Carolina Garcia

STUDY AREAComunità Montana Valtellina di Tirano (SO),

ITALY

12 municipalities ; Population: 29.000 peopleArea: 451,97 km2

Highly active zone:Recurrent landslides – flooding: 1983, 1987, 2000…

Val Pola landslide 35mll m3 (1987)

Integrating Risk Management – Emergency Plan

Integrated People- Centred EWS

RiskKnowledge/ Assessment

Response Capability

Forecast/Monitoring

WarningWarning

Dissemination

REDUCTION OF DISASTERSCOMMUNICATION TRUST

EDUCATION

MULTIDISCIPLINARYScientists

TechniciansDecision makers

Emergency personalPeople at risk

Sustainable development strategy

Smith, 1996; Zschau & Küppers 2002; EWC II 2004; Dysktra, 2005; Basher, 2006; Villagran, 2006; Echelon, 2007

Scientific and Technical

Social:Community at risk

Institutional & political

INTRODUCTION

In order to be effective, EWS must be adapted to the local conditions of the area of interest, considering not only the characteristics of the hazard phenomenon but also the actual risk perception, needs and hazard knowledge of the local community and practitioner stakeholders.

In order to determine the previous issues, as a first stage of the EWS, two comprehensive questionnaires have been applied. The first one addressed to practitioner stakeholders (Technicians from Mountain Community, Scientists, Volunteers, Environmental institutions, etc) in order to determine their needs, points of view, concerns and constraints. The second survey is addressed specifically to local community to assess risk perception, awareness, needs, capacity and level of trust towards stakeholders, besides asking for their willingness to participate in future risk communication activities.

COMMUNITY BASED – PEOPLE CENTRED EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS

According to the Hyogo Framework, Community Based Early Warning Systems are essential elements to accomplish disaster risk reduction and should include the proactive participation of all the actors or stakeholders involved, including scientists, politicians, technicians and in particular the members of the communities living in the areas that could be affected by the hazard. Traditional scientific and technical approaches of EWS include only the hazard analysis, forecasting and warning issue, but in order to be effective, EWS must assure that the message warning reach the people at risk who have to be prepared in order to obtain a good response capability. The previous is especially important in cases with limited budget for constant instrumentation and professional staff, so people of the community and local stakeholders constitute the main actors of what is known as Community Based or People Centred Early Warning Systems.

Emergency Risk ManagementDynamic, integral and participative

Traditional ApproachRISK CYCLE EVOLUTION

Traditionallyfocus on the

afterwards

Integrated EWS + Comprenhensive Emergency Plan

Miti

gatio

n

PreparednessMonitoring

Emergen

cy

Response

PreventionRisk

Assessment

DISASTERCYCLE

Recovery

Response

Capability

Warning

IMPACTIMPACT

RISKCYCLE

Miti

gatio

n

PreparednessMonitoring

Emergen

cy

Response

PreventionRisk

Assessment

DISASTERCYCLE

Recovery

Response

Capability

Warning

IMPACTIMPACTIMPACT

RISKCYCLERISK

CYCLE

Miti

gatio

n

PreparednessMonitoring

Emergen

cy

Response

PreventionRisk

Assessment

DISASTERCYCLE

Recovery

Response

Capability

Warning

IMPACT

RISKCYCLERISK

CYCLE

METHODOLOGY - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT

This project is been developed in the framework of: Marie Curie Research Training Network “Mountain Risks: from prediction to management and governance” (2007-2010)

NOTES

Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente e del Territorio, Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicoccacarolina.garcia@unimib.it

Warning System and emergency plans are fundamental elements for risk management and governance, but unfortunately, most of the times are developed independently as unlinked sequential steps.The aim of this research is develop a methodology for applying Community Based Early Warning Systems to the emergency plans using results of social surveys and quantitative risk assessment, taking into account the administrative structure and planning system of the study area, as well as the legislation on risk governance and emergency management. Using a integrative scientific and social approach to natural hazards the research aim to contribute to fill the gap between scientists, policy makers, stakeholders and community.

Use of comprehensive social surveys as key elements of effective and integrated

Community Based Early Warning SystemsMountain

Risks

Demographic Statistics

Age groups

Quest. PopulationN % N %

1. up to 14 43 8,1 4046 13,9

2. 15 to 19 294 55,4 1512 5,2

3. 20 to 34 10 1,9 5925 20,39

4. 35 to 49 112 21,1 6485 22,31

5. 50 to 64 53 10,0 5335 18,4

6. 65 and older 19 3,6 11095 38,2

TOTAL 531 100,0 100,0

Commune Freq %Aprica 5 ,9

Bianzone 11 2,1

Grosio 61 11,5

Grosotto 26 4,9

Lovero 16 3,0

Mazzo di Valtellina 32 6,0

Sernio 18 3,4

Teglio 26 4,9

Tirano 252 47,5

Tovo di Sant'Agata 11 2,1

Vervio 8 1,5

Villa di Tirano 65 12,2

Totale 531 100,0

MASS MOVEMENTS & FLOOD

…will be a flood

next year

… populationwill be

adverselyaffected

…you oryour family

will be affected

…your homeor property

will be affected

…transportnetworks will

sufferdamage

…criticallifelines will

sufferdamage

Risk Perception

How likely… Mean = 2.2

1. Not likely2. Very unlikely3. Likely4. Very likely5. Extremely likely

• Previous Experience 90.3% (Direct experience, awareness)• Triggering Factors

•Landslide: (1. Rain; 2. Deforestation; 3. Slope cutting)•Floods : (1. Rain; 2.Modification of riverbed; 3. Deforestation)

• Hazard ranking (1. Fire, 2. Flood, 3. Landslides)

•Rates of received Information about Natural Hazards:

• 23 % of population• Poor Quality (2.32)• 1. Family; 2. Press; 3. TV

Legal aspects related to territorial plannning and risk management

Agree to force

institutions to inform about

NH

Agree to force local institutions

to provide an intervention plan

in case of emergency

Agree to be more restrictive

about urbanization

and land development

Agree to be more severe with whoever

carry out activities that increase the natural risk

4.04 4.21 3.80 4.06

1. Strongly disagree 4. Agree2. Disagree 5. Strongly agree3. Moderately

• Preparedness:•1. Civil Protection ; 2. MountainCommunity; 3. Commune(Moderately Prepared)• Yourself 2.36 (little prepared)• Population 2.51(little prepared)

• Trust• 1. Civil Protection ; 2. MountainCommunity; 3. Commune (Fairly)

Self Efficacy, PreparednessCould you take

personal measures toreduce the

consequences of NH

Know theemergency

plan

Know theemergencyprocedures

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Yes 70 13.9 23 4.3 92 17.3

Would you like to receive new info.?Freq. Valid %

Yes 305 67.9

Future Information• Preferred media to received information (1. TV; 2. Press; 3. Flyers)• Who should provide the information (1. Commune; 2. Mountain Community; 3. Civil Protection)

Preliminary results show that despite the fact that must of the people surveyed had experienced hazardous events in the past or have knowledge about it (90.3%), the risk perception is very low (2.2/5) as well as the self efficacy and preparedness levels. Some reasons for this could be that the last big event is distant in time (20 years), that there isa transfer of responsability to the local authorities creating a false sense of security.Notwithstanding, responses to survey questions indicate that the community has high levels of interest in receiving information about natural hazards (67.9%), and is willing to participate proactively in education campaigns.

Social Survey -Comprehensive Questionnaires

32 compiled

• Concerns & Constrains

• Awareness• Risk Perception• Recommendations• Needs• Actual cooperation

…

641 compiled 531 compiled (inside study area)110 compiled (outside study area)

• Risk Perception• Awareness• Needs• Hazard salience• Reaction Capacity • Outcome expectancy• Level of trust• Information received and expected

Local Community Exposed

Practitioners Stakeholders

PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTSQuestionnaires for Local Community

Level of Concern for NHBEFORE SURVEY AFTER SURVEY

(5% increase)Mean = 2.46Std. Dev. = 0.839N = 527

Mean = 2.69Std. Dev. = 0.879N = 518

1. Not at all2. A little bit3. Fairly4. A lot5. Completely

PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATIONS

Based on the results of the surveys, information and education campaigns will be developed in order to increase preparedness and therefore to reduce vulnerability of the population by improving response to early warnings and at the same time, to increase the level of interaction among the people of the community, scientists and local authorities.This campaigns will be designed and develop together with local and national institutions looking for the continuity of the process .

Spatial planning is critical to mitigate hazards and reduce vulnerability, therefore some inputs will be provided to the decision-makers on where additional risk identification, risk reduction and risk transfer measures are particularly necessary.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

For detailed bibliography please contact the author.

IREALPIREALP

Disaster Risk Reduction for Natural Hazards: Putting Research into PracticeNovember 4-6th 2009 University College London