CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 579Disaster Management and ResilienceSafety and Risk ManagementInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis

Elements of Resilience After the World Trade Center Disaster: Reconstituting New York City's Emergency Operations Centre

Kendra, James M., Wachtendorf, Tricia·2003·Disasters
DOI 10.1111/1467-7717.00218
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper we examine the reconstitution of the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) after its destruction in the World Trade Center attack, using that event to highlight several features of resilience. The paper summarises basic EOC functions, and then presents conceptions of resilience as understood from several disciplinary perspectives, noting that work in these fields has sought to understand how a natural or social system that experiences disturbance sustains its functional processes. We observe that, although the physical EOC facility was destroyed, the organisation that had been established to manage crises in New York City continued, enabling a response that drew on the resources of New York City and neighbouring communities, states and the federal government. Availability of resources--which substituted for redundancy of personnel, equipment and space--pre-existing relationships that eased communication challenges as the emergency developed and the continuation of organisational patterns of response integration and role assignments were among the factors that contributed to resilience following the attack.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-7717.00218

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is little consensus about what organizational resilience means and how it is composed.

    “there is little consensus about what resilience actually means and how it is composed.”

    From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003

  • Preparation capabilities are important not only for high reliability organizations but also for resilient organizations.

    “However, preparation capabilities are not only important for HROs but also for resilient organizations (e.g., Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003;Somers 2009).”

    From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003

  • Bricolage is one of the most important principles to facilitate the collective sensemaking process.

    “One of the most important principles to facilitate the collective sensemaking process is 'bricolage' (Weick 1993): the capability to improvise and to solve problems creatively (Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003).”

    From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003

  • Organizations need slack resources-a cushion of spare resources which can be flexibly used.

    “In sum, it can be said that organizations need slack resources (Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003;Vaelikangas and Romme 2013;Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007)-a cushion of spare resources which can be flexibly used (Bourgeois 1981).”

    From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003

  • Organizations need some degree of redundancy such as unused capacity, multiple sourcing, or parallel processes, which allow for adequate functioning even if parts of the organization fail.

    “In this respect, organizations also need some degree of redundancy such as unused capacity, multiple sourcing, or parallel processes (see, e.g., Denhardt and Denhardt 2010;Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003;Pal et al. 2014), which allow for adequate functioning even if parts of the organization fail.”

    From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • University of Delaware (US)
ORCID
Venue
Disasters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-03
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
37-53
ISSN
  • 0361-3666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7717
DOI
10.1111/1467-7717.00218
OpenAlex
W2122526583
Cited by
574
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 19
FWCI
22.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 18 d)
Locations
  • Disasters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Safety and Risk Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Keywords
resilience, World Trade Center attacks, emergency operations center, emergency management, crisis response, resource availability, inter-organisational collaboration, role assignment, response integration, New York City
MeSH terms
Aircraft, Crisis Intervention, Disaster Planning, Emergency Medical Services, Humans, Interinstitutional Relations, New York City, Rescue Work, Terrorism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review