2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106363
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of flood adaptive capacity of urban areas in Thailand

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test whether the construct validity of each factor variable in the model was real according to the empirical evidence of theories and concepts. Statistical consistency was determined with x 2 , relative x 2 (x 2 /df) , goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Byrne, 2016a, Na-Nan andSanamthong, 2019;Thanvisitthpon et al, 2020). Table 1 presents construct validity values by showing standardised factor loading in each item or observable variable with large factor loading (> 0.50) and significance value at p < 0.01 (all t-values were more than 3).…”
Section: Measurement Validity and Reliabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test whether the construct validity of each factor variable in the model was real according to the empirical evidence of theories and concepts. Statistical consistency was determined with x 2 , relative x 2 (x 2 /df) , goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Byrne, 2016a, Na-Nan andSanamthong, 2019;Thanvisitthpon et al, 2020). Table 1 presents construct validity values by showing standardised factor loading in each item or observable variable with large factor loading (> 0.50) and significance value at p < 0.01 (all t-values were more than 3).…”
Section: Measurement Validity and Reliabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In data collection, respondents were asked by homestay operators for their views on the importance of different updated indicators for the success of homestays, based on a 5-point Likert scale where 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, denote unimportant, of little importance, moderately important, important, and very important. According to Bayraktar, Tatoglu [24]; Na-nan, Chaiprasit [25]; Ismail Salaheldin [26]; Thanvisitthpon, Shrestha [27], a measure scale could be used with self-assessment questions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Understanding the fundamental causes or drivers of vulnerability, as well as people's capacity to cope with and recover from disasters, are all part of assessing the built environment's susceptibility to flood risks. Vulnerability is usually limited to the susceptibility of structures and infrastructure being damaged (i.e., physical vulnerability) (Thanvisitthpon et al, 2020). In the present context of physical vulnerability in the study area, the building height is one prime consideration due to flood inundation level and damage to the properties and assets.…”
Section: Vulnerability and Geodatabase Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Physical or structural vulnerability is a function of the relative location of the population, location of the built environment with respect to the hazard (in this case, flood). Vulnerability is typically confined to the likelihood of structures and infrastructure being damaged (i.e., physical vulnerability) (Thanvisitthpon et al, 2020). Indicators that can be typically considered in the context of physical vulnerability are found to be associated with the type of roof, structural design, type of structure, built-up density, height of building, building materials and type of construction, age of building, rate of urbanization, etc.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%