Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 15, Issue 3 (Autumn 2025)
Disaster Prev. Manag. Know. 2025, 15(3): 292-319 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
hasanzadeh S, Salimi Tari A, Samadi Foroushani M, Moradi Rouzbahani S, Miresmaeeli S S. Barriers to Disaster Management Exercises in Iran Using Interpretive Structural Modeling, and the Solutions for Improving Their Quality: Case Study of 22 Districts in Tehran. Disaster Prev. Manag. Know. 2025; 15 (3) :292-319
URL: http://dpmk.ir/article-1-775-en.html
URL: http://dpmk.ir/article-1-775-en.html
Samira Hasanzadeh1 
, Azizollah Salimi Tari2 , Marzieh Samadi Foroushani3 , Samim Moradi Rouzbahani4 , Seyedeh Samaneh Miresmaeeli5
, Azizollah Salimi Tari2 , Marzieh Samadi Foroushani3 , Samim Moradi Rouzbahani4 , Seyedeh Samaneh Miresmaeeli5
1- Department of Disaster Management, Faculty of Passive Defense Engineering, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. & Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran.
2- Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Eyvanekey, Eyvanekey, Iran.
4- Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran.
5- Department of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, Faculty of Medical Management and Informatics, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Eyvanekey, Eyvanekey, Iran.
4- Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization, Tehran, Iran.
5- Department of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, Faculty of Medical Management and Informatics, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (530 Views)
Background and Objective Various disaster management exercises are planned and implemented annually in Tehran, Iran, for increasing the knowledge and practice of staff in responding to emergencies. This study aimed to identify the barriers to disaster management exercises in Iran based on the exercises conducted in 22 districts of Tehran for continuous improvement planning.
Method This is a mixed-method study, comprising three approaches: Qualitative analysis, fuzzy Delphi approach, and interpretive structural modeling (ISM). The participants included experts, managers, and planners from the Tehran Disaster Prevention and Management Organization, who were selected purposefully based on their expertise and membership in the disaster exercise planning and execution team. First, 10 themes and 27 sub-themes were extracted based on qualitative analysis of disaster management exercise reports of 22 districts of Tehran. After two rounds of Fuzzy Delphi technique, 14 key barriers were agreed upon by the experts. Then, based on the ISM method, the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) and the initial and final reachability matrices were formed, barriers were partitioned into different levels, and finally, the ISM diagram was drawn.
Results Level 4 barriers included: Insufficient knowledge and skills of exercise planners and actors, failure to identify vulnerable areas for the exercise, failure to identify priority risks, and failure to assess disaster based on priority risks. Level 3 barriers included: Insufficient monitoring of environmental conditions to ensure safety and security of the exercise area, insufficient participation of some key actors (government, private sector, institutions, public volunteers, citizens), inadequate financial resources, support services, and equipment for the exercise; failure to implement incident command system (ICS) and incident management system (IMS), and Insufficient information to actors and limited area for exercises. Level 2 barriers included: Inadequate communications (wireless or video) between operational actors and disaster management exercise headquarters, poor quality of immediate debriefing group sessions after exercise, and weakness in the evaluation process of exercises. Level 1 barriers included: Weakness in managing lessons learned from exercises, and improper implementation of exercise guidelines.
Conclusion The identified barriers and provided solutions can improve policymakers’ and planners’ understanding of disaster management exercises and help prioritize areas for improvement and to achieve the goals of disaster management preparedness.
Method This is a mixed-method study, comprising three approaches: Qualitative analysis, fuzzy Delphi approach, and interpretive structural modeling (ISM). The participants included experts, managers, and planners from the Tehran Disaster Prevention and Management Organization, who were selected purposefully based on their expertise and membership in the disaster exercise planning and execution team. First, 10 themes and 27 sub-themes were extracted based on qualitative analysis of disaster management exercise reports of 22 districts of Tehran. After two rounds of Fuzzy Delphi technique, 14 key barriers were agreed upon by the experts. Then, based on the ISM method, the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) and the initial and final reachability matrices were formed, barriers were partitioned into different levels, and finally, the ISM diagram was drawn.
Results Level 4 barriers included: Insufficient knowledge and skills of exercise planners and actors, failure to identify vulnerable areas for the exercise, failure to identify priority risks, and failure to assess disaster based on priority risks. Level 3 barriers included: Insufficient monitoring of environmental conditions to ensure safety and security of the exercise area, insufficient participation of some key actors (government, private sector, institutions, public volunteers, citizens), inadequate financial resources, support services, and equipment for the exercise; failure to implement incident command system (ICS) and incident management system (IMS), and Insufficient information to actors and limited area for exercises. Level 2 barriers included: Inadequate communications (wireless or video) between operational actors and disaster management exercise headquarters, poor quality of immediate debriefing group sessions after exercise, and weakness in the evaluation process of exercises. Level 1 barriers included: Weakness in managing lessons learned from exercises, and improper implementation of exercise guidelines.
Conclusion The identified barriers and provided solutions can improve policymakers’ and planners’ understanding of disaster management exercises and help prioritize areas for improvement and to achieve the goals of disaster management preparedness.
Keywords: Disaster preparedness, Disaster response, Disaster management, Interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/05/7 | Accepted: 2025/07/8 | ePublished: 2025/10/1
Received: 2025/05/7 | Accepted: 2025/07/8 | ePublished: 2025/10/1
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s)" by "authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights"
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
