Use of comprehensive social surveys as key elements
of effective and integrated
Community Based Early Warning Systems
Mountain
Risks
Carolina Garcia
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente e del Territorio, Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca
carolina.garcia@unimib.it
INTRODUCTION
Warning System and emergency plans are fundamental elements for risk
management and governance, but unfortunately, most of the times are
developed independently as unlinked sequential steps.
The aim of this research is develop a methodology for applying Community
Based Early Warning Systems to the emergency plans using results of social
surveys and quantitative risk assessment, taking into account the administrative
structure and planning system of the study area, as well as the legislation on
risk governance and emergency management.
Using a integrative scientific and social approach to natural hazards the
research aim to contribute to fill the gap between scientists, policy makers,
stakeholders and community.
COMMUNITY BASED – PEOPLE CENTRED
EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS
According to the Hyogo Framework, Community Based Early Warning Systems
are essential elements to accomplish disaster risk reduction and should include
the proactive participation of all the actors or stakeholders involved, including
scientists, politicians, technicians and in particular the members of the
communities living in the areas that could be affected by the hazard.
Traditional scientific and technical approaches of EWS include only the hazard
analysis, forecasting and warning issue, but in order to be effective, EWS must
assure that the message warning reach the people at risk who have to be
prepared in order to obtain a good response capability.
The previous is especially important in cases with limited budget for constant
instrumentation and professional staff, so people of the community and local
stakeholders constitute the main actors of what is known as Community Based
or People Centred Early Warning Systems.
Integrated People- Centred EWS
Sustainable development strategy
Social:
Community at risk
Response
Capability
Warning
Dissemination
Institutional &
political
EDUCATION
COMMUNICATION Æ TRUST
REDUCTION OF DISASTERS
Smith, 1996; Zschau & Küppers 2002; EWC II 2004; Dysktra, 2005; Basher, 2006; Villagran, 2006;
Echelon, 2007
RISK CYCLE EVOLUTION
Traditionally
focus on the
afterwards
ng
DISASTER
RISK
CYCLE
CYCLE
Pr
en
t
M itigation
m
sk ss
R i sse
A
W
Recovery
Preparedness
Monitoring
ev
en
tio
641 compiled
531 compiled (inside study area)
110 compiled (outside study area)
• Risk Perception
• Awareness
• Needs
• Hazard salience
• Reaction Capacity
• Outcome expectancy
• Level of trust
• Information received and expected
Questionnaires for Local Community
Demographic
Statistics
Quest.
Age
groups
N
1. up to 14
43
Commune
Population
%
8,1
Freq
Aprica
%
5
11
2,1
Grosio
61
11,5
Grosotto
26
4,9
N
%
Lovero
16
3,0
4046
13,9
Mazzo di Valtellina
32
6,0
18
3,4
2. 15 to 19
294
55,4
1512
5,2
Sernio
3. 20 to 34
10
1,9
5925
20,39
Teglio
26
4,9
4. 35 to 49
112
21,1
6485
22,31
Tirano
252
47,5
5. 50 to 64
53
10,0
5335
18,4
Tovo di Sant'Agata
Vervio
6. 65 and older
19
3,6
531
100,0
11095
38,2
100,0
Villa di Tirano
Totale
BEFORE SURVEY
1. Not at all
11
2,1
8
1,5
65
12,2
531
100,0
AFTER SURVEY
(5% increase)
2. A little bit
3. Fairly
4. A lot
5. Completely
Risk Perception
,9
Bianzone
2. Very unlikely
…will be
a flood
next year
Agree to force
local institutions
to provide an
intervention plan
in case of
emergency
Agree to be
more restrictive
about
urbanization
and land
development
4.04
4.21
3.80
Mean = 2.2
… population
will be
adversely
affected
…you or
your family
will be
affected
5. Extremely likely
…your home
or property
will be
affected
• Previous Experience 90.3% (Direct experience,
awareness)
• Triggering Factors
•Landslide: (1. Rain; 2. Deforestation; 3.
Slope cutting)
•Floods : (1. Rain; 2.Modification of river
bed; 3. Deforestation)
• Hazard ranking (1. Fire, 2. Flood, 3. Landslides)
Could you take
personal measures to
reduce the
consequences of NH
Agree to be
more severe
with whoever
carry out
activities that
increase the
natural risk
Freq.
%
70
Yes
…critical
lifelines will
suffer
damage
• Preparedness:
•1. Civil Protection ; 2. Mountain
Community; 3. Commune
(Moderately Prepared)
• Yourself 2.36 (little prepared)
• Population 2.51(little prepared)
• Trust
• 1. Civil Protection ; 2. Mountain
Community; 3. Commune (Fairly)
13.9
Know the
emergency
plan
Freq.
%
23
4.3
Know the
emergency
procedures
Freq.
%
92
17.3
Future Information
4.06
1. Strongly disagree
4. Agree
Would you like to
receive new info.?
2. Disagree
5. Strongly agree
Freq.
3. Moderately
…transport
networks will
suffer
damage
Self Efficacy, Preparedness
Legal aspects related to territorial
plannning and risk management
Agree to
force
institutions to
inform about
NH
3. Likely
4. Very likely
How likely…
•Rates of received Information about Natural
Hazards:
• 23 % of population
• Poor Quality (2.32)
• 1. Family; 2. Press; 3. TV
Mean = 2.69
Std. Dev. = 0.879
N = 518
1. Not likely
MASS MOVEMENTS & FLOOD
Yes
305
Valid %
67.9
• Preferred media to received information (1.
TV; 2. Press; 3. Flyers)
• Who should provide the information (1.
Commune; 2. Mountain Community; 3. Civil
Protection)
ar
ni
IMPACT
ng
Recovery
Preparedness
Monitoring
DISASTER
RISK
CYCLE
CYCLE
Pr
n
m
sk s s
R i s se
A
en
t
Mitig ation
ni
E
Re m e
s p rg e
on n c
se y
ar
32 compiled
• Concerns &
Constrains
• Awareness
• Risk Perception
• Recommendations
• Needs
• Actual cooperation
…
PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATIONS
IMPACT
IMPACT
se
o n i ty
s p b il
R e apa
C
se
o n ity
s p b il
Re apa
C
W
Integrated EWS +
Comprenhensive Emergency Plan
E
Re m e
sp rg e
on nc
se y
Traditional Approach
Local Community
Exposed
Practitioners
Stakeholders
PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS
Mean = 2.46
Std. Dev. = 0.839
N = 527
People at risk
Social Survey Comprehensive Questionnaires
In order to determine the previous issues, as a first stage of the
EWS, two comprehensive questionnaires have been applied. The
first one addressed to practitioner stakeholders (Technicians from
Mountain Community, Scientists, Volunteers, Environmental
institutions, etc) in order to determine their needs, points of view,
concerns and constraints. The second survey is addressed
specifically to local community to assess risk perception,
awareness, needs, capacity and level of trust towards
stakeholders, besides asking for their willingness to participate in
future risk communication activities.
TOTAL
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Scientists
Technicians
Decision makers
Emergency personal
Forecast/
Monitoring
Æ Warning
Integrating Risk Management – Emergency Plan
In order to be effective, EWS must be adapted to the local
conditions of the area of interest, considering not only the
characteristics of the hazard phenomenon but also the actual risk
perception, needs and hazard knowledge of the local community
and practitioner stakeholders.
Level of Concern for NH
Risk
Knowledge/
Assessment
Scientific and
Technical
METHODOLOGY - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT
ev
en
Preliminary results show that despite the fact that must of the people surveyed had experienced hazardous events in
the past or have knowledge about it (90.3%), the risk perception is very low (2.2/5) as well as the self efficacy and
preparedness levels. Some reasons for this could be that the last big event is distant in time (20 years), that there is
a transfer of responsability to the local authorities creating a false sense of security.
Notwithstanding, responses to survey questions indicate that the community has high levels of interest in receiving
information about natural hazards (67.9%), and is willing to participate proactively in education campaigns.
tio
n
Emergency Risk Management
Dynamic, integral and participative
STUDY AREA
Comunità Montana Valtellina di Tirano (SO),
ITALY
Highly active zone:
Recurrent landslides – flooding: 1983, 1987, 2000…
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Based on the results of the surveys, information and education campaigns will be developed in order to increase
preparedness and therefore to reduce vulnerability of the population by improving response to early warnings and at
the same time, to increase the level of interaction among the people of the community, scientists and local
authorities.
This campaigns will be designed and develop together with local and national institutions looking for the continuity of
the process .
IREALP
Spatial planning is critical to mitigate hazards and reduce vulnerability, therefore some inputs will be provided to the
decision-makers on where additional risk identification, risk reduction and risk transfer measures are particularly
necessary.
NOTES
12 municipalities ; Population: 29.000 people
Area: 451,97 km2
Val Pola landslide 35mll m3 (1987)
For detailed bibliography please contact the author.
This project is been developed in the framework of: Marie Curie Research Training Network “Mountain
Risks: from prediction to management and governance” (2007-2010)
Disaster Risk Reduction for Natural Hazards: Putting Research into Practice
November 4-6th 2009 University College London