See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241701856

Disaster Response: Risk, Vulnerability and

Resilience

Article in Disaster Prevention and Management · August 2000

DOI: 10.1108/09653560010335068

CITATIONS READS

64 320

3 authors, including:

Douglas Paton John M Violanti

Charles Darwin University University at Buffalo, The State University of …
261 PUBLICATIONS 3,441 CITATIONS 189 PUBLICATIONS 2,803 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Deepening the environmental volunteer narrative to increase public and environmental

organisations’ collaboration in mitigating climate change View project

BCOPS: A 12-year longitudinal police health and stress study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John M Violanti on 19 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal
Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience
Douglas PatonLeigh SmithJohn Violanti
Article information:
To cite this document:
Douglas PatonLeigh SmithJohn Violanti, (2000),"Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience", Disaster Prevention
and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 173 - 180
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653560010335068
Downloaded on: 19 April 2016, At: 05:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4366 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2001),"Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness", Disaster Prevention and Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 270-277
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

(2001),"Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 2 pp. 85-95
(2003),"Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 210-216

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:402912 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Introduction
Disaster response: risk,
Research into the consequences of exposure
vulnerability and to disasters and other large scale crises
resilience involving, for example, emergency services,
disaster response, and humanitarian aid
Douglas Paton professionals, typically assumes an automatic
relationship between this exposure and the
Leigh Smith and development of traumatic stress reactions.
John Violanti This perspective is, however, coming under
scrutiny (Violanti et al., 2000). Indeed, the
possibility of exposure to disaster constituting
a growth experience for those who respond
professionally is becoming increasingly
apparent. Event and organisational
characteristics such as the opportunity to
The authors exercise professional skills, perception of a job
Douglas Paton ([email protected]) is at the School
well done, and a relaxation of bureaucratic
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New

constraints can influence the meaning
Zealand.
attributed to the disaster experience and
Leigh Smith is at the School of Psychology, Curtin
facilitate a positive resolution and post-
University, Perth, Western Australia.
traumatic growth (Alexander and Wells,
John Violanti is at the Department of Criminal Justice,
1991; Andersen et al., 1991; Calhoun and
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, Tedeschi, 2000; Moran, 1999; Paton, 1989;
NY, USA. Tedeschi and Calhoun, 1996).
The recognition of a relationship between
Keywords disaster experience and positive growth
outcomes introduces a need within disaster
Disasters, Disaster management, Risk, Risk management,
management to seek ways in which such
Hazards
outcomes can be facilitated. In this context,
Abstract the traditional pathologically-orientated focus
on vulnerability characteristics as the principal
The assumption of an automatic link between disaster
mediating factor between disaster experience
exposure and pathological outcomes is increasingly being
and loss or distress outcomes is inappropriate
questioned. Recognition of the possibility of positive
as a basis for developing a comprehensive
reactions and growth outcomes in this context
understanding of disaster stress. Recognition
necessitates the development of alternative models and,
of the existence of growth outcomes
in particular, the accommodation of the resilience
necessitates the use of other processes. The
construct in research and intervention agenda. Reviews
term ``resilience'' (e.g. Dunning, 1999)
possible vulnerability and resilience factors and adopts a
encapsulates a paradigm shift that
risk management framework to outline its potential for
accommodates the analysis and facilitation of
modelling the complex relationships between these
growth. Resilience describes an active process
variables and both growth and distress outcomes.
of self-righting, learned resourcefulness and
Resilience and vulnerability is discussed at dispositional,
growth ± the ability to function psychologically
cognitive and organisational levels. The paradigm
at a level far greater than expected given the
developed here focuses attention on facilitating recovery
individual's capabilities and previous
and growth in professionals for whom disaster work and
experiences. This is not to say, however, that
its consequences is an occupational reality.
loss or distress outcomes will not occur.
Electronic access Calhoun and Tedeschi (2000) discuss how
growth and distress outcomes need not be
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
mutually exclusive. Although growth
available at
following disaster and other traumatic
http://www.emerald-library.com
experiences is commonly reported, it is not
inevitable. Further, the experience of growth
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . pp. 173±179 outcomes need not necessarily free an
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0965-3562 individual from experiencing negative
173
 Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience Disaster Prevention and Management
Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith and John Violanti Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . 173±179

consequences. Similar views were expressed and resilience (``bouncing back''), so

by Aldwin et al.(1994) and Moran (1999). conferring upon risk management models the
What is important is that the negative effect potential to encapsulate perspectives that
likely to accompany exposure to an cover growth and distress.
emotionally intense disaster context is not The less prescriptive risk concept
confused with the resolution of this provides a more flexible framework for the
experience or the meaning subsequently conceptualisation and analysis of disaster
imposed upon it by the disaster worker. and traumatic stress phenomena, affords
Consequently, developing a comprehensive opportunities to consider a range of
understanding of disaster stress, and the outcomes, and facilitates thinking about
development of interventions to promote disaster stress mitigation strategies in terms of
well-being, growth and effective performance either enhancing resilience and/or reducing
in disaster workers' requires that we vulnerability. Given the importance of the risk
transcend the boundaries on our thinking management concept within contemporary
imposed by paradigms that assume an emergency management, extending the use of
automatic link between disaster exposure and the model in this way will render the training
loss or distress. Research and intervention and development of disaster workers
agenda must also accommodate resilience. consistent with the prevailing strategic and
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

A need for the systematic analysis of both operational paradigm in emergency and
resilience and vulnerability is also indicated by disaster management. As a starting point, it is
the possibility of their having a contingent appropriate to examine the components of
relationship with growth and distress. For this model and their implications for
example, while expectations about understanding and managing disaster stress.
experiencing positive reactions to disaster work Conceptualisations of risk generally include
can represent a valuable coping resource, such vulnerability as a determinant of differences in
beliefs may increase vulnerability when individual susceptibility to negative hazard
emergency workers cannot do anything to save effects. Blaikie et al. (1994) defined
lives or prevent destruction (Moran, 1999). In vulnerability as the combination of
other words, the factors that promote resilience characteristics of a person or group in terms of
and growth under some circumstances could their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist,
act to the detriment of the individual at other and recover from hazard impacts that threaten
times. Similarly, while intended to reduce risk, their life, well-being and livelihood. Using this
interventions such as new safety practices or definition, the term ``vulnerability'' does not
training (intended to reduce vulnerability or imply the adoption of a pathogenic framework.
enhance resilience) can, ironically, have the Indeed, this definition contains elements (e.g.
opposite effect. For example, risk homeostasis ``cope with'', ``resist'') consistent with the
(e.g. Adams, 1995) describes how a perceived concept of resilience. Notwithstanding,
increase in safety can reduce the risk attributed capturing the wealth of resources that could be
to a hazard, increase risk behaviour and render used to adjust to disaster experience, and
individuals more vulnerable to negative stress developing comprehensive models of stress
effects. What is required is an over-arching processes, suggests that resilience be included
framework that, rather than prescribing as a discrete category within the model. The
outcome expectations, accommodates a range next step in to consider how vulnerability and
of possibilities, good and bad. Here we resilience can be modelled within a risk
consider the utility of a risk management management framework to provide a
model for this purpose. systematic basis for researching growth and
The concept of risk describes the loss outcomes.
assessment of the frequency of occurrence
and magnitude of consequences associated
with hazard (stressor) activity (Hood and A statistical model of vulnerability and
Jones, 1996). One advantage of this approach resilience
is that risk does not automatically imply the
occurrence of pathological or negative The best strategy for a model would be to
outcomes. Hood and Jones (1996) point out assess vulnerability on a personal level.
that risk management typically involves some However, due to the complex interaction of
mixture of anticipation (``looking forward'') individual differences, environmental
174
 Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience Disaster Prevention and Management
Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith and John Violanti Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . 173±179

influences, and socialisation factors, it is rather than prescribe, the probability of

difficult to obtain an individual indicator of experiencing growth or distress.
vulnerability. The best available measure Attention must also be directed to
would be a vulnerability coefficient, estimated operationalising the outcome measures.
as a constant across a group of individuals. Considerable attention has been devoted to
Such coefficients can be statistically applied developing instruments to measure loss,
within and between groups at risk of disaster distress and other pathological outcomes.
exposure. While risk management typically Positive and growth outcomes have not
focuses on the hazards-vulnerability received similar attention (Violanti et al.,
relationship, it is prudent, for reasons already 2000). An exception to this is Tedeschi and
mentioned above, to introduce the construct Calhoun's (1996) ``post-traumatic growth
of resilience as a discrete factor within a risk inventory''. While a capability to measure the
management model. We can anticipate that hazard and outcome variables does exist,
environmental and constitutional factors more detailed analysis of their characteristics,
affect the potential for change (growth or and valid and reliable means for their
distress). These interact with the combined measurement and assessment, is required
effects of structural and personal resilience (Paton and Smith, 1999).
and vulnerability factors to determine the Developing and applying this model also
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

outcome of any set of event characteristics. requires the identification of the resilience
Realising this model requires the and vulnerability characteristics that influence
identification of the characteristics whose outcomes ranging from growth to distress.
relationships will be modelled. It is to a review Dunning (1999) described resilience as
of this issue that this paper now turns. comprising three components: dispositional,
cognitive, and environmental. Dispositional
resilience reflects how personal characteristics
Psychological hazards, vulnerability and (e.g. hardiness) affect adjustment. The
resilience cognitive component is concerned with the
individual's sense of coherence and meaning.
Contemporary risk management models Training represents an appropriate strategy
typically use the term hazard to denote chance for facilitating a capability to impose
phenomena capable of causing harm. In coherence and meaning on atypical and
applying risk management models to the extreme experiences. The final element, an
study of disaster stress, the hazard component environment that fosters and sustains
of the equation will be represented by the resilience, can be cultivated through
disaster characteristics or demands organisational design and management
encountered by those in response and development strategies that create practices,
management roles. While organisational procedures and a culture which mitigate
hazard and risk assessment typically focus on adverse consequences and maximise potential
possible exposure to industrial (e.g. fire), for recovery and post-traumatic growth.
natural (e.g. earthquake) and environmental
(e.g. toxic waste) hazards, this level of analysis Dispositional vulnerability and resilience
is insufficiently detailed for psychological The often pronounced differences in
hazard analysis (Hartsough and Myers, 1985; reactions documented within the disaster and
Paton, 1997a). The latter requires identifying trauma literature has focused attention on
the event characteristics which threaten or isolating those individual resilience and
promote psychological integrity. These vulnerability factors that influence these
include, for example, threat nature and patterns of response. With respect to
duration, performance expectations and vulnerability, Scotti et al. (1995) identified
opportunities, perceived control, sense of three categories. Biological vulnerability
community, suspension of bureaucracy, factors include genetically-based
resource adequacy, support practices, predispositions (e.g. autonomic reactivity)
responsibility, and management practices and changes in physiological reactivity as a
(Hartsough and Myers, 1985; Moran and consequence of prior disaster exposure. Their
Colless, 1995; Paton, 1996; 1997b). These second category, historical antecedents,
event characteristics interact with resilience include learning history, socioeconomic
and vulnerability characteristics to influence, status, and pre-existing psychopathology. The
175
 Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience Disaster Prevention and Management
Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith and John Violanti Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . 173±179

final category, psychological vulnerability, knowledge and skill development, training

describes learned behaviour including should address how the disaster context
avoidance of threat situations, social skills influences performance and well-being
deficits leading to problems obtaining and (Paton, 1996). According to this model
utilising social support, hyper-vigilance of training designed to facilitate resilience
threat-relevant cues, and inadequate requires two inputs. One involves the detailed
problem-solving behaviour. Vulnerability can analysis of disaster response roles, tasks, and
also be influenced by the person's history of responsibilities to define the skills and
disaster experience (Paton et al., 1999). knowledge required to protect well-being.
Important issues here are the nature, The second involves identifying how disaster
frequency, timing and extent of resolution of demands render routine operational
such experiences. Transient factors such as procedures and expectations inadequate or
health status (e.g. colds, flu), fatigue (e.g. if inappropriate to the needs of the situation.
called to manage a disaster at the end of a The characteristics of the routine operating
day's work), and psychological fitness (e.g. environment (e.g. clear role/task expectations,
occupational stress, personal concerns), can hierarchical reporting and command
increase stress vulnerability (Flin, 1996). structures) are incorporated into the
Individuals can also differ with regard to psychological frameworks (schemata) that
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

their resilience characteristics. Traits such as guide response and become implicit, or
level of control over cognitive re-experience, ``taken for granted'', facets of routine
perceived meaning, behavioural self-blame, operations. However, their importance as
attributional style, and hardiness can determinants of well-being and performance
constitute resilience factors (Lyons, 1991; effectiveness may go unrealised until faced
Bartone, 2000). Other factors such as with atypical operational demands (e.g. scale
emotional stability, decisiveness, controlled of infrastructure disruption, multi-agency
risk taking, self-awareness, tolerance for operating environments, rapid role change)
ambiguity, and self-efficacy may also facilitate which challenge these assumptions
resilience (Flin, 1996; Paton, 1989). (Alexander and Wells, 1991; Flin, 1996;
Knowledge of the relationship between Moran, 1999; Paton, 1996). This signals a
dispositional characteristics and outcome has need to develop procedures, and
other implications (Paton, 1997a; 1999). expectations, that accurately reflect the
For example, vulnerability and resilience data disaster operating context in which expertise
can be used to anticipate disaster worker is applied. This model also illustrates the
support and training needs, select resilient interaction between cognitive and
individuals for disaster response and environmental determinants of resilience and
emergency management roles, or for the importance of developing a systems
prioritising post-event support provision perspective for analysis and intervention.
and monitoring. The relative infrequence of disasters means
that developing the capability to impose
Cognitive resilience: coherence, meaning coherence and meaning on disaster work
and training experiences requires the use of simulations
Training can facilitate imposing a sense of that model the demands, competencies and
meaning and coherence on the atypical and contextual factors likely to be encountered.
emotionally threatening nature of disasters Simulations afford opportunities for
and reduce the perception of disaster individuals to review plans, develop technical
demands as stressors. As such it acts to reduce and management skills, practise their use
psychological morbidity, enhance under realistic circumstances, receive
performance capability and hasten the feedback on their performance, increase
recovery of those affected (Alexander and awareness of stress reactions, and facilitate
Wells, 1991; Driskell and Salas, 1996; Paton, rehearsal of strategies to minimise stress
1996). reactions (Paton et al., 1999; Moran, 1999).
Resilience can be enhanced by adopting an While training can facilitate resilience, the
all-hazards approach to facilitate technical comprehensive realisation of the ensuing
and psychological preparedness and the benefits will be influenced by the extent to
development of an adaptable response which they are sustained by the operating
capability (Paton et al., 1999). In addition to environment. Specifically, the groups, systems
176
 Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience Disaster Prevention and Management
Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith and John Violanti Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . 173±179

and practices that comprise the organisational guilt are generated and psychological health
environment represent resources capable of can be threatened (Hartsough and Myers,
influencing both vulnerability and resilience. 1985; Paton, 1996). Once these group
It is to a discussion of this issue that this paper characteristics have been articulated it will be
now turns. possible to develop strategies to contain or
reverse them, so minimising vulnerability
Environmental resilience: group and promoting the group as a resilience
dynamics resource.
Professionals who fulfil disaster response roles
form cohesive social groups with a distinctive Environmental resilience: organisational
culture. The norms and dynamics that characteristics and managerial
operate within these groups can influence behaviour
resilience and vulnerability (Paton and Vulnerability to disaster stress reactions is
Stephens, 1996). While membership of a influenced by organisational characteristics
cohesive group generally enhances resilience, (e.g. management style, reporting
it can, under certain circumstances, have the procedures) and bureaucratic flexibility
opposite effect. For example, cultural (Alexander and Wells, 1991; Doepal, 1991;
characteristics which advocate emotional Dunning, 1994; EraÈnen et al., 1999; Paton,
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

suppression can increase stress vulnerability. 1992; Paton and Purvis, 1995; Paton et al.,
When disaster workers perceive themselves 1999; Powell, 1991; Stephens et al., 1997).
as having performed effectively, the ensuing To sustain staff, and constitute a resilience
development or consolidation of team identity resource, management procedures designed
acts as a resilience resource. While this specifically to manage response and recovery
conclusion suggests that support may be are essential (Alexander and Wells, 1991;
forthcoming within groups who shared the Paton, 1997a; 1997b; Paton et al., 1998;
disaster experience, this need not always be Paton and Purvis, 1995).
the case (Paton and Stephens, 1996). Managerial behaviour and attitudes
Exposure to events which limit opportunities represents another environmental factor with
to realise role expectations may heighten both resilience and vulnerability potential
vulnerability. When a disaster is especially (Alexander and Wells, 1991; Dunning, 1994;
destructive, resources limited and response Paton, 1997a; Paton and Violanti 1996;
ineffective it may be difficult for an individual Violanti and Paton, 1999). For example, a
to find the positive characteristics in the group
cultural predisposition to suppress emotional
necessary to maintain a positive group
disclosure, contempt for those displaying
identity. Internalised attributions of
emotions, or focusing on attributing blame for
professional inadequacy can stimulate the
response problems on individuals can
development of a negative group identity, a
heighten stress vulnerability (Dunning,
breakdown of support networks, and
1994). Developing managerial capability as a
dissociation from others, so increasing
resilience resource involves training covering,
vulnerability. Where positive differentiating
for example:
features are lacking, individuals tend to . participative and supportive management
dissociate themselves from the group. Under
style;
these circumstances, vulnerability is increased . acknowledging and accepting staff needs;
through the loss of social support and the . identifying and meeting staff needs;
threat to professional integrity. . communication;
Disaster response exposes workers to tasks . planning and contingent plan
that are physically and psychologically
implementation skills;
demanding, complex, ambiguous and difficult . delegation;
to assimilate (Paton, 1996). Yet workers tend . managing uncertainty and ambiguity; and
to approach these tasks with high performance . managing recovery and the return to
expectations. Indeed, the belief that they are
routine performance (Alexander and
powerful, resourceful and capable of dealing
Wells, 1991; Paton, 1997b).
with all the demands they may face is central to
their social identity (Short, 1979). If these Resilience can also be sustained by managers
expectations are not realised, feelings of acting as role models (e.g. acknowledging
personal failure, inadequacy and performance their own feelings), providing feedback to staff
177
 Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience Disaster Prevention and Management
Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith and John Violanti Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . 173±179

(Alexander and Wells, 1991; Duckworth, Figure 1 A proposed risk management model for disaster stress
1986; Dunning, 1994; Paton, 1997a; 1997b),
and providing a framework for the positive
resolution of their experience. The latter can
be facilitated by assisting workers to identify
the strengths that helped them manage
disaster consequences or using the experience
to discuss how future events could be dealt
with more effectively. Managers can also
sustain resilience by managing the transition
back into routine work (Paton, 1997a).
Where disaster experience has been positive,
the return to routine work may be a more
salient stressor than the disaster itself.
Recognition of this possibility led Hartsough
and Myers (1985) to define this as the
``letdown'' phase of disaster work.
The letdown phase involves the transition psychometric properties. Since the nature and
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

from working in a disaster context back into implications of the relationships between
the normal routine of work and family life. these factors can change over time, multi-
Disaster work enables professionals to employ wave longitudinal designs, and methods
their skills in a manner which can be intensely capable of the analysis of change data will be
meaningful. In general, the longer and more required (Paton and Smith, 1999). While not
intense their involvement, the more likely they representing an exhaustive list by any means,
are to feel some ambivalence about terminating the material reviewed here indicates a basis for
their disaster role. Workers may experience operationalising the resilience paradigm. This
feelings of loss as they move out of the action
paradigm focuses attention on mitigating
phase. These feelings may be intensified as
disaster stress risk and facilitating recovery
they return to ``business as usual'' and to work
and growth in professionals for whom disaster
within a context of the bureaucratic constraints
work and its consequences is, or becomes, an
that had been suspended during the disaster
occupational reality.
response phase. Under these circumstances,
systematic reintegration strategies would
represent an appropriate approach to
sustaining resilience and any benefits accruing References
from working in the disaster context. Adams, J. (1995), Risk, UCL Press, London.
Aldwin, C.M., Levenson, M.R. and Spiro, A. III (1994),
``Vulnerability and resilience to combat exposure:
can stress have lifelong effects?'', Psychology and
Conclusion
Aging, Vol. 9, pp. 34-44.
Alexander, D.A. and Wells, A. (1991), ``Reactions of police
It is no longer tenable to assume an automatic
officers to body handling after a major disaster: a
link between disaster exposure and the before and after comparison'', British Journal of
experience of pathological reactions or loss. Psychiatry, Vol. 159, pp. 517-55.
Rather, the possibility of positive reactions Andersen, H.S., Christensen, A.K. and Petersen, G.O.
and growth outcomes must be accommodated (1991), ``Post-traumatic stress reactions amongst
in research and in mitigation and recovery rescue workers after a major rail accident'', Anxiety
Research, Vol. 4, pp. 245-51.
planning. Crucial issues here include the
Bartone, P. (2000), ``Hardiness as a resiliency factor for
identification of resilience and vulnerability US forces in the Gulf War'', in Violanti, J.M., Paton,
variables and defining the mechanisms by D. and Dunning, C. (Eds), Post-traumatic Stress
which they lead to growth and distress Intervention: Challenges, Issues and Perspectives,
outcomes. A risk management model was Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
proposed to provide a framework for Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994), At
Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and
conceptualising this relationship (Figure 1).
Disaster, Routledge, London.
Once salient variables are identified, it is Calhoun, L. and Tedeschi, R. (2000), ``Early post-traumatic
imperative that we can assess them using interventions: facilitating possibilities for growth'',
instruments with known and sound in Violanti, J.M., Paton, D. and Dunning, C. (Eds),
178
 Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience Disaster Prevention and Management
Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith and John Violanti Volume 9 . Number 3 . 2000 . 173±179

Post-traumatic Stress Intervention: Challenges, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 4,

Issues and Perspectives, Charles C. Thomas, pp. 45-54.
Springfield, IL. Paton, D. and Smith, L.M. (1999), ``Assessment,
Doepal, D. (1991), ``Crisis management: the psychological conceptual and methodological issues in
dimension'', Industrial Crisis Quarterly, Vol. 5, researching traumatic stress in police officers'', in
pp. 177-88. Violanti, J.M. and Paton, D. (Eds), Police Trauma:
Driskell, J. and Salas, E. (1996), Stress and Human Psychological Aftermath of Civilian Combat, Charles
Performance, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Duckworth, D. (1986), ``Psychological problems arising from Paton, D. and Stephens, C. (1996), ``Training and support
disaster work'', Stress Medicine, Vol. 2, pp. 315-23. for emergency responders'', in Paton, D. and
Dunning, C. (1994), ``Trauma and countertransference in Violanti, J.M. (Eds), Traumatic Stress in Critical
the workplace'', in Wilson, J.P. and Lindy, J.D. (Eds), Occupations: Recognition, Consequences and
Countertransference in the Treatment of PTSD, Treatment, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Guildford Press, New York, NY. Paton, D. and Violanti, J. (1996), Traumatic Stress in
Dunning, C. (1999), ``Post-intervention strategies to Critical Occupations: Recognition, Consequences
reduce police trauma: a paradigm shift'', in Violanti, and Treatment, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
J.M. and Paton, D. (Eds), Police Trauma: Paton, D., Flin, R. and Violanti, J. (1999), ``Incident
Psychological Aftermath of Civilian Combat, Charles response and recovery management'', in Violanti,
C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. J.M., Paton, D. and Dunning, C. (Eds), Post-
EraÈnen, L., Millar, M. and Paton, D. (1999), traumatic Stress Intervention: Challenges, Issues
``Organisational recovery from disaster: traumatic and Perspectives, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

response within voluntary disaster workers'', paper Paton, D., Johnston, D. and Houghton, B. (1998),
presented at the International Society for Stress ``Organisational responses to a volcanic eruption'',
Studies Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, June. Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 7,
Flin, R. (1996), Sitting in the Hot Seat: Leaders and Teams pp. 5-13.
for Critical Incident Management, Wiley, Chichester. Paton, D., Violanti, J. and Schmuckler, E. (1999), ``Chronic
Hartsough, D.M. and Myers, D.G. (1985), Disaster Work
exposure to risk and trauma: addiction and
and Mental Health: Prevention and control of stress
separation issues in police officers'', in Violanti, J.M.
among Workers, US Department of Health and
and Paton, D. (Eds), Police Trauma: Psychological
Human Services, MD.
Aftermath of Civilian Combat, Charles C. Thomas,
Hood, C. and Jones, D.K.C. (1996), Accident and Design:
Springfield, IL.
Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL
Paton, D., Smith, L.M., Ramsay, R. and Akande, D. (1999),
Press, London.
``A structural re-assessment of the impact of event
Lyons, J.A. (1991), ``Strategies for assessing the potential
scale: the influence of occupational and cultural
for positive adjustment following trauma'', Journal
contexts'', in Gist, R. and Lubin, B. (Eds), Response
of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 4, pp. 93-111.
to Disaster: Psychosocial, Community and Ecological
Moran, C.C. (1999), ``Recruits' prediction of positive
reactions in disaster and emergency work'', Disaster Approaches, Taylor & Francis, Philadeplhia, PA.
Prevention and Management, Vol. 8, pp. 177-83. Powell, T.C. (1991), ``Shaken, but alive: organisational
Moran, C.C. and Colless, E. (1995), ``Positive reactions behaviour in the wake of catastrophic events'',
following emergency and disaster responses'', Industrial Crisis Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 271-91.
Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 4, Scotti, J.R., Beach, B.K., Northrop, L.M.E., Rode, C.A. and
pp. 55-60. Forsyth, J.P. (1995), ``The psychological impact of
Paton, D. (1989), ``Disasters and helpers: psychological accidental injury'', in Freedy, J.R. and Hobfoll, S.E.
dynamics and implications for counselling'', (Eds), Traumatic Stress: From Theory to Practice,
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 303-21. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Paton, D. (1992), ``International disasters: issues in the Short, P. (1979), ``Victims and helpers'', in Heathcote, R.L.
management and preparation of relief workers'', and Tong, B.G. (Eds), Natural Hazards in Australia,
Disaster Management, Vol. 4, pp. 183-90. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra.
Paton, D. (1996), ``Training disaster workers: promoting Stephens, C., Long, N. and Miller, I. (1997), ``The impact
well-being and operational effectiveness'', Disaster of trauma and social support on post-traumatic
Prevention and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 10-16. stress disorder: a study of New Zealand police
Paton, D. (1997a), ``Managing work-related psychological officers'', Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 25,
trauma: an organisational psychology of response pp. 303-14.
and recovery'', Australian Psychologist, Vol. 32, Tedeschi, R. and Calhoun, L. (1996), ``Post-traumatic
pp. 46-55. growth inventory: measuring the positive legacy of
Paton, D. (1997b), Dealing with Traumatic Incidents in the trauma'', Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 9, pp. 455-
Workplace, 3rd ed., Gull Publishing, Queensland, 71.
Australia. Violanti, J.M. and Paton, D. (1999), Police Trauma:
Paton, D. (1999), ``Disaster business continuity: promoting Psychological Aftermath of Civilian Combat, Charles
staff capability'', Disaster Prevention and C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Management, Vol. 8, pp. 127-33. Violanti, J.M., Paton, D. and Dunning, C. (2000), Post-
Paton, D. and Purvis, C. (1995), ``Nursing in the aftermath traumatic Stress Intervention: Challenges, Issues
of disaster: orphanage relief work in Romania'', and Perspectives, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.

179
 This article has been cited by:

1. D.K. Yoon, Jung Eun Kang, Samuel D. Brody. 2016. A measurement of community disaster resilience in Korea. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 59, 436-460. [CrossRef]
2. Stav Shapira, Limor Aharonson-Daniel, Yaron Bar-Dayan, Deanna Sykes, Bruria Adini. 2016. Knowledge, perceptions,
attitudes and willingness to report to work in an earthquake: A pilot study comparing Canadian versus Israeli hospital nursing
staff. International Emergency Nursing 25, 7-12. [CrossRef]
3. Ihab Hanna S. Sawalha, John R. Anchor, Julia Meaton. 2015. Continuity Culture: A Key Factor for Building Resilience and
Sound Recovery Capabilities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6, 428-437. [CrossRef]
4. Emma E H Doyle, Douglas Paton, David M Johnston. 2015. Enhancing scientific response in a crisis: evidence-based
approaches from emergency management in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Volcanology 4. . [CrossRef]
5. Amanda ComorettoProcesses of Resilience Development in a Population of Humanitarian Aid Workers 47-66. [CrossRef]
6. Ran Bhamra, Kevin Burnard, Samir DaniResilience: The Concept, a Literature Review and Future Directions 3-30.
[CrossRef]
7. Daniel Sage, Indraneel Sircar, Andrew Dainty, Pete Fussey, Chris Goodier. 2015. Understanding and enhancing future
infrastructure resiliency: a socio-ecological approach. Disasters 39:10.1111/disa.2015.39.issue-3, 407-426. [CrossRef]
8. Pavlos M. PetrantonakisMapping irregular dynamic data spaces 1-5. [CrossRef]
9. Julian Matzenberger Energy Economics Group, Vienna University of Technology, A-1040 Wien, Austria Nigel Hargreaves
Brunel Institute of Power Systems, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK. Debadayita Raha School of Geography, University
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Priyan Dias Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri
Lanka. . 2015. A novel approach to assess resilience of energy systems. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment 6:2, 168-181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Julie Dean Rosati, Katherine Flynn Touzinsky, W. Jeff Lillycrop. 2015. Quantifying coastal system resilience for the US Army
Corps of Engineers. Environment Systems and Decisions 35, 196-208. [CrossRef]
11. Ihab Hanna Salman Sawalha Risk Management Department, American University of Madaba (AUM), Madaba, Jordan .
2015. Managing adversity: understanding some dimensions of organizational resilience. Management Research Review 38:4,
346-366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Zahed Ghaderi, Ahmad Puad Mat Som, Joan C. Henderson. 2015. When Disaster Strikes: The Thai Floods of 2011 and
Tourism Industry Response and Resilience. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20, 399-415. [CrossRef]
13. Chloe Moult, Kimberley Norris, Douglas Paton, Jeff Ayton. 2015. Predicting positive and negative change in expeditioners
at 2-months and 12-months post Antarctic employment. The Polar Journal 5, 128-145. [CrossRef]
14. Paulina Aldunce, Ruth Beilin, Mark Howden, John Handmer. 2015. Resilience for disaster risk management in a changing
climate: Practitioners’ frames and practices. Global Environmental Change 30, 1-11. [CrossRef]
15. Emma E.H. Doyle, John McClure, Douglas Paton, David M. Johnston. 2014. Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic
crisis scenarios. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10, 75-101. [CrossRef]
16. Paulina Aldunce Department of Environmental Science and Resource Management, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile;
Centre for Climate and Resilience Research (CR)2, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile and Department of Resource
Management and Geography, University of Melbourne, Australia Ruth Beilin Department of Resource Management and
Geography, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia John Handmer Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia Mark Howden Climate Adaptation Flagship, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia . 2014. Framing
disaster resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 23:3, 252-270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. The concept of resilience to disasters 35-48. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
18. Emma E.H. Doyle, John McClure, David M. Johnston, Douglas Paton. 2014. Communicating likelihoods and probabilities
in forecasts of volcanic eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 272, 1-15. [CrossRef]
19. Christine Eriksen, Timothy Prior. 2013. Defining the importance of mental preparedness for risk communication and
residents well-prepared for wildfire. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 6, 87-97. [CrossRef]
20. Indraneel Sircar, Daniel Sage, Chris Goodier, Pete Fussey, Andrew Dainty. 2013. Constructing Resilient Futures: Integrating
UK multi-stakeholder transport and energy resilience for 2050. Futures 49, 49-63. [CrossRef]
21. What You See Is What You Get … or Maybe Not: Assessment of the System 141-202. [CrossRef]
22. Ran Bhamra, Samir Dani, Kevin Burnard. 2011. Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International
Journal of Production Research 49, 5375-5393. [CrossRef]
23. George A. Bonanno, Maren Westphal, Anthony D. Mancini. 2011. Resilience to Loss and Potential Trauma. Annual Review
of Clinical Psychology 7, 511-535. [CrossRef]
 24. Monika Winn, Manfred Kirchgeorg, Andrew Griffiths, Martina K. Linnenluecke, Elmar Günther. 2011. Impacts from climate
change on organizations: a conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment 20:10.1002/bse.v20.3, 157-173.
[CrossRef]
25. Kimberley Norris, Douglas Paton, Jeff Ayton. 2010. Future directions in Antarctic psychology research. Antarctic Science 22,
335-342. [CrossRef]
26. Hongjian Zhou, Jing’ai Wang, Jinhong Wan, Huicong Jia. 2010. Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective.
Natural Hazards 53, 21-41. [CrossRef]
27. Alison Cottrell. 2009. Women's Vulnerabilty to a Seasonal Hazard: Their Capacity to Adapt and Their Resilience. Journal
of Pacific Rim Psychology 3, 4-10. [CrossRef]
28. Susan L. Cutter, Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric Tate, Jennifer Webb. 2008. A
place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18, 598-606.
[CrossRef]
29. Rick A. MyerSchool of Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Christian ConteDepartment
of Counseling & Educational Psychology, University of Nevada‐Reno, Reno, Nevada, USA Sarah E. PetersonSchool of
Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 2007. Human impact issues for crisis management in
organizations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 16:5, 761-770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Emma Fulu. 2007. Gender, Vulnerability, and the Experts: Responding to the Maldives Tsunami. Development and Change
38:10.1111/dech.2007.38.issue-5, 843-864. [CrossRef]
31. Damodar Suar, Sasmita Mishra, Rooplekha Khuntia. 2007. Placing age differences in the context of the Orissa supercyclone:
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 05:14 19 April 2016 (PT)

Who experiences psychological distress?. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology 10:10.1111/ajsp.2007.10.issue-2, 117-122.
[CrossRef]
32. Paulina AldunceDepartament of Enviromental Science and Natural Resources, College of Agriculture, University of Chile,
Santiago, Chile Alejandro LeónDepartament of Enviromental Science and Natural Resources, College of Agriculture,
University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 2007. Opportunities for improving disaster management in Chile: a case study. Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal 16:1, 33-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Siambabala Bernard Manyena. 2006. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 30, 434-450. [CrossRef]
34. S. Bernard ManyenaDisaster and Development Centre, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2006. Rural
local authorities and disaster resilience in Zimbabwe. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 15:5,
810-820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. David A. McEntireEmergency Administration and Planning Department of Public Administration, University of North
Texas, Denton, Texas, USA. 2005. Why vulnerability matters. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal
14:2, 206-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. YUK-HIU SZE, WAI-FONG TING. 2004. When Civil Society Meets Emerging Systemic Risks. Asia Pacific Journal of Social
Work and Development 14, 33-50. [CrossRef]
37. Carmen C. MoranCarmen C. Moran is Head of School, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia.. 2001. Personal predictions of stress and stress reactions in firefighter recruits. Disaster Prevention and Management:
An International Journal 10:5, 356-365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

View publication stats