实施灾害政策:探索灾害恢复的规模和测量方案

IF 0.7 4区 管理学 Q4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Pub Date : 2019-05-30 DOI:10.1515/JHSEM-2018-0029
S. Cutter, S. Derakhshan
{"title":"实施灾害政策:探索灾害恢复的规模和测量方案","authors":"S. Cutter, S. Derakhshan","doi":"10.1515/JHSEM-2018-0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Resilience measurement continues to be a meeting ground between policy makers and academics. However, there are inherent limitations in measuring disaster resilience. For example, resilience indicators produced by FEMA and one produced by an independent academic group (BRIC) measure community resilience by defining and quantifying community resilience at a national level, but they each have a different conceptual model of the resilience concept. The FEMA approach focuses on measuring resilience capacity based on preparedness capabilities embodied in the National Preparedness Goals at state and county scales. BRIC examines community (spatially defined as county) components (or capitals) that influence resilience and provides a baseline of pre-existing resilience in places to enable periodic updates to measure resilience improvements. Using these two approaches as examples, this paper examines the differences and similarities in these two approaches in terms of the conceptual framing, data resolution, and representation and the resultant statistical and spatial differences in outcomes. Users of resilience measurement tools need to be keenly aware of the conceptual framing, input data, and geographic scale of any schema before implementation as these parameters can and do make a difference in the outcome even when they claim to be measuring the same concept.","PeriodicalId":46847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management","volume":"157 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing Disaster Policy: Exploring Scale and Measurement Schemes for Disaster Resilience\",\"authors\":\"S. Cutter, S. Derakhshan\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/JHSEM-2018-0029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Resilience measurement continues to be a meeting ground between policy makers and academics. However, there are inherent limitations in measuring disaster resilience. For example, resilience indicators produced by FEMA and one produced by an independent academic group (BRIC) measure community resilience by defining and quantifying community resilience at a national level, but they each have a different conceptual model of the resilience concept. The FEMA approach focuses on measuring resilience capacity based on preparedness capabilities embodied in the National Preparedness Goals at state and county scales. BRIC examines community (spatially defined as county) components (or capitals) that influence resilience and provides a baseline of pre-existing resilience in places to enable periodic updates to measure resilience improvements. Using these two approaches as examples, this paper examines the differences and similarities in these two approaches in terms of the conceptual framing, data resolution, and representation and the resultant statistical and spatial differences in outcomes. Users of resilience measurement tools need to be keenly aware of the conceptual framing, input data, and geographic scale of any schema before implementation as these parameters can and do make a difference in the outcome even when they claim to be measuring the same concept.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management\",\"volume\":\"157 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/JHSEM-2018-0029\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/JHSEM-2018-0029","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

弹性测量一直是政策制定者和学者之间的会议场所。然而,在衡量抗灾能力方面存在固有的局限性。例如,联邦应急管理局(FEMA)制定的复原力指标和一个独立学术团体(BRIC)制定的复原力指标通过在国家层面上定义和量化社区复原力来衡量社区复原力,但它们都有不同的复原力概念模型。联邦应急管理局的方法侧重于根据州和县两级国家准备目标中体现的准备能力来衡量恢复能力。金砖四国审查影响复原力的社区(在空间上定义为县)组成部分(或首都),并提供地方现有复原力的基线,以便定期更新以衡量复原力的改善情况。本文以这两种方法为例,探讨了这两种方法在概念框架、数据分辨率和表征方面的异同,以及由此产生的结果的统计和空间差异。弹性测量工具的用户需要在实施之前敏锐地意识到任何模式的概念框架、输入数据和地理范围,因为这些参数可以并且确实会对结果产生影响,即使他们声称测量的是相同的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Implementing Disaster Policy: Exploring Scale and Measurement Schemes for Disaster Resilience
Abstract Resilience measurement continues to be a meeting ground between policy makers and academics. However, there are inherent limitations in measuring disaster resilience. For example, resilience indicators produced by FEMA and one produced by an independent academic group (BRIC) measure community resilience by defining and quantifying community resilience at a national level, but they each have a different conceptual model of the resilience concept. The FEMA approach focuses on measuring resilience capacity based on preparedness capabilities embodied in the National Preparedness Goals at state and county scales. BRIC examines community (spatially defined as county) components (or capitals) that influence resilience and provides a baseline of pre-existing resilience in places to enable periodic updates to measure resilience improvements. Using these two approaches as examples, this paper examines the differences and similarities in these two approaches in terms of the conceptual framing, data resolution, and representation and the resultant statistical and spatial differences in outcomes. Users of resilience measurement tools need to be keenly aware of the conceptual framing, input data, and geographic scale of any schema before implementation as these parameters can and do make a difference in the outcome even when they claim to be measuring the same concept.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management publishes original, innovative, and timely articles describing research or practice in the fields of homeland security and emergency management. JHSEM publishes not only peer-reviewed articles, but also news and communiqués from researchers and practitioners, and book/media reviews. Content comes from a broad array of authors representing many professions, including emergency management, engineering, political science and policy, decision science, and health and medicine, as well as from emergency management and homeland security practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Group Identity, Self-Concept, and Gender Bias: A Regression Analysis of Female Student Experiences Within Emergency Management-Related Higher Education Programs A National Disaster Medicine Quality Management Tool in an International Context – A Theoretical Study Cross-Border and Transboundary Resilience Between Here and There. The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Restoring the Supply Chain of Face Masks During the COVID-19 Crisis Standardization Gaps in European Disaster Management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1