Beyond the Original BRIC Model: Gaps, Limitations, and Adaptation of Community Resilience Indicators for Local Contexts

This paper reviews the development and adaptations of the BRIC (Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities) method for measuring local community resilience to disasters, grounded in the DROP (Disaster Resilience of Place) theoretical framework. The point of departure is the analysis of the DROP framework, which defines resilience as a dynamic process conditioned by pre-existing social, economic, institutional, and infrastructural conditions, as well as their interaction with natural systems. The first part of the paper discusses the theoretical value of this framework, as well as the practical challenges of its application arising from the limited availability of reliable data and the lack of standardized methodological approaches. The second part of the paper presents a detailed analysis of the development of resilience dimensions in contemporary literature, including socio-demographic structure, well-being and social capital, economic stability, institutional capacities, infrastructure, geographical and spatial characteristics, cooperation, and risk analysis. Through a comparative approach, it is shown that, although differently labeled, these indicators essentially converge on the same conceptual cores, while also revealing developmental discontinuities relative to the original DROP framework and the initial BRIC method. The central part of the paper examines the evolution of the BRIC method and its adaptations across different national contexts, including analyses of indicator applications in Norway, England, Nepal, Hungary, and Australia. Particular attention is paid to the role of the OECD methodological guidelines in indicator selection, with an emphasis on their frequent partial implementation, especially in areas related to handling missing data, reliability testing, and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, the paper demonstrates that the BRIC method possesses high conceptual potential and broad applicability; however, without deeper contextual adaptation, stricter methodological discipline, and the integration of spatial and local approaches, its validity and operational usefulness in community resilience planning may remain limited.