Instruments for disaster preparedness evaluation: a scoping review

IF 1.1 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
N. Lorenzoni, Stephanie Kainrath, Maria Unterholzner, H. Stummer
{"title":"Instruments for disaster preparedness evaluation: a scoping review","authors":"N. Lorenzoni, Stephanie Kainrath, Maria Unterholzner, H. Stummer","doi":"10.47389/37.3.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring disaster preparedness has been a challenge as there is no consensus on a standardised approach to evaluation. This lack of clear definitions and performance metrics makes it difficult to determine whether past investments in preparedness have made sense or to see what is missing. This scoping review presents publications addressing the evaluation of disaster preparedness at the governmental level. A literature search was performed to identify relevant journal articles from 5 major scientific databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Business Source Premier and SocINDEX). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analysed. The review considered the multi-disciplinarily of disaster management and offers a broad overview of the concepts for preparedness evaluation offered in the literature. The results reveal a focus on all-hazards approach as well as local authority level in preparedness evaluation. Variation in the types of instruments used to measure preparedness and the diversity of questions and topics covered in the publications suggest little consensus on what constitutes preparedness and how it should be measured. Many assessment instruments seem to lack use in the field, which limits feedback on them from experts and practitioners. In addition, tools that are easy to use and ready for use by practitioners seem scarce.","PeriodicalId":46191,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Emergency Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Emergency Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47389/37.3.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Measuring disaster preparedness has been a challenge as there is no consensus on a standardised approach to evaluation. This lack of clear definitions and performance metrics makes it difficult to determine whether past investments in preparedness have made sense or to see what is missing. This scoping review presents publications addressing the evaluation of disaster preparedness at the governmental level. A literature search was performed to identify relevant journal articles from 5 major scientific databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Business Source Premier and SocINDEX). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analysed. The review considered the multi-disciplinarily of disaster management and offers a broad overview of the concepts for preparedness evaluation offered in the literature. The results reveal a focus on all-hazards approach as well as local authority level in preparedness evaluation. Variation in the types of instruments used to measure preparedness and the diversity of questions and topics covered in the publications suggest little consensus on what constitutes preparedness and how it should be measured. Many assessment instruments seem to lack use in the field, which limits feedback on them from experts and practitioners. In addition, tools that are easy to use and ready for use by practitioners seem scarce.
备灾评估工具:范围审查
衡量备灾情况一直是一个挑战,因为在标准化评估方法上没有达成共识。由于缺乏明确的定义和绩效指标,很难确定过去对准备工作的投资是否有意义,也很难看出缺少了什么。本范围审查介绍了涉及政府一级备灾评估的出版物。对5个主要科学数据库(Scopus、MEDLINE、PsycInfo、Business Source Premier和SocINDEX)中的相关期刊文章进行了文献检索。对符合纳入标准的研究进行了分析。该综述考虑了灾害管理的多学科性,并对文献中提供的备灾评估概念进行了广泛概述。结果显示,在准备评估中,重点关注所有危险方法以及地方当局层面。用于衡量备灾情况的工具类型各不相同,出版物中涉及的问题和主题也各不相同。这表明,在什么是备灾情况以及如何衡量备灾方面,几乎没有达成共识。许多评估工具似乎在该领域缺乏使用,这限制了专家和从业人员对其的反馈。此外,易于使用并可供从业者使用的工具似乎很少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Emergency Management
Australian Journal of Emergency Management PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
22.20%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Emergency Management is an academic journal in emergency management covering all hazards and all emergencies with a primary focus on the Oceania region. The journal includes research and practice as well as issues from government policy to community engagement. The AJEM focuses on risk reduction, readiness, response, recovery and resilience particularly for Australasia, New Zealand and the Pacific region. Research presented in the AJEM is evidence-based and peer-reviewed. AJEM is an open access publication under a Creative Commons [CC BY-NC] license. This allows free and immediate access to scholarly articles and industry news and views. The AJEM does not charge author fees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信