How Mobile Devices are Transforming Disaster Relief and Public Safety

With its growing usage, mobile technology is greatly improving disaster relief and public safety efforts. Countries around the world face threats from natural disasters, climate change, civil unrest, terrorist attacks, and criminal activities, among others. Mobile devices, tablets, and smart phones enable emergency providers and the general public to manage these challenges and mitigate public safety concerns.In this paper, part of the Brookings Mobile Economy Project, we focus on how mobile technology provides an early warning system, aids in emergency coordination, and improves public communications. In particular, we review how mobile devices assist with public safety, disaster planning, and crisis response. We explain how these devices are instrumental in the design and functioning of integrated, multi-layered communications networks. We demonstrate how they have helped save lives and ameliorate human suffering throughout the world

Culture and disaster risk management - stakeholder attitudes during Stakeholder Assembly in Lisbon, Portugal

This report provides a summary of the topics discussed and the results of the third CARISMAND Stakeholder Assembly conducted in Lisbon, Portugal on 27-28 February 2018. In order to promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer and gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions, as in the first and second CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in Romania and Italy in the previous years, the audience consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection, the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection, Red Cross, firefighters, military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in Portugal, including the island of Madeira. The 40 participants were recruited via invitations sent to various Portuguese organisations and institutions, and via direct contacts of the Civil Protection Department in Lisbon which is one of the partners in the CARISMAND consortium. The event consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for the detailed schedule/programme see Appendix 1). Furthermore, this third Stakeholder Assembly was organised and specifically designed to discuss and collect feedback on a comprehensive set of recommendations for disaster practitioners, which will form one of the core elements of the CARISMAND Work Package 9 ‘Toolkit’. These recommendations, which have all been formulated on the basis of Work Packages 2-10 results, were structured in four, main “sets”: 1. Approaches to ethnicity in disaster management; 2. Culturally aware disaster-related training activities; 3. Cultural factors in disaster communication, with the sub-sets: a. Cultural values and emotions; (cross-)cultural symbols; “physical” aides and methods; b. Involvement of cultural leaders; involvement of specific groups; usage of social media and mobile phone apps; and 4. Improving trust, improving disaster management. In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts, including the concept of culture adopted by CARISMAND, and the planned CARISMAND Toolkit architecture and functionalities. These were followed by a detailed presentation of the first of the above mentioned sets of recommendations for practitioners. Then, participants of the Stakeholder Assembly were split into small groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback to the presented recommendations. Over the course of the 2-day event, this procedure was followed for all four sets of recommendations. To follow the cyclical design of CARISMAND events, and wherever meaningful and possible, the respective Toolkit recommendations for practitioners provided also the basis for a respective “shadow” recommendation for citizens which will be discussed accordingly in the last round of CARISMAND Citizen Summits (Citizen Summit 5 in Lisbon, and Citizen Summit 6 in Utrecht) in 2018. The location of the Third Stakeholder Assembly was selected to make use of the extensive local professional network of the Civil Protection Department in Lisbon, but also due to Portugal being a traditional “melting pot” where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and local/ethnical origins (in particular Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived both alongside and together. All documents related to the Working Groups, i.e. discussion guidelines and consent forms, were translated into Portuguese. Accordingly, all presentations, as well as the group discussions were held in Portuguese, aiming to avoid any language/education-related access restrictions, and allowing participating practitioners to respond intuitively and discuss freely in their native language. For this purpose, simultaneous interpreters and professional local moderators were contracted via a local market research agency (EquaçãoLógica), which also provided the basic data analysis of all Working Group discussions and an independent qualitative evaluation of all recommendations presented in the event. The results of this analysis and evaluation will demonstrate that most recommendations were seen by the participating practitioners to be relevant and useful. In particular, those recommendations related to the use of cultural symbols and the potential of mobile phone apps and/or social media were perceived as stimulating and thought-provoking. Some recommendations were felt to be less relevant in the specific Portuguese context, but accepted as useful in other locations; a very small number was perceived to be better addressed to policy makers rather than practitioners. These and all other suggestions for improvement of the presented CARISMAND Toolkit recommendations for practitioners have been taken up and will be outlined in the final chapter of this report.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Lisbon, Portugal

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during the fifth Citizen Summit held in Lisbon, Portugal on April 14th 2018. Like the previous four Citizen Summits held in Romania, Malta, Italy and Germany, 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, the event started with a presentation of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts, and the planned CARISMAND Toolkit functionalities. Then, overall 27 questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and responses collected via an audience response system. As in the previous Citizen Summits, all questions in this part of the event aimed to explore citizens’ attitudes, perceptions and intended behaviours related to disaster risks. Comparing and contrasting the respective results of all six Citizen Summits in the final synthesised analysis will aim to provide additional insight into cultural factors that may affect disaster-related preparedness and response. Between these questions, additional presentations where held that informed the audience about state-of-the-art disaster preparedness and response topics (e.g., large-scale disaster scenario exercises, use of social media, and mobile phone apps). Furthermore, this last round of Citizen Summits was organised and specifically designed to discuss and collect feedback on recommendations for citizens, which have all been formulated on the basis of Work Packages 2-8 results and in coordination with the Work Package 11 brief. These Toolkit recommendations are envisaged to form one of the core elements of the Work Package 9 CARISMAND Toolkit. Additionally, following the cyclical design of CARISMAND events (and wherever meaningful and possible), they “mirror” the respective recommendations for practitioners, which were discussed in the last (third) CARISMAND Stakeholder Assembly held in Lisbon in February 2018, and they are structured in two, main “sets”: A. Developing a personal “culture of preparedness” B. Taking part in disaster preparedness and response activities. These two sets of recommendations were also presented in detail during the morning session to the participating citizens. In the afternoon session, small moderated group discussions of approximately 2 hours duration were held, which aimed to gather the citizens’ direct feedback on the two sets of Toolkit recommendations presented in the morning, following a detailed discussion guideline. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed please see Appendix A. Overall, 102 citizens participated in the Portugal 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 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. More than nine out of ten respondents (92.8%) indicated that they, or a close friend or family member, have experienced a disaster, more than half (56.7%) felt that they are currently living in an area that is specifically prone to disasters, and 57.8% answered that they know other people in the area where they live who they think are particularly vulnerable or exposed to disasters. Slight gender and age-related differences in the responses to these questions were found to be not statistically significant (p>=.05). The rest of this report presents the results of the fifth 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, and behaviours in disaster situations with a particular focus on the use of mobile phone apps and social media. In the fourth section, based on the qualitative data collected in the ten discussion groups, the analyses will provide detailed insight into the participants’ feedback on the two sets of recommendations for citizens presented in the morning session. The final section compares and contrasts the results from sections 3 and 4, draws conclusions, and presents proposed changes and amendments to the Work Package 9 Toolkit recommendations based on the participating citizens’ suggestions.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

Comparing Mutuality and Solidarity in Its Application to Disaster Ethics

Often it has been observed that in disaster situations, people (including victims) become altruistic and are very willing to listen, obey and act in a manner that would help bring an end to the situation. In this chapter, linking disaster ethics and human rights, it is argued that this indeed is how it should be, disaster or otherwise, and that we have moral duties to oneself and to others. An individual exhibiting solidarity, comradery and altruism during a disaster is indeed behaving as a reasonable Self, and exercising ethical individualism as per Gewirthian philosophy. It is the duty of the State and society to act as a supportive State and a caring society. In order to do this, we need to be conditioned for ethical rationality before any whiff of disaster arises, i.e. in our day-to-day conduct and decision-making, at a personal, institutional and transnational level. Our ethical resilience during disasters can only be as robust as our rational moral compass during ‘peace-time’. This chapter argues that Gewirthian solidarity ethics (GSE) should play a role in European policy and action in order to provide a system that conditions ethical rationality and in order to fulfil human rights. This involves addressing our current understanding of human rights as distinct categories of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and to effect a shift towards a more holistic understanding of human rights, whereby the hierarchy of fulfilment does not always prioritise civil and political rights.Peer reviewe

Disaster Management Education through Higher Education – Industry Collaboration in the Built Environment

Effectively responding to the current and dynamic construction labour market requirements is a major responsibility of higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs aim to reduce the mismatch between what they deliver and what is required by the industry. Built environment professionals require continuous update of knowledge and education in order to effectively contribute to disaster management. However, the complex and multidisciplinary nature of disaster management education pose a challenge to the higher education institutions to make them more responsive to the industrial needs and to prepare the students for careers in disaster resilience. Adopting a lifelong learning approach would be appropriate for HEIs to maintain a through-life studentship and to provide disaster related knowledge and education on a continuous basis to respond to the labour market requirements. However, incorporating lifelong learning approach within the system of higher education is not easy and straightforward for HEIs. This is mainly because of the formal and bureaucratic nature of HEIs that acts as a barrier for providing effective lifelong learning education. In resolving this issue, HEIs are increasingly relying on the benefits associated with fostering close collaboration with external organisations such as industries, professional bodies and communities. In this context, this paper discusses the role of HEIs in providing disaster management education, the challenges associated with it, and the way of addressing the challenges through the higher education industry collaboration

International migration and new mobility trends

World migration community covers 3 per cent of the world population, in Europe it is around 7 per cent and 4 per cent in the Czech Republic. Europe is an important target for migration stimulated by the work offer but also by wars and natural disasters. In Western Europe at the end of the 20th century there were 20 millions of foreign migrants and also probably 3–5 million illegal migrants. Recently, we have faced new trends in international mobility which are different from traditional migration flows. They include mobility of multinational firms employees, mobility of students, pensioners but also mobility of professionals. Specific area under study is foreign migration or mobility of scientists and researchers. There is another phenomena connected with the development of modern technologies which stimulates the mobility in virtual space. Virtual mobility is another form of mobility which is using virtual space for communication, study, work and other aspects of life. The aim of this paper is to introduce the main trends in international migration including the traditional ones but stressing the new types of international mobility. The focus will be on the current situation in the Czech Republic related to migration.migration, international mobility, high skilled professionals, brain drain, virtual mobility

Culture and disaster risk management - synthesis of citizens’ reactions and opinions during 6 Citizen Summits : Romania, Malta, Italy, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during six Citizen Summits held in A) Romania (Bucharest) on July 9th, 2016 B) Malta on July 16th, 2016 C) Italy (Rome) on June 17th, 2017 D) Germany (Frankfurt) on June 24th, 2017 E) Portugal (Lisbon) April 14th, 2018 F) The Netherlands (Utrecht)on May 12th, 2018. All Citizen Summits were designed as one-day events combining public information with feedback gathering through different methods of data collection, as laid out in Deliverable D5.1 (Structural design & methodology for Citizen Summits). A total of 619 citizens participated in the six events. In the morning session, the Citizen Summits started with a presentation of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts. Then, several sets of questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and responses collected via an audience response system. All questions in this part of the event aimed to explore citizens’ attitudes, perceptions, and intended behaviours related to disasters and disaster risks. Between these sets of questions, additional presentations were held that informed the audience about state-of-the-art disaster preparedness and response topics (e.g., large-scale disaster scenario exercises, use of social media and mobile phone apps), as well as CARISMAND research findings. Furthermore, the last round of Citizen Summits (CS5 in Lisbon and CS6 in Utrecht) were organised and designed to additionally discuss and collect feedback on recommendations for citizens, which have all been formulated on the basis of Work Packages 2-10 results and in coordination with the Work Package 11 brief. These Toolkit recommendations will form one of the core elements of the Work Package 9 CARISMAND Toolkit. In the afternoon session of each event, small moderated group discussions (with 8-12 participants each) of approximately 2 hours’ duration were held, which aimed to gather citizens’ direct feedback on the topics presented in the morning sessions, following a detailed discussion guideline. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed, please see Appendices A-1 to A-3. The rest of this report is structured in six main sections: After the executive summary and this introduction, the third section will present an overview of the different methods applied. The fourth section will provide a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data collected during all Citizen Summits. The fifth section will present the evaluation of CARISMAND Toolkit recommendations for citizens, followed by a final concluding chapter.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe