Methodological Notes on Flood Risk Management Research

My PhD research topic is "Developing an integrated flood risk management framework for Vietnam" under the supervision of Dr Von Meding. I have utilised both quantitative and qualitative approaches, but mainly quantitative. In this post I will share some notes on three quantitative methodology approaches applied in my study.

1) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods

MCDM methods enable us to handle quantitative variables and help decision makers in solving flood management problems such as formulating their values and preferences, quantifying these priorities, and to apply them to decision-making processes. Many MCDM techniques are widely used in the field of flood risk management such as AHP, ANP, CP, ELECTREE, MAUT, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS, VIKOR and SAW. I applied two of these methods in my study; Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) proposed by Saaty (1988).

The application of AHP is still quite new in the field of disaster management and is gaining more and more attention in the field. It was used to evaluate the criteria and sub-criteria of flood risk components based on decision makers’ judgement in my study. Thankfully, the author of AHP, Professor Thomas L. Saaty, has provided a free software, Super Decisions (http://www.superdecisions.com/) to solve the complicated algorithm of the method. The result using this software looks like this:

TOPSIS is one of the most widely used MDCM methods in the field of flood risk management. I used the TOPSIS method to analyse flood risk across 63 provinces and eight regions in Vietnam using the national disaster database. The results from this evaluation tool provide additional information to support decision-making at a national scale. An example of the analysis is as follows:

2) GIS and MCDM

Geographic Information System (GIS) emerged during the 1960s through the work of Roger Tomlinson in Canada and has been widely used all over the world. GIS is considered a critical tool for spatial analysis and has been applied broadly to natural hazard risk assessment. The combination of flood risk assessment and GIS framework has been implemented in many recent studies at both local and global scale. Spatial flood risk assessments are useful tools for the identification of at-risk locations and the determination of at-risk components which are a necessary foundation to establish appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures. The integration of MCDM and GIS is applied in our study. This is an example of this application:

3) Machine learning (statistics) approach

Machine learning (ML) is the combination of classical statistics and computer science. Prediction is a major endeavour of ML, to answer questions of how to select relevant factors for prediction and how to build good predictive models. ML is divided into supervised and unsupervised learning. The difference is that the supervised learning has an outcome or target variable and the unsupervised one does not. The supervised learning includes such techniques, regression, decision tree, neural networks, k nearest neighbour, support vector machines, Bayesian learning, and random forests. The unsupervised learning includes such techniques, cluster analysis, principal component models and hidden Markov models. The applications of ML are increasingly popular in genetics, medical science, business and flood risk studies.

I applied regression models and tree-based methods of supervised ML in my study. The statistical R software is very powerful for ML implementation. The book “An Introduction to Statistical Learning” (available download at http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth/ISL/) provides a simple explanation of many ML techniques. The authors of this book also provide many lectures with slides and videos (https://www.r-bloggers.com/in-depth-introduction-to-machine-learning-in-15-hours-of-expert-videos/) to illustrate all contents in the book, so it is very convenient to start learning ML (suitable for beginners like me). This is one of my applications using tree-based methods:

My PhD journey is going to finish at the end of this year. This is the most beautiful and meaningful journey in my life. When walking on this trip, I found some interesting ‘transportations’, including the three approaches that I shared in this post. I hope that it can prove useful for other researchers.

DRECB-SEA project activities in Manila a great success

From November 23th-25th 2016, a consortium of researchers from 5 countries, led by the University of Newcastle and funded by the Australia-ASEAN Council, collaborated to host a series of activities in Manila. The events coincided with the 70th anniversary celebration of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines and allowed the AAC board and Australian Embassy to participate in project activities.

Over 200 participants attended a much anticipated Symposium, entitled "Building Resilience through Synergies in Education" on the 23rd, hosted by the University of Philippines, School of Urban and Regional Planning. AAC board member Professor Alice Woodhead was among the keynote speakers on a day that featured three expert discussion panels; on Disaster Education; Disaster Governance; and Disaster Research and Innovation.

DRECB Manila Symposium - Highlights from Jason von Meding on Vimeo.

The DRECB team launched its new website and the DRR curriculum mapping tool that is under development. There were lively debates between panelists and public participants with respect to key concern in DRR education, research and governance.

In addition to the Symposium event, the DRECB team held a DRR curriculum mapping workshop drawing 30 representatives of different stakeholder groups on the 24th November. Participants worked in groups including practitioners, educators and community actors to analyse and reflect on the Sendai Framework mapping that the project has undertaken. The results of these workshops will be forthcoming in 2017.

The project team wrapped up the week's activities with a visit to Valenzuela City on the 25th, meeting with community leaders, disaster risk reduction practitioners and emergency responders. Special thanks to the UP-SURP organising team and in particular Professor Mario Delos Reyes and Dr Mark Morales for their leadership in making all of these events possible.

The hidden genocide of Rohingyas in Myanmar: raising voices from villages and camps in the Rakhine State.

This is a piece I have originally published in Italian for Eastonline, an Italian magazine of global news and geopolitics. While it does not talk about risk or disaster issues, we perfectly know ethnic and religious discrimination dramatically increases risk vulnerability, together with the marginalization in social, economic, and cultural life of a country. Rohingyas are among the most vulnerable people in the world, and we should continue to talk about them. All pictures and interviews are mine (December 2016).

Over one million of Rohingyas, a Burmese Muslim group living since centuries in Myanmar, suffer from 1948 (year of independence from the British crown) of discrimination and political delegitimization. Since decades, all the alternated governments -including that of the criticized Aung San Suu Kyi, a former Nobel Prize for Peace- shouldered by the armed forces and Buddhist monks, have considered Rohingyas as illegal Bengali immigrants from Bangladesh. These governments have perpetrated a "hidden genocide" through the systematic violation of citizenship and mobility rights, mass killings, arbitrary arrests, rapes, destruction and confiscation of villages. The reasons are not exclusively religious, also residing in the grabbing of Rohingyas’land to promote economic and industrial revitalization of the country, and in the need of a militarily control on the Rakhine State, in which the largest part of Rohingyas live.

After the assaults and violence by the Buddhist population in 2012, the Rohingyas fled their villages. Currently, 120,000Rohingyas live in 36 camps IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons), while 280,000 still live into villages. Rohingyas experience lack of food, water, and medical assistance. Several national and international NGOs provide humanitarian assistance to IDPs camps and villages around Sittwe (the capital of Rakhine), such as the Sittwe Program and Development Organization, who delivers food to 900 families (about 4,000 people) on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Arkar, 24, from Yangon, is the coordinator of this NGO and brings me in the area where Rohingyas are confined, located 20-minutes driving far from Sittwe (according to request by the NGO, the names of people and   of the NGO have been changed, while the names of villages have been omitted).

A rusty bar, always raised and patrolled by a visibly annoyed military, separates the Rohingya from the Burmese "normality". Beyond the bar, the main road continues straightforward. Military areas alternate to the woodland, separated from peeling walls. Some people are busy in repairing and painting the walls, others in paving the road mixing lime and placing stones. These are temporary jobs at cheap price, very slowly performed by men and women of all ages (but also children) that - Arkar says- are both Burmese and Rohingya. Together with the small trade in the villages, these jobs are among the few opportunities for these two groups to interact. From the main road, trails unpaved or covered by cobblestones reach after kilometers the villages and IDP camps, from which the Rohingya cannot get out. Those who live in the villages may move from there for visiting someone or buy something, but they are not allowed to walk on the main road. To get out from the villages they need to rent scooter-taxis and vans, often with unsustainable costs. Those living in the camps face an even more difficult condition: to enter (and exit) they must pass through two military checkpoints. At the first one, they must deliver a bribe.

Kyaw is 23 years old. The village where he lived with his parents, who ran a small shop of medicines, was destroyed in 2012. They had to escape from their place and came to the village where we meet. Recovered for days in the village where they received water and rice and sheltered at the side of a house, they took a while to rebuild a new, albeit poor, house. As everyone, Kyaw does not have a job, but since few months he is the supervisor of the food deliver by the Arkar’s NGO in the area. Kyaw has the bright face of those who would rock the world but the melancholic and innocent eyes of those who cannot because they are forced to have nothing. His story is similar to many. As Soe, 46, who until 2012 was a milk producer and owned a house with an adjoining pasture for his cattle. The Burmese government confiscated the house and the land, accusing him of not being the owner, despite all the submitted documentation attested the contrary. Being forced to sell animals, Soe found recovery in the IDP camp. At his best of knowledge, on his land there are now some government buildings.

Houses are made of bamboo, wood and makeshift materials. In the camps, most of these houses were built by NGOs. Soils are predominantly sandy and dry and do not allow productive or profitable agriculture. Rickety geese and chickens, few scrawny cows or goats rummage in the dust. In some villages, people sell meat and vegetables, or there are some poor refreshment facilities; customers are those few people who can afford it, or some military patrolling around. There is no electricity. There is no water, which is supplied by NGOs in plastic containers or rudimentary wells. In some camps, some bathrooms have been arranged: a row of wooden cubbyholes with a hole in the center. Numbered, one for each family.

The Arkar’s NGO also provides basic medical care, through a mobile clinic and a space for supporting pregnant women, but it does not cover overnight. To exit the camp, for visits or hospitalization in Sittwe hospitals, there are many difficulties. The applicant must be authorized by the government, which usually takes time for a decision; therefore, in urgent cases it is unlikely that the government will accept the request promptly. Also, applicants and families have to bribe the military to exit from camps. Furthermore, many Rohingyas do not trust about Sittwe's hospitals. They know they are unpopular among Burmese and are afraid -as it happened- that the treatment is purposely superficial or inadequate. Two young women tell me of having swelling, loss of sensitivity, and severe pain in their knees. They have difficulties in walking, and are supported by two people even walking for a few meters. Their faces are suffering. Despite the advice by the clinic, they did not go to the hospital; one of the two, having pain for over six months, says that they would rather die in Sittwe. Despite the efforts, humanitarian aids are insufficient to meet the needs of the population. The scarcity of food and water, and the poor hygienic conditions, lead to high mortality rates, especially for children. An elderly woman says that about 500 children under five years died dead in the area since 2012, 200 of which below a year, mainly for diarrhoea.

Rohingya’s faces appear to be hopeless. A man delivered a letter to me, handwritten, in which he talks about the discrimination by the Government and their suffering. He asks a redemption for his people, talks about the support by the NGO, and please doing everything possible to witness the plight of the Rohingya. To which, probably, it just remains to die.

What Causes Disasters?

When you picture a disaster, what comes to mind? The Asian Tsunami? The Haitian Earthquake? Hurricane Katrina? What about the Syrian Civil War? Is it a disaster? Most people think of disasters in terms of the natural hazards that act as the trigger; earthquakes, cyclones, floods and tsunamis are some of the most widely perceived hazards. The prevalence of this outlook produces a myth of disasters as natural occurrences. This masks the fact that disasters occur due to complex social, political and economic choices and circumstances.

Certain cities, countries and regions are undeniably more exposed to natural hazards than others. Residents of New Zealand and Japan understand and accept the likelihood of earthquakes impacting on their lives, just as residents of the Philippines and Caribbean island nations understand and accept the likelihood of destructive typhoons/cyclones. In many cases, relocation away from a hazard is not a possibility.

However, not every individual or community or nation that faces a high likelihood of natural hazards occurring due to location is equally affected. Impact is determined by factors other than the strength or the frequency of the hazard.

Since the Industrial Revolution we have witnessed significant changes in every aspect of our society. Much is made of the "progress" of the human race since then. However, as much as the wealth and health generated has allowed our species to flourish, more people have been the victims of this progress than have been beneficiaries. Billions of people today suffer from hunger, thirst, poverty, discrimination, conflict and other injustice, often stemming directly from the "progress" of others.

Disasters are simply inevitable in this world of deep injustice, where the majority have been left behind (and in many cases left worse off) as the privileged few have moved ahead.

We can analyse people that have been left behind at different levels. Certain countries benefited greatly from colonisation and more recently, globalization. In both cases, the majority are left to serve the minority from a position of powerlessness. This translates into a widening divide between the rich and the poor. Rising inequality is not only a growing issue between countries, but between communities and classes in most nations. At the scale of the individual, personal characteristics and circumstances are key.

Right now, in 2016, it feels as though we are hurtling towards catastrophic collapse. From the refusal to take real action on climate change (and in many cases outright denial of the problem) to the power-grab by reactionary political elements, strengthened by public discontent with the neoliberal status quo. Rhetoric is becoming more divisive, more hateful, more intolerant.

Our finely tuned ecosystems are breaking down. The "progress" of the human race has resulted in great losses for all other life on earth. Our coral reefs are dying. Our oceans are being emptied. Our forests and jungles are being destroyed. Almost all agricultural diversity is being lost. Species are becoming extinct at 1000 times the background rate (without our influence). We treat everything (living and otherwise) on earth as a resource to be exploited for profit.

We are in the middle of a mass extinction and we carry on as if things have never been better. Hubris. Blissful ignorance. Dangerous delusion.

When I started on my research journey in this field, I wrongly assumed that the best I could do was discover how to manage disasters more efficiently, competently and sensitively. Of course, I quickly realised that this approach is based on a highly reactive ideology that does not offer real hope for reducing losses in the future, particularly in a world changing in the way that it is. To commit to only managing disasters seems to assume that we cannot do more.

My view is that we need to advocate for an approach based on a deeper understanding of and concern for the reasons why disasters happen, why people are vulnerable in the first place and what the human and non-human impacts of disasters are.

We must respond to the needs of our planet and all forms of life on it. We should not accept disasters as natural, or associated losses as an inevitable outcome. A disaster risk reduction approach is committed to addressing the socially constructed root causes of disasters. Scholarship in this field asserts that pre-existing vulnerability is always the main predictor of disaster impact, and efforts to reduce risk begin invariably with root causes rather than symptoms.

By finding ways to help people become less vulnerable, and opposing the political, economic and social norms that hold them back, it is still possible to envisage a world with less disasters.

Scientific Evidence: Generated today, ignored tomorrow

by Jason von Meding and Giuseppe Forino


Habitat III (The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development) in Quito, Ecuador, took place from 17-20 October. It brought together over 35,000 participants to discuss sustainability, inclusiveness, and resilience in cities. While the text was adopted at the UN General Assembly in September, Habitat III shifted the focus on to implementation.

Source: UN Habitat

Cities are very much a central theme of the 21st Century. In the next 30 years, explosive growth will occur, particularly in developing world’s urban centres. Our major problems, from climate change to increasing inequality can be addressed most rapidly by understanding and harnessing this trend. On the other hand, rapid growth in cities on the current trajectory will simply exacerbate the exploitation, marginalisation and deep rooted vulnerability that the most at risk sections of society face.

This largely unplanned growth of urban areas places limits on efforts to reduce risk, while creating additional problems with which future residents must contend. Habitat III is the latest UN-led conference that touts inclusivity of stakeholders, empowerment of minorities and a global consensus. The University of Newcastle is eager to be heard as part of the highly visible UN platform, participating in both the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and Habitat III.

At each global forum the latest research is presented and the evidence is drawn upon to chart a path forward. The question is, what happens after the photo-op, the press release, the new framework, the policy paper?

Role of Science in Providing Input and Shaping Awareness in Society

In the case of the ‘New Urban Agenda’, the scientific community continues to build upon the knowledge base in diverse disciplinary areas, contributing to our understanding of every aspect of urbanisation. We learn more and more about the problems we may face and the solutions that human innovation may offer.

What is also clear is that without considerable political will at the very top level, structural social and economic problems will persist and worsen. Meanwhile, the environmental impact of accelerating growth in urban areas is likely to be dire. Without a clear and feasible mitigation strategy, it could be catastrophic.

The scientific community is at the forefront of identifying and helping us understand important issues in society that must be responded to. We cannot ignore the impact of economic and political decisions on the most vulnerable, even when pursued for the greater good of building ‘resilient cities'; for example through gentrification; land grabbing, displacement and genocide; growth of unplanned settlements without tenure, health or safety issues; environmental degradation.

Besides telling us what the problems are, science should champion progressive change. We have become accustomed to celebrating new technologies, better policy recommendations and more efficient management process and frameworks to follow. In the meantime, risk among the most vulnerable multiplies and we avoid the uncomfortable truth that our solutions do not help everyone. We try to depoliticise disasters.

There are numerous barriers that prevent the scientific community from achieving maximum impact in society. Research funding often comes with strings attached. Universities and research institutes - consciously or not - play the neoliberal game and scholars are herded towards projects that have a financial imperative. Research much fit with the government agenda.

The relationship between science and the media is often unhealthy. This can be as much about scholars under pressure to perform as about journalists looking for a story. The 24-hour media cycle and now a truly global platform means that the unique and sensational sells.

The scientific community often fails to communicate its ideas clearly to the public. In some areas of research, virtually nothing is understood by the public and in others, widely held myths are not challenged often enough to be displaced. In the absence of a simple explanation, anyone can write almost anything they like and sound informed.

Has Science been Stifled by the ‘International Community’?

All of us read and use policy documents produced and promoted by international organizations for disaster risk reduction, sustainable development and climate change agendas. We know that often their contents and outcomes can be widely criticised, they are nevertheless useful as a background to develop our ideas.

While 2015 was marked by significant global agreements in Sendai, New York and Paris, very little was demanded in terms of accountability for the failures of previous agreements to curb our excesses, slow environmental destruction and protect the most vulnerable. Of course, there are many success stories of the previous decades, but to continually focus on these alone is somewhat disingenuous. Who is responsible for failures in implementation? Of course, most negotiators are able to say, ‘the previous government!’

Each of the ultimately non-binding pacts is highly aspirational and difficult to implement, with much left open for interpretation. Often they leave a sense of vagueness and incompleteness, failing to address the systemic root causes of today’s problems, choosing rather to rely on a particular kind of science which limits analysis at the present without understanding how communities, places and society evolve through their particular history in their capabilities, trajectories, and disadvantages.

A watering down of each agenda at the negotiation table was a far cry from where each dialogue began, often with the close input of the scientific community. In the end, it is not necessarily scientific evidence that shapes the final document but the agenda of national negotiators (and of course their corporate partners).

We end up wondering whether the knowledge being generated for these events really does anything beyond legitimising the status quo? If our calls for radical change in economic and development imperatives are ignored or compromised, it is difficult to see how our diligent engagement actually prevents in any way the continued marginalization of already disempowered people around the world, by the economic system that is backed by the UN itself.

Implementation and Political Will

Why are the best and most revolutionary ideas ‘not feasible’ when it comes to implementation? Often it is because a powerful interest would be left worse off. In global negotiations, much has been said about the lobbying power of the United States to veto any proposal. This was certainly the case in 2015, when much of the fine tuning was done by the US teams.

In addition, we observe a narrow scope of acceptable policy and practice. Rarely do bureaucrats discuss root causes of poverty, or hunger, or disaster risk, much less ways to solve such pressing issues. We are told to believe in the ‘invisible hand’. We are sold PPP’s and re-insurance and free trade agreements.

The most celebrated science at these forums does not rock the boat. Rather, it aligns perfectly with a religiously neoliberal worldview, and the government bodies, NGOs, philanthropic organisations and (sometimes discretely) the corporations that call themselves the ‘international community.’ Furthermore, science that cannot be monetised is sadly not a high priority. This is leading to an increasingly corporatised UN conference circuit.

In the implementation of the agreements on climate change, sustainable development disaster risk reduction and cities, there is little pressure to implement progressive change because what that looks like is not widely understood. The public often do not know whether their leaders are taking action based on evidence or not. They do not understand the science, the historical context or the hidden agendas. The media is generally committed only to reinforcing pre-conceptions among its viewers, listeners and readers. This destructive cycle fosters both ignorance and misunderstanding about science.

We cannot blame only the lobby groups and the private interests and the powerful states for the lack of real change. We must reflect on the failure of the scientific community to force the hand of politicians through watertight evidence, communicated not only at UN conferences but to the public in a way that they can understand. Some scientists are not asking the right questions, but many are and do not communicate effectively. Politicians more often than not bow to public pressure, and one way that we can stimulate transformation is through knowledge. Only under intense pressure will there ever be any ‘political will’ to change.