Analytical–operational guidelines for resilience assessment frameworks

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, resilience scholars have made significant efforts to establish assessment frameworks. This article attempts to create a comprehensive and categorized perspective, titled analytical–operational guidelines, to address overlapping points and cognitive gaps resulting from scattered approaches. Such approaches have led to an unbalanced development within the resilience domain despite qualitative and quantitative progress. By emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of resilience scholars’ efforts, this article aims to foster a balanced development of resilience and provide a repeatable, operational guide for system-hazard scenarios. To achieve this, a critical analysis has been conducted, drawing from a selection of the most significant frameworks from diverse perspectives. Considering the expansive scope of the resilience cognitive domain, presenting a study that harnesses the capacity of all domains is essential. Furthermore, in line with sustainability criteria and principles, as well as the maintenance of social, economic, and environmental performance levels, efforts have been directed toward prioritizing resilience in accordance with these principles. Main challenges are addressed through two key questions focusing on resilience as a framework and the effectiveness analysis of frameworks. These challenges highlight past and future perspectives, enabling scholars to understand cognitive capacity within resilience-related sciences. The article substantiates the necessity for a unified framework, recognizing its alignment with the efforts of comprehensive and exclusiveness-focused researchers and the crucial role of stakeholders.