IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v105y2021i2d10.1007_s11069-020-04380-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A method for determining the suitability of schools as evacuation shelters and aid distribution hubs following disasters: case study from Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Tsioulou

    (Willis Towers Watson)

  • Joanna Faure Walker

    (University College London)

  • Dexter Sumaylo Lo

    (Xavier University)

  • Rebekah Yore

    (University College London)

Abstract

Despite the controversy regarding their use, school buildings are often assigned as emergency evacuation shelters, temporary accommodation and aid distribution hubs following disasters. This paper presents a methodology to compare the relative suitability of different school buildings for these purposes by using the analytical hierarchy process to weight criteria based on the combined opinions of relevant experts and combine these with descriptive scores from surveyed buildings. The aggregated weights show that approximately equal weighting should be given to the hard characteristics (hazard at location and physical vulnerability) and soft characteristics (accessibility, communications, living environment, access to supplies). As well as immediate safety, conditions for inhabitation are important so that displaced persons are not discouraged from evacuating to shelters and shelter life is not detrimental to health and well-being. The study allows an optimal selection of school buildings used as shelters before and after a disaster and highlights where most improvement could be made with relatively little time and resources for both individual buildings and the whole study area. This method was applied to Cagayan de Oro in the Philippines, an area exposed to floods, windstorms and earthquakes, but can be adapted for other local contexts and building types. Among the 38 school buildings surveyed, we identified key areas for improvement as being insufficient pedestrian access for evacuation at night and for those with mobility constraints, and a lack of alternate spaces for evacuee activities leading to interference with education.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Tsioulou & Joanna Faure Walker & Dexter Sumaylo Lo & Rebekah Yore, 2021. "A method for determining the suitability of schools as evacuation shelters and aid distribution hubs following disasters: case study from Cagayan de Oro, Philippines," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 1835-1859, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04380-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04380-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04380-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-04380-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aczel, J. & Alsina, C., 1986. "On synthesis of judgements," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 333-339.
    2. Rajib Shaw & Yukiko Takeuchi & Margaret Arnold & Masaru Arakida, 2012. "The Education Sector," World Bank Publications - Reports 16166, The World Bank Group.
    3. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amir Reza Bakhshi Lomer & Mahdi Rezaeian & Hamid Rezaei & Akbar Lorestani & Naeim Mijani & Mohammadreza Mahdad & Ahmad Raeisi & Jamal Jokar Arsanjani, 2023. "Optimizing Emergency Shelter Selection in Earthquakes Using a Risk-Driven Large Group Decision-Making Support System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    2. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    3. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    4. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    5. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    6. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    7. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    8. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    9. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    11. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    12. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    13. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    14. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Ma, Jian & Jiang, Yan-Ping & Sun, Yong-Hong & Ma, Louis, 2006. "A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 311-321, October.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    16. Peng Wu & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou & Huayou Chen, 2022. "An Integrated Group Decision-Making Method with Hesitant Qualitative Information Based on DEA Cross-Efficiency and Priority Aggregation for Evaluating Factors Affecting a Resilient City," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 293-316, April.
    17. Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & González-Gómez, Francisco, 2015. "The ‘social choice’ of privatising urban water services: A case study of Madrid in Spain," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 616-629.
    18. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    19. Zorica Srđević & Bojan Srđević & Kosana Suvočarev & Laslo Galamboš, 2020. "Hybrid Constructed Wetland Selection as a Group Decision-Making Problem," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 295-310, January.
    20. Mangirdas Morkunas & Povilas Labukas, 2020. "The Evaluation of Negative Factors of Direct Payments under Common Agricultural Policy from a Viewpoint of Sustainability of Rural Regions of the New EU Member States: Evidence from Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04380-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.