Disaster management cycle and COVID-19-Breaking the silos

Humanitarian workers responding to crises, either on the spot or in decision making positions, are familiar with the emergency management cycle with its basic three components namely; preparedness, response and recovery. This cycle can be expanded to include other elements, such as mitigation, readiness, business continuity, contingency, monitoring and evaluation [1].

Urgensi Pendekatan Multi dan Inter-disiplin Ilmu dalam Penanggulangan Bencana

The intensity and serious impact of disasters threaten human life, including in Indonesia. A series of natural disasters such as floods, landslides, earthquakes, and tsunamis in the past decade have claimed thousands of lives and damaged property and destroyed social and cultural structures. Current pandemic as non-natural disaster also shows that Covid-19 become among deadliest of disasters. With the unpredictable characteristics of disaster events (especially natural and pandemic), it is urgent to find a collaboration model for effective disaster management. As a concept, an approach and a method disaster management is not a monodisciplinary, but cross-disciplinary, whether it is multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary. Using a description and information analysis approach using secondary data through the literature review, this study discusses the link and contribution issues of disaster management. The results of the discussion show that apart from being multidisciplinary, disaster management is also interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. In the disaster management cycle, there are important roles that differ between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. This preliminary finding may be useful for researchers, policy makers, disaster managers and others to start cooperating in reducing disaster risk. A more comprehensive and in-depth study is needed to see the relationship between disaster management and related sciences for strengthening disaster management in the future.

Geospatial Data Utilisation in National Disaster Management Frameworks and the Priorities of Multilateral Disaster Management Frameworks: Case Studies of India and Bulgaria

Facing the increased frequency of disasters and resulting in massive damages, many countries have developed their frameworks for Disaster Risk Management (DRM). However, these frameworks may differ concerning legal, policy, planning and organisational arrangements. We argue that geospatial data is a crucial binding element in each national framework for different stages of the disaster management cycle. The multilateral DRM frameworks, like the Sendai Framework 2015–2030 and the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UNGGIM) Strategic Framework on Geospatial Information and Services for Disasters, provide the strategic direction, but they are too generic to compare geospatial data in national DRM frameworks. This study investigates the two frameworks and suggests criteria for evaluating the utilisation of geospatial data for DRM. The derived criteria are validated for the comparative analysis of India and Bulgaria’s National Disaster Management Frameworks. The validation proves that the criteria can be used for a general comparison across national DRM.

3D POINT CLOUD DATA PROCESSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION MODELS: METHODS AND FINDINGS FROM SAFEWAY PROJECT

Monitoring and digitalization are key to improve the resilience of the infrastructure network in the context of assessing its disaster management cycle. SAFEWAY is a project funded by the H2020 framework that aims to assess infrastructure resilience integrating multiscale information attending to all modes of disaster management cycle. This work presents the methodologies developed in the project for road and rail infrastructure monitoring and modelling, using remotely sensed data from Mobile Mapping Systems (MMS). First, 3D point clouds of both road and rail infrastructure are heuristically processed, obtaining geometric and semantic information from the most relevant assets, as well as the alignment, which is a key entity for generating information models. Such models are computed following the specifications of the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) 4.1 schema, considering its current limitations and future potential for linear infrastructure modelling. Finally, the information is centralized in a core software platform where a user interface has been developed to aid visualization and interpretation of the resulting data.

Views on business continuity and disaster recovery

PurposeThere is a noticeable confusion in the literature between Business Continuity Planning (BCP) and Disaster Recovery Planning (DRP). The two expressions are very often used interchangeably especially when it comes to their application. In this paper, the differences between business continuity and disaster recovery are discussed. The disaster management cycle is also addressed in order to highlight the importance of having plans before, during and after the occurrence of an incident.Design/methodology/approachA review of the extant literature on business continuity and disaster recovery was made. A number of different views were then presented in order to provide a better understanding of the two concepts and their potential overlap/connection. The literature review was conducted in 2020 using a variety of academic resources ranging from journal articles to text books and credible Internet websites. Relevant journal articles were obtained from two primary databases: Emerald Insight and EBSCOhost. Keywords, such as DRP, continuity, disruption and BCP, were mainly used to facilitate the search for these resources and other related material.FindingsReviewing the literature revealed that BCP and DRP are not the same. Yet, they are used interchangeably very often in the literature. This indicates a possible relationship/overlap between the two. The relationship between BCP and DRP can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, which altogether provide a better understanding of their purposes and application.Practical implicationsOn top of the need to differentiate between business continuity and disaster recovery, the widespread impact of the current COVID-19 crisis, especially on businesses and supply chains, has unfolded the necessity to deal with business disruptions in all their forms and the significance of quick and effective recovery. This research clarifies the purpose of BCP and the purpose of DRP and their role in combating impacts of disruptive incidents on businesses and organizations.Originality/valueBCP and DRP are discussed extensively in the literature. Yet, few studies attempted to address the precise functions of the two resulting in an obvious confusion between their meaning and purpose which subsequently reduced the uniqueness of their application and the uniqueness of the application of each. Only a small minority of practitioners and academics recognise the precise differences between the two. This study aims at clarifying this misconception to a wider set of readers and interested parties.

Understanding and improving community flood preparedness and response: a research framework

Many social research projects identify issues with community disaster preparedness and response but struggle to attribute these issues to underlying causes and recommend possible ways to address them. A research framework that considers the underlying causes of preparedness and response and possible interventions was developed for the Wimmera region of Victoria, Australia. The research framework was developed in conjunction with the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority and tested in a social research project across 6 communities in the Wimmera region. This paper provides an outline and rationale for the components of the research framework. It also summarises the regional flood insight afforded by the research framework. The research framework, albeit with some limitations, has universal appeal not only in the examination of community flood preparedness and response, but also for other hazards and other parts of the disaster management cycle.

Earthquake induced crises: game tree approached risk communication and lessons learnt

Earthquakes, large or even moderate, are often followed by secondary phenomena, such as landslides, tsunamis, fires and technological disasters, leading to cascading effects that may, in turn, cause severe repercussions. Before, during and after the occurrence of these events, risk communication, currently evolved to codified legislation, is a crucial factor. Policy selection in the present study is approached by the application of the risk game tree and its formation. The events studied here in view of policy making have occurred both in the historical and the instrumental era, to account for different level of exposure and anthropogenic hazards, in Greece (1894 Atlanti, 1953 Kefallinia series, 2003 and 2015 Lefkas), Italy (1976 Friuli), Japan (2011 Tōhoku) and Slovenia (1917 Brežice). In all case studies the whole disaster management cycle is examined, i.e. mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Disaggregation of earthquake-related direct and cascading effects, as well as risk communication are taken into account and ethical challenges are posed both to scientists and policy makers.