4.6 Article

The Evaluation and Obstacle Analysis of Urban Safety Resilience Based on Multi-Factor Perspective in Beijing

Journal

LAND
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land12101918

Keywords

safe and resilient city; multi-factor; Beijing; TOPSIS; obstacle model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban resilience assessment is crucial for the safe and stable operation of cities. This study uses a multi-factor comprehensive assessment model to analyze the level of urban safety resilience and provide decision-making support for city managers.
Urban resilience assessment is crucial to guarantee the safe and stable operation of our cities. Looking at the whole process of emergencies from the occurrence, development, causing disaster losses to taking emergency response measures, we combine the danger of urban accident and disaster, the capacity of disaster-bearing carriers, and the emergency management capacity as the influencing factors. Taking Beijing as an example, considering the completeness of the relevant indicators and the difficulty of obtaining data, TOPSIS is used to construct a multi-factor comprehensive assessment model of urban safety resilience; At the same time, the important factors constraining the improvement of safety resilience are further analyzed by using the obstacle degree model. The results show that: among the 16 districts in Beijing, Chaoyang and Haidian districts have the highest level of safety resilience; the level of the degree of disaster tolerance among the multi-factors has the greatest impact on the level of urban safety resilience in Beijing; and the multifactorial comprehensive assessment model of urban resilience is able to reflect the urban resilience distribution, discover the weaknesses that exist in the development of urban safety and provide decision-making aids for the relevant city managers to carry out urban resilience construction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available