INTRODUCTION:
Disaster vulnerability and resilience indices have proliferated as a technique that purports to measure how communities may be impacted by future disasters. These are quantitative tools that mathematically combine data, typically administrative data, into single or small sets of numbers intended to represent the resilience or vulnerability of a community. These tools have been developed by researchers for the twin purposes of studying the phenomena of vulnerability and resilience, and guiding decision makers in resource allocation.

METHODS:
Scoping review integrating epidemiological analysis and theoretical bioethics methodology.

RESULTS:
There are numerous ethical issues in how disaster indices are created and used, including that by collapsing diverse communities into a single number, researchers may promote an ecological fallacy leading to inappropriate priority setting that does not align with community need. As such, the use of disaster indices when engaging in preparedness programs and other epidemiological interventions may lead to inequitable resource distribution. These indices also typically do not include new data, with a reliance on proxy measures that may lack relevance to disasters. Data used in indices may be poor quality or collected without explicit consent, particularly from disadvantaged communities. The practice of developing these indices presents resource allocation issues of its own. Developing an index typically requires limited resources and no research ethics approval and is thus an easy route to an academic publication for researchers, or a flashy graphic-filled report for practitioners. However, the time spent on this research potentially diverts resources away from more valuable ends.

CONCLUSIONS:
Alternative approaches to composite indices, that engage with and empower global communities and enable them to properly articulate their full and diverse needs should be supported in preference over methods that attempt to reduce people and complex situations into a number.