Evaluation of Effective Parameters in Disaster Risk Reduction Plans with Multi Criteria Decision Making Method: An Analysis on Selected Country Samples

11 This study includes an approach that addresses how the criteria included in the national Risk 12 Reduction Plans (DRR) of countries are measured quantitatively. Within the scope of the 13 study, disaster management systems and DRR plans of countries with high disaster risk such 14 as Japan, Turkey, Philippines and New Zealand were examined. The main criteria that make 15 up the content of the DRR plans were determined. Risk Identification, Risk Reduction, 16 Response and Recovery, Economic Disaster Risk Management, Disaster Preparedness, 17 Governance and Compliance with Policies and Plans are selected as main criteria. 36 18 important components completing the main criteria were selected as sub-criteria. Then, all 19 these criteria were weighted using multi-criteria decision-making process called the 20 "Analytical Hierarchy Process". After the experts evaluated the existence of the main criteria 21 and sub-criteria weighted with the AHP, country performance rankings were made for these four countries. As a result of the analysis, Japan was determined as the country with the best 23 DRR plan and implementation, while our country ranked 2nd, New Zealand 3rd and Philippines 4th.


Introduction 44 45
Disaster management can be defined as the management of resources in line with these 46 common goals with a multidisciplinary approach in order to plan, coordinate and implement 47 the activities that should be done before, during and after the disaster in order to prevent 48 disasters and reduce their negative effects (Kadıoğlu 2011). 49 Disaster management includes many levels. It is a comprehensive, multi-phase, 50 multidisciplinary management style that starts from the individual and extends to the 51 international level. Disaster management is the discipline of dealing with and avoiding 52 risks, including usually four phases: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. The 53 circular model for disaster management is generated to reduce the complexity of non-54 linear nature of disaster events (Kelly 1998). Kimberly (2003), defines mitigation, 55 preparation, response and recovery as four phases of disaster management. This model 56 portrays response as the biggest and most visible phase of disaster management. In this study, 57 the phase of disaster risk reduction is studied. Identification and analysis of hazards, risks and 58 vulnerabilities, determination of resources and priorities to prevent or reduce risks, 59 preparation and implementation of policies, strategies and action plans include key elements 60 in disaster risk reduction (Taştan and Aydınoğlu 2015). DRR studies, which require a 61 multidisciplinary approach, consist of activities that need to be planned and implemented 62 before, during and after the disaster (Charlotte, John, and Rossetto 2007). DRR's activities 63 include stages such as identification, analysis and evaluation of hazards and risks, 64 establishment of early warning systems, spatial planning, DRR training, public information 65 and awareness, development of disaster insurance, strengthening of critical infrastructures, 66 institutional structuring, development of legal documents (IPCU 2014). 67 It is known that the direct economic cost of disasters is very high, and the impact of disasters 68 on the country's economy becomes clearer when the direct economic costs of indirect and 69 intangible effects are taken into account. 70 DRR activities to be carried out will reduce the economic losses that countries will experience 71 after disasters. On average, every euro spent on DRR activities saves between four and seven 72 euros on disaster response (ECHO 2017). Investments made without considering disaster risks 73 cause socio-economic losses in the long run after the disaster. If countries are not prepared for 74 disasters, the material and moral gains that countries have achieved for many years are 75 destroyed in a short time due to disasters (Doroteo 2015) 76 Studies on DRR are carried out on a country basis in order to minimize the resources spent 77 and the work done to compensate for the damage and economic losses caused by disasters, to 78 increase the effectiveness of disaster management and to strengthen the capacity. In this 79 context, one of the ways to cope with disasters is to make DRR plans according to each 80 country's own dynamics. The DRR plan is defined as the plan of project work managed by 81 risk management, which forms the basis for the implementation of the objectives and specific 82 objectives of institutions and organizations for disaster risk reduction and the short, medium 83 and long-term policies, strategies and actions to achieve them (AFAD 2016) 84 DRR plans help countries build their capacities by identifying the underlying causes of their 85 vulnerabilities. The need to develop up-to-date action plans for existing and new DRR with 86 the gains from past disasters also clearly demonstrates the importance of DRR plans. The 87 scope and complexity of disasters, existing and new risks, and the evolving and changing 88 world strengthen the dynamic nature of DRR plans. 89 Within the scope of the study, under the title of "Country Examples", the disaster 90 management systems of Japan, Turkey, the Philippines and New Zealand, which are among 91 the countries with high disaster risk, and their plans and documents related to DRR were 92 examined. Then, criteria selections were made by examining the criteria in the DRR strategies 93 and plans of the countries examined. The weights of the criteria were determined by using the 94 opinions of the experts who worked on DRR through a questionnaire. In the conclusion part  95  of the study, 4 countries were ranked by scoring with a holistic approach in line with the main  96  criteria and sub-criteria determined by the plans and strategies of the selected countries for  97  DRR.  98  99 2 Country Samples 100 101

Japan 102 103
Japan is a country located on islands in the western Pacific Ocean. Japan has been exposed to 104 natural disasters (earthquake, volcanic activity, heavy rain, snowfalls and typhoons) from past 105 to present due to its geographical location, topography, geological structure, climate and other 106 factors, (Akyel 2007 As a result of frequent earthquakes and typhoons in the 1940s and 1950s in Japan, the 117 necessity of increasing the capacity of the society to respond to disasters and developing 118 disaster risk management systems emerged. There have been changes in the systematic 119 approaches adopted in disaster management, and the changes have also been reflected in the 120 laws. The necessity of taking measures before disasters has been put into practice by law, and 121 the country's disaster management system has been strengthened within the scope of the 122 experiences gained after the disasters. Especially; the Ise-wan Typhoon that occurred in 1959 123 was a critical development in the country's disaster management approach, after which the 124 Basic Law on Disaster Measures (1961), which had a comprehensive and strategic structure, 125 was enacted. Roles and responsibilities related to disaster management within the scope of the 126 law; clearly defined at the national, state and municipal as well as community level. The law 127 has been constantly reviewed and updated since its first entry into force. 128 Japan's disaster management system covers all stages of disaster management (prevention, 129 mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery), and the public and private sector, whose 130 duties and responsibilities at the national and local level are clearly defined, and the relevant 131 stakeholders are based on cooperation and solidarity in taking measures against disasters. In 132 Japan, the system of distribution of authorities and responsibilities is implemented, and there 133 are many stakeholders at the national and local level in the administration of disaster 134 management (Baba 2013 Cabinet Office (Fig. 1), the Director General of Disaster Management, who is responsible for 139 ensuring wide-ranging cooperation between relevant government agencies, is responsible for 140 planning basic disaster management policies and carrying out overall coordination as well as 141 large-scale disaster response (Saya 2017). 142 144  145   New Zealand is vulnerable to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic  146 activity, and tsunamis due to its location on the boundary of the Australian and Pacific 147 tectonic plates. New Zealand is prone to a variety of hazards due to its geographical location 148

New Zealand
in the South Pacific Ocean and its steep geography. While floods is the most common danger, 149 earthquakes and tsunamis provide the most serious and deadly hazards to New Zealand. 150 Volcanic eruptions, is from the other hand, have been extremely uncommon and minor since 151 human settlement, but their impact have been considerable. (Britton and Clark 2000). 152 In addition to being a geologically active country, New Zealand is a coastal country affected 153 by weather conditions from Antarctica, Australia and the tropics. Climate change; cause 154 extreme weather events and sea level rise. Drought is one of the most common and costly 155 hazards in the country as a result of the dry period that usually lasts for 3-4 months. Drought 156 is an alarming danger for the country, as the country's electricity generation is largely 157 supplied by rivers and lakes. New Zealand's disaster management system is based on sound disaster management 168 principles and one of international best practices. There are many strengths in the country's 169 emergency management system. The system was established to deal with "all dangers and 170 risks" (Ulutürk, 2006). As a result of a series of conferences, workshops, reports and 171 researches that questioned the effectiveness of New Zealand's disaster management practice 172 since the early 1990s, it was decided that a transformation from a rigid and reactive model to 173 a coordinated proactive disaster management (Britton and Clark 2000). 174 175 In 1996, the principles, roles and responsibilities of all institutions in the sector were 176 redefined, following the approval of a set of principles as the basis for a comprehensive 177 disaster management framework. New Zealand has published a strategy document outlining its regional and local Disaster regulations. To achieve a resilient New Zealand these arrangements are illustrated in Fig.3. 208 Local and regional cooperation and coordination is essential and a cornerstone of action, 209 strategy and plan and guidance. 210 211

Philippines 212 213
Located in Southeast Asia, the Philippines is one of the largest island groups in the world, 214 comprising more than 7,000 islands. Located at the edge of two tectonic plates, the 215 Philippines ranks 4th in the list of countries most prone to natural disasters based on 216 UNISDR's 20-year assessment. Philippines; It is exposed to various natural disasters such as 217 earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, droughts and typhoons. 218 The country has a tropical climate. The country is vulnerable to extreme weather events as it 219 is located in the Pacific Typhoon Belt. Some of the devastating floods and landslides are 220 triggered by typhoons that occur. Other factors triggering landslides are volcanic eruptions, 221 earthquakes and increased monsoon precipitation. Wide coastlines also cause disasters such as 222 tsunami, flood, landslide and drought. Since the country is located in the Pacific Earthquake 223 Belt, it is frequently exposed to earthquakes and volcanic activities (Doroteo 2015). 8 of the 224 10 cities in the world most exposed to natural disasters are located in the Philippines. This is 225 evident in the estimated $23 billion in damage and the loss of 70,000 Filipinos in 565 natural 226 disasters. Total losses from natural disasters are estimated to cost the Philippines $6.5 billion 227 each year (World Economic Forum 2016). The National Disaster Risk Reduction and 228 Management Council of New Zealand (NDRRMC), formerly known as the National Disaster 229 Coordinating Council, has expanded its membership and functions to deal with the 230 complexities of today's disasters. Philippine disaster risk reduction and management structure 231 is shown in Fig. 4 Turkey is exposed to natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, avalanches, 241 droughts, forest fires and man-made disasters due to its high physical, social and economic 242 vulnerability as well as its geological structure and climatic characteristics. Turkey is in the 243 Mediterranean, Alpine, and Himalayan seismic belt, which is one of the most active seismic 244 belts of the earth, and is located between three large tectonic plates such as Europe-Asia, 245 Arabia and Africa, and two small plates such as the Aegean and Anatolian plates (Şengör and 246 Yilmaz 1981). 247 This belt is an active zone in which approximately 20% of the earthquakes in the world occur 248 and causes a devastating earthquake in the country on average every five years (AFAD 2020). 249 Turkey ranks first among OECD countries in terms of loss of life, property and economic 250 losses caused by disasters. According to the statistical data of the last 60 years, losses caused 251 by natural disasters, directly or indirectly, correspond to approximately 3-4% of GDP. 252 The Law No. 5902 on the Organization and Duties of the Disaster and Emergency 253 Management Presidency, which was enacted in 2009 in order to eliminate the complexity and 254 coordination problems in the disaster management system and to remove the multi-255 headedness, was adopted and entered into force after being published in the Official Gazette. 256 In order to carry out and coordinate services linked to disasters and emergency, civil defense, 257 and disaster management, three general directorates (General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, 258 General Directorate of Civil Defense, and Turkey Emergency Management) were abolished 259 under this law. Instead of these three main directorates, the Prime Ministry AFAD was 260 formed to coordinate institutions and organizations prior to, during, and after the disaster. The 261 organization chart of AFAD, which manages the process in disasters and emergencies in 262 Turkey, is as follows in This study proposes a new approach to develop a tool for measuring disaster reduction plans 269 in selected countries by synthesizing components covering disaster risk reduction studies at 270 the national level using multi-criteria decision making. AHP is a decision-making 271 methodology that can be used to address highly complex problems with a variety of scenarios, 272 criteria and actors. This method has been applied in various studies designed to improve 273 development in sectors (Saaty and Vargas 2012) . These sectors could been such as energy, 274 construction, natural resources, economics, business management, and disaster and risk 275 management. In practice, the decision problem is first defined. Thus, the necessary data to be 276 used during the analysis and solution of the decision problem were obtained to create the 277 decision hierarchy. In the next process, a decision hierarchy is created including the purpose 278 of the application problem, the comparison criteria and the alternatives to be compared, and 279 the solution of the application problem is started. The methodology used in this study was 280 generally carried out in 3 stages. The main aim is to understand how to evaluate the best DRR 281 plan among country samples. In the second stage, the effective parameters that will include 282 the sections in the Plans and the disaster management stages are chosen as the main criteria. 283 Other parameters that explain these criteria in detail and feed the main criterion as a 284 component are also determined as sub-criteria. Decision makers are faced with multiple 285 alternatives while making their decisions in the process of examining the current plans and 286 documents of the countries related to ARF. For this purpose, in order to understand which 287 country the plan is more functional among the alternative countries at the last stage; a 288 questionnaire was developed and the opinions of country experts were taken and the results 289 were analyzed using the AHP method. Disaster management systems and disaster risk 290 reduction plans of Japan, Turkey, Philippines and New Zealand, which are among the 291 countries with high disaster risk, were examined. Many criteria were evaluated in the ARA 292 plans and documents examined, and it was analyzed which of our alternatives Japan, Turkey, 293 Philippines and New Zealand was more successful on a country basis (Fig.6). 294 295 296 3.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process 297 298 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a math and psychology-based method for 299 organizing and analyzing complex decisions. The AHP was developed by Saaty (Saaty 1980). 300 In the AHP Hierarchy Model, the top level of the hierarchy consists of a single item or goal, 301 which is the overall goal. At the level below the goal, there are factors that affect and 302 contribute to the decision, known as criteria or variables, in order to achieve the stated goal. 303 AHP would be the most appropriate method in terms of classification of data, compliance 304 with strategic planning during the application of DRR plan principles, and comparison of 305 other country sample plans according to target actions and criteria. At the next level, there are 306 sub-criteria (if any) containing the details within the criteria (Fig. 7). There are alternatives 307 with decision options at the lowest level in the hierarchy (Razmi, Rahnejat, and Khan 2000). 308 In the application, firstly, the decision problem is defined. Here, the process of collecting 309 information about the application problem is also mentioned. Thus, the necessary data to be 310 used during the analysis and resolution of the decision problem, to create the decision 311 hierarchy, were obtained. In the next process, a decision hierarchy was established that 312 includes the purpose of the application problem, the comparison criteria and the alternatives 313 to be compared, and the solution of the application problem was started. 314 After the hierarchical model is established, pairwise comparison matrices should be created in 315 order to determine the importance of all criteria relative to each other. During the creation of 316 the matrices, the relative importance of each pairwise comparison matrix is determined 317 separately by the decision maker. In Table1, the relative importance of the criteria is 318 determined by assigning values between "1" and "9" to the matrix and transforming the verbal 319 values into numerical values (Wollmann et al. 2014). 320 321 Decision makers obtain the pairwise comparison matrix shown in Eq. 1 through the 322 comparison scale given in Table 1 in the light of their value judgments, knowledge, 323 experience and equipment. 324 325 After the normalized pairwise comparison matrix is created, the criteria weights are obtained 347 by taking the arithmetic average of the row values in the C matrix. Thus, the W column 348 vector, also called the eigenvector, is obtained (Eq. 5). 349 350 Although the AHP method has a consistent systematic, the accuracy of the results will depend 353 on the consistency of the criteria in comparison by the decision maker.  As defined in the formula above, the E value for each evaluation criterion is found from the 372 division of the reciprocal elements of the D column vector and the W column vector found. In 373 the formula given in Eq.9-10, which is the arithmetic mean of these values, it gives the basic 374 value ( max  ) for the comparison.  Table 2 to  380 complete the calculation of the CR value (Saaty, 1990 Finally, with the help Eq. 13, the L column vector (Eq. 14) is created by adding the row in 402 which it is found by multiplying the value of each alternative in the alternatives matrix with 403 the weight score of that criterion. The L column vector represents the percentage distribution 404 of decision options, and the sum of the values in the vector is 1. The decision option with the 405 highest weight in this vector is determined as the decision option that should be preferred for 406 solving the problem. (Eq. 14) In the application part of the thesis, it will be tried to determine 407 the efficiency levels of each of them and which ones should be taken into account while 408 creating these plans as a result of comparing the parameters that can be effective in the DRR 409 plans by using the AHP method. 410 411  Within the scope of the study, the criteria in the DRR strategies and plans of the countries that 417 are the subject of the analysis were examined and criteria selections were made. Among the 418 objectives to be achieved with this study is to investigate whether there is an effective way to 419 evaluate country DRR plans. Are there gaps between "expectations (ie expected targets)" and 420 "actual performance" in country plans provided by different countries? Do policy makers give 421 the same weight or priority to each key action (and mandate) in their documents? In line with 422 the determined targets, it is expected that the results of empirically evaluating country plans 423 with AHP, which is one of the multi-featured decision-making processes, will be examined 424 with this study. The components that best described a disaster risk reduction plans were 425 presented on a four-tier hierarchy representing relevant aspects of natural disaster 426 management in an AHP model where in the top tier represented a goal related to the problem. 427 The second tier consisted of seven criteria determined based on risk reduction components. 428 Third-tier, for each criterion characterizing disaster risk reduction plans represented by 429 represented by 36 important components third tier are determined. Last tier is represented by 430 alternative countries (Fig.8) each one in detail and systematically cover the process, were chosen as sub-criteria (Fig.9). 437 The first set of pairwise comparison matrices was evaluated by experts in terms of relative Disaster preparedness refers to the measures taken to be prepared for disasters and to reduce 505 the effects of disasters. In other words, reducing the risks of disasters and preventing them 506 whenever possible, reducing their effects on vulnerable individuals and responding to their 507 consequences quickly and dealing with them effectively are one of the most fundamental 508 steps in the DRR system. In the disaster preparedness system; Starting from the individual, 509 bringing a culture of disaster preparedness to all segments of the society, raising awareness in 510 individuals, ensuring their participation in volunteer activities, teaching the basic precautions 511 that individuals can take in the places they live, incorporating DRR into the education system, 512 ensuring that individuals learn and practice the correct behavior in disasters with exercises, It 513 is aimed to expand the places where the sectors can receive disaster education and to establish 514 infrastructures that they can easily access, to standardize the disaster education given through 515 various channels throughout the country, to participate in the studies carried out by 516 international organizations and to create accredited education paths with sufficient knowledge 517 and experience. Sub-criteria representing disaster preparedness are listed below; 518 After the criteria were determined, a 4-level hierarchical structure consisting of purpose, 558 main-criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives was created as follows. The purpose at the top level 559 of the hierarchical structure is stated as "Choosing a Disaster Risk Reduction Plan". At the 560 second and third levels, there are main criteria and sub-criteria in accordance with the 561 purpose. At the lowest level, the countries whose DRR plans are examined are listed as 562 alternatives-hierarchical model (Fig.10). 563 564 Among main criteria, B1 (Risk Identification), B2 (Risk Reduction), B3 (Response and  565 Recovery), B4 (Economic Management of Disaster Risks), B5 (Disaster Preparedness), B6 566 (Governance), B7 (Compliance of Policy and Plans). As can be seen in Fig.10a, the order of 567 importance is B2, B1, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, starting from the highest. Risk Reduction" has the 568 highest weight among the main criteria. 569 570 As can be seen in Fig.10b; Ranking of importance among our risk identification sub-criteria 571 RI1 (Systematic disaster and loss inventory-Data collection-Data bank), RI2 (Hazard 572 monitoring and estimation methods), RI3 (Hazard assessment and mapping systems), RI4 573 (Vulnerability and risk assessment analysis) RI2, RI1, RI3, RI4, starting from the highest. 574 575 As can be seen in Fig.10c As can be seen in Fig.10d, response and recovery sub-criteria RE1 (Organization and  584 coordination of emergency operations), RE2 (Emergency response planning), RE3 (Logistics 585 system planning and equipment, Vehicle and Infrastructure equipment), RE4 (Simulation, 586 Inter-Agency Intervention Testing and Updating), RE5 (Integration of DRR into recovery and 587 reconstruction planning processes), starting from the highest order of importance, RE3, RE1, 588 RE5, RE2, RE4 respectively. 589 590 As can be seen in Fig.10e As can be seen in Figure 10h The plans and strategies of the selected countries for DRR were examined, and 4 countries 618 were ranked with a holistic approach using the AHP methodology in line with the main 619 criteria and sub-criteria determined. For each criterion put into the analysis, the success 620 ranking of the countries changes and the general evaluation results of the countries are as in 621 Table 3.  622  623 The determined criteria and sub-criteria were sent to the experts in the field of DRR by e-mail 624 and the countries were asked to be scored. Scoring systematic " Within the scope of the study, disaster management systems and disaster risk reduction plans 634 of Japan, Turkey, Philippines and New Zealand, which are among the countries with high 635 disaster risk, were examined. It is now firmly accepted that a comprehensive DRR plan is 636 necessary for any country in the world to be considered successful in disaster management. A 637 number of monitoring and evaluation systems have been developed to assess the success of 638 national plans, but limited work has been done to synthesize the components that make up 639 these systems and to select the most important ones to use. 640 It is both practical and less time-consuming to plan locally and see the functionality of the 641 plan in situ. However, more comprehensive and multi-criteria decision-making methods 642 should be used when evaluating the effectiveness of a national plan. For this purpose, within 643 the scope of the thesis study, the criteria in the DRR strategies and plans were examined, and 644 the country strategies, practices and policies based on the implementations were evaluated. 645 There is a concept that is generally accepted in the world. DRR offers a high return on 646 investment: One dollar invested in disaster prevention can save seven dollars' worth of 647 disaster related economic losses. In this context, DRR is the first and most important stage in 648 the disaster cycle. Each country's DRR strategy and plans may have different stages of 649 importance. These differences both reveal country approaches and help us measure country 650 success. 651 Knowing, defining, understanding and measuring disaster risks, conducting disaster risk 652 management from the center, existence of effective intervention and improvement works, 653 having a planned policy towards being a disaster prepared society are clearly the most basic 654 pillars of DRR in a country. In this study, Risk Identification (B1), Risk Reduction (B2), 655 Response and Recovery (B3), Economic Management of Disaster Risks (B4), Disaster 656 Preparedness (B5), Governance (B6) and Compliance of Policies and Plans (B7) are included 657 in the DRR processes) were chosen as the main criteria. 658 Multi-criteria decision making method was used to identify and synthesize the 659 Interrelationships of these basic components of disaster management. The process (AHP) 660 method, which includes paired pairwise comparisons of various alternatives, was chosen as 661 the facilitating method. This method offers a versatile approach to decision makers in solving 662 problems and determining the order of importance of effective parameters when more than 663 one criterion is involved in the decision-making process. 36 important sub-components of the 664 main criteria were selected as sub-criteria. As a result of the weighting, the importance levels 665 of the parameters were determined as B2, B1, B3, B4, B5, B6 and B7, respectively. 666 Figure 1 In the Cabinet O ce (Fig. 1), the Director General of Disaster Management, who is responsible for ensuring wide-ranging cooperation between relevant government agencies, is responsible for planning basic disaster management policies and carrying out overall coordination as well as large-scale disaster response (Saya 2017).

Figure 2
The chief executive of the department of Prime minister and cabinet chairs the committee, and members are the chief executives from relevant government agencies (Fig.2). The diagram below outlines the national crisis management arrangements that operate for any emergency.

Figure 3
To achieve a resilient New Zealand these arrangements are illustrated in Fig.3. Local and regional cooperation and coordination is essential and a cornerstone of action, strategy and plan and guidance. Philippine disaster risk reduction and management structure is shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 5
The organization chart of AFAD, which manages the process in disasters and emergencies in Turkey, is as follows in Fig.5.

Figure 6
Philippines and New Zealand was more successful on a country basis (Fig.6).

Figure 7
At the next level, there are sub-criteria (if any) containing the details within the criteria (Fig. 7). There are alternatives with decision options at the lowest level in the hierarchy (Razmi, Rahnejat, and Khan 2000). Third-tier, for each criterion characterizing disaster risk reduction plans represented by represented by 36 important components third tier are determined. Last tier is represented by alternative countries (Fig.8).

Figure 9
The seven main criteria determined are as follows: Risk Identi cation (B1), Risk Reduction (B2), Response and Recovery (B3), Economic Disaster Risk Management (B4), Disaster Preparedness (B5), Governance (B6) and Compliance of Policies and Plans (B7), were selected as the main criteria. 36 important components of the main criteria, which explain each one in detail and systematically cover the process, were chosen as sub-criteria (Fig.9).

Figure 10
At the lowest level, the countries whose DRR plans are examined are listed as alternatives-hierarchical model (Fig.10).

Figure 11
At the end of the analysis, Japan was determined as the country with the best DRR plan and implementation, while our country was ranked 2nd, New Zealand ranked 3rd and Philippines ranked 4th (Fig.11)