韧性视角下超大城市社区数字应急治理的困境与优化路径研究

Research on the Challenges and Optimization Strategies for Digital Emergency Governance in Megacity Communities from a Resilience Perspective

摘要: 在城镇化快速推进与风险复杂化背景下，超大城市应急管理体系建设需向韧性化、数字化转型。社区作为城市治理的“最后一公里”，其数字应急治理水平直接影响城市整体应急韧性。本文以韧性城市建设理论为核心分析框架，选取成都天府新区A社区作为典型案例进行深度剖析，系统梳理其数字应急治理的实践现状、核心困境与优化路径。研究发现，以A社区为代表的超大城市社区虽已初步建成数字应急平台与设施体系，但仍存在数字应急设施布局不均、多元主体协同不畅等问题，与韧性治理要求存在差距。针对上述困境，本文从基础设施、治理、包容与制度四个韧性维度提出优化策略，包括推进设施均衡布局、构建数字化“积分制”协同模式等。本研究不仅契合超大城市基层应急治理现代化的现实需求，也为韧性视角下社区数字应急治理提供了微观实证支撑与可操作路径。研究结论主要基于成都A社区这一典型样本，其推广至其他超大城市社区时，需审慎考虑社区类型(如老旧小区、商圈社区等)与地域差异。

Abstract: Against the backdrop of rapid urbanization and escalating risks, the emergency management systems in megacities must undergo resilience-oriented and digital transformation. As the “last mile” of urban governance, communities’ digital emergency management capabilities directly determine a city’s overall emergency resilience. Using the resilience-based urban development theory as a framework, this study conducts an in-depth analysis of Community A in Chengdu’s Tianfu New Area, systematically examining its current practices, core challenges, and optimization pathways for digital emergency governance. The research reveals that while megacity communities like Community A have established preliminary digital emergency platforms and infrastructure, issues such as uneven distribution of facilities and poor coordination among stakeholders persist, falling short of resilience requirements. Addressing these gaps, the study proposes strategies across four dimensions—infrastructure, governance, inclusivity, and institutional frameworks—including promoting balanced facility deployment and establishing a digital “point-based” collaboration model. This research not only addresses practical needs for modernizing grassroots emergency governance in megacities but also provides empirical evidence and actionable recommendations for community-level digital emergency management from a resilience perspective. The findings, derived from the case study of Community A, require careful consideration of community types (e.g., old residential areas, commercial districts) and regional differences when applied to other megacity communities.