Natural Hazards

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 1397–1412 | Cite as

Evaluation of public participation in reconstruction of Bam, Iran, after the 2003 earthquake

Original Paper

Abstract

In the midst of the ever-increasing natural and human-induced disasters, where many of the preparedness and mitigation measures show inefficiencies, there is narrow margin for decision-makers to make mistakes by misallocating budgets, designing infeasible reconstruction plans, and in other terms, making decisions not in line with the public preferences. In particular, public participation in post-disaster measures seems undoubtedly necessary to reduce the possible economic, social, political, and cultural conflicts around the stressful community after a major disaster. This paper aims at evaluating the role of public participation in increasing the reconstruction phase efficiency through a case study of the reconstruction process in Bam, a southeastern Iranian city, after the 2003 earthquake. It is attempted to identify the major motivators of the public participation through a combination of quantitative and qualitative studies. Statistical data are generated through a set of questionnaires being filled by a number of 200 randomly selected survivors. The numerical results were then discussed through the Focus Group technique sessions to determine the main contributors to the public participation. It is later found that the answers are found among the performance of the reconstruction authorities, financial policies, emotional resiliency of the survivors, public information mechanisms, public satisfaction, the pace of reconstruction, and temporary housing policies.

Keywords

Public participation Reconstruction Bam earthquake Disaster management Focus group technique 

References

  1. Alexander DE (2007) Making research on geological hazards relevant to stakeholders’ needs. Quat Int 171(172):186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association (AERA) (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. American educational research association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. American Statistical Association (ASA) (1997). What are Focus Groups? (ASA Series: what is a survey?)Google Scholar
  4. Aysan, Y., Davis, I., (1993). Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. UNDP Disaster Management Training ProgramGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierle TC, Konisky DM (2001) What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 19:515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloomfield D, Collins K, Fry C, Munton R (2001) Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 19:501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1962) The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Measure 64(3):391–418. doi: 10.1177/0013164404266386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Marchi B, Ravetz JR (2001) Participatory approaches to environmental policy. Policy Res Br 10:1–18Google Scholar
  10. Frey BS, Kirchgässner G (1993) Diskursethik, politische ökonomie und volksabstimmungen. Analyse & Kritik 15:129–149 (In German)Google Scholar
  11. Gamper CD, Turcanu C (2007) On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis. Ecol Econ 62(2):298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamper CD, Turcanu C (2009) Can public participation help managing risks from natural hazards? Saf Sci 47:522–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillham B (2000) Developing a questionnaire. Continuum International Publishing Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillham B (2005) Research interviewing: the range of techniques. Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison A, Schmidt G, Avis C, Hauser R, (2001) World wildlife federation’s preliminary comments on public participation in the context of the water framework directive and integrated river basin management policy. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution (HFIR) (2004). Reconstruction of Bam report. (In Persian)Google Scholar
  17. Iran Geological Survey Institute (IGSI) (2003), Bam Earthquake ReportGoogle Scholar
  18. Messner F, Zwirner O, Karkuschke M (2006) Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the spree river basin. Land Use Policy 23:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nadim F, Lindholm C, Remseth S, Andersen A, Moghtaderi-Zadeh M, Tvedt E, (2004) International Centre for Geohazards (Norway) Reconnaissance Mission Report on Bam EarthquakeGoogle Scholar
  20. Omidvar B, Zafari H, Derakhshan S (2010) Reconstruction management policies in residential and commercial sectors after the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran. Nat Hazards 54:289–306. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9468-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rudner LM, Shafer WD (2001) Reliability ERIC Digest. ERIC clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  23. SERTIT (2004) Damage zoning map of Bam after the 2003 earthquakeGoogle Scholar
  24. Statistical Center of Iran (SCI) (2004). Annual population statistics report (in Persian)Google Scholar
  25. Zafari H (2008) A research on physical reconstruction management with a focus on people participation (case study: Bam earthquake). Dissertation for Masters Degree, Graduate Faculty of Environmental studies, University of Tehran, (in Persian)Google Scholar
  26. Zokai S, (2002). Theory and Methodology of Qualitative Research, social sciences journal, University of Allameh Tabatabai 17 (in Persian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Faculty of EnvironmentUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Housing Foundation of Islamic RevolutionTehranIran

Personalised recommendations