Theoretical evolution of measuring community is the central topic of this scientific publication.
Abstract
In disaster studies, the measurement of resilience has developed through several conceptual phases, reflecting broader transformations in disaster risk research. It is clear that the initial approaches, rooted in ecology and engineering, defined resilience primarily as a system’s ability to absorb shocks and return to equilibrium. Although such perspectives provided clarity and measurability, they often reduced complex social realities to simplified technical indicators. Indeed, this did not provide comprehensive and precise insights into levels of resilience to different types of disasters. Over time, critics emphasized that resilience cannot be captured solely through stability or recovery speed, since communities are not mechanical systems but socio-political entities shaped by governance, culture, and inequality. In contrast, second-generation models introduced multidimensionality, incorporating economic, institutional, infrastructural, and environmental factors. Nevertheless, these frameworks frequently faced problems of comparability, data availability, and context sensitivity. Composite indicators, such as the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC), sought to operationalize resilience systematically. However, they faced limitations in weighting procedures, variable selection, and the neglect of qualitative dimensions such as trust, solidarity, and adaptive learning. Similarly, the Disaster Resilience of Place (DROP) model provided valuable theoretical grounding, yet its transferability across diverse socio-political settings remained a challenge. According to various theoretical analyses, resilience measurement continues to face methodological and practical limitations, such as conceptual ambiguity (the absence of a universally accepted definition), indicator overload (large sets of variables that reduce analytical precision), underdeveloped statistical assessments (overlooking the dynamic, process-oriented nature of resilience), and contextual gaps (insufficient adaptation to local governance and cultural conditions). To address these challenges on a theoretical level, research was conducted in Serbia applying a qualitative empirical approach. 19 experienced local-level disaster management practitioners were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis revealed how resilience is perceived and operationalized in practice, highlighting the gap between formal strategies and local realities. Findings indicate limited awareness, fragmented institutional cooperation, and an over-reliance on central authorities. Such results underscore the need for flexible, participatory, and context-sensitive measurement models. By critically tracing the evolution of resilience measurement – its achievements and shortcomings – this research underscores that resilience cannot be fully understood through indicators alone. A synthesis of quantitative rigor and qualitative insight is required to link global frameworks with local experiences. Such a comprehensive approach not only improves measurement but also strengthens governance and societal capacities, which are essential for addressing future risks.
Conclusions
This study explored how community resilience measurement has evolved in theory, supported by real-world insights from disaster management experts in Serbia. By combining a thorough literature review with qualitative data, the research reveals a growing gap between existing frameworks, such as DROP, BRIC, and R4, and the challenges communities and local authorities actually face. While global models offer functional structure and analysis, they are only partly relevant without adaptation to local cultural, socio-economic, and institutional specifics.
The interview data clearly show that practitioners see community resilience as limited, uneven, and heavily reliant on personal disaster experience. Citizens’ knowledge is often described as inadequate and disorganized, shaped more by past disasters than by systematic education or preparedness efforts. Knowledge of preventive actions, participation in drills, awareness of emergency plans, and stockpiling all show significant gaps that hinder the development of a prevention culture. Respondents frequently cite institutional fragmentation, insufficient training, poor communication, and infrequent community engagement as major barriers. Nonetheless, the qualitative results highlight some strengths. Personal and collective experiences, especially with floods, have fostered a practical understanding of risk in specific communities. Respondents also point to solidarity, adaptability, and quick learning as potential assets for resilience. However, these strengths tend to be sporadic rather than widespread and lack reinforcement through long-term policies or institutional backing.
Overall, the findings confirm that resilience cannot be fully captured by quantitative indicators or composite indices alone. These models often miss critical contextual factors, such as trust in institutions, social cohesion, informal networks, cultural norms, and lived experiences, all of which influence real-world resilience. Therefore, a mixed approach that combines the analytical clarity of indicator-based models with the contextual depth of qualitative and participatory methods is recommended. The study also emphasizes the need for a paradigm shift in disaster risk governance. Resilience should be viewed as a dynamic, evolving process rooted in knowledge, preparedness, communication, social capital, and effective institutions.
Improving resilience in Serbia requires ongoing investment in risk education, revitalizing civil protection training, making emergency plans more transparent and accessible, conducting regular drills, and fostering stronger cooperation between institutions and communities. Without these steps, resilience will remain just an ideal rather than a reality. By tracing the evolution of resilience theory and comparing it with local conditions, this research shows that meaningful progress depends on both refining concepts and implementing practical measures. A future-oriented, context-sensitive model – flexible, participatory, and multidimensional – offers the best chance to enhance community resilience against natural and technological disasters. This approach not only improves measurement but also strengthens governance structures and societal capacities needed to face increasingly complex and interconnected risks.
How to cite
Cvetković, V., Milenković, D., Lukić, T., & Renner, R. (2026). Theoretical evolution of measuring community resilience to natural and technological disasters: past, present, and future – empirical insights from qualitative research in Serbia. Open Geosciences, 18(1), 20250968. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2025-0968
