Cross-sectional evaluation reveals low-to-moderate disaster risk reduction capacity across urban communities, highlighting the need for targeted governance and resource allocation.
Evaluating and improving community disaster risk reduction capacity (CDRRC) is a crucial concern in the theory and application of urban catastrophe management. Nonetheless, current evaluation frameworks frequently concentrate on a solitary discipline or a restricted array of metrics, while capacity-building initiatives generally neglect sustainability considerations. To rectify this deficiency, this study utilizes Chinese national standards and implements their three-tier indicator framework for evaluating CDRRC; subsequently, it employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to ascertain the significance of the indicators and evaluates 10 communities in the central urban area of Xiangtan using the TOPSIS methodology. Our research revealed that the most significant first-level indicators—disaster management (0.3362) and disaster prevention and preparedness (0.3230)—are crucial for a community’s ability to reduce disaster risk, while other second- and third-level indicators highlight particular priority areas. The relative proximity of the sample communities varied between 0.3273 and 0.5868, with an average of 0.4287, indicating that their disaster risk reduction capacity is low to moderate. The relative proximity among the first-level indicators further revealed variations in capacity dimensions, facilitating the classification of six community types—from “synergistic advantage” to “comprehensively lagging”—each possessing distinct characteristics related to disaster risk reduction capacity and improvement requirements. To improve CDRRC in accordance with sustainability goals, it is crucial to refine coordination and risk evaluation, optimize resource allocation and training, strengthen information dissemination and communication, and enhance team cohesion and infrastructure, thereby fortifying the foundations of governance and resilience for sustainable community development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: