
§ Predictable agricultural yields
education
§ Diversified business § Sustainable management of environment
§ Good health and sanitation
§ Structure resources in rural community/natural assets
§ Security § Availability of multiple services (environment and resources
§ Low level of corruption § Localized energy supplies
§ Dynamism
§ Good communication between § Low carbon footprint
stakeholder groups
§ Multifunctional environmental resources
§ Female empowerment/empowerment of
§ Infrastructure robustness and redundancy
ethnic/religious minorities
§ Infrastructure efficiency
§ Open-minded community
§ ICT infrastructure
§ Good and transparent land ownership
regulations § Transportation

§ Stakeholders in control of development § Land use Planning and urban design

trajectories § Leadership and participation
§ Strong governance structure at multiple § Contingency, emergency, and recovery
geographical scales planning
§ Social structure § Collaboration
§ Community bonds, social support and § Research and Development
social institutions
§ Regulation and enforcement
§ Safety and wellbeing
§ Education and training
§ Equity and diversity
§ 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
 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172 171
Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 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.,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–74, Jan. 2008.
[9] K. Gow and D. Paton, The phoenix of natural disasters : community resilience, vol. 6, no. 1. 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] F. Berkes and H. Ross, ‘Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach’, Soc. Nat. Resour., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5–20, Jan. 2013.
[16] 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 Noraini Omar Chong et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 165–172
8 Noraini Omar Chong et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Nov. 2003.
[21] M. Bruneau and A. M. Reinhorn, ‘Overview of the resilience Concept’, Proc. 8th US Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng., no. 2040, pp. 2–6, 2006.
[22] 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.
Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 18, no. October, pp. 115–124, Sep. 2016.
[33] F. Berkes and H. Ross, ‘Panarchy and community resilience: Sustainability science and policy implications’, Environ. Sci. Policy, vol.
61, pp. 185–193, 2016.