Flood knowledge management by multiple stakeholders: An example from Malaysia

Along, N Z B; Ahmed, I and MacKee, J (2024) Flood knowledge management by multiple stakeholders: An example from Malaysia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 15(1), pp. 141-157. ISSN 1759-5916

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore multiple stakeholders managing the different type of knowledge in a flood-prone area. Different stakeholders hold different types of knowledge in their area of interest, and both knowledge streams have their intrinsic potentials and limitations. In this paper, the issue of knowledge complementarity is explored in the context of flood hazards. Hazards such as floods may appear messy, unpredictable, with unsorted and unorganised forms of data, information and knowledge on the part of diverse stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: Case study design had been used in this study to explore how stakeholders: Orang Asli, Malay, and humanitarian organisations manage the differences in terms of type of knowledge each of them have. To illicit the response from participants from each of the stakeholders, in-depth interviews had been used. Findings: This research has led to the development of a conceptual framework based on the case study. The lessons learned from the framework is discussed, together with the barriers to their implementation. Originality/value: This paper presents a research case study on multiple stakeholders in the district of Pekan, the state of Pahang, Malaysia, and how these multiple stakeholders manage flood hazards with their different types of knowledge.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: floods; local knowledge; Malaysia; multiple stakeholders
Index terms: stream, methodology, knowledge management, conceptual framework, local knowledge, lessons learned, interview, implementation, case study, humanitarian, Malaysia
Subjects: research methods, theoretical framing, professional development, water management, Geography, communities and social development, data collection methods, principle, contractual arrangements
Topics: Sustainability, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Ethics
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here