Jàmbá - Journal of Disaster Risk Studies
ISSN: (Online) 2072-845X, (Print) 1996-1421
Page 1 of 9
Original Research
How to improve public participation in disaster
risk management: A case study of
Buein Zahra, a small city in Iran
Authors:
Mojtaba Valibeigi1
Majid Feshari2
Fatemeh Zivari1
Artemis Motamedi3
Affiliations:
1
Department of Urban
Planning, Buein Zahra
Technical University,
Buein Zahra, Islamic
Republic of Iran
Department of General
Economic Affairs, Kharazmi
University, Tehran, Islamic
Republic of Iran
2
Department of Civil
Engineering, Buein Zahra
Technical University,
Buein Zahra, Islamic
Republic of Iran
3
Corresponding author:
Mojtaba Valibeigi,
mojtaba.valibeigi@gmail.com
Dates:
Received: 24 Aug. 2018
Accepted: 26 Oct. 2018
Published: 26 Aug. 2019
How to cite this article:
Valibeigi, M., Feshari, M.,
Zivari, F. & Motamedi, A.,
2019, ‘How to improve public
participation in disaster risk
management: A case study
of Buein Zahra, a small city
in Iran’, Jàmbá: Journal of
Disaster Risk Studies 11(1),
a741. https://doi.org/
10.4102/jamba.v11i1.741
Copyright:
© 2019. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Read
Read online:
online:
Scan
Scan this
this QR
QR
code
code with
with your
your
smart
smart phone
phone or
or
mobile
mobile device
device
to
to read
read online.
online.
Identifying and providing basic solutions using a collaborative approach in earthquakestricken cities of Iran has not yet been addressed. This article focuses on an area of practice and
views disaster risk management from the point of view of volunteer groups to illustrate
how the main components of disaster risk management affect the strengthening of public
participation. In this article, Buein Zahra, a small city in Iran, is considered as a high-risk
earthquake zone. The basic components of risk management are identified, namely public
awareness, knowledge, skills, enabling environment, organisational development and social
participation. An assessment of these indicators was done, and multidimensional relationships
were established between them to enable an increase in the capacity for public participation.
Accordingly, the results indicate that a mere increase in public awareness and knowledge, as
seen today, and an improvement in enabling environment, although affecting disaster risk
reduction, cannot by themselves lead to real public participation. Organisational development
and strengthening of crisis coping skills are two key components to improving participation
during crises in the small cities of Iran. According to the results of this study, institutional
capacity and unreal political commitment have caused inefficiency of public participation in
earthquake preparedness.
Keywords: disaster risk management; disaster risk reduction; community participation;
enabling environment; organisational development; earthquake risk management.
Introduction
Iran is exposed to a high level of seismic hazards throughout the country. It has become evident
that a long-term vision is required to reduce the level of risk for the population (ISDR 2004;
Peduzzi et al. 2009). During the last 50 years, earthquakes have killed more than 180 000
people. Many cities, including Buein Zahra (7.2 ML), Tabas (7.7 ML), Rudbar-Manjil (7.4 ML)
and Bam (6.5 ML), have persistent significant damage because of high-magnitude earthquake
activities. Review of the historical seismic data shows that almost all parts of the country are
affected by the physical, social and economic problems associated with earthquakes (Giardini
et al. 1999). According to the earthquake zoning map, 67% of the vast area of Iran is at risk
of an earthquake and only 3% of the cities in Iran are in low-risk areas (ISDR 2004). The
development of a national policy of disaster risk reduction (DRR) was promoted largely by
scientific groups and technical interests. After the Manjil earthquake in 1999, a multilateral and
interdisciplinary national earthquake risk reduction plan was developed. The plan, as shown
in Figure 1, pursued four basic goals. In the interim, factors such as increasing the capacity of
citizenship participation and the institutional capacity of society in disasters have not been
considered adequately (Ghafory-Ashtiany & Hosseini 2008).
Existing experience has indicated that after a disaster, urban management does not have the
necessary effectiveness. Disasters are growing in domain and impact as a result of the combination
of increasing population density and asset stocks, inappropriate and exploitative land use,
unplanned settlements and lack of public awareness on risk reduction by authorities and citizens
at large (ISDR 2008). One of the issues that causes this is low community participation capacity.
Buein Zahra, as a small-sized city in Iran, has still not been provided with the primary components
of earthquake risk management. Accordingly, the main purpose of this research was identification
of the primary components of earthquake risk management in small-sized cities in Iran and then
investigation of their effects on strengthening and improving community participation capacity.
Among the small cities in Iran, Buein Zahra was selected. This city, located south of Qazvin
Province in the central plateau of Iran, has 18 000 inhabitants. This county is located on the Aipak
http://www.jamba.org.za
Open Access
Page 2 of 9
Original Research
Basic goals of the national earthquake
risk reduction programme
Apply appropriate
environment
technology
Increase public
awareness
Reduce structural
vulnerabilities and
improve standards
Increase scientific
knowledge
- Organisations
- Mechanisms
- Orientations
- Consistency and standard
messaging
- Legitimacy and credibility
- Scalability
- Sustainability
Source: Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. & Hosseini, M., 2008, ‘Post-Bam earthquake: Recovery and
reconstruction’, Natural Hazards 44(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-0079108-3.
FIGURE 1: Basic goals of the national earthquake risk reduction programme.
Awareness
Organisational
development
and Eshtehard faults. It should be noted that the selected
region is one of the high-seismic activity cities in Iran, which
has witnessed two devastating earthquakes, one of
magnitude 7.2 in 1962 and one of 6.3 in 2003. Moreover, in
recent years many weak earthquakes have been reported.
This article consists of four parts. Firstly, the primary
components of earthquake risk management are investigated.
Secondly, the research methodology is explained. Thirdly, the
primary components of disaster risk management (DRM)
are assessed and their effects on strengthening community
participation in Buein Zahra are analysed. Finally, a conceptual
model and suggestions for improving participation are
presented.
Building primary components of
disaster risk management from
the Hyogo Framework for Action
Risk is the probability of damaging events that is derived
from the confrontation of risks, social vulnerability and
nature (Smith 2013). The goal of risk reduction is to
design and create a context for reducing human losses and
protecting assets against natural hazards (see also Blaikie
et al. 2014; Dowrick 2009). Therefore DRM comprises the
range of activities before, during and after a disaster,
undertaken to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risk
throughout society, to avoid or to limit the adverse impact of
hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development
and paying attention to dimensions such as participation,
strengthening synergies and knowledge, empowering and
increasing capacities, improving the physical environment
and its capability (ISDR 2005; Kohler, Julich & Bloemertz
2004; Thomalla et al. 2006).
The Hyogo Framework provides comprehensive actionoriented policy guidance based on a comprehensive
understanding of disaster risks that arise from human
vulnerability to natural hazards. In the preparatory
negotiations on the framework, states stressed the need for
specific means, including indicators, to measure progress
toward the reduction of disaster risks. In particular, it
was requested in Paragraph 33c that the International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) system, supported by the
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNISDR) secretariat, coordinate the development of ‘generic,
realistic and measurable indicators’ for DRR. It encouraged
http://www.jamba.org.za
- Academic science
- Informal knowledge
Knowledge
Community
participation
Enabling
environment
- Necessary mechanisms and
incentives promote DRM
- Building codes
- The resilience of critical
infrastructure
Skills
- Decision-making and
problem-solving
- Creative and critical thinking
- Interpersonal relationships
- Self-awareness and empathy
- Coping with emotions and
stressors
DRM, disaster risk management.
FIGURE 2: Participation and risk management cycle.
states to develop and refine such indicators for national use.
Indicators, benchmarks and targets are commonly accepted
tools to focus and guide development investments, the
Millennium Development Goals being an important example.1
Finally, in the second and third principles, knowledge and
awareness were emphasised and the skill component was
considered as a subset of individual capacity building.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between participation and
the components of earthquake risk management.
Knowledge
Knowledge is created by accumulating and organising
information with respect to breadth, depth and amount.
Information is ‘data with meaning’ that makes a difference and
facts, data and information are necessary mediums for eliciting
and constructing knowledge (Weichselgartner & Pigeon 2015).
Public awareness
Even when academic and practitioner content is freely
accessible, it often remains empirical, unstructured and
meaningless facts. As a result, although risk information is
being generated and disseminated on a large scale, we do not
know how far it reaches and whether it changes risk
perceptions and public awareness levels (Weichselgartner &
Pigeon 2015). The ISDR defines public awareness as the
processes of informing the general population, increasing
levels of consciousness about risks and how people can act
to reduce their exposure to hazards. This is particularly
important for public officials in fulfilling their responsibilities
1.Strategies linked to ISDR for moving ahead on this goal were outlined in the ‘Road
Map towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration’
(UN 2001).
Open Access
Page 3 of 9
to save lives and property in the event of a disaster. Public
awareness activities foster changes in behaviour, leading
towards a culture of risk reduction. This involves public
information, dissemination, education, radio or television
broadcasts, use of printed media, as well as the establishment
of information centres and networks and community and
participation actions (UNISDR 2016).
Original Research
TABLE 1: Priorities for actions of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(2016).
Priorities
Building codes
- Standardisation of building materials; retrofitting and
rebuilding; rehabilitation and reconstruction practices
The resilience of critical
infrastructure
- Water, transportation and telecommunications
infrastructure, educational facilities, hospitals and
other health facilities
- Development of early warning systems
Skills
This level relates to the skills, experience and knowledge of
people that allow them to perform (Prevention Web 2017).
Therefore, over the years, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) has invested heavily in training and
skill-building of individual capacity in DRR and recovery.
However, training is only one methodology for capacity
development and it cannot be conducted as an isolated
intervention. The ISDR defines ‘capacity-building’ as efforts
aimed at developing human skills or societal infrastructures
within a community or organisation needed to reduce the
level of risk (UNISDR 2017). Skills include capabilities and
abilities that are mostly interactive and technical in nature
and that empower people in different situations, especially in
emergency and crisis situations, for admission and survival.
In addition, having the skills for constructive communication
and gaining acceptance by others is essential (Hollinger 1987).
Enabling environment
Sometimes referred to as the ‘societal’ or ‘institutional’
level, capacities at the level of an enabling environment (EE)
relate to the broader system within which individuals and
organisations function (Wignaraja 2009). Understanding the
EE can be obtained from the ‘institutional analyses’, ‘power
analysis’ or ‘drivers of change analysis’ increasingly being
undertaken by donor organisations as the basis for country
assistance plans (Brinkerhoff & Morgan 2010). Capacities
at this level relate to all the rules, laws and legislation,
policies, power relations and social norms (a set of previously
established rules, regulations, procedures and existing
conditions) (Wignaraja 2009). They are preserved as restoration
levels of its essential basic structures and functions (UNISDR
2017) and they take mitigating actions consistent with
achieving that level of protection (Thywissen 2006). To
achieve this, based on the action priorities of ISDR (2016),
local actions required in order to establish an EE can be
identified as shown in Table 1.
Organisational development and political
commitments
The organisational level of capacity comprises the internal
policies, arrangements, procedures and frameworks that
allow an organisation to operate and deliver on its mandate
and that enable the coming together of individual capacities
to work together and achieve goals. An EE pertains to the
broader system within which individuals and organisations
function and that facilitates or hampers their existence
and performance. This system comprises institutions
(CaDRI 2011). According to North (1991), these are made
http://www.jamba.org.za
Actions
Necessary mechanisms
- Land use and urban planning guideline including
and incentives promote
urban planning, land degradation and informal and
disaster risk management
non-permanent housing, access to basic healthcare
services
Source: ISDR, 2016, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, viewed 05
March 2018, from https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015.
up of formal constraints (rules, laws and constitutions),
informal constraints (norms of behaviour, conventions and
self-imposed codes of conduct) and their enforcement
characteristics. The development trends and dynamics and
the policy environment in which an entity operates in an
EE will be assessed, as well as its internal procedures and
frameworks on an organisational level.
For effective compliance as well as for sustainability
characteristics such as justice or participation, the objective
of DRR must be complemented by core organisational
objectives (Spangenberg 2002; Spangenberg, Pfahl & Deller
2002). To manage disaster risk, a clear vision, plans, competence,
guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well
as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed. Disaster
risk governance fosters collaboration and partnership across
mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of
instruments relevant to DRR (UNISDR 2015). The CDS’s (2007)
set of sustainability indicators was the first to explicitly take
into account the institutional dimension of sustainability. In
order to measure the effectiveness of the relevant institutions,
Spangenberg (2002) analysed regarding Agenda 21 institutional
content in three parts, including organisations, mechanisms
and orientations. Very broadly defined, political institutions,
as analysed by political science, are the rules by which political
decision-making and implementation is structured. They can
refer to social entities as actors as well as to systems of rules
shaping their behaviour, including the mechanisms for rule
enforcement. Political organisations encompass both: they are
social entities appearing as actors in political processes, as well
as systems of rules, structuring political behaviour and
facilitating societal orientations. Accordingly, based on the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR
2015) priorities, institutional development is analysed as
follows (Table 2).
Community participation
‘Community’ is understood as:
a group of people that may or may not live within the same area,
village or neighborhood, share a similar culture, habits and
resources. Communities are groups of people also exposed to the
same threats and risks such as disease, political and economic
issues and natural disasters. (IFRC 2014)
Disaster risk reduction requires engagement and partnership
by all of society. It also requires empowerment and inclusive,
Open Access
Page 4 of 9
Original Research
TABLE 2: Institutional development characteristics mainstream and integrate
disaster risk reduction within and across all sectors.
TABLE 3: Important factors in the effectiveness of community participation.
Characteristics
Features
Challenge
Good practices
Organisations
To allocate the necessary resources, including finance and
logistics, as appropriate, at all levels of administration for the
development and implementation of disaster risk reduction
strategies, policies, plans, laws and regulations in all relevant
sectors
Tokenistic participatory
systems
• Even though some advantages can be identified in
establishing institutionalised mechanisms, depending
on the context, autonomous systems of community
consultation might offer a more solid basis for
community involvement
Incomplete assessments
•
•
•
•
Procedural exclusion
• Ensuring participation throughout all the phases of
the DRR process and not just the final stages
• Clearly shaping and communicating the community’s
tasks and powers in the DRR process
• Informing community members of the reasons for
not adopting their suggestions
To support the role of public service workers to establish or
strengthen coordination and funding mechanisms and procedures
for relief assistance and plan and prepare for post-disaster
recovery and reconstruction
To strengthen the capacity of local authorities to evacuate
persons living in disaster-prone areas
Mechanisms
To carry out an assessment of the technical, financial and
administrative disaster risk management capacity
To formulate public policies, where applicable, aimed at
addressing the issues of prevention or relocation, where
possible, of human settlements in disaster prone zones,
subject to national law and legal systems
To establish a mechanism of case registry and a database of
mortality caused by disaster in order to improve the prevention of
morbidity and mortality
Community exclusion
• Engaging local media
because of lack of interest • Organising events to sensitise on DRR
or capacities
• Engaging community leaders
• Promoting volunteerism
• Organising trainings
• Promoting university courses on DRR
• Establishing knowledge management centres to
facilitate community access to relevant information
Promote local frameworks of laws, regulations and public policies
that, by defining roles and responsibilities, guide the public and
private sectors
Source: Pietropaolo, M.G., 2015, Observations on strengthening community participation in
disaster risk reduction in disaster law and policy, IFRC Publication, Geneva.
DRR, disaster risk reduction.
To ensure the continuity of operations and planning, including
social and economic recovery and the provision of basic services
in the post-disaster phase
Orientations
All-inclusive approach
Possibility to co-opt experts for specific sessions
Entrusting each group with a specific field of analysis
Separation of women and men during consultations
when necessary
• Engaging community leaders as members and not
chiefs of the DRR process
To promote public scrutiny and encourage institutional debates
To promote the integration of disaster risk reduction
considerations and measures in financial and fiscal instruments
To enhance recovery schemes to provide psychosocial support
and mental health services for all people in need
Source: Adapted from UNISDR, 2015, The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030, Resolution A/Res/69/283, viewed 18 March 2017, from http://www.unisdr.org/
files/resolutions/N1516716.pdf.
accessible and non-discriminatory participation, paying
special attention to people disproportionately affected by
disasters, especially the poorest. Gender, age, disability and
cultural perspectives should be integrated into all policies
and practices, and women and youth leadership should be
promoted. In this context, special attention should be paid to
the improvement of organised voluntary work of citizens
(UNISDR 2015).
Among the measures to be considered for the achievement of
this goal are the choice of the most appropriate participatory
system depending on the context, an inclusive approach,
the adoption of procedural guarantees and the promotion of
DRR among the population including through training and
education (Pietropaolo 2015).
These factors can be translated as the basic components of
DRR. Neglect of the examined aspects has indeed undermined,
in a plurality of contexts, legislative and policy efforts to
provide for effective community engagement in such a way as
to impair the ultimate goal of building resilience. Table 3 lists
the important factors for effective community participation
(Pietropaolo 2015).
Methodology
This study is part of a voluntary project entitled ‘Creating
Community Emergency Response Volunteers and Improving
DRM in Buein Zahra’; it concentrated on an area of practice
and viewed DRM through the eye of volunteer groups.
http://www.jamba.org.za
Surveying based on the field collection method was used
to determine the impact of the basic components of risk
management on social participation. The data collection
tool was a self-made questionnaire based on the framework
‘Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster Risks
and the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework
for Action’, and data collection took place in April and
May 2017.
Research methodology
The survey was designed to evaluate how residents perceive
their DRM at local level and what factors actually influence
their community participation. This survey questionnaire,
which contained 113 questions, asked about the sense of
satisfaction and level of dedicated and adequate resources
DRM. It was completed by approximately 480 participants
from Buein Zahra.
Statistical population
The statistical population is all the citizens of the city of
Buein Zahra, which is 18 310 according to the figures
calculated in coordination with the Buein Zahra city council
and municipality under a voluntary project entitled ‘Creating
Community Emergency Response Volunteers and Improving
DRM in Buein Zahra’.
Because the main objective of the project was to investigate
how to improve public participation in DRM from the
viewpoint of voluntary groups, non-probability sampling
(voluntary sampling) was used (Vehovar, Toepoel &
Steinmetz 2016). Accordingly, the sample was made up of
people who self-selected to participate in the survey and
had a strong interest in creating community emergency
response volunteers. People were informed of the study via
billboard and SMS during April and May 2017 and all
Open Access
Page 5 of 9
volunteers were invited to visit the Culture and Islamic
Guidance venue of Buein Zahra on 24 May 2017.
On the day of the gathering, firstly the importance of creating
community emergency response volunteers was described,
and efforts were made to ensure that contributors answered
the questions carefully. The volunteers also used the guidance
of the research group in the hall to answer questions in case
of ambiguity.
An interesting aspect of this survey was the presence of
different classes and ages during the gathering. The volunteer
sample distribution is shown in Table 4 based on age, sex and
education.
Research tools
Although the Hyogo Framework provides action guidance,
based on a comprehensive understanding of disaster risks,
there is still a need for specific tools to measure these
indicators. For this purpose, governments are encouraged to
develop indicators, benchmarks and targets to measure at
national to local levels. The study Indicators of Progress:
Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster Risks and
the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action was
launched by UNISDR in 2008 for this purpose. However,
while the indicators for the Strategic Goals of the Hyogo
Framework focus solely on national-level actions, the
indicators for the Priorities for Action can be formulated for
local and regional levels as well.
Based on this, a set of suggested indicators were proposed to
achieve the Hyogo Framework’s five priorities for action.
National and local organisations are encouraged to actively
use these indicators, in accordance with their mandated areas.
‘Indicators’ are defined here as an explicit measure of an
important factor relevant to the subject of disaster risk and its
reduction, where the indicator can be used to monitor
changes in the status of that factor.
Original Research
Many of the important factors for which indicators are
required will be rather qualitative. Consider the potential
indicator ‘Dedicated and adequate resources are available to
implement disaster risk reduction plans at all administrative
levels’. Its value can only be ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but either of these
answers could be misleading, because for example a country
with 95% compliance would still need to report ‘no’. One
way to address this problem is to qualitatively assess the
indicator using a graduated five-point scale from ‘no/minor
progress’ through to ‘full/substantial achievement’. Table 5
provides a generic scale of five achievement levels and is
proposed as an assessment tool for measuring indicators.
The table also includes examples of the application of the
assessment tool to the possible indicator ‘A strategy for data
provision for disaster risk reduction is in place’. In addition,
an indicative table of criteria to illustrate the qualification of
achievement for each of the five levels of progress in ISDR
(2008) is presented (Table 5). (See UNISDR 2008, annex 5.)
The indicators listed in Table 5 address the foundations of
an effective and well-integrated national DRR programme
oriented to implementing the Hyogo Framework. Many
other indicators could be formulated, for example to track
particular issues of concern, such as the status of vulnerable
groups or community emergency response volunteers,
sensitive ecosystems or settlements, or particular policy
objectives, in which case more detailed indicators are likely
to be necessary to adequately assess the desired achievements.
Local authorities are encouraged to explore options for
identifying and applying relevant and ‘additional’ indicators
in areas of concern. The intention at the national and
subregional levels will be to develop indicators tailored to
specific DRR and recovery projects, programmes and policies.
TABLE 5: Five-level assessment tool for use in grading achievement of qualitative
factors in indicators.
Level Generic description of
achievement
Examples of an assessment of the indicator
‘A strategy for data provision for disaster
risk reduction is in place’
5
Comprehensive achievement
has been attained, with the
commitment and capacity to
sustain efforts at all levels.
Systematic, properly resourced processes for
data collection and dissemination are in place,
with evaluation, analysis and improvements
being routinely undertaken. Plans and
commitments are publicised and the work is
well integrated into other programmers.
4
Substantial achievement has
been attained, but with some
recognised deficiencies in
commitment, financial
resources or operational
capacities.
Processes for data collection and
dissemination are in place for all hazards and
most vulnerability factors, but there are
shortcomings in dissemination and analysis
that are being addressed.
3
There is some commitment
and capacity to achieving
DRR but progress is not
substantial.
There is a systematic commitment to
collecting and archiving hazard data, but little
awareness of data needs for determining
vulnerability factors, and a lack of systematic
planning and operational skills.
2
Achievements have been
made but are relatively small
or incomplete, and while
improvements are planned
the commitment and
capacities are limited.
Some data collection and analysis has been
done in the past, but in an ad hoc way. There
are plans to improve data activities, but
resources and capacities are very limited.
1
Achievements are minor
and there are few signs of
planning or forward action
to improve the situation.
There is little awareness of the need to
systematically collect and analyse data related
to disaster events and climatic risks.
TABLE 4: Sample community information based on age, sex and education.
Variable
Sample (%)
Sex
1-1-1
Female
52.21
Male
47.79
Age
2-1-1
<65
2.91
65–45
30.0
44–25
36.87
24–15
26.87
≤14
3.55
Education
3-1-1
Illiterate
0.62
Primary
4.38
High school
7.08
Diploma
32.29
Associate’s degree
16.04
Bachelor’s degree
22.3
Master’s degree
17.29
http://www.jamba.org.za
Source: ISDR, 2008, Indicators of progress: Guidance on measuring the reduction of disaster
risks and the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, United Nations secretariat
of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), Geneva, Switzerland.
DRR, disaster risk reduction.
Open Access
Page 6 of 9
TABLE 6: Criteria and basic indicators of earthquake risk reduction.
Indicators
Subindicators
N
Knowledge
Academia’s best contribution to problem resolution
12 0.74‡
í†
Original Research
TABLE 7: Cluster classification of the basic components of disaster risk
management.
Indicators
Cluster classification
of component levels†
Informal knowledge
Public
awareness
Consistency and standard messaging
14
0.78
Low
Knowledge
36.81
38.45
Formal knowledge
26.30
35.54
38.16
Informal knowledge
23.17
38.09
38.74
21.85
31.64
46.51
Consistency and standard messaging
19.10
31.54
49.36
Communication and interpersonal relationships
Scalability
12.13
35.99
51.88
Self-awareness and empathy
Legitimacy and credibility
32.22
28.57
39.21
Coping with emotions and stressors
Sustainability
23.95
30.45
45.60
40.66
33.64
25.70
Decision-making and problem-solving
42.82
37.54
19.64
Creative thinking and critical thinking
41.39
33.76
24.85
Interpersonal relationships
27.59
32.97
39.44
Self-awareness and empathy
46.26
29.03
24.71
Coping with emotions and stressors
45.24
34.91
19.85
44.99
26.99
28.02
Incomplete assessments
Tokenistic participatory systems
38.75
30.10
31.15
Procedural exclusion
Incomplete assessments
41.05
28.97
29.98
Community exclusion because of a lack of interest or
capacity
Procedural exclusion
52.75
24.01
23.24
Community exclusion
47.42
24.87
27.71
37.95
36.49
25.56
Necessary mechanisms and incentives
37.35
37.51
25.14
Building codes
32.11
36.01
31.88
The resilience of critical infrastructure
44.39
35.96
19.65
Organisational development
44.16
33.30
22.54
Organisations
44.01
34.12
21.87
Mechanisms
48.93
32.54
18.53
Orientations
39.55
33.23
27.22
t
p*
Legitimacy and credibility
Scalability
Sustainability
Skills
Decision-making and problem-solving
22
0.83
Awareness
Creative thinking and critical thinking
Enabling
environment
Necessary mechanisms and incentives promote disaster 24
risk management
0.75
Skills
Building codes
The resilience of critical infrastructure
Organisational Organisations
development
Mechanisms
18
0.76
Orientations
Community
participation
Medium High‡
24.74
Tokenistic participation systems
25
0.81
N, number of items.
†, Cronbach’s α.
‡, 0.7 ≤ α < 0.8 – acceptable.
Community participation
Enabling environment
If the data resources are readily available, an indicator may
be simple to establish. Subject areas for additional indicators
might include the Millennium Development Goals, climate
change, governance, corruption, gender equality and other
specific development issues related to risk reduction.
In the present study, the only added index to the proposed
indicators was the skill index, which, according to the
World Health Organization’s guide, became the operational
definition and was added with a five-point Likert scale.
Table 6 displays the indicators, subindicators, number of
items and Cronbach’s alpha.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without
direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Measure of disaster risk
management in Buein Zahra
A descriptive analysis of the primary components of the
DRM items is shown in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 shows the
status of each item in Buein Zahra at three levels: low,
medium and high. Table 8 also shows the significant means
of each indicator.
Public awareness
According to Table 7, public awareness is promising. The
high level of public awareness maybe partly because of
the past experience of earthquakes and the importance of
the issue for the volunteers participating in the research.
About 46% were at an acceptable level, about 32% were on
http://www.jamba.org.za
†, distribution percentage of responses.
‡, sum total is equal to 100.
TABLE 8: Respondents’ disaster risk management components.
Indicators
N
Mean
Item
average
Mean
difference
Knowledge
480
43.5
30.0
+ 7.90
14.70
0.00
Awareness
480
54.8
35.0
+ 13.60
33.25
0.00
Skills
480
41.3
55.0
-8.10
-15.03
0.00
Community participation
480
47.3
62.5
-9.60
-22.69
0.00
Enabling environment
480
49.3
60.0
-5.68
-10.69
0.01
Organisation development
480
28.4
45.0
-10.90
-26.17
0.00
N, number; t, t-statistic.
*, p < 0.1.
average and 22% were low. Among the subindicators of
public awareness, scalability, consistency and standard
messaging, sustainability, legitimacy and credibility were
higher than average.
Now, with the advancement of various media, it seems that a
small city such as Buein Zahra is well covered, and improving
the sustainability and legitimacy of the state-owned media
can lead to more effective communication.
Knowledge
The knowledge component indicates that about 38% of
the population samples stated that the related academic
and non-academic knowledge was provided and
Open Access
Page 7 of 9
researches and reports about earthquake and fault activity
were available. The research reports present a detailed
assessment of the current situation in different places.
In this indicator, academic research is in a better position
than non-academic research.
Skills
The 22 skill indicators showed a low level among the volunteer
citizens, so that about 75% of society had moderately lower
skills.
Among the subindicators, effective communication and
interpersonal relationship skills were in a better situation,
but the rest did not show an acceptable status.
Community participation
The situation of social participation suggests that about 70%
of the sample population believed that the necessary grounds
for social participation were not provided. Among the
subindicators, procedural exclusion, community exclusion,
incomplete assessments and tokenistic participatory systems
had the lowest averages.
Original Research
causal models. In the path analysis, the arrows determine
the causal effects of variables towards the intermediate
and final variables and how to affect direct and indirect
effects and, finally, the theoretical model, after the test run
is converted to the experimental model of research
(MacKinnon 2012; Suhr 2008). The matrix of correlation
coefficients and effects of variables are shown in Tables 9
and 10. In addition, Figure 3, based on the standardised
regression coefficients of DRM, displays the effective
factors of public participation.
The different types of impact on public participation were
calculated as follows:
• Direct impact: A regression coefficient of each variable on
participation. It can be obtained from the output of the
regression analysis.
• Indirect impact: Firstly all paths of the indirect effects of
each independent variable on the dependent variable must
be multiplied and then all these effects are summed up.
• Total impact: The sum of the direct and indirect effects of
each variable.
• Variables that have only a direct impact on participation:
Two variables – organisational development (OD) and
Enabling environment
TABLE 9: Correlation coefficients of disaster risk management variables.†
PP
Awareness
Skill
OD
Knowledge
EE
The 24 indicators of EE showed a medium downward
situation, where the subindicator ‘resilience of critical
infrastructure’ had a less acceptable level and the building
codes had an acceptable average status.
Awareness
0.16
-
-
-
-
-
Skill
0.19
0.05
-
-
-
-
OD
0.23
0.14
0.17
-
-
-
Knowledge
0.04
0.22
0.19
0.15
-
-
EE
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.14
-
Variable
OD, organisational development; EE, enabling environment; PP, public participation.
†, Matrix of correlation coefficients of variables.
Organisational development
The results presented in Table 7 indicate that about 76% of
the population assessed the existing mechanisms,
orientations and organisational structure in dealing with
earthquake crisis as ineffective. Meanwhile, mechanisms
have the lowest mean and organisations and orientations
the next lowest.
In addition, based on Table 8, the results of the t-test indicate
that there is a significant difference between basic DRM
indicators and their item means. This difference is significant
at alpha level of 0.05, indicating that among the components
of DRM, the average of public awareness is higher.
TABLE 10: The effects of disaster risk management variables on public participation.
Variables
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Non-causal
effect
Total causal
effect
R2†
Awareness
0.00
0.026
0.130
0.026
0.16
Skill
0.17
0.004
0.016
0.174
0.19
OD
0.19
0.020
0.020
0.210
0.23
Knowledge
0.00
0.005
0.035
0.005
0.04
EE
0.00
0.026
0.154
0.026
0.18
OD, organisational development; EE, enabling environment.
†, R2 denotes the coefficient of determination.
EE
0.13
Effective mechanisms of disaster risk
management through public participation
By using multivariate linear regression analysis, the linear
combination of the relationship between independent variables
and dependent variable can be predicted. Although in this
way the direct impact of each variable could be predicted,
the indirect effects, the conceptual and theoretical model of
research has not been formed.
Accordingly, the path analysis method was used. The
path analysis, first developed by Wright (1934), is an
extension of the multivariate regression method to generate
http://www.jamba.org.za
0.12
Awareness
0.11
0.18
OD
0.19
PP
0.14
Knowledge
0.17
0.16
Skill
OD, organisational development; EE, enabling environment; PP, public participation.
FIGURE 3: Empirical model of factors affecting participation in disaster risk
management.
Open Access
Page 8 of 9
skill – have only a direct impact on participation as an
intermediate dependent variable. The effect of each of
these variables on participation is as follows:
ß The direct impact of the OD is equal to 0.19, which
indicates that for each unit of change in its value, the
participation rate will change by 0.19 units.
ß The skill variable also has a direct impact on
participation of 0.17.
• Variables that have only indirect impact on participation:
three variables – awareness, knowledge and enabling
environment (EE) – are variables that have only indirect
impact by intermediate variables. The effect of each of
these variables on participation is as follows:
ß Awareness affected participation through three
paths: firstly through OD (0.11); secondly through
EE and then OD; thirdly through EE, OD and then
skill. With regard to the direction of the path
coefficient, these effects are incremental, that is, with
the increase of awareness, the participation rate will
also increase.
ß Knowledge also affected participation through three
paths: firstly through awareness, EE and OD; secondly
through awareness, EE, OD and skill; thirdly through
awareness and OD.
ß In an EE, two paths are recognisable: one through OD
and the other through OD and skill.
• Variables that encompass both direct and indirect
impacts on participation:
ß The skill variable has both direct and indirect effects.
For indirect effects, two directions (A and B) can be
considered. In Direction A, the skill variable has an
impact on participation through knowledge, awareness,
EE and OD. In Direction B, through knowledge,
awareness and OD, a path is recognisable.
ß Organisational development has an impact on public
participation, both directly with the coefficient 0.19
and indirectly through the skill variable with path
coefficient 0.14.
ß In sum, based on the results of the total impact
coefficient, we can say that OD, skill, awareness, EE
and knowledge have the most impact on public
participation in Buein Zahra. Also according to the
empirical model, the variables OD and skill were found
to be middle variables and the variables awareness, EE
and knowledge were detected as external variables.
Figure 3 shows the correlation coefficient in path analyses
and how to change the values of variables by increasing or
decreasing the compared variables. Using this method and
calculating the coefficient of correlation between external
variables, it can be said that the selection of variables was not
a mosaic but there were interactions between them, and the
variables were selected according to the theoretical model.
Discussion and conclusion
Today, the DRM strategies in Iran are growing. As part of
this change, centralised planning is being replaced with
http://www.jamba.org.za
Original Research
community-based planning. The reason is that with a stateoriented view and centralised planning, the elaboration
and implementation of strategies occurs in a top-down
manner; it imposes many costs on the state and is not
sufficiently effective. However, in the community-based
orientation, people have a significant role and influence at
different stages of disaster management. Moreover, building
resilient communities involves ensuring that communities
and community members have there sources, capacities and
capabilities necessary to bounce back and recover in a manner
that minimises disruption and facilitates growth (Paton &
Johnston 2001). The results show that the awareness and
knowledge levels of Buein Zahra have been improved,
but there is still no basis for creating community-based
planning because these variables improve public
participation through other variables. Currently, it seems
that neither public awareness nor knowledge has come to be
understood as a skill, nor has necessary OD taken place. Just
raising public awareness, education and knowledge without
creating the necessary ground for OD and skills will not
create community-based disaster management in Iran.
Accordingly, the most important factors for moving toward
this goal are organisational development and then skill
improvement. Knowledge and public awareness, which
strengthen skills and organisational development, over time
can lead to real participation. Therefore, after natural
disasters such as earthquakes, local people cannot participate
collectively in coping with them, and we see private and
family participation at a limited level in the aftermath of the
disaster. Moreover, in order to make it a practical reality,
crisis and disaster mitigation requires not only the
participation of the individual within the vulnerable
community but also the involvement of related institutions,
NGOs and the general public (Chen, Liu & Chan 2006;
Newport & Jawahar 2003).
For organisational development, in line with Pietropaolo
(2015), two main challenges are identifiable: the first challenge
is related to decentralisation of processes. The necessary
orientations are still needed to promote public rules and
policies that define the roles and responsibilities of the
public and private sectors. Local capacity to organise is not
strengthened, and the rules for the assignment of affairs are
not laid down or are not fully implemented.
Secondly, some functional mechanisms and social participation
procedures in risk management have been predicted, such as
environmental NGOs or earthquake and safety manoeuvres,
but they only show levels of apparent features of participation,
representing symbolic participation, which does not have
an impact on real public participation during the disaster.
Strengthening organisational development, as a platform
for local collaborative activities, requires the political will to
delegate some responsibilities to civil institutions and policies
to facilitate the activities of volunteer groups in various social
areas. The adoption of participatory policies and its related
political will and reinforcement of skills, with regards to
suitable knowledge and awareness, can help to ensure public
participation during a disaster.
Open Access
Page 9 of 9
Acknowledgements
Original Research
ISDR, 2008, Indicators of progress: Guidance on measuring the reduction of disaster
risks and the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, UNISDR, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests with regard to the
writing of this article.
ISDR, 2016, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, viewed
05 March 2018, from https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015
ISDR, U., 2005, Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of
nations and communities to disasters, Extract from the final report of the World
Conference on Disaster Reduction (A/CONF. 206/6), Japan, January 18–22, 2005.
Authors’ contributions
Kohler, A., Julich, S. & Bloemertz, L., 2004, Guidelines: Risk analysis – a basis for
disaster risk management, German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ),
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Bonn.
M.V. conceived of the presented idea and verified the
analytical methods. M.F. developed the theory and performed
the computations. All authors discussed the results and
contributed to the final manuscript.
Newport, J.K. & Jawahar, G.G.P., 2003, ‘Community participation and public awareness
in disaster mitigation’, Disaster Prevention and Management 12(1), 33–36.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560310463838
Funding
Paton, D. & Johnston, D., 2001, ‘Disasters and communities: Vulnerability, resilience
and preparedness’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal
10(4), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005930
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C. & Mouton, F., 2009, ‘Assessing global exposure and
vulnerability towards natural hazards: The Disaster Risk Index’, Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences 9(4), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-91149-2009
MacKinnon, D., 2012, Introduction to statistical mediation analysis, Routledge, London.
North, D.C., 1991, ‘Institutions’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), 97–112.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97
Pietropaolo, M.G., 2015, Observations on strengthening community participation in
disaster risk reduction in disaster law and policy, IFRC, Geneva.
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data
were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy
or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B., 2014, At risk: Natural hazards, people’s
vulnerability and disasters, Routledge, London.
Brinkerhoff, D.W. & Morgan, P.J., 2010, ‘Capacity and capacity development: Coping
with complexity’, Public Administration and Development 30(1), 2–10. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pad.559
CaDRI, 2011, Basics of capacity development for disaster risk reduction, United Nations,
Geneva.
Chen, L.-C., Liu, Y.-C. & Chan, K.-C., 2006, ‘Integrated community-based disaster
management program in Taiwan: A case study of Shang-An village’, Natural
Hazards 37(1–2), 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-4669-5
Dowrick, D., 2009, ‘Earthquake risk reduction’, in Earthquake Resistant Design and
Risk Reduction, 2nd edn., pp. 1–14, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470747018
Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. & Hosseini, M., 2008, ‘Post-Bam earthquake: Recovery and
reconstruction’, Natural Hazards 44(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069007-9108-3
Giardini, D., Grünthal, G., Shedlock, K.M. & Zhang, P., 1999, ‘The GSHAP global seismic
hazard map’, Annals of Geophysics 42(6), 1224–1233.
Hollinger, J.D., 1987, ‘Social skills for behaviorally disordered children as preparation
for mainstreaming: Theory, practice, and new directions’, Remedial and Special
Education 8(4), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800404
PreventionWeb, 2017, Capacity, viewed 15 February 2018, from https://www.
preventionweb.net/risk/capacity
Smith, K., 2013, Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster, Routledge,
London.
Spangenberg, J.H., 2002, ‘Institutional sustainability indicators: An analysis of the
institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their
effectivity’, Sustainable Development 10(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sd.184
Spangenberg, J.H., Pfahl, S. & Deller, K., 2002, ‘Towards indicators for institutional
sustainability: Lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21’, Ecological Indicators 2(1),
61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00050-X
Suhr, D., 2008, ‘Step your way through path analysis’, in SAS Conference proceedings:
Western Users of SAS Software. California, November 5–7, 2008, pp. 1–10.
Thomalla, F., Downing, T., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Han, G. & Rockström, J., 2006,
‘Reducing hazard vulnerability: Towards a common approach between disaster risk
reduction and climate adaptation’, Disasters 30(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9523.2006.00305.x
Thywissen, K., 2006, ‘Core terminology of disaster reduction: A comparative glossary’,
in J. Birkmann (ed.), Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster
resilient societies, pp. 448–496 United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
UNDESA, 2007, Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies,
3rd edn., United Nations Publications, New York.
UNISDR, 2016, Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction, viewed 03 August
2017, from http://www.eird.org/eng/terminologia-eng.htm.
UNISDR, 2017, Terminology, viewed 03 August 2017, from https://www.unisdr.org/
we/inform/terminology.
UNISDR, 2015, The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030,
Resolution A/Res/69/283, viewed 18 March 2017, from http://www.unisdr.org/
files/resolutions/N1516716.pdf.
United Nations General Assembly, 2001, Road map towards the implementation of
the United Nations Millennium Declaration: Report of the Secretary-General,
Report A/56/326, United Nations, New York.
Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V. & Steinmetz, S., 2016, ‘Non-probability sampling’, in C. Wolf,
D. Joye, T.W. Smith & Y.C. Fu (eds.), The Sage handbook of survey methods,
pp. 329–345, Sage, London.
Weichselgartner, J. & Pigeon, P., 2015, ‘The role of knowledge in disaster risk
reduction’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6(2), 107–116. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0052-7
IFRC, 2014, IFRC framework for community resilience, viewed 05 March 2018, from
https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/ 03/IFRCFramework-for-Community-Resilience-EN-LR.pdf.
Wignaraja, K., 2009, Capacity development: A UNDP primer, UNDP, New York.
ISDR, 2004, Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives, vol. 1,
United Nations Publications, New York.
Wright, S., 1934, ‘The method of path coefficients’, The Annals of Mathematical
Statistics 5(3), 161–215. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177732676
http://www.jamba.org.za
Open Access