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

Challenging the status quo

Last week, during my address as part of the University of Newcastle 50th Anniversary Webinar on the Future of Construction, I offered this perspective,

'It is quite a significant step to be prepared to challenge the status quo. Just like the machine of perpetual war, the hegemony of global governance that we accept with so little critical discourse thrives on our indifference. Within all sectors of society, decision-making is too often based on ideology and agenda, rather than evidence, and dissenters are dismissed as naive, sheltered and unrealistic. There is a pervasive narrative that asserts that a dichotomy exists between the well-being of our environment and the health of the global economy. This false assumption successfully obstructs reason and fuels the ideological and agenda-based decision-making that we see all around us.'

As researchers and educators, how often do we really go against the doctrines that dominate our culture? Standing up for ideas that run counter-culture can impact how we are accepted by peers, perceived by funding bodies and respected by students. Not everyone has been willing to take this risk in the past. I would argue, however, that the age of dangerous ideas being mainstreamed is upon us.

As we see the popularity of political figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn soar, one thing is clear. People around the world have had about enough of the current hegemony. The establishment is not impressed. Ad hominem attacks against those desiring radical change is the most common response, with the Conservatives smear campaign an excellent current example of ideologues running scared. While the masses demand to be represented, apologists for the status quo grow more and more desperate. We must not pass up on the opportunity to destroy false narratives once and for all, in whatever way that we can.

In the area of disaster research, are there ideas that we have previously avoided that we might revisit? How about the oxymoron that is sustainable development?

Refugees in Europe: a journey from Gevgelija (FYROM) to Budapest (Hungary)

In August, I spent two weeks in my hometown in Southern Italy. I also took a short trip with a friend of mine to Eastern Europe, along the way participating at the EUGEO 2015 Conference in Budapest (Hungary), where I organized a session and presented a paper. During my visit to this region of Europe, the refugee crisis was building. Things were becoming heated, not only in terms of (very) high temperatures, but particularly in terms of tension and debate within the European Union about how to manage what is rightly considered a humanitarian crisis.

Since we were travelling near to the Balkan area, which refugees traditionally use to try to reach their aspired destinations in Northern Europe countries, my friend and I decided to observe with our own eyes what was occurring. Of course, we did not do it for voyeurism purposes. We think that human beings have to recognize the often tragic and sobering power of History, which constantly happens around our everyday life and deserves direct observation when it is possible. We are also against the protectionist strategies of this European Union, setting itself up as an impregnable fortress. In the past 30 years we have been surrounded by news of tragedies constantly happening both along terrestrial borders and Mediterranean sea, as well as about the violence and ignominious treatments perpetrated on migrants both at borders and the detention camps in Libya and Europe. For these reasons, we decided to be an infinitesimal part of that History and to witness the biggest displacement of people to Europe since World War 2.

I am neither a photographer (actually, I just "do pictures"), nor a journalist or a political analyst. However, as an Italian and European citizen calling for a shift towards inclusive mobility rights and hoping that national and supranational borders finally collapse as spaces of militarization, surveillance and control perpetrating existing and new injustice and inequalities, I have attempted to narrate and to document in pictures what I have seen on those European borders. I have also spoken with some of the refugees, trying to be respectful to people that were there sleeping, washing clothes, or playing football, often in very precarious conditions (as in Budapest). I had several small chats with groups of guys or with families; some were tired or didn't want to be disturbed, however others asked us to take pictures and were happy to speak with me.

We arrived in the small town of Gevgelija (FYROM), located just 300 meters from the South-Eastern border FYROM-Greece. The situation was very difficult. The temperature so high that plastic shelters and gazebos under the sun were literally burning. A few volunteers were providing insufficient food and water. People were continuing to arrive from the border, passing through an unpaved way carrying limited bags and dusty clothes. Exhausted parents took children by the arm. On the border, a police cordon was struggling to prevent refugees from crossing the barbed wire which was used to delimit the border. Protests by the desperate crowds were mounting, pushing to enter FYROM territory. I saw also Macedonian police and frustrated people facing off.

The unpaved way from the FYROM-Greece border to the camp in the Gevgelija countryside. 

Refugees arriving from the border. 

Tensions between the Macedonian police and refugees.

After Gevgelija, we travelled (on our own) towards Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, located in the North of the country. We visited the central station in which refugees were recovered -also for days- after travelling on buses from Gevgelija, waiting for an opportunity to reach the Serbia-Hungary border. While the Gevgelija camp was located in the countryside, with just a few nearby houses and about three kilometres far from the small, rusty station of the town, the refugees' area in Belgrade was located at the side of the central station along the river Sava. It was a small, but very crowded green area, with travellers passing with their bags and suitcases throughout igloo tents, people sleeping on the floor, and children showering in fountains. There were also a lot of Serbians accessing the shops and bars outside the station. Therefore it was possible to see both people having a social drink alongside refugees literally assaulting volunteers bringing food packs, which were of course insufficient to cater for the needy. Being the main railway station of Belgrade, it was absolutely a mess. This de facto worsened the already difficult condition of refugees; there was a lot of traffic along the roads with high levels of pollution and noise at the crossing lights; cars were going into and out from the private parking close to the station. Some people were waiting for private buses operating along the route Belgrade-Kanjiža (the small town close to the border Serbia-Hungary). In order to pay for bus tickets, food and water, refugees went to change their currency to the Serbian dinar.

Drying clothes on a football net in the central station in Belgrade. 

Rubbish/Drying. 

Showering kids.

We knew refugees were also in Novi Sad, an important city between Belgrade and the border with Hungary, however we skipped it because we had to enter into Hungary that evening, and long queues for border checks were expected (in fact, we spent four hours for a passport and baggage check!). Before approaching the border, we visited the refugees' camp in the Serbian town of Kanjiža. The camp was located in a green area just outside the town and close to a railway track. The condition was relatively better than Gevgelija and Belgrade; the camp was monitored by the volunteers of a humanitarian association, and tents were provided for shelter as well as fountains and toilets. A Syrian family asked me to take a picture of their daughters, and this turned into an occasion for a short chat. They told me that they took one month to arrive there from Homs (Northern Syria). They wanted to reach Germany, where some relatives were waiting for them. They did not know what would happen when they tried to cross the Hungarian border, however that evening they were preparing to leave the camp, Inshallah.

The kids of the Syrian family I chatted with in Kanjiža. The youngest daughter was very reticent to pose. 

Washing clothes. 

The camp had humanitarian tents, which are more comfortable of igloo tents or the ground. 

After a few days, I took part in the EUGEO conference in Budapest, where refugees were gathered into the Kalati station waiting to take trains to Germany and Austria. The station was full of refugees in shameful conditions; however, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán decided to prevent them from boarding the trains. The reason for this halt was the application of the EU directives on migrations. According to the Dublin III Regulation by EU, every application for international protection lodged by refugees has to be examined in the country of entry. Although the halt by Orbán was formally lawful and "necessary", it only served to worsen the already unsustainable conditions of the refugees in the station. Just a small water pump and few smelling toilets were provided for hundreds of people, as well as minimal food and no safe areas for sleeping. Refugees (probably around 500 people, but is a very roughly estimation also due to that other people came in the following days) were waiting for days in front of the station sleeping on the ground. They protested and claimed their right to travel. I spoke with some very young Syrian and Iraqi guys. They wanted to go in Germany and angrily waved their train tickets under my nose. A part of the ignominious conditions of the refugees, I was also ashamed for the silence on this issue during the EUGEO 2015 Conference. The Kalati station was just at three kilometres from the conference venue, the Eötvös Loránd University, in Buda side of the Danube. Nevertheless, it seems to me there has been no mention or condemnation, in formal speeches or key note lectures, about what was happening there. Nothing changes with a formal condemnation, of course, however a scientific meeting of geographers and social scientists must be aware of what is happening in their proximity and highlight injustices, particularly when global challenges knock on your door.

Underground passage occupied by refugees in the Kalati station, Budapest. 

Trying to rest. 

A man protesting against the police cordoning the station entrance. 

These guys show me their tickets for Germany. They were in the station since five days, and no food was provided. 

Refugees in the Kalati station. 

I do not know what has happened to the people I met, if they have been able to reach their destination and if they will be able to build a new life far from their home countries. In previous posts on our blog, Jason posed very interesting questions about the challenges migration and displacement pose to the concept of "place" and to the Western development models which provide benefits for the few and sufferance, bombs, and destruction for the others. In the Middle East and around the world, wars or terrorism threaten communities and institutions; this can be considered a disaster. Wars' consequences exceed the capacity of the population to survive, to regain a job or a wage, or to sustain their livelihoods. Local communities cannot cope with the disruption and destruction using exclusively their own resources. As disaster scholars, we are called to investigate the relationships among migrations, society, and environment for understanding pre-existing and new vulnerabilities and risks, for both people continuing to live in those countries and refugees. In this way, several researches are exploring impacts of wars, as well as climate change and hazards on migration trends and displacement. Also narrating and witnessing refugees' stories and conditions respond to this academic -and ethical- need, giving voice to excluded and marginalized people.

All my pictures can be found at my Facebook page (contents are in Italian, apologize for this), as well as pictures by my friend (he is an amateur photographer) on his Flickr.