**2. Responding to disasters and reducing disaster risk**

How is responding to disasters understood, and how do we get better at reducing disaster risk? A long-standing and influential understanding of the sequence of disaster management is the 'cycle of disaster' (see **Figure 1**). The cycle presents a linear progression of activities after a rapid-onset disaster event. The first is relief, followed by recovery. Following this post-disaster phase, the cycle goes on to identify steps that can be taken in anticipation of the next disaster (assuming disaster threats repeat themselves). The cycle identifies mitigation, that is actions that can reduce or even prevent a disaster (building codes are a good example of mitigation measures). It then identifies preparedness, that is actions that 'get ready' for an impending disaster (fire exits are an example of preparedness measures, as are ambulances and first aid kits).

The understandings and terms that this model presents underpin how actions before and after a disaster and understood, and how many response and preparedness organisations are organised. Indeed, a fixed time frame is often provided by responding agencies and donors for the 'relief ' and 'recovery' periods that range from weeks to months. The model however has its critics—disaster responses are not always linear, and many argue that 'recovery starts from day one'. The model is, however, arguably coming under increased scrutiny, especially at a time of frequently repeating disasters, where there may be no time to recover, mitigate or prepare. Take the 2022 floods that have affected large parts of the Australian State of New South Wales. A number of smaller towns were inundated by widespread flooding several times in 2021 and 2022, which followed on from the especially devastating 'Black Summer' bushfires of 2019–2020. As one key informant stated in the NSW State Government's 2022 Flood Enquiry, 'we are not recovering. We are suffering. We are losing the will to do anything, too exhausted, too confused. We are stuck' [8].

Complementing this broad sequence of actions, in recent years efforts at addressing disasters (from recovery to preparedness) have coalesced around the concept of resilience. The Rockefeller Foundation's definition of urban resilience is, 'the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience' [9]. The concept of resilience has been adopted within a wide number of globally agreed frameworks and agreements, including the 2015–2030

*Identifying Opportunities to Build Resilience in Urban Disaster Recovery DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109475*

**Figure 1.** *The cycle of disaster (source: United Nations).*

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the UN Sustainable Development goals, notably Goals 9 (concerning infrastructure) and 11, commonly known as 'the urban SDG'. The New Urban Agenda, agreed in Quito at HABITAT III in 2016 (UN, 2016) emphasis the need several times over to build resilience to hazards, disasters and climate change. In the Pacific, where many island nations are experiencing urban growth and increased disaster risk, the 2019 Fifth Pacific Urban Forum (PUF) Declaration includes 'resilience' and 'resilient' 10 times, concerning housing, infrastructure and design [10].
