Problem, research strategy, and fi ndings: Conventional hazard mitigation and pre-disaster recovery planning processes typically begin with hazard scenarios that illustrate probable events and analyze their impacts on the built environment. The processes conclude with responses to the hypothetical disruption that focus on "hardening" buildings or structures or removing them from threatened areas. These approaches understate the importance of natural and social sources of adaptive capacity. Three "proof-ofprinciple" exercises designed to strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s Risk MAP (Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning) process in Washington State suggest how better to conduct hazard mitigation and recovery planning. Each begins with workshops where stakeholders identify built, natural, and social assets that contribute to human wellbeing (HWB) before introducing earthquake scenarios that affect HWB. Participants then identify assets that could facilitate adaptation to changed circumstances (a "new normal"). Participants discuss how these assets would achieve the goals of comprehensive community planning as well as hazard mitigation and recovery from disaster. Neighborhood-scale social organization emerges as an important priority. Takeaway for practice: Asset-based approaches enable communities to better recover from disaster and adapt to a postdisaster "new normal." By premising planning discussions on a more holistic set of assets, communities can balance physical recovery goals with qualities that help them to adapt to future change. Furthermore, thinking about recovering before an event W e need stronger neighborhoods, increased walkability, greater sense of place, mixed land uses, closer neighbor and family ties and trust": These were conclusions from tabletop exercises held in the cities of Redmond, Everett, and Neah Bay in Washington State. These outcomes might have been expected if the exercise focused on smart growth, but stakeholders were addressing earthquake risks. Individuals mentioned traditional earthquake mitigation measures such as retrofi tting or strengthening structures, developing redundant energy sources, and improving emergency response, but those did not drive the discussions. This new approach to earthquake risks began with an inventory of community assets-built, natural, and social "capital"-instead of vulnerabilities, and it prompted stakeholders familiar with emergency preparedness to broaden their thinking about how to plan for disasters.The experience of these tabletop exercises demonstrates how both mitigation and recovery planning can benefi t from incorporating general land use and community planning goals for everyday betterment. This could lead to successful integration of mitigation and recovery planning with comprehensive planning, a goal that has proven alluring and elusive to disaster planners (Pearce, 2003; Wamsler, 2006). Progress has been made toward integrating hazards mitigation and recovery planning into other types of planning through " actua...