Natural Disaster Emergency Management in China Based on Quantitative Content Analysis of Central Government Policy Tools

Abstract

The sudden and unusual nature of natural disasters in China underscores the complexity and difficulty inherent in China’s natural disaster emergency management (NDEM). National-level NDEM plays a critical role in bridging China’s emergency management capacity with modernization efforts, serving as a foundation for integrating development with security. In this study, we analyzed 250 NDEM-related policies issued by the Chinese central government between 1954 and 2022 as research objects. Using a five-factor analysis framework, we tracked the evolution of China’s NDEM by analyzing the time of issue, policy authority, departmental cooperation, policy themes, and policy tools. Our findings indicated that the cooperation networks exhibited growing complexity and expanding collaboration in the early stages but shifted to a more centralized and streamlined structure after the year 2018. The themes of NDEM policies reflect the modernization needs of emergency management, with science and technology proving essential to advancing NDEM capabilities. However, the structure of NDEM policy tools requires further optimization. Accordingly, we propose policy recommendations aimed at enhancing interdepartmental cooperation, accelerating the integration of science and technology in NDEM, and optimizing and adjusting the configuration of policy tools.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the global frequency and diversity of natural disasters have risen, with natural hazards adversely affecting millions of people annually (Shen & Hwang [1], Shume et al. [2]). This dramatic surge in natural disaster-related events has significantly influenced disaster management programs worldwide (Sahil & Sood [3]). China is among the countries that are most severely affected by natural disasters (MEM [4]; Liu et al. [5]). The suddenness and abnormality of these events have become more apparent as extreme weather events occur more frequently (IPCC [6]). With the impact of natural disasters increasing both in breadth and depth (Coronese et al. [7]), managing them has become more complex and challenging in China (Ouyang & Zhang [8], Tao & Zhang [9], Zhang et al. [10], Chen et al. [11]). As reported by the Ministry of Emergency Management (MEM [4]), floods, wind and hailstorms, drought, typhoons, earthquakes, geological hazards, low-temperature freezes, and snowstorms are the primary causes of natural disasters in China. In 2023, 95.44 million people were affected by these complex hazards, resulting in direct economic losses of RMB 345.45 billion (approximately USD 48.50 billion) (MEM [12]).The State Council [13] issued the National Emergency Management System Plan during the 14th Five-Year Plan Period (NEMSP), which aims to reduce the average annual direct economic losses from natural disasters to within 1% of China’s gross national product between 2021 and 2025. This demonstrates China’s commitment to building an efficient, authoritative, and unified national emergency response system.

Like other public policies, natural disaster mitigation policies have dynamic and complex adoption and implementation processes (Wang & Zhang [14]). Because natural disasters often exceed the resources and capabilities of local government authorities, coordinated and cooperative efforts among government agencies, private organizations, nonprofits, and businesses are necessary (Kapucu & Hu [15], Tao & Zhang [9]). The integration of natural disaster emergency management (NDEM) systems is essential to meet this demand (Li et al. [16]). National policy frameworks provide accessible structures for sub-national entities such as state, provincial, and city governments (Li et al. [16], Zhang et al. [17]). For example, the National Disaster Recovery Framework issued by the United States in 2011 offers support to states, tribes, and territories for disaster recovery (Zhang et al. [10]). However, existing studies pay limited attention to the structural dynamics, actor coordination, and tool configurations embedded in national-level NDEM policies.

To address these research gaps, this study investigates the evolution of NDEM policies in China through a comprehensive analysis of 250 central government policy documents issued between 1954 and 2022. We construct a five-dimensional analytical framework—encompassing the time of issue, policy authority, departmental cooperation, policy themes, and policy tools—to systematically trace the temporal evolution, structural coordination, and strategic shifts in China’s disaster governance. Employing a quantitative content analysis and social network analysis, this study aims to identify the core characteristics of policy change and assess their alignment with modernization goals. Our findings offer new insights into the institutional logic and policy instrument mix underpinning China’s evolving NDEM system, thereby contributing to theory-building on disaster governance and informing international policy transfer.

Given the centralized nature of governance in China, the evolution of its national-level NDEM policies provides valuable insights for other countries aiming to strengthen their disaster resilience and emergency management capacity under top-down policy systems.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Focus and Limutations of Existing Research on Disaster Management

Recent studies on natural disaster management are devoted to single types of disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and landslides (Damm et al. [18], Knocke & Kolivras [19], Lindell et al. [20]), or on multi-hazard risk perception and response (Wang et al. [21], Xue et al. [22], Zhang et al. [10]). However, there has been relatively little attention given to the ex ante design of macroeconomic policies for disaster management. For instance, Sahil & Sood [23] reviewed the national natural disaster management from 4912 articles published in Scopus between 2009 and 2019, finding policy-making to be among the three least addressed research areas. Wang & Zhang [14] synthesized theories on policy innovation and adoption, but their work focused on case studies and did not examine policy and institutional challenges from a macro perspective. Michal [24] developed an evaluation template based on the current laws and regulations and quantified the completeness of the crisis management plans formulated at the district level in Poland from 2013 to 2015.

In the context of China, the existing research on China’s NDEM has largely relied on qualitative analyses to explore the emergency management system and its evolving orientations. For example, Zhang & Tong [25] investigated five Level I catastrophic events, including two natural disasters, the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake and the 2013 Lushan Earthquake. Their study assessed structural improvements in China’s emergency management framework, concluding that disaster management responsibilities predominantly rest with the government. Similarly, Zhang et al. [26] traced the evolution of China’s natural disaster management policy system from 1949 to 2016, delineating distinct developmental phases. While these studies provide valuable insights into the broader system and its historical progression, their reliance on qualitative methods without systematically coding specific policy texts limits their ability to dissect the nuanced characteristics of policy tools across different stages of NDEM evolution.

2.2. International Experiences and Theoretical Frameworks

While most existing studies focus on China’s emergency management system, a growing body of international research provides comparative insights into national-level disaster governance frameworks. In the United States, emergency management is characterized by a decentralized, multi-agency coordination structure, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) playing a central role. Kapucu [27] and Comfort [28] emphasize the importance of networked inter-organizational collaboration during crises, highlighting adaptive capacity and decentralized response mechanisms. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (FEMA [29]) formalizes this coordination through flexible, outcome-driven recovery principles. In Japan, disaster governance has evolved through lessons from catastrophic earthquakes, emphasizing legislative preparedness and community-based risk reduction. Shaw and Goda [30] describe Japan’s progression toward an integrated disaster management system, while Tierney [31] explores how historical experiences shaped Japan’s coordination between central and local authorities. Similarly, Australia emphasizes resilience-building and shared responsibility among federal, state, and local governments (Eburn & Dovers [32]).

Comparative studies further suggest that the effectiveness of national disaster policies depends not only on institutional capacity but also on the alignment of policy tools with implementation environments (Alexander [33]; OECD [34]). These international experiences highlight the value of systematic policy evaluation frameworks and tool-based approaches, which are still underdeveloped in China.

2.3. Toward Quantitative and Multidimensional Policy Analysis

Researchers have extensively explored China’s emergency management practices, focusing on specific disaster types and regional contexts (Fan & Nie [35]; Ouyang & Zhang [8]). For instance, Lu and Han [36] qualitatively assessed the progress and challenges of China’s NDEM in achieving a comprehensive framework, drawing on interviews, surveys, and field observations related to typhoons and earthquakes. Additionally, studies have investigated organizational cooperation networks during specific disaster events, such as the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes (Comfort & Zhang [37]), the freezing rain and snow disaster in Xi’an (Guo & Kapucu [38]), the 2016 Jiangsu–Funing tornado (Zhang & Chen [39]), and the Changning earthquakes (Tao & Zhang [9]). These studies have successfully quantified aspects of departmental cooperation, such as network structures and interagency interactions, within the context of individual disaster responses. However, while this body of research provides valuable insights into event-specific collaboration dynamics, it has not systematically leveraged a detailed policy document analysis to trace the broader evolution of the cooperation intensity among departments across the full spectrum of NDEM development.

In terms of research frameworks, the current academic community has conducted extensive research on analytical frameworks for natural disaster emergency management, such as the Sendai Framework. In March 2015, 187 United Nations Member States proposed the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Japan (UNISDR 2015). Rather than focusing exclusively on the response to emergencies, the Sendai Framework recognizes that by reducing and managing conditions of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability—while building the capacity of communities and countries for prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery—losses and impacts from disasters can be effectively alleviated (Maini et al. [40]).

To better understand policy impacts, researchers attach great importance to the quantitative analysis of policy effectiveness from the perspective of the policy content and characteristics (Huan et al. [41]).

Table 1. Dimensions of related policy evolution research. √ indicates that this factor is included in the research framework, while × indicates it is not.

	Policy Dimensions	Time of Issue	Policy Authority	Department Cooperation	Policy Themes	Policy Tools
Articles
Ouyang & Zhang [8]		√	√	√	√	×
Tian et al. [44]		√	×	×	×	√
Zhang et al. [17]		√	×	√	√	√
Zhu et al. [43]		√	×	√	√	√
Huan et al. [41]		√	√	×	√	√
Zhang et al. [45]		√	×	√	√	√
Li et al. [42]		√	√	×	√	√

summarizes the related characteristics of the typical research on policy quantification. Most policy research focus on specific aspects such as the time of issue and policy tools. Some studies also examine the policy authority and policy themes (Ouyang & Zhang [8], Huan et al. [41], Li et al. [42]) or department cooperation (Zhang et al. [17], Zhang & Chen [39], Zhu et al. [43]).

Previous studies have mostly focused on summarizing the practice of the emergency management of specific disasters, qualitatively reviewing the evolution process of an emergency management system or analyzing a single policy tool, but there is a lack of a comprehensive investigation of all factors and long periods from the macro policy level. The framework not only covers multiple key dimensions of policy evolution, but also accurately analyzes the evolution of the cooperation network of policy subjects, the dynamic changes in policy themes, and the optimization needs of policy instrument structures through quantitative analysis methods, which can more comprehensively and deeply reveal the evolutionary characteristics and internal logic of China’s natural disaster emergency management policy and provide more targeted and forward-looking theoretical support and practical guidance for improving the emergency management policy system and improving the emergency management capacity and modernization level. It fills the gap in the study of the natural disaster emergency management capacity and modernization direction from the perspective of the overall evolution of national policies.

The issuance time captures the temporal evolution of NDEM policies, reflecting shifts in priority and responses to major disaster events. Policy authority indicates the hierarchical strength and enforcement capacity of policies, a critical aspect in China’s centralized governance system. Departmental cooperation measures interagency collaboration, which is essential for understanding the coordination dynamics in disaster responses. Policy themes reveal the strategic focus and intent of NDEM policies, while policy tools identify the specific instruments used to achieve these objectives. Together, these factors provide a multidimensional lens to systematically trace the structural dynamics and strategic distribution of China’s NDEM policies, addressing a gap in prior studies that often focused on singular aspects without integrating them into a cohesive framework.

In summary, a multidimensional and systematic evaluation of NDEM policies can provide valuable material for developing China’s disaster response framework. This area of research remains underdeveloped; however, this paper aims to advance China’s NDEM and strengthen its policy framework. It uses a bibliometric-based approach to policy analysis to achieve this goal. This study aims to accomplish two main objectives. The first objective of this study is to identify characteristics in current NDEM policies and to trace the evolution of these characteristics over time. Secondly, it aims to assess the current state of disaster management and to make recommendations for improving policy.

This study contributes by developing a five-dimensional policy analysis framework encompassing the time of issue, policy authority, departmental cooperation, policy themes, and policy tools. This framework enables a quantitative analysis of policy keywords, allowing for the tracking of the structural dynamics and strategic distribution of national NDEM policies. It offers valuable insights for enhancing China’s national NDEM policy framework and serves as a useful reference for international disaster management practices.

Compared to previous studies that either qualitatively reviewed the evolution of emergency management or focused on singular dimensions, such as policy tools or departmental collaboration, this study introduces a five-dimensional framework that integrates structural, temporal, and content-based policy attributes. This framework advances the field in two key ways: (1) methodologically, it operationalizes policy documents into analyzable dimensions using a social network analysis and textual coding, thus enabling large-scale, replicable policy evolution tracking, and (2) conceptually, it bridges fragmented analyses by combining governance authority, interagency collaboration, a thematic focus, and tool configuration into a unified structure. This integrated approach enhances the explanatory power of policy evolution studies in centralized governance systems such as China’s and provides a transferable analytical model for disaster governance research in other national contexts.

3. Methods and Data

3.1. Research Methodology

The purpose of a quantitative content analysis is to dissect the value orientation, conceptual framework, and evolution logic of existing policies. (Wu [46]) The quantitative analysis of policy effects from the perspective of text content characteristics, such as single-dimensional or comprehensive dimensions like policy tools, goals, and life cycles, has gradually attracted the attention of the academic community. Drawing on existing research, we develop a five-factor analytical framework in this article, encompassing the time of issue, policy authority, departmental cooperation, policy themes, and policy tools. The framework integrates a temporal analysis (issuance time) with structural elements (policy authority and departmental cooperation) and a content analysis (policy themes and tools), enabling a comprehensive evaluation of the policy evolution across stages. This framework considers both the external attributes and internal structures of central policy documents. NDEM’s time of issue and policy authority represent external attributes of NDEM policies, while departmental cooperation, policy themes, and policy tools capture internal characteristics.

(1)

Time of issue. This factor tracks the policy issuance across a chronological timeline, from earlier to more recent years. By quantifying policy issuance volumes by calendar year, it visualizes shifts in the central government attention to natural disaster emergency management over time.

(2)

Policy authority. Policy authority reflects the legal effect and administrative impact of a policy, which depends on the administrative level of the issuing organization (Huan et al. [41], Li et al. [42]). Laws and regulations issued by the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee hold the highest authority. Following these are the regulations, directives, and orders issued by the State Council and its ministries, which generally carry similar authority. Next are the temporary regulations, decisions, and opinions issued by the State Council, along with specific regulations, provisions, and decisions from its ministries. Following that are the various ministerial opinions, programs, and norms. Circulars, announcements, and plans are associated with the lowest policy authority.

(3)

Departmental cooperation. Policy documents are often jointly issued by multiple departments, reflecting interdepartmental collaboration. To quantify this collaboration, a social network approach is applied to the joint issuance of policy documents. The network structure is visualized using Gephi 0.10.0 software, with indicators including the number of network connections, graph density, average clustering coefficient, and network diameter. The indicators measure the extent of the cooperation among central government departments in formulating NDEM policies.

In this network analysis, each policy-issuing entity is represented as a node (n), with cooperative ties between departments shown as connecting lines (edges). A cooperative network of NDEM policies emerged during the study period by various central government departments issuing NDEM policies jointly. The number of network connections corresponds to the edges between nodes, while the network’s diameter represents the shortest path length. The graph density (D) and average clustering coefficient (CC) are quantitatively calculated using Equations (1) and (2).

$$D={\displaystyle \raisebox{1ex}{$edges$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$n\left(n-1\right)$}\right.}$$

(1)

$$CC={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _n{CC}_i}{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _n\raisebox{1ex}{$2n$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$k\left(k-1\right)$}\right.}{n}}$$

(2)

where n in the above equations denotes the number of government departments that have jointly issued NDEM policies. Edges indicate the actual cooperative relationships within the network. And n(n-1) represents the total possible cooperative relationships. The graph density (D) is the ratio of actual to potential cooperative ties within the network, reflecting the intensity of the collaboration. The average clustering coefficient (CC) measures the clustering level among nodes, calculated as the mean clustering coefficient across all nodes, where k denotes the neighboring nodes connected to node i. A higher number of network relations, a smaller network diameter, a greater graph density, and a higher average clustering coefficient all indicate stronger and more cohesive interdepartmental cooperation in policy issuance.

(4)

Policy themes. The initial step in our analysis involved examining word frequency data from policy texts to extract key terms that reflect governmental responses to evolving societal contexts. Unlike journal articles, policy documents typically do not include predefined keywords. Therefore, we used the ROST-CM6 tool to identify and screen high-frequency terms within each policy text. This approach allowed us to systematically capture the thematic focus of policy texts.

(5)

Policy tools. Policy tools are commonly categorized into five types: authoritative, incentive-based, capability-building, transformative, and persuasive tools (Xiang et al. [47], Arnold et al. [48]). Authoritative tools involve regulation and control, including enforcement actions, inspections, mandates, target-setting, leadership organization, supervision, and assessment, all aimed at ensuring compliance with policy regulations. Incentive tools, which stimulate the target group’s motivation, can be positive (e.g., economic subsidies, policy support, material rewards, and incentive guidance) or negative (e.g., fines and penalties). Capability tools focus on restructuring existing operational mechanisms by reallocating resources and authority to align the policy implementation with policy objectives. Transformative tools support long-term policy goals by enhancing systems, disseminating information, providing training, fostering development, and securing financial support, thus enabling the target group to act in accordance with policy objectives. Persuasive tools, through political guidance, theoretical education, and tailored support, seek to influence the behavioral preferences of target groups.

To analyze the use of these tools, we used NVivo11 qualitative analysis software to code policy provisions according to these five categories, calculating their respective proportions. Policy texts were coded following a systematic approach based on the document structure: “policy document number—document chapter—specific clause”. When a policy contains multiple clauses, each is coded sequentially by the content hierarchy. For instance, the first clause is coded as “1-1-1” and the second as “1-1-2”.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the coding process for the 250 NDEM policy documents, this study employed two independent coders to mitigate the subjectivity inherent in textual analysis. The coding framework, encompassing the issuance time, policy authority, departmental cooperation, policy themes, and policy tools, was applied systematically to each document. To assess intercoder reliability, we calculated Cohen’s kappa coefficient, yielding a value of 0.82, indicating a substantial agreement across all coded categories, based on a randomly selected subsample of 20% of the total. Initial coding discrepancies—such as differing interpretations of policy authority levels or the thematic emphasis—were resolved through a structured reconciliation process: the two coders reviewed conflicting cases together, referring to predefined coding guidelines and reached a consensus. In rare instances where an agreement could not be achieved (less than 5% of cases), a third researcher adjudicated the final classification. This approach enhances the credibility of the coding results, ensuring consistency and robustness in analyzing the evolution of China’s NDEM policies.

3.2. Data Sources

Central-level NDEM policies were analyzed from 1949 onwards. As no relevant central-level policy documents were available prior to 1954, the study period was set from 1954 to 2022. These policies encompass laws, regulations, directives, provisions, decisions, methods, opinions, programs, norms, notifications, announcements, and plans issued by the central government. Industry-specific technical specifications, standards, guidelines, work summaries, analysis reports, annual work plans, annexes, checklists, and supplemental specifications were excluded from the analysis.

Policy texts were identified using keywords such as “natural disaster,” “disaster emergency,” “emergency management,” and “disaster prevention and mitigation.” A fuzzy matching method was applied to search for relevant terms in the abstract, keywords, and title sections of each document. Ultimately, 250 documents were retrieved from the official websites of national natural disaster emergency response authorities and the PKU Law database.

4. NDEM Evolution in China

4.1. Time of Issue

Figure 1 illustrates the issuance timeline of NDEM policies by the Chinese central government since 1954. The steady increase in the number of policies over time reflects the Chinese government’s growing focus on natural disaster management. This change highlights an escalating commitment to addressing natural disaster risks and enhancing resilience through policy measures.

Before 2005, the central government issued relatively few policies regarding NDEM, with a particularly long “window period” from 1955 to 1994 and again in 2002. In July 2005, a national conference on emergency management by the State Council led to the introduction of the National Overall Emergency Response Plan for Public Emergencies. This plan emphasized strengthening emergency management through the “One Planning plus Three Systems” approach, which involves comprehensive planning alongside regulatory, legislative, and institutional frameworks. In the year following this milestone, the central government issued numerous policies on NDEM, with three notable peaks in policy issuance.

The first peak occurred in 2008, marking a 227.3% increase in policies from the previous year, with a total of 36 policies issued. Early in 2008, southern China experienced a severe cold spell accompanied by rain, snow, and ice storms which caused widespread power outages and transportation disruptions. In May of the same year, the Wenchuan earthquake led to extensive casualties and property damage, necessitating large-scale emergency support for affected populations. These events tested the government’s NDEM capabilities and underscored the need for an enhanced management capacity. Consequently, the policy issuance reached unprecedented levels during this period.

The second peak occurred in 2016, with a 283.33% policy increase compared to 2015, coinciding with the start of the 13th Five-Year Plan (FYP). During this period, China prioritized building a moderately prosperous society, with a strong emphasis from the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and State Council on establishing a robust emergency response framework. The 13th FYP for the Construction of National Emergency Response System was issued, setting forth key objectives, tasks, and projects for the period. This plan spurred the release of numerous NDEM policies designed to develop a cohesive, authoritative, and effective national emergency response system. These policies aimed to bolster China’s capacity for disaster prevention, control, and response, contributing to the larger goal of constructing a resilient socialist modern state.

The third peak occurred in 2022, with a 61.54% increase compared to 2021. In that year, China introduced the 14th Five-Year National Plan for Earthquake Prevention and Disaster Reduction, which outlined strategies and higher standards for earthquake prevention and disaster mitigation. This high-quality framework was followed by the release of several additional policies focused on disaster prevention and mitigation, underscoring a renewed commitment to these areas.

4.2. Policy Authority

China’s NDEM policies can be categorized according to their administrative authority. The first category includes policies issued by the National People’s Congress (NPC) and its Standing Committee, which primarily consist of laws and major decisions, such as the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Earthquake Prevention and Disaster Reduction. With only eight policies in this category, these documents hold the highest authority and influence, although they account for just 3.2% of the total.

The second category comprises policies issued by the CPC and the State Council, mainly in the form of administrative laws and regulations. These policies play a critical role in guiding and coordinating the implementation of NDEM initiatives. A total of 47 policies fall into this category, representing approximately 18.8% of all NDEM policies.

The third category includes policies issued by departmental agencies within the CPC Central Committee, constituent agencies of the State Council, and other agencies directly under the CPC Central Committee. This group, which comprises administrative laws, regulations, rules, and ordinances, represents the majority of NDEM policies, with 195 policies—about 78% of the total. An example is the Guidance on Strengthening Natural Disaster Relief Assessment issued by the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA).

This classification underscores the limited legislative progress within NDEM, as Chinese NDEM policy documents span various administrative levels, including laws, administrative regulations, normative documents, and departmental working documents. Circulars and opinions constitute 54.8% of all issuances, followed by plans, regulations, and planning documents (see Figure 2).

4.3. Departmental Cooperation

Table 2. Staged structural characteristics of the central government’s NDEM policy network from 1954 to 2022.

	Phase	1954–2007	2008–2015	2016–2022
Structural Indicators
Number of policies		28	104	89
Number of network connections		15	40	12
Graph density		0.19	0.086	0.057
Average clustering coefficient		0.767	0.856	0.181
Network diameter		3	4	6

presents the phased characteristics of the Chinese central government’s NDEM cooperation network from 1954 to 2022. The number of network connections and policies followed a similar trajectory over the study period, indicating an initial increase in central government cooperation in NDEM, followed by a subsequent consolidation and reduction in issuing entities, reflecting a shift toward a more streamlined coordination model. The highest frequency of NDEM policy issuances by central government departments occurred between 2008 and 2015. However, following the consolidation of NDEM-related departments, the graph density declined due to the reduction in policy-issuing entities.

A key factor influencing this change was the 2018 national institutional reform, which reorganized the State Administration of Work Safety into the MEM. This restructuring integrated the disaster prevention, mitigation, and relief functions of the civil affairs department; forest fire prevention functions of the natural resources department; grassland fire prevention functions of the agriculture and animal husbandry department; flood control and drought relief functions of the water department; fire prevention and control functions of the fire department; and earthquake prevention and mitigation functions of the earthquake department. This consolidation allowed for the more coordinated management of work safety and emergency responses under a single agency. During the second phase of the study, a high clustering coefficient was observed in the cooperation network, indicative of a “small-world” characteristic, highlighting the close interdepartmental collaboration in NDEM policy development.

(1)

Phase I (1954–2007)

During this period, 13 departments issued policies related to NDEM. Among them, the Ministry of Construction (MOC), now the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MHURD), was the most active, issuing eight policies, primarily in the form of notifications and opinions. The State Council and the MCA were also prominent contributors, each participating in the issuance of seven policies, mainly through notifications, regulations, and plans. The China Meteorological Administration (CMA) contributed five times, while the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR), the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters (SFCDRH), and the Ministry of Finance (MPF) each participated twice, primarily in issuing notifications. The majority of NDEM policies were formulated by the MOC, the State Council, and the MCA. During this phase, fewer collaborative documents were issued by multiple policy entities, indicating a relatively distant relationship among policy actors (see Figure 3a).

(2)

Phase II (2008–2015)

In this phase, 31 departments were engaged in policy formulation, a significant increase from the previous period, along with a rise in the number of joint documents issued by various departments. The State Council was the primary entity in policy formulation, issuing 22 policies. The MHURD also played a prominent role with thirteen policies, while the MCA ranked second, issuing eight policies. The State Oceanic Administration (SOA) followed closely with seven policies. Several other departments, including the State Administration for Work Safety (SAWS), the Ministry of Health (MOH), the China Earthquake Administration (CEA, now under MEM), and the National Safety Commission (NSC), each contributed five policies. Additionally, the Ministry of Agriculture (MA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) were each involved in the formulation of three policies, reflecting the increasing emphasis by the central government on disaster prevention and mitigation (see Figure 3b).

(3)

Phase III (2016–2022)

As shown in Figure 3c, while the number of collaborative policy issuances declined during this period, the policy network transitioned towards a more centralized and coordinated structure under the establishment of the MEM. During this phase, government departments issued a total of 101 policies, of which 11, or approximately 10.8%, were jointly issued by multiple departments. The departments involved in policy formulation can be categorized as follows:

The State Council, the MEM, the Ministry of Water Resources (MWR), and the CEA each contributed to policy formulation more than eight times. These departments frequently collaborated on policy development, reflecting the emergence of a stable and coordinated network of interdepartmental cooperation, with the MEM at its center. This multi-departmental framework represents a shift from the previous single-departmental approach, establishing the MEM as the primary coordinating entity.

The State Council Security Committee (now under the MEM), the State Forestry Administration (SFA), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the State Forestry and Grassland Administration (SFGA), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), and the State Administration of Security (SAS) each participated in policy formulation over two times, highlighting the cross-sectoral collaboration essential for managing natural disasters.

The Ministry of Science and Technology (MST), the Ministry of Rural Development and Agriculture (MRDA), the MHURD, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the Health Commission (HC) contributed to policy formulation twice, underscoring the role of scientific and technological approaches, rural and grassroots needs, and health safeguards in NDEM.

The involvement of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MCT), the General Administration of Radio and Television under the State Council, and other emerging entities signals an increasing breadth of collaboration in NDEM. This expanding network reflects the formation of an NDEM community, in which the emergency response to natural disasters is governed through a multi-stakeholder model, fostering shared governance. Currently, government departments demonstrate close interconnections, creating a networked structure centered around the MEM.

4.4. Policy Themes

(1)

Phase I (1954–2007)

At this stage, the central focus of the government’s NDEM policy is on strengthening policies and regulations for NDEM and enhancing the crisis response capacity. In the preceding period, the country was in an exploratory phase regarding natural disaster management, during which the government’s understanding of NDEM was also evolving. In 1998, to improve earthquake responses, the government introduced the Regulations on the Administration of Earthquake Forecasting. Following this, the State Council and the National People’s Congress issued several laws and regulations addressing natural disasters, such as the Regulations on the Prevention and Control of Geological Disasters and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Response to Emergencies, elevating the disaster emergency response to a legal framework. This marked a new era in China’s approach to managing and preventing natural disasters.

During this phase, China placed a strong emphasis on responding to natural disasters, with a primary focus on disaster relief. In December 2003, the State Council established the Emergency Preparedness Group, formally incorporating the construction of an emergency management system into the government’s policy agenda. This step was also the foundation for establishing China’s “One Planning plus Three Systems” model, which integrates planning, legislative, institutional, and regulatory frameworks for emergency management. In 2005, the National Committee for Disaster Reduction was renamed with the State Council’s approval. Its role was to develop national guidelines, policies, and disaster reduction plans; coordinate major disaster reduction activities; guide local efforts; and promote international cooperation in disaster reduction, thereby enhancing the overall control and response to natural disasters.

In 2006, the State Council issued a series of general and health-related emergency contingency plans, including the National Emergency Plan for Flood Control and Drought Relief and the National Emergency Plan for Geological Disasters. These plans outlined specific response strategies for various emergencies, reflecting a shift toward proactive planning. The 2007 Critical Incident Response Law further clarified the four pillars of emergency management: preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery.

High-frequency keywords in policies from this phase include “people,” “emergency response,” “disaster relief,” “safety,” “engineering,” and “disaster” (see Figure 4a). These high-frequency terms can be grouped into three thematic clusters: “engineering and construction,” “emergency response and disaster relief,” and “people-centered” (see Figure 5a). The core focus of the NDEM policy during this period was on robust disaster mitigation, improving public welfare, and supporting stable social development. Common references to terms like “government,” “state,” “building,” “strengthening,” and “management” indicate the central government’s dominant role in natural disaster emergency management, with an emphasis on organizational processes, including reporting. Terms such as “people” underscore the government’s commitment to protecting and improving livelihoods, embodying the principle of people-centered governance.

(2)

Phase II (2008–2015)

The two catastrophic events during this period underscored for the government the severe impact of natural disasters and the critical need to enhance early warning and emergency response capabilities. At this stage, emergency management shifted from a primary focus on disaster relief to a proactive approach emphasizing disaster prevention and mitigation. Policies and regulations developed in response to these events include the Regulations on the Management of Earthquake Forecasting, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Earthquake Prevention and Disaster Reduction, the National Meteorological Disaster Emergency Response Plan, and the Meteorological Disaster Emergency Response Plan of the China Meteorological Administration. For example, the National Earthquake Emergency Response Plan details procedures for seismic disaster responses, specifying core elements of monitoring reports and emphasizing earthquake tracking, monitoring, forecasting, and community-based preparedness.

High-frequency keywords in policies from this period include “disaster,” “emergency response,” “mitigation,” “earthquake,” “prevention,” and “monitoring” (see Figure 4b), highlighting three focal areas: “disaster emergency response,” “prevention,” and “disaster relief and mitigation” (see Figure 5b). Since the Wenchuan earthquake, “disaster prevention” and “disaster mitigation and relief” have remained primary concerns. During the Wenchuan earthquake, China’s capacity for earthquake early warning, prevention, and emergency responses was relatively underdeveloped, leading to unnecessary casualties and losses. The experience underscored the need to strengthen early warning and response capabilities and to increase the public awareness of disaster preparedness and self-help skills.

(3)

Phase III (2016–2022)

The establishment of the MEM in 2018 marked a significant step toward building a cohesive emergency management system in China, with a strong central ministry leading coordinated efforts across multiple sectors. This integration of various departments addresses issues of information silos in disaster risk management, enhancing the capacity to manage natural disaster risks. It also optimizes China’s emergency planning framework, facilitating plan exercises and improving the overall preparedness. Additionally, the consolidation of firefighting units, disaster relief teams, armed police forces, and emergency rescue teams strengthens response capabilities for diverse emergencies.

High-frequency policy terms during this period include “emergency response,” “disaster mitigation,” “safety,” “disaster prevention,” “technology,” and “disaster relief” (see Figure 4c). These terms cluster into three main themes: “emergency response,” “safety and disaster mitigation,” and “emergency response technology” (see Figure 5c). The central role of “emergency response” has been continually reinforced, creating a comprehensive “big emergency response” model. New terms such as “early warning” and “technology” have also emerged, indicating the critical role of science and technology in advancing China’s emergency management system and capabilities.

This technological emphasis supports comprehensive risk management and strengthens early warning and disaster responses, providing essential safeguards for disaster prevention and responses. These developments represent the gradual maturation of China’s NDEM system, evolving from “governance” to “intelligence,” thereby advancing the modernization of NDEM and supporting safe and sustainable development for society.

4.5. Policy Tools

The use of policy tools across different stages is illustrated in Figure 6. While China’s NDEM policy tools encompass five types, their composition varies over time, with both the types and frequency of tools shifting at each stage. In terms of prevalence, authoritative tools consistently represent the highest proportion in all stages. Only in the second stage do capacity-based tools approach the frequency of authoritative tools. Motivational tools, in contrast, consistently represent the lowest proportion across all stages. This consistent pattern reflects the dominant role of hierarchical governance structures in China, where authoritative instruments remain the primary means of policy tools. Regarding orientations, the use of authoritative and motivational tools shows a gradual decline, while transformational and hortatory tools first decrease and then increase. The dominant reliance on authoritative tools is gradually weakening, indicating an increasingly optimized policy mix and a more diversified management approach.

(1)

Phase I (1954–2007)

At this stage, China’s economic development level was relatively low, and the primary goal of natural disaster management was to safeguard the safety of lives and property and to maintain social stability. The government primarily relied on authoritative tools to direct natural disaster emergency management, often employing coercive measures. Notably, the introduction of the “One Planning plus Three Systems” framework in 2003 accelerated the development of emergency response plans, strengthened emergency management systems and mechanisms, and advanced the rule of law in emergency management. Key policies such as the Flood Control and Drought Relief Emergency Response Plan, the Emergency Response Plan for Geological Disasters, and the Emergency Response Law of the People’s Republic of China underscored the government’s authority.

Capacity-based tools mainly consisted of economic subsidies for natural disaster relief, specific prevention and mitigation measures, disaster response implementation strategies, and the promotion of science and technology. As for transformational tools, initiatives included the establishment of the National Earthquake Disaster Emergency Rescue Team and the Volunteer Emergency Rescue Team. The use of hortatory and motivational tools was minimal, limiting their influence on the overall framework.

(2)

Phase II (2008–2015)

A defining characteristic of this phase is the substantial increase in capacity-based tools, bringing their proportion nearly on par with authoritative tools. In response to more frequent and severe natural disasters, the government implemented measures to enhance the capacity of target groups to act in alignment with policy objectives. This included repairing and upgrading disaster-affected infrastructure, building and training emergency response personnel, supporting disaster data systems, and providing financial assistance to impacted areas, all aimed at strengthening China’s emergency management capacity across the public health service system. Numerous policies were also introduced to bolster the capacity building within the emergency management framework.

(3)

Phase III (2016–2022)

During this phase, the state issued the 13th Five-Year Plan for the Construction of the National Emergency Response System, which prioritized social security maintenance and led to the integration of emergency management-related functions across departments in 2018. This structural change also influenced the configuration of policy tools. Although authoritative tools continued to represent the largest proportion, the use of capacity-based tools declined, while the share of transformational and hortatory tools increased, reflecting a more diverse array of policy instruments. In terms of authoritative tools, key measures included safety supervision, legal recourse, and organizational coordination. Capacity-based tools focused on strengthening the grassroots emergency response effectiveness and public awareness of science and safety. This period also saw initiatives promoting the use of big data and technological innovation in disaster prevention and mitigation. Hortatory tools emphasized individual preparedness and encouraged participation in emergency response activities, with a particular focus on raising awareness of safety boundaries and promoting individual efforts to identify and address safety risks. Transformational tools, meanwhile, concentrated on establishing disaster response leadership teams and institutionalizing emergency response frameworks.

The persistent dominance of authoritative tools throughout China’s NDEM policy evolution reflects the centralized and hierarchical nature of its governance system. In the early phases of disaster governance, especially before the establishment of the Ministry of Emergency Management in 2018, China prioritized rapid mobilization, institutional discipline, and administrative enforcement—factors that inherently favor the use of top-down, command-style instruments. While this ensured policy compliance and control during crises, it also limited the room for innovation and stakeholder engagement. The recent but limited rise in transformative and persuasive tools suggests an ongoing shift toward a more adaptive and inclusive governance approach, although motivational instruments remain underutilized. This imbalance indicates the need for a more diversified policy mix that aligns with the complexity of modern disaster risk management.

5. Discussion

Recently, China has prioritized the strategic planning of its emergency management system. The national emergency management plan underscores the crucial role of digital platforms, advanced technologies, innovation hubs, and information infrastructure in fostering innovation-driven development (Adegoke [49]). The 2023 national policy document, Measures for the Management of Emergency Plans for Emergencies, further emphasizes that relevant departments should utilize digitalization, informatization, and intelligent technologies to enhance emergency plan management. Looking ahead, digitalization and smart technologies are expected to play a central role in the future of China’s NDEM.

This study offers valuable insights for other countries facing similar natural disasters. On one hand, China’s NDEM addresses a wide range of disaster types—including earthquakes; extreme rain, snow, and ice events; floods; and droughts (Wang & Zhang [14]). On the other hand, as China operates a hierarchical governance system with a centrally defined policy framework, its experience with top-level NDEM design and adaptation to frequent and widespread disasters can offer lessons for other nations. China’s policy evolution in NDEM offers valuable implications for countries like Japan and the U.S., both of which face frequent natural disasters but operate under different governance structures. As a centralized system, China’s shift toward a consolidated NDEM framework—evidenced by the establishment of the Ministry of Emergency Management in 2018 and the increased use of regulatory and organizational tools—demonstrates how a unified authority can enhance coordination and resource mobilization across vast regions. For Japan, which manages earthquakes and tsunamis through a decentralized yet highly coordinated system, China’s experience highlights the potential benefits of streamlining interagency collaboration under a single oversight body to reduce response times, a lesson applicable to refining its Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act framework. Similarly, the U.S., with its federal structure and reliance on the FEMA, could draw insights from China’s emphasis on integrating economic tools with real-time data systems, as seen in post-2008 Wenchuan Earthquake policies, to bolster resilience in states prone to hurricanes or wildfires. These implications stem from our findings on the intensified departmental cooperation and the adaptability of policy tools across disaster stages, suggesting that a balance of centralization and localized flexibility could optimize NDEM globally. Further comparative studies could refine these lessons for diverse governance contexts.

However, it is important to recognize that challenges remain in implementing NDEM at the local level in China. Preferences in policy outcomes between central and local governments can lead to issues in execution. The central government must further refine its policy design to minimize conflicts between central and local policies, ensuring a more cohesive and effective implementation.

This study applies a structured five-dimensional framework to quantitatively analyze the evolution of natural disaster emergency management (NDEM) policies. While the coding criteria were grounded in the existing literature and systematically applied, the interpretation of policy clauses remains partially subjective. Ambiguities often arise when clauses exhibit overlapping features—for instance, actions that simultaneously build institutional capacity and promote long-term transformation. In such cases, classifications were based on the dominant intent, with disagreements resolved through coder discussion. Nevertheless, complete objectivity cannot be guaranteed. In addition, the selection of policy documents was based on a defined set of core keywords (e.g., “natural disaster” and “emergency management”) to ensure relevance to the national-level disaster management agenda. However, we acknowledge that this approach may omit indirectly related policies, such as those targeting climate adaptation or infrastructure resilience, which can also influence disaster risk reduction. Future studies may consider broader semantic frameworks or topic modeling to capture such interrelated policy domains.

Moreover, this study focuses solely on central-government-issued documents, which, although critical in China’s top-down governance model, may not fully capture the nuances of local-level implementation or informal mechanisms. Additionally, the analysis emphasizes policy design rather than policy outcomes. As such, the findings reflect shifts in strategic orientation rather than the effectiveness of on-the-ground actions. Future studies could integrate local policy data and field-level implementation assessments to enhance robustness.

6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

6.1. Conclusions

This study’s analysis of 250 NDEM policy documents from 1954 to 2022 reveals a key focus in China’s disaster management evolution. Notably, the cooperation networks exhibited a growing complexity and expanding collaboration in the early stages, particularly from the 1950s to the early 2000s, as reflected in the rising number of interdepartmental linkages following major disasters like the 1998 floods and the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake. However, post 2008, the departmental cooperation initially intensified but subsequently declined in scope, with fewer issuing entities yet a sustained network density, suggesting a shift toward a more centralized and streamlined structure under entities like the Ministry of Emergency Management. This trajectory—from expansion to consolidation—underscores an adaptive governance model balancing complexity with efficiency, offering insights for modernizing NDEM systems globally.

The thematic orientation of China’s NDEM policies demonstrates a strong alignment with the country’s overarching social and developmental objectives. Over time, policy themes have evolved from a narrow focus on disaster relief to a more comprehensive framework encompassing prevention and governance, reflecting an increasing integration of science and technology into NDEM policy design. This evolution underscores the influence of China’s strategic paradigms, notably the designation of science and technology as the “primary productive force” and the adoption of an “innovation-driven development strategy”, both of which are pivotal to the modernization of emergency management systems.

The structure of policy tools within China’s NDEM framework reveals a pressing need for optimization to enhance efficacy and stakeholder engagement. The content of China’s NDEM policies has progressively broadened and diversified, incorporating an expanding array of tools to address natural disaster contingencies. At present, authoritative and capacity-based tools predominate, constituting approximately 50% of the toolkit across all stages of disaster management. Transformational tools are employed with a moderate frequency and variety, whereas motivational tools are markedly underrepresented, comprising less than 6% of the total. This pronounced dependence on authoritative tools—characterized by their binding and mandatory nature—may engender resistance among policy recipients, potentially impeding an effective implementation and leading to unintended deviations in policy outcomes. Moreover, the scant utilization of motivational tools constrains the capacity to cultivate active engagement and commitment from stakeholders, underscoring the necessity for a more balanced and adaptive policy tool configuration.

The five-dimensional analytical framework reveals how China’s NDEM system has evolved toward more integrated, science-based, and adaptive forms of governance, thereby supporting long-term disaster resilience. By tracking the transformation from reactive to proactive policy tools and the increased emphasis on technology and coordination, the findings offer evidence for institutional sustainability and strategic resilience in disaster governance. This trajectory not only strengthens China’s own capacity for disaster prevention and response but also provides a valuable reference for other nations aiming to build resilient governance frameworks in line with the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction.

6.2. Policy Recommendations

Based on our empirical findings, we propose the following targeted recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and modernization of China’s NDEM system:

(1)

Strengthen interdepartmental cooperation. As shown in Section 4.3 and Figure 3, interdepartmental cooperation increased significantly during 2008–2015 but declined after 2016 following institutional consolidation. Although centralization has enhanced the coordination within the Ministry of Emergency Management (MEM), the overall network density and collaboration across agencies have weakened. To address this, we recommend building integrated digital emergency management platforms and encouraging cross-sectoral resource sharing to re-establish robust interagency collaboration, especially across scientific, technical, and operational departments.

(2)

Enhance the integration of science and technology in NDEM, in line with the policy theme. Our theme analysis in Section 4.4 reveals an increasing emphasis on “technology”, “early warning”, and “information systems” in recent policy phases, reflecting the growing importance of digitalization in disaster governance. Additionally, the policy tool analysis shows a rise in transformative tools. We recommend a further investment in intelligent technologies, such as remote sensing, big data, and AI-enabled early warning systems. Strengthening independent innovation and foundational research will improve real-time risk detection, forecasting, and rapid response capabilities.

(3)

Optimize the configuration of policy tools to promote engagement and adaptability. As illustrated in Section 4.5 and Figure 6, China’s NDEM policies rely heavily on authoritative and capacity-based tools, while motivational tools remain underutilized. The overemphasis on mandatory instruments may limit flexibility and stakeholder engagement. We suggest moderately increasing the use of incentive-based and persuasive tools—such as public education, financial rewards, and volunteer mobilization—to complement enforcement mechanisms and promote public participation in disaster preparedness and responses.