Content uploaded by Hadi Sarvari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hadi Sarvari on May 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1874-8368/21 Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.net
93
DOI: 10.2174/1874836802115010093, 2021, 15, 93-105
The Open Construction & Building
Technology Journal
Content list available at: https://openconstructionandbuildingtechnologyjournal.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Risks in Iran Using
Fuzzy Delphi Method
Mostafa Dabiri1, Mohsen Oghabi2, Hadi Sarvari3,*, Mohammad S. Sabeti4, Hamidreza Kashefi5 and Daniel W.M. Chan6
1Department of Civil Engineering, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran
2Department of Civil Engineering, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
3Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
4Department of Civil Engineering, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kurdistan, Iran
5Department of Mathematics Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
6Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
Abstract:
Background:
The process of temporary accommodation after an earthquake is one of the most important issues in crisis management.
Objective:
This research study attempts to identify and prioritize the key risks inherent with the post-earthquake temporary accommodation process in
Sanandaj, Iran using the Fuzzy Delphi method.
Methods:
To achieve this goal, first, we examined the previous research on the issue of temporary accommodation after earthquakes and other disasters
worldwide in order to determine the current important challenges. Then, the opinions of crisis management experts in 11 areas and 94 questions in
the form of Fuzzy Delphi survey questionnaire with Five-point Likert measurement scale were used to rank these challenges. The Delphi panel
participants, who responded to the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire, consisted of 18 experts related to crisis management in executive organizations of
Kurdistan province.
Result:
After performing the steps of the fuzzy Delphi method, a basket of important risks in the temporary accommodation process were identified
qualitatively and quantitatively, and were prioritized in order of relevance and significance. The results showed that climatic challenges have the
highest potential of post-earthquake temporary accommodation risk in the region among of the 11 major risk areas under examination.
Conclusion:
The study’s findings and recommendations can serve as a policy instrument and consultative toolkit for relevant stakeholders.
Keywords: Accommodation, Risk assessment, Crisis management, Fuzzy Delphi Method, Lawshe method, SPSS software.
Article History Received: October 18, 2020 Revised: January 07, 2021 Accepted: March 04, 2021
1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decades, with the rapid development of
infrastructure and urbanization worldwide, the role of crisis
* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Civil Engineering,
Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran;
Tel: 09017277879; Email: h.sarvari@khuisf.ac.ir
management and risk management in preventing irreversible
losses in populated areas has become vital. A crisis, by a
simple definition, is an unexpected event that threatens
different levels of society, including human life, environment,
and economy. Highly populated cities with dense infrastructure
are the most vulnerable areas to such threats, which can be
caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and
94 The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 Dabiri et al.
tsunamis [1]. The methods and techniques for dealing with
such threats have been evolving in proportion to the severity
and complexity of threats. Risk management is a powerful tool
for minimizing and controlling the impact of unfortunate
events to guarantee sustainable development [2]. Typically,
crisis management consists of the identification, prioritization,
and mitigation of potential risks. In this context, the risks with
the greater impact and probability of occurrence are dealt with
first, and this process continues for the less severe risks in
descending order.
Every year, many buildings suffered significant damage
due to natural disasters. In extreme cases, the buildings become
inhabitable and unusable, which imposes a large economic
burden on the government for managing the people who have
lost their homes [3]. In such circumstances, governments use a
housing restructuring policy, which consists of temporary and
permanent accommodations. The former facilitates a fast
recovery after a disaster, whereas the latter provides a safe
place for victims to maintain their normal lives [4].
The preparation of families for the destructive
consequences of an earthquake is profoundly influenced by
their mindset. According to the past research, people’s
experiences from previous earthquakes determines how they
perceive such phenomenon and take action to get back to their
normal life as soon as possible [5]. Despite efforts to increase
the resistance of buildings, building collapse still remains one
of the most common consequences of earthquakes [6].
Temporary accommodation can be very helpful in mitigating
these consequences since families who have lost their homes
need a private and safe place to continue their daily routine [7].
One of the most important problems after natural disasters is
the provision of temporary accommodation for survivors [8].
The establishment of temporary accommodations requires
evaluating different types of planning variables to select the
plan with the highest effectiveness and cost-efficiency. The
selected planning variables should be re-evaluated after a
disaster to examine their performance and modify them if
necessary [9]. Iran has often suffered from large and
destructive earthquakes and has experienced several major
earthquakes in the last few decades. More than 70 percent of
Iran's major cities are located near seismic faults, and in some
cases, active faults cross the cities [10].
This study is conducted to identify and prioritize the risks
of the temporary accommodation process in possible future
earthquakes in Sanandaj (the capital of Kurdistan Province in
Iran). The first step in achieving this goal is to identify the
challenges posed by earthquakes around the world through a
comprehensive and accurate review of the literature. The
identified risks and challenges are then integrated and
monitored with expert opinions. In the next step, using the
fuzzy Delphi method, the importance of identified risks is
determined based on the characteristics of the study area.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Project Risk Management
Risk management consists of identifying, analyzing, and
prioritizing the risks to minimize the consequences and
negative impact of unfortunate events [11, 12]. It involves the
use of available resources to develop solutions for reducing the
risks based on their priority [13]. The risks vary from one
project to another; therefore, a risk checklist should be
prepared in order to have a comprehensive identification [14].
According to previous studies, historical data, experience, and
judgment are the main elements in risk identification [2]. The
gathered data should be examined, and the data which is more
crucial in the risk management process should be dealt with in
more detail. The main objective in risk identification is to
highlight the most critical components of a given project
during design and construction.
The prioritization of risks should be carried out carefully to
sort them from the most critical with the highest probability of
occurrence to the less frequent with lower impact in
descending order. Using this method can save a significant
portion of resources, leading to effective management of the
project. In risk management, uncertainties play an important
role and can make huge differences in the prioritization of risks
[13]. The methods used for the identification of risks and
associated uncertainties generally rely on past experience from
previous projects. However, in projects with a lack of previous
experience, it is important to use the opinion of experts to make
a decision on prioritization of risks.
In construction projects, the risk identification procedure
becomes more complex since no specific guidelines or standard
procedure is available for this purpose [15]. Therefore, the
experience, knowledge, and judgment of experts are usually the
reference for identifying and prioritizing risks in such projects.
The key to successful risk management is the risk identification
step. Typically, the potential risks are identified by three
different groups [16]: (i) risk analysts, (ii) experts of the project
team, and (iii) brainstorming meetings. The first group
identifies risks exclusively based on his/her personal
experience. In the second group, each expert is interviewed to
give his/her opinion about the risks relevant to his/her area of
expertise. In the third group, all interested parties are asked to
attend meetings to brainstorm and share their ideas.
2.2. Challenges of Temporary Accommodation
Recently, post-earthquake risk evaluation has gained the
attention of the construction industry and the government since
it can mitigate the adverse effects of unfortunate events on
human life and the economy. Previous studies were aimed at
presenting a detailed post-earthquake evaluation of risks and
prioritize them based on their contribution to the total loss [6,
17 - 19]. Félix et al. (2015) used the predefined role of local
temporary accommodation locations to assess the importance
of predicting temporary accommodation [6]. This study
explores the essential role of temporary accommodation
location during post-disaster reconstruction programs using a
literature review. It also examines common and general
solutions for post-disaster temporary accommodation and
outlines the strengths and weaknesses of these solutions.
Finally, it provides a framework for improving and developing
architectural designs to overcome problems of post-disaster
temporary accommodation. They show that one of the
important strategies for dealing with the challenges of
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 95
temporary accommodation is to predict and equip places for
this work before the earthquake. These sites can be used,
depending on the main infrastructure as a default for public
activities. If emergency conditions occur, they will change to
the temporary accommodation quickly. These sites are then
considered as a space for public use after the temporary
accommodation process.
Johnson (2007) analyzed the strategic planning for post-
disaster temporary accommodation. She evaluated the
weaknesses and strengths of the temporary accommodation
process after the earthquake in Marmara and Bloom, Turkey
(1999), Armenia and Colombia (1999), Kobe Japan (1995),
Greek Calmatoria (1986), Mexico City (1985), and Italy Friuli
(1976). He stated that the existence of a systematic and
preventive strategy is the guarantor of overcoming challenges
[17].
In another research by Yüksel and Hasirci (2012), experts'
opinions and those who experienced the “Kocaeli” earthquake
have been collected using a 5-points Likert scale questionnaire.
The study analyzed the physical and psychological
expectations of earthquake victims from temporary shelters and
provided suggestions for improving them, including the
psychology and personal needs of victims [19].
Perrucci and Aktas (2016) draw on an extensive range of
sources to assess the barriers of creating steady temporary
accommodation after a natural disaster such as floods,
hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. In their review of
issues-particularly in developing countries such as Haiti, they
mentioned that attention to the environmental issues and
compilation of the preventive program is essential [18].
Bettemir (2016) examined the challenges of the temporary
accommodation system in previous earthquakes and their costs.
Two earthquakes on the 23rd of October 2011 and the 9th of
November 2011 in Erciş and Van, respectively. He suggested
efficient and effective management strategies about natural
disasters for repairing damaged buildings and the solution for
the post-earthquake housing problem. The basis of this
proposal was reducing the cost, time, and environmental
impacts of the event. The simulation of his proposed strategy
on earthquakes shows that the existence of an appropriate
strategy is essential for the immediate resolution of the housing
problem [20].
After the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, temporary
accommodation units were ready for a maximum of one year.
While many displaced people, most of whom were poor and
elderly, stayed in shelters for about three years. These
temporary homes were also not designed for people with
disabilities. There were other problems such as being away
from previous locations and necessary services such as
hospitals, schools, and so on. Some analysts [21 - 23] have
stated that separation of previous residences led to an increased
percentage of suicide cases among survivors.
The number of houses damaged or destroyed after disasters
is frequently large, and re-housing homeless people is one of
the most important tasks of reconstruction programs.
Reconstruction works often last for a long time, and during that
time, it is essential to provide victims with the minimum
conditions to live with dignity, privacy, and protection. Due to
land leases, which must be returned to the original state, it can
be said that temporary accommodations are also unstable
economically and environmentally [6].
In a study investigating post-earthquake temporary
complex safety management, Hui and Lv (2012) reported that
the danger of fire is one of the important issues of the
temporary accommodation process [24]. Creating a temporary
accommodation is a necessary step in the reconstruction, and
therefore, it is necessary to determine how to improve it [17].
Reviewing the literature shows that most of the previous
research examines the conditions and challenges of temporary
accommodation location after natural disasters occurred.
However, this study tries to identify the challenges in possible
future earthquakes in the study area by using past experiences
and experts' opinions. This study also seeks to determine the
significance of the identified risks. Therefore, the results of this
study can be helpful in adopting the necessary strategies to
reduce potential risks in crisis management prevention
programs. In fact, the purpose of this study is to identify and
evaluate the potential risks in the process of post-disaster
temporary accommodation in the Kurdistan province in Iran.
To achieve this, a number of risks and challenges in the process
of temporary accommodation of Iran and the world were
collected. The results are shown in Table 1. Then, according to
the opinion of experts and their experience, a number of other
probable challenges were added to this list. Finally, a total
number of 94 challenges were considered.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In terms of data collection, this research is a descriptive
survey. In terms of the method also, it is a mix-mode
(qualitative and quantitative). Data in this study were collected
using the fuzzy Delphi method [32, 33]. According to the rules
of the Delphi method, one of the most important steps is to
form a panel of experts. In this panel, the opinions and
judgments of experts are extracted and analyzed [34]. In
consensus methods, experts are those who have knowledge
about the subject of study [35]. In this study, members of the
Delphi panel included 18 experienced crisis management
experts from 18 departments of Kurdistan province. In
addition, the practical tool for collecting data using semi-
structured fuzzy Delphi questionnaires included 94 challenges
regarding temporary accommodation in 11 domains, and the
data analysis has carried out using the fuzzy Delphi method
(Fig. 1).
Table 1. Post-earthquake temporary accommodation challenges based on literature review.
No. Challenges References
1Displacements' psychological problems (irritability, fear of the future, worry, humiliation, etc.) [19,21,23,25,26]
2Outbreak of illness [18,27,28]
96 The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 Dabiri et al.
3Being prolonged the period of temporary accommodation [7,17,18,20,21,22,23]
4Lack of correct estimation of the number of people affected in a short time [17,20]
5Incorrect evaluation and prioritization of the needs, according to the fast the need for attempts [6,20]
6The challenge of drinking water supply [19,29]
7Lack of equal availability to friendly human resources for residents of different sites [22]
8The lack of prediction of prefabricated structures and conex leads to the establishment of the accommodation site being
prolonged [20]
9The reluctance of some of the victims to evacuates the temporary accommodation site due to the use of free facilities
when the reconstruction is completed. [20]
10 The problem of fire [19,20,24]
11 Challenge of sewage disposal [20,22]
12 The challenge of lighting and electricity [19,20]
13 The insurance of the permanent buildings of the victims as a result of the prolongation of the reconstruction and the
prolongation of the period of temporary accommodation [20]
14 The problem of victims occupation [6,25]
15 Shortage of infrastructure (water, drainage, electricity, road networks, etc.) [6]
16 Lack of formal psychiatric health services [27]
17 Medical facilities avoidance [6,21,23]
18 Disrespect to cultural and local issues [6]
19 Destruction of environmental signs [6]
20 Destruction of vegetation [6]
21 Soil degradation [6]
22 Social isolation of victims occupant in temporary accommodation away from permanent accommodation [6]
23 Occurrence of strongly floods and rains [19,30]
24 Lack of formal mental health infrastructures [21,23,27]
25 Ignoring the local context in the relief program [27]
26 The fragmentation of health care among a large number of non-governmental organizations [27]
27 Waste accumulation resulting from the Dismantlement of temporary accommodation infrastructure after the expiration of
the period of residence on the rental lands [6]
28 The cold and hot challenge [19,20,25,30]
29 Change in social communication in society (social capital) [31]
30 The problem of economic activity, education, and social health [25]
31 The problem of health facilities (bathroom and toilet) [19,25,30]
32 Challenge of facilities maintenance [25,30]
33 Privacy challenge [29,30]
34 Challenging the evacuation of the temporary accommodation site by tenants and new migrants after the expiration of the
temporary accommodation [17]
35 The problem of the shelter type selection [18,19,22,24,25,30]
36 Lack of sense of belonging to the location on behalf of the injured, occupant on the site [19]
37 Inadequacy of enough space in the selected shelter [22,30]
38 The issue of the accurate distribution of shelter [22]
39 People avoidance from going to camps as temporary accommodation [22]
40 Challenges of the health environment [29, 30]
41 The problem of waste disposal [29]
42 The challenge of safety management in the food supply [29]
43 The Challenge of Non-Native Immigrants [28]
44 The fruition of secondary refugee to have more comfortable facilities than victims [28]
45 The difference between women and men for availability to facilities and sense of security [28]
46 The difference in the service between temporary accommodation sites, which leads to a high population density on sites
with more facilities [28]
47 The difference in services between urban and rural temporary accommodation sites will lead to an increase in demand for
urban temporary accommodation sites [28]
48 The challenge of change in the diet of the injured [28]
49 The problem of coordination among service provider devices [28]
(Table 1) contd .....
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 97
Fig. (1). Research steps of identifying the risks in the post-earthquake temporary accommodation process based on the Fuzzy Delphi technique.
The judgment of 17 experts in the area of crisis
management was used to assess the validity of the
questionnaire, and the Lawshe method was used to determine
the content validity ratio (CVR) in each section [36]. To
measure reliability, Cronbach's alpha was used in a
questionnaire completed by 17 experts. Excel and SPSS
software were used for data analysis.
3.1. Delphi Survey Technique
The Delphi survey technique is a communication structure
whose purpose is to produce a detailed survey and discussion.
Delphi studies are useful in creating regulation, standards, and
predicting processes [37] and are a widespread and acceptable
way for collecting information from respondents in their field
of expertise. This technique was designed as a group
communication process whose goal is to achieve the
convergence of belief in a particular issue in the real world
[38]. The Delphi technique is essentially a series of successive
or periodic questionnaires combined with feedback which
seeks to gain the most trusted opinion of an expert group [39].
3.2. Fuzzy Delphi Technique
A fuzzy set is a continuous group of objects with a set of
continuous scores under the membership title. Such a set is
characterized by a membership function (characteristic) that
specifies each object with a decimal membership degree
between zero and one [40]. The Delphi method is based on
respondents' views. In this method, verbal expressions are used
to measure the viewpoints. Verbal terms have limitations in
reflecting the subjective views of respondents. For example,
the term “Tall or high” for person “A” has a meaning and a
certain number, and another means and another number for
person “B.” In other words, although the competence and
mental capabilities of experts are used to make decisions, the
quantification of experts’ opinions cannot fully reflect their
thinking style. The use of fuzzy sets is consistent with
linguistic and sometimes vague human descriptions, and it is
better to use fuzzy numbers in real-world decision making [32,
41, 42].
A triangular fuzzy digit (TFN) is a fuzzy number
represented by three real numbers (f = (l, m, u)). The upper
limit for the fuzzy number is f and is indicated by u, and the
lower limit is indicated by l. The mean of the fuzzy number is
shown with m, which has the highest possible value. The
membership function of a triangular fuzzy number is as follows
[32]:
(1)
The geometric image of the triangular fuzzy number (f = (l,
m, u)) is displayed as follows:
The structure of fuzzy triangular numbers is very suitable
for prediction by the Delphi method. In a method used to
Getting the experts opinion and analyzing the data
based in fuzzy method
categorization of the findings and declaration of
the agreement and the consensus
Have the necessary consensus
b
een reached?
Compilation of report and transmission to
stakeholders
Review of literature (reports, researches done) on
the process of post-earthquakes temporary
accommodation in the world
Identification and categorization of the challenges
in post-earthquake temporary accommodation
Conducting a Delphi questionnaires survey
Yes
No
98 The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 Dabiri et al.
predict the time, cost, and other quantitative values, experts are
asked to make their predictions based on the minimum,
maximum, and most probable values. Hence, it is no longer
necessary to prepare a clear and absolute value [32].
Some mathematical operations for fuzzy numbers are as
follows [32]:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
The Fuzzy Delphi technique algorithm contains the
following steps [32]: (i) Identification and selection of
appropriate fuzzy spectrum for the fuzzification of respondents'
linguistic expressions, (ii) Fuzzy aggregation of values that
became fuzzy (experts’ opinions should be gathered), (iii)
Defuzzification of value, (iv) Selection of threshold and
screening criteria. Table 2 shows the fuzzy triangular numbers
for a five-point scale.
Table 2. Triangular fuzzy numbers for the five-point Likert
scale of measurement [32].
Verbal Expressions Fuzzy Numbers
Very Important (0.75, 1.00, 1.00)
Important (0.5, 0.75, 1.00)
Relatively Important (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
Unimportant (0.00, 0.25, 0.5)
Very Unimportant (0.00, 0.00, 0.25)
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Two Steps of Fuzzy Delphi Method
Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire, along with the summary of
identified challenges of previous studies (Table 1), was sent to
all organizations and companies through the Kurdistan Crisis
Management Office. The questionnaire included 11 areas and
94 questions, in which experts were asked to add comments to
their questions in addition to answering these questions, if
necessary. In the first step, the questionnaire completed by
specialists and crisis management experts was sent to the crisis
management directorate by 18 organizations, agencies, and
companies.
In order to analyze the responses of the Fuzzy Delphi
questionnaire, first, all of the answers in the 11 tables (the
number of related domains) were collected in fuzzy numbers in
Excel software. Then, the average total of 18 experts' answers
for each question was extracted in fuzzy form. To further
utilize the defuzzification method of fuzzy number, we use
three different methods. The average of the defuzzification
number of the three methods was determined as a
defuzzification response according to Table 3 for each
question.
Given that in the first step of the Fuzzy Delphi method,
none of the responses were within a very small range, no
questions among 94 questions were removed to continue the
fuzzy Delphi process [43]. After carrying out the analysis and
calculations in the first stage, again, the questionnaire, along
with the results of the first step, was presented in person to the
participating experts in the first stage. They were asked to
compare their responses with the average of the total responses
in the previous step, and offer revisions, if appropriate. The
second stage questionnaire was then collected, and the results
were extracted after the fuzzification and de-fuzzification, as
described in Table 4.
Given that the average difference of defuzzification
number in the second and the first is less than 0.1 or lower
threshold of defuzzification number in the Likert five-point
spectrum, another stage is not considered for the poll [43]. In
other words, convergence has been achieved among experts.
4.2. Prioritization of Post-earthquake Temporary
Accommodation Risks and the Area
The Prioritization in this study is based on a comparison of
the defuzzification number in the fuzzy Delphi final step of
each question with the defuzzification number in the Likert
five-point area. The results of this prioritization are presented
in Table 5, in order of priority. In addition, the total
defuzzification average of all questions in each area is
computed and presented in Table 6 and (Fig. 2).
The results show that, among the 94 identified risks, the
challenge of cold and hot weather and the challenge of sewage
disposal with a score of 0.808 are the most important. The risk
of disrespectful feeling to cultural and local issues, with a score
of 0.327, has the least important issue in the process of
temporary accommodation after possible future earthquakes in
the study area. In addition, in cross-sectoral comparison, the
risks of climatic scope were the most important, with an
average score of 0.698.
Table 3. Fuzzy triangular numbers of verbal variables.
Verbal
variables
Triangular fuzzy
number
Defuzzification number
based on Minkowski
formula (1)
X=(l+(u-m)/4)
Defuzzification
number based on
formula (2)
X=(l+2m+u)/4
Defuzzification
number based on
formula (3)
X=(l+m+u)/3
Defuzzification number
based on average of three
methods
(1),(2),(3)
Very High (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) 0.75 0.9375 0.9167 0.8681
ܨଵൌሺ݈ଵǡ݉ଵǡݑଵሻ
ܨଶൌሺ݈ଶǡ݉ଶǡݑଶሻ
ܨଵْܨଶ=(݈ଵْ݈ଶǡ݉ଵْ݉ଶǡݑଵْݑଶሻ
ܨଵٔܨଶ=(݈ଵ݈ٔଶǡ݉ଵٔ݉ଶǡݑଵٔݑଶሻ
ிభ
ிమ=( భ
௨మǡభ
మǡ௨భ
మሻ
ܨଵିଵ=( ଵ
௨భǡଵ
భǡଵ
భሻ
ܭٔܨ=(ܭ݈ٔǡܭٔ݉ǡܭٔݑሻ
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 99
High (0.5, 0.75, 1.00) 0.5625 0.75 0.75 0.6875
Medium (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) 0.3125 0.5 0.5 0.4375
Low (0.00, 0.25, 0.5) 0.0625 0.25 0.25 0.1875
Very low (0.00, 0.00, 0.25) 0.0625 0.0625 0.0833 0.0694
Table 4. The average of experts' opinions after the second phase of the Fuzzy Delphi survey.
Scope of Risk Risk No. Risk Name
The triangular
fuzzy mean of
expert opinion in
the second step of
the Delphi
method
The average of
experts
defuzzification in
first step of the
Delphi method
The average of
experts
defuzzification in
second step of the
Delphi method
The average of
experts
defuzzification in
first and second
step of the Delphi
method
l m u
Social and
Cultural Scope
R1
The unwillingness of people to reside on the sites
of temporary accommodation outside the city 0.361 0.583 0.778 0.500 0.520 0.020
R2
Cultural differences between victims and relief
experts 0.278 0.500 0.750 0.466 0.452 0.014
R3
The challenge of mutual trust between victims and
reliefs 0.319 0.556 0.792 0.507 0.497 0.010
R4
The reluctance of some of the victims to evacuate
the temporary accommodation site due to the use
of free facilities when the reconstruction is
completed.
0.292 0.528 0.750 0.475 0.465 0.010
R5Disrespectful feeling to cultural and local issues 0.153 0.375 0.625 0.341 0.327 0.014
R6
Lack of victims participation in the site
administration 0.194 0.431 0.681 0.361 0.375 0.014
R7
The challenge of rumors creation from unofficial
sources 0.486 0.722 0.903 0.658 0.648 0.010
R8
Change in social communication in society (social
capital) 0.292 0.528 0.778 0.459 0.459 0.014
R9
Sense of not belonging to the place from the
victims residents on the site 0.403 0.639 0.833 0.568 0.568 0.000
R10
The challenges of ethnic and religious differences
between the injured 0.292 0.528 0.778 0.459 0.459 0.014
R11 Problems of study continuation for the injured 0.389 0.639 0.861 0.569 0.569 0.000
R12 Non-sense of neighborhood among the injured 0.264 0.514 0.750 0.441 0.448 0.007
R13
Social isolation of victims, occupant in temporary
accommodation far away from permanent
accommodation
0.333 0.569 0.792 0.500 0.507 0.007
Security Scope
R14 Challenge of privacy regard 0.486 0.736 0.917 0.650 0.654 0.004
R15
Entrance of non-victims and opportunists to the
temporary accommodation site 0.528 0.764 0.889 0.684 0.674 0.010
R16 The challenge of non-native immigrants 0.444 0.694 0.889 0.627 0.617 0.010
R17
The difference between men and women in the
sense of security 0.444 0.694 0.903 0.620 0.620 0.000
R18
Challenge of vehicles in unconventional hours and
creation of noise pollution 0.347 0.583 0.806 0.530 0.520 0.010
R19
Creation of disturbance by site residents for
neighbors or vice versa 0.375 0.625 0.847 0.569 0.555 0.014
R20
The conversion into these sites after the end of the
temporary accommodation to crime society that
operate outside the law, by new immigrants and
people who do not qualify for provision of
permanent accommodation.
0.375 0.611 0.903 0.574 0.568 0.006
R21 Conflict between people 0.361 0.611 0.847 0.555 0.545 0.010
(Table 3) contd .....
100 The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 Dabiri et al.
Climatic Scope
R22 Challenge of cold and heat 0.667 0.917 1.000 0.784 0.808 0.024
R23 Challenge of wind and storm 0.667 0.819 0.944 0.708 0.722 0.014
R24 Challenge of flood 0.514 0.764 0.903 0.664 0.671 0.007
R25 Challenge of sand storm 0.472 0.722 0.917 0.654 0.644 0.010
R26 Challenge of snow and rain 0.639 0.889 1.000 0.774 0.788 0.014
R27
Paths obstruction due to snow and rain as a result
of disorderliness in the offer of winter service 0.583 0.833 0.972 0.726 0.740 0.014
R28
Inappropriate selection of shelter type based on
climatic conditions 0.472 0.722 0.889 0.623 0.637 0.014
R29
Inappropriate establishment of shelter based on
sunrise and sunset location and dominant wind
direction
0.403 0.653 0.847 0.547 0.575 0.028
R30 Challenge of the spread of infectious diseases 0.569 0.819 0.958 0.712 0.726 0.014
R31
Challenge of availability to medication and
treatment 0.514 0.764 0.958 0.672 0.686 0.014
R32 Challenge of food corruption 0.514 0.764 0.944 0.692 0.682 0.010
R33 Challenge of sewage disposal 0.667 0.917 1.000 0.797 0.808 0.010
R34 Challenge of waste disposal 0.639 0.889 1.000 0.778 0.788 0.010
R35
Division of corrupt and unstable food products
among the injured 0.514 0.750 0.903 0.654 0.668 0.014
R36
Challenges for the equipment and machinery
provision for shipping of patient and outpatient
emergency
0.486 0.726 0.917 0.627 0.654 0.028
R37 Challenge of changing the diet of the injured 0.486 0.722 0.917 0.642 0.652 0.010
R38 Psychological problems of the injured 0.625 0.875 0.972 0.756 0.770 0.014
R39
Lack of formalized pre-provided infrastructure for
the mental health of the injured 0.500 0.750 0.944 0.682 0.672 0.010
R40 Lack of formal psychiatric health services 0.514 0.764 0.944 0.692 0.682 0.010
R41
The fragmentation of health care among a large
number of non-governmental organizations 0.361 0.611 0.847 0.559 0.545 0.014
Support and
Logistics Scope
R42
The difference between men and women to
availability the facilities 0.389 0.639 0.861 0.555 0.569 0.014
R43
Easier availability for secondary refugees to
facilities than the main injuries 0.264 0.500 0.750 0.459 0.445 0.014
R44
High population density at sites with more
facilities 0.403 0.639 0.875 0.566 0.580 0.014
R45
Increased demand in temporary urban
accommodation sites compared to temporary
accommodation and rural sites
0.528 0.778 0.944 0.678 0.692 0.014
R46
Ignoring of local backgrounds in the assisting
program 0.389 0.625 0.847 0.548 0.562 0.014
R47
Weakness in the distribution of shelter (tent and
conex) 0.542 0.792 0.944 0.688 0.702 0.014
R48
Differences in the type of shelter offered to people
during the temporary accommodation, and the
creation of a sense of discrimination
0.528 0.778 0.931 0.698 0.688 0.010
R49
Lack of coordination in the distribution of
humanitarian assistance 0.542 0.792 0.958 0.716 0.706 0.010
(Table 4) contd .....
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 101
Infrastructure
Scope
R50
Challenge of supplying water requirements to
drink and health issues 0.569 0.806 0.931 0.702 0.716 0.014
R51
Challenge of machine traffic on the paths leading
to the site and their surrounding environment 0.444 0694 0.861 0.619 0.609 0.010
R52
Lack of adequate knowledge of local materials for
creation of shelter and rising transportation costs 0.361 0.597 0.806 0.517 0.530 0.014
R53 Challenge of fuel supply 0.556 0.806 0.944 0.698 0.712 0.014
R54 Challenge of electricity and lighting 0.500 0.750 0.917 0.650 0.664 0.014
R55
Challenge of the inability to inventory temporary
shelters for property taken out of the rubble 0.500 0.750 0.917 0.650 0.664 0.014
R56
Challenge of availability to entertainment and
sports facilities according to age and gender of the
injured
0.403 0.653 0.833 0.557 0.571 0.014
R57
The issue of availability to appropriate
communication networks, such as the fixed
telephone
0.403 0.653 0.861 0.572 0.579 0.007
R58
Challenge of riding person and pedestrian
availability interference for the inside and around
the site
0.375 0.625 0.819 0.533 0.547 0.014
R59
Lack of prediction of pre-event prefabricated
structures and conex that prolong the launch phase
of the site.
0.542 0.792 0.944 0.688 0.702 0.014
R60
Disproportionate type of shelter with
accommodation duration 0.556 0.806 0.931 0.694 0.708 0.014
R61
Lack of adequate public and suitable services
during temporary accommodation 0.431 0.667 0.889 0.590 0.604 0.014
R62
Lack of familiarity with the victims to
maintenance of new shelters 0.389 0.625 0.861 0.566 0.566 0.000
R63
Lack of equal and optimal availability of
temporary accommodation units to the welfare
facilities available on the site
0.417 0.667 0.889 0.583 0.596 0.014
R64
Disproportion of the space within the temporary
accommodation units with the number of
households and the type of activity of the residents
0.431 0.681 0.889 0.593 0.606 0.014
R65
Non-separation of riding person and walking
person availability into the temporary
accommodation site
0.431 0.681 0.875 0.589 0.603 0.014
Economic
Scope
R66
Unemployed victims and closure of their
businesses 0.625 0.875 0.972 0.742 0.770 0.028
R67
Priority of physical reconstruction on economic
reconstruction 0.375 0.625 0.833 0.544 0.551 0.007
R68
The loss of young people's skills training in the
creation of business during the temporary
accommodation
0.347 0.597 0.806 0.509 0.523 0.014
R69
Challenge of maintaining income sources in some
families during the temporary accommodation,
such as livestock keeping
0.611 0.681 0.875 0.708 0.698 0.010
R70
Not having permanent insurance buildings of the
victims which are not insured as a result of the
prolongation of the reconstruction and the
prolongation of the period of temporary
accommodation
0.583 0.833 0.987 0.734 0.744 0.010
Environmental
Scope
R71 Destruction of environmental signs 0.444 0.681 0.903 0.604 0.618 0.014
R72 Destruction of vegetation 0.347 0.583 0.819 0.510 0.524 0.014
R73 Soil degradation 0.278 0.500 0.722 0.431 0.444 0.014
R74 Damaging forests and pastures 0.306 0.556 0.792 0.475 0.489 0.014
R75
Accumulation of waste and materials due to the
destruction of the site after the end of temporary
accommodation
0.403 0.639 0.847 0.582 0.572 0.010
(Table 4) contd .....
102 The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 Dabiri et al.
Scope of
Ownership and
Legal Issues
R76
Installation of prefabricated units on private lands
and in the vicinity of damaged homes. Creation of
reconstruction problems and elimination debris
0.403 0.653 0.875 0.569 0.583 0.014
R77
Putting the conex on the land belonging to other
people 0.403 0.653 0.875 0.544 0.551 0.007
R78
Arbitrary use of the victims' lands and private
estates around the site as a warehouse, parking,
and ...
0.375 0.625 0.833 0.630 0.644 0.014
Events Scope
R79 Fire on the site 0.372 0.722 0.917 0.562 0.568 0.007
R80 electrocution 0.403 0.639 0.833 0.510 0.524 0.014
R81 Vehicle crash with people 0.361 0.583 0.792 0.362 0.348 0.014
R82
Damages resulting from animals and insects hart
to people (snake, scorpion, etc.) 0.181 0.389 0.639 0.578 0.592 0.014
Management
Scope
R83
Lack of centralized management based on existing
potential in the region and coordination between
service providers
0.431 0.667 0.847 0.617 0.606 0.010
R84
Inappropriate placement of the temporary
accommodation site and non-attention to the
relevant criteria (Such as availability to services,
avoidance of faults and streams, gas lines, and ...)
0.431 0.681 0.889 0.706 0.716 0.010
R85
The desire of some organizations to prioritization
of their organization instead of integrated crisis
management brief and agreements
0.556 0.806 0.958 0.599 0.589 0.010
R86
Lack of correctly estimate about the number of
people who go to other cities after of earthquake. 0.417 0.667 0.861 0.586 0.576 0.010
R87 Evaluation and prioritization of the needs 0.403 0.639 0.861 0.606 0.596 0.010
R88
Lack of coordinating reconstruction of permanent
buildings in pre-specified temporary
accommodation
0.417 0.667 0.889 0.638 0.628 0.010
R89
Non conformity of the procedure unity and using
different methods 0.444 0.694 0.931 0.603 0.693 0.010
R90
Lack of assessment of the post-earthquake local
workforce, for the temporary accommodation
period and permanent accommodation
reconstruction
0.417 0.667 0.875 0.561 0.551 0.010
R91
Lack of same procedure in the assessment of
earthquake effects 0.375 0.625 0.833 0.568 0.582 0.014
R92
The lack of a pre-codification evaluation plan for
responsibility and accountability 0.417 0.653 0.847 0.586 0.590 0.004
R93
Lack of predicting the number of victims on
preventive planning before the earthquake 0.431 0.653 0.847 0.613 0.627 0.014
R94
Challenge of coordination between service
providers during temporary accommodation 0.458 0.708 0.889 0.640 0.630 0.010
Table 5. Prioritized of risks and their relevance in the post-earthquake temporary accommodation process based on the
average of three methods of defuzzification in the Fuzzy Delphi technique.
Priority Risk No. Risk rating Risk level Priority Risk No. Risk rating Risk level Priority Risk No. Risk rating Risk level
R22 0.808 Very High R70.648 High R20 0.568 High
R33 0.808 Very High R25 0.644 High R79 0.568 High
R26 0.788 Very High R78 0.644 High R62 0.566 High
R34 0.788 Very High R28 0.637 High R67 0.562 High
R38 0.770 Very High R94 0.630 High R46 0.555 High
R66 0.770 Very High R88 0.628 High R19 0.551 High
R70 0.744 High R93 0.627 High R77 0.551 High
R27 0.740 High R17 0.620 High R90 0.551 High
R30 0.726 High R71 0.618 High R58 0.547 High
R23 0.722 High R16 0.617 High R21 0.545 High
R50 0.716 High R51 0.609 High R41 0.545 High
(Table 4) contd .....
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 103
R84 0.716 High R64 0.606 High R52 0.530 High
R53 0.712 High R83 0.606 High R72 0.524 High
R60 0.708 High R61 0.604 High R80 0.524 High
R49 0.706 High R65 0.603 High R68 0.523 High
R47 0.702 High R63 0.596 High R10.520 High
R59 0.702 High R87 0.596 High R18 0.520 High
R69 0.698 High R89 0.593 High R13 0.507 High
R45 0.692 High R82 0.592 High R30.497 High
R48 0.688 High R92 0.590 High R74 0.489 High
R31 0.686 High R85 0.589 High R80.473 High
R32 0.682 High R76 0.583 High R10 0.473 High
R40 0.682 High R91 0.582 High R40.465 High
R15 0.674 High R44 0.580 High R20.452 High
R39 0.672 High R57 0.579 High R12 0.448 High
R24 0.671 High R86 0.576 High R43 0.445 High
R35 0.668 High R29 0.575 High R73 0.444 High
R54 0.664 High R75 0.572 High R60.375 Medium
R55 0.664 High R56 0.571 High R81 0.348 Medium
R14 0.654 High R11 0.569 High
R36 0.654 High R42 0.569 High R50.327 Medium
R37 0.652 High R90.568 High
Table 6. Prioritization of different risk areas in the post-earthquake temporary accommodation process based on the
defuzzification average of experts' opinions.
Priority No. Scope Name Defuzzification average of experts' opinions
1Climatic Scope 0.698
2Healthcare Scope 0.694
3Economics Scope 0.657
4Infrastructure Scope 0.624
5Procurement and Support Scope 0.618
6Management Scope 0.607
7Security Scope 0.594
8Scope of Ownership and Legal Issues 0.593
9Environmental Scope 0.530
10 Scope of Events 0.508
11 Social and cultural Scope 0.486
Fig. (2). Defuzzification average diagram opinion of experts for various risk areas in the post-earthquake temporary accommodation process.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Climatic Scope
Healthcare Scope
Economics Scope
Infrastructure Scope
Procurement and Support Scope
Management Scope
Security Scope
Scope of Ownership and Legal Issues
Environmental Scope
Scope of Events
Social and cultural Scope
(Table 5) contd .....
104 The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 Dabiri et al.
CONCLUSION
This research was carried out to answer the two following
questions: (i) What are the risks in the post-earthquake
temporary accommodation process? and (ii) What is the
priority of the risks in the post-earthquake temporary
accommodation process? To this end, first, the theoretical basis
of the temporary accommodation process after natural and
unnatural disasters was studied. Then, challenges of the
temporary accommodation process were collected through
previous reports and research on temporary accommodation,
and experienced experts’ opinions gathered through interviews.
Finally, 94 challenges were collected. The Delphi method was
used to evaluate the identified risks. The consensus among
experts to determine the significance of each risk was reached
after two rounds of fuzzy Delphi. The results of the Delphi
method were analyzed using fuzzy triangular numbers. Finally,
the risks were ranked according to their importance. The study
results show that all 94 identified risks are of medium and high
importance in the post-earthquake temporary accommodation
process. In this study, the risks were identified and evaluated
based on the characteristics of the study area. Therefore, it is
suggested that areas with different characteristics should be
studied for future studies. Identifying the risks of the temporary
post-earthquake resettlement process can help develop a
disaster prevention plan. It can also help promote various
aspects of sustainable development, including social,
environmental, and economic aspects.
CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION
Not applicable.
AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS
The data used to support the findings of this study are
included in the article.
FUNDING
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or
otherwise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Declared none.
REFERENCES
S. Winarno, A. Griffith, and P. Stephenson, "Reducing earthquake risk[1]
to non-engineered buildings: A study of design and construction
practices in Indonesia", Int. J. Const. Manag., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 75-86,
2010.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2010.10773139]
H. Sarvari, M. Rakhshanifar, J. Tamošaitienė, D.W.M. Chan, and M.[2]
Beer, A risk based approach to evaluating the impacts of Zayanderood
drought on sustainable development indicators of Riverside Urban in
Isfahan-Iran. Sustainability - Special Issue on Sustainability and Risks
in Construction Management, vol. 11. 2019no. 23, .
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11236797]
A. Adamy, and A.H. Abu Bakar, "Developing a building-performance[3]
evaluation framework for post-disaster reconstruction: the case of
hospital buildings in Aceh, Indonesia", Int. J. Const. Manag., vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 56-77, 2021.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1506903]
D. Félix, J.M. Branco, and A. Feio, "Temporary housing after[4]
disasters: A state of the art survey", Habitat Int., vol. 40, pp. 136-141,
2013.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.03.006]
J.S. Becker, D. Paton, D.M. Johnston, K.R. Ronan, and J. McClure,[5]
"The role of prior experience in informing and motivating earthquake
preparedness", Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 22, pp. 179-193,
2017.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.006]
D. Félix, D. Monteiro, J.M. Branco, R. Bologna, and A. Feio, "The[6]
role of temporary accommodation buildings for post-disaster housing
reconstruction", J. Housing Built Environ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 683-699,
2015.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10901-014-9431-4]
C. Johnson, "Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after[7]
disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey", Habitat Int., vol. 31, pp.
36-52, 2007.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.03.002]
M. Dabiri, M. Oghabi, H. Sarvari, M. Sabeti, and H. Kashefi, "A[8]
combination risk-based approach to post-earthquake temporary
accommodation site selection: A case study in Iran", Iranian Journal
of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 54-74, 2020.
C. Johnson, What’s the Big Deal about Temporary Housing? Planning[9]
Considerations for Temporary Accommodation after Disasters:
Example of the 1999 Turkish Earthquakes, 2000.
Y.O. Izadkhah, and K. Amini Hosseini, "An evaluation of disaster[10]
preparedness in four major earthquakes in Iran", Journal of Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1-2, pp. 61-75, 2010.
APM, Project Risk Analysis and Management—Mini Guide.[11]
Association for Project Management, 2018. Available online:
https://www.apm.org.uk/media/10466/pram_web.pdf
PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge[12]
(PMBOK® Guide), 6th Edition Newton Square: Project Management
Institute, 2017.
H. Sarvari, A. Valipour, N. Yahya, N.M. Noor, M. Beer, and N.[13]
Banaitiene, "Approaches to risk identification in public–private
partnership projects: Malaysian private partners’ overview", Adm. Sci.,
vol. 9, no. 1, p. 17, 2019.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci9010017]
A. Valipour, H. Sarvari, and J. Tamošaitiene, "Risk assessment in PPP[14]
projects by applying different MCDM methods and comparative
results analysis", Adm. Sci., vol. 8, no. 4, p. 80, 2018.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci8040080]
R. Rafaat, H. Osman, M. Georgy, and M. Elsaid, "Preferred risk[15]
allocation in Egypt’s water sector PPPs", International Journal of
Construction Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 585-597, 2020.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1703087]
R.J. Chapman, "The effectiveness of working group risk identification[16]
and assessment techniques", Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 16, no. 6, pp.
333-343, 1998.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00015-5]
C. Johnson, "Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing",[17]
Disasters, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 435-458, 2007.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01018.x] [PMID:
18028163]
D.V. Perrucci, B.A. Vazquez, and C.B. Aktas, "Sustainable Temporary[18]
Housing: Global Trends and Outlook, International Conference on
Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction", Procedia Eng.,
vol. 145, pp. 327-332, 2016.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.082]
B. Yüksel, and D. Hasircl, "An analysis of physical and psychological[19]
expectations of earthquake victims from temporary shelters: A design
proposal", METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol. 29, no.
1, pp. 225-241, 2012.
Ö.H. Bettemir, "Recommendations on the solution of accommodation[20]
problem and recovery after destructive earthquakes", Int. J. Emerg.
Manag., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 168-184, 2016.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2016.076616]
M. Comerio, Disaster hits home: New policy for urban housing[21]
recovery., University of California Press: Berkeley, 1998.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/9780520918726]
B. Omidvar, and N. Binesh, "Reconstruction experience of Lorestan[22]
2006 earthquake: Elimination of transitional shelter", Disaster Adv.,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 37-43, 2012.
T. Tomioka, "Housing reconstruction measures from the great[23]
Hanshin-Awaji earthquake", Proceeding of the 5th United
States/Japan Workshop on Earthquake Hazard Reduction, 1997
Pasadena
L.V. Hui, "“Study on Safety Management of the Temporary[24]
Assessing the Post-Earthquake Temporary Accommodation The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 2021, Volume 15 105
Community after the Earthquake, International Symposium on Safety
Science and Engineering in China”, 2012 (ISSSE-2012)", Procedia
Eng., vol. 43, pp. 214-220, 2012.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.037]
K. Tierney, T. Tobin, B. Khazai, F. Krimgold, and F. Parsizadeh,[25]
Reconnaissance report on Bam Earthquake social and public policy
issues.Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering - Special
Issue on Bam Earthquake, pp. 209-215, 2004.
"C., Cervello’n, P., Pe’rez-Salesc, P., Vidales, D., and Gaborit, M.,[26]
“Positive emotions in earthquake survivors in El Salvador (2001)",
Anxiety Disorders, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 313-328, 2005.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.03.002]
G. Raviola, J. Severe, T. Therosme, C. Oswald, G. Belkin, and E.[27]
Eustache, "The 2010 Haiti earthquake response", Psychiatr. Clin.
North Am., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 431-450, 2013.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2013.05.006] [PMID: 23954057]
Md. Shahab Uddin, "Surges of Earthquake displaced Population and[28]
Dynamics of Emergency Shelter Facilities: Learning from Nepal
Earthquake 2015", Proceedings of the International Conference on
Disaster Management: From Polar Region to the Local Communities
Social and Environmental Development, 2016
A.M. Cordero-Reyes, I. Palacios, D. Ramia, R. West, M. Valencia, N.[29]
Ramia, D. Egas, P. Rodas, M. Bahamonde, and M. Grunauer, "Natural
disaster management: experience of an academic institution after a 7.8
magnitude earthquake in Ecuador", Public Health, vol. 144, pp.
134-141, 2017.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.12.003] [PMID: 28274376]
M. Asefi, and Sh. Farrokhi, "Proposing a model for the design of post-[30]
disaster temporary housing based on the needs of the injured with
post-implementation evaluation approach (Case study: Earthquake-
stricken villages in Heris of East Azerbaijan)", Journal of Research
and Rural Planning, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 81-101, 2018.
S. Nomura, A.J. Parsons, M. Hirabayash, R. Kinoshita, Y. Liao, and S.[31]
Hodgson, "Social determinants of mid- to long-term disaster impacts
on health: A systematic review", Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 16,
pp. 53-67, 2016.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.01.013]
A. Habibi, F.F. Jahantigh, and A. Sarafrazi, "Fuzzy Delphi technique[32]
for forecasting and screening items", Asian Journal of Research in
Business Economics and Management, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 130-143,
2015.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2249-7307.2015.00036.5]
R. Khoshfetrat, H. Sarvari, D.W.M. Chan, and M. Rakhshanifar,[33]
Critical risk factors for implementing building information modelling
(BIM): a Delphi-based survey.International Journal of Construction
Management, pp. 1-10, 2021.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1788759]
M.I. Yousuf, "The Delphi technique", Essays in Education, vol. 20,[34]
no. 1, p. 8, 2007.
S.S. McMillan, M. King, and M.P. Tully, "How to use the nominal[35]
group and Delphi techniques", Int. J. Clin. Pharm., vol. 38, no. 3, pp.
655-662, 2016.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x] [PMID: 26846316]
C.H. Lawshe, "A quantitative approach to content validity", Person.[36]
Psychol., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 563-575, 1975.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
R.A. Green, "The Delphi Technique in Educational Research", SAGE[37]
Open, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-8, 2014.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244014529773]
T.O. Olawumi, and D.W.M. Chan, "Critical success factors for[38]
implementing building information modelling and sustainability
practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey", Sustain. Dev.,
vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 587-602, 2019.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.1925]
D.W.M. Chan, and J.H.L. Chan, "Developing a Performance[39]
Measurement Index (PMI) for target cost contracts in construction: A
Delphi study", Const. Law J, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 590-613, 2012.
L.A. Zadeh, "Fuzzy sets", Inf. Control, vol. 8, pp. 338-353, 1965.[40]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X]
H. Sarvari, D.W.M. Chan, N. Banaitiene, N.M. Noor, and M. Beer,[41]
"“Barriers to development of private sector investment in water and
sewage industry”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management -
Special Issue on “Public-Private Partnerships - Theory vs Practice",
Charting New Trajectories, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 52-70, 2021.
J. Tamošaitienė, H. Sarvari, D.W.M. Chan, and M. Cristofaro,[42]
Assessing the barriers and risks to private sector participation in
infrastructure construction projects in developing countries of Middle
East, 2021.
C.H. Cheng, and Y. Lin, "Evaluating the best main battle tank using[43]
fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation", Eur. J. Oper.
Res., vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 174-186, 2002.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00280-6]
© 2021 Dabiri et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is
available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.