Listen to the episode:

You can find the transcript through this link.

---

Summary of the article titled Operationalizing a concept: The systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience from 2017 by A. Asadzadeh, T. Kötter, P. Salehi, and J. Birkmann, published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 

Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how to build indicators for an overarching community disaster resilience assessment. This article introduces an assessment framework to measure community disaster resilience while also investigating hierarchical, and inductive assessment methods.

As the most important things, I would like to highlight 3 aspects:

1. Measuring community disaster resilience has its challenges, for example, based on its theoretical background, dynamic and static approaches, and answers to the fundamental questions of why resilience, and resilience of what, when and for whom.
2. It seems important to involve all stakeholders in the establishment of the measurements creating agency and empowerment over the measures themselves.
3. More measurements, frameworks, indices and metrics need to incorporate the validation phase to create reliable outcomes.

---

You can find the article through this link.

Abstract: 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.

Additionally, it would be great to talk about the following questions:

1. What does resilience mean to you? Where do you put resilience? Is it independent? Is it connected to something? Is it part of something, like sustainability?
2. What do you think, how resilient are you as an individual?
3. What do you think, how resilient is your community?

Connecting episodes you might be interested in:

• No.023R – Smart cities and disaster resilience
• No.044R – Measuring community disaster resilience in the Latvian context
• No.056R – A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters
• No.074R – Resilient urban planning: major principles and criteria

---