The Canadian Index of Social Resilience and the Canadian Index of Social Vulnerability: User Guide

Acknowledgments

This project has benefited from the input and comments of many participants.

In particular, the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics (CCJCSS) at Statistics Canada gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the Resilience and Economic Integration Division at Public Safety Canada, which was engaged in the inception of the indexes and continuously provided valuable feedback and support throughout their development. The CCJCSS would also like to thank Natural Resources Canada, national Indigenous organizations and academic experts, who provided input on the theoretical framework for the indexes. Finally, the CCJCSS thanks colleagues at the Centre for Indigenous Statistics and Partnerships, as well as those at the Statistical Geomatics Centre, for their contributions throughout the development of the indexes.

Introduction

This user guide accompanies the Canadian Index of Social Resilience (CISR) and the Canadian Index of Social Vulnerability (CISV). The CISR and CISV were designed to assess an area’s social resilience and social vulnerability to natural hazards and disasters. The first section briefly explains why the CISR and CISV were developed. The second section discusses potential uses for the indexes. The third section describes how the indexes were developed, including the methodology, analytical guidelines and analytical considerations. Finally, instructions for citing the indexes are provided at the end of this guide.

Background

Natural hazards can cause significant disruptions to a community (Public Safety Canada, 2024). In Canada, such events include wildfires, floods, earthquakes and severe storms. These events not only damage infrastructure but also displace residents and strain local economies. Natural hazards become disasters when their effects overwhelm a community’s resources and ability to cope, necessitating external support from emergency management services (Public Safety Canada, 2024).

Importantly, disasters disproportionately affect certain people and communities across Canada. Disproportionate impacts depend on the demographic, socioeconomic, ethnocultural and structural characteristics of individuals and communities (e.g., Chakraborty et al., 2020; Chakraborty et al., 2021; Chakraborty et al., 2022a; Chakraborty et al., 2022b; Chakraborty et al., 2023; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2024). For this reason, it is important to understand which communities are likely to experience relatively larger impacts from natural hazards. This information can contribute to the development of equity-informed emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction programs and policies by governments, community organizations and other relevant stakeholders.

Social resilience and social vulnerability are highly related but distinct concepts that may predict a community’s circumstances before, during and after a hazardous event. In the context of natural hazards, social resilience focuses on strengths within a community that can support its ability to prepare for, adapt to, withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions caused by natural hazards (Cutter et al., 2014; Cutter, 2016). In contrast, social vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of a community to the adverse impacts of natural hazards (Cutter et al., 2003; Cutter, 2024). Through the process of assembling and analyzing relevant social, economic and physical attributes at an appropriate scale, measures of social resilience and social vulnerability can create a more complete picture of a community’s potential for disruption and loss from a hazard (Paton & Johnston, 2001). Thus, understanding social resilience and social vulnerability can help to identify which communities are likely to bear the greatest proportional social burden following hazardous events and which may warrant targeted support during all phases of emergency and disaster planning and response.

An important challenge in examining social resilience and social vulnerability is determining optimal statistical indicators to comprehensively measure these concepts (Cutter et al., 2003). Composite indexes offer a solution by combining various factors at a particular point in space and time that contribute to a single concept, such as demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, education and health.

The CISR and the CISV were developed as composite indexes to examine social aspects of resilience and vulnerability in relation to natural hazards. The CISR is Canada’s first national index of social resilience to natural hazards. In contrast, the CISV builds upon existing indexes of social vulnerability (Chakraborty et al., 2020; Chakraborty et al., 2021; Chakraborty et al., 2023; Statistics Canada, 2023a). The creation of these indexes aims to fill a knowledge gap in Canada regarding quantifiable distributions of relative resilience and vulnerability to natural hazards across the country.

Uses for the indexes

The purpose of creating the CISR and CISV was to better understand the disproportionate impacts of natural hazards on different populations across Canada. These indexes provide area-based information for all provinces and territories and are not hazard-specific, making them applicable to all types of natural hazards. They help identify socioeconomic variability and inequities at the community level.

When used together, the CISR and CISV can help identify the areas that may experience the largest disproportionate impacts of natural hazards. The indexes can be mapped to visualize areas of relatively high (or low) social resilience and social vulnerability. Furthermore, the indexes may be combined with data on natural hazards, such as the probability of a hazardous event and exposure data, to provide a more holistic picture of risk and associated emergency management needs.^{Note 1} Integrating area-based data from the CISV and CISR with data on natural hazards can also support research on the disproportionate impacts of hazards on different populations and potential inequities in environmental risk management.

The CISR can serve as a tool for guiding community engagement and capacity-building initiatives. While the CISR provides an overall score showing the relative social resilience of communities, understanding the underlying characteristics that are associated with relatively lower resilience within a geographic area can help inform resilience-building programs.

The CISV can be used to help identify places in Canada that may be relatively more socially vulnerable. When combined with area-specific characteristics of social vulnerability, this information can be used to make more targeted policies that can enhance a community’s adaptability to, and social protection from, natural hazards. For example, focused interventions and communication strategies that consider the unique needs of diverse groups who may be disproportionately affected by disasters could be developed.

Although these indexes offer potential for new insights, it is essential to recognize their limitations and use them accordingly. The “Analytical considerations” section identifies important limitations that must be taken into account before using the indexes. A fundamental limitation is that these are aggregate indexes. That is, they represent population characteristics for a group of people, but resilience and vulnerability are fundamentally individual experiences that may not align with overall trends in a geographic area. Additionally, the indicators contributing to the indexes (e.g., employment, income, family structure, demographic characteristics) may not be direct drivers of social resilience and social vulnerability but may instead be indirectly associated with these concepts.

Methodology

To create the indexes, microdata from the 2021 Census of Population were used to derive indicators at the dissemination area (DA) level. DAs are small, relatively stable geographic units with populations generally ranging from 400 to 700 people. DAs cover all the territory of Canada and are the smallest standard geographic area for which all census data are disseminated. Using data from all provinces and territories, the indexes provide information for 55,906 DAs.^{Note 2} For more information on the Census of Population, see Statistics Canada (2021).

Before the CISR and CISV were built, indicator frameworks were developed for social resilience and social vulnerability, respectively. In total, the social resilience indicator framework consists of 20 indicators (Appendix A), and the social vulnerability indicator framework consists of 27 indicators (Appendix B). Indicators were selected because of their demonstrated association with social resilience or social vulnerability. The selection was informed by the literature, existing indexes, availability of relevant data and engagement with subject-matter experts.^{Note 3} Importantly, the frameworks used for the indexes are place-based and attempt to reflect the nature and characteristics of a place rather than its people (Cutter, 1996; Cutter et al., 2003).

Principal component analysis was used to create the CISR and CISV. This statistical technique allows researchers to investigate concepts that are not easily measured by collapsing a large number of variables into a smaller number of interpretable components. In principal component analysis, each component captures a certain amount of overall variation in the observed variables. The components that explain the least amount of variance are discarded so that only meaningful and interpretable components are retained.^{Note 4}

Separate principal component analysis models were completed for the CISR and the CISV. Before the principal component analyses were conducted, any indicators that were redundant with another were discarded, and income-related indicators were transformed to reduce the influence of outliers. Next, a preliminary principal component analysis was conducted using the remaining indicators. Indicators that did not meaningfully contribute to any component, or whose contribution to the components was inconsistent with the theoretical framework, were subsequently removed.^{Note 5} Some exceptions were applied when counterintuitive relationships still made sense conceptually with regard to the other indicators. For example, remoteness is theoretically associated with higher social vulnerability because of limited access to social resources; however, the inverse relationship also emerged, such that non-remote areas (e.g., population centres) were more socially vulnerable for other reasons. In these cases, the indicator was retained in the model with the goal of keeping as many theoretically driven indicators as possible.

Unlike many measurement models that are designed to capture distinct constructs with each component, indicators that contributed meaningfully to more than one component were retained as long as they made sense conceptually. These are also known as complex loadings. Complex loadings may indicate that the original indicators are contributing in multiple, nuanced ways to the principal components. This could denote a deeper intricate structure within the data.

Creating the Canadian Index of Social Resilience

The CISR aims to reflect a community’s ability to respond to and recover from natural hazards. Of the 20 indicators of social resilience identified in the indicator framework (Appendix A), 15 contributed to three dimensions of social resilience (Figure 1). The three dimensions are data-driven within the principal component analysis, with indicators that are more highly correlated being grouped together as a dimension. Each dimension is driven by all 15 indicators of social resilience but is characterized by the indicators that made a meaningful statistical contribution to the dimension. DAs with a higher score on a given dimension showed higher social resilience on that dimension relative to other DAs. An indicator can contribute meaningfully to more than one dimension, meaning that the dimensions are not mutually exclusive. In other words, some indicators are highly correlated with multiple facets of social resilience observed across Canada.

Description for Figure 1

The three dimensions of social resilience and their corresponding indicators, Canada, 2021

The first dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher, a greater proportion of the working population in a creative class occupation, a greater proportion of the population with a high school diploma (or equivalent) or higher, a geographic location that is relatively less remote, a greater proportion of the working population that is not employed in a single sector, a relatively higher median value of dwellings and a greater proportion of dwellings that are permanent.

The second dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of households that own their home, a greater proportion of the population that has not moved in the last five years, a greater proportion of the population not in low income,  a greater proportion of the labour force that is employed, a relatively higher median household income, a greater proportion of the population with a high school diploma (or equivalent) or higher and a smaller proportion of the population under 65 years of age.^{Note 1}

The third dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population under 65 years of age, a greater proportion of the population that did not report “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living  and a greater proportion of dwellings built after 1980.

Notes: The dimensions are ordered such that the dimension on the left explains the highest percentage of the variance of the data and the dimension on the right explains the lowest percentage. Similarly, the indicators below each dimension are ordered such that the first indicator explains the highest percentage of the variance in the dimension and the last indicator explains the lowest percentage. Indicators contribute to higher social resilience unless otherwise specified. Certain indicators contribute to more than one dimension.
Source: 2021 Canadian Index of Social Resilience, based on 2021 Census of Population long-form questionnaire.

The first dimension is driven by seven meaningful indicators pertaining to education, employment and dwelling characteristics. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher, a greater proportion of the working population in a creative class occupation,^{Note 6} a greater proportion of the population with a high school diploma (or equivalent) or higher, a geographic location that is relatively less remote, a greater proportion of the working population that is not employed in a single sector,^{Note 7} a relatively higher median value of dwellings and a greater proportion of dwellings that are permanent. 

The second dimension is driven by seven meaningful indicators pertaining to homeownership, income, employment and age. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of households that own their home, a greater proportion of the population that has not moved in the last five years, a greater proportion of the population not in low income,^{Note 8} a greater proportion of the labour force that is employed, a relatively higher median household income, a greater proportion of the population with a high school diploma (or equivalent) or higher and a smaller proportion of the population under 65 years of age.^{Note 9}

The third dimension is driven by three meaningful indicators pertaining to age, activities of daily living and dwelling characteristics. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population under 65 years of age, a greater proportion of the population that did not report “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living^{Note 10} and a greater proportion of dwellings built after 1980.

Creating the Canadian Index of Social Vulnerability

The CISV aims to reflect the social vulnerability of an area based on factors that have the potential to amplify the impact of disasters on populations. Of the 27 indicators of social vulnerability identified by the framework (Appendix B), 22 indicators contributed to four dimensions of social vulnerability (Figure 2). The four dimensions are data-driven within the principal component analysis, with indicators that are more highly correlated being grouped together as a dimension. DAs with a higher score on a given dimension showed higher social vulnerability on that dimension relative to other DAs. Each dimension is characterized by the indicators that made a meaningful statistical contribution to the dimension. An indicator can contribute meaningfully to more than one dimension, meaning that the dimensions are not mutually exclusive.

Description for Figure 2

The four dimensions of social vulnerability and their corresponding indicators, Canada, 2021

The first dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population that identified as racialized, a greater proportion of dwellings deemed not acceptable, a greater proportion of the population that identified as recent immigrants (within the last five years), a greater proportion of the population with no working knowledge of either official language, a geographic location that is relatively less remote,^{Note 1} a greater proportion of dwellings with five or more storeys, a greater proportion of the labour force that is unemployed and a relatively higher median value of dwellings.^{Note 2}

The second dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population receiving government pension benefits as their main source of income, a greater proportion of the population not in the labour force, a greater proportion of the population aged 65 or over living alone, a greater proportion of the population reporting “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living because of physical problems, a greater proportion of the population that are women and a greater proportion of the population in low income.

The third dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population without a high school diploma (or equivalent), a greater proportion of the population that identified as Indigenous, a greater proportion of one-parent families with more than three children, a greater proportion of the population receiving employment insurance benefits, a geographic location that is relatively more remote, a greater proportion of the labour force that is unemployed, a greater proportion of the population in low income and a greater proportion of the population receiving social assistance as their main source of income.

The fourth dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population reporting “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living because of psychological problems, a greater proportion of recent movers (within the last five years), a greater proportion of the population receiving social assistance as their main source of income, a relatively lower median value of dwellings, a relatively lower median household income, a greater proportion of the population reporting “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living because of physical problems, a greater proportion of dwellings with five or more storeys, a greater proportion of the population in low income, a greater proportion of dwellings deemed not acceptable and a smaller proportion of the population with no knowledge of either official language.^{Note 3}

Notes: The dimensions are ordered such that the dimension on the left explains the highest percentage of the variance of the data and the dimension on the right explains the lowest percentage. Similarly, the indicators below each dimension are ordered such that the first indicator explains the highest percentage of the variance in the dimension and the last indicator explains the lowest percentage. Indicators contribute to higher social vulnerability unless otherwise specified. Certain indicators contribute to more than one dimension.
Source: 2021 Canadian Index of Social Vulnerability, based on 2021 Census of Population long-form questionnaire.

The first dimension is driven by eight meaningful indicators pertaining to racialized identity and immigration, dwelling characteristics, remoteness, and employment. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population that identified as racialized,^{Note 11} a greater proportion of dwellings deemed not acceptable, a greater proportion of the population that identified as recent immigrants (within the last five years), a greater proportion of the population with no working knowledge of either official language, a geographic location that is relatively less remote,^{Note 12} a greater proportion of dwellings with five or more storeys, a greater proportion of the labour force that is unemployed and a relatively higher median value of dwellings.^{Note 13}

The second dimension is driven by six meaningful indicators pertaining to income, labour force participation, age, activity limitations and gender. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population receiving government pension benefits as their main source of income, a greater proportion of the population not in the labour force, a greater proportion of the population aged 65 or over living alone, a greater proportion of the population reporting “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living because of physical problems, a greater proportion of the population that are women and a greater proportion of the population in low income.^{Note 14}

The third dimension is driven by eight meaningful indicators pertaining to education, Indigenous identity, family composition, income, remoteness and employment. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population without a high school diploma (or equivalent), a greater proportion of the population that identified as Indigenous, a greater proportion of one-parent families with more than three children, a greater proportion of the population receiving employment insurance benefits, a geographic location that is relatively more remote, a greater proportion of the labour force that is unemployed, a greater proportion of the population in low income and a greater proportion of the population receiving social assistance as their main source of income.

The fourth dimension is driven by 10 meaningful indicators pertaining to activity limitations, moving, income and dwelling characteristics. Specifically, this dimension is characterized by a greater proportion of the population reporting “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living because of psychological problems, a greater proportion of recent movers (within the last five years), a greater proportion of the population receiving social assistance as their main source of income, a relatively lower median value of dwellings, a relatively lower median household income, a greater proportion of the population reporting “always” having difficulties with activities of daily living because of physical problems, a greater proportion of dwellings with five or more storeys, a greater proportion of the population in low income, a greater proportion of dwellings deemed not acceptable and a smaller proportion of the population with no knowledge of either official language.^{Note 15}

Analytical guidelines

Canadian Index of Social Resilience scores and quintiles

This dataset contains the CISR and the three dimensions of social resilience. The index is presented in two forms: scores and quintiles. Scores and quintiles are provided at the DA level.

For the dimensions of social resilience, dimension scores were constructed from the principal component analysis model. Higher dimension scores correspond to DAs that are more resilient in a given dimension, and lower dimension scores correspond to DAs that are less resilient.

CISR scores correspond to an area’s social resilience based on the three dimensions. Scores are calculated by taking the average across the three dimensions of social resilience. Higher CISR scores correspond to DAs that are more resilient, and lower CISR scores correspond to DAs that are less resilient.

For ease of use, CISR quintiles were also derived by ordering CISR scores from smallest to largest and then dividing them into five equally sized groups, or quintiles. Quintiles are categorized from 1 to 5. A value of 5 corresponds to the DAs that were the most resilient, and a value of 1 corresponds to the DAs that were the least resilient.

The CISR most resilient dimension indicates the dimension that had the highest score across the three dimensions of social resilience. This highlights the dimension that demonstrated the most resilience in a given DA.

Canadian Index of Social Vulnerability scores and quintiles

This dataset contains the CISV and the four dimensions of social vulnerability. The index is presented in two forms: scores and quintiles. Scores and quintiles are provided at the DA level.

For the dimensions of social vulnerability, dimension scores were constructed from the principal component analysis model. Higher dimension scores correspond to DAs that are more vulnerable in a given dimension, and lower dimension scores correspond to DAs that are less vulnerable.

CISV scores correspond to an area’s social vulnerability based on the four dimensions. Scores are calculated by taking the average across the four dimensions of social vulnerability. Higher CISV scores correspond to DAs that are more vulnerable, and lower CISV scores correspond to DAs that are less vulnerable.

For ease of use, CISV quintiles were also derived by ordering CISV scores from smallest to largest and then dividing them into five equally sized groups, or quintiles. Quintiles are categorized from 1 to 5. A value of 5 corresponds to the DAs that were the most vulnerable, and a value of 1 corresponds to the DAs that were the least vulnerable.

The CISV most vulnerable dimension indicates the dimension that had the highest score across the four dimensions of social vulnerability. This highlights the dimension that demonstrated the most vulnerability in a given DA.

Formats

Each dataset is available in comma-separated value (CSV) and Esri formats. A CSV file is a plain text file that stores tabular data in a simple format. An Esri file is a shapefile that can be used to visualize the data in Geographic Information System (GIS) software, such as ArcGIS. The Esri files require the use of GIS software.

Analytical considerations

When using the indexes, it is essential to understand that they are based on aggregate values for a DA. These DA-level values do not necessarily reflect individual experiences within a DA (Jargowsky, 2021). For example, if the proportion of a DA’s population in low income is small, the population may therefore appear to have relatively high incomes, but certain individuals within this DA may still be in low income. This is a key limitation of an aggregated index approach, but it can be managed by data users through awareness. For instance, this can be accomplished by using complementary data sources that capture individual experiences and ensuring that these indexes are not used to treat the populations of DAs as homogenous or universal.

The indicators contributing to the indexes (e.g., employment, income, family structure, demographic characteristics) are not necessarily direct drivers of social resilience and vulnerability. Instead, they may be associated with some other (unmeasured) causal factors and, therefore, may be only indirectly associated with social resilience and vulnerability. For example, the proportion of the population that identified as Indigenous should not be interpreted to mean that Indigenous populations are inherently more vulnerable than non-Indigenous populations. Instead, Indigenous populations are affected by the historical and ongoing consequences of colonialism, which is a key driver of socioeconomic marginalization, systemic discrimination and racism (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). For example, Indigenous communities are often located in geographic areas that are more vulnerable to natural hazards because of forced resettlement and have access to fewer services as a result of proximity and lack of funding (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2024; Yellow Old Woman-Munro et al., 2021). Although the indexes are driven by some indicators of socioeconomic marginalization, the data did not allow for the inclusion of direct measures of place-based systemic discrimination and racism.

The indexes focus on the social aspects of resilience and vulnerability in relation to natural hazards. Infrastructure-related indicators, such as access to emergency services, temporary shelters and technology, were not as readily available. Infrastructure-related data were assessed for inclusion in the indexes, but it was ultimately determined that these data did not have suitable national coverage at the DA level. Consequently, the indexes should be considered to reflect the social rather than the infrastructure-related aspects of resilience and vulnerability. Additionally, data were not available to capture other potentially important indicators of social resilience and vulnerability, such as technological connectedness, social cohesion and ecological knowledge.^{Note 16}

A national indicator framework was applied to all provinces and territories across Canada to allow the relative resilience and vulnerability of diverse communities to be compared at a national scale. However, different types of communities (e.g., remote, rural, urban) may have very different experiences and indicators of social resilience and vulnerability. Whereas the indexes are intended to capture experiences of all types, the use of a national framework may not capture all the nuances in social resilience and vulnerability across all types of communities.

Census data capture a snapshot of the population at a specific point in time. Because this survey is conducted only at certain intervals (i.e., every five years in Canada), indexes based on census data can miss rapid socioeconomic changes critical to community resilience and vulnerability. For example, they may fail to capture immediate shifts from disasters, such as displacement, income loss or employment changes. Therefore, the indexes are only as current as the census on which they are based.

Some populations that may be most impacted by natural hazards are not necessarily proportionally represented in the census. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic presented some challenges for conducting the 2021 Census in the territories, as well as in First Nations communities, Métis Settlements, Inuit regions and other remote areas in the provinces (Statistics Canada, 2021). In 2021, 3% of the population was missed by the census, with the highest proportions found across the territories, ranging from 6% in Yukon to 8% in the Northwest Territories (Statistics Canada, 2023b). Therefore, the indexes are based on incomplete information, particularly affecting northern and Indigenous communities.

The indexes are grounded in theoretical frameworks and research on social resilience and vulnerability. However, they have not yet undergone empirical validation against objective measures of a community’s social resilience and vulnerability. Such validation could be achieved by analyzing the real-world impacts of natural hazards on communities and comparing these experiences with the indexes.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Instructions for citing the data

In referencing the indexes, please use the following citation:

Statistics Canada. (2025). The Canadian Index of Social Resilience and the Canadian Index of Social Vulnerability, 2021. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 45-20-00012025002.

References

*Asterisks indicate sources that informed the indicator frameworks in Appendix A and Appendix B.

*Al-Kodmany, K. (2018). The sustainability of tall building developments: A conceptual framework. Buildings, 8(1), 7.

*Allan, P., Bryant, M., Wirsching, C., Garcia, D., & Rodriguez, M. T. (2013). The influence of urban morphology on the resilience of cities following an earthquake. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 242–262.

*Alonso, M., Rubio, A., Escrig, T., Soto, T., Serrano-Lanzarote, B., & Matarredona-Desantes, N. (2021). Identification of measures to strengthen resilience in homes on the basis of lockdown experience during COVID-19. Sustainability, 13(11), 6168.

*Amedah, S., & Fougère, M. (2023). Assessment of the anti-poverty effect of Employment Insurance Program. Employment and Social Development Canada.

*Andrey, J., & Jones, B. (2008). The dynamic nature of social disadvantage: Implications for hazard exposure and vulnerability in Greater Vancouver. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 52(2), 146–168.

*Armaș, I., & Gavriș, A. (2013). Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model) – a case study for Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13(6), 1481–1499.

*Bjarnadottir, S., Li, Y., & Stewart, M. G. (2011). Social vulnerability index for coastal communities at risk to hurricane hazard and a changing climate. Natural Hazards, 59(2), 1055–1075.

*Bucherie, A., Hultquist, C., Adamo, S., Neely, C., Ayala, F., Bazo, J., & Kruczkiewicz, A. (2022). A comparison of social vulnerability indices specific to flooding in Ecuador: Principal component analysis (PCA) and expert knowledge. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 73, 102897.

*Burton, C. G. (2015). A validation of metrics for community resilience to natural hazards and disasters using the recovery from Hurricane Katrina as a case study. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(1), 67–86.

Canadian Real Estate Association. (n.d.). National Price Map.

*Chakraborty, L., Rus, H., Henstra, D., Thistlethwaite, J., & Scott, D. (2020). A place-based socioeconomic status index: Measuring social vulnerability to flood hazards in the context of environmental justice. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 43, 101394.

*Chakraborty, L., Thistlethwaite, J., Minano, A., Henstra, D., & Scott, D. (2021). Leveraging hazard, exposure, and social vulnerability data to assess flood risk to Indigenous communities in Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12, 821–838.

*Chakraborty, L., Rus, H., Henstra, D., Thistlethwaite, J., Minano, A., & Scott, D. (2022a). Exploring spatial heterogeneity and environmental injustices in exposure to flood hazards using geographically weighted regression. Environmental Research, 210, 112982.

*Chakraborty, L., Thistlethwaite, J., Scott, D., Henstra, D., Minano, A., & Rus, H. (2022b). Assessing social vulnerability and identifying spatial hotspots of flood risk to inform socially just flood management policy. Risk Analysis, 43(5), 1058–1078.

Chakraborty, L., Bourke, R., & Godsoe, M. (2023). Understanding risk: A social vulnerability index for Canada. HazNet. 18(1), Spring/Summer.

*Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., & Romo Aguilar, M. de L. (2009). Vulnerability to environmental hazards in the Ciudad Juárez (Mexico)–El Paso (USA) metropolis: A model for spatial risk assessment in transnational context. Applied Geography, 29(3), 448–461.

Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529–539.

*Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.

*Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606.

*Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1), 44–45.

*Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change, 29, 65–77.

Cutter, S. L. (2016). Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? The Geographical Journal, 182(2), 110–113.

Cutter, S. L. (2024). The origin and diffusion of the social vulnerability index (SoVI). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 109, 104576.

*Davis, E., & Phillips, B. (2009). Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People with Disabilities. National Council on Disability.

*Emrich, C. T., & Cutter, S. L. (2011). Social vulnerability to climate-sensitive hazards in the southern United States. Weather, Climate, and Society, 3(3), 193–208.

*Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2022). Community Resilience Indicator Analysis: Commonly Used Indicators from Peer-reviewed Research: Updated for Research Published 2003-2021. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). National Risk Index: Technical Documentation. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

*Fekete, A. (2009). Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9(2), 393–403.

*Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., Hallisey, E. J., Heitgerd, J. L., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1).

*Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Fox, S., Agyemang, F., Hawker, L., & Neal, J. (2024). Integrating social vulnerability into high-resolution global flood risk mapping. Nature Communications, 15(1), 3155.

Fox O’Mahony, L., & Roark, M. L. (2023). Property as an asset of resilience: Rethinking ownership, communities and exclusion through the register of resilience. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 36, 1477–1507.

*Foye, C., Clapham, D., & Gabrieli, T. (2018). Home-ownership as a social norm and positional good: Subjective wellbeing evidence from panel data. Urban Studies, 55(6), 1290–1312.

*Gall, M. (2007). Indices of Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A Comparative Evaluation (doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina.

*Greiving, S., Fleischhauer, M., & Lückenkötter, J. (2006). A methodology for an integrated risk assessment of spatially relevant hazards. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(1), 1–19.

*Gu, D., Dillard, M., Gerst, M., & Loerzel, J. (2023). Validating commonly used indicators for community resilience measurement. Natural Hazards Review, 24(2), 04023008.

*Hamza, M., Eriksson, K., & Staupe-Delgado, R. (2021). Locating potential sources of capacity and vulnerability in geographically remote areas: Reflections based on three case studies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102433.

*Hebb, A., & Mortsch, L. (2007). Floods: Mapping vulnerability in the Upper Thames watershed under a changing climate. Project Report XI, University of Waterloo, 1–53.

*Holand, I. S., Lujala, P., & Rød, J. K. (2011). Social vulnerability assessment for Norway: A quantitative approach. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(1), 1–17.

Jargowsky, P. A. (2021). Disastrous inferences? The ecological fallacy in disaster and emergency management research. In Disaster and Emergency Management Methods (pp. 48–66). Routledge.

*Jones, B., & Andrey, J. (2007). Vulnerability index construction: Methodological choices and their influence on identifying vulnerable neighbourhoods. International Journal of Emergency Management, 4(2), 269.

*Journeay, M., Yip, J. Z. K., Wagner, C. L., LeSueur, P., & Hobbs, T. (2022). Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in Canada. Natural Resources Canada.

*Khan, S. (2012). Vulnerability assessments and their planning implications: A case study of the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Natural Hazards, 64(2), 1587–1607.

*Lee, Y.-J. (2014). Social vulnerability indicators as a sustainable planning tool. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 44, 31–42.

*Lixin, Y., Xi, Z., Lingling, G., & Dong, Z. (2014). Analysis of social vulnerability to hazards in China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 71(7), 3109–3117.

*Martins, V. N., Sousa e Silva, D., & Cabral, P. (2012). Social vulnerability assessment to seismic risk using multicriteria analysis: The case study of Vila Franca do Campo (São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal). Natural Hazards, 62(2), 385–404.

*Marzi, S., Mysiak, J., Essenfelder, A. H., Amadio, M., Giove, S., & Fekete, A. (2019). Constructing a comprehensive disaster resilience index: The case of Italy. PLOS One 14(9).

*National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2013). Using Pictograms to Make Transit Easier to Navigate for Customers with Communication Barriers. The National Academies Press.

*Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127–150.

*Odeh, D. J. (2002). Natural hazards vulnerability assessment for statewide mitigation planning in Rhode Island. Natural Hazards Review, 3(4), 177–187.

O’Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2014). A Step-by-step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). SAS Institute Inc.

*Oulahen, G., Mortsch, L., Tang, K., & Harford, D. (2015). Unequal vulnerability to flood hazards: “Ground truthing” a social vulnerability index of five municipalities in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(3), 473–495.

Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (2001). Disasters and communities: Vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 10(4), 270–277.

*Pelham, L., Clay, E., & Braunholz, T. (2011). Natural disasters: What is the role for social safety nets? Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery.

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2024). Rapid Review: An Intersectional Analysis of the Disproportionate Health Impacts of Wildfires on Diverse Populations and Communities.

Public Safety Canada. (2024). National Risk Profile: A National Emergency Preparedness and Awareness Tool.

Reimann, L., Koks, E., de Moel, H., Ton, M. J., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2024). An empirical social vulnerability map for flood risk assessment at global scale (“GlobE‐SoVI”). Earth’s Future, 12(3), e2023EF003895.

*Roque, A., Quimby, B., Brewis, A., & Wutich, A. (2021). Building social capital in low-income communities for resilience. In Brears, R. C. (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Climate Resilient Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

*Saatcioglu, M. (2013). High-rise buildings in natural disaster. In Bobrowsky, P. T. (dir.), Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards (pp. 451–452). Springer Netherlands.

*Scherzer, S., Lujala, P., & Rød, J. K. (2019). A community resilience index for Norway: An adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36.

*Schmidtlein, M. C., Deutsch, R. C., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). A sensitivity analysis of the Social Vulnerability Index. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1099–1114.

*Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 227–247.

*Statistics Canada (2020). Index of Remoteness. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 17-26-0001

Statistics Canada. (2021). Guide to the Census of Population, 2021. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-304-X.

Statistics Canada. (2022). Immigrants make up the largest share of the population in over 150 years and continue to shape who we are as Canadians. The Daily. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-001-X.

*Statistics Canada. (2023a). The Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation: User Guide, 2021. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 45‑20-0001.

Statistics Canada. (2023b). Coverage estimates for the 2021 Census (final). The Daily. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-001-X.

*Sullivan, S., Young, A., Garcia, M., Almuwaqqat, Z., Moazzami, K., Hammadah, M., Lima, B. B., Driggers, E. G., Levantsevych, O., Alkhalaf, M., Jajeh, M. N., Alkhoder, A., Elon, L., Gooding, H., Lewis, T. T., Shah, A. J., Bremner, J. D., Quyyumi, A. A., & Vaccarino, V. (2022). Gender disparities between neighborhood social vulnerability and psychological distress among patients with heart disease. Journal of Women’s Health, 31(10), 1440–1449.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2018). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

*Tan, S. B. (2021). Measuring community resilience: A critical analysis of a policy-oriented indicator tool. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 12, 100142.

*Tate, E. (2012). Social vulnerability indices: A comparative assessment using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Natural Hazards, 63(2), 325–347.

*Tate, E. (2013). Uncertainty analysis for a social vulnerability index. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(3), 526–543.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (n.d.). Indigenous Peoples Are Key Actors for Disaster Risk Reduction.

*Wang, S., Zhang, M., Huang, X., Hu, T., Sun, Q. C., Corcoran, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). Urban–rural disparity of social vulnerability to natural hazards in Australia. Scientific Reports, 12, 13665.

*Wood, N. J., Burton, C. G., & Cutter, S. L. (2010). Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Natural Hazards, 52(2), 369–389.

*Wu, S.-Y., Yarnal, B., & Fisher, A. (2002). Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise: A case study of Cape May County, New Jersey, USA. Climate Research, 22(3), 255–270.

Yellow Old Woman-Munro, D., Yumagulova, L., & Dicken, E. (2021). Unnatural Disasters. Canadian Climate Institute.