Volume 16, Issue 4 (10-2024)
jorar 2024, 16(4): 236-244 |
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:
Nojavan M, Omidvar B, Sahba M, Karimi Kivi H. Modelling the Factors Affecting Disaster Management using Second Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis. jorar 2024; 16 (4) :236-244
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-966-en.html
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-966-en.html
PhD, Department of Environmental Planning, Natural Disaster Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (60 Views)
INTRODUCTION: One of the environmental issues faced by the majority of large human settlements in the world is natural disasters and their effects. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to present a model using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) for explaining the relationship between the factors affecting disaster management in order to improve its effectiveness.
METHODS: In this study, quantitative method were used. For identifying the factors influencing disaster management, thematic analysis and second-order confirmatory factor analysis were used and confirmed through SmartPLS. Then the main model of the study was developed based on ISM using the views of experts in the field of disaster management.
FINDINGS: The findings showed that risk evaluation, risk management, and management actions were the fundamental factors in the disaster management model which consisted of 19 sub-factors. Convergent validity of the study was found to be higher than 0.5 based on Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and reliability was higher than 0.7 based on Cronbach’s alpha, also Composite Reliability (CR) was calculated to be larger than 0.6, which showed that the suggested factors completely measure the intended concept in the study.
CONCLUSION: According to the results, the proposed model shows the relation between factors affecting reduction of damages caused by disasters using the ISM. It can be used in different stages of disaster management because it explains the relation between 12 levels of different factors and enables managers and planners to clearly understand what activities need to be taken for more effective disaster management.
METHODS: In this study, quantitative method were used. For identifying the factors influencing disaster management, thematic analysis and second-order confirmatory factor analysis were used and confirmed through SmartPLS. Then the main model of the study was developed based on ISM using the views of experts in the field of disaster management.
FINDINGS: The findings showed that risk evaluation, risk management, and management actions were the fundamental factors in the disaster management model which consisted of 19 sub-factors. Convergent validity of the study was found to be higher than 0.5 based on Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and reliability was higher than 0.7 based on Cronbach’s alpha, also Composite Reliability (CR) was calculated to be larger than 0.6, which showed that the suggested factors completely measure the intended concept in the study.
CONCLUSION: According to the results, the proposed model shows the relation between factors affecting reduction of damages caused by disasters using the ISM. It can be used in different stages of disaster management because it explains the relation between 12 levels of different factors and enables managers and planners to clearly understand what activities need to be taken for more effective disaster management.
Keywords: Disaster management, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), Second order confirmatory factor analysis, SmartPLS, Thematic analysis
Article Type: Research article |
Subject:
Other matters related to crisis, disasters and rescue & relief
References
1. McEntire, D.A. Issues in disaster relief: progress, perpetual problems and prospective solutions, Disaster Prevention and Management, 1999;8(5): 351-61. [DOI:10.1108/09653569910298279]
2. Albert, Y.C., Feniosky P.M., Albert, P.P., Saumil, J.M. and Zeeshan, A. Supporting Urban Search and Rescue with digital assessments of structures and requests of response resources, Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2012; 26(4):833-845. [DOI:10.1016/j.aei.2012.06.004]
3. Adger, W.N. Hodbod, J. et al. Handbook of sustainable development, Cheltenham, UK., Northampton, MA, USA, Section I, 2014: 91-104.
4. Dutta V., War on the dream, how land use dynamics and peri-urban growth characteristics of a sprawling city devour the master plan and urban suitability, a fuzzy multi criteria decision making approach, proceeded in 13th Global Development Conference Urbanization and Development: Delving Deeper into the Nexus, Budapest, Hungary. 2012 [DOI:10.1177/0975425312473226]
5. Jha A.K., Miner, T.W. and Zuzana, S.G. Building urban resilience: principles, tools, and practice, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2013 [DOI:10.1596/978-0-8213-8865-5]
6. León, J. and March, A. Urban morphology as a tool for supporting tsunami rapid resilience: a case study of Talcahuano, Chile, Habitat International, 2014; 43:250-262. [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.04.006]
7. Asgary, A. Theorizing disaster and emergency management, in Raj Kumar, C and Srivastava, D.K. (Eds), Tsunami and Disaster Management: Law and Governance, Thomson, Hong Kong. 2006
8. Quarantelli, E. L. Twenty criteria for evaluating disaster planning and managing and their applicability in developing societies, Preliminary Paper No. 199, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware. 1994
9. Gaillard, J.C. Resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards, Disaster Prevention and Management, 2007; 16(4): 522-544. [DOI:10.1108/09653560710817011]
10. Kasdan, D.O. Considering socio-cultural factors of disaster risk management, Disaster Prevention and Management, 2016; 25(4): 464-477. [DOI:10.1108/DPM-03-2016-0055]
11. Alexander, D.E. The game changes: disaster prevention and management after a quarter of a century, Disaster Prevention and Management, 2016; 25(1):2-10. [DOI:10.1108/DPM-11-2015-0262]
12. Scott Z., Wooster, Kelly et al. Monitoring and evaluating disaster risk management capacity, Disaster Prevention and Management, 2016; 25(3): 412-422. [DOI:10.1108/DPM-01-2016-0002]
13. Thakkar, J., Patel, A. D., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S. G. ISM of IT-Enablers for Indian Manufacturing SMEs, Information Management and Computer Security, 2008; 16(2):113-136. [DOI:10.1108/09685220810879609]
14. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 1981; 48: 39-50. [DOI:10.1177/002224378101800104]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
