Introduction: Recent years have witnessed community disaster resilience becoming one of the most heavily supported and advocated approach to disaster risk management. However, its application has been influenced by the lack of assessment tools. This study reviews studies conducted using the resilience concept and examines the tools, models, and methods adopted. It examines the domains, indicators, and indices have been considered in the tools. It provides a critical analysis of the assessment tools available for evaluating community disaster resilience (CDR).

Methods: We investigated international electronic databases including Scopus, MEDLINE through PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and Google Scholar with no limitation on date, and type of articles. The search terms and strategy were as follow: (Disaster* OR Emergenc*) AND (Resilience OR Resilient OR Resiliency) that were applied for titles, abstracts and keywords. Extracted data were analyzed in terms of studied hazards, types of methodology, domains, and indicators of CDR assessment.

Results: Of 675 publications initially identified, the final analysis was conducted on 17 full text articles. These studies presented ten models, tools, or indices for CDR assessment. These evinced a diverse set of models with regard to the domains, indicators and the kind of hazard described. Considerable inter dependency between and among domains and indicators also emerged from this analysis.

Conclusion: The disparity between the articles using the resilience concept and those that offer some approach to measurement (675 vs. 17) indicates the conceptual and measurement complexity in CDR and the fact that the concept may be being used without regard to how CDR should be operationalized and assessed. Of those that have attempted to assess CDR, the level of conceptual diversity indicates limited agreement about how to operationalize the concept. As a way forward we summarize the models identified in the literature and suggest that, as a starting point for the systematic operationalization of CDR, that existing indicators of community disaster resilience be classified in five domains. These are social, economic, institutional, physical and natural domains. A need to use appropriate and effective methods to quantify and weigh them with regard to their relative contributions to resilience is identified, as is a need to consider how these levels interrelate to influence resilience. Although assessment of disaster resilience especially at the community level will inform disaster risk reduction strategies, attempts to systematically do so are in preliminary phases. Further empirical investigation is needed to develop a operational and measurable CDR model.

Background and objective:
Growing evidence is indicating that some of disaster affected people face challenges to resume normal life several months after an earthquake. However, there is no sufficient in-depth understanding of complex process of resuming normal life after an earthquake in Iran, as one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, and in rural areas as a particular setting. This study aimed to explore challenges of return to normalcy in rural earthquake-stricken areas of Iran.

Methods:
The study was conducted using qualitative content analysis method (Graneheim approach). Twenty people from the earthquake-stricken areas and seven qualified experts were selected via purposeful sampling .Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and field notes from August 2013 to January 2014. Data collection continued to the point of data saturation (no new information was provided by interviewees). Data saturation supported the sample size. Data analysis was based on qualitative content analysis principles.

Results:
“Social uncertainty and confusion” was the most prominent challenge of return to the normal life after earthquake, which was categorized into six concepts of social vulnerability, lack of comprehensive rehabilitation plan, incomplete reconstruction, ignorance of local social capital, waste of assets, and psychological problems.

Conclusions:
Findings showed that social uncertainty and confusion occurs as a result of negligence of some important social aspects in process of returning to the normal life. This issue, in turn, can greatly interrupt the normal developmental processes. Understanding the challenges of life recovery after disasters will help policy makers consider social rehabilitation as a key factor in facilitation of return to normal life process after earthquakes.

Keywords: Disaster; earthquake; social rehabilitation; social uncertainty.

Background: Although natural disasters have caused considerable damages around the world, and gender analysis can improve community disaster preparedness or mitigation, there is little research about the gendered analytical tools and methods in communities exposed to natural disasters and hazards. These tools evaluate gender vulnerability and capacity in pre-disaster and post-disaster phases of the disaster management cycle.

Objectives: Identifying the analytical gender tools and the strengths and limitations of them as well as determining gender analysis studies which had emphasized on the importance of using gender analysis in disasters.

Methods: The literature search was conducted in June 2013 using PubMed, Web of Sciences, ProQuest Research Library, World Health Organization Library, Gender and Disaster Network (GDN) archive. All articles, guidelines, fact sheets and other materials that provided an analytical framework for a gender analysis approach in disasters were included and the non-English documents as well as gender studies of non-disasters area were excluded. Analysis of the included studies was done separately by descriptive and thematic analyses.

Results: A total of 207 documents were retrieved, of which only nine references were included. Of these, 45% were in form of checklist, 33% case study report, and the remaining 22% were article. All selected papers were published within the period 1994-2012.

Conclusions: A focus on women’s vulnerability in the related research and the lack of valid and reliable gender analysis tools were considerable issues identified by the literature review. Although non-English literatures with English abstract were included in the study, the possible exclusion of non-English ones was found as the limitation of this study.