Bosher, L; Dainty, A; Carrillo, P and Glass, J (2007) Built-in resilience to disasters: A pre-emptive approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(5), pp. 434-446. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - Professions involved with the construction industry need to become more aware of disaster risk management (DRM) activities if lessons are to be learned from the past and a resilient built environment attained in the future. This study aims to focus on identifying which construction-associated stakeholders should be involved with DRM initiatives in the UK, and when these stakeholders should be involved. This research is thereby unique and a key step in the longer-term aim of identifying how stakeholders should be involved and what issues they need to address regarding the integration of DRM into construction decision making. Design/methodology/approach - This paper presents the findings of a UK-wide questionnaire survey, semi-structured interviews and a validation exercise involving a range of professionals from construction, planning, insurance, emergency management and local/national government agencies. Findings - This research identifies the key construction stakeholders that should be responsible for ensuring that resilience issues become integrated and ensuring the key stages of the design-construction-operation process where their inputs are required. Originality/value - The finding presented are an important and logical step in the longer term aim of identifying how stakeholders should be better involved and what issues they need to address regarding the integration of DRM into construction decision making.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; decision making; design; disasters; physical planning; risk management |
| Index terms: | exercise, construction industry, profession, insurance, risk management, built environment, survey, interview, government agency, disaster risk, integration, methodology, decision-making, emergency management, questionnaire, validation |
| Subjects: | research methods, financial risk, professional development, organizational analysis, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, administrative law, risk assessment, data collection methods, institututions, health behaviours and lifestyles, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety |
| 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