The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: A conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities
Open accessAbstract
Assessment of disaster resilience using an index is often a key element of natural hazard management and planning. Many assessments have been undertaken worldwide. Emerging from these are a set of seven common properties that should be considered in the design of any disaster resilience assessment: assessment purpose, top-down or bottom-up assessment, assessment scale, conceptual framework, structural design, indicator selection, data analysis and index computation and reporting and interpretation. We introduce the design of an Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index (ANDRI) according to the common properties of resilience assessment. The ANDRI takes a top-down approach using indicators derived from secondary data with national coverage. The ANDRI is a hierarchical design based on coping and adaptive capacities representing the potential for disaster resilience. Coping capacity is the means by which people or organizations use available resources, skills and opportunities to face adverse consequences that could lead to a disaster. Adaptive capacity is the arrangements and processes that enable adjustment through learning, adaptation and transformation. Coping capacity is divided into themes of social character, economic capital, infrastructure and planning, emergency services, community capital and information and engagement. Adaptive capacity is divided into themes of governance, policy and leadership and social and community engagement. Indicators are collected to determine the status of each theme. As assessments of disaster resilience develop worldwide, reporting of their design as standard practice will track knowledge generation in the field and enhance the relationship between applied disaster resilience assessment and foundational principles of disaster resilience.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6 · Cited by 5,476
Cited by
Assessing social resilience of flood-vulnerable communities in Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar
Lwin, K. K., Pal, I., Shrestha, S., & Warnitchai, P. (2020) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101745 · Cited by 74
Zhao, X., Wang, H., Dai, C., Tang, J., Deng, K., Zhong, Z., Kong, F., Wang, S., & Morikawa, S. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13040240 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Parsons, M., Glavac, S., Hastings, P., Marshall, G., McGregor, J., McNeill, J., Morley, P., Reeve, I., & Stayner, R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 19
- Pages
- 1-11
- ISSN
- 2212-4209 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2486898625
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 53.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: A conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.005
- The paper
- Parsons, M., Glavac, S., Hastings, P., Marshall, G., McGregor, J., McNeill, J., Morley, P., Reeve, I., & Stayner, R. (2016). Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: A conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.