Natural and Conflict Related Hazards in Asia-Pacific: Risk assessment and mitigation measures for natural and conflict related hazards in Asia Pacific

Natural hazards, driven by geological and hydrological processes, affect many countries in Asia because of their geographical setting. According to a recent publication by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) in Bangkok, loss of life from natural hazards in Asia amounted to two-thirds of the total global mortality due to natural hazards in the period 1980-2000. Just in the past five years, the region has experiences two catastrophic tsunamis (December 2004 and July 2006), two catastrophic earthquakes (Pakistan in October 2005 and Sichuan, China in May 2008) and several catastrophic typhoons (e.g. typhoon Nargis in May 2008). In addition to the risk posed by natural hazards, many of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region are exposed to the risk of civil conflict. New data from International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) show that Asian countries accounted for 1/3 of all battle-related casualties during the past 25 years. Almost half of the on-going armed intrastate conflicts in the world today are fought in the Asia Pacific region. While the rest of the world has been experiencing a decline in the number of civil conflicts since the early 1990s, little discernable trend is evident in the Asia Pacific. This report presents the results of a study that aimed to quantify the risk posed by earthquake, flood (and storm surge), landslide, cyclone and tropical storm, tsunami, drought, and social unrest in form of intrastate armed conflict in the Asia-Pacific countries. The study was commissioned by the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok; and financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

From landfills to landscapes—Nature-based solutions for water management taking into account legacy contamination

publishedVersio

The Global Risk Analysis for the 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

In May 2009, the UNISDR system published the 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR 2009). One component of this report consisted in a global risk analysis. This task was performed by several institutions which join their efforts during two years to achieve a global modelling of hazards. This includes new hazard models for floods, tropical cyclones, landslides, drought and tsunamis as well as re-interpretation of earthquakes hazard. It allowed for the computation of human and economical exposure. A totally new methodology was used to calibrate vulnerability by using a so- called "event per event" analysis. This allowed determining what are the socio-economical and contextual parameters that are associated with human and economical vulnerability. This new methodology allows considering the intensity of each event as well as contextual parameters in order to compute the risk for different natural hazards. Risk maps were produced for four natural hazards (i.e. floods, earthquakes, landslides and tropical cyclones). This was provided at a resolution of 1 x 1 km. This also allow for the computation of an index for comparing the risk level of different countries. Trend in risk were also studied

How do persons with dementia participate in decision making related to health and daily care? A multi-case study

Background Many countries have passed laws giving patients the right to participate in decisions about health care. People with dementia cannot be assumed to be incapable of making decisions on their diagnosis alone as they may have retained cognitive abilities. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how persons with dementia participated in making decisions about health care and how their family carers and professional caregivers influenced decision making. Methods This Norwegian study had a qualitative multi-case design. The triad in each of the ten cases consisted of the person with dementia, the family carer and the professional caregiver, in all 30 participants. Inclusion criteria for the persons with dementia were: (1) 67 years or older (2) diagnosed with dementia (3) Clinical Dementia Rating score 2, moderate dementia; (3) able to communicate verbally. The family carers and professional caregivers were then asked to participate. A semi-structured interview guide was used in interviews with family carers and professional caregivers. Field notes were written after participant observation of interactions between persons with dementia and professional caregivers during morning care or activities at a day centre. How the professional caregivers facilitated decision making was the focus of the observations that varied in length from 30 to 90 minutes. The data were analyzed using framework analysis combined with a hermeneutical interpretive approach. Results Professional caregivers based their assessment of mental competence on experience and not on standardized tests. Persons with dementia demonstrated variability in how they participated in decision making. Pseudo-autonomous decision making and delegating decision making were new categories that emerged. Autonomous decision making did occur but shared decision making was the most typical pattern. Reduced mental capacity, lack of available choices or not being given the opportunity to participate led to non-involvement. Not all decisions were based on logic; personal values and relationships were also considered. Conclusions Persons with moderate dementia demonstrated variability in how they participated in decision making. Optimal involvement was facilitated by positioning them as capable of influencing decisions, assessing decision-specific competence, clarifying values and understanding the significance of relationships and context