Resilience-Based Approaches and Public Policy: Operational Views

  • Mika ShimizuEmail author
  • Allen L. Clark


This chapter focuses on operational perspectives in structuring resilience-based approaches and public policy to operationalize resilience. Specifically, this chapter provides a framework for resilience-based approaches from operational perspectives, by examining multi-faceted resilience concepts, studies, and relevant case examples from operational views. Thus, this chapter outlines how a team of individuals can engage in, enhance, or create resilience in communities, organizations, or institutions by tailoring to their own contexts and by taking into account the appropriate scale for programs or projects. Specifically, the framework outlines how to incorporate resilience into projects or programs and how to foster co-production of knowledge for problem-solving in a modern risk society in order to form and function resilience-based public policy. As specified in Chap.  2, given the multi-scalability of resilience concepts, the framework is broadly situated by providing 1) a foundation for resilience-based approaches from operational views based on existing studies, and 2) a framework and practices for resilience-based approaches with principles and operational lenses/components. Following the presentation of the framework, this chapter provides 3) relevant case examples, 4) application of the framework to programs and projects, and 5) policy implication for resilience-based public policy.


  1. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., et al. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake spectra, 19(4), 733–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. (1992). Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global Environmental Change, 2(4), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Handmer, J. W., & Dovers, S. R. (1996). A typology of resilience: Rethinking institutions for sustainable development. Industrial & Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 9(4), 482–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson, S. (2010). Architecting resilient systems: Accident avoidance and survival and recovery from disruptions. USA: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. James, J. J., Sheley, R. L., Erickson, T., Rollins, K. S., Taylor, M. H., & Dixon, K. W. (2013). A systems approaches to restoring degraded drylands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(3), 730–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mitchell, A. (2013). Risk and resilience: From good idea to good practice. WP 13/2013. OECD. Accessed August 10, 2017.
  8. NHK Special Reporters. (2016). Shindo 7: Naniga Seishi wo Waketanoka (Earthquake Shake 7: What distinguished between life and death) (in Japanese) KK Best sellers. Google Scholar
  9. Norris, K. (2012). Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services: The applied need for systems approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 367(1586), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Quade, E. S. (1969). The systems approaches and public policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Shimizu, M. (2013). Resilience in disaster risk management and public policy: A case study of the Tohoku disaster. Risks, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 3(4), 44–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Survivability Studies Unit, Higashi IchijokanKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.East–West CenterHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations