3 Some more significant gaps, A hazard-map based summary (see – for example on readiness; other Essential 2) of at-risk areas; organizations may have to “hunt around” to create a complete A description of what building codes will picture for themselves. protect against, and where these have been applied; 2 Some significant information – on readiness and risk is withheld A full set of disaster response and from organizations or is known issues; missing and/or badly fragmented across multiple websites. Key roles and accountabilities; 1 Information provision to Planned investments that will affect the – other organizations on readiness city’s resilience position. and risk is rudimentary at best. Not possible to for those Further resources and contact details. organizations to derive specific conclusions for themselves. 0 No information. – 1.3.2 Extent to data on the Availability of a single 5 Full availability of the Information to consider making open for “version – city’s resilience position is of the a single integrated information listed at right on public access might include: – shared with the community set of resilience data for citizens readiness and risk; fully shared organizations and public. and community organizations with other community A summary of readiness perhaps the – containing at least the items organizations and available to LG SAT or a summary of the outcomes shown at right. the public via website, mobile of this scorecard; device etc. An explanation of the hazards and perils 4 Some gaps, or the that the city is thought to face, and – information is in more than one probabilities; place but it is shared and it is – at least linked to enable A hazard-map based summary (see navigation. Essential 2) of at-risk areas; 3 Some more significant gaps, A description of what building codes will – for example on readiness; other protect against, and where these have organizations or citizens may been applied;
3 – Some more significant gaps, for example on readiness; other organizations may have to “hunt around” to create a complete picture for themselves. 2 – Some significant information on readiness and risk is withheld from organizations or is missing and/or badly fragmented across multiple websites. 1 – Information provision to other organizations on readiness and risk is rudimentary at best. Not possible to for those organizations to derive specific conclusions for themselves. 0 – No information. A hazard-map based summary (see Essential 2) of at-risk areas; A description of what building codes will protect against, and where these have been applied; A full set of disaster response and known issues; Key roles and accountabilities; Planned investments that will affect the city’s resilience position. Further resources and contact details. 1.3.2 Extent to data on the city’s resilience position is shared with the community organizations and public. Availability of a single “version of the – a single integrated set of resilience data for citizens and community organizations containing at least the items shown at right. 5 – Full availability of the information listed at right on readiness and risk; fully shared with other community organizations and available to the public via website, mobile device etc. 4 – Some gaps, or the information is in more than one place – but it is shared and it is at least linked to enable navigation. 3 – Some more significant gaps, for example on readiness; other organizations or citizens may Information to consider making open for public access might include: A summary of readiness – perhaps the LG SAT or a summary of the outcomes of this scorecard; An explanation of the hazards and perils that the city is thought to face, and probabilities; A hazard-map based summary (see Essential 2) of at-risk areas; A description of what building codes will protect against, and where these have been applied;
Resilience%20Scorecard%20Updated%20V2%20-%20April%2030th%202015.docx