Conducting an adaptive evaluation framework of importance and performance for community-based earthquake disaster management

The frequency and intensity of natural disasters have been increasing in recent decades; especially earthquakes are one of the causes of major natural disasters. Improving community adaptive response to disasters based on community capacity has gradually become an effective means of coping with disaster risks, as well as improving residents' well-being and community participation in disaster planning and management. We integrate community resilience and disaster management to establish an evaluation framework for community-based earthquake disaster management (CEDM) based on community perspectives under importance performance analysis method, and identify the factors affecting community adaptive behavior. Features that affect the differentiation of community residents' adaptive behavior in CEDM program are classified into risk perception, learning earthquake knowledge, the ability on earthquake prevention, and creating a platform on CEDM. The results identify that the CEDM has to integrate the higher community education plan, the stronger flexible to disaster preparedness, the higher the residents' awareness of disaster prevention, the stronger the ability to adapt to disasters; the higher the ability of the government and non-profit organizations to cooperate with the community to deal with disasters, and the stronger the community's ability to manage disasters. These findings provide valuable insights into the construction of CEDM systems and related policymaking.


Introduction
Earthquakes disaster is one of the most destructive natural disasters on the planet, and also least predictable among all natural disasters. In the past, disaster management usually emphasized defense and governance, focusing on pre-disaster preparation and post-disaster recovery. However, in the case of earthquake disasters, such plans are still unable to withstand the most destructive disasters. According to theory and research, community resilience can improve a community's ability to perceive and respond to disasters, emphasizing people's ability to cope with change (Cui et al. 2018;Tobin 1999). Community-based earthquake disaster management (CEDM) can play a key role in natural resources and risk management, including adaptation to global climate change (Bhattamishra and Barrett 2010;Azad et al. 2020;Zhang et al. 2013). Thus, community resilience focuses on learning from past experiences to cope with changes in disasters and improving the ability of communities to perceive and respond to disasters through disaster education and drills (Azad et al. 2020;Tobin 1999). Improving community disaster awareness can help communities reduce the impact of disasters.
To implement community disaster management, it is necessary to rely on the community's cognition and perception of disasters. Only when communities are more resilient to disasters can community participation in disaster management best achieve disaster prevention benefits (Azad et al. 2020;Hosseini et al. 2014;Zhang et al. 2013). CEDM is an effective disaster management method, which is community-based and explores the elements of disaster management from the community level, through the ability of the community itself to adapt to disasters and an assessment framework for community resilience (Azad et al. 2020;Hosseini et al. 2014;Zhang et al. 2013). Community participation is considered a requisite element of disaster management, which that can reduce the occurrence of small and medium-sized disasters and resulting property losses, establish community safety culture, and ensures the sustainable development of all people.
For these reasons, community participation has become a global trend in disaster management (Lorna 2020). Breaking it down further, community participation is composed of mitigation, preparation, and response (including recovery and reconstruction) (Hendra and Kismartini 2018). The study had tend to focus on community resilience, organizational resilience, disaster perception and disaster management (Javadpoor et al. 2021;Kapucu 2012), and community participation in CEDM (Hossain 2012). However, an adaptive assessment framework integrating comprehensive attributes related to community resilience and community organizational resilience has not been developed in the CEDM field. In addition, studies have not used CEDM-related awareness of disaster preparedness and their perceptions of disaster adaptation.
This study addresses this gap in three stages. First, it conducts an adaptive assessment framework for CEDM based on community resilience and disaster management. Second, using the importance performance analysis (IPA) to evaluate the community's perceptions of the government's implementation of CEDM. Third, evaluate their participation in community earthquake disaster management from the socioeconomic background and disaster perception of community residents.This study is organized as follows. The following section reviews the literature on community earthquake disaster management and community organization, community resilience, and community participation behavior in CEDM. Third section is research design and methodology and proposes an evaluation framework for CEDM based on local resident's perspectives.
Forth section is the empirical results of analysis and discuss. Final section is conclusion, the CEDM strategy based on its findings, and the recommendations for the implementation of the CEDM policy.

Community organization in CEDM
The CEDM method is a basic form of community empowerment that is implemented with community residents as the axis. It is also a mechanism for implementing bottom-up ideas and propositions (Luna 2014). Most countries adopt top-down policies in disaster prevention policies as a form of political empowerment. However, CEDM mainly develops through the needs of community residents, and encourages the community to participate in disaster management, so as to reduce the impact and risk of disasters (Luna 2014;Ma et al. 2021). The occurrence of disasters not only wreaks havoc on people's lives and can profoundly impact an entire country's politics, economy, and infrastructure, but these events also have cultural, ideological, ethical, and safety-related implications for society (Tian and Yao 2015).
Community transformation is the key to shifting from the current development model of increasing, creating, or unfairly distributing risks, to a fairer, resilient and sustainable form of development (Thomalla et al. 2018). Combining community organization and development practices to focus on community consensus and development agendas can radically improve the disaster prevention skills and political power of a community as it relates to disaster management. Every local participant has the right to be proud of his or her community's development achievements. This not only changes the values of the community, but also changes the relationships between the organizations and the local government, allowing them to develop a shared vision that can put into practice jointly (Capraro 2004). The transformative process usually involves changes in concepts and meanings, social network configurations, interaction patterns between actors (including leadership, politics, and power relations), and related organizational and institutional arrangements (Folke et al. 2009;Huitema et al. 2009).
Transformation is "a fundamental change to the functionality of the system". Seen this way, disaster recovery can either create a new balance or destroy the original stability. Conceptually and practically, the transformation is divided into three stages: resistance (i.e. maintaining the status quo), adjustment and transformation (Pelling et al. 2015). To sum up, the participation of community residents in DM, the strengthening of community residents' disaster prevention awareness and disaster response capacity, and the transformation of community organization are all important factors for integrating sustainable disaster management into community development. For this reason, designing an adaptive evaluation framework for CEDM and uncovering local residents' perceptions about the effectiveness of government policy regarding sustainable disaster management has become a critical issue today.

Community resilience and disaster management in CEDM
Disaster management aims to reduce loss of life and infrastructure and property damage when disasters occur, all of which are vital (Adeel et al. 2019). As climate change makes 1 3 natural disasters more frequent, many countries have begun to set up a series of disaster management mechanisms to cope. The sustainable development of disaster management hinges on the existence of a strong community base, meaning locals are equipped to cope with disasters when they happen. Establishing such a base requires gathering the knowledge of community residents, and invariably reflects the community's culture, characteristics, and values (Azad et al. 2020). Any community's ability to resist natural disasters or transform itself into another, more resilient form, depends on how it absorbs and responds to the impact of disturbance (Walker et al. 2004;Spoon et al. 2020).
Hence, disaster awareness and individuals' perceptions of their community's ability to adapt play vital roles when it comes to implementing adaptive strategies. Moreover, enhancing local knowledge is crucial for improving responses to the sudden onset of disasters, as well (Khan et al. 2017). From the literature, we can comprehend that community awareness, particularly as it relates to disaster-related experience, perception of the level of risk, and adaptation, are key factors governments must bear in mind when planning and implementing community disaster management. Disaster management relies on a community's knowledge, of which the local population are repositories, as residents are always the first available resource when it comes to disaster response (Paton 2007). The government can draw up a disaster prevention plan suitable for the community in question based on the residents' awareness of disaster prevention and the residents' ability to respond to disasters. Disaster resistance and adaptability are closely related to disaster management planning, which can most effectively reduce the negative impacts after disasters and quickly establish post-disaster recovery mechanisms (Tobin 1999).
The relationship between disaster resilience and disasters involves complex systems and different social, economic, political and natural factors. These issues include how to reduce the negative impact of disasters; reduce the vulnerability and risk factors that affect communities, cities, and people; increase the resilience of communities; and strengthen the recovery capacity of communities after disasters (Tobin 1999;Godschalk 2003;Kapucu 2012). Community resilience implies the ability to adapt to environmental changes and to respond and manage when they occur (Cui et al. 2018;Javadpoor et al. 2021) Community resilience also refers to the ability to respond to and recover from disasters in a very short period of time to reduce disaster shocks. It also includes the ability to predict environmental changes before disasters occur (Cui et al. 2018;Javadpoor et al. 2021;Wang et al. 2020). Community resilience is divided into four dimensions: (1) the ability to perceive risks and changes, (2) the ability to reorganize and plan, (3) the ability to cope with change, and (4) the level of interest in change (Marshall and Marshall 2007). Community resilience can be best understood from an integrated and comprehensive perspective. The integrated approach assumes that the scale of individuals, groups, and communities should not be isolated, but should be integrated and explored as connections and exchange relationships (Kapucu 2012). When sudden disasters occur, community organizations must be able to identify the needs of community disaster management and enhance the community's ability to adapt to disaster changes. Thereby, this study integrates four perspectives of community resilience into the CEDM assessment framework.

Community participation behavior in CEDM
Many studies have pointed out that community participation and community consensus play key roles in developing local disaster resistance capabilities on CEDM (Azad et al. 2020). Together, they reduce casualty rates and the extent of property losses in communities after disasters, and these effects are most obvious in developing countries. (Victoria 2003). Community participation generally refers to the participation of community residents in any project intended to solve the community's problems or develop its economic conditions. (Hossain 2012). One aim of community participation can be to strengthen the ability to respond to natural disaster risks, and any community's resilience to disasters is key to its sustainable community disaster management (Huq 2016). The most common elements of community participation are partnerships between the community and local residents, as well as the participation, empowerment, and ownership of the latter (Rajeev 2014;Mathbor 2007).
Many organizations have developed a variety of community-related participation methods, the main purpose of which is to solve the cultural problems that arise in the recovery process after disasters strike communities (UNISDR 2010). To cope with problems that arise after a disaster, effective community participation strategies should be adopted in vulnerable communities, with appropriate disaster prevention training provided in the pre-disaster stage, and necessary disaster management information provided in the post-disaster stage (Enshassi et al. 2018;Hosseini et al. 2014). Therefore, determining the factors that affect the awareness of community participation in CEDM, focusing on local demographics, disaster risk perception, and development factors for DM are critical issues for policy formulation in a CEDM framework. In this research, we will therefore explore the awareness and perceptions of members of community organizations regarding disaster management from the standpoints of community capacity, participation, adaptability to disaster shocks, and willingness to participate in disaster management (Wang et al. 2020;Deng et al. 2019).

Data sources
Taiwan is located on the Circum-Pacific seismic zone, which means earthquakes are frequent and often quite strong. This is especially true in eastern Taiwan, an area prone to densely clustered earthquakes and resultant earthquake disasters. According to Verisk Analytics, two M7.1 earthquakes have occurred in Taiwan: the Taichung quake in 1935 and the Zhongpu quake in 1941. These two events claimed the lives of more than 3000 and 4500 people, respectively, and caused widespread damage to infrastructure. More recently, there have been two other major earthquakes. They were the Jiji quake on September 21, 1999, which measured magnitude M7.3 and caused 2415 deaths, and the M6.4 earthquake that struck north of Hualian on February 6, 2018. The latter earthquake damaged mainly older, soft-story buildings, and caused serious casualties in the main areas affected, Hualien City and Sincheng Township (NFA). Therefore, this research focuses on these two regions-Hualien City and Sincheng Township-which are urban and suburban, respectively. Hualien City has a total of six joint district offices, and there are a total of eight villages in Sincheng Township (Fig. 1). The population of urban and suburban are 103,052 and 20,109 that population ratio is 8-2. This study based on the population rate to conduct the data analysis with an effective sample size of 410, 330 respondents is from the urban area and 80 respondents are from the suburban area. The study applied face-to-face interviews via a non-random selection method; the survey period is beginning from December 2020 to March 2021, this covering both off-peak (off-work) and peak (working) periods. A reliability analysis calls for a sample size of at least 300 respondents (Kline 1986). The total samples is 410, means that the results of the study are reliable and can be used as a reference for future research.

Research method
IPA techniques are widely utilized to examine the quality of services, and allow researchers to assess the discrepancies between the perceived importance and performance of any service, which is especially helpful for the implementation of a government or company's programming (Addas et al. 2021;Boley et al. 2017;Zhang and Chan 2016). One of the main advantages of the IPA method is to reveal satisfaction levels (Addas et al. 2021;Nguyen et al. 2021;Phan et al. 2022). Ratings for the importance and performance of management functions are crucial in determining management strategies. IPA was used to analyze attribute importance and corresponding performance using Likert scales that help to identify gaps between important performance and actual performance and to find out reasons for poor performance, as well as to develop a plan to address performance gaps (Chen et al. 2021;Nguyen et al. 2021). The traditional IPA results are presented in a grid format with four quadrants as shown in Fig. 2. (1) The first quadrant "Keep up the work" means the attributes are rated with both high performance and importance (strength); (2) the second quadrant "Concentrate here" means the attributes are of high importance, but performance is low (threat);(3) the third quadrant "Low priority" means the attributes are of low importance and performance (weakness); (4) the fourth quadrant "Possible overkill" means low priority but high performing (opportunity) (Chen et al. 2021;Phan et al. 2022;Zhang and Chan 2016) (Fig. 2).
We developed a CEDM indicators (Table 1) based on prior empirical studies focusing on community resilience, community capitals and disaster management theories. The study calculated the frequency distribution using descriptive statistical analysis to get the distribution status of the sample. In the initial planning stage, focus group discussions were held with six experts to gather various stakeholders' perspectives on topics including disaster prevention education (Zhang et al. 2013;Zhu and Zhang 2017), disaster preparedness and response training (Chuang and Yen 2016;Zhu and Zhang 2017;Hosseini et al. 2014), disaster awareness and adaptation (Wang et al. 2020;Lai 2011), and cooperative disaster programs with governments (Noda et al. 2019;Zhang et al. 2013). Second, decided to focus on elements enhancing of disaster response capabilities; namely, disaster adaptation (Kusumasari and Alam 2011; Wang et al. 2020), disaster prevention skills (Wang et al. 2020;Cui et al. 2018), and assemblages of NGOs and government (Zhang et al. 2013;Cui et al. 2018;Wang et al. 2020). Finally, combined CEDM, community resilience, and community capital principles to formulate the content of interview questions to pose to experts including local government officials, architects, and chairpersons of community management committees (Fig. 3). From the results of these interviews with experts, 8 CEDM indicators were decided upon (Table 1). A formal questionnaire was designed and developed based on these indicators, included the following three sections: (1) Status of community disaster prevention organization and disaster management; (2) Community residents' awareness for CEDM indicators; and (3) Socio-economic demographics. Table 2 shows the socio-economic profile and demographic characteristics of the respondents. Most of the respondents sampled were married (about 61.5%), and the age range was between 20 and 49 years old (about 70%). The data shows that most of the respondents The ability on earthquake prevention The ability on earthquake prevention 1 Disaster adaptation (Training to be a disaster prevention vanguard)

Results and analysis
Kusumasari and Alam (2011) and Wang et al. (2020) 6 The ability on earthquake prevention 2 Disaster prevention skills (Training to be a disaster relief volunteers) Ma et al. (2021), Wang et al. (2020) and Cui (2015) 7 Creating a platform on CEDM Creating a platform on CEDM 1 Assemble NGOs and Government for pre-disaster preparedness Zhang et al. (2013), Cui (2015), Wang et al. (2020) 8 Creating a platform on CEDM 2 Assemble NGOs and Government when disasters occur Ma et al. (2021), Zhang et al. (2013), Cui (2015), Wang et al. (2020) living in the urban are having university education (about 50%), while in the suburban sample survey, more people have a high school education (about 46% of the total). Most of the residents were employed (about 80%), most owned their own houses (over 60%), and nearly 70% of residents reported incomes between 30,000 and 40,000 TWD/month. From Table 3, most urban and suburban residents think their communities lack the ability to deal with "real" disasters, and, moreover, believe their communities have not established disaster prevention organizations. Furthermore, most respondents are not members of disaster prevention organizations in their communities. However, they are all willing to participate in disaster management education and training courses and cooperate with the local government to implement disaster management.

Matrices of IP levels of the government's implementation of CEDM indicators
In Table 4 that is to merge two indicators into one attribute. From the table, P value < 0.005 is obvious and significant means that both urban and suburban residents think that those attributes are important for CEDM Urban residents think that attribute of "creating a platform on CEDM", is the first important for them to enhance their adaptive on disaster prevention, attribute of risk perception, is ranking second. For suburban residents, they think the attribute of "risk perception" is the first important for them to enhance their awareness on disaster prevention, and attribute of "creating a platform on CEDM" is ranking second, which is just the opposite with urban residents. This clearly shows that rural residents generally lack disaster prevention education and drills. Compared with urban residents' satisfaction with the government's implementation of disaster management projects, suburban residents are generally dissatisfied. The average Fig. 3 An evaluation framework of importance and performance for CEDM performance of each item does not exceed 1.82, which is obviously dissatisfied with the government's performance. However, although the urban data is higher than the suburban data, the data does not exceed 2.5, which means that the urban area is not satisfied with the government's performance.
The overall result shows that the interviewees are generally dissatisfied with the government's implementation of disaster management. In particular, the government's policy is very weak in the awareness and perception of disaster prevention among community residents, leading to the residents have insufficient knowledge of disaster Community awareness Do you agree that the community you live in has the ability to deal with "real" disasters? management. This means that the government should strengthen disaster prevention education and exercises in the community to improve the disaster resistance capacity of the community residents. Table 5 is an array showing the top three and bottom three of the average scores, importance and performance assessments of urban and suburban residents for each indicator. It can be seen from Table 5 that the importance levels of the indicators are uniformly larger than their performance levels, with differences ranging anywhere from 1.85 to 2.85. This means that both urban and suburban residents think those indicators are important for communities to enhance their awareness, perception of risk and adaptive capacity in the context of disaster prevention management, but unfortunately, the government is not performing well, in their estimation. Urban residents indicated that the indicators related to "creating a platform on CEDM", "learning earthquake knowledge" [indicator 4], and "risk perception" are the most important among all indicators. With respect to "the ability on earthquake prevention" performance, no particular individual indicator was found to outperform the other indicators. Overall, the residents did not think indicators 5 and 6 (becoming disaster prevention vanguard and disaster relief volunteers) could enhance their awareness, perception of risk, and adaptive ability regarding disaster prevention management. They did, however, express they considered indicators linked to "creating a platform on CEDM" and "learning earthquake knowledge" vital for the enhancement of their ability to prevent disasters and respond to their occurrence.
From the performance level data, we see that urban residents are not highly satisfied with the government's implementation of disaster management projects because the satisfaction values of each indicator do not exceed 2.5. According to the data in Table 5, feedback from suburban residents shows the importance of these indicators is usually greater than their performance level. While the disparity between these two aspect importance and performance is much smaller among urban residents, the difference is still between 2.06 and 2.91 points for each indicator. This represents that residents are generally dissatisfied with the government's implementation of disaster management projects. Compared to urban residents, suburban residents can be distinguished by another set of indicators; namely, they are comparatively more concerned about indicators relating to "risk perception". The performance of the "creating a platform on CEDM" indicator also stands out from others on the list. Overall, the attribute of "risk perception" received the top ranking, and the attribute of "creating a platform on CEDM" was ranked third. The attribute of "the ability on earthquake prevention" was ranked last on the list in terms of importance and performance.
The results of the paired-sample t test are also shown in Table 5. According to the data in these tables, there is a statistically significant difference in the importance level and performance level of disaster management indicators between urban residents and suburban residents. In most cases, the average score of the importance level is significantly higher than the performance level, especially in the number of suburban residents, the difference between importance and performance is less than 1.9 point that means residents are not satisfied with the performance of the government, the government need pay more work on it.

Matrix of the importance-performance levels of CEDM
The IPA combination plotted in Fig. 4 is based on the average scores of the importance and performance levels assigned by both urban residents and suburban residents and listed in Table 5. The data were all confirmed by paired-sample t tests. The four quadrants are delineated according to the overall average importance and performance scores of the eight indicators. The quadrant positions of urban and suburban residents are marked with two different colors, respectively, to facilitate their comparison and analysis.
From Figs. 4 and 5, urban residents' data shows that attribute of "risk perception" is located in the "keep up the work" zone, which means the government ought to continue to maintain this indicator; attribute of "learning earthquake knowledge" and " creating a platform on CEDM" are located in the "concentrate here" zones, which indicates the respondents thinks these attributes are very important and the government needs to pay attention and work hard on that; attribute of "the ability on earthquake prevention" is located in the "low priority", which means the respondent considers this indicator to be of comparatively lesser importance. All I-P points are statistically significant (Table4). These findings imply what urban residents perceive as desirable in terms of government disaster management projects.
Results of the suburban residents' I-P indicators analysis are shown in Figs. 4 and 5; the attribute of "risk perception" and attribute of "creating a platform on CEDM" are located in the "keep up the work" zone, which means the respondent thinks these two attributes are very important and also satisfied with the government's performance; attribute of "learning earthquake knowledge" is located in the "low priority" zone, which indicators these indicators can be used as indicators for the government to implement projects in second sequence; attribute of "the ability on earthquake prevention" is in the "possible overkill" zone, which means the respondents believe this indicator is unimportant but the government overspends on this indicator, in terms of energy and funds. Only two indicators of "disaster prevention education" and "assemble NGOs and government for pre-disaster preparedness" are located on "concentrate here' zone, which require government "concentration" for improvement as a priority in the implementation of disaster management projects.
Overall, both urban and suburban residents think disaster awareness are very important for enhancing community on risk perception, and both groups feel the government is performing well in this regard and should keep up the good work being done on it. Likewise, both urban and suburban residents think that assembling NGO and government resources for pre-disaster preparedness is very important for enhancing the community's adaptive ability for disaster prevention; however, both groups also feel the government doesn't perform well in this regard, which means the government should concentrate efforts here. Figure 5 shows that suburban residents think the attribute of "risk perception" is of primary importance for them to enhance their disaster prevention awareness, while the attribute of "creating a platform on CEDM" is ranked second. However, suburban residents don't think the attribute of "the ability on earthquake prevention" (Disaster Prevention Vanguard and Training to become disaster relief volunteers) is so important for their community. In contrast, suburban residents feel it is more important to integrate with government and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) to enhance the ability of communities to respond to disasters.

Discussion
CEDM strives to integrate community disaster prevention awareness, disaster prevention knowledge, disaster prevention education, community participation, and cooperation with governments and NPOs in earthquake disaster risk and management, while meeting the needs of sustainable development of community disaster management. However, how these perspectives can be systematically integrated into management strategies to make CEDM sustainable is a major issue for community resilience and local governments and even nonprofit groups. Due to the importance of this issue, the main contribution of this study is to focus on the common views and differences between community residents and the government regarding the importance of implementing programs for earthquake disaster management to construct an adaptive assessment evaluation framework for CEDM. Figure 3 expresses this framework, which contains various indicators closely related to the sustainable development of CEDM. The results of this study also provide valuable insights into the importance and performance of multiple indicators of CEDM, as shown in Fig. 3, which shows respondents' importance indicators in various CEDM strategies.
In addition to contributing to the CEDM strategy, the research framework provides an opportunity for disaster managers and policymakers to regularly measure community resilience, while also serving as the basis for a theoretical model of CEDM. Inspired by the adaptive management, this study uses the IPA method to identify the importance and performance of community residents to the government's disaster prevention measures, and also explores the relationship between the community's disaster resilience and disaster prevention awareness. It is hoped to contribute to building community disaster resilience by emphasizing multiple dimensions and approaches to support factors related to the resilience building process of community organization. This study analyzed the matrix of the IP levels of CEDM indicators and the overall differences between urban and suburban residents' perceptions of importance and levels of satisfaction with the eight indicators under an IPA evaluation framework built on solid theoretical constructs (Addas et al. 2021;Ali et al. 2021;Phan et al. 2022;Zhang and Chan 2016). By doing so, it was able to capture local residents' perspectives of what government measures they deem satisfactory, and to identify what needs improvement.
The main findings of this study show that respondents frequently support CEDM programs. First, the results show that community cooperates with the government and NPOs in pre-disaster and disaster response is the most important, which is the most valid approach to reduce disaster impact. Second, community participation in disaster management can improve pre-disaster response capacity (Cui et al. 2018;Hossain 2012). Third, community participation can enhance the quality and services of post-disaster recovery as well as valid of community resilience after disaster. Results indicate that regularly disaster prevention drills in the pre-disaster phase are crucial, particularly for suburban communities, to enhance people's awareness of disaster prevention. The government should therefore keep up its work on scheduling and conducting such drills. In the disaster recovery phase, local people, in partnerships with NGOs, have the capacity to help each other in crises (Ali et al. 2021). Although assembling NGO and government resources for pre-, during, and post-disaster preparedness is very important for enhancing communities' adaptive capacity for disaster prevention, our results reveal that the government is not perceived as performing well in this regard, and should concentrate on improving the aforementioned preparation and integration. These findings are intended to assist in strengthening the awareness of disaster prevention among community residents and to help local governments to develop community-capacity-based disaster management, both of which are crucial for the sustainability of disaster management.
Finally, by using the method of description to reveal respondents' disaster prevention awareness and perceptions of community adaptive ability, our results evidence the fact that a majority of both urban and suburban residents believe their communities lack the ability to deal with "real" disasters, and furthermore, feel their communities haven't established disaster prevention organizations. Moreover, while most members of both groups are not members of community disaster prevention organizations, they expressed a willingness to participate in disaster management education and training courses, and to cooperate with the local government to implement disaster management. Thereby, when communities carry out earthquake disaster management program, they should consider should consider issues like enhancing community awareness and perception of earthquake disasters and their capacity for disaster prevention.

Conclusion
The CEDM framework can minimize the casualties and property damage when they are exposed to disaster risks, and also making publics more resilient to disasters. This study showing the evaluation framework of CEDM should integrate the community ability to perceive changes in earthquakes and to be aware of disasters, reorganize and improve the ability of communities in earthquake disaster management, and have disaster prevention and mitigation capabilities. Capacity building is the main factor for CEDM and community adaptability is also the core issue to community capacity building. Enhancing community capacity and develop an appropriate CEDM plan, managers must determine to conduct regular disaster prevention drills, conduct drills in cooperation with local governments, train to become disaster prevention vanguards, and convene non-governmental organizations and government forces to respond to disasters. Decision makers should focus on improving the CEDM strategy and its implementation, improve the community's awareness of disaster prevention and resilience, and strengthen the cooperative relationship between the community and the government and NPOs. Encouraging the community's participation is the best way to improve the efficiency of post-disaster recovery and reduce casualties, property losses, and also to improve community disaster management capacity. Finally, the CEDM should strive to involve community residents with a view to improving the management quality, restoring service delivery, enhancing social inclusion, and bringing greater transparency and accountability to this area of activity.
Author contributions B-CL contributed to data curation, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing; C-HL contributed to conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, supervision and writing-review and editing.