ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
A community resilience index for place-based actionable metrics.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing resilience science through cross-domain integration: Proceedings of an NIH workshop.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2026Review
- A community resilience index for place-based actionable metrics.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Community resilience measurement to natural hazards is becoming increasingly relevant due to the growth of federal programs and local and state resilience offices in the United States. This study introduces a methodology to co-produce an actionable resilience metric to measure locally relevant and modifiable indicators of community resilience for the state of South Carolina. The "actionable" metrics, based on the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) index, are calculated at the county and tract scale and then compared to "conventional" versions of BRIC. Actionable BRICs perform better in reliability testing than conventional BRICs. Correlations across the two scales of BRIC construction show a stronger relationship between the actionable BRICs than conventional, though all are highly correlated. When mapped, actionable BRIC shows a shifted region of low resilience in the state when compared to conventional BRIC, suggesting that actionable and conventional BRICs are distinct. Scale differences show dissimilar drivers of resilience, with county-level resilience driven by community, social, and environmental resilience and tract-level resilience driven by social and institutional resilience. Actionable tract-level BRIC appears to be the best representation of modifiable resilience for South Carolina, but it comes with trade-offs, including calculation complexity and changing geographies over time. Regardless of scale, the resulting actionable indices offer a useful tracking mechanism for the state resilience office and highlight the importance of integrating top-down and bottom-up resilience perspectives to consider local drivers of resilience. The resulting methodology can be replicated in other states and localities to produce actionable and locally relevant resilience metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.