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

Selection of systems to perform extravehicular activities, man and manipulator. Volume 2 - Final report

Technologies for EVA and remote manipulation systems - handbook for systems designer

Arctic Standards: Recommendations on Oil Spill Prevention, Response, and Safety in the U.S. Arctic Ocean

Oil spilled in Arctic waters would be particularly difficult to remove. Current technology has not been proved to effectively clean up oil when mixed with ice or when trapped under ice. An oil spill would have a profoundly adverse impact on the rich and complex ecosystem found nowhere else in the United States. The Arctic Ocean is home to bowhead, beluga, and gray whales; walruses; polar bears; and other magnificent marine mammals, as well as millions of migratory birds. A healthy ocean is important for these species and integral to the continuation of hunting and fishing traditions practiced by Alaska Native communities for thousands of years.To aid the United States in its efforts to modernize Arctic technology and equipment standards, this report examines the fierce Arctic conditions in which offshore oil and gas operations could take place and then offers a summary of key recommendations for the Interior Department to consider as it develops world-class, Arctic-specific regulatory standards for these activities. Pew's recommendations call for improved technology,equipment, and procedural requirements that match the challenging conditions in the Arctic and for full public participation and transparency throughout the decision-making process. Pew is not opposed to offshore drilling, but a balance must be achieved between responsible energy development and protection of the environment.It is essential that appropriate standards be in place for safety and for oil spill prevention and response in this extreme, remote, and vulnerable ecosystem. This report recommends updating regulations to include Arctic specific requirements and codifying temporary guidance into regulation. The appendixes to this report provide substantially more detail on the report's recommendations, including technical background documentation and additional referenced materials. Please refer to the full set of appendixes for a complete set of recommendations. This report and its appendixes offer guidelines for responsible hydrocarbon development in the U.S. Arctic Ocean

Factors affecting the process of taking action at individual level regarding mitigation and preparedness for an earthquake in Istanbul

In order for disaster management to be effective and successful, efforts to improve preparedness at governmental, sectoral and institutional levels should be supported by corresponding efforts at community and individual levels. However, getting the cooperation of individuals and communities is a complex issue with many inherent difficulties. The megacity Istanbul is located in an earthquake risk zone and is expected to experience an earthquake in the near future, but on the individual level there appears to be limited interest in preparing for such an earthquake. This study aims to investigate the process of taking action to prepare for an earthquake and mitigate its effects at individual level, to identify the factors influencing this process and to asses the level of preparedness in Istanbul. The study was conducted in two districts of Istanbul with different levels of earthquake risk. Within these districts three socioeconomic levels (SEL) were considered. The study is in two parts. In the first part, 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) with citizens living in Bakırköy (higher risk) and Beykoz (lower risk) and 11 in-depth interviews with experts, authorities and key informants were conducted. In the second part, a field survey was carried out in the same districts. A questionnaire was prepared according to the results of the first part of the study and was administered face-to-face by trained interviewers. A total of 1123 people were interviewed. The qualitative part of the study demonstrated that, within our conceptual framework, which describes the process of taking action to prepare for an earthquake and mitigate its effects, the behaviour of the group participants fell into three different patterns. The first and most common pattern was interruption of the impetus towards taking action after or during the “awareness” stage by intervening social, personal and environmental factors. Less commonly, the first or subsequent step or steps were taken, but again the process was interrupted before successful completion. Completion of the process was the least common pattern among the group participants. The qualitative part of the study identified the obstacle to taking action to mitigate damage from earthquakes and to be prepared for them as: low socioeconomic level; absence of belief in the efficacy of measures, for example regarding nonstructural or microscale-measures; helplessness; a culture of negligence; lack of trust in the building sector; environmental factors such as poor predictability and suddenness of onset; and normalisation bias. Factors motivating individuals to take action were: living in higher-risk areas; a higher educational level; direct experience of earthquakes through participating in rescue and solidarity activities during past events; and social interaction. In our survey sample, 54% of the respondents had taken at least 3 of the 11 measures we asked about and 12% had not taken any measures. The five leading measures generally taken by the respondents were: getting the building tested for construction quality (51%), keeping a torch near the bed (49%), fixing high furniture to walls (39%), obtaining earthquake insurance (38%) and having a family disaster plan (32%). Testing the building for construction quality and obtaining earthquake insurance were significantly more frequent in the high-risk area (X2: 296.6, p<0.001; X2: 89.34, p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that education level of the respondents (odds ratio, OR: 2.8, confidence interval, CI: 1.8, 4.4) was the leading factor associated with taking at least three measures, followed by living in a higher-risk area (OR: 2.3, CI: 1.6, 3.1), participating in rescue and solidarity activities in past earthquakes (OR: 2.0, CI: 1.2, 2.1), a higher earthquake knowledge score (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.4, 2.6), owning the home (OR: 1.8, CI: 1.3, 2.4), living in a neighbourhood known to be inhabited by people with higher SELs (OR: 1.6, CI: 1.1, 2.3), a higher action-stimulating attitudes score (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.2, 2.1) and general safety score (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.1, 2.2) and being in the young age group (16-34 years olds, OR: 0.6, CI: 0.4, 0.99). It is not easy to change the situation of individuals regarding the factors that are significantly associated with taking action. They need interventions in the political, social and economic systems. But knowledge about earthquakes is the one factor that could be improved through simpler interventions such as effective awareness programmes. Thus every effort should be made effectively to provide earthquake information to the public. Awareness programmes should focus on informing people about how to cope with earthquakes and how to personalise the risk rather than on information about the risk itself and its consequences. In addition, these programmes should involve activities targeted on changing people’s attitudes towards different types of measure, actors in disaster management and their own capacity, and to creating a culture of safety in the public. The target populations in the awareness programmes should be people with a lower educational level living in all areas, tenants, people living in low socioeconomic districts and young people. People who have participated in rescue and solidarity activities could be given appropriate roles and responsibilities to reach the community and local people

Safety in Industrial and Occupational Settings

Safety procedures and standards in the workplace have adapted to encompass a large variety of different hazards and threats in the workplace. Psychological and physical hazards are sometimes difficult to detect but are essential to understanding and researching different protective methods for limiting bodily harm to an individual. Federal and state agencies have been established for the purpose of creating, testing, and regulating the new safety standards as well as revising old measure as new technology and research arise that provide better results. The main categories that are at high risk for causing harm are chemical, biological, fire, air quality, confined space, and fall hazards. Agencies develop standards for practices and equipment that are to be utilized in certain situations. The standards created are for preventing, containing, and managing hazards before and after they cause an accident. Employers and personnel are to be trained in dealing with these potential threats so as to not endanger the public or increase the risk to themselves