Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T03:22:48.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Can We Improve the Government’s Research and Technology for Disasters and Safety?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2025

Seungil Yum Open the ORCID record for Seungil Yum [Opens in a new window]
Seungil Yum*
Affiliation:
The Department of Landscape, Cheongju university, Cheongju, Korea
*
Corresponding author: Seungil Yum; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study explores how we can improve the government’s research and technology for disasters and safety.

Methods

This study employs the Structural Equation Model (SEM) based on 268 experts’ perspectives.

Results

R&D performance exerts a directly significant impact on R&D achievement with the coefficient of 0.429. Second, while professionality and environment of R&D do not show a direct effect on achievement, they exhibit an indirect effect on it with the coefficient of 1.124 and 0.354, respectively. Third, R&D professionality exerts a significant impact on the R&D environment (0.964), and R&D environment has a positive effect on R&D performance (0.827).

Conclusion

Governments and policymakers should develop disaster and safety policies by understanding direct and indirect effects and the relationship of factors related to R&D for improving R&D achievement.

Keywords

R&DgovernmentSEMdisasterssafety
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 19 , 2025 , e21
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ritchie, H, Rosado, P, Roser, M. Natural Disasters. Published 2022. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization. World Statistic. Published 2022. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.ilo.org/moscow/areas-of-work/occupational-safety-and-health/WCMS_249278/lang--en/index.htm.Google Scholar
Fichter, K, Clausen, J. Diffusion of environmental innovations: sector differences and explanation range of factors. Environ Innov Soc Tr. 2021;38:34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krichen, M, Abdalzaher, MS, Elwekeil, M, et al. Managing natural disasters: an analysis of technological advancements, opportunities, and challenges. IoT and CPS. 2024;4:99–109.Google Scholar
The National Emergency Management Agency. Disaster Ready Fund. Published 2022. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://nema.gov.au/disaster-ready-fund.Google Scholar
Jiyoung, P. Science and Technology to Prevent and Respond to CBRN Disasters: ROK and US Perspectives. Asan Institute for Policy Studies. 2014.Google Scholar
Orsatti, G. Government R&D and green technology spillovers: the Chernobyl disaster as a natural experiment. J Technol Transf. 2023;1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, X, Guo, J, Wu, X, et al. Disaster probability, optimal government expenditure for disaster prevention and mitigation, and expected economic growth. Economic Impacts and Emergency Management of Disasters in China. 2021;3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ye, T, Wang, Y, Wu, B, et al. Government investment in disaster risk reduction based on a probabilistic risk model: a case study of typhoon disasters in Shenzhen, China. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2016;7:123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espada, R Jr, Apan, A, McDougall, K. Spatial modelling of natural disaster risk reduction policies with Markov decision processes. Appl Geogr. 2014;53:284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, TH. Governing natural disasters: state capacity, democracy, and human vulnerability. Soc Forces. 2015;93(3):1267–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motoyama, T. Optimal disaster-preventive expenditure in a dynamic and stochastic model. J Macroecon. 2017;51:28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klette, TJ, Griliches, Z. Empirical patterns of firm growth and R&D investment: a quality ladder model interpretation. Econ J. 2000;110(463):363–387.Google Scholar
Veugelers, R. Collaboration in R&D: an assessment of theoretical and empirical findings. De Economist. 1998;146:419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, CH, Lu, YH, Huang, CW, et al. R&D, productivity, and market value: an empirical study from high-technology firms. Omega. 2013;41(1):143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilau, J, Witt, E, Lill, I. Resilience of small and medium-sized enterprises to flood risk: evidence from flood-prone areas in Estonia. J Risk Res. 2018;21(11):1377–1394.Google Scholar
Zhou, H, Wang, J, Wan, J, et al. Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective. Nat Hazards. 2010;53(1):21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F, Ross, H. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc Natur Resour. 2013;26(1):5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, SL, Barnes, L, Berry, M, et al. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Change. 2008;18(4):598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A. Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environ Hazards. 2007;7(4):383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, FH, Stevens, SP, Pfefferbaum, B, et al. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(1-2):127–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Published 2022. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2019.Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Published 2022. Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, RJT, Nicholls, RJ, Thomalla, F. Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Glob Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazards. 2003;5(1-2):35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C, Carpenter, S, Walker, B, et al. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc. 2010;15(4):20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, D, Johnston, D. Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prev Manag. 2001;10(4):270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, WN. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr. 2000;24(3):347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, DE. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2013;13(11):2707–2716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, CS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 1973;4(1):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, LH. Ecological resilience—In theory and application. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 2000;31(1):425–439.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benali, N, Abdelkafi, I, Feki, R. Natural-disaster shocks and government’s behavior: evidence from middle-income countries. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018;27:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiero, G, Santarossa, M. Earthquakes, grants, and public expenditure: how municipalities respond to natural disasters. J Reg Sci. 2020;60(3):481–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahlevi, H, Indriani, M, Oktari, RS. Is the Indonesian disaster response budget correlated with disaster risk? Jàmbá J Disaster Risk Stud. 2019;11(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, SK. Governmental response to disasters: key attributes, expectations, and implications. In: Rodríguez, H, Donner, W, Trainor, JE, eds. Handbook of Disaster Research. 2nd ed. Springer; 2018:551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, RM. Science and technology for natural disaster reduction. Nat Hazards Rev. 2000;1(1):56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aksnes, DW, Sivertsen, G, van Leeuwen, TN, Wendt, KK. Measuring the productivity of national R&D systems: challenges in cross-national comparisons of R&D input and publication output indicators. Sci Public Policy. 2017;44(2):246–258.Google Scholar
Hall, BH. Measuring the returns to R&D: the depreciation problem. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 13473. Published 2007. Accessed November 23, 2024. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13473.Google Scholar
Melkers, J. Bibliometrics as a tool for analysis of R&D impacts. In: Link, AN, ed. Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice. Springer US; 1993:43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, D, Guo, J, Jiang, K. Government subsidized R&D and innovation outputs: an empirical analysis of China’s Innofund program. Stanford Center for International Development Working Paper No. 494. Published 2014.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. Composition of R&D expenditures: relationship to size of firm, concentration, and innovative output. Rev Econ Stat. 1981;63(4):610–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, CP, Hu, JL, Yang, CH. An international comparison of R&D efficiency of multiple innovative outputs: the role of the national innovation system. Innovation. 2011;13(3):341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winthrop, MF, Deckro, RF, Kloeber, JM Jr. Government R&D expenditures and US technology advancement in the aerospace industry: a case study. J Eng Technol Manag. 2002;19(3-4):287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coccia, M. Public and private R&D investments as complementary inputs for productivity growth. Int J Technol Policy Manag. 2010;10(1-2):73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarnitzki, D, Hussinger, K. Inputs and outputs additionality of R&D subsidies. Appl Econ. 2018;50(12):1324–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, JL, Yang, CH, Chen, CP. R&D efficiency and the national innovation system: an international comparison using the distance function approach. Bull Econ Res. 2014;66(1):55–71.46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guellec, D, Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. Does government support stimulate private R&D? OECD Econ Stud. 1997;95–122.Google Scholar
Levy, DM. Estimating the impact of government R&D. Econ Lett. 1990;32(2):169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luwel, M. The use of input data in the performance analysis of R&D systems. In: Moed, HF, Glänzel, W, Schmoch, U, eds. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer; 2004:315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, Y, Li, D. Interaction effects of government subsidies, R&D input and innovation performance of Chinese energy industry: a panel vector autoregressive (PVAR) analysis. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2023;35(5):493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Disaster Management Research Institute. Investigation and Analysis on Technology Level Related to Disaster and Safety Management in 2021. National Disaster Management Research Institute, Korea; 2021.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. Structural equation modeling. In: Smelser, NJ, Baltes, PB, eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier; 2001.Google Scholar
Ringle, CM, Wende, S, Becker, JM. SmartPLS 4. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS; 2024. Accessed November 23, 2024. https://www.smartpls.com.Google Scholar
Yuan, KH, Bentler, PM. Structural equation modeling. In: Rao, CR, Sinharay, S, eds. Handbook of Statistics. Vol 26. Elsevier; 2006:297–358.Google Scholar
Hair, JF Jr, Hult, GTM, Ringle, CM, et al. An introduction to structural equation modeling. In: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Springer; 2021:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarstedt, M, Hair, JF, Ringle, CM, et al. Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies! J Bus Res. 2016;69(10):3998–4010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dash, G, Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;173:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afthanorhan, WMABW. A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. Int J Eng Sci Innov Technol. 2013;2(5):198–205.Google Scholar
Ali, F, Kim, WG, Li, J, Cobanoglu, C. A comparative study of covariance and partial least squares-based structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2018;30(1):416–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, MF, Dawson, JF, Kline, RB. Evaluating the use of covariance-based structural equation modeling with reflective measurement in organizational and management research: a review and recommendations for best practice. Br J Manag. 2021;32(2):257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, HW, Morin, AJ, Parker, PD, et al. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiber, JB, Nora, A, Stage, FK, et al. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99(6):323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birren, JE. Encyclopedia of Gerontology. 2nd ed. Academic Press; 2007.Google Scholar
Pandit, S, Wasley, CE, Zach, T. The effect of research and development (R&D) inputs and outputs on the relation between the uncertainty of future operating performance and R&D expenditures. J Account Audit Finance. 2011;26(1):121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanecek, J. The effect of performance-based research funding on output of R&D results in the Czech Republic. Scientometrics. 2014;98:657–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diéguez-Soto, J, Duréndez, A, García-Pérez-de-Lema, D, et al. Technological, management, and persistent innovation in small and medium family firms: the influence of professionalism. Can J Adm Sci. 2016;33(4):332–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, AK, Raj, SP, Wilemon, D. A model for studying R&D–marketing interface in the product innovation process. J Mark. 1986;50(2):7–17.Google Scholar
Oxley, JE, Sampson, RC. The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strateg Manag J. 2004;25(8-9):723–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audretsch, D, Vivarelli, M. Small firms and R&D spillovers: evidence from Italy. Rev Écon Ind. 1994;67(1):225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teirlinck, P, Khoshnevis, P. Within-cluster determinants of output efficiency of R&D in the space industry. Omega. 2020;94:102039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Zedtwitz, M, Gassmann, O. Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development. Res Policy. 2002;31(4):569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malecki, EJ, Bradbury, SL. R&D facilities and professional labour: labour force dynamics in high technology. Reg Stud. 1992;26(2):123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parboteeah, KP, Hoegl, M, Styborski, R. How effective are professional development activities for R&D engineers? J High Technol Manag Res. 2005;16(1):23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, PA Jr, Ransley, DL, Prestwood, DC. Measuring R&D performance. Res Technol Manag. 1995;38(3):45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baek, SC, Lee, DH. Role of professional autonomy and project commitment in the Korean government–funded R&D projects. Sci Public Policy. 2022;49(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, KP, Chou, C. The impact of open innovation on firm performance: the moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation. 2013;33(10-11):368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillai, AS, Joshi, A, Rao, KS. Performance measurement of R&D projects in a multi-project, concurrent engineering environment. Int J Proj Manag. 2002;20(2):165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar