Disaster preparedness using risk-assessment methods from earthquake engineering

Due to copyright restrictions, the access to the full text of this article is only available via subscription.Analyzing the uncertainties associated with disaster occurrences is critical to make effective disaster preparedness plans. In this study, we focus on pre-positioning emergency supplies for earthquake preparedness. We present a new method to compute earthquake likelihood and the number of the affected people. Our approach utilizes forecasting methods from the earthquake engineering literature, and avoids using probabilistic scenarios to represent the uncertainties related to earthquake occurrences. We validate the proposed technique by using historical earthquake data from Turkey, a country under significant earthquake risk. We also present a case study that illustrates the implementation of our method to solve the inventory allocation problem of the Turkish Red Crescen

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

Disaster risk reduction measures n Bangladesh

Disasters damage the entire economy of the country when they predominantly take place in developing countries. While no country in the world is entirely safe, lack of capacity to limit the impact of hazards has made developing countries being the most vulnerable nations to natural disasters. Bangladesh is being identified as a country that is vulnerable to climate change and subsequent natural disasters every year. Dense population and poverty has reduced the adaptability of Bangladesh in disastrous situations thus further increasing severity of impact from disasters. Owing to geographical settings, Bangladesh is currently ranked as one of the world’s most disaster-prone countries in the world. The frequent natural hazards such as cyclones, storm surges, floods, droughts, tornados,riverbank erosions, earthquakes, arsenic contamination of groundwater and landslides account for significant losses in human lives and physical assets while effects are further reflected in social settings, ecosystems and the economic well-being of the country. This paper evaluates the types of natural disasters Bangladesh is subjecting to, how they have affected the Bangladesh community and existing disaster risk reduction strategies. Paper also evaluates four main domains of disaster vulnerability reduction measures namely physical, engineering, structural and organisational. Existing disaster risk reduction strategies adopted in Bangladesh are linked with the aforementioned four domains of disaster vulnerability reduction measures. A comprehensive literature review is used as the research method. Literature synthesis suggests that Bangladesh is being using a combination of disaster risk reduction measures ranging from technical to social measures

Recommender Thermometer for Measuring the Preparedness for Flood Resilience Management

A range of various thermometers and similar scales are employed in different human and resilience management activities: Distress Thermometer, Panic Thermometer, Fear Thermometer, fire danger rating, hurricane scales, earthquake scales (Richter Magnitude Scale, Mercalli Scale), Anxiety Thermometer, Help Thermometer, Problem Thermometer, Emotion Thermometer, Depression Thermometer, the Torino scale (assessing asteroid/comet impact prediction), Excessive Heat Watch, etc. Extensive financing of the preparedness for flood resilience management with overheated full-scale resilience management might be compared to someone ill running a fever of 41°C. As the financial crisis hits and resilience management financing cools down it reminds a sick person whose body temperature is too low. The degree indicated by the Recommender Thermometer for Measuring the Preparedness for Flood Resilience Management with a scale between Tmin=34,0° and Tmax=42,0° shows either cool or overheated preparedness for flood resilience management. The formalized presentation of this research shows how changes in the micro, meso and macro environment of resilience management and the extent to which the goals pursued by various interested parties are met cause corresponding changes in the “temperature” of the preparedness for resilience management. Global innovative aspects of the Recommender Thermometer developed by the authors of this paper are, primarily, its capacity to measure the “temperature” of the preparedness for flood resilience management automatically, to compile multiple alternative recommendations (preparedness for floods, including preparing your home for floods, taking precautions against a threat of floods, retrofitting for flood-prone areas, checking your house insurance; preparedness for bushfires, preparedness for cyclones, preparedness for severe storms, preparedness for heat waves, etc.) customised for a specific user, to perform multiple criteria analysis of the recommendations, and to select the ten most rational ones for that user. Across the world, no other system offers these functions yet. The Recommender Thermometer was developed and fine-tuned in the course of the Android (Academic Network for Disaster Resilience to Optimise educational Development) project

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

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

Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks

This paper examines the unique role of cultural heritage in disaster risk reduction. Itintroduces various approaches to protect heritage from irreplaceable loss and considers ways to draw upon heritage as an asset in building the resilience of communities and nations to disasters. The paper proposes ways forward and builds on the current momentum provided by the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters” (HFA) and the advancement of a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction (HFA2) and the post-2015 development agenda. Cultural heritage is often associated with grandiose monuments and iconic archaeological sites that can hold us in awe of their beauty, history and sheer scale. However, the understanding of cultural heritage has undergone a marked shift during the last few decades in terms of what it is, why it is important, why it is at risk and what can be done to protect it. Cultural heritage today encompasses a broader array of places such as historic cities, living cultural landscapes, gardens or sacred forests and mountains, technological or industrial achievements in the recent past and even sites associated with painful memories and war. Collections of movable and immoveable items within sites, museums, historic properties and archives have also increased significantly in scope, testifying not only to the lifestyles of royalty and the achievements of great artists, but also to the everyday lives of ordinary people. At the same time intangibles such as knowledge, beliefs and value systems are fundamental aspects of heritage that have a powerful influence on people’s daily choices and behaviors. Heritage is at risk due to disasters, conflict, climate change and a host of other factors.At the same time, cultural heritage is increasingly recognized as a driver of resilience that can support efforts to reduce disaster risks more broadly. Recent years have seen greater emphasis and commitment to protecting heritage and leveraging it for resilience;but initiatives, such as the few examples that are presented here, need to be encouraged and brought more fully into the mainstream of both disaster risk reduction and heritage management. These are issues that can be productively addressed in a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction and, likewise, in the post-2015 development agenda