6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 Integrative Risk Management - Towards Resilient Cities. 28 August - 01 September 2016 in Davos, Switzerland

1. Florian Roth, Linda Maduz, Tim Prior
Preventing and Managing Large-Scale Disasters in Swiss Cities
Preliminary findings from an ongoing research project
Davos, 29 August 2016
Risk and Resilience Team
Center for Security Studies (CSS)

2. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Our Background
Study Background
Aim of the study
Research design
Preliminary findings
Conclusion
Outline

3. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Our Background
Center for Security Study (CSS)
Part of ETH Zürich
Basic research & policy advice focussing on
international security, Swiss politics, disaster risk
management
Risk and Resilience Team
Multidisciplinary team
Focus on social & organ. aspects of DRM
Collaboration with Fed. Office for Civil Protection
(FOCP) and other agencies

4. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Study’s background
“Disasters in Swiss Cities”-Study
Commissioned by the FOCP
Building on 2014 study „Preparing for Disasters in
Global Cities: An International Comparison”
Assumption: Growing role of city administrations DRM
Question: Established processes for regular
disturbances & disasters, but also for extreme
& unexpected events?

5. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Aim of the study
Assess civil protection processes and practices in
urban areas in Switzerland
What are cities’ roles in the management and the
prevention of disasters and emergencies within the
federalist structures?
Which risks are given highest priority in urban disaster
management in Switzerland – and which risks might be
overlooked?
How can actions be coordinated between municipalities,
cantons, and the federal government to be most
effective and efficient?

6. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Total of 16 expert interviews
Research design
Seven major Swiss cities selected
1. Identification
& assessment
of risks
2. Measures
& strategies
of response
3. Institutional &
informal structures
& processes of
cooperation

7. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Preliminary findings I
Risk assessment & risk identification
Systematic RA is a relatively recent development in
Swiss cities
Level of institutionalization varies greatly, not directly
related to city size
Limited exchange across political levels, i.e. between
cities, cantons, and the Confederation, or across cities
(e.g. Pandemics)
When risk information are shared publicly, mostly done
as passive one-way communication within established
networks

8. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Preliminary findings II
Hazards and risks in focus of Swiss cities
Risk perception & assessment strongly influenced by
recent events
Largest concerns: earthquakes, floods, power blackouts,
terrorist attacks
But generally focused on rather frequent and small
hazards (e.g. regular crime, fires and small seasonal
floods)
Depending on financial & human resources, little specific
attention dedicated to extreme and unexpected events

9. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Preliminary findings III
Responsibilities and routines
Well-established routines for disaster response (usually
led by police)
Less clear responsibilities for prevention &
preparedness
Inter-cantonal help considered important, but not
necessarily institutionalized
Cantons have broad responsibilities, but cities typically
have the operational means

10. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Preliminary findings IV
Coordination and communication
Informal networks shape horizontal and vertical
cooperation patterns
Personal networks are central, with positive & negative
effects on coordination (non-systematic coordination)
Rather limited communication with the public
(e.g. for disaster preparedness)

11. Roth@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Conclusion
Preliminary implications
Political structures in disaster management should be
adjusted to spatial and functional realities
Initiatives developed at higher political levels should be
more tailored to operational needs
Further diversification of the personnel would allow the
system to become more sustainable
& integrative
Fostering public disaster preparedness should be
prioritized on all administrative levels