Measuring community disaster resilience using q-methods: A physical resilience perspective

Tariq, H; Pathirage, C and Fernando, T (2021) Measuring community disaster resilience using q-methods: A physical resilience perspective. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11(4), pp. 722-737. ISSN 2044-124X

Abstract

Decision-makers, practitioners and community members have a need to assess the disaster resilience of their communities and to understand their own capacities in disaster situations. There is a lack of consensus among researchers as to what resilience means and how it can be measured. This paper proposes a novel technique to achieve consensus among stakeholders on definitions, objectives and indicators for measuring a key dimension of community disaster resilience (CDR), physical infrastructure (PI). This study uses a five-step approach utilizing Q-methods to contextualize a resilience index for PI. Interviews, focus groups and Q-sorting workshops were conducted to develop a tool that ranked measures according to stakeholder preference. A total of 84 participants took part in the workshops across four countries (United Kingdom, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). The initial set of 317 measures was reduced to 128 and divided into the three community capacities of anticipatory, absorptive and restorative. The physical infrastructure capacity assessment tool (PI-CAT) was then finalized to have 38 indicators that were also ranked in order of importance by the participants. The PI-CAT can be useful for local governments and communities to measure their own resilience. The tool allows stakeholders to be confident that the metrics being used are ones that are relevant, important and meet their requirements. The Q-method approach helps stakeholders to develop and use a community capacity assessment tool that is appropriate for their context. The PI-CAT can be used to identify effective investments that will enhance CDR.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: resilience; Q-methods; disaster management; physical infrastructure; disasters; emergency preparedness; infrastructure; workshops; stakeholders; absorptivity; decision making; local government
Index terms: disaster management, Pakistan, focus group, Sri Lanka, Q-method, Malaysia, emergency preparedness, physical infrastructure, dimension, interview, preference, workshop, United Kingdom, decision-making, local government, practitioner, disaster resilience
Subjects: decision-making and reasoning, construction type, safety engineering, climate science, infrastructure and transport systems, Geography, decision analysis, financial risk, health monitoring assessment and metrics, administrative law, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, practitioner
Topics: Cost Management, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Geographical Context
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

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