A Survey on Emergency Preparedness of EU Citizens

Population preparedness plays a crucial role in disaster management since it can help reduce the number of victims and restrict damage. Nevertheless, little work has been done at a European level towards preparing populations to learn how to cope with disasters and involving them in the disaster management process. In this paper we present the preliminary results of an on-line emergency preparedness survey circulated among EU citizens, which aims to identify and analyse people‟s behaviour in terms of preparedness, first reaction, risk awareness and willingness to engage in preparedness actions. Our preliminary analysis, based on over 1200 participants, indicates that although EU populations have a high capability for participation in emergency response, their preparedness level is low. We also found that national differences are a significant factor affecting individual preparedness behaviour and awareness of risks

Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws

© 2010 Martin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy[1]. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. Methods: We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. Results: Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. Conclusion: These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.Peer reviewe

Haiti Earthquake January 2010: What Actions and Policies Can the Government of Haiti Implement to Improve Emergency Management Response

In 2010, Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake that destroyed much of its capital city and the governmental offices that should have guided the response to the disaster. This research focuses on how Haiti can benefit from the Caribbean Disaster Management Agency’s standards for disaster resilience as it works to recover from the earthquake. Unfortunately, Haiti has long been dependent on assistance from non-governmental organizations due to its extreme poverty; its recovery is complicated by the need to integrate disaster assistance and on-going economic and social assistance into its development of a more resilient society

Training of Crisis Mappers and Map Production from Multi-sensor Data: Vernazza Case Study (Cinque Terre National Park, Italy)

This aim of paper is to presents the development of a multidisciplinary project carried out by the cooperation between Politecnico di Torino and ITHACA (Information Technology for Humanitarian Assistance, Cooperation and Action). The goal of the project was the training in geospatial data acquiring and processing for students attending Architecture and Engineering Courses, in order to start up a team of "volunteer mappers". Indeed, the project is aimed to document the environmental and built heritage subject to disaster; the purpose is to improve the capabilities of the actors involved in the activities connected in geospatial data collection, integration and sharing. The proposed area for testing the training activities is the Cinque Terre National Park, registered in the World Heritage List since 1997. The area was affected by flood on the 25th of October 2011. According to other international experiences, the group is expected to be active after emergencies in order to upgrade maps, using data acquired by typical geomatic methods and techniques such as terrestrial and aerial Lidar, close-range and aerial photogrammetry, topographic and GNSS instruments etc.; or by non conventional systems and instruments such us UAV, mobile mapping etc. The ultimate goal is to implement a WebGIS platform to share all the data collected with local authorities and the Civil Protectio

Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Rome, Italy

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during the third Citizen Summit held in Rome/Italy on June 7th 2017. As the previous two Citizen Summits held in Romania and Malta, this Citizen Summit was designed as a one-day event combining public information with feedback gathering through different methods of data collection. In the morning session, 42 questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and collected via an audience response system. In the afternoon session, small moderated group discussions of approximately 1.5 hours duration were held, which followed a detailed set of questions and discussion guidelines, including a short association exercise. All questions and discussions aimed to explore cultural factors in citizens’ attitudes, feelings, and perceptions towards disaster risks, as well as their identification in relation to disaster preparation, response, and recovery. In coordination with the Work Package 11 briefs, the definition and design of the questions was based on: 1) Results from Citizen Summits 1 and 2, complementing in particular the data related to risk perception with the aim to build up a comprehensive base for cultural comparison across all six summits; 2) Results from Stakeholder Assemblies 1 and 2, in particular regarding the identification of non-professional (“cultural”) leaders in disaster situations, motivators for improving disaster preparedness, and the role of trust/distrust; 3) Results from Work Package 3, aiming to complement and increase knowledge about citizens’ uptake of mobile phone apps and interest in usage of different features, also in contrast to social media use; 4) Results from Work Package 4, in particular regarding recent research findings in the relationships between perceived disaster preparedness and actual disaster preparedness, and in the ambivalent relationships between trust in authorities and citizens’ personal preparedness; 5) Results from Work Package 7, aiming to complement the research regarding citizen empowerment by exploring trust as a bi-directional relationship between citizens and disaster managers; and 6) Results from Work Package 8, taking into account the role of media in all phases of disaster management. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed please see Appendix A. Overall, 105 citizens participated in the Italy event. The total sample shows a relatively even gender and age distribution, which is unsurprising given the target quotas that were requested from the recruiting local market research agency. The slightly lower number of senior citizens aged 65 and above was expected and reflects mobility issues. Participants were asked about three key aspects of experience of disasters and disaster risk perception that could potentially have an impact on how other questions were answered. Almost three out of four respondents (72.1%) indicated that they, or a close friend or family member, have experienced a disaster, but only one out of eight (12.6%) felt that they are currently living in an area that is specifically prone to disasters, and 26.7% answered that they know other people in the area where they live who they think are particularly vulnerable or exposed to disasters. Female respondents felt more often than male respondents that they live in a disaster area; other slight gender differences (as well as age-related differences) were found to be not statistically significant (p>=.05). This report presents the results of the third CARISMAND Citizen Summit and is structured in five main sections: After this introduction, the second section will provide an overview of the different methods applied. The third section, based on the quantitative data collected via the audience response system, presents the results from questions on general disaster risk perceptions, disaster preparedness, behaviours in disaster situations with a particular focus on the use of mobile phone apps and social media, and trust between citizens and different authorities including trust in different social media sources. In the fourth section, based on the qualitative data collected in the ten discussion groups, the analyses will take up the topics introduced in the previous section, focussing first on the role of citizens’ trust in different entities, in particular towards different authorities, “non-professional” leaders, and the media. Furthermore, this section will report on the participating citizens’ attitudes towards improving their disaster preparedness through different measures. In all topics, the analyses seek to identify different cultural aspects which may play a role in an improved disaster preparedness and response. The final section compares and contrasts the results from sections 3 and 4, draws some tentative conclusions, and identifies topics and issues that should feed into the last round of events in 2018, i.e. the 3rd Stakeholder Assembly, as well as the 5th and 6th Citizen Summits.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

UK emergency preparedness - prepared for what?

We live in a world of increasing risk. Social and global processes continually construct new kinds of risk. Managing risk is an increasingly important function of government and in the UK has risen up the political agenda in recent years. There is evidence that the recent reform of the UK system of civil protection has been strongly influenced by the terrorist threat. Similar patterns can be seen in Europe and North America. The broader agenda of societal resilience and preparedness has been overshadowed by a security agenda. There is a danger that too great a focus on one form of threat can divert attention from the broader range of threats that we face in the future. This paper posits that preparedness should not be confined to institutional capacity but should include the wider public. There is a danger that neglecting the public will only serve to widen the gulf between state and citizen and weaken resilience