Likert scales are a common methodological tool for data collection used in quantitative or mixed-method approaches in multiple domains.They are often employed in surveys or questionnaires,for benchmarking answers in t...Likert scales are a common methodological tool for data collection used in quantitative or mixed-method approaches in multiple domains.They are often employed in surveys or questionnaires,for benchmarking answers in the fields of disaster risk reduction,business continuity management,and organizational resilience.However,both scholars and practitioners may lack a simple scale of reference to assure consistency across disciplinary fields.This article introduces a simple-to-use rating tool that can be used for benchmarking responses in questionnaires,for example,for assessing disaster risk reduction,gaps in operational capacity,and organizational resilience.We aim,in particular,to support applications in contexts in which the target groups,due to cultural,social,or political reasons,may be unsuitable for in-depth analyses that use,for example,scales from 1 to 7 or from 1 to 10.This methodology is derived from the needs emerged in our recent fieldwork on interdisciplinary projects and from dialogue with the stakeholders involved.The output is a replicable scale from 0 to 3 presented in a table that includes category labels with qualitative attributes and descriptive equivalents to be used in the formulation of model answers.These include examples of levels of resilience,capacity,and gaps.They are connected to other tools that could be used for in-depth analysis.The advantage of our Likert scale-based response model is that it can be applied in a wide variety of disciplines,from social science to engineering.展开更多
This paper uses the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallaj?kull in April and May 2010 as a case study of disruption to civil aviation by airborne ash, with emphasis on risk management aspects. Severe curtailmen...This paper uses the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallaj?kull in April and May 2010 as a case study of disruption to civil aviation by airborne ash, with emphasis on risk management aspects. Severe curtailment of flights over much of Europe took place during the crisis, which lasted for slightly more than one week. More than 8.5 million passengers were stranded and commerce was profoundly affected. The United Kingdom was one of the worst impacted countries and took the lead in managing the crisis. The paper considers elements of the decision-making process that formed the basis of the UK Government’s emergency response. It examines the relations between science, governance, and economi c imperatives. Physical thresholds guiding decisions to restrict airspace were defined somewhat arbitrarily, which may have increased disruption. A damaging form of risk aversion prevailed at certain points in the crisis. Lack of preexisting procedures and planning meant that the response to dynamically changing meteorological conditions had to be improvised. At the same time, lack of integration between different modes in the European transportation system meant that had the crisis continued any longer there would have been severe problems in moving stranded people and commodities, as well as soaring economic losses. Eruptions similar to or more serious than that of Eyjafjallaj?kull are perfectly possible in Europe in the not-too-distant future.展开更多
基金BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grant Award 2019 supported by the United Kingdom’s Department for Business,Energy and Industrial Strategy(Grant Reference:SRG19/191797)the Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team Award 2019 by the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK+2 种基金the Mexican Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología(Grant Reference:398485)the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme(Grant Agreement:821046)the TURNkey(Towards more Earthquakeresilient Urban Societies through a Multi-sensor-based Information System enabling Earthquake Forecasting,Early Warning and Rapid Response actions)Project。
文摘Likert scales are a common methodological tool for data collection used in quantitative or mixed-method approaches in multiple domains.They are often employed in surveys or questionnaires,for benchmarking answers in the fields of disaster risk reduction,business continuity management,and organizational resilience.However,both scholars and practitioners may lack a simple scale of reference to assure consistency across disciplinary fields.This article introduces a simple-to-use rating tool that can be used for benchmarking responses in questionnaires,for example,for assessing disaster risk reduction,gaps in operational capacity,and organizational resilience.We aim,in particular,to support applications in contexts in which the target groups,due to cultural,social,or political reasons,may be unsuitable for in-depth analyses that use,for example,scales from 1 to 7 or from 1 to 10.This methodology is derived from the needs emerged in our recent fieldwork on interdisciplinary projects and from dialogue with the stakeholders involved.The output is a replicable scale from 0 to 3 presented in a table that includes category labels with qualitative attributes and descriptive equivalents to be used in the formulation of model answers.These include examples of levels of resilience,capacity,and gaps.They are connected to other tools that could be used for in-depth analysis.The advantage of our Likert scale-based response model is that it can be applied in a wide variety of disciplines,from social science to engineering.
文摘This paper uses the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallaj?kull in April and May 2010 as a case study of disruption to civil aviation by airborne ash, with emphasis on risk management aspects. Severe curtailment of flights over much of Europe took place during the crisis, which lasted for slightly more than one week. More than 8.5 million passengers were stranded and commerce was profoundly affected. The United Kingdom was one of the worst impacted countries and took the lead in managing the crisis. The paper considers elements of the decision-making process that formed the basis of the UK Government’s emergency response. It examines the relations between science, governance, and economi c imperatives. Physical thresholds guiding decisions to restrict airspace were defined somewhat arbitrarily, which may have increased disruption. A damaging form of risk aversion prevailed at certain points in the crisis. Lack of preexisting procedures and planning meant that the response to dynamically changing meteorological conditions had to be improvised. At the same time, lack of integration between different modes in the European transportation system meant that had the crisis continued any longer there would have been severe problems in moving stranded people and commodities, as well as soaring economic losses. Eruptions similar to or more serious than that of Eyjafjallaj?kull are perfectly possible in Europe in the not-too-distant future.
