What Do We Mean by 'Community Resilience'? A Systematic Review of How It Is Defined in the Literature

This systematic review examines how researchers define community resilience and shows that there is no single agreed-upon definition in the literature. The authors reviewed 80 relevant papers and identified nine core elements that repeatedly appear across definitions of community resilience in disaster and recovery contexts: local knowledge, community networks and relationships, communication, health, governance and leadership, resources, economic investment, preparedness, and mental outlook. The article is valuable because it does not merely list concepts; it organizes them into a structured framework that helps readers compare approaches and identify where definitions overlap or diverge.

Each core element is connected to a practical dimension of resilience. For example, local knowledge includes factual understanding, collective efficacy, empowerment, training, and education, all of which can reduce vulnerability by improving how people understand and respond to risk. The resources and economic investment elements distinguish between short-term support and longer-term investments that can strengthen resilience over time. Preparedness is described as an actionable dimension that overlaps with knowledge and communication but focuses more directly on concrete activities. The authors also emphasize mental outlook, including hope and adaptability, as part of community capacity to endure and recover.

For practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, the article offers a useful conceptual map. It clarifies that resilience is multidimensional and cannot be reduced to infrastructure or emergency response alone. Instead, it emerges from social ties, leadership, communication, material resources, and psychological factors working together. The review is especially useful for anyone designing resilience indicators, evaluating community programs, or comparing intervention models across different settings. Because it is a systematic review, it provides stronger evidentiary grounding than a simple commentary or opinion piece, and its framework remains relevant for applied work in disaster preparedness, public health, and community development.