Risk Governance: Resilience for Urban Risk:International Disaster Reduction                     Conference         Davos, ...
IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK        Getting a                                                     Who needs to      br...
Role of vulnerability and resilience in the IRGC risk governance framework Risk: Probability of a risk agent (hazard)  im...
Main Objectives for Resilience 1.to guarantee the functional continuity   of the services provided by urban   infrastructu...
Criteria for Securing Functional Continuity a. Structural (in)stability: ability to cope with stress    disrupting, impedi...
Criteria for Reduction of Impacta. Technical robustness: structural provisions   designed to withstand stress and/or limit...
Criteria for Ease of Recovery a. Availability of resources: technical and financial    capability to start and complete re...
CONCLUSIONS  Need for quantitative and qualitative indicators   for vulnerability  Three main criteria: functionality of...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ortwin Renn - Governance, Resilience for Urban Risk

1,056 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,056
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
287
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Ortwin Renn - Governance, Resilience for Urban Risk

    1. 1. Risk Governance: Resilience for Urban Risk:International Disaster Reduction Conference Davos, August 28, 2012 Ortwin Renn Stuttgart University andDIALOGIK gemeinnützige GmbH
    2. 2. IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Getting a Who needs to broadUnderstanding picture know what, Deciding of the risk Pre-assessment when? Appraisal Communication ManagementThe knowledge Who needs to needed for do what, when? Characterisationjudgements and and evaluation Is the risk decisions tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable? Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
    3. 3. Role of vulnerability and resilience in the IRGC risk governance framework Risk: Probability of a risk agent (hazard) impacting on a risk absorbing system (target) and causing specific extent of damage Vulnerability: The extent to which the risk absorbing system reacts to the stress induced by the risk agent Resilience : The extent to which the risk absorbing system has the capacity to cope with stress induced by the risk agent
    4. 4. Main Objectives for Resilience 1.to guarantee the functional continuity of the services provided by urban infrastructures in times of stress and disaster 2.to limit the extent of losses and impacts in the urban area if a disaster strikes 3.to ensure fast recovery if the infrastructure is severely damaged
    5. 5. Criteria for Securing Functional Continuity a. Structural (in)stability: ability to cope with stress disrupting, impeding or otherwise affecting the delivery of crucial services (total, temporary) b. Organisational coping capability: ability to cope with performance deficits affecting safe operation or delivery of key services c. System disturbance: Lack of pre- or post-service input or output causing breakdown or disturbance (up- or downstream).
    6. 6. Criteria for Reduction of Impacta. Technical robustness: structural provisions designed to withstand stress and/or limit losses in terms of human lives, capital and ecosystems if crucial services are discontinued or affectedb. Resilience in service production: possibility to secure crucial services by other means (redundant systems, diversity, substitutes, multi- functional systems)c. Social flexibility and responsiveness: capability of institutions to cope with secondary impacts (institutional, political, social, psychological)
    7. 7. Criteria for Ease of Recovery a. Availability of resources: technical and financial capability to start and complete recovery in due time (including new financial instruments such as catastrophe bonds) b. Organisational skills: capacity of emergency and recovery institutions to rebuild or substitute crucial services in due time c. Organisational Learning: capacity to learn from the disaster and to improve the future resilience of the remodelled system
    8. 8. CONCLUSIONS  Need for quantitative and qualitative indicators for vulnerability  Three main criteria: functionality of system; impact limitation and ease of recovery  Division into nine subcriteria  These subcriteria can be further structured into indicators and subindicators  Test of indicators will be next step  Invitation for further research

    ×