Not working in Japan, aka travelling

By Zoe Mildon, on 13 May 2016

As well as working during my fellowship in Japan (see previous blog post), I have been able to travel around much of the country and see a variety of sights.

My first travels outside Sendai were to the Fukushima prefecture to meet with a group of UCL students who were in the country for a cultural exchange to commemorate five years since the Great Tohoku earthquake and tsunami (see recent blog article). I joined them for a weekend, and a lot was packed into two days, including visiting Fukushima Dachii nuclear power plan, a Japanese castle, painting Japanese candles and staying in a ryokan (Japanese  style hotel) with an onsen (hot springs).

My second long weekend trip was partly geological and partly touristy. Shinji (my supervisor in Japan) took my husband Peter and I (he had come to visit me while I was in Japan) to Kobe and the area that was damaged during the 1995 Hanshin earthquake. We visited a museum on Awaji Island where the surface

Preserved surface rupture from the 1995 Kobe earthquake

Preserved fault cross-section from the 1995 Kobe earthquake

 

offset from the earthquake has been preserved by pumping glue and preservatives into the soil. They had also dug down to reveal a cross-section of the fault at the surface. To get to Awaji Island we crossed the Akashi Kaikyō bridge which is the longest suspension bridge in the world. The 1995 earthquake actually affected its construction. The fault, which moved with strike-slip motion, passed between two pillars that had been constructed and offset them by ~1m relative to each other, hence they had to be realigned following the earthquake. After this, Shinji took me to one of the oldest seismic observatories in Japan, near Kyoto, which has a collection of seismometers from ~1900 to the present day.

Peter and I feeding the tame deer in Nara park

Peter and I feeding the tame deer in Nara park

The earliest seismometers took up an entire room, whereas the most modern one was the size of a brick and weighed only 1.5kg. Then our trip became more touristy, Shinji took us to Nara, the first capital of a united Japan in 710 AD. The biggest tourist attraction is the largest Buddha statue in Japan, housed inside the largest wooden building the world. There are also tame deer that wander around the old part of the city and can be fed. Peter and I spent the rest of the weekend in Kyoto and Nagoya (most famous for the Toyota factory) being tourists.

After a couple of weeks of hard work, I took a week off to travel with my husband and a friend visiting from the UK. This was quite unusual for the other people in my office, I think Japanese people don’t usually take such long holidays! We went right off the tourist track, into a small town in the central Japanese Alps, in order to climb a small active-ish volcano. We were probably the only westerners in the town, and we caused a bit of a stir when we went to the local onsen, which was otherwise full of old Japanese people, who spoke no English whatsoever! Before I came to

Sakura blossoms in Kenroku-en park, Kanazawa

Sakura blossoms in Kenroku-en park, Kanazawa

Japan, many people had told me about seeing the sakura (cherry blossoms) and how special an occasion it is. We were in a city called Kanazawa on what was probably the most spectacular day for viewing the blossoms, warm, blue skies and all the blossoms were out. Sakura really is a fabulous sight, both in the cities and the countryside. Our last stop was Tokyo, where we spent three days. Tokyo is as huge and crazy as I was expecting. Travelling into Tokyo on the Shinkansen (bullet train), for about an hour before you arrive at Tokyo station there are dense buildings almost as far as the eye can see. Much of Tokyo is busy, built up and lots of neon lights, but there are pockets of quieter (and usually older) districts.

Left: The Genbaku Dome in Hiroshima, the bomb exploded about 600m above this building. Everyone inside was killed instantly. Right: Children's Peace Monument to commemorate all the children who dies as a result of the bomb.

Left: The Genbaku Dome in Hiroshima, the bomb exploded about 600m above this building. Everyone inside was killed instantly. Right: Children’s Peace Monument to commemorate all the children who dies as a result of the bomb.

Last week, four friends from university came out for Golden Week (national holidays). We mainly stayed in Kyoto and did a couple of day trips out, including to Hiroshima. The Peace Museum in Hiroshima is an incredibly informative and moving museum, documenting the physical effects of the atomic bomb, from short-term thermal radiation to long-term cancer, as well as the physics behind the bomb and why it was dropped on Hiroshima in particular. We visited a geisha show in a theatre in Kyoto, as well as numerous temples and shrines. The highlight of my week was going to the opening day of the sumo grand tournament in Tokyo. It was not at all like I expected it to be, there was a lot of ritual and ceremony involved, but the fighting only lasts 5-30 seconds!

Beginning of a sumo bout at the sumo arena, Tokyo

Beginning of a sumo bout at the Ryogoku Sumo Hall, Tokyo

Travelling around Japan by Shinkansen is incredible for so many reasons. Firstly (and probably most well known) they are incredibly fast, Sendai is about 350km from Tokyo, which is about the distance between London and Newcastle, and the Shinkansen takes only 90 minutes! The trains are also spacious and comfortable, even in standard class. Their only disadvantage is how expensive they are to buy tickets, but in my opinion the speed is worth paying for. At the other end of the spectrum, local lines out of cities are typically very cheap, for example I got a train to a place called Matsushima, just outside Sendai, a 50min train ride which cost 400yen (about £2).

My overall impression so far of Japan is that it is a culture of extremes, between the very old and the very new and technologically advanced. Wherever I have been, people are very friendly and helpful, even through the language barrier. Before I came, I have to admit I didn’t have a burning desire to visit Japan, but having been here, I would thoroughly recommend it as a country to visit.

Working and living abroad as a visiting researcher

By Zoe Mildon, on 29 April 2016

I am a third year PhD student in the IRDR, my research is focussing on the geometry of normal faults in the central Apennines and the implications for stress transfer during earthquakes. Through my PhD I have travelled many times to Italy to do fieldwork, but my travels have now taken me further afield to Sendai, northern Japan. I am in the middle of a four-month fellowship funded by the JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) working at the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University, Sendai. I am working with Prof. Shinji Toda to develop a program he wrote, called Coulomb, to model the transfer of stress following an earthquake on faults with variable geometry, specifically the Italian faults that I am studying for my PhD.

20160316_203715At the Institute, I am based in a fairly large open plan office for the Disaster Science Division, with PhD students, Associate and Assistant Professors in the same space. The photo included is of everyone in my office (and my husband) our for dinner together.The atmosphere in the office is a little different to the PhD room at the IRDR, it is very quiet most of the time. Most people in the office can speak a little English, a few speak English very well (including my professor). I can speak and understand a small amount of Japanese, but not enough to hold a decent conversation. My desk is pretty nice, actually I have two desks pushed together so I have lots of space, and I am right by a window. I am enjoying my commute to the university much more than I do in London. In London it takes me an hour to get to UCL from home, whereas here it takes less than 15 minutes by subway, or I can walk (via a Shinto shrine, see the photo with the cherry blossoms in bloom), which takes about 40 minutes.

My morning walk to the university, with the cherry blossoms in bloom.

One of the biggest changes that I have experienced is living space; in the UK I live in a house with my husband, but here in Japan I am living in a large student dormitory. I have my own room, but it is pretty small, just enough space for a single bed, desk and set of shelves. Luckily I couldn’t bring very much stuff over with me, as there isn’t space for much else. The washing and cooking facilities are shared between all the residents (around 60 people, most study at the university) and so are usually quite busy and not particularly clean. But it is all part of the experience, and I have met some lovely people in my dormitory.

Food has been less of a change than I expected. Before I came, I was warned that there wasn’t much western food available and to take some home comforts (which for me was dark chocolate and a jar of peanut butter). But I have been surprised how easy it is to buy western staples like pasta in the supermarkets. There are also two dedicated international food shops in Sendai, but they are more expensive than the normal supermarkets. But I am definitely missing cheese, I probably eat cheese almost every day in the UK. It is available here, but about twice the price for half the amount of cheese as the UK.

I am enjoying Japanese food, and I’ve been taken to some excellent restaurants in Sendai with colleagues. Until about two months before I came to Japan, I was a lifelong vegetarian, but I had made the decision to start eating meat and fish while I was in Japan so that I didn’t have to worry about whether I could a meal out or not. So far I have tried many things, including octopus tentacles (too rubbery), raw sea urchin (surprisingly tasty despite appearances), sashimi (raw fish) and Kobe-style beef. Several places I have stayed or been to, you are simply presented with an evening meal or breakfast, with no choice. So I am glad I made the switch, as otherwise there are occasions that I could have gone without much of a meal.

In my last month in Japan, I will attending the Japan Geoscience Union Annual Meeting (like AGU) in Tokyo. Most of the conference will be Japanese sessions, but there are some English sessions on each day. I will be speaking about my research I have been doing while in Japan, my talk will be in the first session on the first day of the conference. This will be my second international conference that I have presented at, and I am really looking forward it.

A group of six IRDR members visit the Fukushima Prefecture

By Serena Tagliacozzo, on 6 April 2016

From the 8th to the 15th March 2016, a group of students and researchers from UCL and the UCL Academy visited the area affected by the Fukushima- Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in the Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. The group included six members of the Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction: four PhD students – Nurmala Nurdin, Omar Velazquez, Serena Tagliacozzo and Zoë Mildon – one Masters Five membersstudent – Sandra Camacho Otero – and Professor David Alexander. The visit occurred on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the Great Tohoku earthquake and of the resulting tsunami and nuclear accident.

The visit was aimed at investigating the current state of rebuilding in the Fukushima Prefecture and highlighting the positive and negative aspects of the reconstruction process. During the course of the stay, we had the chance to see numerous places, being informed about strategies put in place to ensure food security and listen to how survivors coped with the disaster. On the 12th of March a group was allowed to access to the power plant itself while others visited some temporary housing sites in the prefecture.

Untitled

“Visiting Fukushima was an incredible experience. I think all of us were impressed by the efforts made by the community and the government in order to recover from the disaster. Personally, I was amazed by the reconstruction works carried out in the power plant and the current situation of its facilities”, Omar Velazquez, IRDR PhD student.

 

Broadly speaking, the Fukushima Prefecture and Japanese Government rUntitled1esponded well to the disaster: the areas we had the chance to visit were entirely reconstructed in a culturally appropriate manner and information was released to the residents about radiation levels. As additional positive elements, temporary houses were constructed close to or within existing towns and efforts were made to ensure that residents could be both integrated into the new community and maintain relationships with the original one. Much work has been done to ensure control over the safety of the fishery and agricultural goods.

 

“Visiting the Fukushima Prefecture gave me the chance not only visit the nuclear plant itself and see the technical efforts to decontaminate the area, but also gave me the opportunity to talk to people and know the local effort to revitalize the place, sell their products and build resilience in situ.” Sandra Camacho Otero, IRDR Master student.

 

However it should be noted that little chance was given to us to explore the pitfalls of this fast-paced reconstruction. Fukushima prefecture is trying hard to rebuild its reputation as a safe place and to revitalise economic sectors like agriculture and tourism while also investing on robotics and sustainable energy sources. As disaster researchers, it’s crucial for us to highlight both best practices and areas of improvement in order to support decision makers in the hard task of rebuilding after such major disasters. Acknowledging challenges is the first step towards a recovery that attempts to reduce vulnerabilities rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.

Masters student, Sandra Camacho Otero, wrote an article (in Spanish) for The Mexican Times on the field trip in Fukushima. Read more here: http://themexicantimes.mx/a-cinco-anos-de-fukushima/

Investigating communications after the Canterbury earthquakes – fieldwork

By Serena Tagliacozzo, on 10 September 2015

Serena Tagliacozzo is a PhD student in the IRDR who is investigating the requirements for a web-based platform to allow effective communication between authorities and citizens in the disaster recovery phase. The platform would allow citizens to effectively share their knowledge and experiences with planners and developers, and for authorities to communicate plans to interested parties. Serena has recently visited Christchurch, NZ, to discuss with citizens and authorities the effects of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes that destroyed parts of the city. She shares her experiences in this post.

me

When I arrived in Christchurch, on the evening of the 8th August, it was dark and cold. The morning after, the city welcomed me with some snow, which fortunately stopped after few hours. Walking across the city centre, my impression was of a big construction site, with repair works in progress everywhere. The red cones dispersed throughout the city remains the symbol of the Christchurch’s struggle to recover from the devastating earthquakes that hit the Canterbury region in September 2010 and February 2011.

works

Following these two large events, the whole area experienced moderate to severe aftershocks for almost two years, making it more difficult for the repair companies to start the demolition/rebuilding of the damaged infrastructure and dwellings and for the population to return to normality. After almost five years from the earthquake of February 2011, Christchurch has now entered into the reconstruction phase. Many aspects of this reconstruction process remain controversial. For example the future of the Christchurch Cathedral (which dates back to the 19th century) is uncertain, with some people wanting to demolish it and rebuild a brand new one while others advocate preserving the historical building.

Christchurch Cathedral

The controversies do not exist solely on the rebuilding of the physical environment. The city is split socially, between those who experienced less damage and had their houses repaired in relatively short time, and those living in the most damaged areas whose property has not yet been repaired. For these people, most of who were living in the east part of the city where the liquefaction caused a drop in the ground level (which resulted in an increase of the flood risk), the recovery is far from being complete.

future

The scope of my fieldwork was to gather data on the communication practices that take place between government agencies and residents during the reconstruction phase from the Canterbury earthquakes. During the course of my fieldwork, I had the chance to interview and speak with many people from community based groups and associations born in the wake of the earthquake. All of them shared with me their stories of hope and the struggle to recover and to be listened to about their concerns for the future of their city. They also voiced a general distrust toward some of the authorities in charge with the management of the recovery process and concerns about the centralisation in the decision-making.

I also had the chance to interview and meet with government officers working in the main recovery agencies, including Christchurch City Council, Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuilding Team (SCIRT), Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Earthquake Commission (EQC), New Zealand Police, Red Cross, District Health Board. They told me about the challenges of leading a huge recovery effort and communicating effectively with increasingly frustrated residents. They also confirmed the importance of communicating timely and accurately recovery information through a multitude of channels so that to reach out to the different social groups. Within this communication landscape, social media platforms are being embraced by government agencies to reach a broader audience.

What I will take from this fieldwork is the incredible struggle of Christchurch and the Canterbury region to bounce back (or bounce forward). Whilst some choices made regarding the management of the recovery process are debatable, it should never be forgotten that recover from a disaster is a long-lasting, complex, challenging and sometimes nerve-wracking process. This is true for the residents that live through it, as well as for the government agencies that lead it. Good communication practices between recovery agencies and residents can make this process smoother and more participative.

Disaster Risk Reduction Communication: challenges and chances

By Jacopo Spatafora, on 18 August 2015

Audience5Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is a rising field, growing in scientific production and relevance. DRR aims to identify causes and trends of hazards impacting human lives, in order to reduce their intensity, reduce the possibility of occurrence and tackle the resulting effects.
A key action of DRR is to share knowledge, so that the people can take adequate measures to prevent the consequences. Part of this field involves communicating with the exposed communities at risk of damages and losses, to understand their expertise and requirements. Effectively communicating DRR research to affected communities is one of the biggest challenges faced by researchers. Ineffective or missing communication leads DRR to fail one of its goals, condemning a fundamental body of knowledge to be underutilised or simply ignored. It is necessary to improve communication and fill this critical gap, in order to reduce disaster risk.

This topic shaped the debates at the Third Academic Summit and the 5th IRDR conference, held at UCL on 24th and 25th June 2015. Institutions’ representatives, DRR researchers, lecturers and practitioners had the chance to share their experience and compare their points of view at the two events, discussing current examples and future developments of DRR.
Specifically, the debates tried to answer the following questions:
– What are the most effective methods of communication for DRR?
– Which are the current trends of disaster prevention, management and recovery?
– Is academic work becoming more relevant for practitioners?
– How can students contribute to apply and improve DRR?

Throughout the two days, sharing information about natural hazards, conflicts and epidemics was repeatedly marked as a priority, in order to make the exposed communities aware of the related impacts that disasters can cause.
At the Annual Conference, Ben Lishman’s session about the Arctic Risks and Michael von Bertele’s management of the Ebola Crisis widely proved the importance of good communication, arousing high interest and participation from the attendees.
The visual communication
of data is an emerging area of interest for DRR researcher. At the Annual Conference, Ben Stuart showed the visual impact given by the combination of assembled data and graphic design, while Vanessa Banks (BGS), Richard Wall (UCL Hazard Centre) and Richard Teeuw (University of Portsmouth) offered a wide range of GIS tools and relative applications to cope with natural disasters and improve financial and business services. Digital mapping and graphic design are paving the way for a stronger and deeper intervention in the field, where the exposure to risk occurs. The latest softwares can highlight the most dangerous areas and assemble data towards an effective visual impact.

However, the use of updated tools does not mean that DRR is always appropriately explained. The shared experience from the speakers showed that there is a great comprehension of the disaster cycle in all its phases. However, it remarked also a static approach, only able to produce results within the academic environment. This contrast between research and action emerged through the debate “Training, teaching and exercising challenges” at the Academic Summit led by Gordon Macdonald (ICPEM), Dr Fredrik Bynander (CRISMART) and David Jones (Rescue Global). Mr Macdonald spoke about the need of ‘translating’ the academic language into the practitioners’ one, Dr Bynander stressed the relevant applications of scientific production for the National Defence’s activities, while Mr Jones clearly stated the necessity of the scientific research to start considering real-life issues and the practitioners’ activities.
The main points that emerged from these conferences are:
– The complexity and fertility of the most different scenarios, threatened by hazards but also studied more and more in depth.
– A strong necessity to reconsider how DRR communicates itself, for a better and common goal pursued by all those involved.
– A persistent communication gap between academics and practitioners. Both groups need to work together to bridge this gap.

The conclusion of the IRDR Conference saw the presentation of research projects by the MSc and PhD students of IRDR and other attendees. The posters’ topics spanned from physical science and engineering to the social sciences, combining detailed explanations and comprehensible graphics. However, their common trait was a strong application to risk-related issues, improving the performance of the tools and the quality of future researches.
The students’ point of view and interventions are gaining more and more relevance within the contemporary debate around the theory and practice of DRR. Part of this successful trend is given by their ability to build cross-cutting competences, to take the scientific production in the ‘real world’, and to report their field-based experiences into the universities.
Overall, productive discussions and clashing views were appreciated by the attendees, which generated the sensation of an informal discussion environment. UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction has been able to collect expertise from different fields, offering an arena for a multifaceted comparison.

UCL IRDR at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction – Human Rights and DRR Panel

By Zehra Zaidi, on 25 March 2015

On Monday 16th March 2015, UCL IRDR hosted a public forum panel discussion on “Human Rights and Disaster Risk Reduction” as a side event of the UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai. David Alexander, UCL IRDR Professor of Risk and Disaster Reduction, convened the panel to explore whether failure to mitigate disaster risk may be related to a failure to guarantee basic human rights, and if disaster situations can sometimes be used as an opportunity to deny rights. David proposed that whilst the articulation of human rights – as outlined by the UN, EU, and in national conventions and laws – are often ineffective in practice due to loopholes, exclusions and varying interpretations, and although externally imposed rights may clash with local cultures and traditions, there is a need to be more courageous about asserting human rights. Starting from the assumption that human rights are indeed universal, and that they have a direct bearing on disaster risk reduction, he requested that the panel consider (among others) the following questions:

  • Do disasters lead to particular violations of human rights?
  • Is denial or restriction of human rights diagnostic of marginalisation, and how does this make people and communities vulnerable to disasters?
  • To what extent is the freedom and development of women and girls a human rights issue, and how does this bear upon resilience against disaster?
  • Will an improved dialogue on human rights (a more explicit treatment of the question in open public discussion and official agreements) lead to reductions in disaster risk?
  • How universal is the concept of human rights, and does it have a cultural dimension?
  • How does the assertion of fundamental rights fit with the need to assume responsibility for disaster risk reduction?

On considering whether there is a human right to DRR, the first panelist, Richard Olson, Professor and Director of the Extreme Events Institute, Florida International University, posed the question ‘Is there a human right to life-safety?’. He stated that a major driver of loss of life from natural disasters derives from land use and building standards. These are planning issues with long-established solutions for which ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse. Yet many decision makers continue in their behavior of ‘non-decision making’. That is to say, they keep issues that could address the human right to life safety off the agenda, such as improved building code enforcement and land use planning.

The second panelist, Terry Cannon, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), questioned the universality of the concept of human rights, proposing that human rights can be perceived as a colonial imposition of the western world on other cultures. He explored the notion that some nations and cultures may not conform to the western interpretation of the ‘right’ way and questioned the relevance of legally backed rights in changing cultural behaviour. He suggested that human rights as viewed by western capitalist nations may not be appropriate for different political systems at different stages of development, and that the ‘push back’ against an external imposition of rights could in fact make the situation worse.

Virginie Le Masson, Research Officer at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), also considered the culturally variability and universality of the concept of human rights, through the lens of gender rights. She advocated that although DRR workers do not have the right to impose their cultural values onto the communities where they are engaged, there is a moral obligation inherent to development assistance that compels one to oppose inequality, especially in the context of women’s rights. DRR is premised on the reduction of vulnerability, and this vulnerability frequently arises from inequality and disadvantage. If human rights are an imposition, claimed Le Masson, then so too is DRR.

Panelist Arif Rehman, Vulnerability and Resilience Coordinator at LEAD Pakistan, offered practitioner examples from experiences of DRR in Pakistan. He reported that although human rights are formally guaranteed by the state, the devolution of responsibility for these rights to local governments has resulted in strengthening existing power structures and local elites, rendering the notion of state-guaranteed rights redundant, especially given that many of the most vulnerable people are already beholden to local interest groups such as landowners.

The next panelist, Nanako Shimizu, Associate Professor in the Faculty of International Studies, considered the human rights issues that resulted from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. She claimed that the causes of nuclear health risk issues to the population surrounding the nuclear power plant were, (1) failure of prevention, (2) insufficient or misleading post-accident measures, and (3) lack of awareness within the population to realise their rights in a post-disaster context.

The final panellist, Cassidy Johnson, Senior Lecturer at the UCL Development Planning Unit, considered human rights in the aftermath of an earthquake in Turkey. Immediately after the earthquake, the disaster served as an economic leveler between the rich and poor, all of whom lost homes, family, and livelihoods. However, compensation measures implemented by the state in the recovery phase resulted in aggravating inequality by providing property to past owners and depriving tenants of the right to new housing. Cassidy’s case study highlighted how the continuation of pre-existing property regimes into a post-disaster context can amplify rights inequality.

Much of the discussion at the event centred around the question of whether human rights are an imposition or a necessity in the implementation of an effective and just DRR system. Whilst a few of the audience agreed with Cannon’s view, that human rights should not be externally imposed on other societies, many challenged it. Relating more closely to the issue of DRR within human rights, several audience members highlighted examples where the presence of pre-existing human rights violations left societies more vulnerable to disasters, so there is still much more to debate on this issue.

Educating Future Leaders in Understanding Risk

By Joanna P Faure Walker, on 1 July 2014

 

ur1As part of the 2014 Understanding Risk Forum, UCL IRDR and UCL STEaPP co-chaired a session on ‘Educating Future Leaders in Understanding Risk’.

The very need for having a conference titled “Understanding Risk” suggests the actual topic under discussion is misunderstanding risk.

Indeed, misunderstanding risk is increasingly being seen as a barrier to risk and disaster reduction. Examples that demonstrate this include: During the 2014 UK floods, particular residents expressed disbelief when their houses were flooded in the worst floods in 30 years, despite their properties being in “low risk zones”, confusing low risk and no risk; and following the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, it became apparent that some residents did not understand the uncertainty associated with the tsunami warnings and therefore did not evacuate, despite living in a country which does have earthquake drills and hazard education in schools (see IRDR Special Report 2013-01). These are just two of many examples that could be drawn upon to demonstrate that a better understanding of risk is needed.  However, the question is not whether a better understanding is needed, but how to achieve this.

How do we educate residents, stakeholders and future leaders in risk and disaster reduction?

When should people be educated? Should this start at school, university or work?

If this education is part of a formal curriculum, should it be integrated in the curriculum of existing subjects, or should risk be a separate subject?

A panel was gathered including representatives from academia, industry and practitioners to discuss their thoughts on risk education, what specific knowledge and skills they think are needed and how this should be provided in order to carry out work in understanding and managing risk, with specific references to their field.

The session was chaired by Dr Joanna Faure Walker, UCL IRDR, and Dr Natasha McCarthy, UCL STEaPP, who coordinate UCL Post Graduate Programmes in Risk, Disaster and Resilience and Public Administration respectively.

The panelists were:

Professor David Alexander, Professor of Risk and Disaster Reduction, UCL IRDR and course coordinator of the MRes in Risk and Disaster Reduction

Dr Robert Muir-Wood, Chief Research Officer, RMS

Mr Hamish Cameron, London Resilience Manager

Mr Stephane Jacobzone, Counsellor, Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, OECD

During this session, panelists and members of the floor focused not on specific knowledge needed, but rather themes and ways of thinking; for careers in risk and disaster reduction, the following were suggested as being desirable:

(1)  Curiosity, skepticism of data, wanting to do research, “being a detective”

(2) A fundamental understanding  of evidence, risk and uncertainty

(3) Being stake-holder or end-product focused

(4) How to build a good risk-assessment

and

(5) Seeing connections and coherence between different subjects connected to risk, i.e. seeking a holistic approach

Within the UCL IRDR MRes in Risk and Disaster Reduction and MSc in Risk, Disaster and Resilience we run modules in Emergency and Crisis Planning and Management, modules in integrating science into risk and disaster reduction and risk and disaster reduction research tools, which cover basic probability, the quantification or risk and uncertainty and a module in natural and anthropogenic hazards and vulnerability that enable students to appreciate what is known and what is unknown about these and what questions they should be asking.  Through the IRDR post graduate programmes we hope to give students the five qualities mentioned above.

IRDR Panel Discussion on “Disability and Disasters”

By Rosanna Smith, on 13 March 2014

The IRDR’s Panel Discussion on “Disability and Disasters” on 12th March was billed as a discussion of human rights, addressing an issue that may be unpopular, but that must be addressed whenever we consider how we plan for, manage, and cope with disasters, since disabled people make up 15% of the world’s population.

In addressing this issue, panellist Dr Maria Kett from UCL’s Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre highlighted that disabled people are not asking for prioritisation, rather they are asking for equity. Panellist Silvio Sagramolo, Director of the Info-Handicap Association, Luxembourg, re-iterated that disaster risk management for people with disabilities is a matter of human rights, but raised the issue that it is very difficult to keep track of disabled people and their needs, since the types of disability, the people themselves and their needs are so diverse. We must, he claimed, accept that ‘human diversity is a reality’.

In looking at practical ways to improve the plight of disabled people during disasters, Mechtilde Fuhrer of the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) section of the Council of Europe stated that EUR-OPA were compiling a catalogue of good practice and called upon all people involved in this area to contribute to the catalogue. Panellist Ilan Kelman, of UCL’s IRDR and Institute for Global Health, stated that we needed to follow the doctrine ‘nothing about us, without us’. That is, we should listen to the narratives of disabled people and those directly involved in their care and support when discussing and deciding what can be done for them in disaster planning and management.

IRDR Panel Discussing "Disability and Disasters"

Highlights of questions and points raised from the audience included:

David Jones, a commanding officer from Rescue Global (an NGO that supports first responders during emergencies), highlighted that the issues raised in this field of disability and disasters were common to disasters in general, but that the short-comings in disaster planning and management were exacerbated by the presence of disabilities. He also claimed that many emergency services do plan for dealing with people with disabilities, but often are too stretched to implement these plans during the emergency situation. Panel Chair Prof David Alexander (UCL IRDR) suggested that this discrepancy between plans and response might arise from disaster planning often being conducted by different bodies to those who manage the actual crisis. Panellist Maria Kett added that this is why local NGOs must be included in the disaster response.

A representative from Handicap International raised the issue that the Hyogo Framework for Action has very poor representation of disabled people.

A representative from the Organisation of Blind Afro-Caribbeans highlighted that we need to consider the diversity of people with disabilities, and suggested that disaster planners and managers should pro-actively seek people with disabilities to contribute to planning for disability and disasters. Whilst the panellists agreed that we needed to consider the diversity of disabled people, Silvio Sagramolo highlighted that those with disabilities did not always have the experience to contribute to discussions on disaster planning and management.

Joanna Faure Walker (UCL IRDR) followed up on earlier points raised about the difficulties in assisting disabled people during emergencies when more resources are needed to help disabled people, resources that are often limited during a crisis. She asked how we might better plan before disasters so that this cost gap between saving able bodied and disabled people during disasters is narrowed. David Jones (Rescue Global) suggested that it is a failure of planning when the cost gap is so wide. Panellist Maria Kett suggested that we should not consider being disabled or not in such an ‘either or’ way, but rather we should consider whole communities of people who must be helped during disasters, and that these communities are diverse and include people with a range of disabilities.

Panel Chair David Alexander then pondered, is it really a planning problem, or is this actually an attitude problem, or even a perception problem? Food for thought on a complicated and important issue in disaster risk reduction.

Chilean Volcano Field Work

By Amy L Chadderton, on 10 February 2014

In 2008 Chaitén Volcano in Chile reawakened spectacularly after what was thought to be over 5000 years of slumber. In early May 2008 the residents of nearby Chaitén town received just 24 hours warning of the imminent eruption in the form of earthquakes strong enough to knock objects from shelves. Residents of the small town, known as the Gateway to Patagonia, one of Chile’s most spectacular and remote regions, evacuated themselves from their vulnerable position at the mouth of the Chaitén River, directly downstream of the volcano.

Eruption at Chaitén Volcano, May 2008 (Carlos Gutierrez)

Eruption at Chaitén Volcano, May 2008 (Carlos Gutierrez)

The eruption began explosively after all residents had safely departed the town and continued effusively for the next 2 years. What made this eruption particularly significant and thrust this small forgotten corner of the world into the global limelight was its extremely sudden onset coupled with the fact that rhyolitic eruptions are so rare that this eruption was the first to be observed in over 100 years. This rarity meant that it was an extremely appealing case study to focus my PhD research on, and an even more appealing place from which to collect experimental samples. This fascination is what led to myself and 6 colleagues, including Professor Peter Sammonds (UCL) and Dr Hugh Tuffen (Lancaster University), to set out on New Years Eve 2013 on the mammoth journey to Southern Chile to visit this incredible volcano.

After four flights, the last of which was in a 9-seater aeroplane that landed on a landing strip that doubled as a main road when flights weren’t expected, and two days, we finally made it to the trailhead of the hike up to the crater rim of Chaitén Volcano.

Professor Peter Sammonds, Amy Chadderton, Dr Hugh Tuffen setting off to Chaiten dome

Setting off up the volcano

This relatively short yet steep hike up the flank of the volcano took us up through the blast zone, an area of once-dense forest that was destroyed by pyroclastic flows generated from the eruption. An encouraging sign of recovery on these slopes was the re-colonisation of vegetation where previously only sporadic trees stripped of all foliage and bark remained standing.

Vegetation regrowth in blast zone

Vegetation regrowth in blast zone

Reaching the crater rim and seeing Chaitén’s 400m lava dome come into view was an awe-inspiring sight. Its imposing size and impressive slopes made for some unforgettable first impressions from the rim. We set up camp on the crater rim as the sun was setting and took in the spectacular scenery.

 

 

Despite my enthusiasm for the field trip, I must admit that the descent into the crater the following day was not my favourite activity. The 50m scramble down the perilous near-vertical unconsolidated slope was a challenge, but the end location definitely made the journey worth it. Gazing up at the dome from the crater floor allowed us to fully appreciate its true magnitude.

 

Most of the dome’s lower slopes are covered in scree, but small intact outcrops offered us tantalizing glimpses into the make-up of the dome itself. It was from one of these outcrops on the earliest lobe of the eruption that I collected my largest sample of rhyolite. Weighing in at 26kg it proved a challenge to transport but hopefully will provide an excellent insight into how this rhyolitic dome formed. Littering the crater floor we also found a plethora of incredibly interesting samples. I collected 3 more large blocks of sample material from the crater floor, including a 7kg piece of an obsidian volcanic bomb. As we could only collect what we could carry we had to be selective, however, and several large volcanic bombs had to be admired and recorded but alas left where we found them. With the help of Hugh and Peter and two trips down the volcano I managed to collect 55kg of sample material from Chaitén Volcano, making it a very successful field trip indeed!

Chaitén Lava Dome

Chaitén Lava Dome

The samples collected from Chaitén will enable me to better understand the dynamics of the 2008 eruption via laboratory analogue experiments. I will measure the permeability of cored samples under volcanic conditions simulated in the lab in order to help determine how gas escapes from the volcano during eruptions. Gas escape greatly influences the dynamics of the eruption and ultimately how dangerous a volcano can be.

EEFIT Report published about the Recovery Two Years after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake

By Joanna P Faure Walker, on 22 January 2014

Screen Shot 2014-01-22 at 20.44.47A report has been published (December 2013) by the Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT) outlining key lessons following 2 years of recovery after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent tsunami and nuclear incident, based on the mission to Japan findings in June 2013. The consequences of the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami made this event the most expensive natural disaster recorded in the world to date. The observations of the report are relevant to the engineering community as well as those involved in coastal protection structures, tsunami hazard and risk assessment, the nuclear industry, post-disaster housing, urban planning, disaster mitigation, response and recovery, the insurance industry and catastrophe modelling. EEFIT is a team of practicing and academic built environment professionals, who visit the sites of major disasters to bring back prevalent lessons for the engineering and disaster management community worldwide.

The team visiting Japan included Prof David Alexander and Dr Joanna Faure Walker from the UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction.

The report is freely downloadable from the EEFIT website: http://www.istructe.org/resources-centre/technical-topic-areas/eefit/eefit-reports