Evaluation of Effective Parameters in Disaster Risk Reduction Plans with Multi Criteria Decision Making Method: An Analysis on Selected Country Samples

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 1 - 22, 25.12.2023

Şenay Yıldırım , Burcu Ertaş Deniz

Öz

The occurrence of natural and man-made disasters in the world is increasing day by day. In addition to causing physical, economic, social and environmental losses, these disasters stop or disrupt normal life and human activities. Disaster risk reduction is defined as analyzing and managing the factors that cause disasters with systematic efforts. Disaster risk reduction studies have an important place in increasing the resilience of individuals, society, cities and sectors against disasters. Countries have a national plan that will provide roadmap for them to be resilience to disaster risks is a critical in terms of the applicability of risk reduction studies and their contribution to sustainable development process. For this reason, every country should have strategic plans that determine priorities in order to ensure that measures are taken and implemented to eliminate or minimize risks. National strategic plans designed to provide optimum benefit with limited resources according to the determined priorities bring success in disaster risk reduction. In disaster risk reduction studies, there are multi-perspective approaches, including deterministic and statistical methods, in evaluations that determine the success of countries in this field and reveal the state of the country. Multi-criteria decision making method rather than statistical methods; in cases where there are more than one criteria in the decision-making process, it provides an approach to decision-makers to solve problems. Multi-criteria decision making method which is one of the statistical methods; in cases where there are more than one criteria in the decision-making process, it provides an approach to decision makers to solve problems.

In disaster risk reduction plans each country has its own characteristics. These features make countries different from one another. Seven key parameters, such as Risk Identification (B1), Risk Reduction (B2), Response and Recovery (B3), Economic Disaster Risk Management (B4), Disaster Preparedness (B5), Governance (B6) and Compliance of Policies and Plans (B7), were selected as the main criteria. 36 important components of the main criteria have been selected as sub-criteria. Then, these effective parameters have then been weighted using one of the methods of the multi-criteria decision-making process called the "Analytical Hierarchy Process. As a result of weighting, the importance degrees of the parameters were determined as B2, B1, B3, B4, B5, B6 and B7, respectively.

Within the scope of the study high risk of disasters in Japan, Turkey, the Philippines and New Zealand country samples were selected. The disaster management systems of these countries and their disaster risk reduction plans have been examined in detail. The country's performance rankings were made for these four country after an assessment of the existence of the main criteria and sub-criteria weighted with the "AHP" methodology by the country's experts. At the end of the analysis, Japan was determined as the country with the best DRR plan and implementation, while our country was ranked 2nd, New Zealand ranked 3rd and Philippines ranked 4th. As a result, this study will provide a resource that will contribute to theoretical knowledge systems on disaster risk reduction. As well as, it is also aimed to examine the results of the applications in the country plans by assessing the order of importance of the effective criteria that will bring countries successful in reducing the risk of disasters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Disaster, Disaster Risk Reduction, Disaster Risk Reduction Plan, Analytical Hierarchy Process

Kaynakça

• AFAD. 2020. “Afet Yönetimi Kapsamında 2019 Yılına Bakış ve Doğa Kaynaklı Olay İstatistikleri.” Ankara,Turkey. https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/e_Kutuphane/Kurumsal-Raporlar/Afet_Istatistikleri_2020_web.pdf.
• Azuela, Mary Jean, Dennis Paul Orge, Mary Grace Valdez, and Giselle Joy Esmeria. 2020. “Survey Design to Evaluate Healthcare System Resilience at Barangay Level in the Philippines.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Vol. 0.
• Baba, Hitoshi. 2013. “Disaster Risk Management in Japan.” https://repositorio.gestiondelriesgo.gov.co/bitstream/handle/20.500.11762/20010/Disaster Risk Management in Japan_English Version.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
• Britton, NR, and GJ Clark. 2000. “From Response to Resilience: Emergency Management Reform in New Zealand.” Natural Hazards Review 1 (3): 145–50.
• Cabinet Office. 2015. “White Paper Disaster Management in Japan 2015.” http://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/hakusho/pdf/WP2015_DM_Full_Version.pdf.
• Charlotte, Benson, Twigg John, and Tiziana Rossetto. 2007. “Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes for Development Organisations.” Geneva. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1066_toolsformainstreamingDRR.pdf.
• Cyganik, Kimberly A. 2003. “Disaster Preparedness in Virginia Hospital Center-Arlington after Sept 11, 2001.” Disaster Management & Response 1 (3): 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1540-2487(03)00048-8.
• Doroteo, H. J. 2015. “Philippines: Disaster Risk Profile and Disaster Risk Reduction (DDR) Framework: Natural Calamities.” Asturias, Spain,: University of Oviedo. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Harold-James-Doroteo/publication/287817230_Disaster_Risk_Profile_and_Disaster_Risk_Management_Framework_of_the_Philippines_Natural_Disasters/links/5679d1df08ae7fea2e98a69e/Disaster-Risk-Profile-and-Disaster-Risk-Manage.
• ECHO. 2017. “Disaster Risk Management.” Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/disaster_risk_reduction.pdf.
• IPCU. 2014. “Kentsel Risklerin Azaltılması.” https://www.ipkb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ISMEP8_KentselRisklerinAzaltC4B1lmasC4B1.pdf.
• Jimee, Ganesh, Kimiro Meguro, and Amod Dixit Mani. 2019. “Learning from Japan for Possible Improvement in Existing Disaster Risk Management System of Nepal.” Open Journal of Earthquake Research 08 (02): 85–100.
• Kadıoğlı, Miktad. 2012. Afet Yonetimi: Beklenilmeyeni Beklemek, En Kötüsünü Yönetmek. Edited by İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Afet Yönetimi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi. İstanbul: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği.
• Kelly, Charles. 1998. “Simplifying Disasters: Developing a Model for Complex Non-Linear Events.” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 14 (1): 25–27. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.395428323254686.
• MCDEM. 2008. National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. Wellington.
• MCDEM. 2019. “National Disaster Resilience Strategy Rautaki Ā-Motu Manawaroa Aituā.” Wellington. https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/publications/National-Disaster-Resilience-Strategy/National-Disaster-Resilience-Strategy-10-April-2019.pdf.
• NDRRMP. 2011. “National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan” . https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/41/NDRRM_Plan_2011-2028.pdf
• Razmi, J., H. Rahnejat, and M.K. Khan. 2000. “The New Concept of Manufacturing ‘DNA’ within an Analytic Hierarchy Process‐driven Expert System.” European Journal of Innovation Management 3 (4): 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060010352452.
• Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Saunders, Wendy S. A., Scott Kelly, Suzanne Paisley, and Larissa B. Clarke. 2020. “Progress Toward Implementing the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals: Policy from Aotearoa New Zealand.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 11 (2): 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00269-8.
• Saya, Setsuko. 2017. “Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (CAO)—Japan’s International Cooperation on DRR: Mainstreaming DRR in International Societies.” In Advancing Culture of Living with Landslides. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59469-9_14.
• Şengör, A. M.Celâl, and Yücel Yilmaz. 1981. “Tethyan Evolution of Turkey: A Plate Tectonic Approach.” Tectonophysics 75 (3–4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(81)90275-4.
• Taştan, Bekir, and Arif Çağdaş Aydınoğlu. 2015. “Requirement Analysis for Determining Hazard and Vulnerability in Multiple Disaster Risk Management.” Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi 31: 336–97. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3446.
• Uludağ, S., and H. Doğan. 2016. “Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılmasına Odaklı Bir Hizmet Kalitesi Uygulaması.” Cankiri Karatekin Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi17 6 (2): 17–48. https://doi.org/10.18074/cnuiibf.356.
• Ulutürk, G. 2006. “Local Administrations and Dısaster Risk Management in Turkey.” Master, METU.
• Wollmann, Dewey, Maria Teresinha Arns Steiner, Guilherme Ernani Vieira, and Patrícia Arns Steiner. 2014. “Details of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique for the Evaluation of Health Insurance Companies.” Producao 24 (3). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132013005000070.
• World Economic Forum. 2016. “The Global Risks Report 2016 | World Economic Forum.” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment.