ArticleInternational journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR2025
A critical review on measurement tools of urban household and community resilience to disasters and environmental shocks and stressors among low- and middle-income countries: Theory, application, and guidance.
Article in International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With increasingly severe weather events compounded with additional disasters, environmental shocks and stressors, and socio-economic challenges, there is a growing sense of urgency to build resilience, resulting in the need for assessment tools. We conducted a review of empirical studies that measured household and community resilience to environmental shocks and stressors among urban populations in low- and middle-income countries. This review was conducted to 1) understand how empirical studies measure resilience, 2) identify gaps in current practices, and 3) provide theory-informed recommendations to bridge gaps. Our review included 28 studies of which 25 measured community level resilience and three measured household-level resilience. The studies measured resilience against climate change, disease outbreaks, earthquakes, floods, food insecurity, and disasters. The 751 extracted measures from these studies focused on social (45 %), environmental (34 %), and economic (21 %) domains of resilience. Our review revealed that assessment tools often erroneously use measures of vulnerability (example: age distribution, frequency of shocks/stressor) to assess resilience and sub-domains are inconsistently used to characterize resilience across existing measures. Furthermore, capacity measures (i.e., adaptive, absorptive, and transformative) that reflect the dynamic nature of resilience are inconsistently used. We provide guidance on filling these gaps by 1) informing the development of measures, 2) providing an adapted measurement framework for urban household-level resilience against disasters and environmental shocks and stressors for use in LMICs, and 3) making recommendations for how to contextualize the framework.
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.