A Community Disaster Resilience Index For Chile

sustainability
Article
A Community Disaster Resilience Index for Chile
Nicolás C. Bronfman 1,2, *, Javiera V. Castañeda 1,3 , Nikole F. Guerrero 1,4 , Pamela Cisternas 1,2 ,
Paula B. Repetto 1,3 , Carolina Martínez 1,4,5 and Alondra Chamorro 1,6
1 National Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management, ANID/FONDAP/1522A0005,

Santiago (CIGIDEN), Santiago 1030000, Chile
2 Engineering Sciences Department, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 1030000, Chile
3 Department of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 1030000, Chile
4 Institute of Geography, Faculty of History, Geography and Political Sciences, Pontificia Universidad Católica
de Chile, Santiago 1030000, Chile
5 Millennium Science Initiative Program—ANID—Instituto Milenio en Socio-Ecología Costera (SECOS),
Santiago 8331150, Chile
6 Department of Construction Engineering and Management, School of Engineering,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 1030000, Chile
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Although Chile is one of the countries most exposed to natural hazards, to date there is no
national index that shows the differences in resilience levels within the country. This study develops
a community resilience index on a national scale based on the Baseline Resilience Community (BRIC)
index. The BRIC index for Chile was built with 49 indicators, from different sources at the district
level. Our results determined that resilience is not distributed homogeneously throughout the country.
The highest levels of resilience are concentrated in the central macro-zone. In comparison, the extreme
zones of Chile focus close to 90% of their population in the lowest levels, accounting for an uneven
distribution of resources and services that impact resilience levels. These differences were mainly
explained by indicators such as the percentage of the population without a health insurance system,
the percentage of the population without internet access, and the percentage of electoral participation,
among others. The results demonstrate that the BRIC model can be successfully implemented to
assess community resilience in Chile and suggests the possibility of targeting resources and strategies
to increase resilience in areas with the lowest levels of community resilience.
Citation: Bronfman, N.C.; Castañeda,
J.V.; Guerrero, N.F.; Cisternas, P.;
Repetto, P.B.; Martínez, C.; Chamorro,
Keywords: resilience; community; BRIC; Chile
A. A Community Disaster Resilience
Index for Chile. Sustainability 2023,
15, 6891. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su15086891 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Sulfikar Amir
In the last two decades, earthquakes and tsunamis have generated the most significant
number of human and economic losses, causing 1.3 million deaths. Climate-change-related
Received: 1 February 2023 events also represent 91% of the disasters that occurred in the past year [1]. This accounts
Revised: 16 March 2023 for the growing impact of disasters on communities.
Accepted: 27 March 2023
Several institutions and scientific associations have made progress in understanding
Published: 19 April 2023
hazards and their potential effects on the environment and communities. These studies
have sought to reduce territories’ exposure and vulnerability by developing risk mitigation
strategies. However, over the last decade, the risk-management action frameworks and the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
sustainable development goals have highlighted that reducing disaster risk also requires
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
building more resilient communities [2].
This article is an open access article
Defining resilience can be a significant challenge since its conceptualization varies
distributed under the terms and depending on the discipline that is studying it and the unit of analysis considered: from
conditions of the Creative Commons individuals to communities and territories [3]. Although there is still no consensus on its
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// definition, some of the most used conceptualizations for resilience understand it as the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ capacity of systems to absorb and respond to disaster impacts [4]. On the other hand, the
4.0/). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and other international initiatives propose
Sustainability 2023, 15, 6891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086891 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 6891 2 of 24
that resilience is an individual’s or a community’s ability to face the impact of natural

disasters and to anticipate, recover, and adapt to them to maintain their identity and
everyday functioning [2,5].
Different dimensions of resilience emerge from its multiple definitions and units of
analysis. Although most studies have focused on understanding the resilience of physical
systems, such as critical infrastructure [3,6], progress has also been made in our under-
standing of individual resilience, as the fundamental psychosocial conditions required to
avoid the potentially traumatic impact of an event [7].
During the last decades, the study of community resilience has become more relevant.
The aim is to identify the capacities and processes that communities live with [7] and
develop to face a potentially catastrophic event [8,9]. Various approaches have advanced the
understanding of community resilience, providing a theoretical basis for its measurement.
Each approach follows different definitions of resilience, either as a pre-existing capacity
in communities or as part of a process that integrates the resources that communities
have available to anticipate, prevent and adapt to a disaster [10,11]. These approaches
include the Socio-Ecological Perspective [12], the Framework of Sustainability [13], the
Disaster Resilience Integrated Framework for Transformation (DRIFT) [11], and the Disaster
Resilience of Place (DROP) model [6]. The latter understands community resilience as
the inherent capacities that allow a system to absorb the impact of disasters, generating a
specific response and recovery time in the face of these events [6,14].
Unlike other models, the DROP model has managed to integrate the main dimensions
of resilience to natural disasters discussed in the literature. This model was designed for
natural disasters with immediate effects, such as earthquakes or tsunamis, and hazards
with slower impacts, such as events related to climate change.
In the DROP model, resilience is related to social vulnerability. In this approach, social
vulnerability and resilience are characteristics inherent to territories that are related but
different from each other [6,15]. A territory can, therefore, be highly vulnerable but not
necessarily less resilient since it can have capacities—such as social capital—that allow it to
adapt better after an event [16,17].
From the DROP model, Cutter et al. [18] have developed the Baseline Resilience
Index for Communities (BRIC), which seeks to create a replicable metric that integrates
different types of resilience. The BRIC considers the community as the fundamental unit
of analysis, i.e., those interpersonal interactions that occur in a geographical location [18].
This index incorporates indicators that reflect six dimensions of resilience: social resilience,
community capital, economic resilience, institutional resilience, infrastructure resilience,
and environmental resilience. It should be noted that this index is part of a top-down
approach where the indicators to measure resilience are chosen by researchers based on a
literature review or expert judgment.
Given its multidimensional nature and relative ease of replication, the BRIC has been
used to measure community resilience in several countries, mainly focusing on specific
regions, states, or municipalities [10]. Only some studies, however, have estimated the
BRIC at the national level. The first nationwide BRIC was carried out by Cutter et al. [18] in
the US. The authors found the lowest resilient levels to be concentrated in the Midwest.
Conversely, the highest resilience indices were clustered in the western and southern parts
of the United States. They also found that most resilient counties had the highest levels of
investment in mitigation measures or were closest to metropolitan areas.
In addition to the original study in [18] carried out in the United States, [19] is a study
conducted in Norway. The authors considered the six dimensions of resilience integrated
into the BRIC proposed by Cutter et al. [18], adapting the variables to the availability of data
and the country’s context and validating the process by a team of experts through focus
groups. They also calculated sub-indices for each dimension of resilience to observe the
distribution of economic, social, institutional, environmental, and infrastructure resilience
throughout the different municipalities of Norway. Using this metric, the authors found
high variability in the levels of resilience throughout the territory, with large cities showing
the highest levels of resilience. These results are similar to those of previous studies where
it was found that urban territories constitute concentrations of the high levels of resilience
due to the topography of the place. In contrast, flatter places, such as large cities, have
characteristics that favor economic and social development [20].
Integrating the community resilience approach to develop disaster risk reduction
plans, programs, and policies becomes relevant given the current scenario of a significant
global increase in socio-natural disasters. Due to its location in the Pacific Ring of Fire, Chile
is one of the countries with a higher risk of multiple natural hazards [21]. Between 1980 and
2011, Chile registered an average of losses approaching 1.2% of its GDP due to socio-natural
disasters [2,5]. Hence, creating a more resilient country is essential to reducing the impact
of future disasters.
Numerous studies have contributed to characterizing resilience in Chile, mainly eval-
uating the resilience of critical infrastructure against natural hazards [22,23]. Researchers
have also sought to incorporate different community and institutional perspectives defin-
ing resilience [24,25]. Although significant progress has been made in understanding the
dimensions that characterize resilience for communities and territories, Chile still lacks a
nationwide community resilience index that can be applied to multi-hazard scenarios. To
bridge this gap, this study’s main objective is to develop a community resilience index for
Chile based on the BRIC index. Having a national community resilience index would allow
the identification of the territories with the country’s lowest (or highest) levels of resilience
and more efficient allocation of resources.
Finally, through the development of the BRIC index, we will be able to observe
which indicators of social, economic, and environmental development impact the country’s
capacity to respond to natural disasters. This first approximation of the levels of resilience
allows us to provide a tool to achieve the sustainable development goals that seek to
reduce inequality within countries, reduce vulnerability to disasters and generate more
resilient communities. In addition, this indicator can be a baseline to evaluate the impact of
strategies and programs that promote community resilience for different localities.
1.1. Resilience Categories

The BRIC index incorporates six resilience dimensions representing the large systems
involved in communities’ response and recovery processes in the face of natural disasters.
1.1.1. Social Resilience

This dimension focuses on the capacities of social groups to face disaster effectively,
being able to return to how they functioned before the event [26,27]. It is characterized
by three processes or elements that manifest themselves in the community when facing a
disaster: that any social group has resistance to face the consequences, that it can recover in
a short period, and that it can also adapt to new circumstances [28–30].
The diversity of people within a community result in the emergence of groups with
higher or lower levels of resilience. Previous studies have identified that, in general,
older adults have more difficulties coping with disasters, which may affect their resilience
capacity [27,28,31]. In addition, both studies that applied the BRIC at the national level
found that not having the ability to purchase a car or having lower access to medical
services resulted in lower levels of resilience in the areas under study.
Social resilience has been measured depending on the unit being studied (communities,
families, etc.) and their capacities to cope (planning, human and economic resources,
among others) [32,33]. In the DROP model, the social-resilience measure includes the
demographic qualities of the community and its ability to maintain its well-being when
facing a disaster [6,18].
1.1.2. Community Capital

Community’s resources are essential to determining its disaster response. Social
capital considers the interpersonal networks within a social group. It integrates the links
between the family, neighborhoods, social organizations, and community members and the
figures or centers of power [26,34].
People’s contact networks are crucial in emergencies and disasters. They improve
disaster response and function as facilitators to make people aware of preparedness mea-
sures [35]. These actions are strengthened when people become attached to their places of
residence, share a feeling of belonging, and participate in citizen organizations [36]. For
example, the migrant population is part of the most vulnerable groups because they do not
have support networks that will allow them to face a disaster. Cutter et al. [18] found that
counties with moderate levels of community capital were those with the lowest percentage
of the migrant population.
Social capital and its multiple elements are considered part of social resilience. The
BRIC model, however, quantifies it as a dimension, since it seeks to look beyond interper-
sonal networks and allows us to capture how people become involved in the community [6].
In this way, variables associated with attachment to place (measured in years of residence
in the country), people born in other countries, and participation in civil or humanitarian
aid organizations are included [18].
1.1.3. Economic Resilience

This dimension is defined as the community’s and economic systems’ capacity to
mitigate the impact of socio-natural disasters [37,38]. This approach considers that socio-
natural disasters have both a macroeconomic and a microeconomic effect, recognizing the
impact on a countries’ productive systems, businesses, and households [39,40].
Territories with better economic conditions have better disaster planning and miti-
gation resources, enabling their communities to recover more quickly from disasters and
rapidly generate more resilient communities [41]. In addition, previous studies found
that having a higher percentage of people working resulted in higher levels of resilience
in counties or districts. Similarly, this was the case for areas whose economies were less
dependent on the primary sector. Although most technical studies of economic resilience
use mathematical models to understand recovery trajectories, in a resilience index, the
focus is on establishing an economic profile of the study area. In general, the indicators
used measure the diversity of the economic sectors on which communities depend, the
equitable distribution of resources, and other variables that represent the state of local
businesses [6].
1.1.4. Institutional Resilience

The organizations and institutions that manage risk are crucial to increasing a com-
munity’s resilience. Institutional resilience is the capacity of organizations to respond and
continue to function after a crisis [42,43]. The main characteristics of a resilient organization
or institution include collaborative work, managing vulnerability, and adaptability [44,45].
Previous studies investigating the post-disaster scenario reported that institutions
that are not coordinated or have poor communication hamper the response to disasters,
reducing the community’s capacity to face and absorb disaster impacts [46]. Additionally,
the more institutions invest in mitigation measures or insurance to face disasters, the higher
the levels of resilience are.
Government institutions’ disaster-response resources and their organization or plan-
ning strategies are considered when measuring institutional resilience [42]. In the BRIC
index, institutional resilience includes variables related to government coordination and
how centralized institutional resources, which are sources of political or economic power,
are. Variables represent the state programs delivered to the community to facilitate recovery
and the human resources trained to respond to natural disasters [6,14].
1.1.5. Infrastructure Resilience

This dimension of resilience focuses on the physical capacities of the critical infras-
tructure that allow the community to continue functioning after a disaster, including water
and electricity-supply services, communication services, education, and health, among

others [47]. Infrastructure is resilient when it is robust and can quickly return to operation,
so that disaster impacts do not affect the population in the long term [42].
A lack of resilient infrastructure hinders a community’s functioning and can also
increase the human and economic losses from a disaster. Previous research has identified
that during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, one of the impacts faced by the affected
territories was the loss of essential services, which increased the time it took them to
recover [48,49].
Although different approaches can be used to study infrastructure resilience, within
the BRIC index this dimension integrates indicators representing the quality of housing,
the physical capacity of medical and educational services, and the resources that facilitate
evacuation processes (evacuation routes and shelters) [18].
1.1.6. Environmental Resilience

Environmental resilience refers to the ability of ecological systems to absorb the impact
of a disruptive event, which enables natural systems to recover their current processes
or change by adapting to new circumstances [50]. The main characteristics that favor
environmental resilience include species diversity and diversity in the functions of the
different natural systems, in addition to the balance established between natural and social
systems concerning the efficiency of natural resource use [51].
Previous research has shown that extensive deforestation or ecosystem destruction
increases the risk of floods and their impact, hindering the recovery of territories [52]. In
addition, Cutter et al. [18] found that districts with lower levels of environmental resilience
were those with greater water scarcity. On the contrary, districts with higher resilience were
those that had ecosystem protection, such as wetlands.
The environmental-resilience dimension is, therefore, composed of indicators rep-
resenting territories’ exposure to different natural hazards, the natural resources that
allow impact mitigation (such as wetlands or dunes), and the sustainability of natural
resources [12,14].
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
Chile is a South American country with more than 6400 km2 of coastline [53] which
currently houses 17.5 million inhabitants, 51.5% of whom are women (Figure 1). According
to the last census records, Chile is in an advanced stage of population aging, with a fertility
rate of 1.6 and an aging index of 63.1 [54].
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 2023, 15,
15, 6891
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of
of 24
Figure1.1.Spatial
Figure Spatialcontext.
context.Source: prepared
Source: by the
prepared by authors basedbased
the authors on census data (INE,
on census data2017)
(INE,[55].
2017)
[55].
Chile is divided politically and administratively into 16 regions, 56 provinces,
346 communes, and 3100
Chile is divided districts
politically and[53]. Due to their into
administratively geographical
16 regions,extension, and geo-
56 provinces, 346
graphic diversity, the country’s regions and districts are grouped into five
communes, and 3100 districts [53]. Due to their geographical extension, and geographicmacro-zones:
Norte Grande,
diversity, Norte Chico,
the country’s Central,
regions and South, and
districts Austral,
are groupedas depicted
into five in Figure 1 [56].Norte
macro-zones:
The Norte Grande and Norte Chico macro-zones are the least populated
Grande, Norte Chico, Central, South, and Austral, as depicted in Figure 1 [56]. in the country,
housing
The Norte Grande and Norte Chico macro-zones are the least populated(the
13% of the national population with a high migrant population migrant
in the coun-
population of the Norte Grande and Norte Chico macro-zones is characterized by being
try, housing 13% of the national population with a high migrant population (the migrant
mostly women, young people between 25 and 36 years old, and coming from countries
population of the Norte Grande and Norte Chico macro-zones is characterized by being
such as Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Colombia. In turn, 50% of the migrant population is
mostly women, young people between 25 and 36 years old, and coming from countries
characterized by having arrived in the country during the period 2010–2017. The schooling
such as Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Colombia. In turn, 50% of the migrant population is
of approximately 30% of migrants reaches the professional level, with more than four years
characterized by having arrived in the country during the period 2010–2017. The school-
of higher education [55,57]) (20% of the total foreign population residing in Chile) [57]. Both
ing of approximately 30% of migrants reaches the professional level, with more than four
macro-zones have an arid or semi-arid climate and house the Atacama Desert, the driest
years of higher education [55,57]) (20% of the total foreign population residing in Chile)
desert on the planet. The main economic activity in Chile is mining, which is concentrated
[57]. Both macro-zones have an arid or semi-arid climate and house the Atacama Desert,
mainly in these two macro-zones [58].
the driest desert on the planet. The main economic activity in Chile is mining, which is
concentrated mainly in these two macro-zones [58].
More than ten million inhabitants live in the Central macro-zone, nearly 70% of
the national population. Around 65% of the country’s migrant population lives in this
macro-zone, mainly in the capital of Chile, Santiago (INE, 2017, 2022). This macro-zone
is characterized by its housing of the three State powers: executive, legislative, and
judicial [55,59]. The Central macro-zone has a Mediterranean and rainy climate, allowing
its main economic activity to be agriculture and port activity.
Finally, the South and Austral macrozones are part of the south and extreme south of
the country, hosting approximately 14% of the national population [55]. In these macro-
zones, the climate is rainy, humid, and with low temperatures [53]; it hosts the natural
areas with the most significant number of nature reserves and national parks in the country,
which exceed 10 million hectares [60]. The main economic activities of these macrozones
are aquaculture, forestry, and livestock.
2.2. Resilience Indicators

Based on previous studies, we selected 49 variables to construct the BRIC in Chile
(Table 1). These were grouped conceptually and theoretically into the six dimensions of
resilience established by [18]: Social Resilience, Community Capital, Economic Resilience,
Institutional Resilience, Infrastructure Resilience, and Environmental Resilience.
Table 1. Summary statistics for the indicators included in the community resilience index.
Resilience Dimension Initials Source Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Social (N = 11; α = 0.404)
% of two-parent households with children S1 Census 2017 1 1.0 100.0 26.2 7.9
% of households with telephone
S2 CASEN 2017 2 64.0 94.0 85.0 3.9
service available
% of households without food insecurity S3 CASEN 2017 23.3 97.7 74.4 10.4
% of population affiliated to a pension fund S4 CASEN 2017 31.0 88.9 65.4 9.0
% of population with a health
S5 CASEN 2017 80.0 100.0 95.1 2.8
insurance system
% of population over 25 who reached
S6 Census 2017 1 13.0 100.0 72.8 14.5
basic ed.
% of population that speaks Spanish S7 Census 2017 1 0.0 100.0 72.2 22.2
% population under 65 S8 Census 2017 1 27.3 100.0 85.1 5.6
% population without disability S9 CASEN 2017 77.2 98.0 91.0 3.3
Number of doctors per 10,000 inhab. S10 SNSS, 2018 3 6.9 30.0 17.6 6.5
No. of psychologists per 10,000 inhabitants. S11 SNSS, 2018 0.3 1.7 1.0 0.4
Social-Community Capital
(N = 6; α = 0.438)
% voter turnout SC1 Servel 2017 4 1.0 100.0 26.2 7.9
% of population from another country with 1
SC2 Census 2017 64.0 94.0 85.0 3.9
residence in 2012
% of population born in Chile SC3 Census 2017 1 23.3 97.7 74.4 10.4
% of population participating in
SC4 CASEN 2015 31.0 88.9 65.4 9.0
civil organizations
SC5 CASEN 2015 80.0 100.0 95.1 2.8
religious organizations
% of population participating
SC6 CASEN 2015 13.0 100.0 72.8 14.5
in volunteering
Economic (N = 7; α = 0.510)
% gap between both genders E1 CASEN 2017 −22.0 70.0 11.5 10.1
% of home ownership E2 CASEN 2017 22.5 97.0 74.8 8.1
Degree of employment diversification E3 Census 2017 1 738.9 10,000 2083 1405.9
% population employed in
E4 Census 2017 1 0.0 100.0 28.2 18.6
non-resilient sectors
% population working E5 Census 2017 1 0.0 100.0 53.0 13.0
No. of trading companies E6 SII 2019 5 1.0 186.0 22.5 32.4
Ratio between large and small companies E7 IBS 2019 0.0 2.6 0.2 0.2
Table 1. Cont.
Resilience Dimension Initials Source Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Institutional (N = 7; α = −0.050)
Km away from the regional capital IT1 MINVU, 2017 6 176.2 3,575,439.6 62,171.1 117,588.7
Number of credits and subsidies for 7
IT2 PASO 2019 0.0 492.0 31.9 44.1
agricultural development
No. of districts per region IT3 BCN, 2017 8 37.0 451.0 251.7 113.6
Number of people trained by ONEMI IT4 ONEMI, 2020 9 13.0 256.0 23.5 44.7
Number of agricultural insurance policies IT5 INDAP 2019 10 0.0 3602.0 1293.4 1255.7
No. governorates IT6 Barcelona, 2017 2.0 8.0 4.0 1.8
Intercensal growth rate 2015–2020 IT7 Census 2017 1 −1.5 7.9 1.1 1.1
Infrastructure (N = 8; α = 0.393)
% of households with acceptable materiality IF1 Census 2017 1 10.0 100.0 86.0 12.0
% population with internet access IF2 CASEN 2017 0.0 93.0 26.0 19.0
% Homes built post. thermal standard IF3 MINVU 0.0 61.3 25.2 9.8
Km railway network per km2 IF4 Friends of the train 11 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.2
Km road network per km2 IF5 MOP, 2008 12 0.0 5.6 0.3 0.4
Distance to airports or aerodromes in km. IF6 Barcelona, 2021 235.2 827,140.4 17,411.1 22,638.1
Number of educational centers per
IF7 MINEDUC 13 0.1 1428.6 11.5 37.5
10,000 inhabitants.
No. of coastal protection works IF8 CCCOSTAS, 2019 14 0.0 100.0 0.02 0.2
Environmental (N = 10; α = 0.086)
% of biodiversity areas A1 MMA, 2019 15 0.0 100.0 4.2 17.1
% soil without potential erosion A2 CIREN, 2010 16 0.0 89.4 40.0 25.0
% of surface considered as wetlands A3 MMA,2020 0.0 43.4 1.6 3.5
% of protected area (SNASPE) A4 SNASPE, 2016 17 0.0 89.0 1.1 5.8
% of arable land A5 CONAF, 2014 18 0.0 99.9 26.9 32.8
% area without land use change A6 MINAGRI,2012–2019 19 0.0 100.0 98.5 6.3
Km of rivers per km2 A7 Barcelona, 2019 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.2
Km2 with water scarcity decrees A8 DGA, 2020 20 0.0 40,583.3 6711.7 12,840.7
No. of dune fields A9 CC Coasts, 2019 0.0 9.0 0.1 0.5
N◦ forest industries 10,000 inhab. A10 Forest Institute, 2019 0.0 303.0 1.2 7.4
N: Number of indicators per resilience dimension; α: Cronbach’s Alpha of each resilience scale; 1 CENSUS: Population
and Housing Census; 2 CASEN: National Socioeconomic Characterization Survey (CASEN); 3 SNSS: National
System of Health Services; 4 SERVEL: Electoral Service of Chile; 5 SII: Internal Revenue Service; 6 MINVU:
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; 7 ODEPA: Office of Agrarian Studies and Policies; 8 BCN: National
Congress Library; 9 ONEMI: National Emergency Office of the Ministry of the Interior; 10 INDAP: Institute of
Agricultural Development; 11 Friends of the Train: Private initiative for the dissemination and maintenance
of railway infrastructure in Chile; 12 MOP: Ministry of Public Works; 13 MINEDUC: Ministry of Education;
14 CCCOSTAS: Determination of the risk of the impacts of Climate Change on the coasts of Chile, Environment
Ministries Initiative; 15 MMA: Ministry of the Environment; 16 CIREN: Natural Resources Information Center;
17 SNASPE: National System of Protected Wilderness Areas of the State; 18 CONAF: National Forestry Corporation;
19 MINAGRI: Ministry of Agriculture, 20 DGA: General Directorate of Water.
Eleven indicators were selected for measuring social resilience, which takes into ac-
count the demographic characteristics and socioeconomic conditions of households. These
indicators include factors such as educational attainment [18], the number of doctors [26]
and psychologists per thousand inhabitants [19], and the percentage of the population
affiliated with health insurance and pension funds [18]. These indicators reflect the charac-
teristics and capabilities that enable individuals and communities to be better equipped
to deal with disasters and recover more effectively. The Community-Capital dimension
includes six indicators that represent community participation in various civic and social
activities, such as electoral participation [13], and participation in religious or volunteer
organizations [18]. It also includes indicators associated with attachment and belonging to
the place, such as years of residence and population born in the country [26].
The Economic-Resilience dimension comprises seven indicators that measure the
macroeconomic and microeconomic characteristics affected by disasters. It is understood
that better economic systems create better conditions for communities to cope with and
recover from disasters [38,39]. The selected indicators include those that represent the
economic sectors of the country, such as the ratio between large and small companies [14,37]
and the degree of employment diversification, as well as indicators that reflect the income
equality between men and women [18] and the percentage of the employed population [14].
Seven Institutional-Resilience indicators were selected to reflect the level of decentralization
of state powers and the institutional capacity of the country to cope with and recover from
disasters. These indicators include the number of governorates and districts per region [18],
the number of professionals trained in disaster management [18], as well as the level of
subsidies and insurance for agricultural development.
Infrastructure Resilience includes eight indicators aimed at measuring the capacity
of critical infrastructure, on which the continuous functioning of communities depend
after a disaster [47]. The presence of essential services in localities, such as transportation
networks [6] and access to internet services [18], were considered, as well as the quality
of housing [18,42]. Finally, ten indicators were included in the Environmental-Resilience
dimension to characterize the abundant diversity of natural resources in different geograph-
ical areas of the country. The selected indicators include those that measure the current
state of soils [19] and indicators that represent fragile ecosystems such as dune fields and
wetlands [43].
2.3. Data
All variables were obtained through public and private databases (Table 1). A total of
11 variables were from the 2017 Population and Housing Census conducted by the National
Institute of Statistics of Chile (INE). The second source of information corresponds to the
National Socioeconomic Characterization Survey (CASEN) for the years 2015 and 2017,
which characterizes the socioeconomic situation of households in the country, including
housing, health, education, and income. We chose eleven variables from this survey.
We obtained the remaining variables (N = 27) through a transparency request to
different ministries and services of Chile. Most of the variables represent data from
2015–2020; only the variable road network per km2 (IF5 in Table 1) is from 2008, which is
the last update date for this indicator.
The variables and the BRIC index were calculated and represented at the district level,
corresponding to the smallest operational unit used by the Population and Housing Census
to represent data. The districts correspond to zones and localities depicting the country’s
urban and rural units, respectively [61].
2.4. Data Analysis

To construct the BRIC resilience index for Chile, we followed the methodology pro-
posed by [18]. First, the 49 variables were transformed into percentages and averages,
depending on their nature. We excluded variables that required a spatial analysis (IT1,
IF4, IF5, IF6, A7, and A8 in Table 1). The entire set of variables was then normalized using
a scale between 0 and 1. A positive relationship with resilience was considered for all
variables, transforming the variables with inverse interpretation (indicators S6, E1, E4, IF6,
SC2, IT1, A8 and A10 in Table 1).
The scale’s reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha test for the complete set of
variables and each dimension of resilience. For the former, we obtained a moderate value
(α = 0.58), suggesting an acceptable level of reliability. For the resilience dimensions,
moderate-to-low values were obtained (Table 2), similar to those found in previous stud-
ies [18,19]. Obtaining moderate, low, and negative values of reliability can be explained
by the methodological design followed in this study. We assigned the different indicators
to each dimension following a theoretical review of one mathematical distribution. Con-
sequently, as mentioned by Cutter et al. [18], individual dimensions of resilience are not
expected to exhibit reliable or high Cronbach’s-alpha values since it only seeks to know the
level of composition of the dimensions.
Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha results for indicators within each resilience category.
Resilience Dimensions Number of Indicators Cronbach’s Alpha

Social 11 0.404
Social capital 6 0.438
Economic 7 0.510 +
Institutional 7 −0.05
Infrastructure 8 0.393 +
Environmental 10 0.086
Each variable was added to the corresponding resilience dimension to then calculate
each dimension’s average. A minimum–maximum transformation was developed consider-
ing a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of 1. Once the subindex of each resilience
dimension was calculated, these were summed up to obtain the BRIC score on a scale from
0 to 6. Five levels of resilience were considered from standard-deviation (SD) ranges for
resilience zoning. Thus, districts with very low resilience were those with values lower than
−1.5 SD; low resilience with values between −1.5 to −0.5 SD; medium resilience between
−0.5 and 0.5 SD; high resilience with values between 0.5 and 1.5 SD; and values greater
than 1.5 SD were defined as very high resilience.
Then, a bivariate correlation was performed between the resilience sub-indices and
the total BRIC score (Table 3) to observe whether the resilience sub-indices explain different
dimensions of community resilience.
Table 3. Correlations between the resilience dimensions.
Social Social Capital Economic Institutional Infrastructure Environmental BRICS

Social 1000
Social capital 0.312 ** 1000
Economic −0.058 ** −0.158 ** 1000
Institutional 0.362 ** 0.197 ** −0.030 1000
Infrastructure 0.358 ** 0.551 ** −0.016 0.295 ** 1000
Environmental 0.089 ** 0.118 ** 0.150 ** 0.145 ** 0.237 ** 1000
BRICS 0.672 ** 0.591 ** 0.184 ** 0.679 ** 0.693 ** 0.478 ** 1000
Note: ** significant correlation at the 0.01 level (bilateral).
A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted using six factors to explore if the
variables and dimensions of the resilience group are similar to the six types of community
resilience used for the BRIC. The PCA showed a different grouping from that previously
established in the literature, explaining 37% of the variance in resilience. Although this
value is considered low, it is similar to that obtained in previous studies, such as in the
United States, where the PCA analysis obtained a variance of 39.4% for the same number of
factors [18]. In this sense, the six factors obtained were: (1) accessibility to communication,
health, social security services, and social characteristics; (2) occupation and institutionally;
(3) participation in organizations and housing materiality; (4) commerce and governance;
(5) electoral participation and homeownership; and (6) resident population. Once the PCA
was performed, the value of each factor was added and correlated with the BRIC index,
obtaining a significant correlation of 0.75 (p < 0.001), suggesting that even with another
distribution, the variables have the explanatory power to account for resilience.
Finally, a spatial autocorrelation analysis was performed using the global Moran and
the local Moran’s index (LISA) to observe the country’s resilience-levels distribution. The
first analysis allows us to examine whether resilience is distributed uniformly throughout
space. The LISA index will enable comparisons between each district with the global
average and neighboring districts by grouping them into clusters [62]. Districts with a
similar value to their adjacent units are grouped into a high–high cluster if their value
is higher than the average and a low–low cluster if the values are lower than the global
average of resilience. On the other hand, districts with different mean values to neighboring
units belong to the high–low or low–high cluster according to their mean [63].
3. Results
3.1. National BRIC Index
We obtained the resilience analysis for 3100 districts distributed throughout the na-
tional territory. As seen in Table 4, the BRIC for Chile scale has an average value of 3.21
(SD = 0.50). The results show that about 30% of the Chilean population lives in districts
with a low or very low level of community resilience.
Table 4. Average values of the BRIC index and proportion of the population by level of resilience for
each macro-zone of the country.
Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Central South Austral

Mean 3.21 2.63 2.48 3.39 3.25 2.94
N Districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N Population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Percentage of population according to resilience level
High and very high 31.1% 4.4% 0.0% 42.2% 26.1% 5.4%
Medium 39.7% 25.2% 7.5% 40.7% 54.5% 38.4%
Low and very low 29.2% 70.4% 92.5% 17.1% 19.4% 56.3%
Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of the BRIC index throughout the national
territory. A heterogeneous distribution of the level of community resilience was found
among the different macro-zones of the country. The Central and South macro-zones
obtained an average resilience value above the national average. More than 80% of the
population in these macro-zones lives in districts with a medium, high, or very high level
of community resilience. This represents more than 70% of the national population.
On the contrary, the Norte Grande and Norte Chico macro-zones present the lowest
levels of community resilience, with the Norte Chico being the macro-zone with the lowest
BRIC score at the national level. Moreover, more than 90% of Norte-Chico inhabitants live
in districts with a low or very low level of community resilience, thus representing the
most critical macro-zone in disaster resilience.
Regarding the indicators, Table 5 presents the average values of each indicator for the
macro-zones concerning the national average. It can be seen that of the five macro-zones,
the Norte Grande and Norte Chico contain the largest number of indicators with values
below the national average, and, consequently, contain the lowest levels of resilience at the
country level. The following sections will address the indicators with the lowest level of
resilience by dimension and their differences by macro-zone.
Table 5. Difference in each indicator with respect to the national average by macrozone.
Differences by Indicator with Respect to

National Average
Norte Norte
Resilience Dimension Country Central Sur Austral
Grande Chico
Social Media
% of two-parent households with children S1 0.26 −0.05 −0.04 0.01 0.00 −0.03
% of households with telephone service available S2 0.69 −0.19 −0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06
% of households without food insecurity S3 0.69 −0.01 0.03 −0.01 0.00 0.06
% of population affiliated to a pension fund S4 0.60 −0.09 −0.05 0.04 −0.08 0.05
% of population with a health insurance system S5 0.76 −0.16 −0.07 0.01 0.05 −0.10
% of population over 25 who reached basic ed. S6 * 0.31 −0.11 0.03 −0.03 0.09 −0.05
% of population that speaks Spanish S7 0.73 0.18 0.03 −0.03 0.03 0.01
% population under 65 S8 0.80 0.05 −0.02 0.00 −0.01 0.03
% population without disability S9 0.67 0.04 0.06 −0.01 0.00 0.03
Number of doctors per 10,000 inhab. S10 0.46 −0.19 −0.28 0.07 −0.02 0.04
No. of psychologists per 10,000 inhabitants. S11 0.51 −0.21 −0.23 0.06 −0.02 0.09
Table 5. Cont.
Differences by Indicator with Respect to

National Average
Norte Norte
Resilience Dimension Country Central Sur Austral
Grande Chico
Social-Community Capital
% voter turnout SC1 0.59 −0.18 −0.03 0.04 −0.04 −0.14
% of population from another country with
SC2 * 0.98 −0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 −0.03
residence in 2012
% of population born in Chile SC3 0.97 −0.11 0.01 0.00 0.02 −0.02
% of population participating in civil organizations SC4 0.40 −0.02 0.00 −0.03 0.09 0.00
SC5 0.23 −0.06 −0.11 0.01 0.05 −0.04
religious organizations
% of population participating in volunteering SC6 0.14 −0.06 −0.05 −0.02 0.06 0.14
Economic
% gap between both genders E1 * 0.64 −0.02 0.01 0.00 −0.01 0.06
% of home ownership E2 0.70 −0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05
Degree of employment diversification E3 0.85 −0.04 −0.03 0.03 −0.03 −0.10
% population employed in
E4 * 0.72 −0.01 −0.10 0.04 −0.04 −0.07
non-resilient sectors
% population working E5 0.53 0.13 −0.01 0.00 −0.06 0.18
No. of trading companies E6 0.12 0.07 −0.05 −0.01 0.01 0.02
Ratio between large and small companies E7 0.08 −0.01 −0.02 0.01 −0.02 −0.01
Institutional
Km away from the regional capital IT1 * 0.98 −0.01 −0.01 0.00 0.00 −0.01
Number of credits and subsidies for agricultural
IT2 0.06 −0.04 −0.02 −0.01 0.04 −0.02
development
No. of districts per region IT3 0.52 −0.49 −0.19 0.11 −0.02 −0.49
Number of people trained by ONEMI IT4 0.09 0.22 −0.02 −0.01 −0.03 0.12
Number of agricultural insurance policies IT5 0.36 −0.33 −0.28 −0.01 0.28 −0.33
No. governorates IT6 0.34 −0.26 −0.17 0.13 −0.21 0.00
Intercensal growth rate 2015–2020 IT7 0.27 0.11 −0.01 0.02 −0.07 −0.04
Infrastructure
% of households with acceptable materiality IF1 0.84 −0.10 −0.14 0.00 0.08 0.06
% population with internet access IF2 0.28 0.04 −0.11 0.04 −0.07 0.07
% Homes built post. thermal standard IF3 0.41 −0.06 −0.08 0.03 −0.03 −0.07
km railway network per km2 IF4 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 −0.01 −0.01
km road network per km2 IF5 0.05 −0.02 −0.01 0.01 0.00 −0.04
Distance to airports or aerodromes in km. IF6 * 0.98 −0.02 −0.01 0.00 0.00 −0.02
Number of educational centers per
IF7 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
10,000 inhabitants.
No. of coastal protection works IF8 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 −0.01 0.01
Environmental
% of biodiversity areas A1 0.04 −0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 −0.02
% soil without potential erosion A2 0.45 0.22 −0.05 0.03 −0.07 −0.21
% of surface considered as wetlands A3 0.04 −0.01 −0.02 −0.01 0.03 0.03
% of protected area (SNASPE) A4 0.01 0.03 −0.01 −0.01 0.01 0.09
% of arable land A5 0.27 −0.25 −0.18 0.07 0.01 −0.26
% area without land use change A6 0.98 0.00 −0.01 0.00 0.01 −0.03
km of rivers per km2 A7 0.04 −0.02 −0.01 0.01 −0.01 −0.02
Km2 with water scarcity decrees A8 * 0.83 0.17 −0.52 −0.01 0.17 0.17
No. of dune fields A9 0.01 −0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 −0.01
N◦ forest industrieser 10,000 inhab. A10 * 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.02
* The variables were inverted, leaving them with a positive relationship with resilience.
with a low or very low level of community resilience.
Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of the BRIC index throughout the national
territory. A heterogeneous distribution of the level of community resilience was found
among the different macro-zones of the country. The Central and South macro-zones ob-
tained an average resilience value above the national average. More than 80% of the pop-
ulation in these macro-zones lives in districts with a medium, high, or very high level of
community resilience. This represents more than 70% of the national population.
Figure
Figure2.2.National
NationalBRIC
BRICIndex. Source:
Index. prepared
Source: by by
prepared thethe
authors.
authors.
3.2. Social
On theResilience
contrary, the Norte Grande and Norte Chico macro-zones present the lowest
levelsTable
of community
6 shows resilience,
the values with
of the
the Norte Chico being the
Social-Resilience macro-zone
sub-index with the
obtained forlow-
the five
est BRIC score The
macro-zones. at the national
results level.
show Moreover,
that 30% of themore than 90%
national of Norte-Chico
population lives ininhabitants
districts with a
live
low inordistricts
very low with a low
level or very
of Social low level of
Resilience. community
Similarly, resilience,
the Norte thus and
Grande representing
Norte Chico
the most critical macro-zone in disaster resilience.
macro-zones obtained the lowest Social Resilience scores, with about 80% and 57% of their
citizens living in districts with a low or very low level of Social Resilience and 0% and 4%
in districts with a high or very high level, respectively.
The low levels of Social Resilience in the macro-zones of Norte Grande and Norte Chico
are mainly explained by the indicators “percentage of the population over 25 years old who
completed basic education” (−0.11/0.03), “the number of doctors per 10,000 inhabitants”
(−0.19/−0.28), “number of psychologists per 10,000 inhabitants” (−0.21/−0.23), and the
percentage of the population with a health insurance ” (−0.16/−0.07), compared to the
national average and the rest of the macro-zones in the country (Table 5). Figure 3 shows
that the leading group of districts with higher levels of Social Resilience is in the Central
macro-zone, specifically in the Metropolitan Region, with 37% of inhabitants located in
districts with high or very high levels of Social Resilience. The South and Austral macro-
zones have the lowest proportion of citizens residing in districts with low or very low14levels
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 24
of Social Resilience, with values of 14% and 11%, respectively.
Figure 3. Resilience dimensions of the BRIC Index. Source: prepared by the authors.
Figure 3. Resilience dimensions of the BRIC Index. Source: prepared by the authors.
Table 6. Average values of the Social-Resilience sub-index and population proportion by level of
resilience for each macro-zone of the country.
Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

Mean 0.50 0.33 0.38 0.53 0.51 0.54
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Percentage of Population according to Resilience level
Table 6. Average values of the Social-Resilience sub-index and population proportion by level of

Mean 0.50 0.33 0.38 0.53 0.51 0.54
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Percentage of Population according to Resilience level
Medium 42.9% 20.1% 39.2% 34.5% 68.5% 58.0%
Low and very low 30.0% 79.9% 56.5% 28.8% 13.8% 10.7%
3.3. Resilience in Social-Community Capital

At the national level, 32% of the population resides in districts with a low or very low
level of resilience in Social Capital (Table 7). Among all the macro-zones, the Norte Grande
and Norte Chico once again obtained the lowest levels of resilience, where only 3% and
13% of the population resides in districts with high or very high levels of resilience in Social
Capital, respectively.
Table 7. Average values of the Social-Community Capital Resilience subindex and population
proportion by level of resilience for each macro-zone of the country.

Mean 0.64 0.50 0.59 0.64 0.70 0.61
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Medium 39.1% 17.0% 22.2% 45.8% 34.6% 37.5%
Low and very low 32.0% 80.5% 64.7% 29.0% 13.2% 40.2%
These low levels of resilience in Social-Community Capital are explained by the

indicators: electoral participation (−0.18/−0.03), percentage of the population born in
Chile (−0.11/0.01) and percentage of the population participating in volunteering or
religious organizations (−0.06/−0.11), obtained compared to the national average (Table 5).
These are the main factors that trigger low resilience in social-community capital for the
country’s northern zone. For this dimension, the South macro-zone obtained the highest
average score at the national level, with over 50% of its population living in districts with a
high or very high level of Community-Capital resilience and only 13% in districts with a
low or very low level.
3.4. Economic Resilience

The Central and Austral macro-zones obtained the highest scores in Economic Re-
silience at the national level, with 77% and 81% of their citizens located in districts with
medium, high, or very high levels, respectively (Table 8). On the contrary, the macro-zones
of Norte Chico and Sur obtained the lowest scores in this dimension, with about 45% and
46% of their inhabitants residing in districts with a low or very low level of Economic
Resilience, mainly explained by a low score in the indicators “percentage of employed
population” and “percentage of the population employed in non-resilient sectors” that
make up this dimension, presenting negative standard-deviation values compared to the
national average, lower than those of the other macro-zones. For the first indicator, values
of −0.01 and −0.06 were obtained for the macro-zones of Norte Chico and Sur, respectively,
and for the population working in non-resilient sectors of the economy, values of −0.10
and −0.04 were obtained for both macro-zones, respectively (Table 5).
Table 8. Mean values of the Economic-Resilience sub-index and population proportion by level of

Mean 0.61 0.61 0.55 0.63 0.56 0.65
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Medium 38.7% 32.1% 37.6% 41.4% 34.7% 32.1%
Low and very low 30.5% 28.9% 44.8% 22.8% 46.1% 18.8%
Unlike the trend shown in other dimensions of resilience, the districts with high,
medium, and low levels are evenly distributed throughout the national territory (see
Figure 3).
3.5. Institutional Resilience

Table 9 shows the values of the Institutional-Resilience sub-index obtained for each
district at the national level. The Central and South macro-zones obtained the highest
scores, with the Central macro-zone being the only one to exceed the national average. For
both macro-zones, nearly 80% of inhabitants live in districts with a medium, high, or very
high level of Institutional Resilience.
Table 9. Mean values of the Institutional-Resilience sub-index and population proportion by level of

Mean 0.48 0.21 0.24 0.57 0.48 0.21
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Medium 25.8% 13.8% 0.3% 22.1% 51.0% 12.5%
Low and very low 34.6% 85.5% 99.7% 21.3% 20.6% 87.5%
In the Norte Grande, Norte Chico, and Austral macro-zones, a significantly different
situation is observed, with 86%, 99%, and 89% of the citizens residing in districts with low
or very low levels of Institutional Resilience. This is mainly due to the low scores on the
indicators: “number of districts and governorates per region” and “number of agricultural
insurance policies” that make up this dimension. The values of these indicators are below
the national average in all three macro-zones, as shown in Table 5.
Figure 3 displays the heterogeneity in the distribution of Institutional Resilience
throughout the national territory, showing that the concentration of the highest levels
of resilience is found in the center of the country and that the most extreme areas are
concentrated in the districts with a lower level of Institutional Resilience.
3.6. Infrastructure Resilience

Relatively homogeneous values were obtained for Infrastructure Resilience between
the macro-zones, with scores close to the national average of 0.43 (Table 10). The exception
to this trend was the Northern-Chico macro-zone, which obtained an average score of 0.33,
where 67% of its citizens reside in districts with a low or very low level of Infrastructure
Resilience. This situation is due to low values in the following indicators “percentage of
households with acceptable materiality” and “percentage of the population with access
to the internet”, which for this macrozone have values of −0.14 and −0.11, respectively,
compared to the national average for both indicators (Table 5).
Table 10. Mean values of the infrastructure-Resilience sub-index and population proportion by level
of resilience for each macro-zone of the country.

Mean 0.43 0.40 0.33 0.45 0.42 0.43
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Medium 43.2% 20.1% 19.3% 41.3% 61.5% 54.5%
Low and very low 31.0% 47.2% 67.3% 26.2% 25.4% 23.2%
Figure 3 shows the homogeneous distribution of the levels of resilience in infrastruc-

ture throughout the national territory.
3.7. Environmental Resilience

The Norte-Chico and Austral macro-zones obtained the lowest scores for Environmen-
tal Resilience, with 75% and 39% of their residents living in districts with low or very low
levels of resilience, respectively (Table 11). This situation originates from the modest values
achieved by the indicators “percentage of arable land”, “square kilometers with water
scarcity decrees”, and “percentage of land without potential erosion” that characterize this
dimension. This is reflected in the standard-deviation values presented by these indicators
for each macro-zone compared to the national average, as observed in Table 5.
Table 11. Mean values of the Environmental-Resilience sub-index and population proportion by level
of resilience for each macro-zone of the country.

Mean 0.55 0.57 0.38 0.56 0.58 0.49
N districts 3100 159 306 1811 712 112
N population 17,493,434 1,152,860 1,037,356 12,877,596 2,159,730 265,892
Medium 41.5% 64.2% 15.4% 42.5% 42.6% 58.9%
Low and very low 29.4% 17.0% 75.2% 24.7% 23.2% 38.4%
In contrast, the Central, Norte Grande, and Sur macro-zones obtained scores above
the national average, where 25%, 17%, and 23% of citizens reside in districts with a low or
very low level of Environmental Resilience.
Figure 3 shows a relatively homogeneous distribution of the level of Environmental
Resilience throughout the national territory. The exception to this trend is observed in the
Norte-Chico macro-zone, which has the lowest concentration of districts with high levels
of Environmental Resilience.
3.8. LISA Analysis

The Moran’s global index was IMoran = 0.65, indicating a positive spatial autocorrela-
tion in the resilience levels, suggesting that the BRIC values of each district are related to
each other and distributed uniformly in space (Table 12).
The Moran’s local index (LISA) highlights that 1290 districts are in the high–high
cluster, indicating that more than 30% of the country’s districts have levels of resilience
like their neighbors above the global average. Meanwhile, the low–low cluster grouped
492 districts with levels of resilience below the global average and their neighboring units.
Figure 4 shows that the highest concentration of high–high clusters is found in the Central
and Southern macro-zones of the country. In contrast, clusters with levels of resilience
below the global average are concentrated in the Norte Grande, Norte Chico, and Austral
macro-zones. On the other hand, 610 districts are distributed in the low–high cluster
and 16 in the high–low cluster, indicating that only 17.5% of the country’s districts have
different levels of resilience compared to their neighbors. However, the Moran’s and LISA
index calculation was estimated for 2763 of the 3100 districts for which the BRIC
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW was
18 of 24
calculated due to the number of districts available in the cartography to perform the spatial
autocorrelation analyses.
LISA analysis
Figure 4. LISA analysis of BRIC Index. Source:
Source: prepared
prepared by
by the
the authors.
authors.
Table 12. Global Moran index and local Moran index (LISA).
BRIC
Global Moran’s I 0.65
Z(I) 329.59
Table 12. Global Moran index and local Moran index (LISA).
BRIC
Global Moran’s I 0.65
Z(I) 329.59
LISA cluster categories Count
Significant local spatial cluster (p < 0.05)
High–high (HH) 1290
Low–low (LL) 494
Counties spatial outliers (p < 0.05)
Low–high (LH) 610
High–low (HL) 16
Not statistically significant spatial clustering (p < 0.05)
Districts 353
Total 2763
4. Discussion
The construction of a national index of community resilience against natural hazards
is essential for developing more effective disaster risk reduction policies and to be able to
advance in the fulfillment of the eleventh sustainable development goal which seeks to
generate more resilient communities in the face of natural disasters and climate change.
Even though Chile is highly exposed to multiple natural hazards, it lacks an index that
identifies the levels of community resilience throughout the national territory. Therefore,
this study’s main objective was to develop a national community resilience index using the
BRIC model.
First, the results of our study show that the BRIC model can be successfully imple-
mented to obtain a community resilience index for Chile. Our results present characteristics
similar to those obtained in previous studies. Like the national BRIC carried out in the
United States and Norway, the selected indicators explain more than 30% of the variance in
community disaster resilience. When we explore the levels of resilience through a PCA, we
also found that, although the indicators included in the study are grouped into different
factors, these had a significant correlation to explain the levels of resilience, as in previous
studies [18,19]. Thus, the BRIC index is a metric capable of adapting to different social and
cultural realities.
Second, our results suggest that the different levels of resilience are not homogeneously
distributed throughout the national territory. The BRIC index’s calculation shows that the
highest levels of resilience are concentrated in the country’s Central and Southern macro-
zones. In contrast, in the macro-zones at the extremes of the territory (Norte Grande, Norte
Chico, and Austral), the greatest proportion of inhabitants are concentrated in districts with
the lowest levels of community resilience.
This finding can be explained because Chile’s population and resources are concen-
trated in its central zone. According to the OECD, Chile is characterized by a centralized
political administration and economic development model, which generated a hyper-
concentration of resources and population in the central zone [59]. Moreover, the central
macro-zone generates more than 50% of the national gross domestic product, in addition to
housing 73.6% of the national population, mainly in the Metropolitan Region (a region that
houses the capital of Chile, Santiago) [55,64]. This significant concentration of resources
seems to have generated a regional disparity in various well-being, economic, and envi-
ronmental development indicators, which could explain the significant differences in the
levels of resilience between regions and, consequently, in the development of capacities
that allow communities to respond and recover from a disaster. This trend is comparable
to that observed in the BRIC studies in Norway [19] and the United States [18]. In both
cases, high levels of resilience tended to be found in urban areas. For example, in the
case of the United States, it was found that the most resilient counties were those closer to
metropolitan areas, having greater access to the services of urban areas in which a large
part of the population and services are concentrated. The concentration of resilience levels
can also be explained by spatial distribution. Sung and Liaw [20] studied resilience in
Taiwan and pointed out that the topography of a place influences resilience levels. In
Taiwan, the geographical characteristics of higher or mountainous areas can produce con-
ditions that make the development of the economy and the creation of support networks
difficult, among other resources. In the case of Chile, topography could have an impact
on resiliency levels given the geographic and climatic differences between the country’s
five macro-zones. As previously mentioned, areas such as Norte Chico and Norte Grande
have extreme climates that could lead to a lower diversification of economic sectors and
greater difficulty accessing metropolitan services, among other conditions that could result
in lower resilience.
The effects of economic and social development concentration in the country’s central
zone are evident when the six community resilience dimensions are analyzed. The Norte-
Grande and Norte-Chico macro-zones obtained the lowest levels of resilience for almost
all the resilience dimensions. In fact, in dimensions such as Social Resilience, Community
Capital Resilience, and Institutional Resilience, 9 out of 10 people were found to live in a
district with the lowest levels of resilience. Regarding social resilience, it is noted that health
indicators, such as having less access to medical doctors or mental-health professionals,
can explain the low levels of resilience in Northern Chile. This result is similar to previous
studies where cities with the lowest resilience levels also had lower health indicators
and a large population dependent on state social assistance. The prevalence of these
indicators highlights the importance of developing a health system able to quickly respond
to and recover from disasters. It also indicates that the ability to respond depends not
solely on individual socio-economic conditions but also on public policies that promote
the development of the population in all its dimensions. Regarding the dimension of
community capital, the moderate values in the population born in Chile can explain the
low levels of resilience in the country’s northern region. These results are similar to those
found by Cutter et al. [18] in the United States. In seven out of the ten most resilient cities,
the high percentage of residents born in the area explained the high levels of resilience.
This shows that, for both countries, the percentage of the migrant population could have a
significant impact on resilience levels.
This indicator is relevant because it implies the need to develop public policies that
facilitate access to support networks for the migrant population. Migrants may encounter
many barriers, such as difficulty communicating or receiving assistance in the event of
a disaster. Therefore, it is necessary to develop strategies for developing community
networks, mainly in the case of the North of Chile, one of the country’s macro-zones with
the highest migrant population.
Similarly, for Institutional Resilience, not only did the Norte-Grande and Norte-Chico
macro-zones achieve the lowest level of resilience, but so did the Austral macro-zone.
The remoteness of the most extreme areas from the center of the country can affect the
development of local capacities, which can hinder preparedness and response actions when
facing a disaster in these communities.
One of the indicators that explains these results is the lack of insurance that protects
agricultural resources against various disasters such as floods, and droughts, among others.
This is part of the trend found in previous studies, where indicators such as integrating
mitigation measures against disasters and preparation plans explained higher levels of
institutional resilience. Consequently, the importance of the state investing in actions that
allow for improving the capacities of the community and institutions to respond to disasters
is evidenced.
On the other hand, although the Norte-Grande and Norte-Chico macro-zones obtain
low values in the Economic and Infrastructure Resilience dimensions, they show a more
equitable distribution of resilience levels. Chile has experienced sustained economic
growth over the past decades, which has allowed local economic development and fostered
conditions that favor disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Specifically, the Austral
macrozone is the country’s most economically resilient. The diversification of economic
sectors could explain this last finding due to the diversity of natural resources available in
the macrozone. The positive impact of diversifying sources of employment on resilience is
also part of the variables highlighted in the BRIC index of the United States and Norway.
The Sur and Norte-Grande macro-zones appear the most environmentally resilient,
showing a meaningful change regarding the national trend. The high value of the Sur
macro-zone can be explained by the diverse ecosystem in the area, added to by the large
number of protected zones. These measures allow the conservation of natural barriers to
mitigate disasters.
5. Conclusions
The construction of the disaster resilience index for Chile shows that the BRIC index
is replicable in different contexts. However, some of the index indicators were adapted
to the national reality (i.e., considering the availability of information and socioeconomic
conditions of the country). This approach enables us to establish indicators representing
multiple dimensions of disaster resilience, generating an appropriate characterization of
this phenomenon and simplifying its measurement. In addition, the metric’s adaptability
to different contexts allows the institutions responsible for risk management to use it as
a reliable tool when designing policies, plans, and programs to strengthen the country’s
resilience levels.
The BRIC index also allows the resilience-level distribution throughout the national
territory to be characterized to observe the differences between macrozones. In the case of
Chile, a country with a vast cultural and geographic diversity, the index highlighted that
the macro-zones in the north have the highest percentage of the population with the lowest
levels of resilience. These results invite us to evaluate the possibility of targeting resources
and strategies to increase resilience in areas with the lowest levels of community resilience.
In addition, the differences in the resilience levels between macro-zones highlight the
relevance of understanding that the development of resilience dimensions at the local level
can facilitate resilience capacity at the national level.
Therefore, our results suggest that in addition to advancing policies, programs, and
plans at a national level, it is essential to promote community resilience considering the
needs of geographical areas and localities. In addition, it is crucial to advance in strength-
ening health, migration, disaster insurance development, and environmental-protection
indicators as critical areas for resilience development.
Furthermore, it is critical to highlight the need to strengthen the resilience index in
its different dimensions. Although the BRIC index is the first approach to characterizing
Chile’s resilience levels, some limitations exist. Due to the need to adapt to the available
data, the sub-dimensions of resilience presented low reliability and low explained variance;
however, these were similar to those obtained in previous studies [6,19]. It is critical to
advance in the strengthening of the resilience scales and their reliability to measure the
desired dimension. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider the importance of the
mathematical distribution in the composition of the indicators, together with the theoretical
validation. In addition, it is essential to note that the indicators were selected considering
communities’ capacity to face multiple disasters.
Thus, future research should incorporate additional variables that are adapted to the
Chilean reality that can better represent the country’s capacities to face and recover from a
disaster. It is also essential to differentiate how each indicator of the BRIC index affects the
resilience capacity against each threat and assess whether these can be made more relevant
for one or more threats.
Another limitation was the scale of environmental resilience. Some of the variables
used for this dimension do not respond to the uniqueness of the natural resources in
each macro-zone; therefore, it fails to represent the totality of Environmental-Resilience
capacities. Thus, it is relevant to advance in updating the indicators that capture each
territory’s particularities.
Integrating other dimensions that emerge as relevant capacities in disaster response

and recovery, such as public-health indicators, is necessary. Including different dimensions
would make it possible to adapt and extend the application of the BRIC index to other
threats, such as the recent crisis caused by COVID-19.
Finally, our results invite us to develop future work to understand how resilience,
through the BRIC index, relates to other indicators relevant to disaster risk management,
such as social vulnerability and the population’s levels of preparedness. Through this, we
can advance in the multidimensional knowledge and measurement of risk, understanding
resilience not only as a result of the characteristics and capacities of the population but also
as a process of adaptation in the face of different natural hazards. In addition, the spatial
patterns of the levels of resilience invite us to explore in future work how these may be
related to the topography and geography of the different macro-zones.
On the other hand, it is intended to advance in integrating a bottom-up method
that allows the community to raise indicators that can improve its response and recovery
capacity against disasters, strengthening collective processes of co-responsibility between
communities and authorities.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.C.B., J.V.C., N.F.G. and A.C.; Formal analysis, N.C.B.,
N.F.G. and P.B.R.; Investigation, J.V.C., N.F.G., P.C. and P.B.R.; Methodology, J.V.C., N.F.G. and
C.M.; Project administration, N.C.B. and P.B.R.; Validation, P.C., C.M. and A.C.; Visualization, A.C.;
Writing—original draft, N.F.G.; Writing—review and editing, N.C.B., J.V.C. and P.C. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management
(CIGIDEN), FONDAP (grant numbers 1522A0005); the FONDECYT (grant number 1221047); and the
National Agency for Research and Development of Chile (ANID).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not available.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. M-DAT. EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database; Universite Catholique de Louvain: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
2. Organización Mundial de las Naciones Unidas. Marco de Sendai Para La Reducción Del Riesgo de Desastres 2015–2030; Resolución
Aprobada por la Asamblea General el 3 de junio de 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 26.
3. Emrich, C.T.; Tobin, G.A. Resilience: An Introduction. In Vulnerability and Resilience to Natural Hazards; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 124–144.
4. Adger, W.N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 2006, 16, 268–281. [CrossRef]
5. CREDEN. Hacia Un Chile Resiliente Frente a Desastres: Una Oportunidad: Estrategia Nacional de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación
para un Chile Resiliente Frente a Desastres de Origen Natural; Consejo Nacional de Innovacion para el Desarrollo: Havana, Cuba,
2016; pp. 1–182.
6. Cutter, S.L.; Barnes, L.; Berry, M.; Burton, C.; Evans, E.; Tate, E.; Webb, J. A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community
Resilience to Natural Disasters. Glob. Environ. Change 2008, 18, 598–606. [CrossRef]
7. Boon, H.J.; Cottrell, A.; King, D.; Stevenson, R.B.; Millar, J. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory for Modelling Community
Resilience to Natural Disasters. Nat. Hazards 2012, 60, 381–408. [CrossRef]
8. Atallah, D.G.; Bacigalupe, G.; Repetto, P. Centering at the Margins: Critical Community Resilience Praxis. J. Humanist. Psychol.
2021, 61, 875–905. [CrossRef]
9. Tiernan, A.; Drennan, L.; Nalau, J.; Onyango, E.; Morrissey, L.; Mackey, B. A Review of Themes in Disaster Resilience Literature
and International Practice since 2012. Policy Des. Pract. 2019, 2, 53–74. [CrossRef]
10. Cai, H.; Lam, N.S.N.; Qiang, Y.; Zou, L.; Correll, R.M.; Mihunov, V. A Synthesis of Disaster Resilience Measurement Methods and
Indices. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 844–855. [CrossRef]
11. Manyena, B.; Machingura, F.; O’Keefe, P. Disaster Resilience Integrated Framework for Transformation (DRIFT): A New Approach
to Theorising and Operationalising Resilience. World Dev. 2019, 123, 104587. [CrossRef]
12. Burton, C.G. The Development of Metrics for Community Resilience to Natural Disasters. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, CA, USA, 2012.
13. Peacock, W. Advancing the Resilience of Coastal Localities: Developing, Implementing and Sustaining the Use of Coastal Resilience
Indicators: A Final Report; Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center: College Station, TX, USA, 2010. [CrossRef]
14. Cutter, S.L.; Burton, C.G.; Emrich, C.T. Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. J. Homel. Secur.
Emerg. Manag. 2010, 7, 1–22. [CrossRef]
15. Kelman, I.; Gaillard, J.C.; Lewis, J.; Mercer, J. Learning from the History of Disaster Vulnerability and Resilience Research and
Practice for Climate Change. Nat. Hazards 2016, 82, 129–143. [CrossRef]
16. Cutter, S.L. Resilience to What? Resilience for Whom? Geogr. J. 2016, 182, 110–113. [CrossRef]
17. Cutter, S.L.; Derakhshan, S. Implementing Disaster Policy: Exploring Scale and Measurement Schemes for Disaster Resilience. J.
Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2019, 16, 1–15. [CrossRef]
18. Cutter, S.L.; Ash, K.D.; Emrich, C.T. The Geographies of Community Disaster Resilience. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 29, 65–77.
[CrossRef]
19. Scherzer, S.; Lujala, P.; Rød, J.K. A Community Resilience Index for Norway: An Adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators
for Communities (BRIC). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 36, 101107. [CrossRef]
20. Sung, C.-H.; Liaw, S.-C. A GIS Approach to Analyzing the Spatial Pattern of Baseline Resilience Indicators for Community (BRIC).
Water 2020, 12, 1401. [CrossRef]
21. World Risk Index. World Risk Report 2022 Focus: Digitalization NEW; Ruhr University Bochum: Bochum, Germany, 2022.
22. Quitana, G.; Molinos-Senante, M.; Chamorro, A. Resilience of Critical Infrastructure to Natural Hazards: A Review Focused on
Drinking Water Systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101575. [CrossRef]
23. De la Llera, J.; Rivera, F.; Gil, M.; Schwarzhaupt, Ú. Mitigating Risk Through R & D + Innovation: Chile’s National Strategy for
Disaster Resilience. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 18–21
June 2018.
24. González, D.P.; Monsalve, M.; Moris, R.; Herrera, C. Risk and Resilience Monitor: Development of Multiscale and Multilevel
Indicators for Disaster Risk Management for the Communes and Urban Areas of Chile. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 94, 262–271. [CrossRef]
25. Borquez, R.; Aldunce, P.; Adler, C. Resilience to Climate Change: From Theory to Practice through Co-Production of Knowledge
in Chile. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 163–176. [CrossRef]
26. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of
Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [CrossRef]
27. Hutter, G.; Lorenz, D. Social Resilience. In Vulnerability and Resilience to Natural Hazards; Fuchs, A., Thaler, T., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 190–213.
28. Maguire, B.; Hagan, P. Disasters and Communities: Understanding Social Resilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2007, 22, 16–20.
29. Miller, F.; Osbahr, H.; Boyd, E.; Thomalla, F.; Bharwani, S.; Ziervogel, G.; Walker, B.; Birkmann, J.; Van der Leeuw, S.; Rockström,
J.; et al. Resilience and Vulnerability: Complementary or Conflicting Concepts? Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 11. [CrossRef]
30. Tierney, K. The Social Roots of Risk. In The Social Roots of Risk; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 2014.
31. Oxfam. The Tsunami’s Impact on Women; Oxfam Briefing Note; Oxfam: Oxford, UK, 2005; 14p.
32. Buckle, P. Assessing Social Resilience. In Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach; Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.: Springfield,
IL, USA, 2006; pp. 88–104.
33. Kwok, A.H.; Doyle, E.E.H.; Becker, J.; Johnston, D.; Paton, D. What Is ‘Social Resilience’? Perspectives of Disaster Researchers,
Emergency Management Practitioners, and Policymakers in New Zealand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 19, 197–211.
[CrossRef]
34. Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social Capital and Community Resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269. [CrossRef]
35. Heller, K.; Alexander, D.B.; Gatz, M.; Knight, B.G.; Rose, T. Social and Personal Factors as Predictors of Earthquake Preparation:
The Role of Support Provision, Network Discussion, Negative Affect, Age, and Education. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 399–422.
[CrossRef]
36. Soetanto, R.; Mullins, A.; Achour, N. The Perceptions of Social Responsibility for Community Resilience to Flooding: The Impact
of Past Experience, Age, Gender and Ethnicity. Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 1105–1126. [CrossRef]
37. Rose, A. Economic Resilience to Natural and Man-Made Disasters: Multidisciplinary Origins and Contextual Dimensions.
Environ. Hazards 2007, 7, 383–398. [CrossRef]
38. Perez-Blanco, C.D.; Adamson, D.; Loch, A. Economic Resilience. In Vulnerability and Resilience to Natural Hazards; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; p. 214.
39. Cavallo, E.; Noy, I. Natural Disasters and the Economy—A Survey. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 5, 63–102. [CrossRef]
40. Hallegatte, S. Economic Resilience: Definition and Measurement; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 29–39.
41. Rose, A. Economic Resilience. In Defining and Measuring Economic Resilience from a Societal, Environmental and Security Perspective;
Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 29–39. [CrossRef]
42. Tierney, K.; Bruneau, M. A Key to Disaster Loss Reduction; TR News; A Key to Disaster Loss Reduction: Washington, DC, USA,
2007; pp. 14–18.
43. Brody, S.D.; Atoba, K. Institutional Resilience. In Vulnerability and Resilience to Natural Hazards; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 237–256.
44. Djalante, R.; Holley, C.; Thomalla, F. Adaptive Governance and Managing Resilience to Natural Hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci.
2011, 2, 1–14. [CrossRef]
45. McManus, S.; Seville, E.; Vargo, J.; Brunsdon, D. Facilitated Process for Improving Organizational Resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev.
2008, 9, 81–90. [CrossRef]
46. Hills, A. Revisiting Institutional Resilience as a Tool in Crisis Management. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2000, 8, 109–118.
[CrossRef]
47. Gay, L.F.; Sinha, S.K. Resilience of Civil Infrastructure Systems: Literature Review for Improved Asset Management. Int. J. Crit.
Infrastruct. 2013, 9, 330–350. [CrossRef]
48. Chang, S.; Yip, J.Z.K.; van Zijll de Jong, S.L.; Chaster, R.; Lowcock, A. Using Vulnerability Indicators to Develop Resilience
Networks: A Similarity Approach. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 1827–1841. [CrossRef]
49. Chang, S.E. Infrastructure Resilience to Disasters. Bridge 2009, 39, 36–41.
50. Folke, C. Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 2006,
16, 253–267. [CrossRef]
51. Gunderson, L. Ecological and Human Community Resilience in Response to Natural Disasters. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 29. [CrossRef]
52. Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Sodhi, N.S.; Peh, K.S.H.; Brook, B.W. Global Evidence That Deforestation Amplifies Flood Risk and Severity in
the Developing World. Glob. Change Biol. 2007, 13, 2379–2395. [CrossRef]
53. BCN. Chile Nuestro País. Available online: https://www.bcn.cl/siit/nuestropais/index_html (accessed on 5 January 2023).
54. Rojas, F.H.; Canache, L.R.; León, J.R. Envejecimiento en Chile: Evolución, Características de Las Personas Mayores y Desafíos Demográficos
Para La Población; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2022.
55. INE. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2017; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2017.
56. Fuenzalida, H.; Pisano, E. Biogeografía—Geografía Económica de Chile: Texto Refundido; Corporación de Fomento de la Producción:
Santiago de Chile, Chile, 1965; pp. 228–267.
57. INE. Informe de Resultados de la Estimación de Personas Extranjeras Residentes en Chile; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas: Santiago de
Chile, Chile, 2022; pp. 1–35.
58. CEPAL. El Aporte Del Sector Minero al Desarrollo Humano En Chile: El Caso de La Región de Antofagasta; CEPAL: Santiago de Chile,
Chile, 2008; Volume 17.
59. OCDE. Revisión de Gobernabilidad Multinivel En Chile: Modernización Del Sistema Municipal Conclusiones Principales y Recomendaciones;
OCDE: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2017.
60. CONAF. Listado Sistema Nacional de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Estado (SNASPE). Available online: https://www.conaf.cl/
wp-content/files_mf/1610052227ListadoSNASPEActualizado21122020.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2023).
61. INE. Manual de Usuario de La Base de Datos Del Censo de Población y Vivienda; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos: Santiago
de Chile, Chile, 2018; p. 64.
62. Moran, P.A.P. The Interpretation of Statistical Maps. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 1948, 10, 243–251. [CrossRef]
63. Anselin, L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association—LISA. Geogr. Anal. 1995, 27, 93–115. [CrossRef]
64. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología. PIB Total y Per Cápita Regional; Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología: Santiago de Chile,
Chile, 2022.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

A Community Disaster Resilience Index For Chile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Community Disaster Resilience Index For Chile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 National Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management, ANID/FONDAP/1522A0005,

Sustainability 2023, 15, 6891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086891 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

that resilience is an individual’s or a community’s ability to face the impact of natural

1.1. Resilience Categories

1.1.1. Social Resilience

1.1.2. Community Capital

1.1.3. Economic Resilience

1.1.4. Institutional Resilience

1.1.5. Infrastructure Resilience

and electricity-supply services, communication services, education, and health, among

1.1.6. Environmental Resilience

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Resilience Indicators

Resilience Dimension Initials Source Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Resilience Dimension Initials Source Minimum Maximum Mean SD

2.4. Data Analysis

Resilience Dimensions Number of Indicators Cronbach’s Alpha

Table 3. Correlations between the resilience dimensions.

Social Social Capital Economic Institutional Infrastructure Environmental BRICS

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Central South Austral

Differences by Indicator with Respect to

Differences by Indicator with Respect to

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

3.3. Resilience in Social-Community Capital

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

These low levels of resilience in Social-Community Capital are explained by the

3.4. Economic Resilience

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

3.5. Institutional Resilience

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

3.6. Infrastructure Resilience

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

Figure 3 shows the homogeneous distribution of the levels of resilience in infrastruc-

3.7. Environmental Resilience

Country Norte Grande Norte Chico Centro Sur Austral

3.8. LISA Analysis

Integrating other dimensions that emerge as relevant capacities in disaster response

You might also like