Development of an Index to Measure Stakeholder Approaches ... › publication › fulltext › Developm... › publication › fulltext › Developm...by SMH Mojtahedia · 2014 · Cited by 12 — PhD candidate, School of Civil Enginneting, The University of Sydney, ... T
ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 18 (2014) 95 – 102
4th International Conference on Building Resilience, Building Resilience 2014, 8-10 September 2014, Salford Quays, United kingdom
Development of an Index to Measure Stakeholder Approaches toward Disasters in the Built Environment S. Mohammad H. Mojtahedia,*, Bee-Lan Oob PhD candidate, School of Civil Enginneting, The University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, Australia b Senior lecturer, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW, Sydney, 2052, Australia
Abstract Disasters jeopardize society, performance of economy, built environment, and other socio-economic and physical determinants not only in developing countries but also in developed nations. For example, every year Australian communities are subjected to the damaging impacts of disasters associated with climate change and sea level rise. Far little literature on disaster stakeholder management is present and even that has not scrutinized the concept in terms of stakeholder’s proactive and/or reactive approaches toward disasters. In addition, there exists insufficient information and support for developing and application of measurement tools to assess stakeholder’s responses to disasters. Hence, the aim of this study is to develop an index to measure Australian stakeholder’s approaches - proactive and/or reactive - against disasters in transport infrastructure. The Stakeholder Disaster Response Index (SDRI) is a composite index that allows direct comparison of stakeholders’ approaches, and describes the relative contributions of socio-economic, built environment and stakeholder’s attributes to that overall response. Results indicate that Australian Councils have chosen more reactive approaches than proactive tasks; moreover, stakeholder’s attributes are significant factor contributing to the implementation of proactive and/or reactive approaches, even when controlling for contextual characteristics. The research concludes the anticipated benefits of SDRI for direct comparison of different stakeholder’s approaches against disasters in society and the built environment. Such a comparison could be useful for governments, emergency institutions, and disaster management organizations as they allocate scarce resources among various stakeholders. Insurance and reinsurance companies could employ it as they plan their portfolio diversification and establish premiums for disaster insurance policies. Finally, it paves the way for stakeholders to have comprehensive plans for resilient built environment by taking more proactive approaches in disaster risk management. © 2014 2014 The The Authors. Authors.Published PublishedbybyElsevier ElsevierB.V. B.V. © This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and/or peer-reviewed under responsibility of the Huddersfield Centre for Disaster Resilience, University of Selection and/or peer-reviewed under responsibility of the Centre for Disaster Resilience, School of the Built Environment, Huddersfield. University of Salford.
* S. Mohammad H. Mojtahedi. Tel.: +61-2-93515155; fax: +61-2-93513343. E-mail address:
[email protected]
2212-5671 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and/or peer-reviewed under responsibility of the Centre for Disaster Resilience, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00918-6
96
S. Mohammad H. Mojtahedi and Oo Bee-Lan / Procedia Economics and Finance 18 (2014) 95 – 102 Keywords: Disaster risk management; stakeholder approaches; built environment
1. Introduction Davidson and Lambert (2001) explained that natural disaster indices are appealing because they summarize a substantial amount of technical information in a way that people can easily understand. The benefits include (Cutter et al., 2003, Davidson and Lambert, 2001, Simpson and Katirai, 2006): (i) providing a more dynamic picture of disaster; (ii) comparison of vulnerability between different communities; (iii) efficient allocation of scarce resources; (iv) assessing disaster risk more effectively and accurately; and (v) understanding community preparedness. There have been few studies on developing disaster risk management indices, for example, Davidson and Lambert (2001) developed Hurricane Disaster Risk Index (HDRI) to compare the risk of hurricane disaster in U.S. coastal counties. Peduzzi (2006) designed multiple logarithmic regression model for natural disasters to measure the number of killed from catastrophes. A disaster risk management performance index is developed by (Carreño et al., 2007) to integrate four policies namely disaster risk identification, risk reduction, disaster management, and governance and financial protection. Balica et al. (2012) calculated Coastal City Flood Vulnerability Index (CCFVI) which is based on exposure, susceptibility and resilience to coastal flooding. The index demonstrates vulnerability of coasta
