能力与韧性概念辨析:边界、转化与测度OA

Capacity and resilience are core concepts in disaster risk research and governance,yet they are often used interchangeably in definitions,measurement,and practice,leading to unclear analytical distinctions among capacity building,resilience assessment,and risk governance objectives.The conceptual boundary be-tween capacity and resilience is clarified in this study.Capacity refers to the resources,institutions,organization-al arrangements,knowledge,technologies,and action-enabling conditions that institutions,communities,or soci-eties possess and can mobilize in the process of managing and reducing risk.Capacity is therefore a conditional element in both risk formation and risk governance.Resilience,by contrast,is an overall system property formed through response processes—such as resistance,absorption,recovery,adaptation,and,when necessary,transfor-mation—in the face of sudden shocks or long-term stresses.It is reflected in functional continuity,recovery qual-ity,and future risk reduction.Capacity provides the foundational condition for resilience formation,but it does not automatically translate into resilience.Only when capacity is embedded in specific system structures and mo-bilized through organizational action,coordinated response,learning feedback,and continuous improvement under disturbance and stress can it be transformed into observable resilience performance.Based on this under-standing,a layered framework is proposed,consisting of capacity foundations,system structure,response process-es,functional performance,and long-term adaptation.This framework explains how capacity enters the process of resilience formation and helps reduce confusion between concepts and indicators.Capacity assessment is fur-ther distinguished in this paper from resilience measurement,arguing that capacity assessment mainly diagnoses mobilizable conditions and capacity gaps,whereas resilience measurement should focus on functional mainte-nance,recovery processes,adaptive improvement,and risk reduction under disturbance contexts.Disaster risk governance should therefore move from static capacity building toward dynamic resilience governance.