Next Article in Journal
Tourism and the SDGs: An Analysis of Economic Growth, Decent Employment, and Gender Equality in the European Union (2009–2018)
Previous Article in Journal
Public-Private Partnership Transformation and Worker Satisfaction: A Case Study of Sanitation Workers in H-City, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Information Technologies Supporting Emergency Management Controllers in New Zealand
Open AccessArticle

Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A)

1
Policy Analysis Section, Multi-Actor Systems (MAS) Department, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Building 31, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
2
Sustainable Design Engineering (SDE) Department, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(13), 5461; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135461
Received: 21 May 2020 / Revised: 17 June 2020 / Accepted: 3 July 2020 / Published: 7 July 2020
The global impacts of disaster risks are on the rise. Moreover, evidence shows that the severity of damage will increase exponentially. In 2019, there were 395 natural disasters that caused 11,755 deaths. Literature and practice indicate that diversification of disaster risk management (DRM) approaches can make communities more resilient. One notable bottleneck in adopting diverse DRM approaches is the historical dominance of natural and technological sciences with little contribution from social sciences. Thus, a heterogeneous social-technical approach to DRM is rare and risk governance challenges are hardly understood. We conducted a systematic literature and practice review and extracted data to develop and answer five sub-questions. After that, we reviewed relevant information and selected eight risk evaluation approaches. We made comparisons and used the input to design the Risk Evaluation Diversity-aiding Approach (RED-A). The approach consists of 12 criteria and a checklist with 22 items. RED-A provides guidance to DRM researchers and practitioners when conducting socio-technical risk evaluations. It helps identify cognitive biases in the ongoing DRM process that may largely impact the quality of risk evaluation procedures. The goal of the 22-item checklist is to ensure that the 12 RED-A criteria are incorporated as much as possible to support the progressive transition towards a heterogeneous social-technical DRM approach. Finally, the RED-A criteria and checklist are applied in the Solotvyno municipality context (in Ukraine), to illustrate the use of the approach. View Full-Text
Keywords: risk evaluation approaches; embodied uncertainty; complexity; ambiguity; decision-making; Solotvyno; disaster risk reduction (DRM) measures; design for resilience (DfR); tolerability and acceptability judgments risk evaluation approaches; embodied uncertainty; complexity; ambiguity; decision-making; Solotvyno; disaster risk reduction (DRM) measures; design for resilience (DfR); tolerability and acceptability judgments
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Onencan, A.M.; Liu, L.E.; Van de Walle, B. Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A). Sustainability 2020, 12, 5461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135461

AMA Style

Onencan AM, Liu LE, Van de Walle B. Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A). Sustainability. 2020; 12(13):5461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135461

Chicago/Turabian Style

Onencan, Abby M.; Liu, Lian E.; Van de Walle, Bartel. 2020. "Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A)" Sustainability 12, no. 13: 5461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135461

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop