A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR FLOOD DISASTER PREVENTION ASSESSMENT IN MALAYSIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/mjce.v37.24726Keywords:
Flood Disaster Prevention, Flood Management, NADMA, Risk Management, Thematic AnalysisAbstract
Floods are among the most destructive natural disasters globally and Malaysia lacks a standardized and comprehensive framework for flood disaster prevention assessment. Existing guidelines focus mainly on emergency response and recovery with limited integration of proactive prevention measures. This study aims to address the gap by developing a conceptual framework for flood disaster prevention assessment tailored to the Malaysian context. A qualitative methodology was adopted involving semi-structured interviews with seven domain informants from the National Disaster Management Agency (NADMA), Department of Irrigation and Drainage (JPS) and the Public Works Department (JKR). Thematic analysis of the interview data identified five core components of flood disaster prevention such as risk assessment, early warning systems, floodplain management, structural and non-structural measures. Furthermore, critical variables influencing assessment effectiveness were identified including topography and hydrology, climate and weather patterns, infrastructure conditions and socioeconomic factors. These elements were systematically integrated into the proposed Flood Disaster Prevention Framework (FDPF), which was then validated through expert review. The framework is intended to enhance inter-agency coordination and strengthen national flood resilience. This research offers a strategic tool to support policy formulation and operational planning in flood disaster risk reduction across Malaysia
References
EM-DAT. 2024 The International Disaster Database. EM-DAT. https://www.emdat.be/
S. Muzamil et al. 2022. Proposed Framework for the Flood Disaster Management Cycle in Malaysia. Sustainability. 14: 4088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074088.
Reliefweb. 2016 Malaysia: Floods and Landslides - Dec 2014. https://reliefweb.int/disaster/fl-2014-000168-mys
T. Mohd Ekhwan and G. Muhammad Barzani. 2014. Floods in Malaysia historical reviews, causes, effects and mitigations approach. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations. 2(4): 59-65.
R. Roosli and P. O'Keefe. 2012. Learning and adaptation of disaster management and housing provision: the Malaysian experience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(3): 20-26.
K. T. Aung, R. A. Razak, and N. N. M. Nazry. 2021. Establishing validity and reliability of semi-structured interview questionnaire in developing risk communication module: A pilot study. Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan. 2(3): 600-606.
J. Horton, R. Macve, and G. Struyven.2004. Qualitative research: experiences in using semi-structured interviews. in The real life guide to accounting research. Elsevier. 339-357.
S. Campbell et al. 2020. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. (in eng). Journal of Research in Nursing. 25(8): 652-661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
S. Muellmann, T. Brand, D. Jürgens, D. Gansefort, and H. Zeeb. 2021. How many key informants are enough? Analysing the validity of the community readiness assessment. BMC Research Notes.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05497-9.
MAXQDA 2022. 2021. VERBI Software. Berlin, Germany. [Online]. Available: maxqda.com.
V. Braun and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 3(2): 77-101.
M. Naeem, W. Ozuem, K. Howell, and S. Ranfagni. 2023. A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 22 : 16094069231205789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789.
Z. Zhu, S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, R. Yao, and H. Jin. 2023. Integrating flood risk assessment and management based on HV-SS model: A case study of the Pearl River Delta, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 96: 103963. 2023/10/01/ DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103963.
M. A. Mukhtar et al. 2024. Integrated flood risk assessment in Hunza-Nagar, Pakistan: unifying big climate data analytics and multi-criteria decision-making with GIS. (in English). Frontiers in Environmental Science. Original Research 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1337081.
N. T. Rumpa, H. R. K. Real, and M. A. Razi. 2023. Disaster risk reduction in Bangladesh: A comparison of three major floods for assessing progress towards resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 97: 104047. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104047.
M. Kuller, K. Schoenholzer, and J. Lienert. 2021. Creating effective flood warnings: A framework from a critical review. Journal of Hydrology. 602: 126708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126708.
J. Sunkpho and C. Oottamakorn. 2011. Real-time flood monitoring and warning system. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology. 33: 227-235.
R. Mohammed Zain, H. Mohd Zahari, and N. A. Mohd Zainol. 2023. Inter-agency information sharing coordination on humanitarian logistics support for urban disaster management in Kuala Lumpur. (in English). Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. Brief Research Report. 5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2023.1149454.
A. Aitsi-Selmi, S. Egawa, H. Sasaki, C. Wannous, and V. Murray. 2015. The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: Renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, health, and well-being. International Journal Of Disaster Risk Science. 6: 164-176.
H. S. Rosmadi, M. F. Ahmed, M. B. Mokhtar, and C. K. Lim. 2023. Reviewing Challenges of Flood Risk Management in Malaysia. Water. 15(13): 2390. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/15/13/2390.
H.-T. Moon, J.-S. Kim, J. Chen, S.-K. Yoon, and Y.-I. Moon. 2024. Mitigating urban flood Hazards: Hybrid strategy of structural measures. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 108: .104542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104542.
E. Fusinato, S. Han, M. Kobiyama, and M. M. de Brito. 2024. Safe development paradox: evidence and methodological insights from a systematic review. Natural Hazards. 120(15): 13693-13714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06774-z.
N. W. Chan, A. Ab Ghani, N. Samat, N. N. Nik Hasan, and M. L. Tan.2020. Integrating Structural and Non-structural Flood Management Measures for Greater Effectiveness in Flood Loss Reduction in the Kelantan River Basin, Malaysia. 1151-1162.
A. Fekete et al. 2021. Increasing flood risk awareness and warning readiness by participation – But who understands what under ‘participation’? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 57: 102157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102157.
L. Wang et al. 2022. A review of the flood management: from flood control to flood resilience. Heliyon. 8(11): e11763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11763.
Q. Abdelal, A. Al-Rawabdeh, K. Al Qudah, C. Hamarneh, and N. Abu-Jaber. 2021. Hydrological assessment and management implications for the ancient Nabataean flood control system in Petra, Jordan. Journal of Hydrology. 601: 126583.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126583.
Z. Iqbal, S. Shahid, K. Ahmed, X. Wang, T. Ismail, and H. F. Gabriel. 2022. Bias correction method of high-resolution satellite-based precipitation product for Peninsular Malaysia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 148(3): 1429-1446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-04007-6.
K. F. Fung et al. 2022. Evaluation of spatial interpolation methods and spatiotemporal modeling of rainfall distribution in Peninsular Malaysia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 13(2): 101571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.09.001.
F. Klijn, M. Marchand, K. Meijer, H. van der Most, and D. Stuparu. 2021. Tailored flood risk management: Accounting for socio-economic and cultural differences when designing strategies. Water Security. 12: 100084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2021.100084.
A. Bans-Akutey and B. Tiimub. 2021. Triangulation in Research. 3392.. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20935/AL33922.
