Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 309–326 | Cite as

A fuzzy model to assess disaster risk reduction maturity level based on the Hyogo Framework for Action

  • Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho
  • Cláudio Henrique dos Santos Grecco
  • Armando Martins de Souza
  • Gilbert Jacob Huber
  • Jose Orlando Gomes
Original Paper
  • 311 Downloads

Abstract

The Hyogo Framework for Action was conceived to help nations build resilience against disasters. This framework was negotiated and approved by the United Nations at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held in Hyogo, Japan, in 2005. Disaster risk reductions systems are multi-agency integrated environment needing clear goals and ways to assess their evolution for planning purposes. The assessment of risk reduction maturity levels in countries/cities is difficult due to the large amount of data that must be collected and integrated to assess what is being done within each action indicated by the Hyogo Framework. Most indicators dependent on human perception are used in this assessment, making it highly dependent on the evaluators’ perceptions. The objective of this work is to propose a participatory fuzzy model able to assess the maturity level of disaster risk reduction using indicators in line with the Hyogo Framework. We apply the model and the evaluation method in an exploratory study in the city of Rio de Janeiro where there are several communities at risk of landslides due heavy rains.

Keywords

Disaster risk reduction Landslides Maturity assessment Hyogo Framework for Action Fuzzy logic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Conselho Nacional de Pesquisas (CNPq) and Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ).

References

  1. Dolif G, Engelbrecht A, Jatobá A, Silva AJD, Gomes JO, Borges MRS, Nobre CA, Carvalho PVR (2013) Resilience and brittleness in the ALERTARIO system: a field study about the decision-making of forecasters. Nat Hazards 65(3):1831–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grecco CHS, Vidal M, Cosenza CAN, Santos IJAL, Carvalho PVR (2014) HFA 5 maturity assessment: a fuzzy model for improving safety performance in a radioactive installation. Prog Nucl Energy 70:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hollnagel E (2008) Safety management e looking back or looking forward. In: Hollnagel E, Nemeth CP, Dekker S (eds) Resilience engineering perspectives, remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure, vol 1. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 63–78Google Scholar
  4. Hsu H, Chen C (1996) Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jovanović B, Filipovi J (2016) ISO 50001 standard-based energy management maturity model—proposal and validation in industry. J Clean Prod 112(4):2744–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lee HM (1996) Group decision making using fuzzy theory for evaluating the rate of aggregative risk in software development. Fuzzy Sets Syst 80:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Olsona D, Wu D (2013) Extreme-event risk management: a review of “Lee, B., Preston, F., 2012. Preparing for high-impact, low-probability events: lessons from Eyjafjallajőkull, London: Chatham House. J Clean Prod 53(15):67–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pedrycz W (1994) Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets Syst 64:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pullen W (2007) A public sector HPT maturity model. Perform Improv 46(4):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Thabrew L, Wiek A, Ries R (2009) Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. J Clean Prod 17(1):67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. UNISDR (2007) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. UNISDR, Geneva. http://www.preventionweb.net/
  13. UNISDR (2008) Indicators of progress: guidance on measuring the reduction of disaster risks and the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. UNISDR, Geneva. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/2259_IndicatorsofProgressHFA.pdf
  14. Yager R, Filev D (1993) On the issue of defuzzification and selection based on a fuzzy set. Fuzzy Sets Syst 55:255–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zadeh L (1996) Fuzzy logic = computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zimmermann H (1996) Fuzzy set theory and its applications, 3rd edn. Kluwer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cláudio Henrique dos Santos Grecco
    • 1
  • Armando Martins de Souza
    • 2
  • Gilbert Jacob Huber
    • 2
  • Jose Orlando Gomes
    • 2
  1. 1.Comissão Nacional de Energia NuclearInstituto de Engenharia NuclearRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.PPGI/UFRJ, Programa de Pos-Graduação em InformáticaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations