Abstract
This paper aimed to statistically analyze the impact of fire needs not considered in previous reports based on preventive and preparedness strategies of fire administration and fire budget.. The panel data came from 16 metropolitan councils from 2008 to 2018 and was statistically analyzed based on the preventive measures of the fire administration (agreement for building permission, specific target for fire-fighting, public use facilities, and special fire inspection [SFI]), preparedness of the fire administration (fire safety education [FSE]), response of the fire administration (mobilization for fire suppression [MFS] and mobilization for ambulance service [MAS]), and fire budget. In the results, SFI, FSE, and MFS had a significant negative influence on the fire budget. Meanwhile, MAS had a significant positive effect on the fire budget (p < 0.01). These results reflect public policy in Korea; there has been a paradigm shift in fire administration: from disaster acceptance (focusing on recovery) to disaster response (focusing on field response) to disaster preparedness (focusing on preparedness).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
