Australia ASEAN Council (DFAT) Disaster Resilience Education Project Launch

The 18th of March 2016 marked the 1 year anniversary of the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. It was fitting that this day was also marked by the launch of an international
project funded by the Australia ASEAN Council and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, focusing on building regional (ASEAN) capacity in disaster resilience education.

The project consortium gathered in Penang, including the team leaders from the University of Newcastle (Australia), the University of the Philippines, the Asian Institute of Technology (Thailand), the University of Civil Engineering (Vietnam) and the launch host, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Following a kind welcome from Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah, Assistant Vice Chancellor, USM and Dean of the Engineering Campus, Dr Jason von Meding (Australia), Dr Indrajit Pal (Thailand), Professor Pham Cuong (Vietnam), Professor Mario Delos Reyes (Philippines) and Dr Taksiah Majid (Malaysia) introduced the respective partner institutions and their research/education capacity..The rest of the morning was spent dissecting the project proposal and agreeing on roles and responsibilities, considering potential outputs and planning the range of activities to be conducted over the course of the 2 year project.

In the afternoon, staff and students from USM gathered for a seminar featuring presentations from the team leaders of each participating institution (von Meding, Cuong, Pal, Ahmed and Delos Reyes). This session showcased research projects from around the region and put the spotlight on disaster risk reduction/ resilience higher education programs and research groups currently operating.

Following the seminar session we proceeded to the official project launch. We were again joined by the Assistant Vice Chancellor Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah along with special guests, Tuan Haji Baderul Amin Bin Abdul Hamid, representing the Municipality Council of Seberang Perai, Penang, and Second Secretary Ms Katelyn Hornby, representing the Australian High Commission, Malaysia.

Dr von Meding began with an introduction to the project, outlining the shared vision of the project team to address root causes of disaster risk through education and concluding with a short promotional video prepared for the event. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah extended a warm welcome on behalf of USM and discussed the excitement of his Faculty to extend its DRR capacity in the regional and international sense, building on its existing local and national profile. Ms Hornby concluded by outlining the importance of the relationship between Australia and Malaysia and Australia's commitment to building regional resilience as demonstrated through various projects and initiatives, including the one being launched and funded by the Australia ASEAN Council.

The launch event concluded with a team dinner, hosted by Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah. We would like to thank the Professor and Dr Sharifah Akman in particular, and the Universiti Sains Malaysia, for their efforts in hosting this event and kicking off the project in great style.

Sacrifice (someone else)

It has been playing on my mind recently how quick we are to sacrifice others, their families and their communities, for our own personal or national self-interest.

The Australian public has been bombarded with damaging political rhetoric about refugees for decades. Many are prepared to turn a blind eye to abuse, injustice and abdication of international responsibility in the 'national interest', building an argument on the logic that oppressing a relatively small number of the global displaced, the most vulnerable and damaged, will keep 'the masses' away from our entitled existence. That this is built on centuries of dispossession and injustice is not something that those advocating for its protection wish to acknowledge. We plan to send babies born in Australia to Nauru, to put it beyond doubt that if you try to come here, we are prepared to torture your children. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

My wholehearted daughter, out protesting for refugees in Newcastle...

Having thrived during an age of climate stability, the human race is facing climate change as an existential threat, pushing well beyond the planetary boundaries that would ensure some measure of safety. We have destroyed the very ecosystem that we depend on for life, a tragedy and a disgrace. The villains in this arena; the corporations and industries that profit, the politicians that enable and, like it or not, the people that consume. 

As the world wakes up to this climate reality, it appears to be too little too late. The powers that be are unwilling to adopt the radical change that is necessary. And yet again, we sacrifice the little guys to maintain the status quo. Pacific island states will be lost to the sea. Developing nations will be pummelled by ever more frequent and destructive disasters. It is not unrealistic to expect climate change migrants to be met with military force in the years to come. In international forums, talk of common but differentiated responsibility is quelled. In the meantime, trade agreements continue the raid on resources begun under colonial conquest. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

In the US the political establishment continue to oppress the working man. In a country rich on international plunder, millions earn a poverty wage. In the UK, the government continues to enforce austerity on the poor while giving corporate and millionaire welfare. In Australia, unions are under attack by politicians that are unwilling to allow scrutiny of their own activities and are opposed to transparency in the affairs of their industry backers. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest. 

We make war when diplomacy does not ensure our supremacy in determining the affairs of other nations. We call it 'freedom' and 'democracy', and those who would be patriots must not dissent when we kill other people's children. We support tyrants around the world, as long as they play by our economic rules. We supply the weapons to kill and maim, and wonder why there is not more peace on earth. Can we truly desire peace, and build it through violence? We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest. For Oil. For Markets. We call it 'national interest' or 'national security'.

In our workplaces, in our social clubs, in our communities and in our homes, we have fallen for the age old lie, that looking after number one is all you can really do. Some of us extend our caring to our family, our friends, our tribe, our nation. How many extend it to all human beings? How many extend their compassion to all life on earth? We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

The cowardly resolve to make a sacrifice of those least able to raise a voice or a fist must be challenged on all fronts. We cannot claim to be for justice and equality while we turn a blind eye to another's suffering. We are all in this together.

Thoughts from UNISDR Science and Technology Conference

The UNISDR Science and Technology Conference has provided a platform for discussion of many pertinent topics relating to the implementation of the Sendai Framework. However, what has really struck me is the absence of what I would have thought were important discussion points. Perhaps these issues are outside of the scope of this conference. But does their absence (or brief appearance) in the dialogue undermine the objectives of DRR scientists?



1. Root causes of disaster

It is certainly not popular to discuss poverty, inequality, conflict, discrimination, globalisation etc. as drivers of vulnerability and therefore disaster risk at forums like this. Perhaps scientists feel powerless to address these issues. Ok, but we must lend our voice to the cause of the vulnerable, rather than colluding to perpetuate structural violence. We must make clear that many of the solutions of science cannot succeed while global inequality and injustice flourish.


2. Inequality

The existence of inequality in not only wealth, but access to knowledge and opportunities was raised briefly on day 1. This issue came up again as individuals decried the academic paywall and the fact that much DRR knowledge is inaccessible to those who need access the most. In addition, we must ask whether the push that we are seeing towards privatising DRR is a healthy shift? Corporate control in DRR, climate change and sustainable development (*shudders*) is growing. Will this reduce vulnerability, or have the opposite effect by creating a bigger gap?


3. Discrimination

We are of course much more sensitive to discrimination against minority groups now than ever before. Thankfully we have witnessed great societal shifts, with rights being won for many. However, we must guard against cultural norms that are still inherently discriminatory against groups that we may not normally perceive as marginalised. One clear issue arising from this conference is that of discrimination against young scientists. 'You are so young'. 'You have to earn your credibility.' 'Wait till you have a PhD and then talk to me.' You only have to speak to a sample of PhD students to realise the gravity of the issues that young scientists face. We need mentoring, opportunities, resources, recognition for brilliant young minds. Uncorrupted. Uncompromised. Idealist. I'd prefer that they made decisions about our future than those currently holding power.


4. Political will

Disasters are political beasts. Much of the discussion has avoided the simple fact that the global political structure is highly resilient to change. I feel that the solutions being offered at this conference are based on the assumption that a system driven by growth, consumption and domination cannot be challenged. Our current system is creating new problems and exacerbating existing problems faster than we can solve them. Can science and technology solve problems that are inherently social, economic and political? Perhaps not directly, but we can become advocates and even activists. We know that there is an absence of will to change in the political establishment. Is there also an absence of will to advocate for change among researchers who rely upon the support of the establishment to further their careers?


Overall, we have heard some interesting perspectives on SFDRR implementation and about fascinating advances in science and technology. These things give me hope. However, like Sendai I will depart a bit frustrated at the general reluctance to engage with the systemic issues that uphold the status quo. All of our advances will be useless if we ignore these. As a speaker pointed out yesterday, we are in a special position where the public trusts our community of knowledge. We have a responsibility to communicate, not only about the technical aspects of our work but as commentators on the big issues society faces. As DRR researchers, we are uniquely qualified to do so.

Student Learning Matters

Phase I of the RES-SIM project has focused on:

“develop[ing] the conceptual model for a virtually distributed computer-based teaching and learning tool that enables students within and across disciplines (e.g. engineering, architecture, logistics), both on and off campus, to collaboratively acquire essential decision-making skills through immersion in a dynamic disaster system simulation”.

The team has been busy interviewing experts in disaster management and education (Stage 1) to identify stakeholder needs and perceptions (students, educators, graduate employers, disaster management agencies) and ultimately working towards producing the detailed design specifications for the simulator. Following the analysis of the interviews we are now turning our attention to a series of workshops to map the system (Stage 2) and will be conducting focus groups to develop the scenarios (Stage 3).

We’ve learnt a lot….

Yet it won’t be until Phase II of the project that RES-SIM will come into fruition— that is, be developed by a software consultant and ultimately used by students and staff.

What will success look like?

Most certainly a system that ensures student attainment of learning outcomes and supports a positive learning experience will be an important part of this equation. For this to happen it will be critical that Phase II of RES-SIM considers the complete learning cycle from curriculum design through to assessment and feedback. After all, while many people agree that online games and simulation can promote learning, critics argue that what is learned may be inappropriate and it is therefore important that games are underpinned by learning theory (Shaffer et al., 2005).

The RES-SIM team argue for scenario-based teaching of disaster resilience

Students need guidance when using simulation, they need to be challenged and they need time to reflect. Teachers need resources to be able to support students in these ways. In Phase II the team would therefore draw from a range of “Good Practice Guides” for curriculum development available from the OLT and other educational research and apply and extend these to the context of RES-SIM. We envisage production of sample learning activities, example assessments and guidelines to support learners and teachers so that students get the most out of RES-SIM.

Success will also involve the maximization of impact. It is one thing for the team to use RES-SIM to positively impact our own students’ learning however broader systematic adoption of the RES-SIM and the lessons learned is preferred over narrow adoption (Hilton, 2014). In part, broader adoption will be dependent on the extent to which RES-SIM and its scenarios cater to a wide range of educational contexts. The team is certainly focusing on this in producing the conceptual design during Phase I. Continual engagement with stakeholders, spreading the word about RES-SIM through journals and conferences and production of online resources is also ongoing. There is also the potential for broadening impact by including new partner institutions willing to adopt RES-SIM. If you are interested in being involved, please contact the team.


REFERENCES

Hilton, T., (2014) The impact management planning and evaluation ladder (IMPEL) http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/IMPEL_0.pdf, accessed 2 November 2015.

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104-111.

RES-SIM: The challenges of addressing vulnerability in scenario design

Attending the Sendai conference in March this year I was struck by the unprecedented support and inclusion for vulnerable groups, and in particular for those with a disability. There were several public forums organised at the event, aimed at drawing attention to the issue of disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction. You could argue that this campaign for recognition was successful, in that the Sendai Framework prominently promotes the needs of the oft forgotten in a disaster risk reduction (DRR) context.

"Empowering women and persons with disabilities to publicly lead and promote gender equitable and universally accessible response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction approaches is key" - Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2013, p. 20

 

This week the release of the Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2015 by ESCAP reminds us that disability-inclusive DRR needs to be a central goal, since the outcomes for this particularly vulnerable group can be so dire. It is well documented that vulnerable groups such as the poor, women, children, the elderly, and those with disabilities suffer worse outcomes in disasters. ESCAPs own figures show that for people with a disability, the mortality rates during disasters are two to four times higher than that of those without disabilities.

So we can easily acknowledge the importance of embedding disability-inclusive thinking into all of our DRR endeavours. The challenge then becomes what does this really look like on the ground. In particular, how can we as researchers incorporate this thinking into the design of RES-SIM? If we rely on current practitioners and educators to inform the design of our system, how can we ensure that this important goal is also in their consciousness? Can we afford to wait for these important goals to become mainstream and rely on public groundswell? I think that perhaps instead we need to 'lead from the top' and ensure that the voices of the vulnerable are loudly ringing in our ears when we make decisions related to DRR. Whether that be in a local community-based project, or globally when deciding on future policy frameworks.

A successful year for the REACT Network!

On Monday 26th October, the REACT Network partners will gather in Beijing for the final activities of our year-long project. The key event (poster below) will be a resilience seminar featuring Dr Jamie Mackee from the University of Newcastle and Dr Wen-Yen Lin from Ming Chuan, followed by a discussion forum with a panel comprising Dr Gary Wei (SwissRe), Dr Jason von Meding (UON), Prof Qian Ye (BNU) and Dr Jie-Ying Wu (MCU).

The REACT Network would like to thank the Australia-China Council and our respective institutions for the financial support that has allowed us to build lasting personal relationships and embark on significant collaborative initiatives. Please check back here for a report on the Beijing visit in a couple of weeks!

What type of game do you want to play?

Anyone who’s been to the zoo, happen to spend time with children or seen a David Attenborough documentary will tell you how young primates are forever playing. But are they playing actual games with rules? or are they just following their imagination and free will?

As children blend these structured and free form activities, we learn different things in different ways. For example wresting with your sibling when you’re both in your super-hero costumes allows you to practice strategies and responses in a relatively safe way, so that you’re able to adapt in case you ever encountered a scenario like this.

Where as a game of monopoly with your parents introduces the constructions and tests associated skills such as: interpreting regulations, negotiation, planning, business acumen and the importance of chance and risk in decision making.

In my childhood monopoly was for long rainy days and wrestling was done outside. Two very different games have very different learning outcomes.

At a fundamental level The Resilience Simulator (RES-SIM) project endeavors to create a game. But what type of game would best introduce university students to the complexity of disasters and how they affect the interconnected systems most of us take for granted?

These are the questions we are grappling with as we begin to process the results from our interviews with disaster practitioners and educators. Any design process is iterative, as the stakeholders come together to create common understanding of what could, and more importantly should, a simulator look like. It’s difficult not to image a tangible preemptive outcome, but (crucial to) trust the design processes in generating innovative solutions.

As the projects underpinning methodology Concept mapping is simple but broad in visually representing the gathered data in ways that convey meaning and validate insights for multiple agents. RES-SIM applies concept mapping principles through multiple approaches including; Agglomerative clustering (Trochim), nested Heirachies (Novak) and to accommodate the dynamic nature of disaster Cyclic (Safayeni). Through interviews project contributors have added their expertise about how to conceptualise emergencies, their management by agencies and society and most importantly what simulators provide.

By outlining the concepts of a disaster into related subsystems, such as the built environment, combat agencies, local communities and exposing inter-relationships facilitated workshops will generate a conceptual model. The model will ultimately ‘run’ scenarios such as a ‘bushfire response’ or ‘cyclone rebuild’ that have been developed in the projects upcoming focus groups.

Due to the inherent learning potential (particularly systems-conceptualisation) of using concept mapping, there’s even rationale for the actual simulator to lead participants through a dynamic Concept mapping process. But the questions remain, would you want to play that game? And what would you learn from it?

If you think you would like to contribute to this ground breaking project please get in touch with the team about how you and your organisation could play a part.



By Jai Allison - RES-SIM Project Researcher