A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sharifi, Ayyoob
• Is Part Of: Ecological indicators. Volume 69(2016)
• Page Start: 629
• Page End: 647
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: Community resilience -- Assessment tool -- Measurement -- Indicators -- Criteria -- Uncertainties; Environmental monitoring -- Periodicals; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Environmental impact analysis -- Periodicals; Environmental risk assessment -- Periodicals; Sustainable development -- Periodicals; 333.71405
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1470-160X

Abstract

Highlights: Thirty six selected community resilience assessment tools were analyzed. Selected tools have taken diverse approaches to assess resilience. A framework for evaluating performance of resilience assessment tools is proposed. Environmental dimension is not adequately incorporated into the assessment tools. Cross-scale relationships are largely neglected in the assessment process. Abstract: The concept of resilience is increasingly used in academic and policy circles. To operationalize this concept and reduce the ambiguities surrounding it, since the turn of the century, various resilience assessment methodologies have been introduced. This paper provides a critical review of 36 selected community resilience assessment tools. These tools have been developed by a variety of entities, including national and local organizations, international donor organizations, and academic researchers. First, an overview of the selected tools is presented. This overview analysis shows that while some commonalities exist, there are also considerable differences between the tools. Next, based on literature review, an analytical framework is developed that identifies six criteria for evaluating performance of resilience assessment tools. These are, namely, addressing multiple dimensions of resilience, accounting for cross-scale relationships, capturing temporal dynamism, addressing uncertainties, employing participatory approaches, and developing action plans. Results show that limited success has been achieved in addressing these criteria. In terms of comprehensiveness, the environmental dimension has received relatively less attention in spite of its significance for building community resilience. Further improvements are needed to account for dynamics over time and across space. More attention to employing iterative processes that involve scenario-based planning is needed to better address challenges associated with uncertainties. Results also show that more attention needs to be paid to stakeholder participation in developing assessment tools. The paper concludes by highlighting several other areas of weakness that need to be addressed and discussing major challenges that still remain.