Abstract
Over the last few decades, the concept of resilience has received a great deal of attention in urban contexts. Universities are a hub of learning in the urban system, with diverse stakeholders facing various risks. As a result, to mitigate the adverse effects of any calamity, it is in the university's best interest to embed resilience components. There are still few studies on campus that address the concept of resilience. As a result, the purpose of this descriptive-analytical study is to create a practical framework for examining factors that specifically impact the physical characteristics of campus resilience, with the University of Malaya as a case study. The physical dimension measurement tools are developed through a systematic review of the literature and validated through expert interviews. The AHP method is used to weight 12 indicators to assess U.M. resiliency through four different buildings. According to the findings, each building has a different level of resilience index ranging from 0.30 to 0.80, and building characteristics play a critical role in U.M. resiliency. As a result, the final index reveals that U.M. has a moderate level of resilience.
Highlights
Since the 1960s, urban planning and management have made considerable strides in their consideration of resiliency (Sharifi & Yamagata 2016, 5)
For the benefit of the university's stakeholders, notably students' wellbeing and pleasure, it is critical to strengthen the educational system's capacity to adapt to and prepare for such enemies (Weerasinghe et al, 2018; Putri et al 2017). This can be accomplished by keeping the land and buildings in good shape, improving infrastructure and facilities, and identifying sensitive areas in order to use disaster recovery models in the lowest amount of time. According to such unique characteristics of each university, we examine U.M. campus resiliency as a case study in the Southwest area of Kuala Lumpur with long-term investing in its location
The following questions will be addressed by this research: 1) What effect do physical components have on-campus resilience performance? 2) What elements have a beneficial impact on campus resilience in dealing with potential risks? 3) What is the current state of U.M. resiliency in terms of physical dimensions?
Summary
Since the 1960s, urban planning and management have made considerable strides in their consideration of resiliency (Sharifi & Yamagata 2016, 5). For the benefit of the university's stakeholders, notably students' wellbeing and pleasure, it is critical to strengthen the educational system's capacity to adapt to and prepare for such enemies (Weerasinghe et al, 2018; Putri et al 2017) This can be accomplished by keeping the land and buildings in good shape, improving infrastructure and facilities, and identifying sensitive areas in order to use disaster recovery models in the lowest amount of time. According to such unique characteristics of each university, we examine U.M. campus resiliency as a case study in the Southwest area of Kuala Lumpur with long-term investing in its location. It is argued that the resilience concept is a new analytical dimension in disaster vocabulary, there is still no unified definition among literature (Bujones et al 2013) in this respect; Timmerman (1981) was probably the first one that interpreted the concept of resilience in natural hazards
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
