Suchergebnisse

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-reviewed

Hurricane Katrina brought to light many questions about Americans' preparedness for handling large-scale disasters: Is FEMA effective? Are the local, state, and federal governments sufficiently coordinated? Examining issues from various perspectives, this work offers students the tools to form their own opinions by bringing such events into focus

Billions of dollars and millions of people are involved in disaster relief, yet catastrophes around the world continue to take a huge toll in human lives and treasure. This book covers the response to disasters. It covers issues in both historical and contemporary context, with information on disaster relief around the world

This report provides a synthesis of the results of three CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in A) Bucharest,Romania on April 14-15, 2016; B) Rome,Italy on February 27-28, 2017; and C) Lisbon,Portugal on February 27-28, 2018. These Stakeholder Assemblies, together with six Citizen Summits (see Deliverables D5.3 – D5.9) were part of the CARISMAND cycle of events (see Figure 1 below). This cycle of events was the key concept at the core of the CARISMAND project which aimed to ensure a comprehensive feedback loop betweendisaster practitioners and citizens. It also allowed for the progression of ideas co-created by disaster practitioners and citizens. The locations of the three Stakeholder Assemblies were chosen due to their rather different "backgrounds". The three countries had been struck at the time of the respective event by different types of disasters. In addition, the three countries have very different "cultures", or cultural impacts, at a societal level. Romania has a comparatively strong authoritative systems due to its political history; Italy has experienced a strong direct in-flow of migrants in the last years due to its geological location; and Portugal has long been a traditional "melting pot" where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnic origins (in particular North Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived together. Accordingly, these differences were expected to allow a wide range of practitioners' attitudes and perceptions related to cultural factors in disaster management to emerge. In order to not only gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions but also promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer, the audience in all three events consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection agencies , the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection agencies, the Red Cross, firefighters, the military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in the respective country; in Portugal, the Stakeholder Assembly also included practitioners from the island of Madeira. The 40-60 participants per event were recruited via invitations sent to various organisations and institutions that play a role in disaster management, and via direct contacts of local partners in the CARISMAND consortium. Each assembly consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for detailed schedules see Appendices A1-A3). In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts. Then, participants were split into small working groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback on a specific topic. After each working group session, panel discussions allowed the participants to present the results of their working group to the rest of the audience. After each panel discussion, keynote speakers gave presentations related to the topic that had been discussed during the working groups. This schedule was designed to ensure that participants are provided with detailed information about recent developments in disaster management, but without influencing the attitudes and perceptions expressed in the working groups. In the third Stakeholder Assembly, different sets of recommendations for practitioners (related to the use of cultural factors in disaster management) were presented to the general audience, followed by small discussion group sessions as described above. ; The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014–2020). ; peer-reviewed

A vast literature currently exists focusing on disaster response. This literature clearly suggests that victims of natural disasters need outside support to cope with hardships and distress caused by extreme events. This is particularly true for victims in developing countries, where disasters create demands that cannot be met by domestic resources. However, many hazard researchers claim that relief goods that are often sent are not properly distributed and these goods are often not of the appropriate type nor sufficient in quantity. These researchers further claim that emergency aid is counter-productive and it increases dependency on external sources. The objective of this paper is to critically review the provision of disaster relief in developing countries, with special reference to Bangladesh. The primary emphasis of this paper is on changes that have occurred in the area of disaster relief over the last three decades. This paper provides evidence that, because of these changes, relief efforts have become more integrated with development projects and less burdened with the problems outlined in earlier literature critical of the provision of emergency relief to disaster victims.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present an operations research (OR) model for planning water distribution tours in disaster relief. Especially in situations after a disaster occurrence, characterized by instability and the immediate need of help, high‐quality decisions have to be made fast. For this reason, it is very useful if planning decisions can be alleviated by a decision support system (DSS) using an efficient multi‐objective metaheuristic as its algorithmic core.Design/methodology/approachThe paper develops a metaheuristic search technique based on evolutionary concepts for a real‐world extension of a multi‐objective covering tour problem.FindingsThe proposed method supports decision makers in finding appropriate compromise solutions with respect to conflicting objectives (e.g. coverage and travel time). With this work, the authors want to reduce the gap between theory and practical applications. They apply OR methods to a real‐world application in the field of disaster relief operations planning.Research limitations/implicationsThe success of the proposed approach depends on the availability of reasonable and useful data. However, data generation in this context represents an upcoming discipline, especially under the circumstances of increasing threat by natural hazards.Practical implicationsWhen the approach is integrated in a DSS, different scenarios can be investigated immediately and presented with a geographic information tool. The most appropriate solution for the decision makers can be realized.Originality/valueHeterogeneous transport modes and different road types were not considered so far in these types of problems.

The eruption of Mt. Unzen, from November 1990 to June 1991, brought on one of the worst volcanic disasters in Japan. Never before in post-war Japanese history has a natural disaster forced so many people to live as evacuees for so long, Two questionnaire surveys were carried out, the first in August, 1991 and the second in February, 1992. Conclusions drawn from these indicates that material assistance is important, but even more significant is the adoption of far-sighted policies to help evacuees adapt to their new disaster-caused situation. This would seem to be the biggest lesson to be learned from how today's affluent Japanese society dealt with the disaster.