IDRC Davos 2016 CONFERENCE AGENDA

The programme includes the IDRC Davos 2016 agenda of sessions, plenary sessions, special panels and workshops. Click on the session title for more details.

Please send minor changes and corrections (in affiliations, presentation order, or spelling) to idrc@grforum.org

 

IDRC Davos 2016 CONFERENCE AGENDA


Session
Session 04: Integrative Risk Management: Assessments, Concepts and Scenarios
Time:
Monday, 29/Aug/2016:
8:30am - 10:00am

Session Chair: Sidika TEKELI-YESIL, Hacettepe University Institute of Public Health
Room: Flüela

Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations

Development of Disaster Profiling Technique for Case-based Cause Analysis

Mi-Ran LEE, Chang-Geon YEO, Bo-Young SEO, Hyun-Ju KIM

National Disaster Management Research Institute, Korea, Republic of South Korea

The research methodologies that suggest standard frameworks for field-based disaster cause investigation have been suggested recently. They aim to uncover root causes to prevent similar disasters from occurring again and to minimize damage from large-scale and repeating disasters. Especially, the FORIN project, which was developed by IRDR that was established by ICSU in 2010 provides a methodology and key factors to comprehensively reveal the root causes of disasters. Although it is impossible to completely uncover the causes of disasters with modern science and technologies, it is said that the understanding of root causes and the cause-effect process can be interpreted through scientific analyses of the causal factors and the context information in the various field. Generally, a disaster occurs when diverse causes interact with resident risk factors in a complicated manner and proceed to an unstable situation. To sever the link to the disasters occurring due to the repeating of causes that lead to huge accidents periodically, a standardized procedure and methodology of 'scientific disaster cause analyses and plans to prevent similar accidents from occurring based on objective and quantitative analyses' need to be introduced and contribute to strengthening the disaster management feedback function. Disaster profiling is an analysis system that derives major cause factors through modeling the analysis process for root cause analysis and applying the cause-effect interpretation technology for suggesting objective cause analysis results based on the comprehensively collected large-scale disaster cases.The cause analysis case that was applied to Kyeongju Mauna Ocean Resort gymnasium collapse in 2014 was introduced in this study. The analysis results showed that the collapse was not due to a single accident but due to diverse causes and stakeholders. It was learned that countermeasures need to be set up through adjustment process with stakeholders in each area.



A Life Cycle Hazard Assessment (LCHA) Framework to Address Fire Hazards at the Wildland-urban Interface

Eric LINDQUIST

Boise State University, United States of America

The stages of planning for and responding to natural hazards, such as wildfires, are often conducted as discrete, unconnected, efforts. Disaster response takes precedence, exhausting agency resources, with the planning stages conducted by different agencies with competing agendas and jurisdictions. Evaluation after a disaster can be minimal or even non-existent as resources are expended and attention moves on to the next event. Natural hazards, however, have a tendency to cascade and multiply: wildfires increase the vulnerability of hillslopes which may result in landslides, flooding and debris flows long after the initial event has occurred. To address this situation we present an adapted life cycle analysis (LCA) approach to examine fire-related hazards at the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), an increasingly vulnerable area throughout the world. The Life Cycle Hazard Assessment (LCHA) focuses on the temporal integration of: (1) the ‘pre-fire’ set of ecological and societal conditions, (2) the ‘fire event,’ focusing on the event and contours of response, and (3) the ‘post-event’ analysis of the landscape susceptibility to other hazards. The LCHA follows the typical disaster model for preparation, response and recovery, yet overlays this with the diverse agencies, policies and management decisions over time. LCAs have evolved from a business-centric consideration of the environmental impact of a product over the products life. The LCHA considers wildfire as the "product" in order to understand its spatial and temporal impact across ecological and societal domains. The LCHA focuses on inputs (fire and pre-fire efforts) outputs (post fire conditions) from concurrent events and how they evolve and intersect over much longer periods of time than previously considered. The LCHA provides an interdisciplinary understanding of decision and environmental change across the life cycles of fire events. This presentation will address the urban area, and vulnerability and resilience themes of the 2016 IDRC.



Integrative Risk Management for Catastrophe Destroying 10-20% of Global Food Supply

David Charles DENKENBERGER1,2, Joshua PEARCE3, Andy Ray TAYLOR4

1Tennessee State University, United States of America; 2Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, United States of America; 3Michigan Technological University, United States of America; 4Nonviolent Communication, United Kingdom

In the next few decades there are a large number of risks such as level 7 volcanic eruption, regional nuclear war, abrupt climate change, or crop pathogen which could lead to media reports of a 10%-20% global food deficit. In aggregate, these risks have around a 10% probability of occurring per decade. Lloyds of London estimate an 80% risk of one event of extreme weather alone in the next 100 years.

These risks could not easily be protected against simply by increased grain storage and reinsurance. The UN’s World Food Program would be unable to source food on global markets for famine relief. The run-up in food price would be much more severe than in 2007-8, potentially leading to 1-2 billion deaths.

Current learning in integrative risk management can and should be scaled up to address such risks, and Lloyds, S&P, WFP, IFPRI, IMF, World bank, WWF and several governments including UK and USA are looking at this.

We explore some possible responses, preparedness options, the work done so far, the key players and research gaps.

Human/financial responses include behavioral responses at local and population scale, augmented storage/reinsurance, organised migration, loans, and aid.

Preparedness options include piloting and documenting the responses so that they can be initiated fast when needed, scenario planning, and stress tests.

Conventional technical responses include augmented resilience/adaptation and increased efficiency. Alternate food production includes growing bacteria on natural gas, growing beetles on agricultural residues and using enzymes to break cellulose into sugar.

These options would dramatically reduce mortality in a global catastrophic event. Some of the preparedness options have present time benefits, making them more easily fundable.

Being well-prepared globally can reduce the likelihood of panic export bans and other self-defeating options in the future, and build current trust/cooperation.



The Progress of Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery in Turkey: From Marmara to Van

Asaf VAROL1, Jason ENIA2

1Firat University, Elazig, Turkey; 2Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, US

Since 1939, there have been several important earthquakes in Turkey. However, from the Erzincan quake in 1939 through the Marmara quake in 1999 and then the Van quake in 2011, the number of people dying in earthquakes has steadily decreased. In the 1999 Marmara earthquake, more than 17000 people were killed and a great deal of regional infrastructure was destroyed. Almost 12 years after the Marmara earthquake there were many fewer deaths in a similar magnitude earthquake in Van. What had changed in Turkey during this time? This paper compares these two earthquakes and reveals big differences in terms of preparedness, mitigation, and response. The sources of these changes are explained, focusing on institutional changes regarding Turkey’s disaster risk reduction system as well as urban transformations in Ankara and Van.


Flood Risk Zonation for Karaj

Ezatollah GHANAVATI

Kharazmi University, Iran, Islamic Republic of

In this research for Karaj city and its surrounding, flood risk in different grades was determined using fuzzy logic. The data that used in this research are: slope, soil, geomorphology, landuse, profile and planimetric curvatures, precipitation, drainage density, distance to river and geology. After that each data layers according to their relation with flooding and based on determined functions the membership grades were determine and entered to the model. A fuzzy set is represented by membership function. This function is indicating the member's grade of dependency by a real number between [0-1]. So, before executing the fuzzy model, membership function is determined for each layer (below table). By determining the functions to each layer, the value of each layer is located between [0-1]. As the area are having the most effect on flooding attributed to (1) and the areas having the less effect on flooding attributed to the less possible number or (0).

According to the final map that resulted using (Gamma, 0.9), the areas that caused to high risk flooding are situated in the north and east north of the study area. Also the areas that affected by high risk flooding are located in the center and south west and south east of the study area. The result of this research shows that despite the complexities of fuzzy model, it has advantages to study of different phenomenon that related to the surface of the earth.



Expected Skills, Required Program Content and Assessment System to Address the Diverse Century Challenges for Future Engineers.

Khedidja ALLIA

USTHB, Algeria

Quality improvement of life in parallel of progress in science and technologies has led to risk taking which in some cases, appears to have generated our diverse and future challenges of the century. Indeed, the signs are everywhere stating that our planet is experiencing major climate change, less energy resources, reduction of drinking water and preservation, necessity of mitigation of air and soil pollution, use of biotechnological potential in agronomy, food and medicine, which closely interact with the environment. This means that we should consider changing our behavior, having effective education systems, especially engineering education systems able to provide engineers ready to meet future challenges such as new ways to supply and to consume energy, to reduce the greenhouse gases, to look for green industry, then to modify the way of conceiving and calculating all types of industrial process, if we want to avoid a greater risk of damage. Education is the core of the evolutionary process of the Society, and engineering fields are among those of higher education that prepare engineers meet the future challenges. Accreditation systems as ABET (USA), IChemE, AGR (UK), GCCA (Australia), LTSN (UK), EUR-ACE (Europe) exist in developing countries and help to assess, guide and label any educational programs in adequacy with the progress of science and technology and required skills of the graduates. Generally, these systems converge on objectives and programs and more and less for required skills as to compensate the lack in disaster risk management (natural and industrial). This paper aims to review three accreditation systems from which two are worldwide well established, highlight some insights on certain aspects related to these issues; "Does the current engineering education allows meeting the future challenges?" and "Why do we need to make a progressive transformation, particularly in developing countries?"



City Diplomacy: The Use of International Capacity in Integrated Management of Metropolises Crisis

Hassan ABNIKI1, Hossein KASHIRI2

1Member of division of political science, faculty of law, political science & economics, Islamic Azad university-south Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran; 2Division of political science, faculty of law, political science & economics, Islamic Azad university-south Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran

Nowadays, with the majority of people live in cities, resolving various crises and challenges are not possible just by relying on national and local managers’ knowledge and experience. Proper use of city diplomacy and international capacity requires close cooperation at the international level among the world's major metropolises. Planning for cities proper management would be achieved through transferring of knowledge and experiences, use of creative ideas of urban management and with international cooperation. Integrated management of crisis in the case of facing various risks in different parts of the world, is one of the most important metropolises management concerns. The solutions and management strategies used by other cities around the world to cope with different crises, including natural disasters, terrorism, biological attacks, climate change, conflicts, NaTech and natural disasters should be considered as a very important key option in metropolis management by all metropolises around the world. This will be done through international synergies of managers, specialists and experts in various fields related to crisis integrated management in order to make preparations before the occurrence, prevention and mitigation of damages caused by these crises, is of considerable importance. Transfer of knowledge, experiences and synergies at the international level can be used as a suitable action plan in the realm of global governance to manage various crises.



 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Conference: IDRC Davos 2016
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.100+TC
© 2001 - 2017 by H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany