ArticleScientific reports2025
Dissecting resilience curve archetypes and properties in human systems facing weather hazards.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Resilience curves have been widely used for conceptualizing and representing specific aspects of resilience behavior during hazard events; however, their use has often remained conceptual with limited data-driven characterization and empirical grounding. While broader community resilience encompasses multiple social, economic, and infrastructure dimensions, targeted analyses of specific systems can provide valuable insights into resilience patterns. Empirical characterizations of resilience curves provide essential insights regarding the manner in which differently impacted systems of communities absorb perturbations and recover from disruptions. To address this gap, this study examines human mobility resilience patterns following multiple weather-related hazard events in the United States by analyzing more than 2000 empirical resilience curves constructed from high-resolution location-based mobility data. These empirical resilience curves are then classified into archetypes using k-means clustering based on various features (e.g., residual performance, disruption duration, and recovery duration). Three main archetypes of human mobility resilience are identified: Type I, with rapid recovery after mild impact; Type II, exhibiting bimodal recovery after moderate impact; and Type III, showing slower recovery after severe impact. The results also reveal critical thresholds, such as the bimodal recovery breakpoint at a 20% impact extent (i.e., function loss), at which the recovery rate decreases, and the critical functional threshold at a 60% impact extent, above which recovery rate would be rather slow. The results show that a critical functional recovery rate of 2.5% per day is necessary to follow the bimodal resilience archetype when impact extent exceeds 20%. These findings provide novel and important insights into different resilience curve archetypes and their fundamental properties. Departing from using resilience curves as a mere concept and visual tool, the data-driven specification of resilience curve archetypes and their properties improve our understanding of the resilience patterns of human systems of communities and enable researchers and practitioners to better anticipate and analyze ways communities bounce back in the aftermath of disruptive hazard events.
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.