Factor Influencing Disaster Preparedness Level of Local Community Leaders in Managing Evacuation Centres At

FACTOR INFLUENCING DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LEVEL OF LOCAL COMMUNITY LEADERS IN MANAGING EVACUATION CENTRES AT

SEGAMAT DISTRICT

ROHAIZAT BIN HADLI (MMJ191004) Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines MALAYSIA-JAPAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

Flood is a major natural hazard in Malaysia contributing to the most significant impact on the economy, environment and the lifestyle of the community including the displacement of the population. Based on the study, the Muar and Batu Pahat rivers located in Segamat district are among the 85 listed river basins that are often exposed to repeated flooding resulting in thousands of communities being ordered to evacuate from flooded areas and will then be placed in safe evacuation centers. Due to the importance of this support system during and after the disaster, an effective evacuation centres management is indeed vital, so that all services could be accessed and used by disaster victims conveniently. It is also important for local community leaders that responsible for the evacuation centres to carefully monitor the services and facilities provided based on the victim's expectations. This study is determining to assess the factors influencing disaster preparedness of local community leaders which are beneficial to use in managing evacuation centres as well as adopting priorities for actions listed under Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Questionnaires validated by experts in their respective fields of work are distributed to local community leaders i.e. village heads as respondents that involved in the management of evacuation centres especially in Segamat district. A descriptive analysis is used by analyzing the Relative Importance Index (RII) and Multi Regression using SPSS Version 25 to determining the disaster preparedness level and find a correlation between the demographics of the respondents and RII. In conclusion, there are 17 key factors that needed to improve the disaster preparedness capabilities of village heads in managing evacuation centres. This includes improving the investment on disaster risk reduction, improving preparedness for effective response and recovery, strengthening of governance to manage disaster risk and increasing the understanding of disaster risk related to evacuation centres.

Keywords: disaster preparedness, evacuation centres, segamat district

ABSTRAK

Banjir merupakan bencana alam semulajadi yang utama di Malaysia, menyumbang kepada kesan paling signifikan terhadap ekonomi, alam sekitar dan gaya hidup masyarakat termasuklah perpindahan masyarakat. Berdasarkan kajian, sungai Muar dan Batu Pahat yang terletak di daerah Segamat adalah antara 85 lembangan sungai yang disenaraikan yang sering terdedah kepada banjir berulang menyebabkan ribuan komuniti diarahkan berpindah dari kawasan banjir dan seterusnya akan ditempatkan di pusat pemindahan yang selamat. Oleh kerana kepentingan sistem sokongan ini semasa dan selepas bencana, pengurusan pusat pemindahan yang berkesan sememangnya penting, supaya semua perkhidmatan dapat diakses dan digunakan oleh mangsa bencana dengan mudah. Adalah penting bagi pemimpin masyarakat setempat yang juga bertanggungjawab ke atas pusat-pusat pemindahan ini untuk memantau dengan teliti perkhidmatan dan kemudahan yang disediakan berdasarkan keperluan mangsa bencana banjir. Kajian ini dilaksanakan untuk menilai faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi tahap kesiapsiagaan bencana pemimpin masyarakat setempat yang bermanfaat untuk digunakan dalam menguruskan pusat pemindahan serta menggunapakai keutamaan bagi tindakan yang disenaraikan di bawah Rangka kerja Sendai untuk pengurangan risiko bencana khususnya di daerah Segamat. Soal selidik yang telah disahkan oleh pakar dalam bidang kerja masing-masing diedarkan kepada pemimpin masyarakat setempat iaitu ketua kampung sebagai responden yang terlibat dalam pengurusan pusat pemindahan. Analisis deskriptif digunakan dengan menganalisis Indeks Kepentingan Relatif (RII) dan Regresi berganda menggunakan SPSS Versi 25 untuk menentukan tahap kesiapsiagaan bencana dan mencari korelasi antara demografi responden dan RII. Kesimpulannya, terdapat 17 faktor utama yang diperlukan untuk meningkatkan keupayaan kesiapsiagaan bencana ketua kampung dalam menguruskan pusat pemindahan. Ini termasuklah meningkatkan pelaburan keatas pengurangan risiko bencana, meningkatkan kesiapsiagaan untuk tindak balas dan pemulihan yang berkesan, pengukuhan tadbir urus untuk menguruskan risiko

3 bencana dan meningkatkan pemahaman risiko bencana yang berkaitan dengan pusat pemindahan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Formatted Table

TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

LIST OF APPENDIXES xvi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.1.1 Overview of Segamat district 3

1.2 Problem background 6

1.2.1 Problem statement 8

1.3 Research goal 9

1.3.1 Research objectives 10

1.4 Research questions 10

1.5 Research scope & limitation 11

1.6 Significant of study 12

1.7 Conceptual framework 14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 15

2.1 Introduction 15

2.2 Sendai Framework for Disaster Management 18

2.3 Disaster management in Malaysia 20

2.4 Factors influencing Disaster Preparedness 25 Significance of evacuation centres for disaster 2.5 28 preparedness Influence of emergency plan centres for disaster 2.6 31 preparedness Influence of risk communication centres for disaster 2.7 34 preparedness

Influence of community-based organizations for 2.8 39 disaster preparedness

2.9 Influence of investment for disaster preparedness 43

2.10 Summary of the literature 44

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 45

3.1 Introduction 45

3.2 Literature review 46

3.3 Questionnaires development 47

3.4 Questionnaires dissemination and Sampling size 50

3.5 Data analysis 51

3.6 Study area 54

3.7 Summary of the methodology 56

CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 57

4.1 Introduction 57

4.2 Demographic of respondents 58

4.3 Overall Relative Importance Index (RII) analysis 60

4.3.1 Analysis of RII in Section B 61

4.3.2 Analysis of RII in Section C 62

4.3.3 Analysis of RII in Section D 63

4.3.4 Analysis of RII in Section E 64

4.3.5 Analysis of RII in Section F 65

4.4 Analysis of Relative Importance Index (RII) based on 66 Demographics 4.4.1 Analysis of RII based on education level 66

4.4.2 Analysis of RII based on age 67

4.4.3 Analysis of RII based on work experience 67

4.4.4 Analysis of RII based on sub-district 68

4.5 Multiple regression analysis 69

4.5.1 Multiple regression analysis on the RII based on 69 education level

4.5.2 Multiple regression analysis on the RII based on 72 Age 4.5.3 Multiple regression analysis on the RII based on 74 work experience 4.6 Summary of the analysis 76

4.7 List of improvement factors to enhance preparedness 78

4.8 Improving investment on disaster risk reduction of 80 evacuation centres 4.9 Improving preparedness for effective response and 81 recovery 4.10 Strengthening of governance to manage disaster risk 83

4.11 Increasing the understanding of disaster risk related to 84 evacuation centres CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86

5.1 Introduction 86

5.2 Conclusion 86

5.3 Recommendation 88

REFERENCES 90

LIST OF TABLES Formatted Table

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

Table 1.1 Number of evacuation centres in Segamat 5

Table 1.2 Number of village heads in Segamat 11 The organizational structure of the evacuation centres in Table 2.1 23 Malaysia Table 2.2 Element of preparedness 26

Table 2.3 Factors of influence the disaster preparedness 27

Table 2.4 Factors in selecting evacuation centres 29

Table 2.5 Factors of influence the emergency plans 32

Table 2.6 Lists of factors impacting evacuation decision 34

Table 2.7 The early warning system components 36

Table 2.8 List of community-based organization in Japan 41

Table 3.1 Sections of topic questions 49

Table 3.2 5-point Likert scale for questionnaire 49

Table 3.3 The classification of relative importance index 52

Table 3.4 The correlation between variables 53

Table 4.1 Distributions of respondents based on sub-district 59

Table 4.2 Overall Relative Importance Index 60

Table 4.3 Relative Importance Index for Section B 61

Table 4.4 Relative Importance Index for Section C 62

Table 4.5 Relative Importance Index for Section D 63

Table 4.6 Relative Importance Index for Section E 64

Table 4.7 Relative Importance Index for Section F 65

Table 4.8 Relative Importance Index based on education level 66

LIST OF TABLES Formatted Table

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

Table 4.9 Relative Importance Index based on age 67

Table 4.10 Relative Importance Index based on work experience 68

Table 4.11 Relative Importance Index based on sub-district 68

Table 4.12 Regression analysis based on the education level 70

Table 4.13 ANOVA analysis based on the education level 70

Table 4.14 Coefficients analysis based on the education level 71

Table 4.15 Regression analysis based on the age 72

Table 4.16 ANOVA analysis based on the age 72

Table 4.17 Coefficients analysis based on the age 73

Table 4.18 Regression analysis based on the work experience 74

Table 4.19 ANOVA analysis based on the work experience 74

Table 4.20 Coefficients analysis based on the work experience 75

Table 4.21 Key factor for improvement 79

LIST OF FIGURES Formatted Table

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

People displaced due to weather-related and geophysical Figure 1.1 2 hazard events in 2019

Figure 1.2 Maps location of Segamat district 4 Key areas in pursuing strengthening resilient and Figure 2.1 17 sustainability Figure 2.2 Disaster Management level in Malaysia 21

Figure 2.3 The weather forecast in Malaysia 37

Figure 2.4 The river water level in Malaysia 38

Figure 3.1 Process flow of research methodology 46

Figure 3.2 Flow process in questionnaires development 48

Figure 3.3 Online sample size calculation by Raosoft 51

Figure 3.4 Main river basin in Segamat District 55

Figure 4.1 Distributions of respondents by age 58

Figure 4.2 Distribution of respondents by education level 58

Figure 4.3 Distribution of respondents by work experience 59 Overall of Relative Importance Index on disaster Figure 4.4 60 preparedness

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian AHA Centre - Assistance on Disaster Management

APM - Malaysia Civil Defence Force

DID - Department of Irrigation and Drainage

DMC - Disaster Management Committee

DRR - Disaster Risk Reduction

EWS - Early Warning System

IDMC - Internal Displacement Monitoring Center

NSC - National Security Council

MetMalaysia - Department of Meteorological

MPKK - Village Community Management Council

NADMA - National Disaster Management Agency

NEM - New Economic Model

JKM - Department of Social Welfare

RII - Relative Importance Index

SDGs - United Nation Sustainable Development Goals

SOP - Standard Operating Procedures

SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences

UNISDR - United Nation Office for Disaster Risk Reduction United Nation World Commission on Environment and WCED - Development WMO - World Meteorological Organization

LIST OF APPENDIXES Formatted Table

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

Appendix A List of questionnaires

Appendix B Cronbach alpha reliability statistics

Appendix C Number of village heads in Segamat district

CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.25 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm This Chapter 4 will explain the method used to analysing and interpreting the Commented [F1]: Merhod or result? data collected through questionnaires to determine the findings of the study to address the main research questions as stated in Chapter 1 of this study. Firstly, the demographic of the respondents wasis presented, and followed by analysis of average Relative Importance Index (RII) calculation for each section and analysis of multiple regression model to show the correlation with the variables from this study. The data collected were discussed using narrative and interpretive analysis and also using bar and line charts.

Fifty-five (52) respondents have filled out the survey questionnaire as a result of its distribution from a total of Fifty-nine (59) village heads in Segamat district. In the meantime, 3 respondents were unable to participate as there were no new village heads appointed in the locality when the survey form was distributed. In addition, only 52 respondents were considered valid to meet the objectives of this study (n=52). Therefore, the valid percentages of respondents out of the total population is 93.2%.

Furthermore, to obtain 90 percent confidence level, the sample size must be at least n=49 (Raosoft, 2004). Therefore, the number of respondents is considered valid for the justification of this study.

The Cronbach’s Alpha used to examine for internal consistency. The result of reliability testing of the Cronbach Alpha value is 0.741- 0.857 > 0.70 so it can be concluded that the all questions is reliable (Appendix B).

4.2 Demographic of respondents Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.25 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm The overall demographic data of the respondents were collected through Section A of the questionnaires. Based on the total of the respondent (n=52), where all 52 respondents are male (100%) and most of the respondents aged between 46 to 55 years old with percentage of 54% as shown in Figure 4.1. The majority of respondents have SPM / PMR / SRP with a total of 40 respondents (76.9%), 8 respondents (15.4%) have a Diploma / STPM and 4 respondents (7.7%) have a Bachelor Degree and above as shown in Figure 4.2.

Age of Respondent

55 to 65 years old, Below 45 years old, 19, 36% 5, 10%

46 to 55 years old, 28, 54%

Figure 4.1 Distributions of respondents by age

Level of Education

Bachelor Degree above , 4

STPM/Diploma , 8

SRP/PMR/SPM , 40

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 4.2 Distributions of respondents by education level

Most of the respondents having less than 2 years of work experience with a total number of 45 respondents (78%) and remaining 7 respondents (15%) with more than 2 years of work experience as shown in Figure 4.3. Basically, the number of respondents involved in this questionnaire is divided into the number of village heads appointed in the sub-districts. It is therefore important to find a relationship between the respondent and each sub-district as most respondents engage in managing the evacuation centre at the local level. Frequency and percentage of respondents based on sub-district location are shown in Table 4.1.

Working Experience

More than 2 years, 7, 15%

Less than 2 years, 45, 78%

Figure 4.3 Distributions of respondents by working experience

Table 4.1 Distributions of respondents based on sub-districts Sub-districts / Number of No. Frequency Percentage (%) Mukims Evacuation Centres 1 Sungai Segamat 24 6 11.5 2 Pogoh 20 3 5.8 3 Jementah 16 6 11.5 4 Gemereh 7 5 9.6 5 Buloh Kasap 19 9 17.3 6 Gemas 10 4 7.7 7 Sermin 3 2 3.8 8 Labis 20 9 17.3 9 Bekok 2 2 3.8 10 Jabi 3 3 5.8 11 Chaah 11 3 5.8 TOTAL 135 52 100

Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 4.3 Overall Relative Importance Index analysis Formatted Table ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted The Relative Importance Index (RII) has an overall average value of 0.800 and ... Formatted ... it is shown as Medium-High (M-H). The coefficient of RII is range of 0 and 1. The Formatted ... Relative Importance Index (RII) is also used to determine the ranked for each Formatted ... questionnaire. The findings of each section of the questionaires is presented in Table Formatted ... 4.2 on the based of the distributed questionnaires received and theis section is ranked Formatted ... by ascending as shown in Figure 4.4. Formatted ... Formatted ...

Formatted ... Table 4.2 Overall Relative Importance Index (RII) Formatted ... SECTION RII RANK Importance Formatted ... Level Formatted ... B Availability of facilities and services 0.830 3 H Formatted ... C Understanding of disaster risk 0.884 1 H Formatted ... Formatted ... D Strenghtening of governance in managing 0.847 2 H evacuation centres Formatted ... E Investing in evacuation centres disaster risk 0.708 5 M - H Formatted ... reduction for resilience Formatted ... F Enhance disaster preparedness for effective 0.809 4 M - H response Formatted ... AVERAGE 0.816 H Formatted ... Formatted ...

Formatted ... Formatted Relative Importance Index on preparedness ... Formatted related to evacuation centres ... Formatted ...

1 0.872 Formatted ... 0.9 0.795 0.811 0.834 0.800 0.8 0.690 Formatted ... 0.7 0.6 Formatted ... 0.5 0.4 Formatted ... 0.3 0.2 Formatted ... 0.1 0 Formatted ... Section E : Section F : Section B : Section D : Section C : Average value Formatted ... Investment for Enhance Availability of Strengthening Understanding of RII resilience preparedness services and governance of disaster risk Formatted ... for response facilities Formatted ... Figure 4.4 Overall of Relative Importance Index (RII) on disaster preparedness Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 15 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 4.3.1 Analysis of Relative Importance Index in section B Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section B is 0.811 and it is shown as High (H). This section will assess the knowledge of village heads in Commented [F2]: What does this means? related to availability of facilities and services at the evacuation centres. There are 11 Formatted: Highlight questions that have been formed for Section B to measure the level of availability of facilities and services for disaster preparedness in managing evacuation centres as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section B SECTION B Importance Availability of facilities and services at evacuation centres RII RANK Level

B1 Is there access to the evacuation centres easy 0.846 2 H

Is there evacuation centres location within my B2 0.904 1 H jurisdiction safe by disaster Is there adequate parking space at the evacuation B3 0.785 9 M - H centres Is there two entrances and exit available at B4 0.835 3 H evacuation centres Is there wall, windows and doors in good condition B5 0.808 6 M - H and free of large cracks at evacuation centres Is there evacuation centres spaces adequate and B6 0.804 7 H secure Is there power supply adequate at evacuation B7 0.808 5 M - H centres Is there water supply system adequate at the B8 0.785 8 M - H evacuation centres Is there sanitary facilities functional at evacuation B9 0.781 10 M - H centres Is there kitchen facilities in good condition at B10 0.750 11 M - H evacuation centres Is the evacuation centres exterior area in good B11 0.815 4 H condition AVERAGE 0.811 H

4.3.2 Analysis of Relative Importance Index in section C Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm Formatted: Centered, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section C is 0.872 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, and it is shown as High (H). This section will assess the perception of village heads on Font color: Text 1, Pattern: Clear (White) emergency planning related to the understanding of disaster risk which in line with the Commented [F3]: What does this mean? Sendai Framework Priority for Action 1: Understanding of disaster risk. There are 11 Formatted: Highlight questions that have been formed for Section C to measure the level of understanding on disaster risk for disaster preparedness in managing evacuation centres as shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section C SECTION C Understanding disaster risk related to evacuation centres Importance RII RANK management Level I know the area is at risk of disaster surrounding C1 0.888 4 H my jurisdiction I am aware that there is a risk to live surrounding C2 0.896 2 H the floodplain The community living at the downstream have C3 been instilled with awareness that the rising river 0.862 9 H water levels may cause flooding I understand the roles and functions of the C4 0.896 1 H evacuation centres I understand my roles as the community leaders C5 0.869 5 H in managing evacuation centres I am aware the existence of an evacuation centres C6 0.862 8 H within my jurisdiction I know that there are several type of evacuation C7 0.819 11 H centres according to their ownership I know the numbers of family community that will C8 occupy at the evacuation centres within my 0.869 7 H jurisdiction I am aware about procedure related to activating C9 and deactivating of evacuation centres to 0.862 10 H community during disaster at my jurisdiction The community living surrounding the evacuation C10 centres are aware of the existence, location and 0.869 6 H route to the designated evacuation centres I believe that the MPKK will be able to react and C11 manage if there is a disaster that require to use 0.896 3 H evacuation centres AVERAGE 0.872 H

4.3.3 Analysis of Relative Importance Index in section D Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section D is 0.834 and it is shown as High (H). This section will assess the perception of village heads on Commented [F4]: What does this means? Please elaborate. emergency planning related to the strengthening of governance which in line with the Formatted: Highlight Sendai Framework Priority for Action 2: Strengthening governance to manage disaster risk. There are 11 questions in that have been developed for Section D to measure the level of strengthening governance for disaster preparedness in managing evacuation centres as shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section D Formatted: Centered, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Tab stops: Not at 3.37 cm SECTION D Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Strengthening of governance in managing evacuation Importance RII RANK centres Level The evacuation centre management has been D1 included in one of the agenda during MPKK 0.869 1 H Meeting All of the members in the MPKK understand their D2 0.831 8 H roles in managing evacuation centres There is a linkage between evacuation centre D3 0.842 5 H owners and the members of MPKK All of the MPKK has been actively participate in D4 0.854 4 H any evacuation centre management program There is a guideline in managing evacuation D5 0.838 6 H centres There is already contact number of government D6 0.854 3 H agency associated with the evacuation centre The evacuation centres owners is a part of the D7 members in the Disaster Management Committee 0.831 9 H (DMC) There is shared responsibility between MPKK in D8 0.831 7 H managing evacuation centres There is sufficient basic amenities such as water D9 0.850 2 H and electricity in the evacuation centres There is sufficient basic necessities such as food D10 0.762 11 M - H and family space in the evacuation centres There is sufficient basic services provided such D11 0.812 10 H as health and safety in the evacuation centres AVERAGE 0.834 H

4.3.4 Analysis of Relative Importance Index in section E Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section E is 0.690 and it is shown as Medium-High (M-H). This section will assess the perception of Commented [F5]: What does this means? village heads on emergency planning related to the investing in evacuation centres Formatted: Highlight disaster risk reduction which in line with the Sendai Framework Priority for Action 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. There are 6 questionnaires that have been formed for Section E to measure the level of investing in evacuation centres disaster risk reduction for disaster preparedness in managing evacuation centres as shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section E

SECTION E Investing in evacuation centres disaster risk reduction for Importance RII RANK resilience Level In your opinion, how well the budget that is 1 channeled to the operation requirements and the 0.688 3 M - H maintenance of the evacuation centres In your opinion, how well the evacuation centres 2 was maintained properly by the owners to avoid any 0.735 1 M - H damage In your opinion, how well the evacuation centres 3 owners have shared responsibility for financing the 0.719 2 M - H operation and maintaining the evacuation centres In your opinion, how well the federal government 4 has full financial support to managing the 0.669 5 M - H evacuation centres In your opinion, how well community living at the 5 downstream has been given a preparatory training 0.688 4 M - H to the evacuation centres In your opinion, how well the simulation exercise 6 related to evacuation process has been 0.642 6 M - H implemented

AVERAGE 0.690 M - H Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: 0 cm, Line spacing: 1.5 lines

4.3.5 Analysis of Relative Importance Index in section F Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section F is 0.795 and it is shown as Medium-High (M-H). This section will assess the perception of Commented [F6]: What does this means? village heads on emergency planning related to enhance preparedness for response and Formatted: Highlight recovery which in line with the Sendai Framework Priority for Action 4: Enhance preparedness for effective response. There are 12 questions that have been formed for Section F to measure the level of preparedness for effective response and recovery in managing the evacuation centres as shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section F

SECTION F Importance Enhance preparedness for effective response & recovery RII RANK Level

F1 Is there any existence of community profiling 0.873 1 H

Is there any existence of hazard map or risk map on F2 0.750 10 M - H any disaster Is there any existence of evacuation centres route F3 0.742 11 M - H signage Is there any regular inspection plan for the availability F4 0.777 8 M - H of evacuation centres F5 Is there any supplies distribution plan in your area 0.788 6 M - H There are specific services for those people with F6 0.719 12 M - H special needs (OKU) at the evacuation centres Is there any risk communication plan to advise F7 0.785 7 M - H community to evacuate to evacuation centres The local community at your area is active in helping F8 to manage the evacuation centres and caring for the 0.819 4 H victims MPKK has established an emergency response F9 0.808 5 M - H team to provide early response The availability of personnel on duty is adequate and information be channeled efficiently that can improve F10 0.773 9 M - H efficiency on response when managing the evacuation centres MPKK and government agencies are working F11 0.850 3 H together to solve evacuation centres issue How do you rate collaboration level between State F12 and District authority in managing evacuation 0.850 2 H centres

AVERAGE 0.795 M - H

4.4 Analysis of Relative Importance Index based on demographics Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.25 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + The analysis is done in this section is to evaluate the relationship between the Indent at: 0.63 cm demographics and value of the Relative Importance Index (RII). The analysis is divided according to education level, impact on age factor and work experience and sub-district differences.

4.4.1 Analysis of Relative Importance Index based on education level Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) is based on education level of village heads as shown in Table 4.8. It is summarized that the value of RII for the level of education for Degree and above is higher than SPM/PMR/SRP. The highest RII value is the Degree and above level with RII 0.866, followed by Diploma/STPM level with 0.806 and SPM/PMR/SRP level with 0.793.

Table 4.8 Relative Importance Index (RII) based on education level

Education Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F AVERAGE Level

Degree and 0.859 0.959 0.914 0.717 0.883 above 0.866 Diploma / 0.825 0.875 0.857 0.688 0.785 STPM 0.806 SPM / PMR 0.803 0.862 0.821 0.688 0.788 / SRP 0.793

Overall 0.811 0.872 0.834 0.690 0.795 0.800 RII

4.4.2 Analysis of Relative Importance Index based on age Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) is based on the age of village heads as shown in Table 4.9. It is summarized that the value of RII for age below 45 years old is higher than the age of 56 to 65 years old. The highest RII value is the age from below 45 years with RII 0.854, followed by 46 to 55 years old with 0.801 and 56 to 65 years old with 0.785.

Table 4.9 Relative Importance Index (RII) based on age

Age Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F AVERAGE

Below 45 0.800 0.887 0.895 0.813 0.873 0.854 years

46 to 55 0.824 0.868 0.832 0.688 0.791 0.801 years

56 to 65 0.794 0.873 0.820 0.661 0.779 0.785 years

Overall 0.811 0.872 0.834 0.690 0.795 0.800 RII

Formatted: Centered, Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: 0 cm

4.4.3 Analysis of Relative Importance Index Based on work experience Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) is based on the work experience by the local community leaders as shown in Table 4.10. In summary, the RII value for work experience of less than 2 years is higher than a work experience of more than 2 years. The highest RII value is for a work experience of less than 2 years with the RII value is 0.845, followed by a work experience of more than 2 years with 0.793.

Table 4.10 Relative Importance Index (RII) based on work experience

Working Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F AVERAGE Experience

Less than 0.826 0.901 0.899 0.752 0.848 0.845 2 years More than 0.808 0.867 0.824 0.681 0.786 0.793 2 years Overall 0.811 0.872 0.834 0.690 0.795 0.800 RII

4.4.4 Analysis of Relative Importance Index based on sub-district Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

The average value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) based on the location of sub-districts by the village head as shown in Table 4.11. Based on the analysis results, the RII values for Sermin, Chaah, Bekok, Sungai Segamat and Gemas sub- districts shows the highest RII values of 0.928, 0.855, 0.825,0.817 and 0.813, respectively. Meanwhile, the Gemereh, Pogoh, Buloh Kasap, Labis, Jementah and Jabi sub-districts had the lowest RII values of 0.734, 0.752, 0.781, 0.796, 0.807 and 0.808.

Table 4.11 Relative Importance Index (RII) based on location of sub-districts

Sub- Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F AVERAGE districts Sungai 0.830 0.894 0.842 0.700 0.819 0.817 Segamat Pogoh 0.794 0.879 0.764 0.611 0.711 0.752

Jementah 0.803 0.824 0.870 0.722 0.817 0.807

Gemereh 0.665 0.822 0.775 0.640 0.770 0.734 Buloh 0.774 0.846 0.778 0.741 0.765 0.781 Kasap Gemas 0.850 0.873 0.836 0.700 0.808 0.813

Sub- Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F AVERAGE districts Sermin 0.918 0.991 0.945 0.817 0.967 0.928

Labis 0.822 0.883 0.851 0.641 0.785 0.796

Bekok 0.909 0.827 0.873 0.767 0.750 0.825

Jabi 0.824 0.903 0.873 0.633 0.806 0.808

Chaah 0.921 0.958 0.891 0.678 0.828 0.855 Overall 0.811 0.872 0.834 0.690 0.795 0.800 RII

Multiple regression analysis Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm The SPSS Version 25 is being used to analyze multiple regression to identify the correlation between variables in this study. It is important to determine to the extent which the independent variables correlation with the dependent variable.

4.4.5 Multiple regression analysis on the RII based on education level Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

In this analysis, the overall RII was selected as a dependent variable while the age of respondent's was selected as independent variables to find the correlation. The Model Fit output consists of “Model Summary”, “ANOVA” and “Coefficient” table. As can be seen from Table 4.12 a correlation coefficient, R=1.000 which mean a higher value of correlation coefficient is indicates a stronger positive correlation between dependent and independent variables. In term of variability, the value of R square, R2 =1.000 means that 100% population in the sample agree that on the correlation

24 between the variables. While from Table 4.13, the regression value indicates as F (3, 1) =1679579336.490 and p=0.000 is significant due to the value of p is less than 0.05. It reveals that all independent variables when combined will have a significant relation with dependent variables.

Table 4.12 Regression analysis based on the education level

Model Summaryb

Std. Error of the Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate

1 1.000a 1.000 1.000 .000002

a. Predictors: (Constant), Degree & above, Diploma/STPM, SPM/PMR/SRP

b. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

Table 4.13 ANOVA analysis based on the education level

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression .019 3 .006 1679579336.490 .000b Residual .000 1 .000

Total .019 4

a. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

b. Predictors: (Constant), Degree and above, Diploma/STPM, SPM/PMR/SRP

Meanwhile, Table 4.14 shows the regression B-coefficients as indicates that all the value of Sig. or p having positive value less than 0.05 and considered to have significant relationship with the Overall RII. The regression B-coefficient for education level of SPM/PMR/SRP is highest with B=.778, follow by Diploma/STPM with B=.152 and Degree and above with B=.075. The Beta value for SPM/PMR/SRP is the highest (Beta=0.737) and Degree & above is the lowest (Beta=0.100).

Table 4.14 Coefficients analysis for RII based on the education level

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B t Sig. Std. Lower Upper B Beta Model Error Bound Bound 1 (Constant) -.004 .000 -177.770 .004 -.004 -.004

SPM/PMR/SRP .778 .000 .737 5444.638 .000 .776 .780

Diploma/STPM .153 .000 .167 2028.598 .000 .152 .154

Degree & above .075 .000 .100 1199.472 .001 .074 .075

a. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

Therefore, the multiple regression model that can be apply to predict the dependent variable (Overall RII) based on independent variables (education level) of SPM/PMR/SRP (Y1), Diploma/STPM (Y2), Degree & above (Y3) can be seen as below:

RII = (-.004) + (.778Y1) + (.153Y2) + (.075Y3) + (.000)

Where, RII = Overall R11 Constant = -.004 Y1 = SPM/PMR/SRP Y2 = Diploma/STPM Y3 = Degree & above Std. Error = .000

4.4.6 Multiple regression analysis on the RII based on age Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

In this analysis, the overall RII was selected as a dependent variable while the education level of respondent was selected as independent variables to find the correlation. Table 4.15 show a correlation coefficient, R=1.000 which mean a higher value of correlation coefficient is indicates a stronger positive correlation between dependent and independent variables. In term of variability, value of R square, R2 =1.000 means that 100% population in the samples agree that on the correlation between the variables. While from Table 4.16, the regression value indicates as F (3, 1) =82689.832 and p=.003 is significant due to the value of p is less than 0.05. It reveals that all independent variables when combined will have a significant relation with dependent variables.

Table 4.15 Regression analysis based on the age

Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 1.000a 1.000 1.000 .000274

a. Predictors: (Constant), 56 to 65 years, 46 to 55 years, below 45 years b. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

Table 4.16 ANOVA analysis based on the age

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression .019 3 .006 82689.832 .003b Residual .000 1 .000 Total .019 4 a. Dependent Variable: Overall RII b. Predictors: (Constant), 56 to 65 years, 46 to 55 years, below 45 years

Meanwhile, Table 4.17 shows the regression B-Coefficients as indicated that all the Sig. or p value having positive value less than 0.05 and considered to have

27 significant relationship with the Overall RII. The regression B-coefficient for an age of 56 to 65 years old is the highest with B=.548, follow by 46 to 55 years old with B=.358 and the lowest is the age of below 45 years old with B=.099. The Beta value for an age of 56 to 65 years old is the highest (Beta=.552) and age of below 45 years is the lowest (Beta=.064).

Table 4.17 Coefficients analysis for RII based on the age

Coefficientsa Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B t Sig. Std. Lower Upper B Beta Model Error Bound Bound 1 (Constant) -.005 .006 -.766 .584 -.081 .071 Below 45 years .099 .006 .064 15.802 .040 .019 .179

46 to 55 years .358 .021 .411 17.031 .037 .091 .626

56 to 65 years .548 .022 .552 24.813 .026 .267 .829

a. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

Therefore, the multiple regression model that can be apply to predict the dependent variable (Overall RII) based on independent variables (age) of 56 to 65 years (Y1), 46 to 55 years (Y2), Below 45 years (Y3) can be seen as below:

RII = (-.005) + (.548Y1) + (.358Y2) + (.099Y3) + (.006)

Where, RII = Overall R11 Constant = -.005 Y1 = 56 to 65 years Y2 = 46 to 55 years Y3 = Below 45 years Std. Error = .006

4.4.7 Multiple regression analysis on the RII based on work experience Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.02 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

In this analysis, the overall RII was selected as a dependent variable while the work experience of respondent was selected as independent variables to find the correlation. Table 4.18, shows a correlation coefficient, R=1.000 which indicates that there is stronger positive correlation between dependent and independent variables. In term of variability, the value of R square, R2 =1.000 means that 100% population in the sample agree that on the correlation between the variables. While from Table 4.19, the regression value indicates as F (2, 2) =42322.166 and p=.000 is significant due to the value of p is less than 0.05. It reveals that all independent variables when combined will have a significant relation with dependent variables.

Table 4.18 Regression analysis based on the work experience

Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 1.000a 1.000 1.000 .000469

a. Predictors: (Constant), Less than 2 years, More than 2 years

b. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

Table 4.19 ANOVA analysis based on the work experience

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression .019 2 .009 42322.166 .000b Residual .000 2 .000 Total .019 4 a. Dependent Variable: Overall RII b. Predictors: (Constant), More than 2 years, Less than 2 years

Meanwhile, Table 4.20 shows the regression B-Coefficients as indicates that all the Sig. or p value having positive value less than 0.05 and considered to have significant relationship with the Overall RII in reflecting a significant level confidence

29 interval of 95%. The regression B-coefficient for work experience of more than 2 years is the highest with B=0.878 and follow by less than 2 years with B=0.126. The Beta value for work experience of more than 2 years is the highest (Beta=.893) and work experience of less than 2 years is the lowest (Beta=.113).

Table 4.20 Coefficients analysis for RII based on the work experience

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B t Sig. Std. Lower Upper B Beta Model Error Bound Bound 1 (Constant) -.002 .003 -.590 .615 -.016 -.002 Less than 2 years .126 .011 .113 11.666 .007 .079 .126

More than 2 years .878 .010 .893 92.178 .000 .837 .878

a. Dependent Variable: Overall RII

Therefore, the multiple regression model that can be apply to predicts the dependent variable (Overall RII) based on independent variables (work experience) of More than 2 years (Y1), Less than 2 years (Y2) can be seen as below:

RII = (-.002) + (.878Y1) + (.126Y2) + (-.002)

Where, RII = Overall R11 Constant = -.002 Y1 = More than 2 years Y2 = Less than 2 years Std. Error = -.002

4.5 Summary of the analysis Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.25 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + The overall value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) is 0.800 and it Indent at: 0.63 cm Formatted: Font: Bold categorized as Medium-High (M-H). It shows that the level of preparedness among the local community leaders in managing evacuation centres is on a medium-high standard and there are a number of thing to consider for future improvement. The results show that the highest value of RII is in Section C which measure the level of understanding of disaster risk related to the evacuation centres with RII is 0.872. Meanwhile, the lowest values of RII is in Section E with a value of 0.690. This Section E is aimed to measure the level of investing in evacuation centres disaster risk reduction for resilience. The second lowest values of RII is under Section F with a value of 0.795. This section F is aimed to measure the level of enhance preparedness for effective response and recovery in managing evacuation centres. Next, the lowest value for subsequent RII was Section B followed by Section D with value of 0.811 and 0.834 respectively. This section B is intended to measure the level of availability of facilities and services at evacuation centres while section D is focus to measure the level of strengthening of governance in managing evacuation centres.

However, from this analysis results, several demographic factors may have influenced the RII value as shown below:

a) The overall value of RII based on the level of education for a Bachelor Degree & above is higher than the village head with Diploma and STPM or SPM and PMR level. It shows that higher education has a better influence to the village heads to understand disaster risk and strengthen better governance especially through community-based organizations towards preparedness in managing evacuation centres. It is proven that through the strong correlation indicates based on the multiple regression analysis done between the RII value and the level of education.

31 b) The overall value of RII based on the age of below 45 years old is higher than the age of the village heads in the age of 46 to 55 years and 56 to 65 years old. The government agency and voluntary organizations need to consider more effort in empowering village heads that are older in taking parts toward the preparedness especially in managing evacuation centres. The multiple regression analysis shows that age of village heads has a strong correlation based on the RII value. c) The overall value of RII based on the working experience of less than 2 years is higher than the working experience for the village heads which more than 2 years. It indicates that newly appointed village heads has a better understanding of risk of disaster and their work responsibility including having better resources, finance and governance support from the Disaster Management Committee (DMC) to enhance preparedness in managing evacuation centres at local level. The correlation between RII value and working experience of village heads can have been justified based on the multiple regression analysis. d) Sub-districts such as Sermin, Sungai Segamat and Gemas are situated within Muar river basin whereby the area is located at the upstream of river and mostly experience repeated floods while sub-districts such as Bekok and Chaah located within Batu Pahat river basin where each of these sub-districts has influenced the perception among village heads on level of disaster preparedness in managing evacuation centres. The village heads of other sub- districts such as Gemereh, Pogoh, Buloh Kasap, Labis, Jementah and Jabi can also play an important role in the preparedness of evacuation centres by having emergency planning available for the evacuation centres readiness against unforeseen disasters at any time.

4.6 List of improvement factors to enhance preparedness Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.25 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm On the other hand, based on the relative Important Index (RII) results, there are 17 indicators listed according to the knowledge and perception of emergency plans by local community leaders that need to be further improved in managing the evacuation centre especially towards disaster preparedness as shown in Table 4.12. These factors were determined by choosing RII value lower than the average of the overall RII from 0.800 (RII < 0.800) while the arrangement of these factors was positioned from the lowest RII value to the highest RII value. Based on results, the E6 question has the lowest value with 0.642 which is a primary factor that influence the local community leaders to be enhanced and thus implementing regular simulation exercise for the evacuation process along with relevant agencies to enhance disaster preparedness in managing evacuation centres.

Next, the local community leader need to be enhance for financial support from government or other donors to enable the evacuation centres has adequate facilities and is able to be operation as referred to the E4 question with RII value of 0.669. The third factor needed is the preparatory training and evacuation alert information to community living at downstream to increase preparedness to the evacuation centres based on the E5 question with RII of 0.688. Meanwhile, based on the 17 factors listed below, several recommendations have been put forward to improve the disaster preparedness capabilities of village heads in managing evacuation centres.

Table 4.21 Key factor for improvement

Questions RII RANK

In your opinion, how well the simulation exercise related to E6 0.642 1 evacuation process has been implemented In your opinion, how well the federal government has full E4 0.669 2 financial support to managing the evacuation centres

In your opinion, how well community living at the downstream E5 0.688 3 has been given a preparatory training to the evacuation centres

In your opinion, how well the budget that is channeled to the E1 operation requirements and the maintenance of the evacuation 0.688 4 Formatted Table centres at your area

Questions RII RANK Formatted: Centered

There are specific services for those people with special needs F6 0.719 5 (OKU) at the evacuation centres In your opinion, how well the evacuation centres owners have E3 shared responsibility for financing the operation and 0.719 6 maintaining the evacuation centres In your opinion, how well the evacuation centres was E2 0.735 7 maintained properly by the owners to avoid any damage

F3 Is there any existence of evacuation centres route signage 0.742 8

Is there any existence of hazard map or risk map on any F2 0.750 9 disaster

B10 Is there kitchen facilities in good condition at evacuation centres 0.750 10

There is sufficient basic necessities such as food and family D10 0.762 11 space in the evacuation centres Is there any regular inspection plan for the availability of F4 0.777 12 evacuation centres

B9 Is there sanitary facilities functional at evacuation centres 0.781 13

Is there any risk communication plan to advise community to F7 0.785 14 evacuate to evacuation centres

B3 Is there adequate parking space at the evacuation centres 0.785 15

Is there water supply system adequate at the evacuation B8 0.785 16 centres

F5 Is there any supplies distribution plan in your area 0.788 17

4.7 Improving investment on disaster risk reduction of evacuation centres Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.25 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Based on the analysis results, the average value of Relative Importance Index Indent at: 0.63 cm (RII) for Section E is happen to be the lowest with value of 0.690 and it is shown as Medium-High (M-H). The main factors that contribute to the RII value are due to lack

34 of simulation exercise on the evacuation process provided by relevant agencies, financial support from government or other donors to enable the evacuation centres to have adequate services and is able to be operate at any time. Besides that, the local community living in the downstream is less given preparatory training either by the Disaster Management Committee (DMC) or the voluntary organizations whereby those people will be also evacuating to the evacuation centres if the flooding occurs. Therefore, it is important to ensure that those affected receive adequate assistance and at the same time the training needs are provided to emphasize what is important that can be brought together throughout the stay at the evacuation centres.

This recommendation is in accordance with the Sendai Framework Priority for Action 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience where allocation of resources and financial support is necessary at the local level to ensure disaster risk reduction activities such as training, drill and simulation of evacuation process can be frequently carried out for the local community leaders together with local community. As climate change continues, the sudden increase in flooding is expected to keep growing in line with the increase in displacement and migration of community from rural to urban area which unfortunately affect the poor and vulnerable of a community. It is therefore essential that investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience primarily to the evacuation centres as it is needed in support of the protection and safety of community in the event of disaster.

This investment should focus on capacity building through the local community by conducting regular training and disaster simulation with the active participation of local community leaders particularly in the implementation of the evacuation process as one of the emergency plans for evacuation centres management. In addition, local community leaders should also build partnership with voluntary organizations in conducting training and simulation of disaster in activating the MPKK effort to help especially before, during and after disaster.

Furthermore, local community leaders should also think of the maintaining cost to be incurred in meet the needs of the community at the evacuation centres and ideas to implement housing insurance, virtual information risk sharing and the preservation of financial resources to contribute towards reducing disaster impacts which in line

35 with Eleventh Malaysia Plan where community will be the centerpiece of all development efforts including strengthening resilience against climate change and natural disasters that focuses on delivering high impact on both the capital and people economies.

4.8 Improving preparedness for effective response and recovery Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm Based on the analysis results, the average value of Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section F is 0.795 and it is shown as Medium-High (M-H). This section is aims to measure the enhance preparedness for response in managing the evacuation centres that in accordance with the Sendai Framework Priority for Action 4: Enhance preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Enhancing disaster preparedness by organizing and strengthening capacity of human, assets and resources is crucial to ensure that all affected community will have immediate access to assistance and services during their stay at the evacuation centres.

The lack of adequate facilities services especially for those people with special needs (OKU) and the availability of evacuation route signage and hazard map readiness has become a major problem that could eventually affect evacuation decision of community and thus affect the success of operation in the evacuation centres. Further, the local community leader should also be empowering with adequate resource particularly on emergency plan that include the authenticity of information and communication preparedness which remains an important factor that can build capacity to improve the safety and effectiveness to response and recover from a disaster.

The Disaster Management Committee (DMC) should also consider improve the preparedness of social learning sources in the form of new knowledge and skill to reduce the impacts of disasters. In essence, individuals who interact with each other

36 with social learning will have access to technologies and other resources, and gradually develop their ability to engage actively incorporated with government agencies or other voluntary organizations. This initiative is enabling them to take appropriate action to facilitate “Build Back Better” in effort to reduce vulnerability to future disaster and in particular, strengthen their capabilities to manage evacuation centres.

In addition, local community leaders can also use universal minimum standards from Sphere Handbook as a guideline in managing the affected communities to provide the right to have adequate shelter primarily to ensure the availability of facilities and services at the evacuation centres in meeting their needs. Besides, the right to adequate shelter is linked to the right water and sanitation, food and health. For examples, adequate water supply and sanitation facilities in the evacuation centres are necessary to ensure the health and dignity of the affected communities.

Meanwhile, food is essential and cooking appliances for cooking enable the local community to use food aids and meet nutritional requirements. Consequently, if the evacuation centres having lower levels of adequate than universal minimum standards, local community leaders should cooperate with government agencies and voluntary organizations to improve them gradually.

4.9 Strengthening of governance to manage disaster risk Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm Based on the analysis results, the average value of Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section D is 0.834 and it is shown as High (H). The section is aims to assess on strengthening of governance in managing the evacuation centres in accordance with the Sendai Framework Priority for Action 2: Strengthening governance to manage disaster risk related to evacuation centres. The main factors that contribute to the RII value are due to lack of basic necessities such as food and family space at the evacuation centres which prevented effort to empower governance in particular among

37 local community leaders in managing evacuation centres based on guidelines from the Department of Social Welfare (JKM).

The Disaster Management Committee (DMC) should also provide a platform for local community leaders through Village Community Management Council (MPKK) to contribute direct ideas as the government will take action from developing strategy until strategy implementation. For example, the Department of Social Welfare (JKM) can benefit from the social capital support through the participation of MPKK, which can boost productivity in managing evacuation centres through enhancing disaster preparedness based on SOP, especially in providing and updating the basic supply and local supplier’s information as well as by determining logistic requirements to facilitate the delivery of basic necessities and food to meet the demands of affected communities.

Therefore, the bottom-up approach aims to identify the effectiveness of assistance at evacuation centres during and after the disaster from the perspective of the local community is required because without the support of the local community the operation implementation of the strategy will be inefficient. Besides that, the involvement of local community leaders along with MPKK in disaster management strategy can reduce the government burden and local community leaders will know their responsibilities and what the action they need to do during flooding. Indirectly, affected communities are also able to change their attitude in the evacuation centres to be more tolerant and helpful to each other based on mutual supportive commitment between local community leaders along with MPKK in assisting their own communities.

4.10 Increasing the understanding of disaster risk related to evacuation centres Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Indent at: 0.63 cm Based on the analysis results, the average value of Relative Importance Index (RII) for Section C is 0.872 and it is shown as High (H). It is important to understand

38 the nature of hazard by Disaster Management Committee (DMC) especially for local community leaders so that appropriate strategies can be used to mitigate disaster risks. The section is aims to assess on understanding of risk in managing the evacuation centres in accordance with the Sendai Framework Priority for Action 1: Understanding disaster risk related to evacuation centres. The main factors that contribute to the value of RII are due to the types of evacuation centres available in the surrounding areas and procedures associated with activating and deactivating evacuation centres as well as fostering community awareness lives at downstream about disaster risks.

Therefore, local community leaders need to have an understanding of the risk factors in managing the evacuation centre. This includes assessing risks by focusing on the existence of disaster prone areas and seeing impacts on vulnerable communities especially those living downstream. In addition, the local community leaders should also be able to identify the coping capacities to taking appropriate action through knowledge, mechanism, human resources and assets availability that can be used to further increase preparedness and continuing to raise awareness of disaster risk.

So, it is important that the local community leaders should play a more active role in managing disaster risk rather than relying on the government agencies in supporting the preparedness of local community especially related to evacuation centres management. Besides that, local community leaders should also work closely with Department of Social Welfare (JKM) in considering the important factors when selecting evacuation centres such as environmental, economic, technical and sociocultural factors to ensure adequate services and facilities can be provided at the evacuation centres. In addition, past occurrences of a flood disaster at Segamat district should be compiled and analyzed as a future reference. Again, this flood disaster database should also be updated and disseminated in order to formulate a hazard map for the benefit of local community living in disaster prone areas to act and adapt accordingly.

REFERENCES

Adnan et. al, 2016. (2016). Analysis the Impact of Bridges Existance for the Segamat River Using Infowork RS. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 136(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012080

Aini, M. S., A. Fakhru’l-Razi, A. B. Elistina, and S. Norhasmah. 2016. “Emergency Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines Shelter Experiences and Preparedness among 2014 Flood Victims in Kelantan, Malaysia.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrative Risk Management - Towards Resilient Cities, IDRC Davos 2016, Global Risk Forum (GRF), 35–36. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Social Capital in Post Disaster Recovery: Towards a Resilient and Compassionate East Asian Community. Economic and Welfare Impacts of Disasters in East Asia and Policy Responses: ERIA Research Project Report 2011-8, (December), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55022-8 APM Segamat, 2019. (n.d). Statistik Pusat Pemindahan di Daerah Segamat. Buku Panduan Pengurusan dan Bantuan Bencana Daerah Segamat. ARMOR, 2019. (2019). Edition 1: Asean Risk Monitor and Disaster Management Review (ARMOR)

Astro Awani (2015). More challenging responsibilities of village heads due to rapid Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines development of technology. Retrieved from http://english.astroawani.com/ Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Calibri, 11 pt malaysia-news/more-challenging-responsibilities-village-heads-due-rapid- Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Times New development-technology-76179 Roman, 12 pt Adnan et. al, 2016. (2016). Analysis the Impact of Bridges Existance for the Segamat Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt River Using Infowork RS. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 136(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012080 Aini, M. S., A. Fakhru’l-Razi, A. B. Elistina, and S. Norhasmah. 2016. “Emergency Shelter Experiences and Preparedness among 2014 Flood Victims in Kelantan, Malaysia.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrative Risk Management - Towards Resilient Cities, IDRC Davos 2016, Global Risk Forum (GRF), 35–36.

Bashawri, A., Garrity, S., & Moodley, K. (2014). An Overview of the Design of Disaster Relief Shelters. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18(October 2014), 924–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)01019-3 CFE, 2019. (2019). Malaysia Disaster Management Reference Handbook 2019. In Center for Excellence in Disaster & Humanitarian Assistance. CFE, 2017. (2017). Center for Excellence in Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance (CFE-DM). Malaysia Disaster Management Reference Handbook 2016. Calkins J, (2015). Moving Forward after Sendai: How Countries Want to Use Science, Evidence and Technology for Disaster Risk Reduction”, PLOS Currents Disasters, http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/moving-forward-after- sendai-how-countries-want-to-use-science-evidence-andtechnology-for- disaster-risk-reduction/; Chan (2010). The Impact of Global Warming On Storms and Storm Preparedness In Southeast Asia. Kajian Malaysia; Chong, N. O., & Kamarudin, K. H. (2018). Disaster risk management in Malaysia: Issues and challenges from the perspective of agencies. Planning Malaysia, 16(1), 105–117. Chan, N. W., Roy, R., Lai, C. H., & Tan, M. L. (2019). Social capital as a vital resource in flood disaster recovery in Malaysia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(4), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07900627.2018.1467312 Chan, N. W. (2015b) The role of social capital and community resilience in facing flood disaster in Malaysia. Proceedings of International Symposium of International Academic Consortium of Sustainable Cities, Yokohama City University, 13. Chan, N. W. (2012). Impacts of disaster and disaster risk management in Malaysia: The case of floods. In Y. Sawada and S. Oum (Eds.), Economic and welfare impacts of disaster in east Asia and policy responses: ERIA research project report (pp. 503–551). Jakarta: ERIA. DID, 2019. (n.d.). Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran. Retrieved from https://www.water.gov.my/index.php/page/view/501?mid=246 DOSM, 2019. (n.d). Department of Statistics Malaysia Retrieved from https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/

EM-DAT, 2015. (n.d.). CRED EM-DAT (Feb. 2015): The OFDA/CRED - International Disaster Database www.emdat.be Université catholique de Louvain Brussels - Belgium. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/ countries/mys/data/ Gaillard, J. C., Grenoble, U. De, & City, Q. (2010). Policy Arena Vulnerability, Capacity and Resilience: Perspectives for Climate and Development Policy. 232, 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid

Gasim et al, 2010. (2010). Analisis banjir Disember 2006: Tumpuan di kawasan bandar Segamat, Johor. Sains Malaysiana, 39(3), 353–361. GAR, 2019. (2019). The Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) 2019. Retrieved from https://gar.unisdr.org. GAR, 2015. (n.d.). The Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. 2015. Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo. (2009). Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys. 48. Global Pipeline Monthly, 5(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010RG000345.1.INTRODUCTION Herman, A., Aulia, T. B., & Achmad, A. (2018). Strategi Pemanfaatan Tempat Evakuasi Sementara Kecamatan Peukan Bada Kabupaten Aceh Besar. Jurnal Arsip Rekayasa Sipil Dan Perencanaan, 1(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.24815/jarsp.v1i2.10950 Hosseini, K.A, Hosseini, M., Hosseinioon, S, Izadkhah, Y.O, Shaw, T. and Takahashi, R. (2014),"A survey on evacuation planning and its challenges for potential earthquake in Tehran" IDMC, 2019. (2019). Global Report on Internal Displacement (GRID Summary GRID 2019. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, (5), 16. Retrieved from http://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2019/ IPCC, 2019. (n.d). The Global Warming Policy Forum. Retrieved from https://www.thegwpf.com/ipcc-introduces-new-climate-change-definition/ Jaafar, J. B., Ishak, A. N. B., Hassan, S. Bin, Adrutdin, K. F. Bin, & Qureshi, M. I. (2020). A study of customer satisfaction with planning movement of goods during disaster aid programs: A case study of flood hit in segamat, johor. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 8(1), 419–428.

JDT, 2005. (2005). Pekililing Am Kerajaan Johor; Dasar Perjawatan Ketua Kampung Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 Negeri Johor. lines JKM, 2019. (n.d.). Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat. Retrieved from http://www.jkm.gov.my/ JKM Segamat, 2019 (n.d.). Laporan persiapan JKM Segamat menghadapi banjir. Karim, A. H. M. Z., Hazizan, M. N., Diah, N. M., Tajuddin, N. A., & Mustari, S. (2016). Torrential Floods in Malaysia: Assessing the Loss and Vulnerabilities in Three Kelantan Villages. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, (December 2017). https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n5p192 Kong et. al, 2010. (n.d). A study on the urban flooding. October 2010 Lim, J., Lim, M., & Piantanakulchai, M. (2013). Factors Affecting Flood Evacuation Decision and Its Implication to Transportation Planning. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 10, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.10.163 Lee, D., Yoon, S., Park, E. S., Kim, Y., & Yoon, D. K. (2018). Factors contributing to disaster evacuation: The case of South Korea. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103818 Levy, J.K. & Gopalakrishnan, C., 2007, ‘Promoting disaster-resilient communities: The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004 and the resulting Indian Ocean Tsunami’, in C. Gopalakrishnan & N. Okada (eds.), Water and disaster, pp. 543–559, Routledge, New York. Liew, Y.S and Teo, F.Y. (2013). Impact of Climate Change on Flooding Scenario in Segamat River Basin, Malaysia. Proc. of the World Engineers Summit (WES2013). Pp 153-15 McInerny, T. (2012), Emergency Sheltering in Australia: Considerations Beyond the Four Walls and a Roof, MetMalaysia, 2019. (n.d.). Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.met.gov.my/cuaca/kriteriaamaranhujanlebat Minamoto, Y. (2010). Social capital and livelihood recovery: Post tsunami Sri Lanka as a case. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(5), 548–564.

Mohamad Yusoff, I., Ramli, A., Mhd Alkasirah, N. A., & Mohd Nasir, N. (2018). Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 Exploring the managing of flood disaster: A Malaysian perspective. Malaysian lines Journal of Society and Space, 14(3), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.17576/geo- 2018-1403-03

NSC, 2012. (n.d.). National Security Council Directive No. 20 (Revised 2012). 2012, 20(20). Patrisina, R., Emetia, F., Sirivongpaisal, N., Suthummanon, S., Alfadhlani, A., & Fatrias, D. (2018). Key performance indicators of disaster preparedness: A case study of a tsunami disaster. MATEC Web of Conferences, 229. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201822901010 Poncelet A., Gemenne F., Martiniello M., Bousetta H. (2010). A Country Made for Disasters: Environmental Vulnerability and Forced Migration in Bangladesh. In: Afifi T., Jäger J. (eds) Environment, Forced Migration and Social Vulnerability. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 642-12416-7_16 Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. RTD, 2019. (n.d). Rancangan Tempatan Daerah Segamat 2030. Retrieved from JPBD Negeri Johor Roasoft, 2014. (n.d.). Sample Size Calculation by Raosoft. Retrieved from http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

RMKe-11, 2016. (2016). Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016-2020. In Journal of Porous Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 Materials (Vol. 23). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10934-016-0189-9 lines RSN, 2020. (2010). Rancangan Pemajuan Negeri Johor. Data & Maklumat Jabatan Perancangan Bandar & Desa Negeri Johor terdiri daripada Rancangan Struktur Negeri (RSN) dan Rancangan Tempatan Daerah (RTD). 200. Sadeka, S., Mohamad, S. M., Reza, M. I. H., Manap, J., & Sarkar, S. K. (2015). Social capital and disaster preparedness: Conceptual framework and linkages. Journal of the Social Science Research, 3(1), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2664.9767 Said, M. Z., Gapor, S. A., Samian, M. N., Malik, A., Aziz, A., Terap, P., & District, P. T. (2013). Conflicts in flood relief shelter: A case study of Padang Terap District, Kedah. 1(1), 61–69. Said, A. M., Ahmadun, F. R., Mahmud, A. R., & Abas, F. (2011). Community preparedness for Tsunami disaster: A case study. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561111141718

Salajegheh, S. & Pirmoradi, N., 2013, ‘Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) and providing a model for Iran’, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development 7, 60–69 Somasundaram, T., & Davies, B. J. (2014). Collaboration to improve evacuation centre operations in Queensland. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-01-2014- 0012 Sani G. D/iya, Gasim, M. B., Toriman, M. E., & Abdullahi, M. G. (2014). Floods in Malaysia: Historical Reviews, Causes, Effects and Mitigations Approach. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations, 2(4), 59– 65. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBx10.009 Sardi, M. F., Razak, K. A., & Zaini Bakri, R. (2019). Assessing Disaster Risk and Resilience: A Case Study in Urban Flood Vulnerable Community in Kampung Asahan, Kuala Selangor. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences - ISPRS Archives, 42(4/W16), 603–610. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W16- 603-2019 Sarkar, S. K., Begum, R. A., Pereira, J. J., & Jaafar, A. H. (2013). Addressing Disaster Risk Reduction in Malaysia : Mechanisms and Responds. 2nd International Conference on Environment, Agriculture and Food Sciences (ICEAF’S2013), 25-26 Ogos(August), 81–85. Shafiai, S., & Khalid, M. S. (2016). Examining of issues on flood disaster management in Malaysia. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(7Special Issue), 51–56. Shariff, N. N. M., & Hamidi, Z. S. (2019). Community-based approach for a flood preparedness plan in Malaysia. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i1.598

Sphere Handbook, 2018. (2018). The Sphere Handbook 2018. In Publisher: Practical Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 Action; Pap/Cdr edition (April 2011). lines Sinar Harian, 2019a. (n.d). Lantikan MPKK perlu ada perkongsian kuasa seimbang.

Retrieved from https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/ 12080/EDISI/Pahang Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Calibri, 11 pt /Lantikan-MPKK-perlu-ada-perkongsi-an-kuasa-seimbang Sinar Harian, 2019b. (n.d). Tiada isu bantahan pelantikan ketua kampung

dibangkitkan: Rina. Retrieved from https://www.sinarharian.com.my/ Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Calibri, 11 pt

article/7352/EDISI/Johor/Tiada-isu-bantahan-pelantikan-ketua-kampung- dibangkitkan-Rina

Sinar Harian, 2014. (n.d). Kaunselor di setiap pusat pemindahan banjir. Retrieved from Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines http://www.sinarharian.com.my/nasional/kaunselor-di-setiap-pusat pemindahan-banjir-1.360193 SOP JKM. (2019). Prosedur Tetap Operasi Pengurusan Bencana JKM (PTO Pusat Pemindahan). In Pusat Pemindahan PTO (Vol. 53). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Takeuchi et. al, 2016. (2016). Transdisciplinary Approach to Build Resilient Society - Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines Vision, Strategy and Envisioned Activities of TC21. 1–7. Retrieved from http://www.eventscribe.com/2016/CECAR7/assets/pdf/268148.pdf

The Borneo Post online (2017). Kemudahan di pusat pemindahan banjir di Sabah akan Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines ditambah baik. Retrived from https://www.theborneopostcom/ 2017/01/22/- Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt kemudahan-di-pusat-pemindahan-banjir-di-sabah-akan-ditambah-baik/ Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt The World Bank, 2012. (2012). Learning from Mega disasters: Knowledge Notes Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/Data/ wbi/wbicms/files/drupal-acquia/wbi/drm_exsum_english.pdf UNDRR. (2019). Words Into Action: Developing National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies Words Into Action. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/65095_wianationaldrrst rategies10052019.pdf UNISDR, 2015. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction - UNISDR. Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, Sendai, Japan, 14-18 March 2015., (March), 32 p. Retrieved from https://www.unisdr.org/we/ coordinate/sendai-framework Wahab M.T.A., 2012. (n.d). Malaysia: National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo framework for action (2011–2013) – Interim, National Security Council, Kuala Lumpur. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225– 249