Sargeant and Lindquist_IDRC2014_8.25.14b

5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
The use of DRR science in an
international comparative context:
an interdisciplinary framework
Susanne Sargeant, British Geological Survey, UK
Eric Lindquist, Boise State University, US

www.grforum.org
Overview
• The anticipated role of science in the HFA and after 2015
• Developing an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach
• The use of science in practice:
• Research approach
• Earthquake risk reduction in South Asia
• Flooding and wildfires in the semi-arid Western US
• Reflecting on policy recommendations regarding the use of
science in the post-2015 framework for DRR
• Added value and summary
• Supporting the implementation of the HFA
• Gaps, needs and further steps post 2015

The role of science in HFA and post-2015
Recommendations of the UN ISDR Science and Technology
Advisory Group (Global Platform, 2013)
www.grforum.org
• HFA and the priorities for action
• Post-2015, pre-zero draft of the post-2015 framework,
Southgate et al. (2014)
The
recommendations
of the Scientific
and Technical
Advisory Group,
presented at the
2013 Global
Platform (and
point of reference
for our
collaboration)

Developing an interdisciplinary, collaborative
www.grforum.org
approach
• A serendipitous meeting, informal discussion about how
science is used in decision making, developing an
appreciation for each other’s language and worldview
• At scientific meetings like EGU there is a lot of discussion
about how best to work with stakeholders and decision-makers
but these meetings are not accessible to many
potential stakeholders
• ‘Sharing Stories’ EGU workshop – an attempt to bring
people together to share experiences and lessons learned
YOU CAN GIVE US THE SCIENCE
BUT
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT US
TO DO WITH IT?
Quote from a
senior member of staff
at an international emergency and
development NGO
General Assembly of the European Geoscientists
Union in Vienna
Photo credit: GrassNet

www.grforum.org
Research Approach
• “How is science used to make decisions from the international
to local scale, and what can be learned from a comparison
between hazards, disciplines, and contexts?”
• First step: Take two existing studies and relate them to the
UNISDR (Southgate et al. 2014) recommendations.
• Second step: develop preliminary case study findings across
the recommendations.
• Third step: Integrate and compare findings for commonalities
and differences.
• Fourth step: Address the value-added perspective of the IDRC
• Fifth step: Where do we go from here?

Case study 1: Earthquake risk reduction in South Asia
• Location – Bangladesh and Nepal. Both densely populated
and highly seismically active with histories of devastating
earthquakes
• Case studies are projects that aim to increase the impact of
earthquake science on DRR and resilience building through
knowledge exchange (Bangladesh) and transdisciplinary
research (Nepal)
• Bangladesh: earthquake risk management training for NGO
www.grforum.org
staff in Dhaka
• Nepal: Earthquakes without Frontiers – a transdisciplinary
research project that brings physical and social scientists from
the UK together with local scientists and decision makers

(Photo credit: Katie Oven)
www.grforum.org
Dhaka
The
distribution of
large
earthquakes
in the Alpine-
Himalaya Belt
Some of the outputs from the
earthquake risk management
workshop in Bangladesh
Focus groups with stakeholders to find out
how scientific information is used in
disaster risk reduction in Nepal

Reflections on the Southgate Recommendations
• R1: While it is possible to demonstrate what science informed the
design and implementation of the training, how this informs
organisational decision making in the longer term is less easy to
demonstrate
• R2: Navigating the local context, working across disciplines and
building the necessary relationships with stakeholders to define the
problem and work towards a solution requires sustained
engagement and can take a long time
• R3: Sharing and disseminating scientific information and translating
it into action should be done with a good understanding of what
information currently exists and the barriers that prevent that
information from being used or shared
• R4: The complexity of the decision-making process and the context
in which it occurs can make it difficult to provide evidence of what
impact science had on decision making
www.grforum.org

www.grforum.org
City of Boise, Idaho

www.grforum.org
Boise River Basin, Boise Idaho

www.grforum.org
Eastern Idaho Wildfire

Case study 2: Flooding and wildfires in Boise
• Location – Southwest Idaho, semi-arid region of the northern
www.grforum.org
Great Basin.
• Policy network approach to multiple natural hazards: urban
flooding and wildfires at the wildland-urban interface.
• Stakeholder engagement with both networks.
• 4 comparative factors of the policy networks:
– Type and frequency of hazard
– Size and type of network
– Network member interactions
– Role of uncertainty and impact of climate change

Reflections on the Southgate Recommendations
• R1: Both cases involve the use of science and science and policy
interaction; engagement in the case of wildfires is more frequent
and interactive; both cases rely heavily on predictions and
probability of risk and disaster.
• R2: Wildfire policy network is inclusive across disciplines (planning,
policy sciences, and hydrology); most flood risk problems are solved
by “hard” or infrastructure solutions, rather than policy or
behavioral solutions.
• R3: Significant effort expended on wildfire education and knowledge
transfer; the urban flooding problem is rarely mentioned or
considered outside the domain of the few major stakeholders.
• R4: Science is but one factor in larger information and advocacy
www.grforum.org
efforts, understanding this reality is critical.

www.grforum.org
Integration and Comparing Cases
• R1: There is significant decision making activity that science
has no impact on; need a better understanding of the decision
context and the competition among information types.
• R2: Science is critical to DRR problem solving but defining the
problem is often a political process; organizational culture and
capacity also contribute.
• R3: Transition of knowledge to action is non-linear; need to
understand where, when and how science engages with
decision making.
• R4: Are we expecting too much of “science” and scientists
within this larger more dynamic process?

Added value for the Post 2015 Framework for
www.grforum.org
Disaster Risk Reduction
• How did your work support the implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action:
– Sub-national perspective on the use of science in DRR
– Contributes to our understanding of DRR implementation
– Context for decision making requires an interdisciplinary approach
– Recognition by HFA and others (ICLEI) that understanding the context is
critical to success
• From your perspective what are the main gaps, needs and further
steps to be addressed in the Post 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction in
– Research: Coordination across research projects
– Education & Training: Create an enabling environment to implement
training outcomes
– Implementation & Practice: Incentivise full participation by the scientific
community in the long tem
– Policy: Responsibility on all stakeholders (including scientists) to
participate fully in the policy process

Sargeant and Lindquist_IDRC2014_8.25.14b

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Sargeant and Lindquist_IDRC2014_8.25.14b

More from Global Risk Forum GRFDavos

Sargeant and Lindquist_IDRC2014_8.25.14b

Editor's Notes