Community Resilience Indicator Analysis: Commonly Used Indicators from Peer-Reviewed Research (Updated for Research Published 2003-2021)
In 2017, FEMA’s National Integration Center (NIC) Technical Assistance (TA) Branch identified a need to establish a data-driven basis for prioritizing locations for TA investment and guiding local emergency management planning. To achieve this goal, FEMA tasked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) with identifying commonly used indicators of community resilience across the landscape of published peer-reviewed research. FEMA and Argonne completed the first Community Resilience Indicator Analysis (CRIA) in 2018 and repeated the process in 2022. The CRIA process begins with a literature review and cataloguing of published peer-reviewed assessment methodologies on social vulnerability and community resilience. The literature review findings are then filtered by inclusion criteria established by the CRIA research team to ensure the methodologies are: (1) Quantitative, (2) Data and methodology are publicly available, (3) Calculated at the county level or lower, (4) Examine generalized hazard risk (rather than a singular hazard), and (5) Focused on pre-disaster community conditions. After this, the research team identifies the commonly used indicators across these methodologies and selects the best data source for each indicator. Finally, the research team bins the data for visual display, conducts a correlation analysis and creates a composite index, the FEMA Community Resilience Index (FEMA CRI). In 2018, the CRIA identified eight resilience and vulnerability assessment methodologies and 20 commonly used indicators (indicators used in three or more of the eight methodologies). The FEMA CRI in 2018 was created from these 20 indicators and was produced for at the county level. The 2022 CRIA updated the literature review to expand the list of methodologies examined and followed the same process, resulting in an analysis of 14 methodologies published between 2003 and 2021 and 22 indicators identified as commonly used (indicators used in five or more of the 14 methodologies). In 2022, the research team produced the FEMA CRI at the county and the census tract levels. To make the CRIA data more accessible and more actionable, each individual indicator and the FEMA CRI is binned and included in FEMA’s Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT). RAPT enables emergency managers and community partners to quickly visualize relative differences in potential resilience by county, tribe and census tract. By reviewing the data for each of these 22 indicators individually, emergency managers can gain insights for targeted outreach strategies, planning, mitigation investments and response and recovery operations. Communities, regional governments and others can use this data to better understand potential challenges to resilience. As the social science field of examining and validating indicators of resilience evolves, FEMA will update RAPT to provide emergency managers and community partners with additional data and tools to inform planning, mitigation, response and recovery. It is important to understand that the role of the emergency manager is not to change or to “improve” the data, but to plan appropriately for the community characteristics reflected in the data. These datasets are community characteristics that researchers have identified as important considerations for resilience. For example, people with disabilities may have greater challenges to be resilient to disasters. If a community has a high population of people with disabilities, the emergency manager(s) may need to create tailored preparedness outreach programs and strategies to ensure those residents have support if evacuation is necessary. Rather than label these indicators as an absolute measure of resilience, FEMA considers “potential challenges to resilience” a better frame to understand these indicators. Everyone is vulnerable to disasters. While scholars theorize that certain characteristics may make an individual or a household more socially vulnerable, the data does not reflect measures that individuals and/or communities have taken to address potential challenges, such as emergency management planning and outreach or household preparedness measures. To aid emergency managers in understanding how to use these indicators, calling them potential challenges to resilience supports a more positive and strategic application of the data in all phases of emergency management.