基层社区风险隐患排查与隐患治理的制度困境与优化路径——以S市X区为例

Institutional Dilemmas and Optimization Paths in Grassroots Community Risk Inspection and Hazard Governance—A Case Study of X District, S City

摘要: 基层社区作为社会治理的基础单元，是社会风险防控与公共危机治理的重要环节，是防范化解各类基层安全风险、遏制小微隐患演变为重大公共危机的关键节点。在风险社会背景下，如何提升基层社区风险排查的精准性和应急隐患治理的有效性，已成为推进基层治理现代化的重要课题。本文选取长三角S市X区社区作为研究对象，从韧性治理与前瞻性治理这两个角度切入，重点考察了该区在网格重构、多元共治以及数智赋能等方面的具体做法，在系统梳理社区日常风险排查、隐患整改及应急准备等工作的基础上，发现当前基层风险治理长期存在几个悬而未决的问题：一是排查工作呈现出零散化的特点，二是隐患整改往往有头无尾、不了了之，三是风险预判能力跟不上实际需求，四是应急资源储备存在明显短板，五是多元主体之间缺乏有效的协同联动机制，这些问题相互交织、互为因果，对此，文章结合基层操作实际，逐一提出了改进建议。

Abstract: As the fundamental units of social governance, grassroots communities constitute the important part for social risk prevention and public crisis management. They serve as a crucial juncture in identifying and mitigating local safety risks before minor hazards escalate into major public crises. Against the backdrop of the risk society, enhancing the precision of community-based risk identification and the effectiveness of hazard governance has become a central issue in advancing the modernization of grassroots governance. Taking communities in District X of City S in the Yangtze River Delta as the empirical case, this study examines local governance practices through the analytical lenses of resilience governance and anticipatory governance. Specifically, it investigates institutional innovations in grid-based governance restructuring, multi-actor collaborative governance, and digital-intelligent empowerment. Based on a systematic analysis of routine risk identification, hazard rectification, and emergency preparedness, the study identifies five persistent institutional challenges in grassroots risk governance. First, risk identification remains fragmented and lacks systematic coordination. Second, hazard rectification is often inadequately implemented and fails to achieve sustained follow-up. Third, existing mechanisms for risk forecasting fall short of practical governance demands. Fourth, emergency resource reserves exhibit significant deficiencies in both capacity and allocation. Fifth, effective coordination and collaborative mechanisms among multiple governance actors remain underdeveloped. These challenges are mutually reinforcing and collectively constrain the effectiveness of grassroots risk governance. In response, the paper proposes a series of policy recommendations grounded in the practical realities of grassroots governance to improve institutional capacity for proactive risk prevention and hazard governance.