Next Article in Journal
Ottoman Mosques in Albania: Building Acoustic Exploration inside Five Case Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Exterior Wood-Frame Walls—Wind–Vapour Barrier Ratio in Denmark
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/buildings11100429
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities

by
Wesley Wei
,
Mohammad Mojtahedi
*,
Maziar Yazdani
and
Kamyar Kabirifar
School of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2021, 11(10), 429; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100429
Submission received: 1 July 2021 / Revised: 9 September 2021 / Accepted: 19 September 2021 / Published: 23 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Building Structures)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The risks associated with extreme weather events induced by climate change are increasingly being recognized, and must be addressed through each country’s construction regulations, building codes, and standards. Ensuring that buildings and cities are resilient against disasters is becoming more important. Few studies have analyzed the impact of global polices and frameworks in reducing disaster risks and increasing resilience in built environments. This research reviews disasters associated with climate change in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, analyzing how Australia’s National Construction Code is aligned with the framework and the potential implications for reducing disaster risk. Decision-makers in construction companies in Sydney, Australia, were surveyed. The results show there is a statistically significant link among the National Construction Code, the Sendai Framework, and building resilience. The Sendai Framework is an effective mediator in this three-pronged relationship that can further enhance building resilience in Australia. Stakeholders in the construction industry will need to incorporate disaster risk reduction practices, especially authorities, such as local governments, building commissioners, and building certifiers that are responsible for the approval, quality, and defects mitigation of development applications and best practices. Overall, implementation of the Sendai Framework will help develop more regulations and standards for resilient buildings, set targets, and make improvements over time in the Australian construction industry.

1. Introduction

Climate change and its impacts are occurring faster than previously predicted [1]. Extreme weather events (EWEs) induced by climate change, such as severe tropical storms, wildfires, and major flooding events [2], have had significant short- and long-term impacts on the built environment [3,4]. EWEs are often associated with disasters and have a high probability of disrupting the normal functioning of society [5,6]. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines a “disaster” as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts” [7].
The built environment plays a significant role in societies by supporting people and facilities against disasters [8]. However, recent disasters have highlighted the vulnerability of the built environment [9]. Challenges to urban infrastructure occur in both developed and developing countries. For example, the extent and severity of damage to urban infrastructure caused by severe floods during the 2011 monsoon season in Thailand adversely impacted healthcare delivery [10]. Similar challenges have occurred worldwide, such as the damage caused by Cyclone Yasi in Australia in 2011, by Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey in the United States in 2005 and 2017, respectively, and by floods in Serbia in 2014 [11], in India in 2017 [12].
In Australia, many urban areas have been developed in cyclone, flood, and fire-prone areas, which is a potential threat to the built environment [13]. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology reported a significant increase in the average annual rainfall in Australia; the primary cause of disasters such as floods and storms. [14]. For instance, a temperature rise of between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius may intensify wind speeds of tropical cyclones by 5–10% and increase associated rainfall by 20–30% [15]. The adverse impacts of natural hazards have resulted in growing concern over how the built environment deals with these phenomena.
During the past decade, many global agreements have been ratified with the central objective of making cities resilient in dealing with the risks involved in a disaster. Among the global agreements, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) is the world’s most comprehensive blueprint for reducing the impacts of natural hazards and developing building and community resilience [16]. In Australia, the National Construction Code (NCC) is a uniform set of technical provisions for design, construction, and operation of buildings, and their components to achieve safety, health, sustainability, amenity, and accessibility of various types of buildings [17].
Although the application of SFDRR to achieve building resilience and disaster risk reduction has been addressed by some scholars [18], less attention has been given to the impacts and relationships of NCC and SFDRR for disaster risk reduction. Thus, this research aims to analyze the alignment between Australia’s National Construction Code and the SFDRR to meet the goal of achieving resilience in buildings and communities in response to disasters.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Global Frameworks and Natural Hazards

In recent decades, the concept of disaster risk reduction (DRR) has evolved from a narrowly perceived technical discipline to a broad-based global movement to reduce the risks of natural hazards. DRR aims to minimize the impact of vulnerabilities and disasters through preemptive plans [19]. Figure 1 highlights the evolution of powerful DRR frameworks over the last 30 years.
The SFDRR is the most recent global framework for DRR and is the world’s most comprehensive framework to cope with natural hazards [16]. The SFDRR was ratified at the Third United Nations World Conference in Sendai, Japan, on March 2015, with the central objective to prepare cities to deal with the risks of disasters and enhance the resilience of cities. The SFDRR aims to substantially reduce disaster risk and loss of life, livelihoods, and health, concerning the economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities, and countries [20]. According to the Framework, “The Sendai Framework focuses on the adoption of measures which address the three dimensions of disaster risk (exposure to hazards, vulnerability and capacity, and hazard’s characteristics) to prevent the creation of new risk, reduce existing risk and increase resilience” [21].
The SFDRR has four specific priority areas to enhance the resilience of cities (see Figure 2) [21].
The first priority of SFDRR emphasizes the understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions, including vulnerability, capacity, exposure to persons and assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment [22]. The second priority emphasizes disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels in response to risk prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. It also fosters collaboration and partnership [21]. The third priority states that public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction through structural and non-structural measures is essential to enhance the economic, social, health, and cultural resilience of persons, communities, countries and their assets, and the environment [21]. Finally, the fourth priority explains the need to strengthen disaster preparedness for response, take necessary action in anticipation of events, and ensure capacities for effective response and recovery at all levels. In this step, the rehabilitation and reconstruction phase is a critical opportunity to build back better through integrating DRR into development measures [21]. DRR has mainly focused on the risks of sudden disasters, such as floods, in contrast to long-term climate change with the final purpose of achieving building or community resilience [23]. It is evident that resilience is vital to disaster management plans so communities can respond positively when disasters occur [24]. The priorities of SFDRR deal mainly with the ways through which concepts, such as resilience and vulnerability, are defined, measured, and operationalized, as well as the extent to which they are implemented at a national or local level [25].

2.2. Australia’s National Construction Code and Natural Hazards

Many countries have national construction codes. Australia’s National Construction Code (NCC) is a consistent set of requirements for the construction and design of buildings and structures throughout Australia [26,27]. In terms of DRR principles, it is important to understand how risks are addressed in the national building code.

2.2.1. Floods

In Australia, floods cause more damage on an average annual basis than any other national disaster [28]. The NCC explains principles for the design and construction of specified buildings in a flood event. These principles prevent buildings from deficiencies, such as structural damage due to hydrostatic or hydrodynamic effects, foundation displacement due to buoyancy, foundations, and footings eroded by hydrodynamic effects, and structural material degradation due to being immersed in water. These principles also appear in the Australian Building Codes Board’s (ABCB) non-mandatory handbook for construction in flood-prone areas in Australia [29]. Local government (or an appropriate authority) is responsible for determining the land level compared to the flood hazard level, also termed the floor hazard area (FHA). Specified buildings in those areas are required to comply with the ABCB for the construction of buildings in FHAs. A maximum flow velocity of less than 1.5 m/s is set for those areas. If it is greater than 1.5 m/s, the builder has to formulate an alternative solution that complies with relevant performance requirements that involve the application of engineering practice for class 2 (multi-unit residential buildings) or 3 (residential buildings), class 9a (healthcare buildings), class 9c (aged care buildings), or class 4 buildings (a residence within a building of a non-residential nature), in an FHA [26]. There are also specific requirements, such as adequate subfloor ventilation, sealed subfloor space with impervious membrane, and appropriate subfloor framing in accordance with the NCC. Floods are the main source of damage to buildings and communities compared to other natural hazards, which is mainly due to the vulnerability of buildings constructed in floodplain areas [28].

2.2.2. Fires

For fire hazards, the NCC has a section on fire resistance. Objectives include safeguarding building occupants from injury due to a fire in a building, facilitating the activities of emergency services personnel, avoiding fire spread between buildings, and protecting property from physical damage caused by structural failure. Other criteria, such as fire resistance levels, in terms of using fire-protected timber, fire-protected coverings, and fire safety systems, have also been addressed in the NCC; however, the rating is up to the accreditation of an independent organization. These fire hazard properties are generally based on a few conditions, such as average specific extinction area, smoke-developed index, and smoke growth rate index in accordance with their relevant specifications. There are also details of how buildings should perform in a fire and how smoke can affect occupants in the buildings as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Similarly, there are indicators for the resistance to the incipient spread of fire [26]. In a study by MacLeod, et al. [30], it was revealed that the major building failures in a fire could be attributed to detection zone isolation and detector heads.

2.2.3. Bushfires

In Australia, a designated bushfire-prone area means land that has been designated under a power of legislation as being subject or likely to be subject to bushfires. Buildings in these areas need to be designed and built to reduce the potential of ignition caused by embers, radiant heat, or flame generated by bushfire, considering the intensity of the bushfire on the building. Other factors, such as the topography, distance between buildings, predominant vegetation, the size of the potential fire source and intensity, and wind impact, are also considered in the NCC [26]. A study by de Vet and Eriksen [31] revealed that public well-being and insurance issues are the main contributors affecting post-bushfire recovery.

2.2.4. Storms and Stormwater

Stormwater drainage systems are designed to allow clear access for stormwater to pass through to avoid damage associated with blockages. Different gutter systems, such as box gutters, valley gutters, and eaves gutter systems, along with their advantages and disadvantages, are addressed in the NCC. There is also compliance in terms of the stormwater drainage system installation, including proper design and alignment of discharge systems in accordance with the NCC guidelines [26]. A study by Frohlich, et al. [32] found that all government bodies should work collaboratively to support post-storm recovery plans.

2.2.5. Earthquakes

Earthquakes are very unlikely to damage Australia, as Australia is located in the middle of its tectonic plate. This low risk has been reflected in only a few specific indications in the NCC. However, Australia is not immune from earthquakes as earthquakes have occurred and caused fatalities in an urban area [26,33].

2.2.6. Cyclones

Cyclones have rarely been addressed in the NCC. The NCC focuses on requirements for the design of metal roofing cladding assemblies in cyclonic areas. It also considers plastic sheeting, corrugated sheets, and asphalt shingles. However, overall, the NCC is not robust enough in addressing risks associated with cyclones [26].

2.2.7. Drought

In its policies on drought prevention, the NCC aims to provide appropriate firefighting and water supply requirements for farm buildings. These farm buildings are often not serviced by main water supplies, which can exacerbate drought problems. As Australia is located around the Tropic of Capricorn and has an arid nature, the NCC requirements on drought seem inadequate.
It is noteworthy that the NCC does not mention nuclear disasters, tsunamis, and other potential disasters and their involved risks [26].

2.3. Resilience

The SFDRR has mainly focused on DRR to achieve resilience in buildings and communities [34]. Both aspects are compatible and mutually inclusive. It is optimal for buildings to be functional and withstand damage during a disaster. Moreover, in a disaster, buildings need to be operational to support the community. In other words, once a disaster event has ended, buildings need to be re-established to minimize negative impacts on the community [35].

2.3.1. Resilient Buildings

Developing resilient buildings is a constant challenge in the design and construction of buildings. It is paramount to include building resilience in the construction process to achieve building resilience in the operation stage [36]. Currently, the most widely accepted international framework to deal with building resilience is attributed to the SFDRR’s third and fourth priorities of “Investing in DRR for resilience” and “Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response to build back better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction” [21]. The main resilience objectives of the SFDRR are allocating necessary resources, promoting cooperation between academic, scientific and research entities, and periodically updating disaster preparedness and contingency policies, plans, and programs [37]. Smith [38] developed a master plan for achieving building resilience, including hazard analysis, mitigation strategies, and disaster risk management plans. McAllister [35] considered the concept of resilience based on the performance goals and asserted that there is a great need to move towards building resilience in accordance with the codes and standards that govern the design, construction, and operation of buildings with respect to hazards. Similarly, Takewaki, et al. [39] believed that technical gaps which emerged from previous disaster experiences need to be addressed in current existing codes and standards in developing building resilience plans and guidelines. Consistently developing risk-based performance goals, tools, and metrics to help support policy development and decision-making were mutual parameters in similar studies [35,39]. McAllister [35] developed the topic by considering the significance of occupants’ safety in building resilience. Moreover, Cutter, et al. [40] firmly believed in mandatory health and building insurance as important parameters to be addressed in building resilience.

2.3.2. Resilient Communities

It is important to have resilient buildings, but a city without resilient communities is extremely vulnerable to disasters [41]. Cutter, Burton and Emrich [40] believed that resilience is the ability of a community to recover by itself. Community resilience also refers to the social capital and economic development linked to the post-disaster event response [40]. Resilience is a notion that can be adopted through government policies to enhance community relationships to enable recovery from disasters.
Literature on how communities compare, in terms of their resilience, or how communities are becoming more resilient in the context of natural hazards is limited. Few studies have assessed the damage of natural hazards on community loss through construction codes [42,43]. Maskrey [44] added to this point and strongly believed that the community should be the main influence on modifying DRR policies.
Disasters happen quickly, but the damage they create can last for decades. For example, flooding may occur within a few days, but the damage may linger for a few years. This can put much stress on the community and put unnecessary pressure on planners as they try to initiate complex systems for DRR. Thus, unforeseen disasters entail more flexible and comprehensive resilience tactics.

2.4. Summary of the Literature and Research Gap

The main factors affecting resilient buildings and communities are often linked to climate change and adaptation strategies. The SFDRR and its principles are fundamental in governing how organizations undertake DRR to achieve building and community resilience. Australia’s NCC includes codes and regulations that consider general principles of DRR, recognizing that buildings need to be as resilient as possible to a disaster event. However, the integration of the SFDRR and NCC, considering the extent to which organizations have successfully undertaken DRR to achieve building and community resilience, has received no attention in previous studies. Table 1 summarizes the major principles of SFDRR and disaster risk management (DRM) activities pertinent to building and community resilience.

3. Conceptual Framework

In this section, a conceptual framework is developed based on the knowledge gained from reviewing the literature. The framework has three distinct parts: SFDRR, Australia’s National Construction Code, and Building and Community Resilience. This framework intends to demonstrate a solid grasp of disaster risk management within the Australian context by examining the relationships among constructs in the developed framework. Looking through the links among the SFDRR, the disaster risk objectives of the NCC, and how resilience is measured in buildings and communities, provides a better understanding of DRR practices. This conceptual framework is seen in Figure 3. The proposed framework includes three hypotheses that examine the relationships among three components of the SFDRR, the NCC, and building and community resilience. They are used to test the validity of the framework [57] as hypotheses play a transitional role from theory formation to the empirical analysis [58].
The hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 1: The SFDRR has a direct effect on the DRM activities pertinent to building and community resilience.
Hypothesis 2: The NCC has a direct effect on DRM activities pertinent to building and community resilience.
Hypothesis 3: The NCC has a mediating effect on the relationship between SFDRR and DRM activities pertinent to building and community resilience.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Research Methodology

To test the proposed conceptual framework and its formulated hypotheses, data were collected from the target population. A survey research design was used in this study as it is an appropriate method of timely data collection from the target population [59]. A survey was selected for data collection as it is an effective way to gain quantitative data and provide less biased outcomes compared to other methods, such as interviews [60]. A survey also enables researchers to secure more responses [61]. A seven-point Likert scale was used in this study as it is easy to complete, concise in terms of accuracy, and potent in achieving reliability [62]. The design of the survey was based on the conceptual framework. The factors in Table 1 formed the questions of the survey. The survey had four main sections:
Part 1: general questions about the respondents’ backgrounds, including their gender, highest academic qualification, relevant experience of DRM, position in the organization, and the number of employees in the organization involved in DRM. There were also questions about the frequency of disasters that their organizations had experienced as well as how well they could prioritize DRM in their activities.
Part 2: the second section included questions about the extent to which the organization could implement the SFDRR and NCC principles with respect to disaster risk management practices pertinent to building and community resilience.
Part 3: the third section included questions related to NCC and its alignment with the SFDRR in DRM practices in achieving building and community resilience.

4.2. Survey Administration

Once the survey was designed, its clarity and applicability, in a reasonable timeframe, were assessed through pilot testing by two academics and one industry professional with DRR experience. The survey received approval from the UNSW Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel. Ethics approval ensures that the anonymity of participants was protected, proper storage of data was implemented, and appropriate and unbiased questions were asked. The survey was distributed online to the professionals in their companies.
Australian construction firms located in Sydney, the largest city in Australia and headquarters for national firms with experience in risk management and analysis pertinent to disasters were selected as the targeted population. Their considerable influence on post-disaster building design and construction was an important point in considering their participation.

4.3. Data Analysis Technique

A total of 27 surveys were received from 45 invited industry professionals, including risk engineers, directors, project/construction managers, and risk planners/strategists. Data analysis was undertaken using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. The data were checked for errors and outliers before analysis. Storm frequency was deliberately featured twice in the survey and any respondent who rated storm frequency with two different answers was removed from data analysis. For the purpose of normality assessment, data were transformed into normal distribution tables and graphs. After the normality of the dataset was checked, data were analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis. The Pearson correlation is a well-established measure of correlation, which has a range of +1 (perfect correlation) to −1 (perfect but negative correlation), with 0 indicating the absence of a relationship [63]. The application of Pearson correlation in this study is consistent with the research aim, the developed conceptual framework, and formulated hypotheses.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Respondents’ Background

Three-quarters (74%) of the respondents had five to fifteen years of experience in DRM. Over half (52%) of the respondents were in senior positions, either as a director or a project/construction manager with deep involvement in DRM principles. Most organizations (89%) had one to four employees involved in DRM. All respondents had at least a tertiary qualification. Over 90% of respondents were male. Table 2 summarizes the profile of respondents.

5.2. Natural Hazard Frequencies

Observing natural hazard frequency can help ensure the level of DRM principles needed. Disasters with less frequency attracted less attention compared to relatively frequently occurring disasters. The graphs in Figure 4 reflect the respondents’ views on the likelihood of the occurrence of natural hazards in Sydney and are rated on a Likert scale of 1–7, with 1 being unlikely and 7 being extremely likely.
From the five natural hazards in the survey, storms were the most frequent natural hazard and droughts were rated the lowest chance of occurring in Sydney. Figure 4 shows an extremely low occurrence of earthquakes in Sydney. Figure 4 illustrates that almost 67% of the respondents rated the frequency of flooding a rare event. Since most respondents were based in metropolitan Sydney, Figure 4 shows a low frequency of bushfires as 85% of the respondents believed that bushfires could rarely impact their habitat. The ratings on the frequency of storms fitted well into a normally distributed curve. Almost a third of respondents believed that storms might occasionally happen. The remaining responses were consistent with the NCC and history of past disasters in Sydney, except for flooding, which has always been a great concern in Sydney [26,64].

5.3. Company Priorities for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) in Infrastructure

This section reports how respondents prioritized DRM of facilities within their organizations. The graphs in Figure 5 are rated on a Likert scale of 1–7, with 1 being very low and 7 being very high. Almost 56% of respondents rated their priority in private residential buildings above moderately high. Similarly, over 60% of respondents prioritized private commercial buildings as moderately high. Approximately 58% of respondents rated public buildings as moderate. However, there was a distinct difference in the priority of rural industries as 74% of the respondents considered DRM for rural industries an extremely low priority. Overall, Figure 5 shows the low priority that respondents gave to Australia’s public roads and bridges as 52% of respondents gave little to no priority to considering public roads and bridges in their DRM. Finally, the respondents rated building utilities as high priority as the private commercial and residential buildings. Over 60% of respondents had rated their DRM on utilities very highly. This is an important distinction to explain that DRM principles are always about the functionality of buildings, and utilities are vital in ensuring that a building functions in a natural hazard.

5.4. Pearson Correlation Analysis

Pearson correlation analysis is useful for analyzing the relationship and impact of multiple variables in this study, as the data are parametric in nature. Furthermore, the significance among variables could be checked to ensure there is an implication. In the first step, both independent and dependent variables for the Pearson correlation analysis were identified.
The nine dependent variables were (1) increasing funding for disaster risk management (BACR1); (2) developing a master plan for disaster risk management aligned with NCC (BACR2); (3) allocating resources for enhancing building resilience (BACR3); (4) modifying disaster risk management policies for reducing disaster risk (BACR4); (5) modifying disaster risk management policies for enhancing building resilience (BACR5); (6) modifying disaster risk management policies for enhancing building back better in reconstruction phase (BACR6); (7) allocating budget to increasing the resilience of existing buildings (BACR7); (8) implementing execution plan for post-disaster reconstruction (BACR8); and (9) applying mandatory insurance policies for building owners (BACR9).
The independent variables were the SFDRR’s four priorities, which were also aligned with the NCC: priority 1: understanding of disaster risk (SF1); priority 2: strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk (SF2); priority 3: investing in disaster risk resilience (SF3); and priority 4: enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to build back better in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (SF4).

5.5. Correlation between SFDRR and Resilient Buildings and Communities

Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The SFDRR has a direct effect on the DRM activities pertinent to building and community resilience.
This section focuses on the correlation analysis between the SFDRR’s four priorities and the nine variables of resilient buildings and communities. Table 3 represents the Pearson correlation analysis between the SFDRR priorities and building and community resilience variables. Evidently, apart from insurance policies (BACR9), the SFDRR priorities had a clear positive correlation and significance with building and community resilience, with their Pearson correlation values being much greater than 0.55 and p-values of less than 0.05 indicating high significance. It could be deduced that insurance policies (BACR9) did not significantly contribute to the SFDRR’s priorities. However, overall, powerful correlation and significance between the SFDRR principles and building and community resilience could be observed. Although the low correlation and significance of insurance policies (BACR9) with SFDRR principles were inconsistent with Cutter’s view [40], who claimed that the application of widespread mandatory insurance policies would help increase disaster risk resilience in local areas, the overall findings were consistent with Folke, Maskrey, and Kelman, who argued that DRM policies in the SFDRR should be up-to-date to be resilient to any natural hazard [43,44,49]. It is worth considering that the SFDRR’s evolution from the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2030 must be credited, as it allowed a much greater focus on building and community resilience [45]. This focus, therefore, helped Australia to become even more proactive to natural hazards [47]. Therefore, the first hypothesis (H1) is supported.

5.6. Correlation between NCC and Resilient Buildings and Communities

Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The NCC has a direct effect on DRM activities pertinent to building and community resilience.
In this section, we assume what the impact of the NCC would be on the resilience of buildings and community variables if the four priorities of SFDRR were adopted in the NCC. Table 4 represents the Pearson correlation analysis between the NCC and the building and community resilience variables. Statistical significance with the help of a two-tailed test can also be observed in Table 4, where p-values of less than 0.05 indicated high significance. Therefore, it can be concluded that significant and positive relationships do exist between the NCC and resilient buildings and communities. However, applying mandatory insurance policies for building owners appeared to be a major outlier, as it was not significant in relation to any of the NCC variables. This finding was inconsistent with the related literature, as Cutter was adamant that the level of insurance reflects on the strength of strong building and community resilience [40]. Finally, ensuring fund availability for recovery projects after disasters have failed, which could have minimized disaster damage.
Similarly, BACR1, increasing funding for DRM, in relation to SF1, understanding of disaster risk, was not significant (p-value 0.15). In addition, BACR6, modifying DRM policies for enhancing building resilience, in relation to SF3, investing in disaster risk resilience, was not significant (p-value 0.11). These findings were inconsistent with those of [65,66,67], who proved the significance of funding and incentives, as well as DRM policies in building and community resilience. Nevertheless, the overall significance of NCC for building and community resilience could be supported. One possible solution to overcome the minor inconsistencies of DRM in achieving building and community resilience with respect to Australia’s NCC is to develop a master plan aligned with the NCC for DRM, which has also been proposed by some scholars [38]. Therefore, the second hypothesis (H2) is supported.

5.7. Mediating Impact of NCC on the Relationship between SFDRR and Resilient Buildings and Communities

Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The NCC has a mediating effect on the relationship between SFDRR and DRM activities pertinent to building and community resilience.
The mediating impacts of NCC on the relationship between the SFDRR’s four principles and building and community resilience was investigated to see if the same concept of the four principles of the SFDRR for DRM was applicable to the NCC. Thus, respondents were asked to express their agreement on a seven-point Likert scale. Table 5 represents the results.
Results from the Pearson correlation in Table 5 indicate that the principles of the SFDRR in the NCC moderately correlate with the SDFRR principles (0.3 < x < 0.6)). It was concluded that the NCC could mediate the relationship between the SFDRR and building and community resilience. Meanwhile, by comparing Table 3 and Table 4, in which the impacts of the SFDRR principles and the corresponding principles in the NCC on resilient buildings and communities, respectively, have been highlighted, it can be deduced that, in investment in disaster risk resilience (SF3), the NCC has a greater Pearson correlation with building resilience aspects, including increased funding for disaster risk management (BACR1), allocating resources for enhancing building resilience (BACR3), and allocating budgets to increase the resilience of existing buildings (BACR7). These three aspects are the only three of the nine SFDRR principles that primarily deal with financial matters. Considering the remaining five principles, SFDRR performed better than the NCC.
Overall, it can be determined that the SFDRR can play a major role in the Australian context for natural hazards. However, there is a strong alignment between the Australian NCC and the SFDRR in achieving resilience of buildings and communities.

6. Conclusions

With the development of international frameworks over time, particularly the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR), it is expected that this evolution will coincide with construction resilience in the world. This research aimed to analyze the alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code with the SFDRR to fulfill the final goal of achieving resilience in buildings in response to disaster events. Four principles of the SFDRR as dependent variables were highlighted as: priority 1: understanding of disaster risk; priority 2: strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk; priority 3: investing in disaster risk resilience; and priority 4: enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to build back better in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Nine dependent variables associated with resilience of buildings and communities were extracted from the literature: (1) increasing funding for disaster risk management; (2) developing a master plan for disaster risk management aligned with NCC; (3) allocating resources for enhancing building resilience; (4) modifying disaster risk management policies for reducing disaster risk; (5) modifying disaster risk management policies for enhancing building resilience; (6) modifying disaster risk management policies for enhancing building back better in reconstruction phase; (7) allocating budget to increasing the resilience of existing buildings; (8) implementing execution plan for post-disaster reconstruction; and (9) applying mandatory insurance policies for building owners. Australia’s National Construction Code was meticulously reviewed for natural hazards and associated risks, which were then correspondingly attributed to the SFDRR’s four principles, in terms of risk response. Three hypotheses were formed: H1: the impact of the SFDRR on building and community resilience; H2: the impact of the NCC on building and community resilience; and H3: the mediating role of the NCC on the relationship between SFDRR and building and community resilience. Survey data were collected from 27 professionals involved in disaster risk management in Sydney, Australia. The data were analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis to evaluate the significance of factors and their relationships. Results supported the acceptance of the three hypotheses.
It is also worth considering that the NCC, as a mediator, can help improve the SFDRR, with respect to building and community resilience against disasters in a local context. In terms of increased funding for disaster risk management, allocating resources for enhancing building resilience and allocating budgets to increase the resilience of existing buildings are variables that require a stronger disaster risk management approach, with more emphasis on being proactive in disaster risk reduction approaches. The NCC has different approaches and strategies to improve building resilience in response to risks associated with disasters, considering specific disasters, such as floods, whereas the SFDRR groups all disasters under one heading and does not provide a specific strategy for specific disasters. Thus, it is highly recommended to establish a comprehensive plan incorporating the NCC requirements and the SFDRR in response to the risks contributing to the resilience of buildings and communities in Australia. The implications of this research are important for community safety. Decision-makers, politicians, and those involved in disaster risk management can incorporate the elements of the NCC and SFDRR to establish a plan for disaster risk management. Researchers can adopt the concept developed in this study and incorporate national disaster risk management principles with the SFDRR as a benchmark for studies addressing disaster risk reduction and management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.W., M.M. and K.K.; methodology, W.W.; software, W.W. and M.M.; validation, W.W. and M.M.; formal analysis, W.W.; investigation, W.W.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W. and M.M.; writing—review and editing, K.K. and M.Y.; visualization, M.Y.; supervision, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was received approval from the Ethics Committee of UNSW Sydney (HC17552, 7 July 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Botha, L. Climate change: It’s happening faster than you think. Farmers Wkly. 2019, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pugatch, T. Tropical storms and mortality under climate change. World Dev. 2019, 117, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Hurlimann, A.C.; Warren-Myers, G.; Browne, G.R. Is the Australian construction industry prepared for climate change? Build. Environ. 2019, 153, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IPCC. Working Group II Contributon to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chand, A.M.; Loosemore, M. A socio-ecological analysis of hospital resilience to extreme weather events. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 907–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wahlstrom, M.; Guha-Sapir, D. The Human Cost of Weather-Related Disasters 1995–2015; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. UNISDR. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Malalgoda, C.; Amaratunga, D.; Haigh, R. Challenges in Creating a Disaster Resilient Built Environment. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cerè, G.; Rezgui, Y.; Zhao, W. Critical review of existing built environment resilience frameworks: Directions for future research. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 25, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rattanakanlaya, K.; Sukonthasarn, A.; Wangsrikhun, S.; Chanprasit, C. Flood disaster preparedness experiences of hospital personnel in Thailand: A qualitative study. Australas. Emerg. Care 2018, 21, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lapčević, Z.; Mandić-Rajčević, S.; Lepić, M.; Jovanović, M. Evaluating a primary healthcare centre’s preparedness for disasters using the hospital safety index: Lessons learned from the 2014 floods in Obrenovac, Serbia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 34, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chong, W.K.; Naganathan, H.; Liu, H.; Ariaratnam, S.; Kim, J. Understanding Infrastructure Resiliency in Chennai, India Using Twitter’s Geotags and Texts: A Preliminary Study. Engineering 2018, 4, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tonmoy, F.; Wainwright, D.; Verdon-Kidd, D.C.; Rissik, D. An investigation of coastal climate change risk assessment practice in Australia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 80, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bureau-of-Meteorology; CSIRO. State of the Climate 2018; Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. McInnes, K.L.; Malcolm, D. Climate Change in Eastern Victoria: Stage 2 Report: The Effect of Climate Change on Storm Surges; CSIRO Publishing: Aspendale, Victoria, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fowler, J. Protect. Wetlands to Reduce Disaster Risk; UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  17. Enker, R.A.; Morrison, G. Analysis of the transition effects of building codes and regulations on the emergence of a low carbon residential building sector. Energy Build. 2017, 156, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Seddiky, A.; Giggins, H.; Gajendran, T. International principles of disaster risk reduction informing NGOs strategies for community based DRR mainstreaming: The Bangladesh context. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mojtahedi, M.; Oo, B.L. Critical attributes for proactive engagement of stakeholders in disaster risk management. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 21, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Manyena, B. After Sendai: Is Africa bouncing back or bouncing forward from disasters? Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2016, 7, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. UNISDR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. 2016. Available online: http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2017).
  22. Jamshed, A.; Birkmann, J.; Feldmeyer, D.; Rana, I.A. A Conceptual Framework to Understand the Dynamics of Rural–Urban Linkages for Rural Flood Vulnerability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Robertson, T.; Docherty, P.; Millar, F.; Ruck, A.; Engstrom, S. Theory and practice of building community resilience to extreme events. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 59, 102253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Heazle, M.; Tangney, P.; Burton, P.; Howes, M.; Grant-Smith, D.; Reis, K.; Bosomworth, K. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation: An incremental approach to disaster risk management in Australia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 33, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Berg, M.; De Majo, V. Understanding the Global Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 2017, 8, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Australian Building Codes Board. National Construction Code Series; Australian Building Codes Board: Canberra, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hurlimann, A.C.; Browne, G.R.; Warren-Myers, G.; Francis, V. Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Australian construction industry—Impetus for regulatory reform. Build. Environ. 2018, 137, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maqsood, T.; Wehner, M.; Dale, K.; Edwards, M. Development of flood mitigation strategies for Australian residential buildings. In Research Forum 2016: Proceedings from the Research Forum at the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC & AFAC Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 30 August–1 September 2016; Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC: East Melbourne, Australia, 2016; ISBN 978-0-9941696-6-2. [Google Scholar]
  29. Australian Building Codes Board. Construction of Buildings in Flood Hazard Areas; Australian Government and States and Territories of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  30. MacLeod, J.; Tan, S.; Moinuddin, K. Reliability of fire (point) detection system in office buildings in Australia—A fault tree analysis. Fire Saf. J. 2020, 115, 103150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. de Vet, E.; Eriksen, C. When insurance and goodwill are not enough: Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) ratings, risk calculations and disaster resilience in Australia. Aust. Geogr. 2020, 51, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Frohlich, M.F.; Smith, T.F.; Jacobson, C.; Fidelman, P.; Carter, R.B.; Baldwin, C. Towards adaptive coastal management: Lessons from a “legal storm” in Byron Shire, Australia. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2019, 179, 104909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bowman, J.R. Geodetic evidence for conjugate faulting during the 1988 Tennant Creek, Australia earthquake sequence. Geophys. J. Int. 1991, 107, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Pearson, L.; Pelling, M.A. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: Negotiation Process and Prospects for Science and Practice. J. Extreme Events 2015, 2, 1571001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McAllister, T. Developing Guidelines and Standards for Disaster Resilience of the Built Environment: A Research Needs Assessment; US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bosher, L.; Carrillo, P.; Dainty, A.; Glass, J.; Price, A. Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment: Towards a strategic agenda for the United Kingdom. Disasters 2007, 31, 236–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Etinay, N.; Egbu, C.; Murray, V. Building Urban Resilience for Disaster Risk Management and Disaster Risk Reduction. Procedia Eng. 2018, 212, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Penning-Rowsell, E.C.; Smith, K. Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster; Routledge: London, UK, 1993; p. 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Takewaki, I.; Moustafa, A.; Fujita, K. Improving the Earthquake Resilience of Buildings: The Worst-Case Approach; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cutter, S.L.; Burton, C.G.; Emrich, C.T. Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2010, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Godschalk, D.R. Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2003, 4, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bruneau, M.; Chang, S.E.; Eguchi, R.T.; Lee, G.C.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Shinozuka, M.; Tierney, K.; Wallace, W.A.; Von Winterfeldt, D. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities. Earthq. Spectra 2003, 19, 733–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2002, 31, 437–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Maskrey, A. Revisiting community-based disaster risk management. Environ. Hazards 2011, 10, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aitsi-Selmi, A.; Egawa, S.; Sasaki, H.; Wannous, C.; Murray, V. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Renewing the Global Commitment to People’s Resilience, Health, and Well-being. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Stough, L.M.; Kang, D. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Persons with Disabilities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Zia, A.; Wagner, C.H. Mainstreaming Early Warning Systems in Development and Planning Processes: Multilevel Implementation of Sendai Framework in Indus and Sahel. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Carabine, E. Revitalising evidence-based policy for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: Lessons from existing international science partnerships. PLoS Curr. Disasters. 2015, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kelman, I.; Glantz, M.H. Analyzing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 105–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kunreuther, H. Disaster mitigation and insurance: Learning from Katrina. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2006, 604, 208–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Aldrich, D.P. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  52. Comfort, L.; Wisner, B.; Cutter, S.; Pulwarty, R.; Hewitt, K.; Oliver-Smith, A.; Wiener, J.; Fordham, M.; Peacock, W.; Krimgold, F. Reframing disaster policy. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part. B Environ. Hazards. 1999, 1, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Crompton, R.; McAneney, J. The cost of natural disasters in Australia: The case for disaster risk reduction. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2008, 23, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  54. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vaughan, E.; Turner, J. The Value and Impact of Building Codes; Environmental and Energy Study Institute White Paper: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  56. de la Poterie, A.T.; Baudoin, M.A. From Yokohama to Sendai: Approaches to Participation in International Disaster Risk Reduction Frameworks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  59. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  60. Marshall, G. The purpose, design and administration of a questionnaire for data collection. Radiography 2005, 11, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Laerhoven, H.; Van Der Zaag-Loonen, H.; Derkx, B.; Zaag-Loonen, H. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children’s questionnaires. Acta Paediatr. 2004, 93, 830–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Adler, J.; Parmryd, I. Quantifying colocalization by correlation: The Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander’s overlap coefficient. Cytom. Part. A 2010, 77, 733–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Sewell, T.; Stephens, R.E.; Dominey-Howes, D.; Bruce, E.; Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. Disaster declarations associated with bushfires, floods and storms in New South Wales, Australia between 2004 and 2014. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lavell, A.; Maskrey, A. The future of disaster risk management. Environ. Hazards 2014, 13, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Howes, M.; Tangney, P.; Reis, K.; Grant-Smith, D.; Heazle, M.; Bosomworth, K.; Burton, P. Towards networked governance: Improving interagency communication and collaboration for disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in Australia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 757–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Omukuti, J.; Megaw, A.; Barlow, M.; Altink, H.; White, P. The value of secondary use of data generated by non-governmental organisations for disaster risk management research: Evidence from the Caribbean. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 56, 102114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 11 00429 g001 550
Figure 1. Disaster risk reduction frameworks.
Figure 1. Disaster risk reduction frameworks.
Buildings 11 00429 g001
Buildings 11 00429 g002 550
Figure 2. Sendai Framework’s priorities adopted from [21].
Figure 2. Sendai Framework’s priorities adopted from [21].
Buildings 11 00429 g002
Buildings 11 00429 g003 550
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework.
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework.
Buildings 11 00429 g003
Buildings 11 00429 g004 550
Figure 4. Frequency of floods, bushfires, storms, drought, and earthquakes observed by the respondents.
Figure 4. Frequency of floods, bushfires, storms, drought, and earthquakes observed by the respondents.
Buildings 11 00429 g004
Buildings 11 00429 g005 550
Figure 5. Company priorities for DRM in private residential buildings, commercial/industrial buildings, public buildings, rural industries, public roads and bridges, and utilities.
Figure 5. Company priorities for DRM in private residential buildings, commercial/industrial buildings, public buildings, rural industries, public roads and bridges, and utilities.
Buildings 11 00429 g005
Table
Table 1. SFDRR principles and DRM practices pertinent to building and community resilience.
Table 1. SFDRR principles and DRM practices pertinent to building and community resilience.
FactorsReferences
SFDRR principles
Priority 1: understanding of disaster risk (SF1).[21,26,45,46,47,48,49,50]
Priority 2: strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk (SF2).
Priority 3: investing in disaster risk resilience (SF3).
Priority 4: enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response (SF4).
Disaster risk management (DRM) practices pertinent to building and community resilience
(1) Increasing funding for disaster risk management (BACR1).[26,35,38,40,41,43,51,52,53,54,55,56]
(2) Developing a master plan for disaster risk management aligned with NCC (BACR2).
(3) Allocating resources for enhancing building resilience (BACR3).
(4) Modifying disaster risk management policies for reducing disaster risk (BACR4).
(5) Modifying disaster risk management policies for enhancing building resilience (BACR5).
(6) Modifying disaster risk management policies for enhancing building back better in the reconstruction phase (BACR6).
(7) Allocating budget to increasing the resilience of existing buildings (BACR7).
(8) Implementing execution plan for post-disaster reconstruction (BACR8).
(9) Applying mandatory insurance policies for building owners (BACR9).
Table
Table 2. Respondents’ background.
Table 2. Respondents’ background.
GenderFemaleMale
Percentage (%)7.5%92.5%
Highest academic qualificationCertificate/DiplomaBachelor’s degreeMaster’s degreePhD
Percentage (%)037%56%7%
Experience in DRM (years)Less than 5 5–1010–1515 years and more
Percentage (%)15%37%37%11%
PositionRisk engineerDirectorProject/construction managerRisk planner/strategist
Percentage (%)22%18.5%33.5%26%
The number of employees in DRM1–23–45–67 and more
Percentage (%)70%19%3.7%7.3%
Table
Table 3. Correlation analysis between SFDRR and resilient buildings and communities.
Table 3. Correlation analysis between SFDRR and resilient buildings and communities.
SF1BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF110.5980.6660.6270.6900.5950.6920.7020.5460.243
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0010.0000.0000.0000.0010.0000.0000.0030.222
SF2BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF210.5100.6460.4940.5710.5800.5860.6660.5630.093
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0070.0000.0090.0020.0020.0010.0000.0020.645
SF3BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF310.5190.7660.5870.6700.6020.6480.6860.6430.121
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0060.0000.0010.0000.0010.0000.0000.0000.549
SF4BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF410.6460.6430.6970.7500.7330.7080.5980.5640.168
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.0020.403
Table
Table 4. Correlation analysis between NCC and resilient buildings and communities.
Table 4. Correlation analysis between NCC and resilient buildings and communities.
SF1BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF110.4630.5540.5980.5260.5730.5080.5910.5140.186
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.150.0030.0010.0050.0020.0070.0010.0060.354
SF2BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF210.6200.6520.7020.6060.6180.5560.7040.6260.270
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0010.0000.0000.0010.0010.0030.0000.0000.173
SF3BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF310.6500.6270.6990.6120.5840.4830.6920.5790.202
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0000.0000.0000.0010.0010.110.0000.0020.313
SF4BACR1BACR2BACR3BACR4BACR5BACR6BACR7BACR8BACR9
Pearson CorrelationSF410.6880.6230.6840.6380.6460.5200.6520.6170.280
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0000.0010.0000.0000.0000.0050.0000.0010.156
Table
Table 5. Correlation analysis between NCC and SFDRR.
Table 5. Correlation analysis between NCC and SFDRR.
SFDRR Principles Transferred to NCCSFDRR Principles
SF1SF2SF3SF4
Pearson CorrelationSF1 (NCC)0.5140.4830.5490.547
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0050.0110.0030.003
SF1SF2SF3SF4
Pearson CorrelationSF2 (NCC)0.6370.5650.6580.697
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0000.0020.0000.000
SF1SF2SF3SF4
Pearson CorrelationSF3 (NCC)0.5640.5490.5870.589
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0020.0030.0010.001
SF1SF2SF3SF4
Pearson CorrelationSF4 (NCC)0.5360.4620.6140.589
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.0040.0150.0010.001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, W.; Mojtahedi, M.; Yazdani, M.; Kabirifar, K. The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities. Buildings 2021, 11, 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100429

AMA Style

Wei W, Mojtahedi M, Yazdani M, Kabirifar K. The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities. Buildings. 2021; 11(10):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100429

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, Wesley, Mohammad Mojtahedi, Maziar Yazdani, and Kamyar Kabirifar. 2021. "The Alignment of Australia’s National Construction Code and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Achieving Resilient Buildings and Communities" Buildings 11, no. 10: 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100429

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop