Nt1310 Unit 5 Evaluation

In the first round, the participants suggested the inclusion of 67 indicators (Appendix 2) that were not identified as relevant in the literature review. In order to keep the resulting list manageable and avoid introducing bias, only the criteria that were cited by at least 5 experts were included in the second round. Thus, the indicators “disaster simulations and training” and “escape routes” were added. Furthermore, according to more than 10 respondents the indicators “overpopulation” and “education level” overlapped with “population density” and “illiteracy”, respectively. Hence, they were considered redundant and were excluded from the questionnaire.

Most indicators obtained a median of 4 or 5 after round 2 (Table 2). Overall, the highest rated indicators were population density, social hot spots, and disaster prevention institutions. Variables that are rarely considered in vulnerability assessment, such as the households with open sewage and without garbage collection, were

In the first round, consensus was not reached for 9 of the 26 indicators (Table 2). Interestingly, these indicators achieved the lowest rating in round 1. This number dropped to 5 items in the second questionnaire. In some cases, the lack of consensus was due to minor differences in ratings. In others, there were wide disparities in judgments, especially for the indicators monthly income, gender, ethnicity and recent immigrants. In the case of gender, there were disagreements even among the experts that rated it as important. For example, the rationale for considering gender as important was explained by a participant who wrote: “woman are more fragile and linked to their children, which means that they require assistance to escape in emergencies”. Conversely, other panelists mentioned that “women are more cautious, avoiding risky