Think I’ve found a functional link! http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:3303/WRR_2015_engl_online.pdf

While it’s a good summary, the assessed indices do not appear to be as comprehensive as the DRR ones are. (There’s a job in here for you Chris!) There are also a few indices used to make generalisations about a given country’s resilience / the inverse of its assessed vulnerability by the World Risk Report’s calculations. For example, the number of physicians per 10,000 inhabitants and the number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants are used to calculate a given nation’s capacity to mount an adequate medical response to a disaster, or cope with its aftermath. Needless to say, there are far many more elements in healthcare systems than physicians and hospital beds – primary care facilities, first responders (e.g. paramedics), nursing care, provisional of adequate medicines, the type of physician available (surgeon? GP? Critical care provider? Psychiatrist? All very important roles in a disaster but all with different skill sets!), the facilities each hospital bed has (not every ‘bed’ is equal – intensive care bed? Are the beds close to emergency equipment? Are they close to each other and thus enabling easy dissemination of infectious diseases?), etc. etc… Furthermore, there are better indicators of a healthcare system’s ability to cope, but many of those would require adequate assessments undertaken in the DRR / pre-disaster stage of the DRR cycle. So while this is a nice overall comparision of these countries, I would be hesitant to call it comprehensive or definitive.

Agreed with Matt and Michael B: FEWS NET seems a bit more comprehensive!