Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

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 access
Parsons, Melissa, Glavac, Sonya, Hastings, Peter, Marshall, Graham, McGregor, James, McNeill, Judith, Morley, Phil, Reeve, Ian, Stayner, Richard·2016·International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.005

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 296

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.