Underlying Disaster Risk Factors for Sustainable Coastal Development Projects in Malaysia

  • Sharifah Akmam Syed ZakariaEmail author
  • Mohd Azrulfitri Azimi
  • Taksiah A. Majid
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)


As disaster threats are inevitable, efforts should be directed to reduce the disaster risks via the implementation of risk mitigation measures to lessen the impacts. Current studies on disaster risks mostly focus on disaster risk reduction along with pre-disaster and post-disaster processes while the study on factors influencing the perception of risks is not sufficiently addressed. This paper aims to investigate the underlying factors that influenced disaster risk perception to ensure effective risk governance for a successful sustainable coastal development projects from the perspective of stakeholders with a credible engineering backgrounds. Analysis of this study is based on a survey conducted among 311 engineering students in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) regarding factors considered as part of the risk governance with respect to sustainable coastal development. It was found out that the environmental (92.93%), economic (73.63%) and health and safety (54.98%) factors were considered as the three most important factors by the students.


Disaster risk factors Underlying risk factors Sustainable coastal development 



This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), 203/PAWAM/6071357 provided by the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE). The authors would like to express gratitude to the students involved in providing the responses for the survey conducted. Also, we would like to thank all those involved, directly or indirectly, in realizing this project and research paper.


  1. 1.
    Abdul Wahab MT (2011) Malaysia: national progress report on the implementation of Hyogo Framework for Action (2009–2011). National Security Council. Available at:
  2. 2.
    Ammann WJ, Dannenmann S, Vulliet L (2006) RISK21—coping with risks due to natural hazards in the 21st century—proceedings of the RISK21 workshop. Taylor & Francis, London.
  3. 3.
    Baird A, O’Keefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B (1975) Towards an explanation and reduction of disaster proneness, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bang HHN (2008) Social vulnerability and risk perception to natural hazards in cameroon two decades after the Lake Nyos gas disaster. In: Summer academy on social vulnerability. United Nations University, Munich, pp 1–20. Available at:
  5. 5.
    Basili VR, Briand LC, Melo WL (1996) A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(10):751–761. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baytiyeh H (2017) Socio-cultural characteristics: the missing factor in disaster risk reduction strategy in sectarian divided societies. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 21:63–69. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bollin C, Cardenas C, Hahn H, Vatsa KS (2006) Disaster risk management by communities and local governmentsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewer G, Mcveigh A, Von Meding J (2013) An evaluation of the usefulness of actor network theory in understanding the complexities of vulnerability and resilience in post-disaster reconstruction. Int J Archit Res 7(3):80–92Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carver J, Shull F, Basili V (2003) Observational studies to accelerate process experience in classroom studies: an evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international symposium on empirical software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, p 72. Retrieved from
  10. 10.
    Carver J, Jaccheri L, Morasca S, Shull F (2003) Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. In: Proceedings—international software metrics symposium, 2003-January, pp 239–249.
  11. 11.
    Chan NW (2012) Impacts of disasters and disasters risk management in Malaysia: the case of floods. Econ Welfare Impacts Disasters East Asia Policy Responses 503–551. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cliff BJ, Morlock L, Curtis AB (2009) Is there an association between risk perception and disaster preparedness in rural US Hospitals? Prehosp Disaster Med 24(6):512–517. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danesh AS, Ahmad R (2009) Study of prioritization techniques using students as subjects. In: Proceedings—2009 international conference on information management and engineering, ICIME 2009, vol 1, pp 390–394.
  14. 14.
    Department of Irrigation and Drainage (2009) DID Manual (vol 1—Flood management). Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia, p 1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diya SG, Gasim MB, Toriman ME, Abdullahi MG (2014) Floods in Malaysia: historical reviews, causes, effects and mitigations approach. Int J Interdiscip Res Innov 2(4):59–65. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Douglas J (2007) Physical vulnerability modelling in natural hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7(2):283–288. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Espinosa JA, Ortinau DJ (2016) Debunking legendary beliefs about student samples in marketing research. J Bus Res 69(8):3149–3158. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, Lewis B (2011) A social vulnerability index for disaster management. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 8(1).
  19. 19.
    Freeman PK, Martin LA, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Mechler R, Pflug G, Warner K (2003) Disaster risk management: national systems for the comprehensive management of disaster risk and financial strategies for natural disaster reconstruction, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20. (2009) Tsunami devastates Indian Ocean Coast. A&E Networks. Available at: Accessed 4 May 2017
  21. 21.
    Hossain MN (2015) Analysis of human vulnerability to cyclones and storm surges based on influencing physical and socioeconomic factors: evidences from coastal Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 13:66–75. Scholar
  22. 22.
    IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. IPCC. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jenkins SF, Spence RJS, Fonseca JFBD, Solidum RU, Wilson TM (2014) Volcanic risk assessment: quantifying physical vulnerability in the built environment. J Volcanol Geoth Res 276:105–120. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khan H, Vasilescu L, Khan A (2008) Disaster management cycle—a theoretical approach. Manag Market J 6(1):43–50. Available at:
  25. 25.
    Kitchenham BA, Pfleeger SL, Pickard LM, Jones PW, Hoaglin DC, El Emam K, Rosenberg J (2002) Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(8):721–734. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P (2010) Editorial: real world research. J Clin Epidemiol. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kubickova M, Ro H (2011) Are students “real people?” The use of student subjects in hospitality research. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lioubimtseva E, Henebry GM (2009) Climate and environmental change in arid Central Asia: impacts, vulnerability, and adaptations. J Arid Environ 963–977. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsutomi H, Yamaguchi E, Naoe K, Harada K (2012) Damage to reinforced concrete buildings and coastal trees due to the 2011 off the pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami. J Jpn Soc Civil Eng Ser B2 (Coastal Eng) 68(2):351–355. Available at:
  30. 30.
    McLaughlin S, McKenna J, Cooper JAG (2002) Socio-economic data in coastal vulnerability indices: constraints and opportunities. J Coastal Res, Sept 2002, pp 487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (2007) Flood and drought management in Malaysia. Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Kuala Lumpur.
  32. 32.
    NADMA (2012) Portal Bencana, Arahan Majlis Keselamatan Negara No. 20: Dasar dan Mekanisme Pengurusan Bencana. Available at: Accessed 2 May 2017
  33. 33.
    National Security Council (2012) Dasar dan Mekanisme Pegurusan Bencana Negara, Arahan 20Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Papathoma-Köhle M, Kappes M, Keiler M, Glade T (2011) Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. Nat Hazards. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prechelt L, Tichy WF (1998) A controlled experiment to assess the benefits of procedure argument type checking. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(4):302–312. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pushpalal D, Ogata K (2014) The role of buildings in disaster risk reduction: focusing on the Great East Japan Earthquake. Procedia Econ Finance 18(8):483–488. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Qasim S, Khan AN, Shrestha RP, Qasim M (2015) Risk perception of the people in the flood prone Khyber Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 14:373–378. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rahman B (2012) Issues of disaster management preparedness: a case study of Directive 20 of National Security Council Malaysia. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3(5):85–92Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rohrmann B (2008) Risk perception, risk attitude, risk communication, risk management: a conceptual appraisal. In: 15th TIEMS conference booklet, Feb 2008. Available at:
  40. 40.
    Runeson P (2003) Using students as experiment subjects—an analysis on graduate and freshmen student data. In: Proceedings of 7th international conference on empirical assessment & evaluation in software engineering, Jan 2003, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    SEADPRI-UKM (2008) About Us, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Initiative (SEADPRI-UKM). Available at: Accessed 3 May 2017
  42. 42.
    Shaluf IM, Ahmadun FR (2006) Disaster types in Malaysia: an overview. Disaster Prev Manag 15(2):286–298. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Slovic P (1987) Perception of Risk. Sciences 236(4799):280–285. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1982) Why study risk perception? Risk Anal 2(2):83–93. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smith L (2015) Kobe earthquake 20th anniversary: facts about the devastating 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake. Int Bus Times. Available at:
  46. 46.
    Tierney K (2012) Disaster governance: social, political, and economic dimensions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37(1):341–363. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tofan D, Galster M, Lytra I, Avgeriou P, Zdun U, Fouche MA, Solms F (2016) Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making. Inf Softw Technol 72:31–47. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Toro J, Duarte O, Requena I, Zamorano M (2012) Determining vulnerability importance in environmental impact assessment. The case of Colombia. Environ Impact Assess Rev 32(1):107–117. Scholar
  49. 49.
    UNISDR (2009) 2009 UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. Int Strategy Disaster Reduct (ISDR) 1–30. 978-600-6937-11-3Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    UNISDR (2015) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Int Strat Disaster Reduct (ISDR). 9789211320282Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    United Nations (2015) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction (2015–2030), pp 9–36Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    World Bank (2014) Understanding risk: the evolution of disaster risk assessmentGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yodmani S (2001) Disaster risk management and vulnerability reduction: protecting the poor. Paper presented at the Asia and Pacific Forum on poverty organized by the Asian Development Bank. Communities, Feb 2001, pp 1–36. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yoo G, Kim AR, Hadi S (2014) A methodology to assess environmental vulnerability in a coastal city: application to Jakarta, Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manag 102(PA):169–177. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhu D, Xie X, Gan Y (2011) Information source and valence: how information credibility influences earthquake risk perception. J Environ Psychol 31(2):129–136. Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zimmermann KA (2012) Hurricane Katrina: facts, damage & aftermath, live science. Available at: Accessed 4 May 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharifah Akmam Syed Zakaria
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohd Azrulfitri Azimi
    • 1
  • Taksiah A. Majid
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering, Engineering CampusUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations