Provision of a Crisis Management Model in Khuzestan Province with an Emphasis on Environmental Crises, Iran

Seyyed Khalaf Mousavi, Mirali Seyyed Naghvi, Vahid Khashei, Sara Mohammadi, Department of Management, Faculty of Management, University of Edalat, Tehran, Iran., Department of Management, Faculty of Management, University of Edalat, Tehran, Iran., Department of Management, Faculty of Management, University of Edalat, Tehran, Iran., Department of Management, Faculty of Management, University of Edalat, Tehran, Iran.
2021 Majallah-i Dānishgāh-i ̒Ulūm-i Pizishkī-i Qum  
and Objectives: Organizations and administrative offices associated with crisis management play an important role in controlling crises in a country. This study aimed to present a crisis management model in Khuzestan Province, Iran, with an emphasis on environmental crises based on a three-pronged approach in 2018. Methods: Crisis management components were prioritized according to the analytic hierarchy process pairwise comparison method. These components were designed in the form of a
more » ... naire scored on a Likert scale. After determining the main components of crisis management in the three-pronged approach, the main priorities were identified based on the current status, and the management model in Khuzestan Province was presented with regard to the environmental crises. Results: In structural, behavioral, and contextual components, financing of crisis management in Khuzestan Province with a weighted eigenvalue of 0.146721, the commitment of managers and staff with a weighted eigenvalue of 0.143181, and urban infrastructure with a weighted eigenvalue of 0.18365 were determined as the most important components. According to experts' opinions, the most desirable item was the existence of planning and main strategies for crisis management with a mean score of 4.05 and the least desirable item was related to the urban infrastructure with a mean score of 1.6. Factor analysis revealed 9 explanatory factors, which respectively constituted 35.2%, 14.2%, 8.9%, 7.2%, 6.1%, 5.2%, 4.1%, 3.5%, 3.5%, and a total of 88.25% of the total variance. Conclusion: Finally, based on the analysis of the conceptual model of the research as well as the identified and prioritized components, the proposed model was presented.
doi:10.52547/qums.14.12.52 fatcat:c4nvwl7kcvfpldygfqj5emsvsm