Theoretical Evolution of Measuring Community Resilience to Natural and Technological Disasters: Past, Present, and Future -Empirical Insights from Qualitative Research in Serbia

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. Nineteen 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, linking 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.