/var/lib/tomcat6/webapps/pdnadmin/data/documents/3456

iii

Acknowledgements

The membership of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee
(STC) at the time of the report preparation comprised the following
representatives of United Nations and international scientific
organizations and independent experts. Those marked with a *
participated in the STC Subcommittee that oversaw the design and
drafting of the report. New institutional members as of 15 June 2009 are
Dr. Muraleee Thummarukudy for UNEP and Dr. Fabrice Renaud for UNU.

Dr. Walter Erdelen (Chair of the STC), Assistant Director General, Natural
Sciences, France, representing UNESCO. Dr. Howard Moore, Senior Advisor,
ICSU Secretariat, representing ICSU. Dr. Juan Carlos Villagrán de León,
Head, Risk Management Section, UNU–EHS, Germany, representing UNU.
Dr. Samir Ben Yahmed, Director, Health Action in Crises, Switzerland,
representing WHO. Dr. Geoff Love, Director Weather and Disaster Risk
Reduction Services Department, Switzerland, representing WMO. Dr.
Walter Ammann*, President, Global Risk Forum (GRF Davos), Switzerland.
Professor Ilan Chabay*, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
Dr. Mohamed Farghaly, Director General, Arab Academy for Science,
Technology and Maritime Transport of the League of Arab States, Egypt.
Professor Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany, International Institute of Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Iran. Professor Harsh Gupta*, National
Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), India. Dr. He Yongnian, China
Earthquake Administration, China. Professor Gordon McBean*, Institute
for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University of Western Ontario,
Canada (also representing the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR)
programme). Professor Virginia Murray*, Consultant Medical Toxicologist,
Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom. Professor Laban A. Ogallo,
Director, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC), Kenya.
Dr. Kaoru Takara, Vice Director, Disaster Prevention Research Institute
(DPRI), Kyoto University, Japan. Professor Dennis Wenger, National Science
Foundation, United States.

Additional input was provided by Dr. Badaoui Rouhban, UNESCO and
Dr. Luis Esteva, International Association for Earthquake Engineering. Dr
Delphine Grynzpan and Louise Dowling, UK Health Protection Agency,
researched and assembled the first draft under Professor Virginia Murray’s
guidance. Dr. Reid Basher coordinated and edited the report for the
UNISDR.

The activities of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee are
supported by the multi-donor United Nations Trust Fund for Disaster
Reduction.

Executive Summary

Disasters, disaster risk reduction, and the role of science

Increasing attention is being given to the rising impacts of disasters and to ways to reduce the exposure
and vulnerability of communities and assets to natural hazards. In 2008, 321 disasters killed 235,816 people,
affected 211 million others and cost a total of US$ 181 billion.

Economic losses from disasters in some

countries have been greater than their national GDP. Losses with potentially catastrophic implications for
the global economy include the possibility of a major earthquake in Tokyo (which seismologists assess
could occur at any time within the next 150 years) with an estimated cost of US$ 1.2 trillion. However,
although natural hazards will always occur, their impacts on society can be significantly reduced through
the application of sound, evidence-based investments in disaster risk reduction.

Recognising the importance of scientific and technical information for disaster risk reduction, the
UNISDR established a Scientific and Technical Committee to address policy matters of a scientific and
technical nature, where science is considered in its widest sense to include the natural, environmental,
social, economic, health and engineering sciences, and the term ‘technical’ includes relevant matters of
technology, engineering practice and implementation.

The Committee decided at its second meeting on

30-31 October 2008 to prepare a short report for presentation at the Second Session of the Global Platform
for Disaster Risk Reduction, in Geneva, 16-19 June 2009, in order to highlight the use of scientific and
technical knowledge as an essential foundation for disaster risk reduction, and to make recommendations
on key issues and priorities. This includes ways that specialist scientific and technical information can be
more effectively adopted and put into practice. The present report is the result of that effort. This Executive
Summary was tabled at the Global Platform as Session Document 3 and the key points were presented in
the opening Plenary by the Chair of the Committee.

Practical applications of natural and social sciences to reduce vulnerability

Disasters are a concern for almost all countries and are growing in terms of people affected and economic
losses. The number, scale and cost of disasters are increasing mainly as a consequence of growing
populations, environmental degradation, unplanned settlements, expanding and ageing infrastructure,
growing assets at risk, and more complex societies. By 2050 it is expected that the number of megacities
in the world, many of which are located in exposed coastal zones or river plains, will have increased by a
third. A changing climate will increase the risks for many regions. Risk and resilience are affected by the
appropriateness of building design, urban planning and infrastructures for local circumstances.

Natural hazards strike hardest on the poor.

Disparities in vulnerability to natural hazards arise from

wide gaps in access to resources and capacities for risk reduction associated with poverty and socio-
cultural stratification. Addressing these factors and their damaging roles in development will require
good foundations of social and economic knowledge and information, and the development of relevant
scientific and technical capacities especially in developing countries. Related objectives to develop societal
resilience are similarly dependent on sound scientific and technical knowledge.

The integration of science into policy development and implementation and practical problem solving
can make major contributions to disaster risk reduction. Many examples exist—success stories but also
failures—that reveal the importance of science and technology to disaster risk reduction.

For example, following a major cyclone in 1977 that resulted in about 20,000 deaths on the east coast of
India, an early warning system was established, complete with meteorological radars and emergency plans.
When the same area was hit by cyclones of similar strength in 1996 and 2005, the death tolls were just
100 and 27 respectively. On the opposite side of the world, operational real-time satellite remote sensing
systems are being used to provide rapid assessments and potentially crucial information for disaster
prevention for Fuego volcano, Guatemala.

Over many decades, seismology, engineering sciences and building administration have progressively
developed design codes and standards to improve the earthquake resistance of buildings and infrastructures.
Where these have been vigorously implemented in new buildings and through retro-fitting schemes for
existing buildings, for example in earthquake prone Japan and California, USA, the loss of lives and damages
due to earthquakes have been very significantly reduced. Accompanying risk assessments and public
education programmes have contributed to high levels of awareness and preparedness of the population.

Throughout the world, millions of people living near rivers benefit very greatly from flood forecasting
and evacuation systems and other risk management practices, and from the sustainable management of
rivers and the use of flood plains. This is a major scientific and technical achievement that draws on the
systematic integration of knowledge from meteorology, hydrology, agriculture, forestry, water and natural
resources management, engineering and land-use planning.

Conversely, the Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004 provides a stark reminder of the catastrophic
consequences that can ensue when scientific and technical findings are not transferred into policies and
actions. Seismologists understood the seismic risks of the region and oceanographers had promoted the
need for a tsunami warning system, but no integrated warning system had been implemented. Likewise,
the hazard assessment recommending no building near Montserrat’s Soufriere volcano was ignored,
leading to over US$ 100 million of infrastructure damage during a subsequent eruption. In the United
Kingdom, the severe damage and health problems that followed the 2007 floods revealed that warning
communications were not sufficiently clear, timely or coordinated, and people, local government and
support services were unprepared.

Selected topics - climate change, early warning, health and societal resilience

Rather than attempt to cover all of the dimensions of concern to disaster risk reduction— which cover
diverse geographical and environmental settings, time frames, hazard types, different communities, sectors,
and institutional issues—the Scientific and Technical Committee decided for this report to focus on four
key selected topics, namely climate change, early warning systems, public health, and socio-economic
resilience. These are topics of current policy concern for which immediate science-based actions are
needed and possible. Other important topics, such as seismic risk prevention and reduction and the role of
ecosystems in risk reduction and management, will be examined in future reports.

The basic facts of climate change are now well established, which itself represents an outstanding
achievement for science and for policy-relevant international scientific cooperation. The Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

projects increases in intensity or

frequency for several types of extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves, droughts, storms, tropical

cyclones and heavy rainfall, and their impacts will be compounded by other projected effects, such as sea
level rise and reduced water supplies that will reduce the capacities of communities to cope with extreme
events.

There is an urgent need to systematically link disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation
policies. This connection is recognised in the UNFCCC Bali Action Plan, which is guiding the preparations
for a new agreement on climate change at the end of 2009 in Copenhagen. Another significant step is
the decision by the IPCC to prepare an IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation”,

following a proposal jointly developed over 2008 and

2009 by UNISDR and Norway. This will provide a sound scientific basis for action to reduce the growing risks
of disasters and to support UNFCCC policymaking and practical adaptation to climate change.

When properly implemented and adhered to, warning systems are a high-payoff activity to reduce disaster
impacts and save lives, and for this reason, virtually all governments systematically invest in science-based
early warning capacities, particularly through national weather services. Large populations are often
evacuated from risk areas in response to timely warnings, for example in response to tropical cyclone alerts.
Integrated all-hazard early warning systems that address time scales of minutes through to decades will be
an important feature of climate change adaptation plans.

The natural sciences have generated a good understanding of the causes and behaviour of most natural
hazards and together with the engineering sciences have enabled the development of effective surveillance
and prediction systems. The health sciences have made similar achievements for health-related hazards and
impacts. The social sciences have created a growing body of understanding of human resilience, the factors
that influence people’s attitude to risk and behaviour during a crisis, as well as the effectiveness of warning
messages, channels for distributing messages, and mechanisms for eliciting public response.

There is a growing evidence base upon which we can improve our understanding of the health impacts
associated with disasters, which are now recognised to extend well beyond the immediate crisis phase.
What is now needed is continued support for multi-disciplinary research in this field coupled with efforts
to translate knowledge into more effective policy and to bridge the gaps between environmental,
humanitarian, development and governmental actors. Health sector responses to disasters need to be
extended to take into account the whole breadth and longer timeframe of potential health impacts,
including and beyond preparedness and recovery, in order to mitigate the total health, societal and
economic burden of disasters.

Social and economic understanding is critical for building resilience and reducing disaster risks. Social
science research provides significant insights into the conditions and processes that create inequity in
exposure and vulnerability and that lead to the establishment of the unsafe conditions that characterize
vulnerable communities. Such analysis can help us understand the complex factors involved, for example,
in why people in some cities expose themselves to landslides by building houses in steep ravines, or
settle on the slopes of still active volcanoes. Other key issues to consider are the nature of individual risk
perception, the influence of institutional, social and economic conditions, and the limitations imposed by
poverty, lack of experience, short-term goal focus and weak governance.

Achieving a more effective interplay of science, technology and policy

The Scientific and Technical Committee considers that much greater effort is needed to achieve more
effective interplay of science, technology and policy in support of disaster risk reduction. This requires
attention to three key areas: (i) better mechanisms for integrating science and technology into policy

vii

processes; (ii) greater interaction and collaboration among the scientific and technical disciplines including
at international level; and (iii) systematic efforts to build relevant scientific and technical capacities.

In respect to the first of these, disaster risk reduction requires strategic planning and implementation as
well as technical and scientific expertise. It sits at the interface of policymaking, engineering and scientific
research, and requires a close and continuous exchange among these fields in order to provide effective
and durable solutions.

Secondly, diverse expertise from different fields of science is needed in order to produce well suited
solutions to risk-related problems. The science community has to learn to find better and faster ways
to interact and to communicate substantial findings to policy makers and to support the development
and implementation of solutions for emerging problems. This is not just a matter of developing trans-
disciplinary processes among the natural sciences and engineering but also of fully incorporating the
insights and methodology of social sciences and humanities into problem-solving approaches. Applied
research, such as in the health and engineering sciences, provides a sound grounding in tried-and-tested
best practice to practical solutions for prevention, preparedness and response. International collaboration
is essential to maximise the benefits of science.

Thirdly, technical capacities for the provision of information and services may be unavailable or not
adequately developed, constraining the prospects for sustainable development. There is an ongoing need
for investment in research of both basic and applied types. The role and expertise of scientific institutions
in developing countries are often not well recognised or supported, either within national priority setting
or by international agencies. Yet it is these institutions, such as universities, geophysical, agricultural
and health institutes and meteorological services that nurture and develop the essential bases of local
knowledge for disaster risk reduction, and that can be the most effective advisers and communicators with
leaders and local communities.

Recommendations

Following the considerations above, and as detailed more fully in the associated full report, the Scientific
and Technical Committee makes the following recommendations.

(i)

Promote knowledge into action

Greater priority should be put on sharing and disseminating scientific information and translating it
into practical methods that can readily be integrated into policies, regulations and implementation
plans concerning disaster risk reduction. Education on all levels, comprehensive knowledge
management, and greater involvement of science in public awareness-raising and education
campaigns should be strengthened. Specific innovations should be developed to facilitate the
incorporation of science inputs in policymaking.

(ii) Use a problem-solving approach that integrates all hazards and disciplines

A holistic, all-hazards, risk-based, problem-solving approach should be used to address the multi-
factoral nature of disaster risk and disaster risk reduction and to achieve improved solutions and
better-optimised use of resources. This requires the collaboration of all stakeholders, including
suitable representatives of governmental institutions, scientific and technical specialists and
members of the communities at risk. Knowledge sharing and collaboration between disciplines

viii

and sectors should be made a central feature of the approach, in order to guide scientific research,
to make knowledge available for faster implementation, to bridge the various gaps between risks,
disciplines, and the stake-holders, and to support education and training, and information and media
communication.

(iii) Support systematic science programmes

Systematic programmes of scientific research, observations and capacity building should be
supported at national, regional and international levels to address current problems and emerging
risks such as are identified in this report. The international Integrated Research on Disaster Risk
(IRDR) Programme,

which is co-sponsored by ICSU, ISSC, and UNISDR, provides a new and important

framework for global collaboration. The ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee should provide
strategic guidance on research needs for disaster risk reduction and oversight of progress.

(iv) Guide good practice in scientific and technical aspects of disaster risk reduction

The ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee should be strengthened to serve as a neutral,
credible international resource to support practitioners at all levels, from local through national to
international levels, by overseeing the collection, vetting and publicising of information on good
practices carried out on the basis of sound science and up-to-date scientific and technological
knowledge, as well as on those inadequate practices or concepts that may be hindering progress.
The Committee should further develop its recommendations for follow-up on the areas of concern
highlighted in the present report, including on the themes of disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation, preparedness and early warning systems, health impacts of disasters, and the
association of disaster risk and socioeconomic factors.

Table of contents

Executive Summary

Section 1

Introduction

1.1

Disasters and disaster risk reduction

1.2

Science role in disaster risk reduction

Section 2

Principal observations

2.1 Increasing number and likelihood of disasters

2.2

Increasing vulnerability

2.3

Successes and failures in the application of natural and social sciences

to disaster risk reduction

Section 3

Selected topics of current policy concern

3.1 Climate change

3.2

Changing institutional and public behaviour to early warnings

3.3

Incorporating knowledge of the wide health impacts of disasters

3.4

Improving resilience to disasters through social and economic understanding

Section 4

Achieving a more effective interplay of science, technology and policy

4.1

Better integration of science and technology into policy

4.2

Greater interaction among the scientific and technical disciplines

4.3

Promoting greater international collaboration

4.4

Capacity development

Section 5

Recommendations

References

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

1.1 Disasters and disaster risk reduction

Increasing attention is being given to the
growing problem of disasters and to identify
ways to reduce the exposure and vulnerability
of communities and assets to natural hazards.
In 2008, 321 disasters killed 235,816 people,
affected 211 million others and cost a total of
US$ 181 billion.

Hazard events with potentially

catastrophic implications for the global economy

include the possibility of a major earthquake in
Tokyo (which seismologists assess could occur at
any time within the next 150 years) costing US$
1.2 trillion.

Losses from disasters are substantial

and in some countries account for a major
fraction of national GDP. For example, the 1999
earthquake in Turkey had an economic impact
amounting to 8% of GDP and the hurricane in
1998 in Honduras amounted to over 75% of GDP.
The economic impacts of disasters can have
persistent and adverse long-term effects because
they often destroy established patterns of
livelihoods, production and trade. Climate change
is set to have enormous impact on economic
development and it will be the poorest countries
and poorest people who will be most affected.

The UNISDR definition of disaster is “A serious
disruption of the functioning of a community
or a society involving widespread human,
material, economic or environmental losses and
impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected
community or society to cope using its own
resources.”

It is important to distinguish between

the natural hazard, which will always occur, and its
impact on society, which arises from the exposure
and vulnerability of communities and hence
human decision and behaviour. While the hazards
generally cannot be influenced, the magnitude
and frequency of disasters can be significantly
reduced through the application of sound,
evidence-based investments in means to reduce
the exposure and vulnerability components of
risk. The Hyogo Framework for Action provides
the internationally agreed framework of principles

and priorities for action for achieving the desired
reduction of disaster losses.

The United Nations eight Millennium
Development Goals have been established by
the international community as the common
framework for economic and social development
activities of over 190 countries in ten regions,
and they have been articulated into over 20
targets and over 60 indicators. In the 2008 report
on progress on their achievement the role of
disasters is acknowledged: “for the poor more
than others, incomes are likely to be adversely
affected by conflict, natural disasters and
economic fluctuations.”

Disaster risk reduction faces many challenges.
Major hazard events are usually rare for any
particular community and in such situations the
local citizen demand for investment in disaster
mitigation and preparedness is often minimal.
Since most of the burden for disaster recovery
assistance is shouldered by central governments,
local governments may have little economic or
political incentive to invest in mitigation,

even

though local governments are well equipped to
play an instrumental role in hazard mitigation,
owing to their close proximity to the hazards
and the communities and because they control
many of the most effective tools to achieve this
objective (e.g., land use regulation, building code
enforcement).

Conversely, in situations where

frequent low-level damaging events occur, such
as in poor communities, the national and local
governments may not have the capacities or may
be unwilling to address the root causes of the
vulnerabilities that are present. In many cases
the basic information and capacities required for
disaster risk reduction, such as risk assessments,
technical methodologies and trained experts
and practitioners, may not be available. The
Hyogo Framework expressly acknowledges
the importance of political commitment, legal
frameworks, institutional development, and
budget allocations for disaster risk reduction.

Section 1: Introduction

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

1.2 Science role in disaster risk reduction

Scientific and technical matters were well
recognised and addressed during the International
Decade on Natural Disaster Reduction, 1991-2000
(IDNDR):

“Throughout the IDNDR and during the first year of
the establishment of the ISDR, science and technology
have been explicitly recognised as a key input in the
strategy aimed at promoting successful risk reduction.
... The experience of the IDNDR shows that successful
longer-term prevention strategies must be based
on cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary co-operation
involving the scientific community, national and local
governments, NGOs, the private sector, as well as the
organisations and agencies of the UN system.”

The IDNDR commenced with a largely technical
and scientific focus and constituency, but gradually
the need to include a wider socio-economic
agenda and to involve political institutions was
recognized. After the Yokohama conference in
1994, policy-makers and governmental institutions
played an increasingly important role, and the
issues of advocacy and political commitment
became features of the International Strategy for
Disaster Risk Reduction that was established in
2000 as the follow-up mechanism to the Decade.
In recent years, however, there has been a concern
that these shifts have been accompanied by a
decline in the recognition of the role of science and
technology.

Following the massive Indian Ocean tsunami of
26 December 2004, a Natural Hazard Working
Group was established by the United Kingdom
to investigate how science could help avoid such
tragedies in future. Its report recommended the
establishment of an International Science Panel
for Natural Hazard Assessment to enable the
scientific community to advise decision-takers
authoritatively on potential natural hazards likely
to have high global or regional impact.

Among

other things it was recommended that this panel
should be associated with the United Nations
and should address gaps in knowledge, advise on
potential future threats, and address how science
and technology can be used to mitigate threats
and reduce vulnerability.

Partly in response to this proposal, in 2008 a new
ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee was
formed, with the following principal terms of
reference:

“Recognizing that scientific information is the basis
of informed decision making and public awareness,
the main aims of the Committee are (i) to identify
and address important questions of a scientific
and technical nature; (ii) to provide scientific and
technical advice to the Global Platform for Disaster
Risk Reduction; and (iii) to assist in the coordination
of scientific and technical activities within the ISDR
system.

The Committee addresses policy matters of a
scientific and technical nature, where science is
considered in its widest sense to include the natural,
environmental, social, economic, health and
engineering sciences. The term ‘technical’ includes
relevant matters of technology, engineering practice
and implementation.”

The Committee decided at its second meeting
in October 2008 to prepare a short report on
relevant matters for presentation at the Second
Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk
Reduction, in Geneva, 16-19 June 2009. The report
aims to highlight the use of scientific and technical
knowledge as an essential foundation for disaster
risk reduction, and to provide recommendations
on key issues, critical gaps and priorities for action.
Among other things it addresses the ways that
specialist scientific and technical information can
be more effectively adopted and put into practice
to support the reduction of disaster risks.

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

2.1 Increasing number and likelihood of

disasters

Disasters are a concern for almost all countries
and are growing in terms of people affected
and economic losses.

In 2007, a WHO survey

found that nearly every country of the world
had experienced a disaster during the previous
five years.

Globalization, population growth,

widespread poverty, particularly in hazardous
areas, and a changing climate will cause the risk
associated with natural hazards to be even greater
in the future, with more people and communities
at risk.

1,3,18

The recent devastation caused by

cyclone Nargis in Myanmar (138,366 deaths) and
the earthquake in Sichuan, China (87,476 deaths)
demonstrates the massive damage and loss of
life that can occur from vulnerability to natural
hazards.

The basic scientific information upon which
the projections of widespread and damaging
impacts of climate change are based is now
well established.

The Fourth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007 Scientific Assessment,

4,20

projects that rising temperatures will lead

to heat waves of unprecedented magnitude,
particularly for cities, with potential for increased
adverse health impacts. It is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes)
will become more intense. Global sea level is
expected to rise between 0.2 and 0.6 m by the
end of the century, not including the rises that
would accompany possible melting of major
polar ice caps. More recent research increasingly
indicates the possibility of greater sea level
changes than projected by the IPCC. The likely
impacts on ecosystems and human society, and
for disaster risk, are significant. High sea levels
and the increased intensities of tropical cyclones
will lead to increased risk of coastal flooding and
wave damage that will be a particular issue for
populated deltas and low lying coastal cities.
More extensive droughts and flooding are likely.

2.2 Increasing vulnerability

A number of factors accentuate the vulnerability
of populations to natural hazards.

Population

growth and increasing concentrations of people
in unplanned cities and mega-cities, the limited
choices of poor people resulting in their being
concentrated in regions of high risk, such as along
riverbanks and coastlines or on unstable slopes,
are increasing the number of people at risk. By
2050 it is expected that the number of mega-
cities in the world will have increased by a third.

The suitability of local building design, urban
planning and infrastructures to the environment
is important to local resilience. Planning decisions,
for example, concerning agricultural development,
new settlements or the concentration of transport
infrastructures for greater efficiency, may
potentially inadvertently increase the risks.

Natural disasters strike hardest for those with the
least resources. Whereas in economically highly
developed countries the average number of
deaths per disaster is 23, the number increases
dramatically to about 150 deaths per disasters in
developing countries, and to over 1000 deaths
per disaster in the least developed countries.

Underlying this disparity are wide gaps in access
to resources for risk avoidance, risk reduction and
response, arising from poverty and socio-cultural
stratification. Disasters affect all countries but they
are particularly damaging to developing countries
in that they can also destroy or seriously impede
development, while climate change can only
worsen their impacts.

The context is now one of a fundamental change in
the process by which communities are expected to
prepare for and recover from disasters. Increasingly,
resilience and the inclusion of mitigation measures
must be integrated into the recovery process
to enhance sustainable disaster recovery.

The recovery process must include a range of
mitigation measures, and must leverage resources,
local capacity-building, identification of local needs

Section 2: Principal observations

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

and a strong commitment from external agents to
provide resources to meet local demands.

2.3 Successes and failures in the

application of natural and social sciences

to disaster risk reduction

The effective integration of science into policy
development and practical problem-solving can
make major contributions to disaster risk reduction,
as is shown by the following examples.

In 1977, a major cyclone resulted in about 20,000
deaths on the east coast of India. In the years
that followed, an early warning system was
established, complete with meteorological radars
and emergency plans, and many lives were saved
as a result when the same area was hit again by
cyclones of similar strength in 1996, when about
1000 deaths occurred, and in 2005, when the death
toll was just 27.

Over the past decade, remote sensing has
been used increasingly in the study of active
volcanoes and their associated hazards to adjacent
settlements. Operational real-time satellite remote
sensing systems now exist that can provide rapid
assessments and potentially crucial information for
disaster prevention, such as for Fuego, Guatemala.

Earthquake science and engineering provides
another excellent success story. Over many
decades, seismology, engineering sciences and
building administration have progressively
developed design codes and standards to improve
the earthquake resistance of buildings and
infrastructures. Where these have been vigorously
implemented in new buildings and through retro-
fitting schemes for existing buildings, for example
in earthquake-prone Japan and California, USA,
the loss of lives and damage in earthquakes have
been very significantly reduced. Accompanying risk
assessments and public education programmes
have contributed to high levels of awareness
and preparedness of the population.

The early

warning and preparedness systems put in place

in the region of Kobe, Japan, after the devastating
1995 earthquake demonstrate the successful
integration of multi-disciplinary science, policy-
making and implementation. This included a
sophisticated system of seismic sensors established
through close collaboration between earth
scientists, engineers and social scientists, and
the participation of schools, both as a means
of protecting pupils and as a way of educating
families through their children.

Flood risk is another well-recognised area where
science plays a central role, not only for forecasting
flood events and evacuation needs, but also
for providing a sound basis for the ongoing
management of rivers and the use of flood plains.
Millions of people benefit from the systematic
integration of existing scientific knowledge from
meteorology, hydrology, agriculture, forestry, water
and natural resources management, and land-
use planning. The sustainable development of
river basins and the associated reductions in loss
of life and destruction of assets are very visible
outcomes of the capacities of modern science and
engineering to serve both the public and private
sectors.

The following examples of failures, where
science knowledge had limited impact on policy
development and implementation, also provide
important lessons.

The Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004
resulted in 305,276 dead or missing, over 500,000
injured and economic losses estimated at US$
13.4 billion.

The lack of preparedness for such

a tsunami disaster offers a stark reminder of
the catastrophic consequences that can ensue
when scientific and technical findings are not
transferred into policies and actions. Seismologists
understood the seismic risks of the region and
oceanographers had promoted the need for a
tsunami warning system, but no warning system
had been implemented. In India, scientific advice to
restrict the setting up and expansion of industries,
operations and processes within 500 metres of the

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

high-tide line had been incorporated into law in
1991 but had not been fully enforced.

Other examples include the hazard assessment
which recommended that no buildings should be
present near Montserrat’s Soufriere volcano but
which was ignored, leading to over US$ 100 million
of infrastructure damage during a subsequent
eruption.

15,27

A European study documented

examples where land-use guidance to control
development in areas with a risk of flooding is
complex and difficult.

In the United Kingdom, the

severe damage and health problems that followed
the 2007 floods demonstrated notable failings
of the early warning systems, where warning
communication was insufficiently clear, early or
coordinated, and people, local government and
support services were unprepared.

It may be concluded that failures in problem-
solving are often less due to shortcomings
of scientific knowledge than to a lack of
implementation that arises from not paying
heed to advice and preparing in a timely
manner, and an associated lack of trust and lack

of understanding of how to convert scientific
findings into applicable and efficient solutions.
There is a great shortfall in current research on
how science is used to shape and support social
and political decision-making in the context of
natural hazards and disasters.

From the successes, however, the evidence is clear
that science with its various disciplines, coupled
with education and policy implementation, have
together substantially contributed to the reduction
in loss of lives and loss of assets, and to building
more resilient societies. Systematic integration
across the sciences, and between the sciences and
the social and policy fields, including education,
is essential to achieve effective and durable
outcomes. This includes the natural sciences
that make the predictions possible; the social
sciences that can provide necessary insights into
the conditions that create such inequity in risk
avoidance and recovery and the establishment
of the unsafe conditions;

30,31

and the technical

applications fields that make the system work
and support the policy decisions that bring about
practical implementations.

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

Rather than attempt to cover all of the dimensions
of concern to disaster risk reduction, which
cover diverse geographical and environmental
settings, time frames, hazard types, different
communities, sectors, and institutional issues,
the UNISDR Scientific and Technical Committee
has decided for this report to focus on a selected
set of four key topics, namely climate change,
early warning systems, public health, and socio-
economic resilience. These are topics of current
policy concern for which immediate science-based
actions are both needed and possible. Other
important topics such as seismic risk prevention
and reduction, and the role of ecosystems in risk
reduction and management, will be dealt with in
future reports.

3.1 Climate change

As touched on in section 2.1, the scientific
foundations for the projections of widespread
and damaging climate change are based are
well-established, thanks to the processes of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
and the issue is now recognised as a central and
critical concern for global economic development
and public safety. This represents an outstanding
achievement for science and for policy-relevant
international scientific cooperation.

Specific aspects of the IPCC scientific assessments
that are relevant to disaster risks can be
highlighted as follows. Scientific evidence and
observation show that temperatures are rising
and that this will likely lead to heat waves of
unprecedented magnitude. Cities that currently
experience heatwaves are expected to be further
challenged by an increased number, intensity and
duration of such events during the course of the
century, with significant potential for additional
adverse health impacts.

Detailed observations and

international collaborative assessments have been
key elements in developing an understanding
of issues of oceanic sea level and climate change
and to establishing with high confidence that

the ocean state has changed, sea levels are rising,
and there is an increased risk of coastal flooding.
Likewise, scientific modelling and analytical
techniques show that future tropical cyclones
(typhoons and hurricanes) are likely to become
more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and
heavier precipitation associated with the ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.

In addition to the changes in extreme weather
events, such as heat waves, droughts, storms
and heavy rainfall, there will be other longer
term consequences of climate change, such as
reduced agricultural production and reduced
water supplies, that will weaken the capacities of
communities to cope with extreme events, thus
leading to further increases in losses and the risk of
disasters.

The major intersecting issues are that disasters
destroy or impede development and that
climate change will increase their occurrence
and their impacts.

For the poorest countries

and communities, the consequences are likely
to be especially devastating: the threat to lives,
livelihoods, homes, and access to resources will
contribute to trapping people and communities
in a desperate cycle of poverty and ill health.
Adaptation to climate change clearly will require
the development of improved methods to manage
hazards and reduce risks.

There is therefore an urgent need to systematically
link disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation policies, and to coordinate strategies
and actions on both issues at national, regional and
global levels.

This connection was recognised in

the Bali Action Plan,

in which the Parties to the

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) set out their plan for reaching a new
agreement on climate change at the end on 2009
in Copenhagen.

Moreover, the IPCC decided in April 2009 to
prepare an IPCC Special Report on “Managing
the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to

Section 3: Selected topics of current policy concern

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

Advance Climate Change Adaptation”,

following

a proposal jointly developed over 2008 and 2009
by UNISDR and Norway. The aim of the Special
Report is to provide a sounder scientific basis for
action to reduce the growing risks of disasters and
to support UNFCCC policymaking and practical
adaptation to climate change. The report will
provide an authoritative assessment of disaster
risk reduction and management policies and
practices, including their effectiveness and costs.
Its preparation will involve hundreds of experts
worldwide and will be completed by mid 2011.

It is also increasingly clear that disaster risk
reduction and adaptation need to be integrated
into strategies and policies for poverty reduction,
economic growth and social development. A key
message from the Stern Report

was that there

is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate
change, if we act now and act internationally.
While focused primarily on the urgent need
for mitigation, the point applies equally well to
adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

There are now many opportunities for the disaster
reduction community to benefit from closer
interaction with the climate change mitigation
and adaptation communities and vice-versa.
Mainstreaming climate change adaptation and
disaster risk reduction together into national
development processes clearly offers great
benefits. All decision makers in all countries should
be made aware of these issues and of the increase
in disasters.

3.2 Changing institutional and public

behaviour to early warnings

Early warning systems rest on a sound basis of
science. The natural sciences have generated a good
understanding of the causes and behaviour of most
natural hazards and coupled with the engineering
sciences have enabled the development of
effective surveillance and prediction systems.
The health sciences have similarly developed
systems for health-related hazards and impacts.

The social sciences have created a growing body
of understanding of human resilience and the
factors that influence people’s behaviour during a
crisis

and there is also substantial systematic social

science research on the effectiveness of warning
messages, channels for distributing messages, and
mechanisms for eliciting public response.

38,39,40

Disaster preparedness has an important influence
on the damage patterns of extreme events, by
reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience.
To be prepared for the unexpected – on a local,
regional or national level – needs constant
adjustments in institutional and public behaviour.
Early warning and preparedness systems must
link and integrate the continuous monitoring
of a hazard, the production of timely and
accurate warning messages, and their effective
communication to the populations at risk, which
implies that people understand and engage with
the messages.

41,42

When properly implemented and

adhered to, these systems are a high-payoff activity
to reduce disaster impacts and save lives, and for
this reason, virtually all governments systematically
invest in science-based early warning capacities,
particularly through national weather services.

Large populations are often evacuated from risk
areas in response to timely warnings, for example
in response to tropical cyclone warnings or
tsunami alerts. In 1977, a major cyclone resulted
in about 20,000 deaths on the east coast of
India. In the years that followed, an early warning
system was established, complete with radars and
emergency plans, and many lives were saved as a
result when the same area was hit again by similar
strength cyclones: in 1996 about 1000 deaths
occurred while in 2005 the death toll was just 27.

During the violent earthquake of May 2008
in Sichuan province, China, which resulted in
about 90,000 deaths, the high awareness and
preparedness in the Sangzao Middle School
prevented casualties even though the school was
situated near the epicentre. The school’s director
had been very conscious of the risks associated
with seismic activity and had required students

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

and teachers to take part in regular drills. When
the earthquake struck, students and teachers
evacuated according to well-rehearsed instructions.
Some 1500 people gathered in the playground
within 2.5 minutes. Nobody was injured. This
illustrates the value of closely linking science-based
knowledge with public awareness and practical
preparedness action. Scientific methods to predict
specific earthquakes are currently not available, so
public warning systems are not possible. However,
in Japan, anticipated ground accelerations across
the country are estimated immediately after
the occurrence of a large earthquake, allowing
automated warning services to halt critical facilities
such as electric trains within seconds before the
wave of ground movement reaches them.

The early warning and preparedness systems
in place in the region of Kobe, Japan provide
an example of the successful integration of
multi-disciplinary science, policy-making and
implementation. After the Kobe earthquake of
1995, a sophisticated system of seismic sensors was
put in place. A programme for close collaboration
between earth scientists, engineers and social
scientists was developed, and risk assessments and
public education programmes were undertaken.
The result is an early warning network which is
further strengthened by high levels of awareness
and preparedness of the population.

Schools are

particularly involved in the system, both as a means
of protecting pupils and as a way of educating
families through their children.

Over the past decade, remote sensing has been
used increasingly in the study of active volcanoes
and their associated hazards. Now operational real-
time satellite remote sensing systems can provide
rapid assessment of volcanic activity levels and can
potentially be used to derive crucial information
for early warning and disaster prevention. It is likely
that the use of satellite-based systems will be most
beneficial for volcano monitoring in developing
country regions and remote areas.

Nevertheless, despite these successes, there is an
overall concern that early warning systems have

not been comprehensively implemented and that
for some hazards and for many potentially affected
communities there are no warning systems in place
at all.

The Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December

2004 tragically highlighted the situation, where the
lack of technical warning systems and the lack of
understanding on the part of the public about how
to interpret environmental clues contributed to the
hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries.

Even where the science and technology is
available and is being applied in warning systems,
the warnings of particular events may not be
effectively communicated, or adequately heeded
or acted on, such as occurred during Hurricane
Katrina. The failures during the 2007 British
flooding, noted earlier,

are troubling after decades

of technological and communication research on
early warnings.

Analysing these problems highlights a number of
key contributing factors, as follows.

Engaging the public, local institutions and
support services
Knowledge of human and institutional behaviour
must inform the design of early warning
systems. Providing warnings and distributing
information alone is insufficient to change public
behaviour and create the level of alertness and
response necessary to avert disaster. People
must understand the information and be able to
translate what it means in their own particular
circumstances.

They must judge the warning to

be credible and trust its source.

Furthermore, to

a large extent people’s response is a collective act,
where they first discuss the meaning of a message
with trusted others (family, friends or colleagues)
before determining what action to take.

Effective

communication engages its audience on the
audience’s own turf, in its language and taking
local social networks into account—for example
by holding public meetings in schools or local
shops rather than in government buildings. An
additional difficulty is that major hazard events are
often relatively rare and their impact may seem
far detached from everyday reality. Warnings and

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

preparedness information must enable people to
perceive the potential event as real. Examples of
successful communication methods have included
using film records and practical demonstrations. In
the Netherlands, dolls houses were plunged in pails
of water during public meetings to demonstrate
the effect of flooding.

An effective early warning policy should begin
by identifying the at-risk population and
organizations, including minority groups who
may not respond to mainstream communication
routes and public and private community support
services. The target audience, whether it be
the general public or institutions, needs to be
involved in the design of preparedness plans if
these are to suit local circumstances and be acted
upon. A continuous process of engagement and
re-engagement is required for people to retain
a sufficient level of knowledge and alertness
over time. This process allows policy makers
and technical experts to hear and consider local
knowledge, community structure and leadership,
and cultural behavioural patterns in planning for
risk reduction. It also fosters a greater sense of
personal relevance and ownership of the plans
by individuals, communities and institutions,
thereby leading to better adherence and follow up.
Addressing all these aspects should be part of the
disaster risk reduction agenda.

Keeping pace with new communication
technology
Most of the research on warnings was undertaken
before the introduction of cable television, the
internet, and mobile phones. These technological
innovations offer new ways of reaching affected
populations but they have also complicated the
warning and risk communication process,

turning

the issue from the linear model that officials could
tightly control through the dissemination of
messages through a small number of media, to a
market-based arena of competing and conflicting
messages that no single official can control or
monopolize. The new communication patterns and
technologies must be understood and harnessed,

whilst retaining the trustworthiness of the source,
to fashion the early warning systems of the future.

Increased cooperation between science and
policy
The difficulties and examples discussed
throughout this section highlight the importance
of close collaboration between research,
engineering and policy-making. Only when the
three have been drawn together in the design
and implementation of early warning systems
have these been successful at provoking adequate
responses and mitigating damage and casualties.
The inclusion of the multiple disciplines of science
in the design of warning systems is necessary to
utilise the breadth of understanding of natural
phenomena and human response which has now
become available. Effective risk assessments should
include the identification of all the populations
and institutions that may become involved. For
many natural hazards such as tropical cyclones
and earthquakes, this also requires close regional
cooperation. Scientists need to develop the
capacity to explain the underlying complexity
of early warning systems to policy makers. In
turn, a strong and durable political commitment
is required to support the implementation and
updating of research findings.

3.3 Incorporating knowledge of the wide

health impacts of disasters

Improving and protecting the world population’s
health and well-being is a prerequisite for
achieving the Millennium Development Goals
and the goals of the Hyogo Framework for
Action. Natural hazards have greatest effect on
the most vulnerable in the community: the poor,
the children, the women and the elderly. There
is a growing evidence base upon which we can
improve our understanding of the health impacts
associated with disasters.

What is now needed is

continued support for multi-disciplinary research
in this field coupled with efforts to translate
knowledge into more effective policy and to bridge

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

the gaps between environmental, humanitarian,
development and governmental actors.

Medical emergencies and the health impacts of a
disaster are important and highly visible aspects
of the relief phase. The immediate impact in
terms of fatalities and casualties is often at the
forefront of media coverage. The difficulties in
delivering medical care in the context of damaged
infrastructures and the coordination of inter-
regional or international collaboration tend to take
precedence in the emergency response. However
the health impacts of disasters can continue
well beyond this immediate stage. Disasters
may destroy local health infrastructures, thereby
restricting the system’s future ability to provide
care and impacting on a much wider population
than those directly affected by the original event.
For example, the distribution of maternity care in
the southern region of Sri Lanka had to be re-
organised after damage to one maternity hospital
by the tsunami of December 2004. Although the
hospital sustained only minor damage, many
women had to be referred to other maternity
services across the country for almost three years
after the event.

An increased risk of epidemics

of infectious diseases has been observed after
large disasters, particularly flooding, and in
situations where people are sheltered in crowded
structures with lack of adequate sanitation.

Damaged infrastructures put affected populations
at increased risk of accidents and increase their
vulnerability to the environment, as well as
exacerbating poor health and pre-existing disease.
Over half the fatalities following the 1998 ice
storm in Quebec, Canada were due to burns from
improvised heating or lighting devices, carbon
monoxide poisoning from the use of generators or
propane stoves indoors and hypothermia.

Similar

issues have been documented after most types of
disaster.

Additional long-term impacts may persist
throughout and sometimes past the recovery
phase. A study of the 1968 floods in Bristol,

United Kingdom found that deaths and hospital
admissions during the 12 months after the flood
were double among those whose homes had been
affected by the flood.

However, few studies have

examined such long-term health consequences
of disasters and research results are sometimes
inconsistent between studies.

Psychological

health effects are also among the most long-term
outcomes of disasters.

Although most people

who experience distress during a disaster recover
rapidly, a sub-set of people will progress to post-
traumatic stress disorder, depression or other
psychiatric conditions. There is also evidence that
suicides and child abuse rise following disasters.

55,56

The health consequences of disasters may even
be passed from one generation onto the next,
particularly if they affect such fundamental needs
as access to food. Studies of the Dutch famine
in 1944-45 found that very poor nutrition can
affect foetal growth and lead to an increased
risk of diabetes in the offspring, implicating a
generational effect.

57,58

Yet our understanding of the long-term impacts
of disasters on health remains minimal. A number
of factors make this type of research difficult and
resource-intensive: the difficulties in following-
up displaced populations for a long time, the
inability to plan ahead for a pre-post disaster
comparison, and other factors and events that may
confound the results. A better understanding of
the long-term consequences of disasters is crucial
to more effective preparedness and response.
It would help focus limited resources on the
more likely and consequential health outcomes.
Continued support for research and collation of
experience is important and is likely to yield the
most results if undertaken within the context of a
multi-disciplinary investigation of the causes and
consequences of disasters.

There also needs to be a greater understanding
among policy-makers and the disaster risk
reduction professionals that the health impacts
of a disaster can be much more wide-ranging

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

than the initial response suggests. Much
expertise and skills have already been developed
to support the emergency medical response
to disaster events. Further effort to take into
account the whole breadth and longer timeframe
of potential health impacts would improve
preparedness and recovery, and could contribute
to mitigating the total health, societal and
economic burden of disaster events. The health
and scientific community clearly has a role to play
in disseminating our growing knowledge of the
broad health impacts of disasters.

3.4 Improving resilience to disasters

through social and economic

understanding

As already noted, those with the least capacities
and resources are the most affected by natural
hazards. Underlying this disparity are wide gaps
due to poverty and socio-cultural stratification in
access to resources for risk avoidance and response.
Social science research provides significant insights
into the conditions that create such inequity in
exposure and vulnerability. The socio-economic
processes that lead to the establishment of the
unsafe conditions that characterize vulnerable
communities include both recent and old social,
economic and political factors, and may arise
locally or from remote sources.

The analysis of

such factors can help understand, for example,
why people in cities of Andean countries expose
themselves to landslides by building houses in
steep ravines, and others throughout the world
settle on the slopes of still-active volcanoes. Other
key issues to consider in this context are how
individual risk perception may be influenced by
institutional, social and economic conditions,
as well as the limitations which are imposed by
poverty and lack of experience, weak governance
and a setting dominated by short, rather than
long-term, goals.

An important issue for planners

and decision makers is to know the economic costs
of ignoring risks and conversely of the various
interventions needed to reduce risks.

Disaster risk assessments efforts involve the
assessment of the natural hazards, the exposure of

communities to the hazards and the vulnerability
of the communities. The assessment of
vulnerability, including the underlying factors that
bring about such vulnerabilities and lead people
to expose themselves to hazards, is a difficult and
often neglected task that requires the specialist
knowledge and skills of a range of social sciences.

Understanding vulnerability is all the more
important in the context of a fundamental change
in the process by which communities are now
expected to recover from disasters. Traditionally,
disaster recovery focused upon returning the
impacted community to the pre-disaster status
quo. Now, the focus is increasingly upon resilience
and the inclusion of mitigation measures into
the recovery process to enhance sustainable
disaster recovery.

Important resources inherent

in local resilience include economic resources,
political empowerment, organizational capability,
social capital, local knowledge and expertise, and
community cohesion.

The recovery process

must include a range of mitigation measures,
and leverage resources, local capacity-building,
identification of local needs and a strong
commitment from external agents to provide
resources to meet local demands.

The world’s growing population and expanding
urbanization greatly aggravate the risks of future
disasters. Currently, half the world’s population live
in urban areas, and by 2050, the figure is expected
to be about 70 percent; the urban areas of the
world are expected to absorb virtually all the
population growth over the next four decades,
while at the same time drawing in some of the
rural population.

Cities and towns in Asia and

Africa are projected to register the biggest growth,
resulting in 27 mega-cities with at least 10 million
populations by the mid-century, compared with 19
today.

While planning and managing a mega-city

may be an almost insurmountable challenge for
many countries, the basic guidelines for reducing
urban risks should be pursued by city governments
as a priority. The Hyogo Framework of Action
provides the principles involved in summary form.

A number of factors accentuate the vulnerability
of cities to natural hazards. The concentration of a

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

large population increases the scale of exposure to
the hazards present. The suitability of local building
design, urban planning and infrastructures to
the environment will affect local resilience. Areas
of impoverished and unplanned growth may be
particularly vulnerable to flooding, storm damage
and fire. Concentrated infrastructures pose
potential risks of systemic failure to systems for
transport, energy supply and communications.

New and improved strategies and methods are
needed to address the variety of risks that face
rapidly expanding urban areas. This includes the
more intensive use of scientific information in
planning and management, and the development
of monitoring and early warning systems tailored
to growing and emerging urban areas. Disaster-
prone and economically developed countries
usually already have such systems in place, as is the
case in Japan where the probability of earthquakes
hitting major urban centres in the next thirty
years is closely studied and estimated

7,61

and the

development and application of technologies for
seismic resistant construction is accorded high
importance. To reduce the impact of disasters
worldwide, such strategies and resources need to

be more effectively shared with developing regions
as well.

Important contributions to preparedness and
monitoring can be expected from the global use
of geographic information systems (GIS). These can
provide significant information about the likely
resilience of a particular topography to hazards
such as landslides, earthquakes and flooding, and
are increasingly used by local authorities for the
management of land uses and natural resources.
They are most effective when combining remote
methods, using satellite or aircraft-based imagery,
and local knowledge and data, especially for urban
conditions. There is increasing recognition that GIS
applications and associated observational data sets
must encompass developing regions of the world
and new urban areas. The Global Earth Observation
System of Systems (GEOSS) for example aims to
coordinate global GIS space-based applications and
share the knowledge with all nations.

The global

development of earth observation methods will
increase the capacity of science and engineering
to inform policy, urban and rural planning, natural
resource management and protection, and the
enhancement of early warning systems.

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

4.1 Better integration of science and

technology into policy

Disaster risk reduction calls for strategic planning
and implementation as well as technical and
scientific expertise. It sits at the interface of policy-
making, engineering and scientific research, and
requires a close and continuous exchange among
these in order to provide effective and durable
solutions. The December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami and Hurricane Katrina remind us of the
catastrophic consequences that can ensue when
scientific and technical findings are not transferred
into policies and actions. Conversely, there are
also many good examples of policy processes
assimilating scientific knowledge, such as recent
land-use legislation in Germany that requires
planners to incorporate mitigation measures in
flood plains.

Enhanced integration of science, engineering
and policy-making requires efforts on the part
of all involved to facilitate the translation of
technical expertise into socially acceptable and
sustainable practical solutions. The challenge
must be understood as bridging the gap between
the wider scientific community and the sphere
of policy-making. The scientific community
has diverse realms, including the “hard” natural
sciences, the “soft” social sciences and “applied”
fields such as engineering and health. Within the
sphere of policy-making, various organisations
and perspectives coexist, including international,
national and local governmental bodies and
influential non-governmental organisations, with
diverse responsibilities and areas of knowledge.

The disaster risk reduction agenda is closely
tied in with population security concerns, with
large economic, social and health burdens at
stake. Improving our ability to mitigate the risks
associated with natural hazards responds to basic
societal needs for the security of persons and
goods and well-being. Furthermore, as discussed

previously, vulnerability to natural hazards
correlates with levels of development, with a
potential vicious circle in which those developing
regions that are most vulnerable are often hit
with the greatest impact. A better integration
of scientific knowledge and adapted solutions
to disaster mitigation strategies will therefore
strengthen national and regional capacity to work
towards the Millennium Development Goals.
This will become increasingly important as our
environment becomes modified and threatened by
climate change.

A closer integration of science and technology
into preparedness and recovery strategies will
pay dividends. This will require political interest
and commitment to reduce risk, and greater
coordination among the relevant ministries, civil
society and UN organizations and structures,
particular among those concerned with long-
term development, technical risk matters, and
humanitarian response, and should build upon the
achievements of the ISDR system.

A key requirement is to develop a greater
understanding among decision-makers of
the breadth of physical and social factors that
influence disaster risk, population behaviour and
the potential success of risk reduction policies. For
example, the most technologically sophisticated
early warning system will be ineffective if the
local population is not adequately engaged in the
preparedness process. Necessary understandings
and commitment must be shared at all levels of
government, international, national and local, if
well-informed policies and legislation are to trickle
down into sustained action on the ground and the
implementation of best practice.

As one example, local planning authorities
need to understand and trust the technically
specific guidance on construction if buildings in
flood plains and seismic areas are to be suitably
designed. Scientific and technical information

Section 4: Achieving a more effective interplay of science,

technology and policy

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

allows the production of robust risk assessments,
and the private insurance sector is an important
user of such information. However, too often
risk data are not made use of or adequately
incorporated into development planning, and
where hazard maps do exist there can be gaps in
their use to elaborate or update land-use norms
and building codes.

A core challenge for the scientific community
lies in becoming more successful at contributing
its expertise outside its immediate world of
science and technology. The style, language
and complexity of scientific writings are
well-recognised stumbling blocks for the
implementation of scientific knowledge by a lay
audience. To overcome this difficulty, the onus is
largely on the scientific community to take steps
to communicate results and guidance in the form
of simplified, feasible, affordable and socially-
acceptable solutions that respond to people’s
needs. The uptake of guidelines will remain low
if users cannot understand the information or
perceive its relevance to their own situation. There
are many good examples of popularisation of
scientific knowledge, such as joint efforts by the
seismological community and civil engineers to
produce understandable building codes. Further
effort is required to adapt them to different social,
economic and cultural contexts, however. With
regard to earthquakes, for example, there is a
need to adapt building guidance for use in lower-
income settings, and particularly in the building of
affordable private housing in developing countries.

The scientific community may also need to
innovate and diversify the pathways it uses to
communicate expert advice. The traditional
publication of results in scientific journals is not
designed to reach a wide audience. There needs to
be further engagement of scientific and technical
experts into policy-making bodies, so that strategic
planning may directly benefit from the latest
knowledge. This may require a shift in perception
and priorities for scientists, and efforts to develop
specialist intermediaries or interlocutors, with

training and support to acquire new sets of
communication and advocacy skills.

Public awareness-raising campaigns and education
activities at both school and university levels offer
important channels for communicating scientific
and technical knowledge on disasters and their
causes. This implies an increased familiarity with
the various media and education methods, and
working towards a greater understanding of what
people want and need and what they are willing
to adapt to. It can in return generate greater trust
and engagement from the public in science-based
systems and regulations. Similarly, the media can
play a valuable role in providing the public with
accessible and well-informed information about
disasters and disaster risk reduction, especially at
times of major disaster events.

The World Wide

Web in particular is developing rapidly as an
information and communication resource for the
public.

4.2 Greater interaction among the

scientific and technical disciplines

Effective routes to disaster risk reduction require
diverse means and expertise, with the different fields
of science joining forces to produce well-suited
solutions to risk-related problems. This is not just a
matter of developing trans-disciplinary processes
among the natural sciences and engineering,
but also of fully incorporating the insights and
methodology of social sciences and humanities
into problem-solving approaches. We can view
natural science as the bellwether indicating the
risk of specific hazards and the scope and direction
of related technologies, and thus providing the
prospects and hope for avoiding, minimizing or
overcoming the risk. The social sciences provide
the perspective and methods to understand
human behaviour in response to risk and the use
or rejection of technology, while the humanities
provide means for engaging people in new
narratives and images of better practice. Applied
research fields, such as associated with the health

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

and engineering sciences, add a sound grounding in
tried-and-tested best practice to practical solutions
for mitigation, preparedness and response.

Greater interplay between scientific disciplines can
also help create the wider and longer view that
is often the key to sustainable solutions. At times,
for example, the solution to one hazard may help
solve—or worsen—the problems of another. For
example, during Cyclone Nargis in 2008, Myanmar
benefited from the upgraded meteorological
communications systems that had been installed
for tsunami early warning purposes following the
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Countries such as
Jamaica that suffer both from earthquakes and
cyclones provide another example. In earthquake
zones, houses should be designed with light
roofs, so that damage is less likely under seismic
shaking. However, in tropical cyclone regions,
buildings with heavy roofs behave better in strong
winds than those with light roofs. Here, advice
from seismologists, meteorologists and engineers
needs to be integrated in order to provide suitable
compromise solutions.

Multidisciplinary collaboration will enhance all
aspects of disaster risk reduction. A fully-informed
hazard risk assessment, for example, must include
a holistic analysis of the hazard, the risk and on-site
vulnerability, requiring input from natural sciences,
mathematical modelling, engineering, socio-
economics, health sciences and others. Designing
and updating early warning systems requires an
understanding not only of the natural hazard,
but also of local social conditions and population
behaviour. Similarly diverse inputs are required to
design and implement successful emergency plans
and effective recovery programmes.

4.3 Promoting greater international

collaboration

Natural hazards and associated disasters do not
respect political boundaries. They often have
direct or indirect impacts on several different

countries at the same time, calling for international
collaboration for preparedness, response and
recovery. In this context, international cooperation
on natural hazard monitoring and characterization,
common data and alert systems and capacity
development is important. It can engender
more effective solutions, reduce duplication and
promote the transfer of resources and know-how
across political and economic boundaries. It is
particularly necessary for early warning systems,
such as those for weather hazards coordinated
by the World Meteorological Organization and
for tsunami hazards coordinated by UNESCO’s
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

Natural hazards remain inadequately studied in
many regions, particularly in the developing world
where lack of capacity and resources hinder local
efforts. Many countries, for example, do not have
adequate ground-based observations systems to
be able to study, predict and anticipate the hazards
they are exposed to. Lack of baseline information
is particularly of concern where departure from
baseline behaviour is the means to signal the onset
of an event (e.g. a volcanic eruption). For example,
the explosive histories of just one-fifth of all
volcanoes in the world are documented, and very
few outside the developed world are systematically
monitored. Mount Cameroon, for example, Africa’s
largest volcano, has no seismic network. Intra-
regional and global data gathering and scientific
cooperation is therefore a basic priority for disaster
risk research and preparedness. International
scientific networks can also serve as the conduit
for the transfer and adaptation of knowledge and
technology from rich to moderate-income and
lower-income countries.

International scientific networks can also facilitate
the transfer of experience and lessons learned
between different regions that are exposed to
similar hazards. Sharing experience in this way can
be particularly valuable in the case of very rare
events. Stable continental earthquakes, such as
those which occurred in New Madrid, USA in 1811-
1812, provide a good example. They are unlikely

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

to re-occur in the same area for several hundreds
of years, but may occur in other parts of the world.
Rather than lose the knowledge gained after the
event, lessons learned should be shared with other
susceptible regions.

In response to the challenges described above, a
new international, multidisciplinary programme
“Integrated Research on Disaster Risk: addressing
the challenge of natural and human-induced
environmental hazards”

has been established

by the International Council for Science (ICSU)
with the co-sponsorship of the International
Social Science Council (ISSC) and the UNISDR.
This will build upon, complement and extend
existing scientific research programmes to
provide the capacity at all levels and in all
geographical contexts for addressing hazards
and making informed decisions on actions to
reduce their impacts. The programme will facilitate
collaboration between global partners in research,
including: the World Climate Research Programme;
the World Weather Research Programme; the
International Human Dimensions Programme on
Global Environmental Change and its Integrated
Risk Governance Project;

intra-regional and global

scientific networks and global capacity building
programmes similar to START (the global change
SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training);

and

programmes for globally integrated observation
systems, especially those seeking to improve
coverage of the developing world, such as through
the work of the Group on Earth Observations.

Given the evidence of increasing disaster risk, and
the growing demand for sound methods to deal
with and reduce disaster risk, these programmes
and their coordination will become increasingly
important foundations for informed cost-effective
action in the future.

4.4 Capacity development

Many regions of the world still lag far behind in
terms of provision of information and services
required for disaster risk reduction, and as a result

their prospects for sustainable development
will remain constrained. Most critical is the lack
of capacity in terms of human, institutional
and material resources for a range of disaster
reduction needs, including identifying hazards,
exposure levels and vulnerabilities and thereby
characterizing risk, as well as integrating
this information into national and regional
development goals, informing the public,
and developing risk reduction programmes.
The expertise and potential roles of scientific
institutions in developing countries are often
not well recognised or supported, either within
national priority setting or by international
agencies, yet it is these institutions, such as
universities, geophysical, agricultural and health
institutes, and meteorological services, that nurture
and develop the essential bases of local knowledge
for disaster risk reduction and that are, or can be,
the most effective advisors and communicators
with the local communities.

With the global increase in the number of disaster
events and the threat of growing climate change
impacts, there is an urgent need for a careful
assessment and mapping of the existing capacities
for all aspects of disaster risk reduction. This would
determine the strengths and weaknesses in
respect to different hazards in different geographic
locations and social systems, and the different
scientific, technical and operational capacities.
It would also facilitate learning from past and
ongoing capacity-building efforts and how
these have been linked to national development
agendas, regional collaborations and international
programmes for disasters. The abovementioned
START network is an example of human and
institutional capacity development that is focused
on developing local human capacities in scientific
and technical fields to support sustainable
development in developing countries, and could
provide an appropriate model for building related
capacities in disaster risk reduction.

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

Following the considerations above, the Scientific
and Technical Committee makes the following
recommendations. Relevant parties, particularly
within the scientific and technical fields, are
encouraged to translate these into concrete
actions within their areas of mandate.

(i) Promote knowledge into action

Greater priority should be put on sharing
and disseminating scientific information
and translating it into practical methods
that can readily be integrated into policies,
regulations and implementation plans
concerning disaster risk reduction. Education
on all levels, comprehensive knowledge
management, and greater involvement of
science in public awareness-raising and
education campaigns should be strengthened.
Specific innovations should be developed to
facilitate the incorporation of science inputs in
policymaking.

(ii) Use a problem-solving approach that

integrates all hazards and disciplines

An holistic, all-hazards, risk-based, problem-
solving approach should be used to
address the multi-factoral nature of disaster
risk and disaster risk reduction and to
achieve improved solutions and better-
optimised use of resources. This requires the
collaboration of all stakeholders, including
suitable representatives of governmental
institutions, scientific and technical specialists
and members of the communities at risk.
Knowledge sharing and collaboration between
disciplines and sectors should be made a
central feature of the approach, in order to
guide scientific research, to make knowledge
available for faster implementation, to bridge
the various gaps between risks, disciplines, and
stakeholders, and to support education and
training and information dissemination and
media communication.

(iii) Support systematic science programmes

Systematic programmes of scientific
research, observations and capacity building
should be supported at national, regional
and international levels to address current
problems and emerging risks such as are
identified in this report. The international
Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR)
Programme,

which is co-sponsored by

ICSU, ISSC, and UNISDR, provides a new and
important framework for global collaboration.
The ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee
should provide strategic guidance on research
needs for disaster risk reduction and oversight
of progress.

(iv) Guide good practice in scientific and technical

aspects of disaster risk reduction

The ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee
should be strengthened to serve as a neutral,
credible international resource to support
practitioners at all levels, from local through
national to international levels, by overseeing
the collection, vetting and publicising of
information on good practices carried out
on the basis of sound science and up-to-
date scientific and technological knowledge,
as well as on those inadequate practices or
concepts that may be hindering progress.
The Committee should further develop its
recommendations for follow-up on the areas
of concern highlighted in the present report,
including on the themes of disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation,
preparedness and early warning systems,
health impacts of disasters, and the association
of disaster risk and socioeconomic factors.

Section 5: Recommendations

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

References

See http://www.unisdr.org/eng/media-room/press-release/2009/pr-2009-01-disaster-figures-2008.
pdf. Disaster statistics and summaries are available from

(i) Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), on website at http://www.cred.be

(ii) Munich Reinsurance, on website at http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/natcatservice/
default.aspx

(iii) UNISDR, on website at http://www.unisdr.org/disaster-statistics/introduction.htm

(All accessed 14 May 2009.)

UNISDR (2008), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Scientific and Technical Committee,
Report of the First Meeting, Paris, 31 January - 1 February 2008. UNISDR, Geneva, 14pp.

United Nations (2009). 2009 Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: risk and poverty in a
changing climate, UNISDR, Geneva, 207 pp. Summary on website at http://www.preventionweb.net/
english/professional/news/v.php?id=9425

Full report on website at

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=9413&pid:36&pil:1, http://
www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/?pid:3&pil:1 (All accessed 18 May 2009).

IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor MMB, Miller HL and Chen
Z, eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, p1-18.

IPCC (2009). IPCC To Prepare Report on Extreme Events and Disasters, Press statement by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 23rd April 2009. On website at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
pressreleases/ipcc_pr_antalya_april_2009.pdf. (Accessed 9 May 2009).

International Council for Science (2008). A Science Plan for Integrated Research on Disaster Risk:
Addressing the challenge of natural and human-induced environmental hazards. On website at http://
www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/2121_DD_FILE_Hazard_report.pdf

(Accessed on 4 April 2009).

Hamada M (2007). Creation of Safe and Secure Society against Global Change of Natural Disasters - A
Special Task Committee of the Science Council of Japan. At Workshop on Construction of Secure and
Safe Society against Global Changes of Natural Disasters, Okinawa, 15 June 2007. On website at
http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-20-t38-4e.pdf (Accessed 14 April 2009).

World Meteorological Organization (2006). Interview with Sir David King, April 2006. WMO Bulletin, 55
(2), 76. On website at http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/bulletin_en/interviews/sirking_en.html

(Accessed on 10 August 2009).

UNISDR (2009). 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Available in the five UN languages
on website at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/terminology-2009-eng.html (Accessed on 1
June 2009). NOTE: The definition of “disaster” is accompanied by the following explanatory comment:
“Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions
of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential
negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects
on human physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets,
loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation”.

United Nations (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction 18-22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo,
Japan. On website at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf
(Accessed on 14 March 2009).

United Nations (2008). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2008. United Nations, New York.

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

On website at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/The%20Millennium%20Development%20
Goals%20Report%202008.pdf (Accessed on 30 March 2009).

Berke PR, Kartez JD and Wenger DE (1993). Recovery After a Disaster: Achieving Sustainable
Development, Mitigation and Equity, Disasters, 17 (2): 93-109.

Prater CS and Lindell MK (2000). Politics of Hazard Mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2): 73-82.

ISDR-IATF (2001). Establishment of an Advisory Scientific and Technical Group for the ISDR. ISDR Inter-
Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction, Third Meeting, Geneva, 3-4 May 2001. On website at

http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/tf-meetigns/3rd%20TF%20mtg/TF-3_focus_paper_
Advisory_Group.doc (Accessed 13 April 2009).

United Kingdom Government (2005). The Role of Science in Physical Natural Hazard Assessment, Report
to the UK Government by the Natural Hazard Working Group Report, June 2005. On website at http://
www.berr.gov.uk/files/file8511.pdf (Accessed 1 January 2009).

WHO (2008). Global Assessment of National Health Sector Emergency Preparedness and Response. World
Health Organization, Geneva, 76pp. On website at. http://www.who.int/hac/about/Global_survey_
inside.pdf (Accessed on 12 February 2009).

United Nations (2008). World Urbanization Prospects - The 2007 Revision. UN Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York. On website at http://www.un.org/esa/population/
publications/wup2007/2007WUP_Highlights_web.pdf (Accessed on 9 March 2009).

Mutter JC (2005). The Earth Sciences, Human Well-Being, and the Reduction of Global Poverty, EOS, 86,
16, 157, 164-165.

UNISDR (2009). CRED disaster figures: Deaths and economic losses jump in 2008. Press Release, 22
January 2009, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Secretariat. On website at http://www.
unisdr.org/eng/media-room/press-release/2009/pr-2009-01-disaster-figures-2008.pdf Accessed on
10 August 2009).

IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ
and Hanson CE, eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, p7-22.

Smith G and Wenger D (2006). Sustainable Disaster Recovery: Operationalizing an Existing Agenda. In
Handbook of Disaster Research, Rodriguez H, Quarantelli E and Dynes R (eds.) Springer, p234-258.

International Council for Science (2008). Science Plan on Hazards and Disasters: Earthquakes, Floods
and Landslides, Report of ICSU ROAP Planning Group on Natural and Human Induced Environmental
Hazards and Disasters. On website at http://www.icsu-asia-pacific.org/resourcecentre_hazard.htm
(Accessed on 14 March 2009).

Webley PW, Wooster MJ, Strauch W, Saballos JA, Dill K, Stephenson P, Stephenson J, Escobar Wolf R,
and Matias O (2008). Experiences from near-real-time satellite-based volcano monitoring in Central
America: case studies at Fuego, Guatemala. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29, 22, 6621 –
6646, doi: 10.1080/01431160802168301. On website at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c4/97/47/
WebelyWoosteretalCentralAmericanVolcanoes.pdf (Accessed on 14 March 2009).

Irikura K (2007). SCA Joint Project Workshop ‘Natural Disasters: Forecast, Prediction, and Hazard
Assessments of Earthquakes’ . The 7th Science Council of Asia Conference, June 14-16, 2007, Okinawa.
On website at http://www.scj.go.jp/en/sca/pdf/7th_irikura.pdf (Accessed 3 March 2009).

United Nations (2004). Guidelines for Reducing Flood Losses. Pilon PJ (ed.), UNDESA, UNISDR, and NOAA
(USA), 83pp. On website at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/flood_guidelines.pdf

(Accessed 15 May 2009).

Government of India. Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment, Forests
and Wildlife) Notification Under Section 3(1) And Section 3(2)(V) Of The Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 And Rule 5(3)(D) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 declaring coastal stretches
as coastal regulation zone (CRZ) and regulating activities in the CRZ. New Delhi, the 19

February,

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

1991 (as amended up to 3

October 2001). On website at http://envfor.nic.in/legis/crz/crznew.html

(Accessed on 1 April 2009).

Wadge G and Isaacs MC (1987). Volcanic hazards from Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat, West Indies.
A report to the Government of Montserrat and the Pan Caribbean Disaster Preparedness and
Prevention Project. University of Reading, UK.

Pottier N, Penning-Rowsell E, Tunstall S and Hubert G (2005). Land use and flood protection:
contrasting approaches and outcomes in France and in England and Wales. Applied Geography, vol.
25, issue 1, p1-27.

Pitt M (2008). Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. (The Pitt Review). On website at http://archive.
cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/pitt_
review_full%20pdf.pdf (Accessed on 3 January 2009)

Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T and Davis I (2004). At Risk: natural hazards, people´s vulnerability and
disasters. Second edition. Routledge, London.

Cardona OD (2001). La necesidad de repensar de manera holística los conceptos de vulnerabilidad y
riesgo. Una crítica y una revisión necesaria para su gestión. On website at http://www.desenredando.
org/public/articulos/2001/repvuln/index.html (Accessed 20 May 2009).

McBean GA (2006). The Intersection of Policies on Disaster Management, Climate Change and
International Development. 13 February 2006, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Handmer JA (2003). Adaptive capacity: what does it mean in the context of natural hazards? In Climate
Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, Smith JB, Klein RJT and Huq S (eds), Imperial College
Press, London.

UNISDR (2008). Climate Change and Disaster Reduction, Briefing Note 1, UN International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction Secretariat, Geneva. On website at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/
climate-change/docs/Climate-Change-DRR.pdf (Accessed 9 May 2009).

UNFCCC (2008). Decision -/CP.13 Bali Action Plan, advance unedited version, United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat, Bonn. On website at http://unfccc.int/files/
meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_bali_action.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2009).

IPCC (2009). Scoping Paper – IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, 23rd April 2009, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
On website at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc_pr_antalya_april_2009.pdf (Accessed 9
May 2009).

Stern N (2006). Review on the Economics of Climate Change, United Kingdom Government. On website
at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm (Accessed 2 January 2009).

Masten AS and Obradovic J (2007). Disaster preparation and recovery: lessons from research
on resilience in human development. Ecology and Society, 13(1): 9. On website at http://www.
ecologyandsocietyorg/vol13/iss1/art9/ (Accessed on 14 March 2009).

Lindell M and Perry R (2004). Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Yamamura E (2008). Learning Effect and Social Capital: A Case Study of Natural Disaster from Japan. In
Munich Personal RePEc Archive. On website at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10249/1/MPRA_
paper_10249.pdf (Accessed 14 March 2009).

Glantz MH (2004). Usable Science 8: Early Warning Systems: Do’s and Don’ts. Report of the Workshop held
20-23 October 2003 in Shanghai, China. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.
On website at. http://www.ccb.ucar.edu/wkshp/warning/report.html (Accessed 15 March 2009)

Basher R (2006). Global early warning systems for natural hazards – systematic and people-
centered. Royal Society Discussion Meeting on Extreme Natural Hazards, London, 26-27 October
2005, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 364, 2167-2182. On website at http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/
content/364/1845/2167.full.pdf+html (accessed 15 March 2009)

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

United Nations (2006). Global Survey of Early Warning Systems, an assessment of capacities, gaps and
opportunities towards building a comprehensive global early warning system for all natural hazards.
United Nations. 46pp. On website at www.unisdr.org/ppew/info-resources/ewc3/Global-Survey-of-
Early-Warning -Systems.pdf (Assessed 9 May 2009).

Longstaff PH and Yang S (2008). Communication management and trust: their role in building
resilience to “surprises” such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and terrorism. Ecology and Society,
13(1). On website at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art3/ (Accessed 14 February 2009).

Sorensen J and Sorensen BV (2006). Community Processes: Warning and Evacuation. In Handbook of
Disaster Research, Rodriguez H, Quarantelli E and Dynes R (eds.) Springer, pp. 183-200. On website
at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zfslzTKY3_YC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=Community+P
rocesses:+Warning+and+Evacuation.+In+Handbook+of+Disaster+Research,+sorensen&source=
bl&ots=1sjkpSKMMr&sig=XqgEq6pQIDDzDME7WtyEgOJbv9M&hl=en&ei=nYVUSqzuBYmE-Qar-
4yXDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 (Accessed 30 March 2009)

Jonge Deltacommissie, (2008). Nerderland veilig, nu en later: Aan de slag! Ideeen van jonge professionals
om al mee te beginnen. Jonge Deltacommissie, September 2008. [Young Delta Commission: Safe
Netherlands, now and later: let’s get started! Ideas from young professionals as a starting point.
Young Delta Commission, September 2008.] On website at www.jongedeltacommissie.nl (Accessed
18 March 2009)

National Research Council (2006). Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions.
National Academies Press, Washington, DC. On website at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_
id=11671 (Accessed 30 March 2009).

Kirch W, Menne B and Bertollini R (2005). Extreme weather events and public health response. World
Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe. Springer, ISBN 3-540-24417-4.

Herath H (2008). Responding to major disasters - a perspective from a developing country. Oral
presentation. Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom, 29 October 2008.

Government of Québec (1999). Etudes sectorielles du rapport de la Commission scientifique et technique
chargée d’analyser les évènements relatifs a la tempête de verglas survenue du 5 au 9 janvier 1998. Volume
2 : Les impacts sociaux, économiques et environnementaux. (Sectoral studies from the scientific and
technical commission in charge of analysing the effects of the January 5-9th 1998 Ice Storm, Volume 2:
Social, economic and environmental impacts). Les publications du Quebec, Sainte-Foy, 1999.

Noji E (1997). The public health consequences of disasters. Oxford University Press, USA. On website at

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J3N7_Ed8-wYC&dq=Noji+E.+(1997).+The+public+health+co
nsequences+of+disasters.+Oxford+University+Press,+USA,+1997.&printsec=frontcover&source=b
n&hl=en&ei=8aJUSqHcCp-5jAfZjvWYCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 (Accessed 30
March 2009).

Bennet G (1970). Bristol floods 1968. Controlled survey of the effects on human health of local
community disaster, British Medical Journal, August 22, pp.454-8. On website at http://www.bmj.com/
cgi/reprint/3/5720/454?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Bennet&titl
e=Bristol&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIR
STINDEX=0&sortspec=date&fdate=1/1/1969&tdate=7/31/1973&resourcetype=HWCIT (Accessed 19
March 2009).

Ahern M, Kovats RS, Wilkinson P, Few R and Matthies F (2005). Global Health Impacts of Floods:
Epidemiologic Evidence. Epidemiologic Reviews, 2005, 27(1): 36-46; doi:10.1093/epirev/mxi004 on
website at http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/1/36 (Accessed 15 March 2009).

Shultz JM, Russell J and Espinel Z (2005). Epidemiology of Tropical Cyclones: The Dynamics of Disaster,
Disease, and Development. Epidemiologic Reviews, 2005, 27(1): 21-35; doi:10.1093/epirev/mxi011 On
website at http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/1/21 (Accessed 15 February 2009).

Curtis et al. (2000). Changes in reports and incidence of child abuse following natural disasters.
Child Abuse & Neglect. Vol. 24, Issue 9, September 2000, p1151-1162. On website at http://

Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions

The Full Report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009

www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-40YYFSB-4&_user=855288&_
rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=951573396&_
rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000046143&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=855288&md5=69335
9d1df1dbe69968eaa0ec0201623 (Accessed 14 February 2009).

Page LA, Hajat S and Kovats RS (2007). Relationship between daily suicide counts and temperature in
England and Wales. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2007, 191: 106-112. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.031948.
On website at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/191/2/106 (Accessed 13 February 2009).

Stein A, Ravelli A and Lumey L (1995). Famine, third-trimester pregnancy weight gain, and intrauterine
growth: the Dutch famine birth cohort study. Human Biology. February 1995, Vol. 67, Issue. 1; p135

Ravelli ACJ, van der Meulen JHP, Michels RPJ and Osmond C; et al. (1998). Glucose tolerance in adults
after prenatal exposure to famine. The Lancet, January 17, 1998; Vol. 351, Issue 9097, p173-177. On
website at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)07244-9/fulltext
(Accessed 19 March 2009).

Villagrán de León JC (2008). GIRO: The Integral Risk Management Framework, An Overview. UNU-EHS
Working Paper No. 6/2008, United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security,
Bonn. On website at http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file.php?id=483 (Accessed 19 March 2009).

World Bank (2003). Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk. Eds. Kreimer A, Arnold M, and
Carlin A. Disaster Risk Management Series, 2003. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development / The World Bank. ISBN 0-8213-5497-3. On website at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/
library/Literature/7759.pdf (Accessed on 4 April 2009).

Hamada M (2007). Development of Safe Infrastructures against Global Changes of Natural Disasters. At
Workshop on Construction of Secure and Safe Society against Global Changes of Natural Disasters,
Okinawa, 15 June 2007. On website at http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/39/paper/31hamada.pdf
(Accessed 12 February 2009).

GEO (2009). GEO 2009-2011 Work Plan, 13 January 2009. Group on Earth Observations, Geneva. On
website at http://www.earthobservations.org/documents/work%20plan/geo_wp0911_rev1_090113.
pdf (Accessed on 1 April 2009).

Rehbach J and Hinsberger I (2008). Prospective Risk Management: A Review of German Legislation
Targeting Integral Flood Management. UNU-EHS Working Paper Number 7/2008. United Nations
University Institute for Environment and Human Security, Bonn. On website at http://www.ehs.unu.
edu/file.php?id=487 (Accessed 19 March 2009).

GRF Davos (2009). 100 Ideas for Action - to support the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015. Global
Risk Forum, Davos, Switzerland. 32 p. On website at http://www.grforum.org/pages_new.php/100-
Ideas-for-Action/552/1/388/ (Accessed 1 June 2009).

IRG (2008). Integrated Risk Governance Project. A part of the International Human Dimensions
Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). On website at http://www.irg-project.org/ and
at http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/category/41 (Accessed on 14 May 2009).

START (2009). The global change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training. Co-sponsored by the
World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
(IGBP), and the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change
(IHDP). On website at http://www.start.org/index.html (Accessed on 1 April 2009).