Volume 11, Issue 1 (1-2019)
jorar 2019, 11(1): 29-35 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Amiraslani J, Omidvar B, Shobeiri S M. Prioritization of Crisis Management Practical Measures in the Field of Drought Using Views of Executive Managers. jorar 2019; 11 (1) :29-35
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-568-en.html
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-568-en.html
Department of Environmental Engineering, School of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2378 Views)
Introduction: Drought is considered as a complex and creeping natural hazard associated with pervasive socio-economic and environmental impacts. Given the water reserves, per capita consumption, and average rainfall, Iran can be regarded as one of the countries facing the risk of lack of physical water resources and therefore proper management of drought in the country is an important issue. The main objective in the present study was to identify the dimensions gaining less attention in the context of executive drought management measures.
METHODS: This was an applied-developmental study performed with the field method along with documentary studies. The data collection tool, data collection method, and data analysis method were a researcher-made questionnaire, structured interview, Q methodology using factor analysis, respectively. The statistical population of the study consisted of 12 executives of the Forests, Range, and Watershed Management Organization, Deputy ABFA of ministry of energy, Agricultural Promotion, Training, and Development Organization, and Deputy Minister of Water and Soil of Ministry of Agricultural Jihad active in drought management executive actions in the country. To derive the questionnaire items using the expert opinion, 24 items on drought management performance measures were selected in four technical-structural, socio-economic, managerial, and environmental-climatic aspects and factor interpretation was performed on them.
FINDINGS: Based on the factor analysis of the results, the two technical-oriented and management-centered technical-oriented subjective models that both criticized the executive actions in the socio-economic dimension, were specified among the executives of the drought management field. Thus, according to the experts, most problems in the country in the field of drought management were in the socio-economic sector and most of the achievements in the technical-structural dimension.
CONCLUSION: The results of the viewpoints of the executive managers indicated that most of them considered health promotion in drought crisis as one of the achievements of the executive measures in this field in the country which can be used as a strength in future planning.
METHODS: This was an applied-developmental study performed with the field method along with documentary studies. The data collection tool, data collection method, and data analysis method were a researcher-made questionnaire, structured interview, Q methodology using factor analysis, respectively. The statistical population of the study consisted of 12 executives of the Forests, Range, and Watershed Management Organization, Deputy ABFA of ministry of energy, Agricultural Promotion, Training, and Development Organization, and Deputy Minister of Water and Soil of Ministry of Agricultural Jihad active in drought management executive actions in the country. To derive the questionnaire items using the expert opinion, 24 items on drought management performance measures were selected in four technical-structural, socio-economic, managerial, and environmental-climatic aspects and factor interpretation was performed on them.
FINDINGS: Based on the factor analysis of the results, the two technical-oriented and management-centered technical-oriented subjective models that both criticized the executive actions in the socio-economic dimension, were specified among the executives of the drought management field. Thus, according to the experts, most problems in the country in the field of drought management were in the socio-economic sector and most of the achievements in the technical-structural dimension.
CONCLUSION: The results of the viewpoints of the executive managers indicated that most of them considered health promotion in drought crisis as one of the achievements of the executive measures in this field in the country which can be used as a strength in future planning.
Short Reports or Letters: Research Article |
Subject:
حمایت روانی در سوانح
References
1. Romm J. Climate change: What everyone needs to know. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
2. Mishra AK, Singh VP. A review of drought concepts. J Hydrol 2010; 391(1): 202-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012]
3. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Land and drought (Online). (cited 2019); Available from: URL: https://www.unccd.int/issues/land-and-drought
4. Doostan R. Analysis of the Iran droughts in the past half century. Journal of Climate Research 2016; 6(23-24): 106-7. [In Persian]
5. Walker M, Thers A. Drought as a natural hazard. Drought: A Global Assessment 1996; 1(5): 3-18.
6. Darijani A, Shah Hosseini Dastjerdi S, Shahnooshi N, Kohansal MR. risk strategic management pattern: Case study Golestan province. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Plant, Water, oil and Weather Modeling; 2013 May 8-9; Kerman, Iran. [In Persian]
7. Poortaheri M, Eftekhari AR, Kazemi N. The role of drought risk management approach in reducing social-economic vulnerability of farmers and rural regions case study: Sulduz rural district, Azarbaijan Gharbi. Journal of Rural Research 2013; 4(1): 7-13. [In Persian]
8. Heydari Sareban V, Bakhtiar S. Exploring Drought Facing Solution in Rural Area: Case Study Isfahan Province. Journal of Geographic and Environmental Research 2015; 15: 19-34. [In Persian]
9. Zobeidi T, Yazdanpanah M, Forouzani M, Khosravipour B. Typology of wheat and vegetable farmers' perception towards climate change through of q-methodology. Journal of Rural Research 2016; 7(2): 374-91. [In Persian] [DOI:10.21859/jjr-07028]
10. Motamedi A, Baharlooee Bardshahi D. Integrated drought management program. Journal of Water and Sustainable Development 2017; 4(1): 117-24. [In Persian].
11. Esmaili F, Khodad M. Drought Risk Management and its Impact on Economic Improvement of Rural Farmers; A Case Study on Bonab Township. Journal of Applied Studies in Management and Development Science 2018; 2(2): 1-10. [In Persian]
12. Brown SR. Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In: Berry WD, Lewis-Beck MS, Editors. New Tools for Social Scientists: Advances and Applications in Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1986. p. 57-76.
13. De Graaf G. Q methodology: A sneak preview (Online). (cited 2005); Available from: URL: http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf
14. Donner JC. Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. Social Development Papers 2001; 36: 24-49.
15. Khoshgooyanfard AR. Q Methodology. Tehran, Iran: IRIB Publications; 2007. [In Persian].
16. Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP. Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2009.
17. Moree W. Q-Methodology explained by comparing q-sort survey with conventional r-sample survey and relating factor analysis described. Civil Eng Res J 1(2) 2017; 1(2): 555560. [DOI:10.19080/CERJ.2017.01.555560]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
