Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ensuring effective safety management in the face of intensifying climate-driven and complex disasters calls for the development of an objective diagnostic system for assessing disaster resilience. This study presents a disaster resilience indicator framework that can enable local governments to assess resilience levels and support evidence-based policymaking. Based on resilience theory and the disaster resilience of place model, the study proposes a four-tier hierarchical framework integrating disaster management policy stages with resilience attributes. The framework consists of four policy stages—prevention, damage minimization, recovery, and “Build Back Better” (BBB)—and eight corresponding attributes: vulnerability, robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, rapidity, completeness, equity, and innovation. The framework is further operationalized into 26 sub-categories and 165 candidate indicators across seven dimensions. By aligning resilience attributes with policy stages, the framework enables stage-specific diagnosis and direct linkage to policy interventions. The inclusion of BBB as an independent category also captures transformative resilience beyond recovery. The 165 indicators are proposed as a candidate pool to be refined through expert validation and weighting in subsequent research. This study provides a conceptual framework and candidate indicator pool to support the development of a standardized disaster resilience diagnostic system for local governments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: