Future-oriented activities as a concept for improved disaster risk management

Disaster Advances Vol. 6 (12) December 2013

1

Future-oriented activities as a concept for improved disaster risk management

Aubrecht Christoph1,2

*, Özceylan Aubrecht Dilek3,4

, Klerx Joachim1 and Freire Sérgio

5

1. AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Foresight and Policy Development Department; Donau-City-Str. 1, A-1220 Vienna, AUSTRIA

2. GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery; The World Bank, 1818 H St. NW, Washington DC 20433, USA

3. Sakarya University, Department of Management Information Systems; Esentepe Kampusu 54187, Sakarya, TURKEY

4. George Washington University, Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management; 1776 G St. NW, Washington DC 20052, USA

5. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, FCSH, e-GEO Research Centre for Geography and Regional Planning; Av. de Berna, 26-C,

1069-061 Lisbon, PORTUGAL

*[email protected]

Abstract This study promotes the idea of future-oriented

thinking in disaster risk management and describes

how forward-looking activities can play a role in

reduction of future risks and impacts. It explicitly

highlights how a common future-oriented proactive

attitude built-up in participative stakeholder

communication networks can assist in shaping and

creating a vision of a less uncertain and ambiguous

future. First, the advancement of the disaster

management concept and its various stages, including

risk analysis, mitigation and response are explained.

Forward-looking activities on short- and long-term

temporal scales are introduced and put into a disaster

risk management context.

Recent developments in risk and crisis communication

are discussed as evolving in a new environment that

emphasizes network-centric communication shaped by

the increasing influence of web 2.0 social media

platforms. It is further described how future-oriented

processes and inherent communication approaches

can improve disaster risk management. Finally, the

various time-scale-dependent future-oriented

activities are conceptually integrated into a

framework of risk governance. Active and

participative communication is thereby seen as the key

for successfully implementing risk governance and

favor disaster mitigation and future risk reduction.

Keywords: Forward-looking activities, prediction and

forecast, foresight and strategic planning, situational

awareness, participative communication, risk governance.

Introduction In terms of its relation to the dynamic development of

social systems, the disaster risk management (DRM)

community faces increasing complexity and decreasing

predictability1 with new and emerging threats in a „risky‟

world2. Complexity will result in more incidents, new and

unexpected threats, more information to analyze with

---------------------------------------------------------------------

*Author for correspondence

possibly less time to process it, new players and

participants, increasingly sophisticated technologies and

exceedingly high public expectations3. Increasing

complexity also implies increasing uncertainties about what

is likely to happen4, what will be its potential consequences

and therefore in assessing risk. Eiser5 describes two main

types of uncertainty, one arising from „lack of knowledge‟

and the other reflecting „pure chance‟ or „random

sampling‟. In terms of looking into the future, lack of

knowledge can supposedly be minimized to a certain extent

while there will always be a remaining factor of „pure

chance‟.

One approach which is used to explain causes of increased

arbitrary uncertainty in a societal framework is Turner‟s6

sequential stage model, in particular referring to the

„incubation period‟ between major similar disaster events

where a gradual decay of awareness and preparation is

reported7. This, not being associated with „lack of

knowledge‟, but in a sense rather with „backslide of

knowledge‟, strongly contributes to potential foresight

failure and misguided actions due to inadequate

consideration or neglecting of certain aspects in risk

analysis and is therefore understood as a major cause of

poor response to a following disaster incident.

Other contributing factors to systemic uncertainties in

future-oriented planning activities can result from differing

subjective and inconsistent probability estimates of causal

impact relations among possible future events (i.e. referring

to cross-impact formalism to create a set of separate

probability spaces instead of overwhelming and unfeasible

all-encompassing analysis). This applies in particular to

novel event types that show now statistically significant

history of occurrence8. As it is therefore in any case

considered impossible to completely remove uncertainty, it

is essential to be conceptually integrated into the way we

think about risk and its driving factors.

Underlying risk drivers include development-related

processes such as badly planned and managed urban and

regional development, environmental degradation and

increasing social dependency of critical infrastructure,

which shape risk patterns and trends9. With respect to

further grand social challenges like climate change,

globalization10

, resource limitations and public debt crisis,

decision-makers in DRM will have to deal with an

mailto:[email protected]


2

increasing amount of large-scale catastrophic events and

decreasing public spending on DRM activities. In a risk

reduction and management context, “this underlines the

need for innovative new surge models, new partnerships

and sustained community efforts to ensure interoperability

of personnel, equipment, systems and functions”3.

Following along these lines, the future will remain

uncertain and especially in a long-term perspective to a

large extent unpredictable, what applies particularly to a

situation of increased risk.

Some future developments, related adverse impacts and

inherent system-uncertainties are nonetheless foreseeable

using forward-looking activities which enable active

preparation in terms of looking for desirable

alternatives11

and reduce related potential risks. These

actions aim at influencing or rather shaping the long-term

future including assessing the future‟s needs12

for risk

management. Opposed to possible prediction and

forecasting of near-future event-specific situations,

foresight activities look for ways that could lead into the

identified desirable future in a longer-term perspective. In

order to employ an active attitude towards the future it is

important to recognize that choices that are made today can

shape or even create the future13

. For reducing future risks,

we therefore also have to learn from the past and identify

current situations of lasting importance, in combination

with anticipation of future needs, expecting the unexpected

and strategically planning for the future14

.

Communication on multiple levels is considered a key

activity in the above-described forward-looking approaches

and enables collective interpretation and sense making of

available distributed information15

which eventually leads

to improved public risk perception. It will likely play an

increasingly important role in enhancing situational

awareness and therefore reducing risks and vulnerabilities

in a risk governance context through integrated

contribution of information from different sources16

.

Disaster Risk Management Disaster risk management (DRM) has been widely

regarded as a cyclic multi-stage concept18-20

, ideally

starting with (a) risk analysis followed by (b) mitigation

efforts to minimize the impacts of future events and

eventually rounded off by (c) a response and recovery

phase after disaster strikes21

. Referring to the PEPPER

(pre-event planning for post-event recovery) approach first

addressed in the late 1980s22

, the cycle illustrates the

popular phrase „after a disaster is before the next disaster‟

and thus explains the varying focus during different

(overlapping) phases before, during and after a catastrophic

event occurs. Different types of hazards such as hurricanes,

tsunamis, floods, earthquakes and fires feature individual

characteristics and require adapted actions in all stages.

In general, mitigating impacts of disasters start with risk

reduction and prevention measures. Land use management

plays an important role at this stage, as well as general

preparedness both in terms of social and economic

activities and infrastructural measures. Eventual prediction

and early warning prior to the next hazard event form the

final part of this stage19

. The response phase includes initial

impact assessment and accordingly coordinated search and

rescue efforts, as well as follow-on recovery and

rehabilitation.

Risk analysis as an integral part of disaster risk

management is composed of hazard and vulnerability

assessment23

. Both aspects are highly sensitive to spatial

and temporal variation24-26

. Root causes of extreme events

can be mapped with increasing accuracy2. Most aspects of

hazard investigations have a spatial component where both

Earth Observation data and terrestrial surveys provide

essential information for delineation of potentially affected

areas and monitoring environmental conditions27

.

The mere incidence of a „natural hazard‟ does not

necessarily cause negative effects. The term disaster is thus

not used until severe impacts on social systems, including

human beings and associated assets (i.e. economic,

infrastructural) are caused28-29

. It is at this point that the

complex and dynamic dimensions of vulnerability come

into play, being defined as the degree of susceptibility to

harm from stresses associated with environmental and

social change30

as well as influenced by a set of

interrelating input factors including exposure and

sensitivity, initial coping capacity, robustness and response

of a system31-32

. Vulnerability is critically context-

dependent33

and variable patterns of vulnerability

eventually determine where and when a mere natural event

potentially turns into a disaster34

.

Both mitigation and response actions should in fact aim at

reducing overall future risk. This is obvious for the

mitigation phase but not less important for the response

phase where well-organized search and rescue actions and

also coordinated recovery and rehabilitation support can

dramatically reduce overall impacts.

With all different disaster management stages featuring

spatially and temporally variable components, the concept

can be further elaborated by figuratively unrolling the cycle

and moving to an infinite disaster management spiral

(Figure 1). Learning from past disasters as well as

envisioning future developments and corresponding

adaptation of disaster management processes is essential in

minimizing impacts of uncertain future events. It is

however impossible to achieve zero risk. The residual risks

keep the spiral on the loop, despite continuous

improvements in management practices35-36

.

Even though the development of future situations is to a

high degree uncertain, in the past there was a strong

„reactive‟ rather than „proactive‟ attitude towards dealing

with disastrous events. Most efforts were focused in the

post-disaster phase without considering lessons learnt from


3

past events, thus remaining in a vicious cycle where the

next disaster was going to cause the same effects or

worse37

. Furthermore, lacking or ineffective

communication and coordination increases difficulties

arising in post-event crisis and disaster management. By

employing forward-looking activities and participatory risk

assessment38

involving multiple stakeholders39

, more

emphasis can be put on the pre-disaster stage, particularly

focusing on prevention and preparedness. Envisioning

future developments and integrating past findings as well as

current characteristics helps trying to minimize potential

impacts before disasters occur.

Forward-looking activities in a disaster risk

mitigation context Structural changes in societies, continuously ongoing,

relate to a multitude of dimensions such as social,

economic, technological and environmental developments.

This dynamic societal structure is influenced by global risk

driving factors such as resource scarcity, demographic and

climate changes, global interdependencies, the changing

role of individuals, conflicting stakeholder interests as well

as uneven economic and urban development, weak

governance and limited endogenous capacities40

.

Figure 1: The disaster management cycle vs. the disaster management spiral.

Building upon knowledge acquired from past events,

forward-looking activities and related feedback loops set

the context for decision making and policy development in

a strategic planning framework. Figure 2 shows the

different time scales that these forward-looking activities

operate in, i.e. the short-term predictive view and the rather

long-term shaping and constructive perspective.

Carried out by subject experts, forecasting and prediction in

that concept have a strong modeling component and are

focused on quantitatively assessing and measuring a certain

near-future condition. Foresight processes strongly consider

inter-related communication of various stakeholders and

multidisciplinary experts with the objective of creating

common visions and consistent scenarios and thus shape

and construct long-term future developments in a favorable

manner. Disaster risk mitigation irrespective of hazard-

specific characteristics can be seen as the common overall

goal spanning the entire timeline.

Forecast and prediction: Ongoing and accelerated

structural changes require a new way of future-oriented

thinking. Policy and decision-makers are facing an

increasingly highly dynamic and complex environment

with traditional value systems declining in importance. This

environment is exposed to various types of tension.

Particularly in a DRM context, new methods are needed

which pro-actively support decision-making processes. It is

to a certain degree essential to „predict‟ the future or

„forecast‟ certain (environmental) conditions or at least

envision potential (prediction) scenarios. This applies in

particular to the late phase of the mitigation stage in

integrated DRM where best accurate (short-term)

predictions form the basis for early warning systems and

planning of first-response emergency measures.

Forecast is defined as estimating unknown future

situation41

whereby this can be the view of one single or of

multiple different futures11

. Prediction is considered more

general41

, drawing upon models developed from knowledge

of past events like estimating the effects of future floods

based on theoretical hazard models42

. The study of past

events to create predictive and prescriptive models for

future decisions is based on the assumption that the

components and associated relationships in a complex

system are actually discoverable and manageable4.

Every prediction of a future state implies a certain degree

of uncertainty43

. In the context of natural hazard research,

numerous scientific conclusions have been drawn and


4

many types of hazards can be well described in terms of

characteristics and consequences. Prediction of future

conditions is very important both in the pre- and post-

disaster phases. A widely used method for short-term

forward-looking activities is trend extrapolation44

.

Especially time-series based linear trend extrapolation

works well when there is no structural change in the

environmental assumptions i.e. low variability and low

uncertainty45

.

Scientists can roughly predict where and when a hurricane

will make a landfall and how destructive it will be.

Atmospheric conditions which favor the formation of

tornadoes can be monitored and complex river flood

models can simulate inundation zones and related

infrastructure exposure. In each case this is „simply‟ based

on tracing the relevant precursors such as storm clouds,

winds and rains and issuing an alarm when the situation

reaches certain pre-defined thresholds46

. Other hazards,

such as earthquakes, seem to be unpredictable and do not

show any conclusive patterns of reoccurrence47-48

.

Foresight and strategic planning: For (environmental)

scientists involved in the natural hazards community,

foresight might be a novel term and at first sight might be

assumed similar to prediction and forecast. Within the

social science and policy research community, however,

the concept of foresight can be considered completely

contradictory to approaches of predicting future

conditions11

, as the following statement highlights: “the

future is not there to be predicted, [it] is there to be

made”49

.

The concept of foresight was born in France in the 1950s

with the objective of building a vision of the future after

World War II14

. The oil crisis in the mid-1970s then really

initiated a change in the paradigm of future-research from

“forecasting” towards “foresight”12

. The prospective of

foresight is based on three fundamental principles:

(1) There is no single future but several possible futures

(2) The future is land to be explored

(3) The future is to be created.

Foresight is set apart from forecasting by its

multidisciplinary approach, the long-term dimension and a

search for potentially influencing actions. While traditional

forecast is based on projection of current strong and

seemingly stable tendencies resulting in specific situation

characteristics, foresight activities try to identify future

needs and opportunities11,51

and look for possible actions

which could break these long-term trends and therefore

change the future in a favorable manner12,14

.

Figure 2: Forward-looking activities in a disaster risk mitigation context.


5

Foresight has been defined as the overall process of looking

into the longer-term future and systematically exploring

multiple possible futures based on needs and influencing

dynamic developments11, 52

. Considered a process rather

than a set of techniques, it goes beyond simple explorative

prediction of one single future situation to identifying

alternative scenarios in structural analyses and eventually

shaping or constructing the future by defining and living up

to common long-term strategic visions and desired

conditions4,13

in participatory stakeholder processes.

Scenarios can be seen as the prime technique for forward-

looking activities as they provide distance from the present,

open up the future and allow the creation of internally

coherent pictures of alternative futures12

. A primary

purpose of scenarios is to create holistic images of how the

future might evolve. These images might then become the

context for strategic planning or the stimulus for new

developments53

.

With a focus on creating a strategic planning framework for

better-informed disaster risk mitigation policies, foresight

is based on participative, transparent and flexible

communication processes, seen in contrast to the limited

scope of action for individual actors. Foresight activities

initiate stakeholder and subject expert mobilization for

seeking consistent scenarios through common visions and

coherent strategic actions in order to accomplish risk

reduction goals and prospects as well as identify the most

desirable future4 in terms of impact minimization.

Bringing together experts with people from different

disciplinary and institutional backgrounds, foresight

activities facilitate effective knowledge distribution and

collective reasoning and enable changes in the risk

perception of involved persons, eventually resulting in

potential impacts on policy development and risk

governance49,54

.

Present and future situational awareness among all

participating stakeholders is increased during the course of

these processes. Besides developing an integrated

situational picture of new and upcoming threats, the

collaboration and working on common interest goals in the

foresight process supports information-sharing among all

stakeholders and thus building up a network of trust which

is possible to rely on when unforeseeable problems arise.

Foresight itself is not planning55

, but results and indications

of foresight processes provide information about needs and

potentially desirable future conditions and can therefore be

considered an important step in increasing the time

horizon4 of long-term strategic planning for disaster

preparedness and mitigation. Foresight is most useful when

directly linked to policy development and related

implications. It cannot define risk reduction policies as

such but it can provide valuable input for the development

of more appropriate, robust and adaptable decision-making

processes in a changing environment.

Communication as the key component in

disaster risk mitigation-related forward-looking

activities With recent information technology-related developments,

public access to information and opportunities for

distributed sharing of information through new

communication channels have become major drivers of

societies. This trend changes the role of individuals to make

them sort of “super-empowered individuals”56

. Having

increased real-time access to information and the ability for

spontaneous reporting and delivery of information to

others, a constant widely accessible information flow is

produced, particularly immediately before, during and after

disaster and crisis events. This poses both great

opportunities and challenges to DRM3.

On the one hand this kind of crowd sourcing for

information collection has proved to be very effective for

crisis mapping57

and real-time assessment in the context of

building situational awareness (e.g. 2010 Haiti earthquake).

On the other hand, authorities and the public are confronted

with a massive amount of information that is often

uncontrolled and sometimes not manageable. Recent efforts

in crisis information collection and collective sharing (e.g.

2011 Libya crisis) have therefore strongly focused on data

organization and preparation in order to successfully reduce

information overload58

.

With all the new communication tools on web 2.0 social

media platforms, risk and crisis communication has

changed considerably due to increasing public

participation. Social networking tools consist of blogs,

microblogs, instant messaging services, photo sites and

interactive maps39

. Particularly microblogging such as

Twitter as well as live crisis mapping services such as

Ushahidi are social media forms that are being quickly

adopted in a disaster risk context. These tools allow

information to flow more rapidly between stakeholders and

provide situational awareness for disaster responders,

therefore resulting in shorter reaction times. Effective

participative inter-communication between stakeholders of

various backgrounds as well as external experts and

government officials59

is the key factor in forward-looking

activities4.

Communication is understood as the central component of

making sense of information60,62

that is collectively

interpreted and constructed by all participants15,63

in

cultural contexts and situations, rather than distributed from

a sender to a recipient64

. The intensity and participation

level of communication affect the quality and results of

forward-looking activities aiming at developing a common

understanding of risk patterns and identifying disaster

mitigation implementation strategies.


6

Due to the increased amount of constant distributed

information sharing, risk and crisis communication requires

a new environment in which society as a whole is the main

player and trustful and authentic information are the most

important cornerstones. Almost every form of web 2.0

communication is based on communicating in and between

groups which turn out to be seen as networks of trust that

are continuously growing (Figure 3). Building common

visions among stakeholder groups and identifying desirable

future scenarios in the context of reducing related risks,

relies strongly on effective information transfer within

these newly formed trust-based knowledge networks65

.

Because of that increasing dominance of network-type

communication which promotes sharing rather than top-

down information provision, this can be described as

network-centric communication. Network-centricity has

recently been considered as a solution to deal with major

information and knowledge deficiencies in DRM66

.

Network-centric information sharing among inter-

connected stakeholders67

leads to benefits such as improved

information quality, collaboration, coordination and shared

situational awareness68

. Following this new conceptual

approach, classical mass media in an established

hierarchical framework have lost their gateway position3

and authorities tend to lose their information monopole.

Given the fact stated above that network-centric

communication between trusted groups is increasingly

being implemented, risk and crisis communication needs to

be adjusted accordingly for each phase of DRM. Network-

centric communication about future threats and

opportunities are important subjects for awareness building

in the pre-disaster phase.

In the immediate response phase where search and rescue

communication is conducted by first-responders, efficiency

of information sharing can be increased by participatory

elements such as crowdsourcing69

. Finally, in the post-

disaster phase, network-centric communication can support

disaster recovery, particularly in a rehabilitation context.

Integration of forward-looking activities in a risk

governance framework as an approach to

improve disaster risk management Risk governance is presented as an integration framework

for forward-looking activities to be interconnected through

risk identification, risk assessment, risk management and

risk communication processes70

. With governance implying

a much broader scope of risk management than individual

actors‟ actions, risk governance goes beyond the mentioned

single elements by involving multiple stakeholders. Two

interrelated spheres form the basic structure of the risk

governance framework (Figure 4):

(1) An assessment sphere, basically focusing on generation

of knowledge

(2) A management sphere where decisions are made and

actions are implemented.

Forward-looking activities can easily be integrated in this

conceptual framework. Foresight processes can be of

particular interest and importance in the assessment sphere

where risk perceptions, social concerns and potential social

and economic impacts are assessed and future risk profiles

and risk reduction options are evaluated (marked in red).

The participatory nature of foresight is of utmost

significance in the context of tolerability and acceptability

judgment where also long-term dynamic societal

developments have to be considered. Short-term

predictions based on best-accurate models provide essential

decision-support for concrete implementation strategies

(marked in green) in a management sphere e.g. applied in

early warning frameworks.

By fostering inclusion and participation, forward-looking

activities strengthen public awareness and risk perception

among relevant stakeholders. Communication and

participation are the keys for successfully implementing

risk governance. On the other hand, a lack of

communication among involved stakeholders would

destruct risk governance71

.

Early warning might function very well hazard-wise,

relying on monitoring systems and predictions of certain

physical conditions but if the exposed population is not

informed and not aware of its condition, it is likely not

convinced to „accept‟ and cope with residual risk. In such a

context disaster risk management will eventually not

succeed, in particular from a social perspective.

Therefore, just through integration of both long-term

visions of future developments and short-term risk

assessments and hazard predictions by means of integrative

and inter-related communication approaches, the risk

governance concept can be applied within the disaster

management concept. Future-oriented research is able to

lay the foundations for changes very early i.e. by guiding

and initiating incremental adaptations for moving a system

to a state of better preparedness (cf. Lindblom‟s “science of

muddling through” 72

).

Conclusion In this study we have discussed the role of forward-looking

activities applied in a disaster risk management context.

Modern societies and their environments have become

increasingly complex and decreasingly predictable, being

shaped not only by physical, economic and technological-

oriented risk drivers but also by social concerns and

growing population pressure and the resulting tendency to

place developments in increasingly vulnerable settings2.

With a dynamic and rapidly changing risk profile,

developed societies therefore tend to become “risk

societies” 73-74

.


7

Forward-looking activities and effective participative inter-

communication enable gaining more knowledge about

things to come and provide the ability to build up a clearer

common vision of future conditions and needs to all

involved stakeholders. Those processes thus help to

decrease uncertain patterns of future developments and

define a structured pathway to a risk-reduced future based

on decisions grounded more solidly on available expertise

than before11

.

However, the growing scale and frequency of crisis and

emergency situations in recent years75-76

have shown a lack

of adequate foresight and strategic planning77

with

responses to major disasters still seeming to be very short-

term reactions without any integration into long-term

mitigation and recovery plans78

. Forward-looking activities

are particularly relevant in this long-term risk reduction

context. With the aim of moving from a rather reactive

towards a proactive and anticipatory adaptation approach

based on some assessment of future conditions79

, the need

for multi-perspective risk governance for disaster risk

management that integrates forward-looking activities more

comprehensively is highlighted.

Figure 3: Hierarchical vs. network-centric crisis communication.

Figure 4: Basic elements of the risk governance framework70

.


8

References 1. Tàbara J. D., An emerging research program for Global

Systems Science - Assessing the state of the art, GSDP Initiative,

October 4, 92 (2011)

2. Faulkner H. and Ball D., Environmental Hazards and Risk

Communication, Environmental Hazards,7(2), 71–78(2007)

3. FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency, Crisis

Response and Disaster Resilience 2030: Forgoing Strategic

Action in an age of uncertainty, USA, 36, January (2012)

4. Miles I., Keenan M. and Kaivo-Oja J., eds., Handbook of

Knowledge Society Foresight, European Foundation for the

Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, Ireland,

166 (2003)

5. Eiser J. R., ed., Public Perception of Risk, UK Office of

Science and Technology, Sheffield, UK, 63 (2004)

6. Turner B.A., The Organizational and Interorganizational

Development of Disasters, Administrative Science Quarterly,

21(3), 378–397 (1976)

7. Turoff M., Hiltz S.R., Bañuls Silvera V.A. and van den Eede

G., Multiple Perspectives on Planning for Emergencies, An

Introduction to the Special Issue on Planning and Foresight for

Emergency Preparedness and Management, Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9), 1647–1656 (2013)

8. Turoff M., An alternative approach to cross impact analysis,

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 309–339

(1972)

9. UNISDR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk

Reduction 2011: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development,

United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 212 (2011)

10. O‟Brien K.L. and Leichenko R.M., Double Exposure:

Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change within the Context of

Economic Globalization, Global Environmental Change, 10(3),

221–232 (2000)

11. Cuhls K., From forecasting to foresight processes - New

participative foresight activities in Germany, Journal of

Forecasting, 22(2-3), 93–111 (2003)

12. Mietzner D. and Reger G., Advantages and Disadvantages of

Scenario Approaches for Strategic Foresight, International

Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(2), 220–239

(2005)

13. Martin B., Foresight in Science & Technology, Technology

Analysis & Strategic Management, 7, 139–168 (1995)

14. Konstantinova R., Foresight - a tool for anticipating the after

Crisis, International Conference Managerial Decisions for the

Global & Local Markets, Nessebar, Bulgaria, 144–149 (2009)

15. Kapucu N., Public-Nonprofit Partnerships for Collective

Action in Dynamic Contexts, Public Administration, An

International Quarterly, 84(1), 205–220 (2006)

16. Vieweg S., Hughes A.L., Starbird K. and Palen L.,

Microblogging During Two Natural Hazards Events, What

Twitter May Contribute to Situational Awareness, CHI 2010:

Crisis Informatics, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1079–1088 (2010)

17. Aubrecht C., Freire S., Fröhlich J., Rath B. and Steinnocher

K., Integrating the Concepts of Foresight and Prediction for

improved Disaster Risk Management, in: Santos, Lousa, Portela

Eds., ISCRAM 2011, 8th International Conference on

Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management,

proceedings, Lisbon, Portugal (2011)

18. Johnson G.O., GIS Applications in Emergency Management,

URISA Journal,4(1),66–72 (1992)

19. Mileti D.S., ed., Disasters by Design, Joseph Henry Press,

Washington DC, USA, 376 (1999)

20. Alexander D., Towards the Development of Standards in

Emergency Management Training and Education, Disaster

Prevention and Management, 12(2), 113–123 (2003)

21. Aubrecht C., Freire S. and Steinnocher K., Spatio-temporal

aspects of vulnerability, How all comes together in integrated

disaster risk management, In Nachtnebel H.P. et al, eds., Sharing

IDRiM experiences under different socio-economic and cultural

contexts. First Annual Conference of the International Society for

Integrated Disaster Risk Management (IDRiM 2010), Vienna,

Austria (2010)

22. Spangle W.E., Pre-earthquake planning for post-earthquake

rebuilding (PEPPER), Southern California Earthquake

Preparedness Project, Pasadena, CA, USA (1987)

23. UNDP United Nations Development Program, Reducing

disaster risk: a challenge for development, UNDP Bureau for

Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York, NY, USA, 146

(2004)

24. Cutter S., GI Science, Disasters and Emergency Management,

Transactions in GIS, 7(4), 439–445 (2003)

25. Aubrecht C., Freire S., Neuhold C., Curtis A. and Steinnocher

K., Introducing a temporal component in spatial vulnerability

analysis, Disaster Advances, 5(2), 48–53 (2012)

26. Aubrecht C., Fuchs S. and Neuhold C., Spatio-temporal

aspects and dimensions in integrated disaster risk management,

Natural Hazards, 68(3), 1205–1216 (2013)

27. Aubrecht C., Köstl M. and Steinnocher K., Population

Exposure and Impact Assessment, Benefits of Modeling Urban

Land Use in Very High Spatial and Thematic Detail, In Tavares

J.M.R.S. and Natal Jorge R.M., eds., Computational Vision and

Medical Image Processing, Recent Trends, Computational

Methods in Applied Sciences, Springer, 19, 75–89 (2010)

28. Johnson C., Lizarralde G. and Davidson C.H., A System View

of Temporary Housing Projects in Post-Disaster Reconstruction,

Construction Management and Economics, 24, 367–378 (2006)

29. Cannon T., Vulnerability, “Innocent” Disasters and the

Imperative of Cultural Understanding, Disaster Prevention and

Management, 17(3), 350–357 (2008)


9

30. Adger W.N., Vulnerability, Global Environmental Change,

16(3), 268–281(2006)

31. Füssel H.M., Vulnerability, A Generally Applicable

Conceptual Framework for Climate Change Research, Global

Environmental Change, 17(2), 155–167 (2007)

32. Cutter S.L., Barnes L., Berry M., Burton C., Evans E., Tate E.

and Webb J., A Place-based Model for Understanding

Community Resilience to Natural Disasters, Global


33. Brooks N., Adger W.N. and Kelly P.M., The Determinants of

Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity at the National Level and

the Implications for Adaptation, Global Environmental Change,

Part A, 15(2), 151–163 (2005)

34. EEA European Environment Agency, Mapping the impacts of

natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe, Technical

report 13/2010, Copenhagen, Denmark (2010)

35. Kyoto University-DPRI, Disaster Management Spiral,

Pamphlet published in 2009, http://www.dpri.kyoto-

u.ac.jp/web_j/publication/catalogue/mini_pamphlet_2009_e.pdf (2009)

36. Aubrecht C., Freire S., Zuccaro G. and Steinnocher K., The

infinite spiral of disaster management: Spatio-temporal modeling

aspects in the context of reducing residual risk, AAG Annual

Meeting, Special Symposium on „Space-Time Integration in

Geography and GI Science‟, Seattle, WA, USA (2011)

37. van Westen C.J., Remote Sensing and GIS for Natural

Hazards Assessment and Disaster Risk Management, Application

of space technology for disaster risk reduction: International

training course lecture notes, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing

IIRS, Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in

Asia and the Pacific CSSTEAP, Dehradun, India, 307–375 (2012)

38. van Aalst M.K., Cannon T. and Burton I., Community Level

Adaptation to Climate Change, The Potential Role of

Participatory Community Risk Assessment, Global


39. Crandall W.R. and Spillan J.E., A Look to the Future,

Emerging Trends in Crisis Management, International Journal of

Sustainable Strategic Management, 2(1), 17–28 (2010)

40. UNISDR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk

Reduction 2009: Risk and poverty in a changing climate - Invest

today for a safer tomorrow, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland,

207 (2009)

41. Armstrong J.S., ed., Long-Range Forecasting, 2nd ed., John

Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA, 688, (1985)

42. Godschalk D.R., Rose A., Mittler E., Porter K. and West C.T.,

Estimating the Value of Foresight, Aggregate Analysis of Natural

Hazard Mitigation Benefits and Costs, Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 52(6), 739–756 (2009)

43. Shimokawa S. and Takeuchi Y., Uncertainty in Flood Risks

and Public Understanding of Probable Rainfall, In Ikeda S. et al,

eds., A Better Integrated Management of Disaster Risks: Toward

Resilient Society to Emerging Disaster Risks in Mega-Cities,

TERRAPUB Terra Scientific Publishing Company, Tokyo, Japan,

109–119 (2006)

44. Smith S.K., Tayman J. and Swanson D.A., Trend

Extrapolation Methods, State and Local Population Projections,

The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population

Analysis, Springer, Netherlands, 161–183 (2002)

45. Armstrong J.S., Adya M. and Collopy F., Rule-Based

Forecasting, Using Judgment in Time-Series Extrapolation, In

Armstrong J.S., ed., Principles of Forecasting, A Handbook for

Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Norwell, MA, USA, 21 (2001)

46. Buchanan M., ed., Ubiquity - Why catastrophes happen,

Three Rivers Press, New York, NY, USA (2001)

47. Geller R.J., Earthquake prediction: a critical review,

Geophysical Journal International, 131(3), 425–450 (1997)

48. Bakun W.H. et al, Implications for prediction and hazard

assessment from the 2004 Park field earthquake, Nature,

437(7061), 969–974 (2005)

49. Langenhove L. van et al, Thinking, debating and shaping the

future: Foresight for Europe, Final report prepared by a High

Level Expert Group for the European Commission, 32(2002)

50. Berger G., L‟accélération de l‟histoireetses consequences, In

Berger G., de Bourbon-Busset J., Massé P., eds., De la

Prospective. Text esfondamentaux de la prospective française

1955-1966, L‟Harmattan, Paris, France, Texts collected and

presented by Philippe Durance (1957/2007)

51. Turturean C.I., Why Foresight? The Impact of Resource

Consumption and Technology on the Ability to Foresee the

Future, In Stanciu M. and Paduraru T., eds., The Yearbook of the

“Gh. Zane” Institute of Economic Researches, The Romanian

Academy, Iasi, Romania, 20(1), 79–85 (2011)

52. Jouvenel B. de, ed., The Art of Conjecture, Basic Books, New

York, NY, USA, translated by Lary N., 307 (1967)

53. Ratcliffe J., Scenario Building, a Suitable Method for

Strategic Property Planning?, Property Management,18(2), 127–

144(2000)

54. AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Foresight Processes

and Governance, 2013, www.ait.ac.at/departments/foresight-

policy-development/(2013)

55. Coates J.F., Foresight in federal government policymaking,

Futures Research Quarterly, 1, 29–53 (1985)

56. Friedman T.L., ed., Longitudes and Attitudes, Exploring the

World After September 11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York,

NY, USA, 400 (2002)

57. Norheim-Hagtun I. And Meier P., Crowd sourcing for Crisis

Mapping in Haiti, Innovations, Technology, Governance,

Globalization, 5(4), 81–89 (2010)

http://www.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/web_j/publication/catalogue/mini_pamphlet_2009_e.pdf

http://www.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/web_j/publication/catalogue/mini_pamphlet_2009_e.pdf

http://www.ait.ac.at/departments/foresight-policy-development/

http://www.ait.ac.at/departments/foresight-policy-development/


10

58. Meier P., Crisis Mapping in Action, How Open Source

Software and Global Volunteer Networks Are Changing the

World, One Map at a Time, Journal of Map & Geography

Libraries, Advances in Geospatial Information, Collections &

Archives, 8(2), 89–100 (2012)

59. Smillie L. and Blissett A., A Model for Developing Risk

Communication Strategy, Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 115–

134 (2010)

60. Weick K.E., ed., The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd

edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, (1979)

61. Weick K.E., Enacted Sense making in Crisis Situations,

Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317 (1988)

62. Weick K.E., Sutcliffe K.M. and Obstfeld D., Organizing and

the Process of Sense making, Organization Science, 16(4), 409–

421 (2005)

63. McEntire D.A., Fuller C., Johnston C.W. and Weber R., A

Comparison of Disaster Paradigms, The Search for a Holistic

Policy Guide, Public Administration Review, 62(3), 267–281

(2002)

64. Falkheimer J. and Heide M., Multicultural Crisis

Communication, Towards a Social Constructionist Perspective,

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 180–

189 (2006)

65. Collier W.M., Jacobs K.R., Saxena A., Baker-Gallegos J.,

Carroll M. and Yohe G.W., Strengthening Socio-ecological

Resilience Through Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change

Adaptation: Identifying Gaps in an Uncertain World,

Environmental Hazards, 8(3), 171–186 (2009)

66. Lubitz D.K.J.E. von, Beakley J.E. and Patricelli F., „All

Hazards Approach‟ to Disaster Management, The Role of

Information and Knowledge Management, Boyd‟s OODA Loop,

and Network-centricity, Disasters, 32(4), 561–585 (2008)

67. Neuvel J.M.M., Scholten H.J. and Brink A., From Spatial

Data to Synchronised Actions, The Network-centric Organisation

of Spatial Decision Support for Risk and Emergency

Management, Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 5(1), 51–72

(2012)

68. Bharosa N., Zanten B. van, Janssen M. and Groenleer M.,

Transforming Crisis Management: Field Studies on the Efforts to

Migrate from System-Centric to Network-Centric Operations, In

Wimmer M., Scholl H., Janssen M., Traunmüller R., eds.,

Electronic Government, 5693. Lecture Notes in Computer

Science, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 65–75 (2009)

69. Reyes A.N., Laredo J. and Vukovic M., Towards Crowd

sourcing for Disaster Management, First international workshop

on ubiquitous crowd sourcing at the 12th ACM international

conference on Ubiquitous computing (UbiComp10), Copenhagen,

Denmark, (2010)

70. Renn O., Concepts of Risk, An Interdisciplinary Review -

Part 2: Integrative Approaches, GAIA - Ecological Perspectives

for Science and Society, 17(2), 196–204 (2008)

71. Asselt M.B.A. van and Renn O., Risk Governance, Journal of

Risk Research, 14(4), 431–449 (2011)

72. Lindblom C.E., The Science of “Muddling Through”, Public

Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88 (1959)

73. Beck U., ed., Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity, 1st

edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London, UK, 272 (1992)

74. Beck U., Living in the World Risk Society, Economy and

Society, 35(3), 329–345 (2006)

75. EM-DAT, Natural disaster summary 1900-2011, EM-DAT,

the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université

Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, 2013, www.emdat.be (2013)

76. Munich R.E., Great natural catastrophes worldwide 1950-

2011, Number of events with trend, NatCat SERVICE –

Download center for statistics on natural catastrophes. Münchener

Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, GeoRisks Research, Munich,

Germany, Status asatJanuary 2012,

http://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/nonlife/georis

ks/natcatservice/default.aspx (2012)

77. Linstone H.A. and Turoff M., Delphi, A Brief Look

Backward and Forward, Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 78(9), 1712–1719 (2011)

78. Walle van de B. and Turoff M., Decision Support for

Emergency Situations, Information Systems and E-Business

Management, 6(3), 295–316 (2008)

79. Adger W.N., Arnell N.W. and Tompkins E.L., Successful

Adaptation to Climate Change Across Scales, Global

Environmental Change, Part A, 15(2), 77–86 (2005).

(Received 16thJuly 2013, accepted 12

thOctober 2013)

http://www.emdat.be/

http://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/nonlife/georisks/natcatservice/default.aspx

http://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/nonlife/georisks/natcatservice/default.aspx

Future-oriented activities as a concept for improved disaster risk management

Documents

Transcript of Future-oriented activities as a concept for improved disaster risk management