![]() A minimum of 2 variables and a maximum of 235 were used, although approximately two thirds of methodologies used less than 40 variables. Typically variables were chosen by experts, came from existing statistical datasets and were combined by simple addition with equal weights. Five key approaches were identified in the literature, with the use of hierarchical or deductive indices being the most common. Results: Substantial variety in construction practices of composite indicators of risk, vulnerability and resilience were found. ![]() ![]() Information on the index construction, geographic areas of application, variables used and other relevant data was collected and analysed. Methods: An extensive search of the academic and grey literature was undertaken for composite indicator and scorecard methodologies that addressed multiple/all hazards included social and economic aspects of risk, vulnerability or resilience were sub-national in scope explained the method and variables used focussed on the present-day and, had been tested or implemented. This paper seeks to dramatically expand these efforts by analysing 106 composite indicator methodologies to understand the breadth and depth of practice. Whilst some authors have published reviews of disaster vulnerability, risk and resilience composite indicator methodologies, these have been of a limited nature. Particular attention has been given to the development of composite indices to quantify these concepts mirroring their deployment in other fields such as sustainable development. Introduction: In the past decade significant attention has been given to the development of tools that attempt to measure the vulnerability, risk or resilience of communities to disasters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |