Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

7th
7th International
International Conference
Conference on on Building
Building Resilience;
Resilience; Using
Using scientific
scientific knowledge
knowledge to
to inform
inform policy
policy
and practice in
andInternational disaster
practice in disaster risk reduction,
risk reduction, ICBR2017,
ICBR2017, 27 – 29
27Using November
– 29 November 2017, Bangkok,
2017, Bangkok, Thailand
Thailand
7th Conference on Building Resilience; scientific knowledge to inform policy
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand
A
A Conceptual
Conceptual Frame
Frame Using
Using ‘Knowledge’
‘Knowledge’ As As aa Lens
Lens for
for
A Conceptual
Deconstructing
Deconstructing the Frame
the SendaiUsing
Sendai ‘Knowledge’
Framework
Framework PriorityAs
Priority 1: aUnderstanding
1: Lens for
Understanding
Deconstructing the SendaiDisaster
Framework
Disaster RisksPriority 1: Understanding
Risks
Disaster
a
Risks
a a
Toinpre,
Toinpre, O Oa*,*, Gajendran,
Gajendran, T Ta,, Mackee,
Mackee, JJa
a Toinpre, O *, Gajendran, T , Mackee, Ja
a a
School of Architecture & Built Environment, University of Newcastle Australia
a
School of Architecture & Built Environment, University of Newcastle Australia
a
School of Architecture & Built Environment, University of Newcastle Australia
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Following increases in the frequency and magnitude of disasters over the past decades, continuous knowledge production and
Following increases in the frequency and magnitude of disasters over the past decades, continuous knowledge production and
dissemination has become a crucial pathway for understanding disaster risks. The Sendai Framework provides guidance for
dissemination
Following has become
increases a crucial pathway
in the frequency for understanding
disasters disaster therisks. The Sendai Framework provides guidance andfor
various levels of governance and well and lays magnitude
emphasis on of managing over
‘disaster past decades,
risks’. While acontinuous
great deal knowledge production
of existing scholarship has
various levels
dissemination of governance
has become and well lays emphasis
a crucialparticipation on managing
pathway forofunderstanding ‘disaster risks’. While a great deal of existing scholarship has
contributed immensely to proactive key players in disaster
the public risks.
and The Sendai
private Framework
sectors, provides of
the interpretation guidance
knowledge for
contributed immensely
various to proactive participation of key players in the publicrisks’.
and private sectors, the interpretation of knowledge
producedlevels of governance
by academia and well
and professional lays emphasis
organizations onthat
managing ‘disaster
aids in better understandingWhilefora ease
greatofdeal of existing
planning scholarship
and implementation has
produced by academia and
contributed professional organizations keythat aids in
in better understanding for ease of planning and implementation
becomes a immensely
challengingtoand proactive
rigorous participation
task. The of aim ofplayers
this paper theispublic and private
to present sectors,
a conceptual the interpretation
framework of knowledge
that simplifies the
becomes abychallenging
produced academia andprofessional
and rigorous task. The aim that
organizations of this
aidspaper
in is tounderstanding
better present a conceptual
for ease offramework
planning thatimplementation
and simplifies the
interpretation of ‘knowledge creation’ and ‘knowledge dissemination’ connecting the Sendai priority one focus and requisite
interpretation
becomes of ‘knowledge creation’ task.
and ‘knowledge dissemination’ connecting the Sendai priority one focus simplifies
and requisite
actions fora disaster
challengingrisk and rigorous
reduction at local, The aim of
national, this and
global paperregional
is to present
levels. aTheconceptual
intended framework
outcome is that to better enhance the
actions for disaster
interpretation risk reduction at local, national, global and regional levels. The intendedpriority
outcome isfocus
to better enhance
understanding using ‘knowledge’ as a lens for key players and stakeholders involved in disaster risk reduction activities.requisite
of ‘knowledge creation’ and ‘knowledge dissemination’ connecting the Sendai one and This is
understanding
actions using risk
‘knowledge’ asata lens fornational,
key players andand
stakeholders involved in disaster risk reduction activities. This is
achievedfor disaster
through the reviewreduction
of the role local,
of knowledge global
and knowledge regional levels.
management The intended
literature outcome
for understanding is to better risks
disaster enhance
and
achieved through
understanding usingthe‘knowledge’
review of theasrole a of knowledge
lens for key and knowledge
players and management
stakeholders involvedliterature
in for understanding
disaster risk reduction disaster risks
activities. and
This is
utilizes an exploratory approach to further create a theoretical linkage with the focus of the Sendai Framework. The paper
utilizes
achieved an exploratory
through the approach
review of theto further
role of create
knowledge a theoretical
and knowledgelinkage with
management the focus of
literature the
for Sendai Framework.
understanding disasterThe paper
risks and
suggests that appropriate and continuous interpretation of knowledge created and disseminated has the propensity to stimulate
suggestsan
utilizes that appropriateapproach
and continuous interpretation of knowledge created
with and disseminated has the Framework.
propensity toThe stimulate
and assist inexploratory
achieving improved to further
disaster riskcreate a theoretical
reduction outcomeslinkage
and judicious theharnessing
focus of of theresources
Sendai paper
required for achieving
and assistthat
suggests in achieving
appropriate improved
and disaster interpretation
continuous risk reductionof outcomes
knowledge andcreated
judicious andharnessing
disseminatedof resources
has the required for
propensity to achieving
stimulate
such tasks. The limitation of this paper is that it utilizes a knowledge lens to achieve its aim while acknowledging that other
suchassist
and tasks.inThe limitation of this disaster
paper isriskthatreduction
it utilizesoutcomes
a knowledge judicious
lens to achieve its aim while acknowledging that other
lenses can be achieving improved
used to provide better understanding and clarity of theand subject matter.harnessing of resources required for achieving
such tasks. The limitation of this paper is that it utilizes a knowledge lensmatter.
lenses can be used to provide better understanding and clarity of the subject to achieve its aim while acknowledging that other
lenses can be author.
*Corresonding used toTel.:
provide better understanding and clarity of the subject matter.
+61416492635
*Corresonding author. Tel.: +61416492635
Email address: Toinpre.owi@uon.edu.au
Email address: Toinpre.owi@uon.edu.au
*Corresonding author. Tel.: +61416492635
Email address: Toinpre.owi@uon.edu.au
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under
Keywords: Sendai responsibility
Framework, of the Disaster
Knowledge, scientificrisk
committee
reduction, of the 7th International
Interpretation, KnowledgeConference on Building
creation, Knowledge Resilience.
dissemination
Keywords: Sendai Framework, Knowledge, Disaster risk reduction, Interpretation, Knowledge creation, Knowledge dissemination
Keywords: Sendai Framework, Knowledge, Disaster risk reduction, Interpretation, Knowledge creation, Knowledge dissemination
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review under responsibility
© 2017 The Authors. Published byof Elsevier
the scientific
Ltd. committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review under
1.0 Introduction responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
1.0 Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review
1877-7058 ©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of the scientific
Published committee
by Elsevier Ltd. of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.024
 Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 2
182 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189

The impact of disasters cannot be overemphasized as it cuts across several geographical boundaries and has
prompted a shift from disaster response to the identification and assessment of disaster risks that threaten society
[1]. Following the increases in frequency and magnitude of disasters over the past decades, continuous knowledge
creation and dissemination has become a crucial pathway to understanding risks. The Sendai Framework provides
guidance for organizations at various levels of governance and as well lays emphasis on managing disaster risks.
While research efforts have contributed to proactive participation of institutional actors, the interpretation of
knowledge created by academia and professional organisations relevant for planning and implementation becomes
challenging . Weichselgartner and Pigeon [2] suggest that researchers are now raising concerns on the need to
explicitly define in clear terms why improved knowledge has not sufficiently reduced the upward trending nature
of disaster statistics, hence the call for the need to question the utilization of knowledge in hazard management.
Using knowledge as a lens, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) priority1 (understanding
disaster risks) is deconstructed and a conceptual framework is presented to better interpret its intricacies for
enhanced DRR delivery. Implications for practitioners are further discussed.

2.0 Methodology

The aim of this paper is to present a conceptual framework that simplifies the interpretation of ‘knowledge
creation’ and ‘knowledge dissemination’ connecting the Sendai priority one focus and requisite actions for disaster
risk reduction at local, national, global and regional levels. Using an exploratory approach through the review of the
role of knowledge management, it seeks to enhance understanding of the SFDRR using ‘knowledge’ as a lens. This
is achieved through a review of available literature to create a theoretical linkage with a focus on the Sendai
Framework. Secondary data sources such as books, journal articles, reports, and conference papers obtained from
respected data bases were utilized for this purpose. The paper suggests that appropriate and continuous
interpretation of knowledge created and disseminated will assist institutional actors judiciously harness resources
and achieve improved DRR outcomes. The limitation of this paper is that it utilizes a knowledge lens to achieve its
aim while acknowledging that other lenses can be used to provide better understanding and clarity of the subject
matter. Other aspects can be explored to gain better understanding of deconstructing the SFDRR.

3.0 Conceptual views of knowledge

Knowledge has been described as the most essential element and strategic resource for acquiring capabilities and
intangible assets [3]. Sveiby [4] defines knowledge as the “capacity to act”. The knowledge people possess has an
influence on their safety, effectiveness, satisfaction and comfort with which individual or organizational goals are
formulated and attained. Hunt [5] also affirms that the data received and knowledge possessed greatly influences the
interpretation of what is known. The behaviour of an individual and performance is also influenced by the
knowledge that has been acquired through learning, practice and experience. Knowledge therefore contains
information that is readily utilized for making decisions and actions [6].

4.0 Conceptual views of Knowledge management (KM)

Knowledge that is not properly managed can be obsolete or useless, thus a number of processes may be
implemented to manage knowledge [7]. Knowledge management has however been viewed as the capability to
manage knowledge by gathering internal or external knowledge, converting them into new ideas or strategies and
then applying as well as protecting them [8]. Knowledge management (KM) is also described by Lytras, Pouloudi
[9] as the systematic and explicit application of knowledge to aid the maximization of knowledge-related
effectiveness. Knowledge management is however a process of capturing, storing, sharing and using knowledge [6].
Some authors also describe knowledge management as the systematic process for organizing and communicating
both tacit and explicit knowledge [10]. The main goal of knowledge management is therefore to enable
organizations become aware of and shape knowledge for effective and efficient use [11].
 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189 183
Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

4.1 Knowledge creation and dissemination

Nonaka and Takeuchi [12] suggest that the Western epistemological view of knowledge is defined as justified
true belief inferring that it is objective. However, knowledge also cannot exist without subjectivity since humans hold
and justify beliefs. The Eastern epistemology views knowledge as a meaningful set of information which constitutes
justified true beliefs and or an embodied technical skill. Acknowledging both views, creation of knowledge can
therefore be described as the dynamic human process of justifying a personal belief towards truth and embodying
technical skills through practice [13]. Bratianu and Orzea [14] report that one school of thought considers knowledge
creation output as tacit, context specific and personal and difficult to transfer or communicate. Tacit knowledge is
made up of values, beliefs, perceptions, and can only be stored in human beings [15]. On the other hand, explicit
knowledge represents content that has been captured in some concrete records and can be codified into systematic,
structured and formal form. It can be collected, transformed, shared, communicated with ease and can be accessible to
people. Knowledge is therefore formed from the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge.

Figure 1: Knowledge creation dynamics model adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi [12]

Nonaka & Takeuchi’s [12] model suggests that for knowledge creation to be operational, externalization,
internalization on one hand and socialization and combination on the other hand must be framed and synchronized
with patterns of thinking. This has to occur simultaneously within physical and non-physical spaces where social
interchange through subjectivity and objectivity as well as transformation ranging from individuals to groups
according to epistemological and ontological dimensions can take place to generate knowledge.
With the ever increasing search for knowledge within organizations and society in general, new methods of
leveraging on and sharing knowledge has become crucial for providing the much needed support in terms of
collaborating to solve problems as it relates to people, networks and tools [16]. Knowledge dissemination involves the
provision of viable knowledge to assist others and promote collaboration with actors to develop new ideas, solves
problems or implements policies and procedures [17]. Table 1 illustrates four processes and roles:

Table 1. Role of knowledge management

Knowledge Management elements
Knowledge creation
Knowledge Storage
Knowledge dissemination
Knowledge application
Role
Aid the implementation of knowledge or replacing the current content or searching for new
knowledge that is explicit or tacit [18]
Derive new knowledge through benchmarking, or outsourcing [19]
Enable arrangement and management of the knowledge for easy access [20].
Enhances the integration of knowledge to assist in the reduction of redundancy and enhance
efficiency as well as the reuse of knowledge [21]
Enables exchange of knowledge across a network of individuals or group of people [18].
Enables the transformation of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge within an organizational setting
in the process of dissemination [22].
Enhances usage of knowledge to influence or adjust strategic direction, decision making, problem
solving reducing costs and improving efficiency [23]
 Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 4
184 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189

5.0 Making sense of knowledge

The interpretation of knowledge management processes has become very crucial. When knowledge attained is not
appropriately interpreted then the knowledge management process outcome is flawed. The continuous interpretation
of knowledge becomes relevant in the creation and dissemination stages as there is the propensity to provide the
requisite agility to respond to the dynamic nature of the institutional environment [56]. Coordinating people, processes
and technologies therefore represents a deliberate and conscious attempt to manage knowledge [57]. As illustrated in
Figure 2, the interaction between the three elements (i.e. people, technology and processes) is defined by the
contribution of each aspect of the knowledge management process. People design and use technologies which provide
support and determine the need for processes which then define the roles and knowledge needed by others.

PEOPLE Define the roles of, and

knowledge needed by

Help design and

Provides then operate
support for PROCESS
Help design Makes possible
and then use new kinds of

TECHNOLOGY Determine the

need for
Figure 2: Interaction of knowledge management elements. Adapted from Edwards [24]

Technology also makes the attainment of new processes possible; these processes can also be designed and made
operational by individuals. Knowledge dissemination through knowledge management systems aid facilitating ideas,
best practices and maximizes benefits and improvement of organizational performance knowledge [16]. A number of
barriers to this process identified by scholars include: lack of up-to-date knowledge [25]; limitations in network of
knowledge [26]; limitation in the capacity for the institutionalization of newly applied knowledge [27] amongst
others.

6.0 Key challenges of Disaster Risk Reduction and Knowledge

The SFDRR iterates the commitment of countries to disaster risk reduction and building resilience within the
boundaries of sustainable development and poverty eradication; as well as integrating as appropriate such concepts
into policy, plans and programmes at all levels [28]. The goal of the SFDRR is to prevent new, while reducing
already existing disaster risks through the implementation of plans that are all inclusive and cutting across economic,
structural, legal, educational, environmental, technological, political, institutional aspects. This is to ensure significant
reduction of hazard exposure, reduction of vulnerabilities to disaster, increase level of preparedness for response and
recovery at all levels of governance in a bid to strengthening resilience [28]. It tilts towards advocating for the
integration of programmes, policies and plans for capacity building through skills, competence and knowledge
transfer to adequately encourage self-reliance. Cramton [29] suggests that the application of knowledge may fail if it
is poorly interpreted after communication. Weichselgartner and Pigeon [2] reported that the critical part of disaster
management failed after storm Xynthia as a result of the failure on the part of authorities. This case demonstrated the
need to consider the production and application of knowledge and its integration with values and interests of various
stakeholders and institutions at different scales into policy-making processes [30]. Given the significance of the
connectivity between knowledge and DRR, the evolution in knowledge and application of DRR over the last two
decades have not been even, as inquiries are still yet to be fully explored [31]. Weichselgartner and Pigeon [2] are
however of the opinion that the domain of disaster risk reduction including knowledge management will enhance
DRR. The SFDRR focuses more on the role of knowledge production and implementation than past international
 O. Toinpre
Toinpre et al. / Procedia
et al./ Procedia Engineering
Engineering 212000–000
00 (2017) (2018) 181–189 185
5

frameworks [2]. One medium through which the target of the Sendai framework may be met is by bridging the
knowledge gap through better interpretation of the SFDRR.

7.0 Interpretation of knowledge: Deconstructing the Sendai Framework

The SFDRR priority 1 is centred on knowledge creation and dissemination. Creating knowledge involves the
integration of plans, strategies and programmes that revolve around three key elements; people, processes and
technology. This is guided by mechanisms which involve the knowledge management processes (knowledge
governance) through leadership, reward systems, networks, etc. As illustrated in Figure 3, the coordination of all
phases of the disaster management cycle involve the collaboration of a number of institutional actors (people) who
pull together resources informed by scientific and policy-driven baseline research undertaken by the academia and
research institutions. The collection and analysis of data used to strengthen baseline knowledge emanates from
technological processes (24a, b) which are applicable in the assessment of risks and systematic identification and
mapping (24c, d, & 25b). Identifying and assessing risk data needs to be accessible, reliable and able to provide real
time risk vulnerability and disaster loss information (24e, f). In order to make sense of this explicitly, it has to be
recorded and transferred through capacity building, training, certification, good practices and lessons learned at all
levels (24g). However, knowledge of this nature is formal and may only be understood by a certain proportion of
stakeholders who have achieved some form of formal education. Weichselgartner and Pigeon [2] suggest that the
production of knowledge and its transfer occurs through social interactions involving both explicit and tacit
knowledge, therefore institutional actors such as government officials, civil society groups, communities, volunteers
as well as private sector organizations need to dialogue with the scientific and technological communities to shape the
development and implementation of all-inclusive DRR policies that meets stakeholder needs relayed in both formal
and informal forms (24h, i).

Knowledge management (creation and dissemination) contributes to the effectiveness of DRR policies through the
technical and scientific capacities (24j) made possible by using a process-centric approaches via development and
application of methodologies for efficiency. Promoting long-term investment in innovation and the development of
technology-centric approaches is crucial for addressing challenges posed by disaster risks given the social, economic
and environmental peculiarity of the affected area (24k). Nevertheless, the effective coordination of knowledge in
innovation and technology has to be disseminated through formal and informal forms of education where the developed
technology is user-friendly (24l) and applicable in all facets of the disaster management cycle (i.e. preparedness,
mitigation, response, recovery and rehabilitation) forming a pathway throughout the entire process. Institutional actors
 186 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189
Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 6

on the other hand can promote intellectual activity through knowledge governance via people-centric [13], approaches
that utilize technology-centric methods for extracting, analysing and transforming data contained within a discrete and
often unrelated datasets [32]. Through appropriate knowledge governance, this can as well be integrated into strategies
(process-centric) to strengthen public awareness through social media, community mobilization, campaigns (24m, 25f),
developing systems for knowledge sharing (25e,f) that are accessibility and available in copyright materials (25h) in all
dimensions of vulnerability, exposure of people, communities, countries and assets (24n) and as well enhance
collaboration with local level stakeholders for DRR information dissemination (24 o, 25g).

8.0 Interpreting knowledge for enhanced DRR delivery

Interpretation is described as a process of communication [33]. In order to understand communication, a

consideration of the elements involved in the process: communication source, the encoder, the message, the
channel, the decoder and the communication receiver [34]. Within the context of the study, interpretation simply
refers to the simplification of the priority one of the SFDRR by making sense of the guidelines for implementation
at various levels of governance using a knowledge lens (See figure 4). Interpretation of DRR knowledge may be
enhanced by better simplifying the intricacies of the guidelines communicated in the SFDRR through
deconstruction for enhanced DRR outcomes. What this implies for institutional actors in DRR knowledge creation
and dissemination is the provision of an avenue where knowledge can be made sense of and channelled using
appropriate knowledge management mechanisms. Figure 4 illustrates a knowledge flow from DRR knowledge
creation stage to dissemination stage.

Figure 4: Conceptual framework for SFDRR Knowledge flow (Authors)

The SFDRR as a knowledge source provides DRR knowledge in the form of priorities for action and key
activities which needs to be implemented at national, local, global, and regional levels. Such knowledge needs to be
leveraged upon for the purpose of pre-disaster risk assessment, prevention and mitigation and as well preparedness
and effective response to disasters [28]. To achieve the goal of DRR knowledge implementation requires a people-
centric approach that is all-inclusive in understanding given the tacit and explicit nature. This approach involves
encoding process which describes the interpretation through transformation of explicit to tacit knowledge and vice
versa forming new explicit knowledge [13]. Knudson [35] suggests that this process can be done verbally, visually
or other means of translation within natural and cultural contexts. On transformation of both tacit and explicit
knowledge, interpretation is then completed when the message from the source can through intermediate knowledge
management mechanisms and processes be captured systematically, stored, organized and shared [10]. At this stage,
sense could be made from organized DRR knowledge by categorizing them to meet the needs of the receivers
which in this case are the general public. This will involve the collaboration of institutional actors involved in DRR
 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189 187
Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

Categorizing DRR knowledge for dissemination by institutional actors could take various dimensions. The
scientific and research-based DRR knowledge constitutes the scientific and technical capacities which emanate from
theory and practice to provide new solutions to environmental, social, economic, etc. problems [36]. This can be
disseminated through the deployment of technology hardware/software and non-technological products for risk
assessment, risk mapping, early warning systems etc. Organizational knowledge involves both public and private
sector organizations involved in DRR that leverage on knowledge in a procedural manner and expressed through a
set of routines [37] such as protocols, standard operating procedures, roles, scripts etc. as well as symbolic systems
such as rules, laws, values, schema etc. Common knowledge relates to the collective opinions and assumes a spatial
feature which may be community-based or culturally mutual among groups and context specific [38]. The entire
processes of knowledge creation and dissemination can be continuously reviewed for enhanced DRR delivery.

9.0 Conclusion

One distinguishing feature of every profession is the application of specialist knowledge and skills to achieve a
defined purpose. The amount of information and knowledge relevant to disaster management increases
exponentially like other fields [39]. The major reason for employing knowledge management in disaster operations
is the need to create advantage within an operational environment [40]. Therefore, the continuous availability of
access to created knowledge is crucial for institutional actors operating within an uncertain environment. This paper
links knowledge management processes to various categories of institutional actors with the aim of assisting
concerned actors to better interpret and act rationally by considering a wider audience for enhanced DRR delivery
and as well meet the intended goal of the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction at all levels of governance.

The interpretation of knowledge cannot be overemphasized. The findings from this paper suggest that for the
SFDRR to be effectively implemented, practitioners need to leverage on harnessing resources towards better
interpretation of DRR knowledge by considering both tacit and explicit aspects in order to meet the specific needs
of recipients of DRR outcomes. To achieve this, there needs to be homogeneity among concerned actors. It is also
pertinent to note that DRR knowledge can be managed using various approaches and the identification of each plays
a crucial role in understanding disaster risk. This paper only builds on better interpretation of the first priority of the
SFDRR using a conceptual knowledge lens through which DRR acknowledge could be better harnessed with
emphasis on knowledge creation and dissemination linking actors. Other aspects could be explored to better
understand the selected priority for action.

References

[1] D.f.I. Development, , Reducing the risk of disasters—Helping to achieve sustainable poverty reduction in a
vulnerable world. DFID policy paper. London: Department for International Development. . 2006.
[2] J. Weichselgartner, and P. Pigeon, The role of knowledge in disaster risk reduction. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 2015. 6(2): p. 107-116.
[3] R.M.Grant, Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge
integration. Organization science, 1996. 7(4): p. 375-387.
[4] K.E. Sveiby, The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets. 1997: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
[5] D.P. Hunt, The concept of knowledge and how to measure it. Journal of intellectual capital, 2003. 4(1): p. 100-
113.
[6] C.L. Chang, T.C. Lin, The role of organizational culture in the knowledge management process. Journal of
Knowledge management, 2015. 19(3): p. 433-455.
[7] F. Karimi, M. Javanmard, Surveying the infrastructure and capabilities for knowledge management
Implementation in Supply Chain. JIM QUEST, 2014. 10(1): p. 75-82.
[8] A.H. Gold, A.H.S. Arvind Malhotra, Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective.
Journal of management information systems, 2001. 18(1): p. 185-214.
[9] M.D. Lytras, A. Pouloudi, A. Poulymenakou, Knowledge management convergence–expanding learning
188 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189
Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 8

frontiers. Journal of knowledge management, 2002. 6(1): p. 40-51.

[10] A.P. Massey, M.M. Montoya-Weiss, Unraveling the temporal fabric of knowledge conversion: A model of
media selection and use. Mis Quarterly, 2006: p. 99-114.
[11] S. Newell, C. Tansley, J. Huang, Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP project team: the
importance of bridging and bonding. British Journal of Management, 2004. 15(S1): p. S43-S57.
[12] I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of
innovation. 1995: Oxford university press.
[13] l. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, K. Umemoto, A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International Journal of
Technology Management, 1996. 11(7-8): p. 833-845.
[14] C. Bratianu, I. Orzea, Organizational knowledge creation. Management & Marketing, 2010. 5(3): p. 41.
[15] H. Mahroeian, A. Forozia, Challenges in Managing Tacit Knowledge: a study on difficulties in diffusion of
tacit knowledge in organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2012. 3(19).
[16] S.Wang, R.A. Noe, Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource
Management Review, 2010. 20(2): p. 115-131.
[17] J.N. Cummings, Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization.
Management science, 2004. 50(3): p. 352-364.
[18] G. Cepeda-Carrion, J.G. Cegarra-Navarro, D. Jimenez-Jimenez, The effect of absorptive capacity on
innovativeness: Context and information systems capability as catalysts. British Journal of Management, 2012.
23(1): p. 110-129.
[19] E.S. Abou-Zeid, A knowledge management reference model. Journal of knowledge management, 2002. 6(5):
p. 486-499.
[20] P. Heisig, Harmonisation of knowledge management–comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe.
Journal of knowledge management, 2009. 13(4): p. 4-31.
[21] H.R. Nemati, Global knowledge management: exploring a framework for research. 2002, Taylor & Francis.
[22] M.M. Ajmal, K.U. Koskinen, Knowledge transfer in project‐based organizations: an organizational culture
perspective. Project Management Journal, 2008. 39(1): p. 7-15.
[23] W.J. Orlikowski, Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization
science, 2002. 13(3): p. 249-273.
[24] J.S. Edwards, Business processes and knowledge management, in Encyclopedia of Information Science and
Technology, Second Edition. 2009, IGI global. p. 471-476.
[25] M. Shin, A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems. Information &
management, 2004. 42(1): p. 179-196.
[26] G. Carnabuci, E. Operti, Where do firms' recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks,
knowledge, and firms' ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management Journal,
2013. 34(13): p. 1591-1613.
[27] G. Szulanski, Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm.
Strategic management journal, 1996. 17(S2): p. 27-43.
[28] UNISDR, Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. 2015.
[29] C.D. Cramton, The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization
science, 2001. 12(3): p. 346-371.
[30] O. Renn, Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Science, 2015. 6(1): p. 8-20.
[31] S. Briceño, Looking back and beyond Sendai: 25 years of international policy experience on disaster risk
reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2015. 6(1): p. 1-7.
[32] P. Van Bommel, Transformation of knowledge, information and data: theory and applications. 2005: IGI
Global.
[33] C.M. Hall, S. McArthur, Heritage management in Australia and New Zealand: The human dimension. 1996:
Oxford University Press Melbourne.
[34] D.K. Berlo, The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. 1960.
[35] D.M. Knudson, T.T. Cable, and L. Beck, Interpretation of cultural and natural resources. 1995: ERIC.
[36] UNISDR, Using Science for Disaster Risk Reduction. Report of the UNISDR Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee. UNISDR 2013.
 O. Toinpre et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 181–189 189
Toinpre et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 9

[37] B. Levitt, J.G. March, Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 1988. 14(1): p. 319-338.
[38] Y. Girault, Y. Lhoste, Opinions et savoirs: positionnements épistémologiques et questions didactiques. RDST.
Recherches en didactique des sciences et des technologies, 2010(1): p. 29-66.
[39] A. Jashapara, The emerging discourse of knowledge management: a new dawn for information science
research? Journal of information science, 2005. 31(2): p. 136-148.
[40] D.K. Von Lubitz, J.E. Beakley, F. Patricelli, ‘All hazards approach’to disaster management: the role of
information and knowledge management, Boyd's OODA Loop, and network‐centricity. Disasters, 2008. 32(4):
p. 561-585.