عنوان مقاله [English]
Investigating the Factors Affecting Emergency evacuation against the risk of floods in mountainous Rural (Case Study: Poledokhtar township)
Increasing these costs and damages to natural hazards, and in particular floods, has caused more attention from countries to find solutions to reduce the risk of flooding, so that engineering measures (such as the creation of dams, gates, construction of congestion) and non-mechanical measures (such as the area Flood mapping, flood mapping and flood insurance programs). Engineering measures to deal with the disaster before the 1960s and non-military measures gradually attracted the attention of the researchers since the 1960s. Examples include non-mechanical measures in various countries, such as the National Flood Insurance Program, the Flood Management Program in the United States; Flood alert system, flood hazard mapping and flood hazard inventory in Britain and India; The establishment of a forecasting and training system for the prevention of accidents in Japan, and the provision of flood risk maps or drainage routes in China. One of the crucial issues for public safety is how to safely and quickly evacuate flood areas in the past or during floods. Therefore, recognizing communities and their speed of action against flood risk, emergency evacuation during floods and providing a suitable strategy to reduce their effects should be considered. Identifying these factors can reduce the effects of this risk, and it is necessary to provide solutions in order to improve them. Therefore, the main research question is: What are the most important factors affecting the emergency discharge capability against the flood risk in mountain villages.
This study in terms of purpose applied and method of doing it is descriptive-analytical. Data collection was done in both documentary and field studies. Statistical Society includes rural households exposed to flood in Poledokhtar Township (N= 5392). Using the Cochran formula and the method sampling quotas 360 families were selected as samples. Selection the 60 villages studied were also targeted. A tool for collecting data and information is a questionnaire and interviews with local people. To answer research questions and analyze data Statistical methods (descriptive and inferential) was used. Statistical methods were performed in Eviews software version 9 and SPSS version 22. To analyze the inferential statistics, one-sample t-test, chi-square, and binary logistic model were used. Based on existing literature and interactive discussions with 35 local households and 20 experts in various fields of study (geography, hydrology, sociology and risk management), Five factors and 35 variables that affect the discharge rate of rural households in the face of flood risk. The validity of the questionnaire was measured and verified using content validity, which is determined by those who specialize in the subject matter.
Results and discussion
Investigating the findings using logistic regression model, the results showed that among the 35 variables in the research, 14 variables have a significant relationship with emergency evacuation of rural households at the time of flood events. The significance level of 0.001 indicates that variables such as age, gender, level of education, previous awareness, mental health, people with special needs, personal care, ownership, government assistance, early warning, information, shelter, road and rail And discharge routes have had a positive and significant effect on the emergency evacuation rate of rural households at the time of flood events. Variables have been more or less effective in this regard, but these 14 variables have the most effect on the rate of discharge of rural households in Poledokhtar Township. Some variables whose level of significance was lower than the covered levels (0.001 and 0.005) did not have much effect on this. In addition, the model findings on the key factors affecting the ability to evacuate against flood show that among the five factors considered, three factors have a significant relation with the discharge rate at the time of the flood event. The significance level of 0.001 indicates that personal factors (0.344), infrastructure (0.300) and institutional-structural (0.238) have the most effects on the discharge rate (dependent variable) of rural households in Poledokhtar Township they are. Among these five factors, the personal factor has the most impact and social impact on the subject. Therefore, the research question was based on identifying the factors affecting the emergency discharge capacity of rural households at the time of flood events.
Natural hazards are not considered natural disasters in the first stage, but also there are dangers that are repeated in nature. The most important natural hazards include earthquakes, floods, storms, droughts, landslides, and volcanoes. Different countries have different management practices to deal with a variety of hazards. Iran also experiences a variety of hazards by being in a special geographic location. In the Lorestan region and especially in Poledokhtar, due to the mountainous nature of the area, high rainfall, the flow of two important rivers of Kashkan and Seymareh are at risk of flood. In addition, the lack of proper planning for settlement of urban and rural areas is another crisis in the region; Most of them are located on the ground because of the limited geographic and mountainous nature of the area. Therefore, in order to minimize flood damage, immediate discharge is essential before and during the flood for general safety. Considering the importance of this issue, this study was conducted to investigate the factors affecting emergency evacuation against flood risk in mountain villages of Poeledokhtar Township. The results showed that the variables such as age, gender, level of education, previous knowledge, mental health, people with special needs, personal care, ownership, government assistance, early warning, information, shelter, road and rail, and evacuation routes are more related to Rapid evacuation of rural households at flood events. The overall results of the findings also show that the three personal, institutional and institutional factors have the most effects in this field.
Keywords: Emergency evacuation, Flood, Preparedness against hazards, Logistic model, Poledokhtar Township
10. CRED, The human cost of weather-related disasters, 1995–2015, United Nations, Geneva 2015.
11. Cutter, S. L.; Ash, K. D. and Christopher T. E., 2016, Urban–Rural Differences in Disaster Resilience, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Vol.106, No. 6, pp. 1236-1252.
12. Eisenman, D. P.; Cordasco, K. M.; Asch, S.; Golden, J. F. and Glik, D., 2007, Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: lessons from Hurricane Katrina, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 109-115.
13. He, Y. Y.; Liu, Z.; Shi, J. M.; Wang, Y. S.; Zhang, J. M. and Liu, J. Y., 2015, K-Shortest-path-based evacuation routing with police resource allocation in city transportation networks, Journal Plos One, Vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 1-23.
14. Heath, S. E.; Kass, P. H.; Beck, A. M. and Glickman, L. T., 2001, Human and pet-related risk factors for household evacuation failure during a natural disaster, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 153, No. 7, pp. 659-665.
15. Kim, J.; Kuwahara, Y. and Kumar, M., 2011, A DEM-based evaluation of potential flood risk to enhance decision support system for safe evacuation, Natural Hazards, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 561-1572.
16. Klijn, F.; Knoop, J.; Ligtvoet, W. and Mens, M. J. P., 2012, In search of robust flood risk management alternatives for the Netherlands, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 1469-1479.
17. Klijn, F.; Kreibich, H.; De Moel, H. and Penning-Rowsell, E., 2015, Adaptive flood risk management planning based on a comprehensive flood risk conceptualisation, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 845-864.
18. Lautze, J.; De Silva, S.; Giordano, M. and Sanford, L., 2011, Putting the cart before the horse: water governance and IWRM, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1- 8.
20. Lim, M. B.; Lim Jr, H. and Plantankulchal, M., 2013, Factors affecting flood evacuation decision and its implication to transportation planning, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 163-177.
21. Liu, D.; Li, Y.; Fang, S. and Zhang, Y., 2017, Influencing factors for emergency evacuation capability of rural households to flood hazards in western mountainous regions of Henan province, China, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 21, pp. 187-195.
22. Liu, X. and Lim, S., 2016, Integration of spatial analysis and an agent-based model into Evacuation management for shelter assignment and routing, Journal of Spatial Science, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 1-16.
23. Masuya, A.; Dewan, A. and Corner, R. J., 2015, Population evacuation: evaluating spatial Distribution of flood shelters and vulnerable residential units in Dhaka with geographic information systems, Journal of Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 1859-1882.
24. Pahl-Wostl, C.; Holtz, G.; Kastens, B. and Knieper, C., 2010, Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 571-581.
25. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009, A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 354-365.
26. Paul, B. K., 2012, Factors affecting evacuation behavior: the case of 2007 Cyclone Sidr, Bangladesh, Professional Geographer, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 401-414.
27. Riahi, V. and Toulabi Nejad, M., 2019, Assessing Smallholder Farmers Gender Damages due to Climate Change Risk in Poledokhtar Township, Journal of community Development, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 25-54 (In Persian).
28. Rijke, J.; Brown, R.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ashley, R.; Farrelly, M.; Morison, P. and Van Herk, S., 2012, Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance operational, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 73-84.
29. Sadeghloo, T. and Sajasi Qaidariari, H., 2015, Flood risk management strategies in rural areas with TOPSIS-SWOC model, (Case study: Ghareh Chay basin of Ramyan watershed), Geography and Environmental Hazards, Vol. 3, No. 12, pp. 105- 128 (In Persian).
30. Simonovic, S. P. and Ahmad, S., 2005, Computer-based model for flood evacuation emergency planning, Natural Hazards, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 25-51.
31. Toulabi nejad, M.; Toulabi Nejad, M. and Tabataba'i, S. A., 2017, Farmer compatibility with climate change and its role in food security of rural households in Poledokhtar, Hazards natural environment, Vol. 6, No. 13, pp. 67- 90 (In Persian).
32. Wallace, J. W.; Poole, C. and Horney, J. A., 2016, The association between actual and perceived flood risk and evacuation from Hurricane Irene, Beaufort County, North Carolina, Journal of Flood Risk Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 125-135.
33. Wang, F.; Bu, L.; Li, C.; Rong, J. and Guo, H., 2014, Simulation Study of Evacuation Routes and Traffic Management Strategies in Short-Notice Emergency Evacuation, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 24, No. 59, pp. 63-71.
34. Wang, Y.; Wan, Y.Q.; Qian, X.; Li, L. and Sheng, J. B., 2009, Construction and empirical analysis of Evaluating index System of risk Avoiding ability of Residents in downstream reservoirs, China Rural Water Hydropower, Vol. 1, pp. 26-32.
35. When, U.; Rusca, M.; Evers, J. and Lanfranchi, V., 2015, Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 48, pp. 225-236.
36. White, I.; Kingston, R. and Barker, A., 2010, Participatory geographic information systems and public engagement within flood risk management, Journal of Flood Risk Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 337-346
37. Wood, N. J.; Schmidtlein, M. C. and Peters, J., 2014, Changes in population evacuation potential for tsunami hazards in Seward, Alaska, since the 1964 Good Friday earthquake, Natural Hazards, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 1031-1053.