See: Comparative Glossary (Conclusions): In real life the harm done does not only depend on hazard, vulnerability and exposure, but also on the coping capacity and the resilience of the element at risk. In the literature most definitions show a large overlap between coping capacity and resilience and are often used as synonyms. These two dimensions of a harmful event are not easily separated from each other. Here, coping capacity encompasses those strategies and measures that act directly upon damage during the event by alleviating or containing the impact or by bringing about efficient relief, as well as those adaptive strategies that modify behaviour or activities in order to circumvent or avoid damaging effects. Resilience is all of these things, plus the capability to remain functional during an event and to completely recover from it. So resilience includes coping capacity but at the same time goes beyond it. Figure 3. Coping capacity and resilience are hard to delineate. Resilience is understood to be the more encompassing term. The difficult question that arises from this definition is: does vulnerability already account for coping capacity and resilience or are they separate and counteracting parameters The answer depends on how we define the damage or harm caused. If the extent of the damage or harm is defined also by the duration of the adverse effects and by its repercussions on people's poverty, economy, or awareness, then vulnerability has to include coping capacity and resilience. This conclusion follows from the postulation that vulnerability describes susceptibility to damage or harm