Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 16, Issue 2 (Summer-in press 2026)
Disaster Prev. Manag. Know. 2026, 16(2): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kazemi M, Dehghanpour-Farashah A. Conceptual Framework for Built Environment Hazards Governance: A Mixed Method Approach. Disaster Prev. Manag. Know. 2026; 16 (2)
URL: http://dpmk.ir/article-1-790-en.html
URL: http://dpmk.ir/article-1-790-en.html
1- Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (231 Views)
Objective: The Structural Dysfunction of traditional risk management systems in dealing with the complexities of large metropolises has highlighted the necessity of shifting towards modern governance paradigms. While previous research has diagnosed the existing situation and emphasized the need for integrated and participatory approaches, few studies have focused on designing a structural and operational model capable of implementing governance principles in the context of physical hazards in Tehran. The main objective of this study is to fill this gap by designing and presenting a “conceptual framework” for the governance of physical hazards based on a synergistic and multi-level approach.
Method: This study employed a qualitative approach using a “design research” strategy, which involved a two-stage process for model development. In the first stage, eleven key factors of a desirable governance system were extracted from the literature using the Thomas and Harden Meta-Synthesis method, based on a systematic review. In the second stage, these factors were used as input for the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method to determine the internal relationships and hierarchical structure among them, based on expert opinion.
Findings: The findings from the meta-synthesis phase led to the identification of 11 key factors, including “Good Governance Principles,” “Network Structure,” “Safety Economy,” and “Culture Building & Social Responsibility.” The ISM analysis revealed that these factors form a multi-level hierarchical model. Factors such as “Good Governance Principles” and “Rule of Law” were identified as “fundamental drivers” at the lowest level, while factors like “Physical Resilience Standards” and “Command & Operations Structure” were positioned as “ultimate goals” at the highest level. The integration of these findings resulted in a final conceptual framework composed of a macro-level (policymaking), three main intervention levels (prevention, action, monitoring), and two cross-cutting enabling layers (safety economy and social responsibilities).
Conclusion: The proposed conceptual framework, grounded in a scientific and structured methodology, offers an innovative response to the challenges of fragmentation and Structural Dysfunction in the traditional risk management system. By precisely defining actors, levels, and relationships, this framework provides an operational roadmap for the transition towards integrated, proactive, and participatory governance. It can serve as a foundation for reforming policies and institutional structures in the domain of physical safety in Tehran.
Method: This study employed a qualitative approach using a “design research” strategy, which involved a two-stage process for model development. In the first stage, eleven key factors of a desirable governance system were extracted from the literature using the Thomas and Harden Meta-Synthesis method, based on a systematic review. In the second stage, these factors were used as input for the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method to determine the internal relationships and hierarchical structure among them, based on expert opinion.
Findings: The findings from the meta-synthesis phase led to the identification of 11 key factors, including “Good Governance Principles,” “Network Structure,” “Safety Economy,” and “Culture Building & Social Responsibility.” The ISM analysis revealed that these factors form a multi-level hierarchical model. Factors such as “Good Governance Principles” and “Rule of Law” were identified as “fundamental drivers” at the lowest level, while factors like “Physical Resilience Standards” and “Command & Operations Structure” were positioned as “ultimate goals” at the highest level. The integration of these findings resulted in a final conceptual framework composed of a macro-level (policymaking), three main intervention levels (prevention, action, monitoring), and two cross-cutting enabling layers (safety economy and social responsibilities).
Conclusion: The proposed conceptual framework, grounded in a scientific and structured methodology, offers an innovative response to the challenges of fragmentation and Structural Dysfunction in the traditional risk management system. By precisely defining actors, levels, and relationships, this framework provides an operational roadmap for the transition towards integrated, proactive, and participatory governance. It can serve as a foundation for reforming policies and institutional structures in the domain of physical safety in Tehran.
Keywords: Urban Safety, Physical Resilience, Urban Governance, Structural Dysfunction, Meta-Synthesis, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/07/21 | Accepted: 2025/11/26 | ePublished: 2026/09/19
Received: 2025/07/21 | Accepted: 2025/11/26 | ePublished: 2026/09/19
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s)" by "authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights"
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
