ARCOM

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 43 results ...

Aijazi, O (2015) Social repair and structural inequity: implications for disaster recovery practice. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 454-67.

Alabi, A S, Adegbile, M, Alabi, O, Abisuga, O, Oyewole, K and Oshodi, O (2017) Stakeholders’ role in disaster-risk-reduction of fire occurrences in Lagos Metropolis. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 425-40.

Alhmoudi, A A and Aziz, Z (2016) Integrated framework for early warning system in UAE. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 361-73.

Allender, C, Sutrisna, M and Zaman, A U (2017) Towards developing robust climate risk management strategies in the estuarine park of the Swan River, Western Australia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 441-62.

Aslani, F, Amini Hosseini, K and Fallahi, A (2020) A framework for earthquake resilience at neighborhood level. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 557–75.

Cai, H, Rahman, A, Su, X and Zhang, H (2014) A GIS-microscopic simulation approach for optimizing road barrier placement and configuration in university campus emergency evacuation. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(04), 362-79.

Chinowsky, P, Schweikert, A, Hughes, G, Hayles, C S, Strzepek, N, Strzepek, K and Westphal, M (2015) The impact of climate change on road and building infrastructure: a four-country study. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 382-96.

Eltinay, N (2019) City-to-city exchange: redefining “resilience” in the Arab region. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 222–38.

Espada, R, Apan, A and McDougall, K (2017) Vulnerability assessment of urban community and critical infrastructures for integrated flood risk management and climate adaptation strategies. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 375-411.

Freitas, F and Mendes, J M (2019) Disaster, reconstruction, and data for social good: the case of wildfires in Portugal. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 239–47.

Greene, I, Lokuge, W and Karunasena, W (2020) Structural design of floodways under extreme flood loading. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 535–55.

Hobeica, L and Hobeica, A (2019) How adapted are built-environment professionals to flood adaptation?. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 248–59.

Horney, J, Simon, M C, Ricchetti-Masterson, K and Berke, P (2016) Resident perception of disaster recovery planning priorities. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 330-43.

Jamshed, A, Rana, I A, McMillan, J M and Birkmann, J (2019) Building community resilience in post-disaster resettlement in Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 301–15.

Jordan, E, Javernick-Will, A and Amadei, B (2014) A qualitative comparative analysis of neighborhood recovery following Hurricane Katrina. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(04), 391-412.

Kakimoto, R and Yamada, F (2016) Autonomous evacuation and local community. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 374-87.

Kankanamge, N, Yigitcanlar, T, Goonetilleke, A and Kamruzzaman, M (2020) How can gamification be incorporated into disaster emergency planning? A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 481–506.

Kim, H and Kakimoto, R (2016) An international comparative analysis of local hazard mitigation plan evaluation for flood: The USA, Japan and Korea. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 406-19.

Kirby, A M, Dietz, J E, Matson, E T, Pekny, J F and Wojtalewicz, C (2015) Major city evacuation planning using simulation modeling. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 397-408.

Korstanje, M E (2014) Chile helps Chile: exploring the effects of earthquake Chile 2010. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(04), 380-90.

Kuittinen, M and Takano, A (2017) The energy efficiency and carbon footprint of temporary homes: a case study from Japan. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 326-43.

Labaka, L, Hernantes, J and Sarriegi, J M (2015) A framework to improve the resilience of critical infrastructures. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 409-23.

Laugé, A, Hernantes, J and Sarriegi, J M (2015) Analysis of disasters impacts and the relevant role of critical infrastructures for crisis management improvement. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 424-37.

Lee, D W (2020) An exploratory assessment of infrastructure resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 519–33.

Lummen, N S, Shirozu, H, Okada, N and Yamada, F (2016) Flood risk management an illustrative approach. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 388-405.

MacAskill, K and Guthrie, P (2016) Disaster risk reduction and empowering local government – a case comparison between Sri Lanka and New Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 318-29.

MacKenzie, A (2017) Planning for the redevelopment after a fire event. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 344-56.

Mandal, S (2014) Supply chain resilience: a state-of-the-art review and research directions. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(04), 427-53.

Mandal, S, Bhattacharya, S, Korasiga, V R and Sarathy, R (2017) The dominant influence of logistics capabilities on integration: Empirical evidence from supply chain resilience. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 357-74.

Martins, A N and Rocha, A (2019) Risk and resilient architectural practices in informal settlements – the role of NGOs. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 276–88.

Nakanishi, H, Black, J and Matsuo, K (2014) Disaster resilience in transportation: Japan earthquake and tsunami 2011. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(04), 341-61.

Novak, V M, Fernandez-Anez, N and Shiraishi, K (2017) Rethinking resilience planning: from problems to potential. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(04), 412-24.

Okoli, J (2020) Expert knowledge elicitation in the firefighting domain and the implications for training novices. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 577–8.

Ophiyandri, T, Amaratunga, D and Keraminiyage, K (2016) Advantages and limitations of community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction projects. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 420-31.

Panda, A and Bower, A (2020) Cyber security and the disaster resilience framework. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 507–18.

Pinheiro, A T K and Hokugo, A (2019) Effectiveness of early warning and community cooperation for evacuation preparedness from mega-risk type coastal hazard in childcare centers. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 260–75.

Rahmayati, Y (2016) Reframing “building back better” for post-disaster housing design: a community perspective. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(04), 344-60.

Saja, A A, Teo, M, Goonetilleke, A, Ziyath, A and Gunatilake, J (2020) Selection of surrogates to assess social resilience in disaster management using multi-criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(04), 453–80.

• Type: Journal Article
• Keywords: Disaster resilience; Community resilience; Resilience measurement; Social resilience; Resilience indicator; Surrogates; Resilience assessment;
• ISBN/ISSN: 1759-5908
• URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2019-0045
• Abstract:
  The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for evaluation and ranking of potential surrogates to select the optimum surrogates and test it for five selected social resilience indicators in a disaster context. Innovative resilience assessment approaches are required to capture key facets of resilience indicators to deepen the understanding of social resilience. Surrogates can adequately represent the target indicator that is difficult to measure, as surrogates are defined as key facets of a target indicator. To optimize the selection of surrogates, five key evaluation criteria were used. Disaster management experts completed an online survey questionnaire and evaluated three potential surrogate options. Surrogates were then ranked using PROMETHEE, a multi-experts multi-criteria group decision analysis technique. A framework was devised to evaluate and rank potential surrogates to assess social resilience in a disaster context. The findings revealed that the first ranked surrogate can be the most critical facet of a resilience indicator of measure. In most instances, highly experienced cohort of practitioners and policy makers have aligned their preferences of surrogates with the overall ranking of surrogates obtained in this study. The surrogate approach can also be tested in different disaster and geographic contexts. The resilience indicators used in this study to explore surrogates are largely applicable in all contexts. However, the preference of surrogates may also vary in different contexts. Once the surrogate is selected through an evaluation process proposed in this paper, the resilience status can be updated regularly with the help of the selected surrogate. The first ranked surrogate for each of the social resilience indicator can be applied, since the findings revealed that the first ranked surrogate can be the most critical facet in the context of the social resilience indicator being measured. The framework and the selection of optimal surrogates will assist to overcome the conceptual and methodical challenges of social resilience assessment. The applicability of selected surrogates by practitioners and policymakers in disaster management will play a vital role in resilience investment decision-making at the community level. The surrogate approach has been used in the fields of ecology and clinical medicine to overcome the challenges in measuring difficult to measure indicators. The use of surrogates in this study to measure social resilience indicators in a disaster context is innovative, which was not yet explored in resilience measurement in disaster management.

Shieh, E, Habibi, K, Torabi, K and Masoumi, H E (2014) Earthquake risk in urban street network: an example from Region 6 of Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(04), 413-26.

Strang, K D D (2015) Developing prescriptive environmental protection models from descriptive human accident behavior. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 438-53.

Vahanvati, M and Rafliana, I (2019) Reliability of Build Back Better at enhancing resilience of communities. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 208–21.

Zapico, F, Hernandez, J, Borromeo, T, McNally, K, Dizon, J and Fernando, E (2019) Traditional agro-ecosystems in Southern Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(04), 289–300.

Zhang, J, Zou, W and Kumaraswamy, M (2015) Developing public private people partnership (4P) for post disaster infrastructure procurement. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(04), 468-84.