- Involve key stakeholders (risk owners, control owners, …) in action-based strategies, considering integral risk management opportunities.
- Promote quick adaptation to changes in scenario through situation assessment and decision-making structures.
- Pre-plan communication management for specific scenarios. Include post-accident procedures.
- Focus on small window of opportunities to change policies and governance processes.
- Identify and reduce bureaucracy and other inhibitors slowing progress.
- Pre-plans should be flexible, focusing on indicators of key changes and providing tools for alternatives and contingency plans
- Promote the growth of sustainable, risk-decreasing activities via policies, certifications, insurances…
#transdisciplinarytables #Insuranceincentives #fundingcapacitybuilding
(company, project, organization)
|EVAPREM (Developing an evaluation model to assess prevention measures)||http://www.evaprem.eu/en||Develop a universal and comprehensive model for evaluating the results of prevention measures implemented by the rescue boards of European countries.|
|DARWIN: improving responses to expected and unexpected crises affecting critical societal structures; resilience guideline||https://h2020darwin.eu/about/||resilience management guidelines: https://h2020darwin.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DARWIN-Resilience-Management-Guidelines_Book_220818-1.pdf|
|TRANSCRISIS: Enhancing the EU’s transboundary crisis management capacity||https://www.transcrisis.eu/||Report on “Enhancing the EU’s Transboundary Crisis Management Capacity: Recommendations for Practice” (https://www.transcrisis.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/D7.3-policy-recommendations.pdf)|
|EDUCEN: the role of culture in disaster risk||http://www.educenproject.eu/||handbook, toolkit and case study manuals as examples to enhance the capabilities of the main actors involved in the different phases of DRR, and especially in crisis management, to use cultural aspects as an asset to increase the effectiveness of their actions. Handbook available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5L3EK3ILtDfWHRTOXloRjlBdWs/view|
|Harnessing a Community for Sustainable Disaster Response and Recovery||Acosta, Joie; Chandra, Anita (2013) Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 7(4), 361–368||Objective: Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are important to a community during times of disaster and routine operations. However, their effectiveness is reduced without an operational framework that integrates response and recovery efforts. Without integration, coordination among NGOs is challenging and use of government resources is inefficient. We developed an operational model to specify NGO roles and responsibilities before, during, and after a disaster. Methods: We conducted an analysis of peer-reviewed literature, relevant policy, and federal guidance to characterize the capabilities of NGOs, contextual factors that determine their involvement in disaster operations, and key services they provide during disaster response and recovery. We also identified research questions that should be prioritized to improve coordination and communication between NGOs and government. Results: Our review showed that federal policy stresses the importance of partnerships between NGOs and government agencies and among other NGOs. Such partnerships can build deep local networks and broad systems that reach from local communities to the federal government. Understanding what capacities NGOs need and what factors influence their ability to perform during a disaster informs an operational model that could optimize NGO performance. Conclusions: Although the operational model needs to be applied and tested in community planning and disaster response, it holds promise as a unifying framework across new national preparedness and recovery policy, and provides structure to community planning, resource allocation, and metrics on which to evaluate NGO disaster involvement.|
|Striving to be resilient||Adini, Bruria; Cohen, Odeya; Eide, Aslak Wegner; Nilsson, Susanna; Aharonson-Daniel, Limor; Herrera, Ivonne A. (2017) Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 39–49||Resilience management guidelines address disruptions, changes and opportunities, facilitate anticipation, adaptation, flexibility and provide a foundation for an effective crisis response. The objective and novelty of the study were to propose a holistic framework that enables to evaluate and prioritise concepts, approaches and practices that should be incorporated into European guidelines for resilience management. Based on a modified Delphi process, 51 items achieved a consensus of >80%. 84% of the items (n = 43) were ranked as important; 13.7% (n = 7) as essential; one ranked as somewhat important. The identified items encompass eleven categories as follows: 1) collaboration [11 items]; 2) planning [8 items]; 3) procedures [8 items]; 4) training [6 items]; 5) infrastructure [5 items]; 6) communication [3 items]; 7) governance [3 items]; 8) learning lessons [2 items]; 9) situation understanding (awareness) [1 item]; 10) resources [2 items]; and 11) evaluation [2 items]. The identified concepts, approaches and practices seem to be applicable to a wide range of domains and critical infrastructures, such as crisis management, air traffic management and healthcare, due to their generic and abstract characteristics. Important in the Delphi process is the engagement of potential end users in the development of resilience management guidelines to align this development to their needs. Therefore, the Delphi process involved policy and decision-makers, as well as practitioners and other personnel representing different critical infrastructures and academia, in prioritising concepts aimed at achieving resilient organisations, entities or communities. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.|
|Institutional development and scale matching in disaster response management||Baker, Daniel; Refsgaard, Karen (2007) Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 331–343||Recent large scale disasters have challenged institutions improve the effectiveness of their emergency response strategies. During the 2005 Katrina flood disaster in the United States institutions utilized different emergency response strategies with varying degrees of success. In this paper we consider the case of the Katrina hurricane to identify successful strategies that enable institutions to respond effectively and at the appropriate scale. The importance of cross-scale linkages matched to the size and needs of the disaster is discussed as a central component of socio-ecological resilience. A general strategy of adaptive management is proposed that emphasizes the importance of participatory planning with institutional actors where both initial response organizations, as well as institutions involved in longer term recovery are involved in emergency response exercises. Institutions should develop linkages that promote legitimacy, trust and the development of social capital that facilitates integrated and coordinated emergency response. The paper concludes by noting that new threats will require increased coordination, higher levels of institutional flexibility, and greater attention to issues of connectivity in disaster response management. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.|
|Disaster response and recovery||Barbee, Daniel G. J(2007) ournal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4(1)|
|MEASURING PERFORMANCE FOR COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT USING NETWORK ANALYSIS METHODS AND TOOLS||Kapucu, Naim; Demiroz, Fatih (2011) Public Performance & Management Review, 34(4), 549–579||Social network analysis and centrality measures are used with the UCINET software program to analyze the outcomes of an evolving collaborative network through the relationship structures and processes of an interorganizational governance network. The study data were collected from content analyses of newspapers, situation reports, and organizational documents. In the context of disaster response networks, the structure and performance of the planned networks are compared to the actual networks. The results indicate that the September 11 response network’s performance differed from that of the Federal Response Plan network and that the outcomes of the Hurricane Katrina response network showed different structures from those of the National Response Plan. The insights generated about the structural differences between these formal versus informal and planned versus actual networks demonstrate the utility of the measurements of network performance outcomes discussed here.|
|Disaster Mitigation||Kennedy, George; Richards, Michael; Chicarelli, Michael; Ernst, Amy; Harrell, Andrew; Stites, Danniel (2013) Southern Medical Journal, 106(1), 13–16||The objective of this review is to stimulate the reader’s considerations for developing community disaster mitigation. Disaster mitigation begins long before impact and is defined as the actions taken by a community to eliminate or minimize the impact of a disaster. The assessment of vulnerabilities, the development of infrastructure, memoranda of understanding, and planning for a sustainable response and recovery are parts of the process. Empowering leadership and citizens with knowledge of available resources through the planning and development of a disaster response can strengthen a community’s resilience, which can only add to the viability and quality of life enjoyed by the entire community.|
|Resilience assessment||Sellberg, My M.; Wilkinson, Cathy; Peterson, Garry D. (2015) Ecology and Society, 20(1)||Cities and towns have become increasingly interested in building resilience to cope with surprises, however, how to do this is often unclear. We evaluated the ability of the Resilience Assessment Workbook to help urban areas incorporate resilience thinking into their planning practice by exploring how a resilience assessment process complemented existing planning in the local government of Eskilstuna, Sweden. We conducted this evaluation using participant observation, semistructured interviews, and a survey of the participants. Our findings show that the resilience assessment contributed to ongoing planning practices by addressing sustainability challenges that were not being addressed within the normal municipal planning or operations, such as local food security. It bridged longer term sustainable development and shorter term crisis management, allowing these two sectors to develop common strategies. Our study also highlighted that the Resilience Assessment Workbook could be made more useful by providing more guidance on how to practically deal with thresholds and trade-offs across scales, as well as on how to manage transdisciplinary learning processes. This is the first in-depth study of a resilience assessment process, and it demonstrates that the Resilience Assessment Workbook is useful for planning and that it merits further research and development.|
|Conceptualizing Dimensions and Characteristics of Urban Resilience||Sharifi, Ayyoob; Chelleri, Lorenzo; Fox-Lent, Cate; Grafakos, Stelios; Pathak, Minal; Olazabal, Marta; Moloney, Susie; Yumagulova, Lily; Yamagata, Yoshiki (2017) Sustainability, 9(6)||Resilience is a multi-faceted concept frequently used across a wide range of disciplines, practices, and sectors. There is a growing recognition of the utility of resilience as a bridging concept that can facilitate inter-and transdisciplinary approaches to tackle complexities inherent in decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Such conditions are common in urban planning, infrastructure planning, asset management, emergency planning, crisis management, and development processes where systemic interdependencies and interests at stake influence decisions and outcomes. A major challenge that can undermine the use of resilience for guiding planning activities is the value-laden and contested nature of the concept that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Because resilience is context-specific and generally depends on local aspirations, this issue can be partially tackled by adopting participatory approaches for the conceptualization of resilience. This paper provides an example of how co-design methods can be employed for conceptualizing resilience. The Structured Interview Matrix was used as a technique to facilitate discussions among a diverse group of researchers and practitioners attending the International Workshop on Tools and Indicators for Assessing Urban Resilience. Participants deliberated on issues related to constituent elements of urban resilience, including its position vis-a-vis concepts such as adaptation and sustainability, institutional factors that can enable/constrain resilience building, and the challenges of conducting and operationalizing urban resilience assessment. This paper can be considered as an initial step towards further exploration of participatory approaches for clarifying the underlying dimensions of complex concepts such as resilience.|
|Iterative Factors Favoring Collaboration for Interorganizational Resilience||Therrien, Marie-Christine; Beauregard, Stephane; Valiquette-L’Heureux, Anais (2015) International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1), 75–86||Between members of a network, interorganizational resilience is favored by effective collaboration and coordination during a crisis. The quality of that collaboration depends on various iterative factors present between these organizations before the occurrence of a crisis. We find that these factors are iterative since collaboration factors follow a mutually reinforcing cycle: collaboration within a crisis management network is conditioned by a general agreement, which is in turn conditioned by the extent to which the institutions coordinate themselves prior to crisis. We evaluated the factors that promote collaboration between public and private organizations that manage the Greater Montreal transportation infrastructure. These factors are based on adaptive management processes such as mutual agreements, common organizational culture, knowledge and financial resources, levers of power, regulations, and pressure. Crisis management coordination represents the ability to build and assess the effectiveness of common response plans to risks to which they are exposed. We show how these processes vary depending on the links between private and public organizations.|
|SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR MAKING EMERGENCY RESPONSE EXERCISES MORE CONSISTENT AND MORE SUCCESSFUL||Upton, David (2009) Strategizing Resilience and Reducing Vulnerability, 197–212||Emergency response exercises or crisis management simulations are essential tools for testing and validating response plans and building organizational resilience. However surveys of exercises, and real-life examples, show that exercises vary greatly in quality. Sometimes this is due to faulty exercise design or conduct, sometimes to underlying social or ‘political’ agendas, sometimes to a culture of ‘semi-confidentiality’ which prevents lessons being learned and discourages scrutiny. This paper suggests some criteria for successful exercises, including consistency of design and of documentation, and building ability to learn from experience. It outlines several attempts to achieve these goals, including a software framework for exercise design and assessment.|