PhD Candidate Seminar
Transcript: Background Sub objective: Construct framework and indicators for vulnerability What are the characteristics of vulnerable people? Fewer material and/or financial resources Less physically or mentally capable Less knowledge or experience Restricted by commitments Current evacuation procedures often expect people to: Be able to understand warnings, have physical capability and resources to evacuate, and don’t have other responsibilities Niigata prefecture - Sanjo city Ibaraki prefecture - Chikusei city Acknowledgments Objective 1 Methods Background Objectives Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Short Overview of Methods Case study areas Flooding of Sanjo City in 2011 Sub objective: Evaluate DRM policy for measures for vulnerable people Metric based on study by Lumbroso (2011) with these scores: 1. No mention of groups of potentially vulnerable people 2. Recognition of a group of potentially vulnerable people 3. Specific measures taken to reduce vulnerability 4. Anticipation of future numbers of potentially vulnerable people 5. Involvement of potentially vulnerable people in policy creation Evaluated DRM laws and policies on national, sub-national and regional level with 2 local areas in each country Sub objective: Define vulnerable people Literature review and analysis DRM laws and policies Laws and policies related to vulnerable people Research publications from official organizations (UN, NGOs) Journal publications, books and other expert publications No consensus on vulnerable people 6th APHW Conference, 19 August 2013: Title: Quantifying the effectiveness of measures taken for vulnerable people in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) in the Netherlands Pending publications: Article for Natural Hazards, under review (2014) Title: How many people are vulnerable? A quantitative estimate of vulnerable populations and evaluation of flood evacuation policy Authors: K. Vink, K. Takeuchi, K. Kibler Article for Water International, in preparation (2014) Book for Routledge publishing, in preparation (2015) Title: Generationing Crisis and Disaster Editors: J. Warner, R. Gigengack, K. Vink In your opinion, who are vulnerable people? Overall: DRM laws rarely anticipated future numbers of vulnerable people, and none were created by involvement of vulnerable people Objective 3 Results Objective 4 Methods Discussion Methods Need to assume or estimate certain statistical data, particularly for the characteristic ‘restricted by commitments’; estimated numbers were related to other numbers of people For all indicators in each country I made equal effort to locate evidence from governmental or scientific reports pertaining to the number of people No data on ‘people living in poverty’, who also have the characteristic ‘less physically or mentally capable’, perhaps due to privacy issues. This group could be both extremely vulnerable and numerous Recommendations and future research Objectives Limitations First limitation: lack of independence associated with vulnerability characteristics - people can have multiple characteristics simultaneously or the characteristics may change over time If the numbers of vulnerable people are combined, the actual total number of people who are vulnerable would be lower, but their vulnerability would be increased depending on how many characteristics they have Conclusions Japan Problem Statement Results of DRM policy evaluation USA has the most elaborate measures, these could be used as examples (for Netherlands) Identification or lack of identification of groups of potentially vulnerable people at the national level does not necessary lead to more or less detailed support measures DRM laws rarely anticipated future numbers of potentially vulnerable people, and none were created by involvement of potentially vulnerable people. We count on our governments to make equitable policies, but this has clearly not yet been established in these countries Methods To evaluate regional policies two areas were chosen per country. This is a low amount, based on data availability and the expectation to encounter support measures The regional examples should not be seen as representative for the entire country; rather the national measures can be seen as supporting the regional areas Measures supporting vulnerable people may or may not be implemented, as well as complemented by measures not written down in any policy document Policies should focus on: Most numerous characteristics (~50%): people with fewer material and/or financial resources people restricted by commitments Top three most numerous indicators: women with no car access people with pet dependents children aged 0-14 DRM laws rarely anticipated future numbers of potentially vulnerable people, and none were created by involvement of potentially vulnerable people. We count on our governments to make equitable policies, but this has clearly not yet been established in these countries I would like to thank: My PhD supervisors, Prof. Kuniyoshi Takeuchi and
Prezi Present
Prezi Video
Prezi Design
