Evaluation of Community Emergency Management Capability Based on SWOT Analysis—A Case Study

Abstract

(1) Background: the community is the most basic place to maintain residents’ lives, and therefore it is urgent to strengthen community resilience construction, which is directly related to the economic development, security and stability of urban communities. (2) Methods: this article combines the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) qualitative analysis method and the AHP (Analytic hierarchy process) qualitative and quantitative analysis method to explore the current status of community emergency management in Xi’an City. A community emergency management evaluation model is constructed, which is based on six dimensions: infrastructure resilience, community organization resilience, risk hazard governance, emergency material security, emergency force construction, and emergency literacy. The evaluation index for community emergency management is established. Focusing on analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of communities in responding to sudden public health emergencies, opportunities and threats are identified. (3) Results: it was concluded that infrastructure resilience and emergency material support are community strengths, community organizational resilience is a community weakness, the emergency literacy dimension is a community opportunity, and risk and hazard management and emergency force construction are community threats. The results of the data research were further analyzed. (4) Conclusions: The final research results provide new theoretical support for community emergency management, while also providing theoretical and methodological references for emergency capacity evaluation in other fields.

1. Introduction

Once a sudden public health event occurs, it will have a profound impact on society, often lasting for a period of time. As the basic unit of a city, communities are the direct attack areas of sudden public health events. In sudden public health emergencies, community management has certain advantages. The community is the unit where residents have the most frequent and extensive contact, and it has acquired various basic items of information about the residents [1,2,3]. To avoid the occurrence of sudden public health incidents, it is necessary to start from community management, improve community resilience, take scientific and effective preventive measures in a timely manner, and maximize control or reduction in losses [4,5].

Resilience first appeared in the fields of psychology, ecology, and engineering. With the continuous development of society [6,7], it subsequently emerged in the field of sociological research. Walker et al. [8] believe that resilience is the ability of a system to absorb interference and restructure while undergoing changes, thus maintaining essentially the same functionality, structure, identity, and ability to provide feedback. Cohen et al. [9] believe that resilience is a fundamental element of emergency preparedness. Through research, six factors that affect resilience have been identified. The resilience of urban community emergency management emphasizes the subjective initiative of disaster prevention and reduction, mainly through the preparation of community emergency management plans to improve the level of community system resistance to disasters, and to play the role of the “first responder” of the community. For example, in the event of a flood, the emergency plan should resist floods and rescue the victims first. Based on feedback, the emergency response system and mechanism should be adjusted and optimized to shorten the recovery and reconstruction time. Post-disaster recovery and reconstruction capabilities would be strengthened, enhancing the overall resilience of the community [10,11].

More and more scholars are delving into the study of resilience evaluation indicators for community emergency management capabilities. Annas et al. [12] have established community resilience evaluation indicators consisting of six fields: society, management, economy, culture, physics, and environment. Aiming to reduce losses in areas affected by natural disasters in Indonesia, Kusumastuti et al. [13] establish an evaluation system within the framework of social considerations, economic issues, community capacity, community systems, and infrastructure. Based on the evaluation results, disaster prevention and reduction capabilities are further improved. Parsons et al. [14] suggest considering seven common attributes when assessing the capacity to design community emergency management systems, such as the purpose, scale, method, framework, data analysis, calculation methods, and reporting the results of the assessment. Scholars such as Peacock [15] have studied the measures involved in the entire process of community response to sudden public events, and analyzed the relationship among social, economic, material, and human capital considerations required for these measures. They have constructed a community disaster-resilience framework based on community capital. Norris et al. [16] pointed out that the four attributes of the community: economic level, social capital, information communication and transmission ability, and community capacity jointly promote community resilience construction. The study by Alonge et al. [17] indicates that strong leadership skills in communities, close connections and kinship between superiors and subordinates, reliable communication channels, and trust among various health systems are key factors affecting public health emergencies. According to the research literature, it can be found that the evaluation indicators for community emergency management capabilities are mainly formulated from the aspects of community, economy, infrastructure, organizational measures, etc.

In terms of improving emergency management capabilities, after comprehensive analysis, Li et al. [18] believe that, facing the future, communities should, under the leadership and support of the government, enhance emergency capabilities from four aspects: human, material, financial, and emergency forces. Through five case studies, Hope et al. [19] found that the improvement of community emergency response capacity can be achieved by tapping potential capabilities, and realized the importance of jointly developing relevant education and communication strategies, expanding the role of community leaders, enhancing the ability of community members to achieve common goals, and planning and preparing for future emergencies in advance. Robertson [20] believes through research that, after an emergency occurs, emphasis should be placed on connecting residents, emergency managers, organizers, community leaders, and government officials. Key infrastructure departments are interdependent in order to protect community safety.

In China, the community emergency management system is only limited to simple emergency plans implemented by the local government, lacking drills and optimization of details. The emergency training of community management personnel is inadequate, and the governance mode and concept of community public health emergencies are still limited to theoretical research [21]. Therefore, this article attempts to establish a community emergency management evaluation index system to study the community emergency management capacity of a case city, Xi’an City, China, and propose corresponding improvement measures to further reduce the losses caused by public health emergencies. The studied area of Xi’an is located in the northwest of China and the middle of Guanzhong Plain. The area of Xi’an is a warm temperate semi-humid continental monsoon climate with four distinct seasons of cold, warm, dry and wet, often accompanied by rainstorms, floods, urban waterlogging, hail, gales, high temperature, sand, dust and other meteorological disasters. As a famous historical and cultural city, Xi’an has numerous old communities, most of which are surrounded by different historical buildings. The infrastructure within the community is outdated and mixed, and community management is relatively simple. Taking multiple communities in Xi’an as examples, our research was conducted to investigate and study the current problems faced by communities, such as inadequate infrastructure, inadequate functional layout, and lack of management. It explores in depth the strategies and paths for Xi’an communities to respond to sudden public health incidents, and optimizes community management.

Based on the above analysis, we selected for use a combination of SWOT and AHP analysis methods. The SWOT method is a commonly used quantitative analysis method for formulating development strategies, but it lacks the process of quantitative analysis. Combined with the AHP method, it systematically solves complex multi-factor problems through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, which is both practical and efficient. Based on the experts’ ratings of 25 indicators, we calculated the weights of indicators using the AHP method, and evaluated the community’s emergency management ability. Then, based on the weights of the indicators, we identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and analyzed community response strategies based on this. The SWOT method can be used to study various strategies. For example, it can be applied to Iran’s development of rubber dams or inflatable flexible membrane dams to address drought and waterlogging issues [22]. It can also be used to evaluate the performance issues in the construction industry [23] or the potential for sports tourism in Mersin Province [24], and provide guidance for improving the performance of emergency department nurses [25], achieving a balance between work and personal life [26].

Through the study of the emergency management capacity of communities in Xi’an City, the role of community resources in responding to sudden public health accidents could be fully recognized. The community can further clarify the dimensions that should be improved, and establish a scientific and effective community emergency management system. It could ensure the smooth implementation of emergency work for sudden public health incidents, and provide a reference basis for subsequent research on the community resilience evaluation index system. It can also assist the government in addressing issues related to emergency response in the field of public health emergencies.

2. Building a Community Evaluation Index System

The governance of sudden public health incidents mainly includes three stages: pre-prevention, interim response, and post recovery. And sudden public health incidents have four characteristics: suddenness, publicity, periodicity, and harmfulness. Based on this, we will develop a comprehensive evaluation index system through the four steps of “Community visit surveys—Collect bibliographic data—Case study—Experts and scholarly assessment”, and we will further carry out early prevention work and significantly reduce the negative impact of sudden public health incidents on society. As shown in Figure 1, there are four main steps in developing an indicator system. The rectangular box at the back provides a specific explanation of the four steps, and Figure 2 shows the community emergency management indicator system specified through the four steps.

3. Evaluation Method and Model Construction

3.1. Establish Evaluation Set

By investigating the communities in Xi’an City, an evaluation set based on the expert evaluation results of the 25 evaluation indicators obtained from Figure 2 is developed, which can be expressed as follows:

$$U=\left(u_1,u_2,\cdots u_n\right)$$

(1)

In the formula, n is the number of levels of evaluation criteria. In this evaluation set, n is taken as 4, which means that the evaluation criteria are divided into four levels, namely “Excellent, Good, Medium, Poor”, denoted as U = (Excellent, Good, Medium, Poor). In the calculation of this article, different values of “4, 3, 2, 1” are assigned to these four criteria, and the evaluation set U (4, 3, 2, 1) is evaluated. However, when conducting a questionnaire survey, in order to facilitate evaluation, different values are assigned to the four evaluation levels, namely Excellent, R ∈ [9,10]; Good, R ∈ [7,8]; Medium, R ∈ [5,6]; Poor, R ∈ [3,4].

3.2. Evaluating Indicators and Determine Weights by the AHP Method

The Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi-index comprehensive evaluation method proposed by Sati, an American operations research scientist, in 1982 [27]. This method synthesizes people’s subjective judgments; it divides the evaluation objectives into three levels and several indicators, then determines the weight of each indicator, and comprehensively evaluates the target layer [28]. This method is a systematic and hierarchical analysis method that combines qualitative and quantitative analysis, with the characteristics of simplicity, clarity, and strong practicality. The specific steps are as follows:

(1)

Establish a relevant hierarchical structure: establish the target layer, criterion layer, and evaluation index layer, that is, the evaluation model of community emergency management capability from the perspective of resilience as the target layer. Infrastructure resilience, community organization resilience, risk and hazard management, emergency force construction, and emergency literacy are the criteria layers. The evaluation index layer includes 25 third-level indicators such as engineering earthquake resistance, disaster prevention capacity, emergency shelters, etc.

(2)

Construct a judgment matrix: Invite experts to compare the three-level indicators in pairs using the 1–9 scale method [29], where nine different numbers represent the importance of the two indicators. Based on this, establish a judgment matrix. The specific meaning of the 1–9 scale method is shown in

Table 1. 1–9 Scale Method and Its Meaning.

Scale	Meaning
1	Indicates that two factors have the same importance
3	Indicates that one factor is slightly more important than another
5	Indicates that one factor is significantly more important than another
7	Indicates that one factor is more important than another
9	Indicates that one factor is more important than another extreme
2, 4, 6, 8	Represents the median of the two adjacent judgments mentioned above
1/bij	The comparison between factor i and j yields a judgment of bij, while the comparison between factor j and i yields a judgment of bji = 1/bij

.

(3)

Consistency check: Based on the characteristic roots of the judgment matrix λmax, obtain the eigenvector w_i, then normalize it, and perform consistency checks on the judgment matrix.

$$CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{\max }-n}{n-1}$$

(2)

$$CR=\frac{CI}{RI}$$

(3)

In the formula, n is the order of the judgment matrix, RI is the random consistency index, and if CR < 0.1, the judgment matrix is considered to have satisfactory consistency. Otherwise, it is necessary to adjust the judgment matrix appropriately until CR < 0.1 is met.

3.3. Gradual Evaluation

Gradual evaluation is to evaluate the corresponding secondary indicators based on the evaluation results of the tertiary indicators, then evaluate the primary indicators based on the secondary indicators, and finally evaluate sudden public health events based on the results of the primary indicators.

(1)

Establish a three-level evaluation index matrix

Based on the evaluation results of experts on the third-level indicators, establish a corresponding evaluation matrix for the second-level indicators.

$$A_k=\left[\begin{array}{c}{a}_1\\ a_2\\ ⋮\\ a_m\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{a}_{11}& a_{12}& \cdots & a_{1n}\\ a_{21}& a_{22}& \cdots & a_{2n}\\ ⋮& ⋮& & ⋮\\ a_{m1}& a_{m2}& \cdots & a_m{}_n\end{array}\right]$$

(4)

In the formula, A_k is the evaluation matrix of the k-th second-level indicator, and a₁, a₂,…, a_m are the corresponding m-th third-level indicators of the second-level indicator; n is the number of evaluation criteria.

By standardizing the evaluation matrix of the second-level standard, the evaluation matrix of the k-th second-level indicator is transformed into a standardized matrix as follows:

$$A_k^{\text{'}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{a}_{11}^{\text{'}}& a_{12}^{\text{'}}& \cdots & a_{1n}^{\text{'}}\\ a_{21}^{\text{'}}& a_{22}^{\text{'}}& \cdots & a_{2n}^{\text{'}}\\ ⋮& ⋮& & ⋮\\ a_{m1}^{\text{'}}& a_{m2}^{\text{'}}& \cdots & a_{mn}^{\text{'}}\end{array}\right]$$

(5)

In the equation, $a_{11}^{\text{'}},a_{12}^{\text{'}},\cdots a_{mn}^{\text{'}}$ is the normalized vector, and $a_{11}^{\text{'}}+a_{12}^{\text{'}}+\cdots a_{1n}^{\text{'}}=1$,$a_{21}^{\text{'}}+a_{22}^{\text{'}}+\cdots a_{2n}^{\text{'}}=1$,…, $a_{m1}^{\text{'}}+a_{m2}^{\text{'}}+\cdots a_{mn}^{\text{'}}=1$.

(2)

Calculate the evaluation results of secondary indicators

Firstly, calculate the final score for each indicator:

$$B_k^{\prime }=A_k^{\text{'}}\cdot U^{{\rm T}}$$

(6)

In the formula, $B_k^{\text{'}}$ is the comprehensive evaluation result of all the corresponding third-level indicators under the k-th second-level indicator, and $U^{{\rm T}}$ is the transposed vector of the evaluation set vector.

Then, according to the AHP method, the vector of the k-th second-level indicator corresponding to the third-level indicator is obtained by constructing a judgment matrix:

$$C_k=\left(c_{k1},c_{k2},\cdots ,c_{km}\right)$$

(7)

In the formula, $c_{ki}$ (i = 1, 2,…, m) is the vector of the corresponding to the i-th tertiary indicator under the k-th secondary indicator.

Finally, the evaluation results of the k-th secondary indicator:

$$B_k=C_k\cdot B_k^{\text{'}}$$

(8)

3.4. Determine the Evaluation Results of Secondary Indicators by the Minimum Discrimination Method

Based on the evaluation results of the second-level indicators, the minimum discrimination method is used to determine the evaluation results of emergency capacity:

$$R=\min \left(B_1,B_2,\cdots ,B_k\right)$$

(9)

In the formula, R represents the evaluation result of a sudden public health event in the community.

4. A Case Study

Taking the specific investigation of communities in Xi’an City as an example, we fully consider the impact factors of response importance in the early, middle, and late stages of disaster events. By analyzing the scoring results of 25 evaluation indicators by experts, and using the evaluation results of three-level indicators, the minimum discrimination method is used to determine the evaluation results of secondary indicators. Through this evaluation model, it is clear which dimensions need to be improved.

4.1. Determine Evaluation Matrix

The evaluation results of infrastructure resilience based on the scores of 25 indicators given by various experts are shown in

Table 2. Evaluation results of various indicators of infrastructure resilience.

Secondary Indicators	Third-Level Indicators	Evaluation Results (Person)
		Excellent	Good	Medium	Poor
Infrastructure resilience	Engineering seismic and disaster prevention capabilities	2	6	1	0
	Emergency Shelter	5	2	2	0
	Community Medical Rescue Station	3	5	1	0
	Community Fire Station	2	4	3	0
	Life channel	2	4	3	0

.

The evaluation matrix of infrastructure resilience can be expressed as:

$$A_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}2& 6& 1& 0\\ 5& 2& 2& 0\\ 3& 5& 1& 0\\ 2& 4& 3& 0\\ 2& 4& 3& 0\end{array}\right]$$

The standardized matrix is:

$$A_1^{\prime }=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0.22& 0.67& 0.11& 0\\ 0.56& 0.22& 0.22& 0\\ 0.33& 0.56& 0.11& 0\\ 0.22& 0.45& 0.33& 0\\ 0.22& 0.45& 0.33& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Similarly, the standardized matrix for the resilience of community organizations can be obtained as follows:

$$A_2^{\text{'}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0.22& 0.56& 0.11& 0.11\\ 0.11& 0.45& 0.33& 0.11\\ 0.56& 0.22& 0.22& 0\\ 0.22& 0.56& 0.22& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Similarly, the standardized matrix for risk and hazard management can be obtained as follows:

$$A_3^{\text{'}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0.22& 0.45& 0.33& 0\\ 0.22& 0.56& 0.11& 0.11\\ 0.22& 0.45& 0.33& 0\\ 0.33& 0.22& 0.33& 0.11\end{array}\right]$$

Similarly, the standardized matrix for emergency material support can be obtained as follows:

$$A_4^{\text{'}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0.45& 0.22& 0.33& 0\\ 0.56& 0.33& 0.11& 0\\ 0& 0.56& 0.45& 0\\ 0.45& 0.45& 0.11& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Similarly, the standardized matrix for emergency force construction can be obtained as follows:

$$A_5^{\text{'}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0.22& 0.56& 0.22& 0\\ 0.33& 0.45& 0.22& 0\\ 0.33& 0.67& 0& 0\\ 0.45& 0.11& 0.45& 0\\ 0& 0.67& 0.22& 0.11\end{array}\right]$$

Similarly, the standardized matrix for emergency literacy can be obtained as follows:

$$A_6^{\text{'}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0.22& 0.33& 0.45& 0\\ 0.33& 0.45& 0.22& 0\\ 0.33& 0.45& 0.11& 0.11\end{array}\right]$$

4.2. Gradual Judgment of Indicators at All Levels

The evaluation indicators of infrastructure resilience can be calculated using the following formula:

$$B_1^{\text{'}}=A_1^{\text{'}}\cdot U^{{\rm T}}$$

The calculation results of each indicator are:

$$B_1^{\text{'}}=\left[3.11,3.34,3.22,2.89,2.89\right]$$

The weights of the five three-level indicators of infrastructure resilience are calculated using the AHP method as follows:

$$C_1=\left(0.35,0.18,0.11,0.097,0.27\right)$$

So the evaluation result of infrastructure resilience is:

$$B_1=B_1^{\text{'}}\cdot C_1^{{\rm T}} = 3.10$$

Similarly, it can be calculated that the evaluation result of community organization resilience is 2.657, the evaluation result of risk and hazard management is 2.863, the evaluation result of emergency material support is 3.212, the evaluation result of emergency force construction is 2.807, and the evaluation result of emergency literacy is 2.996.

Based on the evaluation results of the second-level indicators, the minimum discrimination method is used to evaluate the six second-level indicators of sudden public health events in the community: community emergency management ability:

$$R=\min \left(B_1,B_2,B_3,B_4,B_5,B_6\right) = 2.657$$

According to the evaluation results of the community based on the minimum discrimination method hierarchical evaluation model, it can be concluded that the emergency management of the community belongs to the medium level. With the frequent occurrence of public health emergencies in recent years, there have been significant changes in the way communities handle them. However, there are still some shortcomings that need to be strengthened in the construction of community organizational resilience to jointly create a better home.

5. Analysis of Evaluation Results

The SWOT [23] analysis method was proposed by renowned American management professor Heinz Werrick in the early 1980s. This method analyzes the situation of internal and external competitive environments and conditions, and, through a series of surveys, lists the main internal strengths and weaknesses related to the research object, as well as external opportunities and threats, in the form of text, tables, and other forms to draw conclusions. SWOT represents the strengths and weaknesses of the survey subjects, as well as the opportunities and threats in the environment. According to the SWOT analysis method, the specific analysis results of the Xi’an community are shown in Figure 3.

5.1. Strategic Quadrilateral Construction Based on Analysis Results

According to the analysis, the evaluation results of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the Xi’an community are 6.312, 2.657, 2.996, and 5.67, respectively. By standardizing them, the strategic quadrilateral of the community can be obtained. The strategic quadrilateral of the Xi’an community is shown in Figure 4.

5.2. Evaluation Results

(1)

Strength analysis

In the past three years COVID-19 has continued to occur, and each community has a relatively perfect emergency supplies reserve system, and citizens’ awareness of the emergency supplies reserve is also growing. However, the reserve of emergency supplies should be appropriate and not excessive, resulting in a waste of resources. In the event of a public health emergency, it is necessary to distribute excess supplies to other areas in need of assistance, so that everyone can overcome the difficulties together.

In terms of infrastructure, the times are advancing, and the country is adapting measures to local conditions. The disaster prevention capacity and awareness of each community have also reached a new level. The situation of emergency and fire passages being blocked has greatly reduced, and community medical service stations have also been set up near most communities. However, during the investigation process, it was also found that a very small number of community residents were unaware of fire passages, and the community should further strengthen their fire awareness, and promote knowledge related to public health emergencies such as fires.

(2)

Weakness analysis

After a public health event, we need a large number of medical personnel and volunteers to help, but the quality and quantity of medical personnel are far from meeting the needs of the community. For example, when COVID-19 broke out, some medical personnel were weak in their awareness of prevention, lacking vigilance against the dangers of this emergency, and even some medical personnel just carelessly handled the nucleic acid test. While some community residents did not wear masks when queuing for a nucleic acid test, volunteers just stood like landmark “buildings”.

Communities also feel powerless in responding to emergencies. As is well known, the occurrence of public health emergencies is extremely rare, so many community workers lack practical experience and organizational skills. The medical staff of community health services are mostly deployed from rural township health centers, with limited medical knowledge, insufficient investment in medical equipment, and failure to diagnose high-risk diseases in a timely manner. These unfavorable factors may also delay emergency response time, leading to a decrease in the ability to handle emergencies.

(3)

Opportunity Analysis

As the saying goes, “Opportunities are reserved for those who are prepared.” After experiencing a large number of emergency drills, residents can only be adept and have the opportunity to escape in the event of a public health emergency. Compared to the frequency of emergencies, we have a lot of time to organize and participate in drills. After each drill, we must constantly improve the emergency plan, and the leadership of each community should also pay attention to emergency plans and drills. It may be difficult to carry out emergency drills in residential areas. Therefore, more attention should be paid to emergency science popularization and education activities, starting with the elderly and infiltrating them into the young. Post-emergency science popularization pictures or animations could be displayed in elevators, and these promotional materials should be regularly updated to fully inform residents taking the elevator.

The construction of a community safety culture may be the most easily overlooked aspect, and it is also an aspect that we should seize. Culture can subtly penetrate everyone’s minds, making it easier to form a subconscious. Therefore, we need to promote community safety culture more.

During COVID-19, we found that it is more beneficial to establish community health service institutions near residential areas, which can reduce the mobility of residents. Patients can seek medical treatment according to the principle of proximity, which can achieve early detection, early treatment, early recovery, and further control the spread of disease. These are all aspects that we need to pay attention to, to seize opportunities, and work together to combat sudden public health emergencies.

(4)

Threat analysis

At present, the risk prediction and early warning systems in various communities are not perfect enough. For example, earthquake warnings only have a response time of a few seconds to tens of seconds, which does not provide enough response time for everyone. Therefore, further research on early warning systems is needed. In the face of COVID-19, the prediction and early warning systems were even more powerless. It started out when communities were unprepared and spread quickly. However, natural disasters such as mudslides can be known in advance through the prediction and warning system; therefore, according to different public health emergencies, the risk prediction and warning function should be appropriately improved. After the occurrence of major public health emergencies, it is necessary to summarize experiences in a timely manner, with a manual register, and of course learn from the experience of other cities and other communities. For example, in the face of COVID-19, cities with frequent outbreaks are more orderly and these are more quickly controlled than with the first outbreak, which is the result of accumulated experience.

The management of accident hazards in the community is not standardized; there are many hidden dangers in illegal operations, and diseases spread rapidly. In terms of medical and health care, violations are also common among medical staff in daily operations, and very few community fire exits are still blocked due to certain reasons.

During the investigation, it was also found that during the closure and control of COVID-19, the residents’ expectations of the community were too high, and the community could not meet the requirements of the residents, which caused dissatisfaction among the residents, even “uprisings”. The hard work for the volunteers would also make them give up serving everyone, and the burden fell on the community practice, resulting in insufficient staff and failure to provide timely help to the residents. The cultural level of residents varies, making it easy for them to be used by illegal elements from outside to do inappropriate things, resulting in the inability to carry out community epidemic prevention work. Therefore, in the event of public health events, it is necessary to reasonably guide residents’ dissatisfaction and avoid unnecessary conflicts with residents.

6. Discussion

This article uses SWOT and AHP methods to study the emergency management capacity of communities in Xi’an city, China. It is concluded that the advantages of Xi’an communities are reflected in two aspects: emergency material support and infrastructure resilience. Also, it reflects that community organizational resilience is a disadvantage, emergency literacy is an opportunity that needs to be seized, and the existing threats are risk management and emergency force construction. The community in Xi’an should mainly start from the resilience of community organization, increase community emergency investment, strengthen organizational capacity, better allocate community resources, and complete emergency responses in the shortest possible time.

In addition, using this method to study communities in Xi’an is not comprehensive and complete enough. In subsequent research, multiple methods can be chosen to establish more scientific models, understand community emergency management capabilities from various perspectives, and build a beautiful and safe community. Through comparing the current situation of community risk and emergency management at home and abroad, Zhang et al. [30] found that community risk and hazard management ran through the entire process of community governance. We should arrange it in a prominent position. Community governance is reflected in emergency capacity and level. Kar et al. [31] found that risk communication is crucial for community resilience governance and reducing the risk of public health emergencies. Based on previous research, it has been found that risk and hazard management is more important. It is necessary to start with detection and early warning, risk prevention and control, and accident and disaster hazard management, in order to reduce losses caused by sudden public health events, and build a safe community.

7. Conclusions

(1)

In response to the evaluation of emergency management capacity in Xi’an community, we proposed the idea of combining SWOT analysis with AHP analysis. A resilience evaluation model for community emergency management capacity was established from the perspective of 6 s-level indicators and 25 three-level indicators. According to this evaluation model, the community management in Xi’an should focus on the resilience dimension of community organizations, strengthen risk and hazard management, and build emergency response capabilities to further improve community emergency management capabilities.

(2)

By combining SWOT and AHP methods to evaluate the emergency management capacity of communities in Xi’an, this helps to improve the strategies and methods for communities to respond to public health emergencies, and enhances their ability to respond to emergencies, including the allocation and utilization of various emergency resources, organizational coordination methods, information transmission and communication paths, etc. It also provides new theoretical methods and technical support for subsequent research, providing a basis for the emergency management work of urban management departments, and further improving the level of community emergency management. It has promoted the development of emergency management capability research and provided more scientific methods and tools for social emergency management.

(3)

The improvement of community emergency management capabilities is directly related to people’s lives and property safety. Studying community emergency management capabilities can help communities effectively respond to various emergencies, reduce disaster losses, and ensure public safety. It helps to improve the overall emergency response capacity of the community and maintain social stability. By studying community emergency management capabilities, we can discover the importance of community cohesion, which can promote communication and exchange among community members, and enhance their ability to resist disasters. The improvement of community emergency management capabilities should not be limited to the ability to respond to emergencies, but also needs to focus on supporting post-disaster reconstruction and long-term development. Studying community emergency management capabilities can help propose sustainable development strategies and provide assistance for the long-term development of the community.

(4)

At the same time, it should be noted that the evaluation process of community emergency management capacity is complex and variable, and a single method cannot comprehensively evaluate the overall capacity of the community. Therefore, in future research, we can use the indicator system of this study for reference to improve and optimize it. In future research, we can select multiple more representative communities to explore in depth the key elements, effective strategies and successful experience of community emergency management capability through case studies and cross-regional comparison. In the following research, we can focus on exploring the dimensions of risk and hazard governance and community organizational resilience, transforming them into the strengths of the community as much as possible. We can further focus on the application of technology in emergency management, deepen our understanding of community emergency management capabilities, and propose more comprehensive and effective research results.