|
A systematic review of the application of composite index in measuring urban resilience
|
Esfandiar Zebardast *   , Seyede Sedighe Rouhani |
| Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. , zebardst@ut.ac.ir |
|
|
Abstract: (497 Views) |
Objective: Alongside the increasing frequency of disasters in urban areas worldwide, attention to urban resilience as a mechanism for cities to cope with disturbances has grown. However, implementing and assessing urban resilience faces serious challenges. Among the methods for measuring urban resilience, the use of composite indicators has become highly common over the past two decades due to their numerical nature, transparent construction process, and ability for spatial‑temporal comparison. Yet, comprehensive and widely agreed‑upon criteria for developing composite indicators at the urban scale have not been provided. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic review to extract and comprehensively analyze the components and methods of assessing urban resilience with a focus on composite indicators.
Method: Based on a systematic review of 80 selected studies from the WoS and Scopus citation databases, the foundations and multiple steps of constructing composite indicators for measuring urban resilience were examined. Data analysis was carried out using an analytical framework based on four pillars (contextual, theoretical and practical foundations, methodological, and content‑related) and through thematic coding.
Results: Results show that from the perspective of fundamental foundations, most indicators (92.5%) were designed based on existing frameworks, predominantly with a capital‑based approach (62.5%) and diagnostic purposes (70%). From the methodological perspective, most indicators reviewed were developed based on static (92.5%), inherent (61.25%), and ex‑ante (83.75%) approaches, using top‑down methods (72.5%). A deductive‑hierarchical structural design formed the basis of organizing most indicators reviewed (77.5%). Cross‑validation and external validation steps were observed in only 35% and 27.5% of the articles, respectively, and 76% of studies neglected robustness analysis. From a content perspective, no consensus framework exists regarding the number and type of elements forming the composite indicator or the number of variables used.
Conclusions: The gaps in using composite indicators for measuring urban resilience can be categorized into two main groups: intrinsic and procedural. Intrinsic challenges stem from unavoidable interdisciplinary issues related to the nature and origins of composite indicators. Procedural shortcomings include a lack of real disaster data, the cost and time required for collecting field and contextual data compared to secondary data, conflicts among stakeholder perspectives, and the absence of an agreed‑upon framework for selecting the components of urban resilience composite indicators. Greater attention to validation steps, identifying sources of sensitivity, and using participatory methods can improve the reliability of measurement results by reducing methodological gaps. |
|
| Keywords: Urban resilience, Measurement, Composite indicator, Systematic review. |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 2272 kb]
(75 Downloads)
|
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
عمران و شهرسازی
Received: 2025/09/30 | Accepted: 2025/11/8 | Published: 2026/03/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
