Barriers to Mitigation: A Pilot Study

This pilot research was undertaken to discover barriers that prevent homeowners from mitigating earthquake hazards in their homes. There is a relatively significant body of literature on disaster mitigation, which is reviewed and summarized in this report. However, no studies address how these barriers may be overcome so that homeowners would be more proactive in mitigation. If the barriers can be identified, then future communications and policy actions that address these barriers can be taken, resulting in more widespread mitigation implementation that reduces the injury and damage potential that communities face, leading to a reduction in the post-disaster response requirement, and the time required to achieve recovery. Data came from an online survey of San José State University employees; the survey took approximately 15 minutes for respondents to complete. Questions addressed home characteristics, demographic characteristics, perceptions of earthquake risk, levels of mitigation, past experience with earthquake injury or damage, social influences on hazard and damage prevention, and reactions to various incentives. Statistical analyses were done using SPSS version 16.0. Of the total 331 respondents, 215 were homeowners and consequently used for data analysis. Of these homeowners, 79 % owned single-family homes. The sample overwhelmingly expects a major earthquake to occur within the next 10 years, and most expect to suffer earthquake-caused injuries and damage within their homes in the near future. The findings indicate the importance of earthquake expectations and the social network for influencing mitigation. Physical proximity to others who experienced earthquake damage and relational closeness to those who have taken mitigation actions were found to have a positive effect on mitigation implementation by individuals. Homeowners assumed responsibility for mitigation, and cost is generally not a concern. The most prevalent obstacles to mitigation were the feeling that the mitigation is not necessary or that it is inconvenient. Home structures and systems mitigation is far more commonplace than home contents mitigation. Mitigation of home contents was perceived as not being very important, and this perception prevents individuals from taking mitigation actions. All incentive types that were presented to respondents, which were primarily financial in nature, were reported as likely to increase mitigation. Providing advice and information was also reported to likely result in higher levels of mitigation. The development of mitigation approaches that are low-cost and simple is expected to have a positive effect on mitigation actions. In addition, codes were found to be effective at prompting mitigation – most respondents had mitigated for items that have code requirements. One outcome of this is that mitigation of structures is more widely reported than mitigation of home contents. More research is needed to explore non-financial incentives for mitigation, including incentives provided by personal relationships and how social relationships may be leveraged. There is also a need to explore whether different types of incentives (such as free labor or education) would be more or less effective at prompting particular mitigation actions (such as securing the foundation or strapping down appliances). It would be helpful to take a “bottom up” approach by conducting focus groups on these topics. Demographic effects on mitigation and barriers to mitigation also need to be explored further. There were suggestions that demography mattered, but the sample size for this survey was not sufficiently large to draw statistically valid conclusions. There is also a need to revise the survey instrument to remove some ambiguities and inadequacies that currently exist. It would be useful to explore why persons might have taken particular mitigation actions and how social networks affect their mitigation action, among other things. Heightened perceptions of earthquake threats, experience with earthquake injuries and damage, and social relationships are critical predictors of mitigation. Individuals who know others who have mitigated are more likely to mitigate; therefore improved communications, on the personal level, on the topic of mitigation can be effective. Given the perceptions of mitigating home contents, the public also needs to be made more aware of the threats posed by home contents during an earthquake

Third Revolution Digital Technology in Disaster Early Warning

Networking societies with electronic based technologies can change social morphology, where key social structures and activities are organized around electronically processed information networks. The application of information and communications technologies (ICT) has been shown to have a positive impact across the emergency or disaster lifecycle. For example, utility of mobile, internet and social network technology, commercial and amateur radio networks, television and video networks and open access technologies for processing data and distributing information can be highlighted. Early warning is the key function during an emergency. Early warning system is an interrelated set of hazard warning, risk assessment, communication and preparedness activities that enable individuals, communities, businesses and others to take timely action to reduce their risks. Third revolution digital technology with semantic features such as standard protocols can facilitate standard data exchange therefore proactive decision making. As a result, people belong to any given hierarchy can access the information simultaneously and make decisions on their own challenging the traditional power relations. Within this context, this paper attempts to explore the use of third revolution digital technology for improving early warning

Policy into practice: Adoption of hazard mitigation measures by local government in Queensland:A collaborative research project between Queensland University of Technology and Emergency Management Queensland in association with Local Government of Queensland Disaster Management Alliance

The focus of the present research was to investigate how Local Governments in Queensland were progressing with the adoption of delineated DM policies and supporting guidelines. The study consulted Local Government representatives and hence, the results reflect their views on these issues. Is adoption occurring? To what degree? Are policies and guidelines being effectively implemented so that the objective of a safer, more resilient community is being achieved? If not, what are the current barriers to achieving this, and can recommendations be made to overcome these barriers? These questions defined the basis on which the present study was designed and the survey tools developed.\ud \ud While it was recognised that LGAQ and Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) may have differing views on some reported issues, it was beyond the scope of the present study to canvass those views.\ud \ud The study resolved to document and analyse these questions under the broad themes of: \ud \ud • Building community capacity (notably via community awareness).\ud • Council operationalisation of DM. \ud • Regional partnerships (in mitigation/adaptation).\ud \ud Data was collected via a survey tool comprising two components: \ud \ud • An online questionnaire survey distributed via the LGAQ Disaster Management Alliance (hereafter referred to as the “Alliance”) to DM sections of all Queensland Local Government Councils; and\ud • a series of focus groups with selected Queensland Councils\u

Climate change and disaster impact reduction

Based on papers presented at the 'UK - South Asia Young Scientists and Practitioners Seminar on Climate Change and Disaster Impact Reduction' held at Kathmandu, Nepal on 5-6 June, 2008

Spatial modelling of adaptation strategies for urban built infrastructures exposed to flood hazards

The recent 2010/2011 floods in the central and southern Queensland (Australia) prompted this research to investigate the application of geographical information system (GIS) and remote sensing in modelling the current flood risk, adaptation/coping capacity, and adaptation strategies. Identified Brisbane City as the study area, the study aimed to develop a new approach of formulating adaptation/coping strategies that will aid in addressing flood risk management issues of an urban area with intensive residential and commercial uses. Fuzzy logic was the spatial analytical tool used in the integration of flood risk components (hazard, vulnerability, and exposure) and in the generation of flood risk and adaptation capacity indices. The research shows that 875 ha, 566 ha, and 828 ha were described as areas with relatively low, relatively moderate, and relatively high risk to flooding, respectively. Identified adaptation strategies for areas classified as having relatively low (RL), relatively moderate (RM), relatively high (RH), and likely very high (LVH) adaptation/coping capacity were mitigation to recovery phases, mitigation to response phases, mitigation to preparedness phases, and mitigation phase, respectively. Integrating the results from the flood risk assessment, quantitative description of adaptation capacity, and identification of adaptation strategies, a new analytical technique identified as flood risk-adaptation capacity index-adaptation strategies (FRACIAS) linkage model was developed for this study

Comparative analysis of spring flood risk reduction measures in Alaska, United States and the Sakha Republic, Russia

Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2017River ice thaw and breakup are an annual springtime phenomena in the North. Depending on regional weather patterns and river morphology, breakups can result in catastrophic floods in exposed and vulnerable communities. Breakup flood risk is especially high in rural and remote northern communities, where flood relief and recovery are complicated by unique geographical and climatological features, and limited physical and communication infrastructure. Proactive spring flood management would significantly minimize the adverse impacts of spring floods. Proactive flood management entails flood risk reduction through advances in ice jam and flood prevention, forecasting and mitigation, and community preparedness. With the goal to identify best practices in spring flood risk reduction, I conducted a comparative case study between two flood-prone communities, Galena in Alaska, United States and Edeytsy in the Sakha Republic, Russia. Within a week from each other, Galena and Edeytsy sustained major floods in May 2013. Methods included focus groups with the representatives from flood managing agencies, surveys of families impacted by the 2013 floods, observations on site, and archival review. Comparative parameters of the study included natural and human causes of spring floods, effectiveness of spring flood mitigation and preparedness strategies, and the role of interagency communication and cooperation in flood risk reduction. The analysis revealed that spring flood risk in Galena and Edeytsy results from complex interactions among a series of natural processes and human actions that generate conditions of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Therefore, flood risk in Galena and Edeytsy can be reduced by managing conditions of ice-jam floods, and decreasing exposure and vulnerability of the at-risk populations. Implementing the Pressure and Release model to analyze the vulnerability progression of Edeytsy and Galena points to common root causes at the two research sites, including colonial heritage, unequal distribution of resources and power, top-down governance, and limited inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process. To construct an appropriate flood risk reduction framework it is important to establish a dialogue among the diverse stakeholders on potential solutions, arriving at a range of top-down and bottom-up initiatives and in conjunction selecting the appropriate strategies. Both communities have progressed in terms of greater awareness of the hazard, reduction in vulnerabilities, and a shift to more reliance on shelter-in-place. However, in neither community have needed improvements in levee protection been completed. Dialogue between outside authorities and the community begins earlier and is more intensive for Edeytsy, perhaps accounting for Edeytsy's more favorable rating of risk management and response than Galena's

Adapting to change: Time for climate resilience and a new adaptation strategy. EPC Issue Paper 5 March 2020

The dramatic effects of climate change are being felt across the European continent and the world. Considering how sluggish and unsuccessful the world has been in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the impacts will become long-lasting scars. Even implementing radical climate mitigation now would be insufficient in addressing the economic, societal and environmental implications of climate change, which are expected to only intensify in the years to come. This means climate mitigation must go hand in hand with the adaptation efforts recognised in the Paris Agreement. And although the damages of climate change are usually localised and adaptation measures often depend on local specificities, given the interconnections between ecosystems, people and economies in a globalised world there are strong reasons for European Union (EU) member states to join forces, pool risk and cooperate across borders. Sharing information, good practices, experiences and resources to strengthen resilience and enhance adaptive capacity makes sense economically, environmentally and socially. The European Commission’s 2013 Adaptation Strategy is the first attempt to set EU-wide adaptation and climate resilience and could be considered novel in that it tried to mainstream adaptation goals into relevant legislation, instruments and funds. It was not very proactive, however. It also lacked long-term perspective, failed to put the adaptation file high on the political agenda, was under resourced, and suffered from knowledge gaps and silo thinking. The Commission’s European Green Deal proposal, which has been presented as a major step forward to the goal of Europe becoming the world’s first climate-neutral continent, suggests that the Commission will adopt a new EU strategy on adaptation to climate within the first two years of its mandate (2020-2021). In light of the risks climate change poses to ecosystems, societies and the economy (through inter alia the vulnerability of the supply chain to climate change and its potential failure to provide services to consumers), adaptation should take a prominent role alongside mitigation in the EU’s political climate agenda. Respecting the division of treaty competences, there are important areas where EU-wide action and support could foster the continent’s resilience to climate change. The European Policy Centre (EPC) project “Building a climate-resilient Europe”, which has culminated in this Issue Paper, has identified the following: (i) the ability to convert science-based knowledge into preventive action and responsible behaviour, thus filling the information gap; (ii) the need to close the protection gap through better risk management and risk sharing; (iii) the necessity to adopt nature-based infrastructural solutions widely and tackle the grey infrastructure bias; and (iv) the need to address the funding and investment gap. This Issue Paper aims to help inform the upcoming EU Adaptation Strategy and, by extension, strengthen the EU’s resilience to climate change. To that end, the authors make a call for the EU to mainstream adaptation and shift its focus from reacting to disasters to a more proactive approach that prioritises prevention, risk reduction and resilience building. In doing so, the EU must ensure fairness and distributive justice while striving for climate change mitigation and protecting the environment and biodiversity. To succeed, the new EU Adaptation Strategy will need to address specific challenges related to the information, protection, funding and investment gaps; and the grey infrastructure bias. To tackle and address those challenges, this Paper proposes 17 solutions outlined in Table 1 (see page 6)