Stakeholders and Their Significance in Post Natural Disaster Reconstruction Projects: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="a"><span lang="EN-US">Significant increase in number of natural disasters during past decades has triggered huge investments in reconstruction projects. Typical post-natural disaster reconstruction (PDR) projects are different from routine construction projects due to certain additional challenges. Understanding the wide range of individuals and groups that have direct or indirect stakes, interests and expectations from a PDR project is vital for its success. However, research on PDR with special emphasis on stakeholders and their significance in success and sustainability of the projects is limited. This paper provides a systematic literature review (SLR) to amalgamate and synthesise research in this area. It focuses on the identification of the stakeholders and significance of their engagement in PDR activities for a more sustainable and resilient built environment. Research papers published in peer reviewed academic journals from 2000 to 2014 were identified through three major research databases, using T/A/K search options. The selected research papers were reviewed and critically analysed to identify the stakeholders and mechanism of their identification. This research revealed that contemporary research is unable to identify a commonly agreeable scientific method for identification of stakeholders and their interests. This research has outlined an exhaustive list of stakeholders that have been identified by the researchers. Based upon systematic review, this research has also provided background information, recent trends and a future direction for research in the specific field of stakeholder engagement in PDR projects. </span></p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".