institutional preparedness and risk communication in yangon · 2020. 11. 19. · institutional...

Institutional preparedness and risk communication in Yangon

Frauke Kraas, Sophie-Bo Heinkel, Zin Mar Than, Toe Aung, Tin Tin Kyi, Win Lei Mar, Win Maung, Marlene Willkomm,

Benni Thiebes, Stefan Martini, Khin Khin Soe

German Red Cross: Conference on disaster prevention20.10.2020

(© Kraas)

Prof. Dr. Frauke Kraas, Dr. Sophie-Bo Heinkel, Dr. Zin Mar Than, Dr. Toe Aung, Tin Tin Kyi, Dr. Marlene Willkomm, Stefan Martini, Dr. Benni Thiebes, Dr. Win Maung, Winlei Mar

UrbanPopulation 1950

• 6 cities more than1 Mio.

• 3 more than 500K• 2 more than 300K• few more than 50K• few about 10K

• mostly rural

(Kraas 2016)

Urbanisation in Southeast Asia: 1950

Prof. Dr. Frauke Kraas, Dr. Sophie-Bo Heinkel, Dr. Zin Mar Than, Dr. Toe Aung, Tin Tin Kyi, Win Lei Mar, Prof. Dr. Win Maung, Dr. Marlene Willkomm, Stefan Martini, Dr. Benni Thiebes, Prof. Dr. Khin Khin Soe


UrbanPopulation 2015 –65 years later

• 2 cities morethan 10 Mio.

• 7 megacities*• numerous

regional centres• high urban

dynamics!• most: in coastal

and deltaregions

Urbanisation in Southeast Asia: 2015


* Megacity = City with >5 M inhab.

(Kraas 2016)


Aims

Understanding the multiple risks challenges for fast growing (mega)cities in Myanmar, with focus on Yangon, establishment of a comprehensive, integrative multiple risk management

Objectives

1. research-based (meta-)data bank, dissemination of information (GIS)

2. awareness programme: preventing loss of personal/relevant documents

3. prevention programme: loss of economic basis

4. awareness programme: basic access to water, food, electricity supply, health services

Joint German Myanmar Research Project:Multiple risks management in extreme events

in fast growing (mega)cities in Myanmar



• Yangon City Development Committee (YCDC)• Department Urban and Housing Development

(DUHD), Ministry of Construction (MoC), • University of Yangon (UY), • Myanmar Environment Institute (MEI)

Governments and city administrations • Yangon Region Government (YRG), • Shan State Government (SSG), • Mon State Government (MSG), • Nay Pyi Taw City Development Committee

(NCDC), • Mandalay City Development Committee (MCDC)

Universities• University of Mandalay (UM), • Mawlamyine University (MLMU), • Taunggyi University (TU)

Project consortium in Myanmar


• University of Cologne, Institute of Geography (UoC)• Flood protection centre of the municipal drainage operation of the City of Cologne

(StEB Cologne), • Cologne Fire Department, Search and Rescue and Civil Protection of the City of

Cologne (AFRB Cologne), • German Committee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV), • Emergency Pastoral Care in Remagen

International cooperation partner

• ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, Southeast Asian Secretariat

Project consortium in Germany


(Mega)Cities as complex adaptive systems

Understanding of(Mega)Cities as complex systems

• Physical and human environments

• Multiple risks• Global change

(Butsch et al. 2016)

The example of thefloods 2005 in Mumbai


Research and implementation

Focus

• 3 + 1 natural risks: earthquakes, tropical cyclones, flooding, Covid-19 • Yangon + 4 cities/towns: Yangon plus Nay Pyi Taw, Mandalay, Mawlamyine, Taunggyi• 5 stakeholder groups: government/administration, research institutions, private sector,

civil society institutions, the people

Scientific concept

• Transdisciplinary, international: process- and actor-orientated

• long-term perspectives • Multi-stakeholder participation and

interaction• Application-oriented research and

implementation• People-oriented approach


Yangon5,331,800 inhabitants

(Kraas et al. 2010)


Expert workshop at DRR conference in Berlin 2019, German Red Cross

- Experts from German and international organisation and authorities on DRR: e.g. GRC, GIZ, German Foreign Office, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ), Handicap International e.V.

- Main topics: stakeholders mapping, datacollection and risk communcation tools

Results- Elaboration of a DRR network- Intensive discussions on the project

aims and next steps- Exchange of international experience- Widening of collaboration


(both pictures: © Univ. Cologne)


Institutional preparedness and risk communication: household surveys and expert interviews

Research design:

Mixed methods approach

Three household surveys

• for 12 townships, 1,272 households

• each township min. 110 households

• carried out by joint teams of YCDC, MEI, UoC, StEB, DKKV

• Two questionnaires: experienceswith natural hazards, lessonslearned, household preparedness, critical infrastructure, knowledgeabout preparedness

• data analysis with SPSS

Expert interviews (semi-structured)

Interviews with 32 (56) experts from Myanmar• township officers• scientists (geography, geology, meteorology)• people of upper level disaster management

committees• in Myanmar and English language

© YCDC



Institutional preparedness and risk communication

Own graphic


What is your main source of information in case of disaster?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

lds (

%)

information source n = 1,336Own graphicSource of information


Distribution of age of different information sources

Own graphic n = 1,272

mouth to alarm/ radio TV cell phone social newspaper other mouth. sirene media

• 71,5% receive information about disaster from television

• Social media and cell phones as information source upcoming (20,7%) under younger age groups

• Alarms, sirens and newspaperaddress elder age classesSource of information


Who would you ask for help?

• 67 % would ask the township and ward offices for help after disasters

• High pressure on official township and ward offices

• Preventive risk communication at township and ward level is necessary

Own graphic


Risk communication

Requirement for risk communicationnecessary:

• provision of reliable knowledge about risks, scientifically based • culture-sensitive, inclusive, multilingual information

should:• encourage foster risk preventing behaviour• create and promotes trust in the informing institution• foster a dialogue and participation of different target groups

(Renn 2008, added and amended)

Implications for the project• Linking local governments with experts from institutions of research and

practise – trans- and interdisciplinary expert networks• information flyers about natural hazards


Information flyers on natural hazards

• Development of flyers in close collaboration between the government, local and international experts

Flyers about: • earthquakes • tropical cyclones • flooding • evacuation • Covid-19


Earthquake flyer in Myanmar language

• in national language and culturally adapted


• Learning from risks and crises: How to deal actively with uncertainty?• Anticipate impossible events and situations• Combine different kinds of knowledge and data, encourages scenario-

building discussions• Ability for self-organisation and new forms of collaboration

• Strengthening of ecological and social memories• Develop capacities for knowledge generation, risk assessment• Strengthening of public engagement• Strengthen adaptation to flexible risk management (multiple risks) (Berkes/Colding/Folke 2003, Coy 2007, Kraas 2007 and 2008, Bohle 2008, Garschagen/Kraas 2010, Butsch et al. 2016, Zin Mar Than/Tin Tin Kyi/Kraas 2019)

Need of multiple risk management capabilities



1. Identification of regions at risk and people at risk

2. Understanding of development motors: Identification of key processes and actors, hot spots and tipping points

3. Understanding of urban complex, multiple systems: human-nature systems, biodiversity, social disparities, natural and social cohesion

4. Establishment of complex, inter- and transdisciplinary research

5. Strengthening of identity of place, responsibility, roots

6. People-oriented measures: strengthening self-organisation

7. Urban risk information, participation, communication, capacity enhancement

Paradigm shifts

a) From sectoral to holistic approaches in urban areasb) From spatial to people-oriented approachesc) From urban planning to urban development



References(* = quoted literature. Additional: further reading suggestions)

• *Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C.(Hrsg.)( 2003): Navigating Social-Ecological systems. Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge.

• Birkmann, J., M. Garschagen, F. Kraas, N. Quang (2010): Adaptive urban governance: new challenges for the secondgeneration of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustainability Science 5: 185-206. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-010-0111-3.

• *Bohle, H.-G. (2008):Leben mit Risiko - Resilience als neues Paradigma für die Risikowelten von morgen. In: C. Felgentreff, und T. Glade (Hrsg.): Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Heidelberg, S. 435-441.

• Bohle, H.-G. & Warner, K. (Hrsg.) (2008): Megacities: Resilience and Social Vulnerability. SOURCE, 10. Bonn.• *Butsch, C., F. Kraas, Sridharan Namperumal, G. Peters (2016): Risk governance in the megacity Mumbai/India – A Complex

Adaptive System perspective. Habitat International 54 (2): 100-111. • *Coy, M. (2007): Risiko und Verwundbarkeit als (human)geographische Ansätze. Relevanz für Lateinamerika. In: Wehrhahn,

R. (Hrsg.): Risiko und Vulnerabilität in Lateinamerika. Kieler Geographische Schriften 117: 7-22.• *Garschagen, M., F. Kraas (2010): Assessing Future Resilience to Natural Hazards – The Challenge of Capturing Dynamic

Changes under Conditions of Transformation and Climate Change. In: Custer, R., Sutter, C. & Ammann, W. (eds.): Proceedings. International Disaster and Risk Conference, IDRC 2010, 30 May – 03 June 2010, Davos: 209-213.

• Kraas, F. (2007): Megacities and global change: key priorities. Geographical Journal 173 (1): 79-82.• *Kraas, F. (2008): Megacities as Global Risk Areas. In: Marzluff, J. et al. (eds.): Urban Ecology. An International Perspective

on the Interaction between Humans and Nature. New York: 583-596.• *Kraas, F. (2016): Südostasien: aktuelle Prozesse der Raumentwicklung. Praxis Geographie. 46 (3): 4-9.• Kraas, F., C. Butsch (2011): Mega-Urban Societies at Risk. In: Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ):

Megastädte/Megacities. Scientific Technical Report STR 11/11. Potsdam: 11-19. DOI: 10.2312/GFZ.b103-11110.



• Kraas, F. , Mi Mi Kyi, Win Maung (Eds.) (2016): Sustainability in Myanmar. Southeast Asian Modernities 15. Wien.• Kraas, F., R. Spohner, Aye Aye Myint (2017): Socio-Economic Atlas of Myanmar. Stuttgart.• Krämer, A., M.M.H. Khan, F. Kraas (eds.) (2011): Health in Megacities and Urban Areas. Heidelberg (Springer). 319 pp.• *Renn, O. (2008): Risk Communication: Insights and Requirements for Designing Successful Communication Programs on

Health and Environmental Hazards. In: Heath, R.L., D. O’Hair (eds.): Handbook of risk and crisis communication. New York: 80–98.

• UN (United Nations) (2008): World Urbanization Prospects. The 2007 Revision. New York.• Wisner, B. (2007): Regions at Risk or people at Risk? Geographische Rundschau 59 (10): 12-18.• *Zin Mar Than, Tin Tin Kyi, F. Kraas (2020): Institutional preparedness for multiple risks in Yangon, Myanmar. Journal of the

Myanmar Academy of Arts and Science 18 (5B): 61-74.


institutional preparedness and risk communication in yangon · 2020. 11. 19. · institutional...

Documents