Open Access
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 266, 2019
International Conference on Built Environment and Engineering 2018 - “Enhancing Construction Industry Through IR4.0” (IConBEE2018)
Article Number 02001
Number of page(s) 7
Section Environmental Sciences and Engineering (ESE)
Published online 20 February 2019
  1. Barakat, S. Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaste [Online]. Available: (2003) [Google Scholar]
  2. Worldbank. Building a New Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [Online]. Available: (2015) [Google Scholar]
  3. Palliyaguru, R., Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. Constructing a holistic approach to disaster risk reduction: the significance of focusing on vulnerability reduction. Disasters, 38 (1), 45-61. (2013) [Google Scholar]
  4. Chatterjee, R., Shiwaku, K., Gupta, R., Nakano, G., & Shaw, R. Bangkok to Sendai and Beyond: Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6 (2), 177-188. (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. UNISDR. Terminology - UNISDR [Online]. Available: (2018) [Google Scholar]
  6. Dube, E., Mtapuri, O. & Matunhu, J. ‘Managing flood disasters on the built environment in the rural communities of Zimbabwe: Lessons learnt’, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 10(1), a542. (2018) [Google Scholar]
  7. Cigler, B.A., ‘U.S. floods: The necessity of mitigation’, State and Local Government Review XX(X), 1-13. (2017) [Google Scholar]
  8. Environment Agency. The evidence base for working with natural processes to reduce flood risk, [Online]. Available: (2017) [Google Scholar]
  9. Robin van Den Honert, Frank Thomalla, & Pamela Box. Flood Risk in Australia: Whose Responsibility Is It, Anyway? Water, 5 (4), 1580-1597. (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, T., Connaughton, J., & Green, S. Sustainable futures in the built environment to 2050: a foresight approach to construction and development. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Designing Buildings Ltd. Built environment - Designing Buildings Wiki [Online]. Available: (2016) [Google Scholar]
  12. Construction Industry Council - APPG for Excellence in the Built Environment [Online]. Available: (2016) [Google Scholar]
  13. Tony Lloyd-Jones, Ripin Kalra, Budhi Mulyawan & Theis, M. The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response [Online]. Available: (2009) [Google Scholar]
  14. Lorenz, D., Dent, P., & Kauko, T. Value in a changing built environment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Young, R. (2012). Stewardship of the Built Environment Sustainability, Preservation and Reuse. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics. [Google Scholar]
  16. USLegal. Built Environment Law & Legal Definition [Online]. Available: (2016) [Google Scholar]
  17. Ness, D., & Xing, K. Toward a Resource-Efficient Built Environment: A Literature Review and Conceptual Model. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 572-592. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Allen, N., & Davey, M. The Value of Constructivist Grounded Theory for Built Environment Researchers. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38 (2), 222–232. (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lisø, K. Integrated approach to risk management of future climate change impacts. Building Research & Information, 34 (1), 1–10. (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32 (1), 165-169. (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Vogel, S. On Alienation from the Built Environment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17 (1), 87-96. (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rivera, C., Henrik Tehler & Christine Wamsler. Fragmentation in disaster risk management systems: A barrier for integrated planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(Part 4), 445-456. (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Abulnour, A. H. Towards efficient disaster management in Egypt: HBRC Journal, 10, 117–126. (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rautela, P. Lack of scientific recordkeeping of disaster incidences: A big hurdle in disaster risk reduction in India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 15 (Supplement C), 73-79. (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rajib Shaw, J. M. P., Joy J. Pereira. Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction. (2016) [Google Scholar]
  26. Lin, L. Integrating a national risk assessment into a disaster risk management system: Process and practice. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. (2017) [Google Scholar]
  27. APFM. IFM Concept [Online]. Available: Applied Sciences, Engineering & Technology. (2017) [Google Scholar]
  28. Koh, K.-L., Kelman, I., Kibugi, R. & Osorio, R.-L. E. Adaptation to Climate Change. World Scientific. (2015) [Google Scholar]
  29. Margerum, Richard D., A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management. 41 (4), 487-500. (2008) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moore, Elizabeth A., Koontz, Tomas M. Research note a typology of collaborative watershed groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed. (2003) [Google Scholar]
  31. Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., Runhaar, H. A. C. Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: the cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam. Regional Environmental Change, 14 (2), 671-682. (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Albright, E. A., and D. A. Crow. Learning processes, public and stakeholder engagement: Analyzing responses to Colorado’s extreme flood events of 2013: Urban Climate, 14, 79–93. (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuhlicke, C., Steinfuehrer, A., Begg, C., Bianchizza, C., Bruendl, M., Buchecker, M., De Marchi, B., Di Masso Tarditti, M., Hoeppner, C., Komac, B., Lemkow, L., Luther, J., McCarthy, S.S., Pellizzoni, L., Renn, O., Scolobig, A., Supramaniam, M., Tapsell, S., Wachinger, G., Walker, G., Whittle, R., Zorn, M., Faulkner, H. Perspectives on social capacity building for natural hazards: outlining an emerging field of research and practice in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 (7) 804-814. (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Thaler, T.A., Priest, S.J. Partnership funding in flood risk management: new localism debate and policy in England. (2014) [Google Scholar]
  35. Thaler, T., and M. Levin-Keitel. Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management - A question of roles and power: Lessons from England: Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 292–301. (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mojtahedi, M. & Oo, B. L. Critical attributes for proactive engagement of stakeholders in disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 35–43. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Begg, Callsen, Kuhlicke & Kelman. The role of local stakeholder participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Flood Risk Management. (2017) [Google Scholar]
  38. Osti & Nakasu. Lessons learned from southern and eastern Asian urban floods: from a local perspective. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 9(1), 22-35. (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Consoer & Milman. Opportunities, constraints, and choices for flood mitigation in rural areas: perspectives of municipalities in Massachusetts. Journal of Flood Risk Management. (2017) [Google Scholar]
  40. Chou Shuo-Yan & Dayjian Chen. "Emergent disaster rescue methods and prevention management", Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 22 Issue: 3, 265-277. (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fleischmann, M., Beullens, P., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M. and Wassenhove, L.N. “The impact of product recovery on logistics network design”, Product and Operation Management, 10, No. 2, 156-173. (2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kara, B.Y., Erkut, E. and Verter, V. “Accurate calculation of hazardous materials transport risks”, Operation Research Letters, 31 No. 4, pp. 285-292. (2003) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hagelsteen, M., and J. Burke. Practical aspects of capacity development in the context of disaster risk reduction: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16, 43–52. (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Steelman, Toddi A., Carmin, Jo Ann. Community based watershed remediation: connecting organizational resources to social and substantive outcomes. In: Rahm, Diane (Ed.), Toxic Waste and Environmental Policy in the 21st Century United States. McFarland, Jefferson, NC, 145-178. (2002) [Google Scholar]
  45. Brinke, W. B. M. T., Knoop, J., Muilwijk, H. & Ligtvoet, W. Social disruption by flooding, a European perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21 (Supplement C), 312-322. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Raaijmakers, R., Krywkow, J. & van der Veen, A. Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards, 46 (3), 307-322. (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Birkholz, S., M. Muro, P. Jeffrey & Smith, H. M. Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Science of The Total Environment, 478 (Supplement C), 12-20. (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Burns, W. J. & Slovic, P. Risk Perception and Behaviors: Anticipating and Responding to Crises. Risk Analysis, 32 (4), 579-582. (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Brown, J. D. & Damery, S. L. Managing Flood Risk in the UK: Towards an Integration of Social and Technical Perspectives. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27 (4), 412–426. (2002) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Josephson, A., H. Schrank, and M. Marshall. Assessing preparedness of small businesses for hurricane disasters: Analysis of pre-disaster owner, business and location characteristics: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 23, 25–35. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zevenbergen C., K. Kolaka, S. van Herk, M. Escarameia, B. Gersonius, D. Serre, N. Walliman. Assessing quick wins to protect critical urban infrastructure from floods: a case study in Bangkok, Thailand: Journal of Flood Risk Management. (2015) [Google Scholar]
  52. Sakurai, A. & Sato, T. Promoting Education for Disaster Resilience and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Journal of Disaster Research, 11 (3), 402–412. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Jong, Pieter, and B. M. v. den. Between tradition and innovation: developing Flood Risk Management Plans in the Netherlands: Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10, 155-163. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Vu, T. T. & Ranzi, R. Flood risk assessment and coping capacity of floods in central Vietnam. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 14 (Supplement C), 44-60. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Cadag, J. R. D., Petal, M., Luna, E., Gaillard, J. C., Pambid, L. & Santos, G. V. Hidden disasters: Recurrent flooding impacts on educational continuity in the Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 25 (Supplement C), 72-81. (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Defra. Understanding the risks, empowering communities, building resilience: the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. London: The Stationery Office. (2011) [Google Scholar]
  57. Wedawatta, G., Ingirige, B., & Proverbs, D. Small businesses and flood impacts: the case of the 2009 flood event in Cockermouth. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 7 (1), 42-53. (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.