Operationalizing a concept: The systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience

被引:148
作者
Asadzadeh, A. [1 ]
Koetter, T. [1 ]
Salehi, P. [2 ]
Birkmann, J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bonn, Dept Urban Planning & Land Management, IGG, Nussallee 1, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
[2] ICLEI Local Govt Sustainabil, Kaiser Friedrich Str 7, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
[3] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Spatial & Reg Planning, Pfaffenwaldring 7, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
关键词
Disaster resilience; Operationalizing; Composite indicators building (CIB); Systematic survey; SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; NATURAL HAZARDS; VULNERABILITY; INDEX; VALIDATION; FRAMEWORK; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.015
中图分类号
P [天文学、地球科学];
学科分类号
07 ;
摘要
The measurement of community disaster resilience through the development of a comprehensive set of composite indicators is becoming increasingly commonplace. Despite this growing trend, there is neither an agreement upon a standard procedure nor a comprehensive assessment of existing measurement frameworks in the relevant literature. To tackle these challenges, this study (1) proposes an overarching eight-step procedure for composite indicator building and (2) develops a meta-level assessment framework to allow for a systematic review of existing disaster resilience measurement frameworks in application of composite indicator building. This meta-level framework was established on the basis of the proposed eight-step composite indicator building procedure and qualified with the introduction of 19 dimensions and 36 metrics for quality assessment. In order to select relevant disaster resilience measures for this analysis, the study applied a systematic survey to collect measures based on four inclusion criteria: community-based, multifaceted, quantitative, and operationalized. Accordingly, 17 resilience measurement frameworks were chosen for further analysis in this review. The results of the quality assessment demonstrated that, from the theoretical perspective, resilience assessments originate from either the socio-ecological or engineering fields and can be classified into two main types of resilience indices and tools. This differs from results of the methodological perspective, which indicate that resilience measures can be characterized as deductive or similar to hierarchical and inductive assessments.
引用
收藏
页码:147 / 162
页数:16
相关论文
共 106 条
[11]  
[Anonymous], 2006, MEASURING VULNERABIL
[12]  
[Anonymous], 2007, ADAPTING CLIMATE CHA
[13]  
Asadzadeh A., 2015, SUSTAIN DEV, V2, P963, DOI [10.2495/SD150842, DOI 10.2495/SD150842]
[14]   An augmented approach for measurement of disaster resilience using connective factor analysis and analytic network process (F'ANP) model [J].
Asadzadeh, Asad ;
Koetter, Theo ;
Zebardast, Esfandiar .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2015, 14 :504-518
[15]  
Baby S., 2013, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, V4, P218, DOI DOI 10.7763/IJIMT.2013.V4.395
[16]  
Baptista S. R., DESIGN USE COMPOSITE
[17]   The hazards of indicators: Insights from the environmental vulnerability index [J].
Barnett, Jon ;
Lambert, Simon ;
Fry, Ian .
ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS, 2008, 98 (01) :102-119
[18]  
Beccari B., 2016, PLOS Curr Disasters
[19]  
Birkmann J., 2016, WORLD RISK REPORT
[20]   Boost resilience of small and mid-sized cities [J].
Birkmann, Joern ;
Welle, Torsten ;
Solecki, William ;
Lwasa, Shuaib ;
Garschagen, Matthias .
NATURE, 2016, 537 (7622) :605-608