Guest editorial

Citation

Barnes, P. and Goonetilleke , A. (2014), "Guest editorial", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 5 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-05-2014-0036

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Volume 5, Issue 3

Emergent risk-related phenomena such as climate change, public and animal health disease, the increasing hyper-complexity of embedded information communications technology (ICT), and emergent inter-dependencies within and across systems of infrastructure, create significant problems of governance for the private and public sector alike (US Govt., 2004, p. 2; OECD, 2003, 2006). Unmitigated disturbances from such sources have the potential to generate cascading impacts propagated along unexpected pathways and fault lines throughout commercial and institutional segments of established and establishing economies.

The potential for the rapid spread of damaging consequences can render a comprehensive understanding of a disaster’s context beyond the grasp of competent authorities (Lagadec, 2004). Coping with disasters are a challenge for government, business and communities with a full range of consequences often difficult to anticipate. In hindsight, the speed and severity of disruptions and extent of damage often suggests that there were deficiencies in the agility of first, second and allied response agencies to both make-sense of the complexity and respond to wide-area disasters. Such criticism may be unfounded because within the context of modern disaster situations, institutions would be unlikely to face single incidents but rather a series of systemic disruptions, often appearing concurrently.

To achieve efficient and effective outcomes, there is a need to develop improved synergies in the protection of critical infrastructure and assets, implementing crisis management and business continuity capabilities, and importantly, ensuring the safety of communities. One way to deal with such complexity may come in the form of enhanced institutional agility: supported by requisite levels of preparation and planning for response to emergency situations and practiced sets of protocols for recovering essential services. Arguably, enhancing such agility entails institutions possessing suitable capability at the right time (or being able to access it) and deploying it in an interoperable manner over an extended period. While such actions seem obvious, combining them into effective, reliable and strategic disaster management arrangements can be challenging.

Incidents associated with natural hazards are increasing in complexity, duration and cost, with related catastrophes accounting for significant portions of the insured losses globally. In 2008, 81 per cent of processed insurance claims, some US$52.5 billion, were due to natural disasters (Swiss Re, 2008, 2009). Other than the attack on the US World Trade Centre in 2001, the top 40 most costly insured losses from 1970 to 2009 have been attributed to natural catastrophes[1].

Damage caused by disasters impacts the built and natural environments as well as the viability and health of communities. Rapid, accurate and relevant information is needed post-disaster to manage recovery of communities and the re-establishment of essential services and related infrastructure. Equally, real-time data about on-the-ground conditions are critical during disaster response phases to ensure the safety and well-being of emergency responders and members of the affected communities.

A key factor central to these increasing losses is urbanisation. In 1950, 30 per cent of the world’s population lived in major cities. By the year 2000, this had increased to 47 per cent with further expected growth to 50 per cent by the end of 2007. Projections suggest that city-based densities will edge towards 60 per cent of the global total by 2030 (UN-HABITAT, 2006, 2006). Such rapidly increasing urbanisation, in both developed and establishing economies, challenges options for governance and planning, as well as emergency management.

Notwithstanding detailed preparation and planning for disaster events, significant cumulative financial losses remain a key concern as a counterpoint to urban density, highly concentrated population, and concentrated infrastructure systems. Such urban landscape factors are prevalent along coastal areas of Southeast Asia (Asian Development Bank, 2009). Natural hazards continue to be significant threats in this region and is a high priority for most Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member economies that reside within or in close proximity to the Pacific “Ring of Fire”[2]. While noted more for volcanic activity, reaching from the North to South Asia, a relatively significant prevalence of seismic phenomena adds to vulnerability.

In fact both South and North Asia exhibit this vulnerability nexus between urbanisation and natural hazards. In 2008, Asia alone accounted for 41.5 per cent of the world’s catastrophes and 97.9 per cent of the total victims (Swiss Re, 2009). For example, the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean (Asian) tsunami hit 12 countries with an estimated 280,000 victims and US$14 million worth of property losses (Swiss Re, 2005). More recently, losses from the March 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami have been estimated at US$210 billion (Swiss Re, 2012).

This special edition presents a selection of articles based on papers delivered at the 9th Annual Conference of the International Institute for Infrastructure Renewal and Reconstruction (a consortium of approximately 18 universities), held at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane Australia from 8 to 10 July 2013. The intent of the conference, entitled “Risk-informed Disaster Management: Planning for Response, Recovery and Resilience”, was to examine themes relevant to enhancing planning for risk-informed response and recovery, as well as to develop a dialogue on resilience in infrastructure systems and communities affected by disasters.

Given that Australia is a member of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation economies and is an affiliate of activities related to the ASEAN economies, the conference sought not only to capitalise on detailed activities across South and North Asian economies related to preparation for disasters but also the national experience of recent disasters. While not limiting the importance of international disasters, a high percentage of the papers presented at the conference focused on Oceanic/Asian experiences of disaster.

The papers selected for this special edition cover a range of issues important in disaster management, generally but specific to the Asia-Pacific region. They range from discussion of aspects of pre-disaster land use and urban design planning with the inclusion of local communities of interest in such activities. Consideration of early warning messages is also considered, as are the roles of non-government organisations (NGOs) in response and disaster risk reduction arrangements. A final area of great importance, the role(s) of social networks in enhancing community resilience in post-disaster contexts is also included.

In the first paper, Tri Mulyani Sunarharum, Mellini Sloan and Connie Susilawati present the results of a preliminary scoping study on effective participatory planning methods applied to flood risk management in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a scoping study, it provides background relevant to the challenges faced in planning for contemporary Jakarta and uses multi-criteria decision-making support systems infused with geospatial information – to aid in engagement with communities and improve decision-making outcomes.

Elizabeth Maly and Eiko Ishikawa examine issues of relocation of communities as part of recovery and remediation after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Specific challenges of rezoning residential land affected by the tsunami and efforts to relocate residents to other less hazardous residential areas relocation in Japan are discussed in context to post-disaster relocation projects in other countries.

Natainia Lummen, Yuki Tominaga, Takafumi Tsukamoto and Takaomi Hokamura emphasise the importance of flood modelling to inform both disaster mitigation efforts and predictive modelling of impacts in their assessment of Flood Disaster in the Tatsuda Area, Kumamoto City, Japan. This paper details options for incorporating such technical knowledge into early warning procedures, thus enhancing community safety.

In the fourth paper, Yoko Akama, Susan Chaplin and Peter Fairbrother examine the role of social networks in community preparedness for bushfires in Australia. Presenting the results of ongoing research on social networks of residents living in fire-prone rural area in a specific region in Australia investigates how knowledge related to bushfire flows within a community, either in preparation for, or during, a hypothetical emergency. The work presents visual representations of networks community-based networks and details their creation: albeit in a very specific locality in Australia. The results further suggest how people’s emergent roles and their inter-relatedness with one another helps to build adaptive capacity and greater awareness of the risks they face from fire.

Remaining with a community-focused theme, Julie Molloy and Tal Fitzpatrick examine the role of NGOs, specifically not-for-profit and community/service organisations, in building sustainable community resilience to create stronger partnerships and more significant opportunities for the sector to engage in resilience-building activities.

The sixth paper by Tania Somasundaram and Belinda Davies examines consideration of improvements in evacuation centre operations in disaster-affected communities. It details the development, content and application of a “Preferred Sheltering Practices for Emergency Sheltering in Australia” and the roles of various organisations in relation to emergency sheltering.

The final paper by Ignacio Correa-Velez and Augustine Conteh explores the experiences of a cohort of men from refugee backgrounds that were affected by significant flooding event in southeast Queensland Australia. The paper suggests that previous refugee experience helped them to cope better during and after the floods, and for some, providing assistance to others during the floods impacted positively on their relationship with their neighbours. It further suggests that attention be paid to including awareness of strengths and capabilities of refugees when developing disaster response strategies at the neighbourhood and community levels.

Paul Barnes and Ashantha Goonetilleke, Guest Editors

Notes

1. Based on data from 1970 to 2009, top three insured losses are the 2005 Hurricane Katrina (US$71.3 billion), 1992 Hurricane Andrew (US$24.6 billion) and 2001 World Trade Centre attack (US$22.8 billion)(Swiss Re, 2009).

2. ‘The Ring of Fire’ includes 452 volcanoes and is contains over 75 per cent of the world’s active and dormant volcanoes.

References

Asian Development Bank (2009), The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review, ADB, Mandaluyong City.

Lagadec, P. (2004), “Crisis: a watershed from local, specific turbulences, to global, inconceivable crises in unstable and torn environments, future crises”, in The International Workshop, Future Agendas: An Assessment of International Crisis Research, an International Workshop, 24-26 November, Sophia-Antipolis (Nice), available at: http://www.patricklagadec.net/fr/pdf/Sophia_24-11-04.pdf

OECD (2003), Emerging Systemic Risks: An Agenda for Action, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2006), Denmark (Assessing Societal Risks and Vulnerabilities), OECD Studies in Risk Management, Paris.

Swiss Re (2005), “Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2004”, Sigma, Vol. 1, pp. 1-40.

Swiss Re (2008), “Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2008”, Sigma, Vol. 1, pp. 1-44.

Swiss Re (2009), “World insurance in 2008”, Sigma, Vol. 3, pp. 1-47.

Swiss Re (2012), “Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2011”, Sigma, Vol. 2, pp. 1-40.

UN-HABITAT (2006), Mega Cities – Our Global Urban Future, Earth Sciences for Society Foundation, Leiden.

UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World’s Cities, United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.

US Govt. (2004), National Critical Infrastructure Protection Research and Development Plan, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Washington, DC, available at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ST_2004_NCIP_RD_PlanFINALApr05.pdf