{"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}
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.
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.