Mojtahedi, S and Oo, B L (2012) Stakeholders' approaches towards natural disasters in built environment: A theoretical framework. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Built environment is subject to many risks due to the unique features of construction tasks, such as long lead item procurement, complicated design processes, safety, quality and environment, financial intensity, dynamic organization structures and natural disasters. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent, expensive and devastating globally. They also jeopardize society, performance of economy, built environment, and other socio-economic and physical conditions. While natural disasters cannot be eliminated, successful construction projects are those where natural disasters are effectively managed by stakeholders. Little is known about stakeholders' responses towards natural disasters in construction projects and built environment. Furthermore, past theories on shaping stakeholders' approaches towards natural disasters have been shown to be inadequate in terms of their ability to represent real-life practice and measure the stakeholders' responses against disasters. Hence, the aim of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework on stakeholders' approaches towards natural disasters that integrates four theories, namely: (i) stakeholder theory; (ii) macroeconomic theory; (iii) disaster management theory and (iv) decision making theory. With disaster risk management theory providing the practical backbone of the theoretical framework, the other three theories are able to provide the additional explanation of various aspects of stakeholders' decision making process. Through disaster risk management theory, we are able to support the reactive or proactive approaches of stakeholders before, during and after natural disasters. Macroeconomic theory plays crucial role to choose the appropriate socio-economic variables in natural disaster management process. Decision making theory and stakeholder theory altogether pave the way to select the pivotal stakeholders and to manage their behavioural patterns against natural disasters. The paper concludes the anticipated benefits of proposed theoretical framework as (i) direct comparison of different stakeholders' approaches (reactive and proactive) against natural disasters in built environment; (ii) high-level disaster management planning decisions; (iii) contemplating disaster risk analysis and disaster risk response simultaneously.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; disaster management; stakeholder approaches; theoretical framework |
| Index terms: | decision-making process, natural disaster, disaster risk, society, design process, becoming, disaster management planning, disaster management, decision-making, construction project, built environment, management theory |
| Subjects: | design methods, management, production management, financial risk, decision analysis, philosophical process, communities and social development, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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