IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v22y2025i2p161-d1577094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positioning the Sense of Coherence (SOC) in Disaster Recovery Planning and Design

Author

Listed:
  • Cornelius Ayodele Ojo

    (College of Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Traci Rose Rider

    (College of Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

Abstract

“Whence the strength?” This compelling question, posed by Aaron Antonovsky in 1979, sets the stage for understanding the role of sense of coherence (SOC), a human-focused psychosocial concept, in fostering resilience amidst escalating climate-induced disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. This paper is the first step in a larger research agenda aimed at exploring how the human experience of disasters, guided by Antonovsky’s SOC framework, can be better integrated into disaster recovery planning and design, laying the theoretical foundation for subsequent studies. This paper examines which supports help people stay resilient during disasters, focusing on the role of SOC in recovery. By integrating Antonovsky’s SOC concept with Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, it also draws from other published works on stress and disaster recovery to explore how disaster recovery planning and design can be improved. The findings indicate that the post-disaster recovery phase presents a critical window for implementing policies that address vulnerabilities in disaster-prone communities and enhance long-term resilience. Methodologically, this paper advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, suggesting that both quantitative and qualitative insights are vital for capturing human experiences in disaster contexts. Ultimately, this paper presents a framework for integrating human dimensions of resilience into disaster recovery planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Cornelius Ayodele Ojo & Traci Rose Rider, 2025. "Positioning the Sense of Coherence (SOC) in Disaster Recovery Planning and Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(2), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:2:p:161-:d:1577094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/2/161/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/2/161/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Burgess & Jamie Wardman & Gabe Mythen, 2018. "Considering risk: placing the work of Ulrich Beck in context," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 1-5, January.
    2. Homa Bahmani & Wei Zhang, 2022. "Why Do Communities Recover Differently after Socio-Natural Disasters? Pathways to Comprehensive Success of Recovery Projects Based on Bam’s (Iran) Neighborhoods’ Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-29, January.
    3. Antonovsky, Aaron, 1993. "Complexity, conflict, chaos, coherence, coercion and civility," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 969-974, October.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    6. Leviton, L.C. & Snell, E. & McGinnis, M., 2000. "Urban issues in health promotion strategies," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(6), pages 863-866.
    7. Elena Caroline Weitzel & Heide Glaesmer & Andreas Hinz & Samira Zeynalova & Sylvia Henger & Christoph Engel & Markus Löffler & Nigar Reyes & Kerstin Wirkner & A. Veronica Witte & Arno Villringer & Ste, 2022. "What Builds Resilience? Sociodemographic and Social Correlates in the Population-Based LIFE-Adult-Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-11, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    3. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    4. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    5. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    6. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    7. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Shao, Wanyun & Hao, Feng, 2020. "Confidence in political leaders can slant risk perceptions of COVID–19 in a highly polarized environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    9. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Chikaraishi, Makoto & Khan, Diana & Yasuda, Banri & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2020. "Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 105-115.
    11. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    12. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    14. Paul Slovic, 2020. "Risk Perception and Risk Analysis in a Hyperpartisan and Virtuously Violent World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2231-2239, November.
    15. Magda Hassan & Jaideep Prabhu & Rajesh Chandy & Om Narasimhan, 2023. "When Bulldozers Loom: Informal Property Rights and Marketing Practice Innovation Among Emerging Market Microentrepreneurs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 137-165, January.
    16. Michael Greenberg & Karen Lowrie, 2014. "Paul Slovic: Risk Perceptions and Affect," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 206-209, February.
    17. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    18. Henrik Merkelsen, 2011. "Institutionalized Ignorance as a Precondition for Rational Risk Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1083-1094, July.
    19. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:2:p:161-:d:1577094. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.