A Person‐Environment Fit Framework for Measuring Multi‐Risk Community Resilience: 24 Indicators with Metrics and Vulnerability Thresholds

ABSTRACT This study addresses a persistent challenge in community resilience research and practice: how to assess and build resilience when communities face multiple, interacting, and potentially unforeseen risks. It develops a relational framework for multi‐risk resilience based on Person–Environment (P–E) Fit Theory. The study conceptualizes community resilience as emerging at the intersection of three interrelated determinants: Knowledge about self and the environment, Assets (natural, built, social) in the environment, and Support Services that address gaps between Knowledge and Assets. Risk and vulnerability arise or intensify where relationships among Knowledge, Assets and Support Services are poorly aligned, while resilience is strengthened through their mutually reinforcing alignment. One‐Risk concept is introduced in this study as providing a common relational layer for examining how this alingnment conditions different risk configurations. The framework is operationalized through SCORE (Stakeholder Co‐Creation and Review), an original co‐creation methodology simulating co‐creative resilience and combining stakeholder agency, peer review, quantitative agreement thresholding, and defined decision rights. Six stakeholders representing different sectors and multi‐risk contexts across the UK, India, USA, China, and South Africa initially proposed 54 interrelating indicators under the three determinants. Following peer review and an 80% agreement threshold for retention, 24 indicators were retained: five Knowledge (e.g., situation awareness index), 13 Assets (e.g., protective nature index), and six Support Services (e.g., resilience planning index) indicators. Each indicator is accompanied by a measurement metric and provisional vulnerability threshold. Their main contribution lies in their relational organization through the One‐Risk framework to reveal potential P‐E mismatches and support the development of relational resilience profiles. The resulting framework encourages a shift from asking whether a community possesses sufficient resilience attributes to asking where mismatches between community abilities, environmental conditions, and support services generate vulnerability, and which mutually reinforcing interventions can reduce those mismatches across multiple risk configurations. This is the principal basis on which this study extends the existing literature on multi‐risk resilience.