ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of Chinese local government disaster resilience based on the D-FAHP method.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies on disaster resilience commonly employ the AHP and FAHP methods, but both exhibit limitations when expert evaluation information is incomplete or uncertain. To address this, this study adopts the D-FAHP method to assess the disaster resilience of sub-provincial municipal governments in China. Building on prior research and incorporating critical indicators identified through team fieldwork, we established an evaluation system with 4 criterion layer indicators and 19 scheme layer indicators.The D-FAHP method proves more applicable to complex evaluations under uncertain environments, enhancing the scientific rigor of indicator weight calculation in this study. By integrating indicator weights with expert panel assessments, we conducted a quantitative analysis and evaluation of the disaster resilience of the Qiannan Municipal Government. The comprehensive disaster resilience score reached 87.19, rated as "Good". Among the four phases, mitigation, preparedness, and recovery demonstrated strong performance, while the response phase requires further improvement. Overall, this study contributes to: (1) Enriching the disaster resilience evaluation indicator system, while empirically validating the critical importance of public disaster prevention education, public disaster response capacity training, crisis management resource reserves, and hazard avoidance-based land use planning; (2) Pioneering the application of the D-FAHP method, an innovative integration scarcely seen in existing disaster resilience assessment research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.