PROPOSING AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH TO RISK MANAGEMENT FOCUSING ON DAMAGE-REDUCTION*

Proposta de abordagem empírica à gestão de riscos focada na redução de danos. Habitamos uma terra onde as catástrofes e as manifestações de risco são mais regra do que exceção, pelo que os danos se repetem com muita frequências e deixam os residentes nas comunidades vulneráveis surpreendidos com o poder da Natureza. O modelo típico de gestão de emergência não tem a componente crítica de mitigação do risco, pois considera as pessoas como vítimas, em vez de recursos, uma vez que se concentra na resposta quando deveria concentrar-se na mudança dos resultados associados ao evento perigoso. Palavras-chave: desastre; evento perigoso; vulnerável; gestão de emergências; mitigação.


BACKGROUND
Observation, simplifi cation and knowledge acquired through experience offer a solid foundation, but more often than not remain unused or are underutilized as tools, for the practice of risk management.
Empirical knowledge, which is gained from observing the impacts of natural hazards on vulnerable communities, shows there are key elements that contribute to our understanding of risk management.These key elements of knowledge include those listed below: • We inhabit a hazardous world This is without a doubt quite a steep price to pay for our vulnerability, especially when it is realized this cost would be substantially higher when other damage factors are also included, such as: (a) value of services not provided because of degradation or loss of government function, (b) economic losses from businesses shutting down, (c) the human costs associated with displacement of population, (d) indirect and consequential damages including physical and mental health problems, and (e) the social cost of adverse human effects such as spousal abuse, family disruption, alcoholism, substance abuse, post-stress syndrome and others that often become evident in the aftermath of a disaster.
Data collected and maintained by Munich RE, a large international reinsurance fi rm, show (fi g 2) there is an ascending trend for great natural catastrophes that goes back sixty years.
The same Munich RE dataset shows (fi g. 3) that the distribution of great natural catastrophes is worldwide, which confi rms the fact that we inhabit a hazardous Earth.
Fig. 2 Fig. 3 The true magnitude of our vulnerability is evident when we add damage caused by the impact of anthropogenic hazards such as death and injury, health problems, displacement of population, contamination of the biosphere, damage to ecosystems, damage to the built environment and destruction of infrastructure.

A Framework for risk: a starting point:
We inhabit a hazardous Earth where the byproducts of natural and anthropogenic processes carry the capabilities for causing potential damage at global, regional, national and local scales.The interaction of human activity with hazards results in the vulnerability of humankind, creating the risk of loss of life, structural, economic, political and social damage as well as incalculable human suffering.The interaction of human activity with hazards and resulting damage is illustrated by the diagram below (fi g. 4): Other features below the summit coming down the sides of the mountain show the effects of years of volcanic activity, and erosion caused by wind and water.In this respect it is important to 'read' these features as paths for future fl ows of water or lava.what do we see when we look at volcanoes?Do we just see a topographic feature, a mountain which happens to be a volcano?Or do we see a volcano as evidence of an ongoing natural process, such as plate tectonics?The most important signal perhaps, when looking at the volcano in fi g. 6, in this picture is the interaction of human activity evidenced here by the houses and boats with the hazard that is the volcano.In fact tens of thousands of people live on two towns and several small villages around volcano Ometepe, and there are also numerous farms, cattle ranches and agriculture fi elds throughout the island in the shadow on two large volcanoes.The marks of past eruptions on the fl anks of this volcano, the lava fi elds descending from the summit and reaching in some cases all the way to the waters of the lake where the dark sand beaches, bear testimony to their fi ery origins.
The rich volcanic soils on this island are highly fertile and as such prime locations for agriculture, one of the oldest of human activities associated with civilization.
The result is what is seen on these photographs, which is also evidence that despite the signals given by Nature humankind often elects to ignore them when presented with alternatives that may be viewed as representing higher priorities or better choices.
In evaluating the situation that exists, it becomes clear that these centers of human activity are at risk from the impact of future hazards, which may include volcanic eruptions and the seismic movements and/or lava fl ows associated with them, or fl ash fl ood and mudslides that may be triggered by extreme rain events.The potential for damage from recurring hazard events is indeed present and documented by way of these pictures.
The question to ask is: when we see a volcano near a city or other evidence of human activity, do we see the volcano as landscape or a beautiful backdrop to the city, or do we see the real signal, which is the potential for damage, death and human suffering from future eruptions?
that other volcanoes may also be capable of suffering equally explosive and catastrophic eruptions.resulting from the interaction of weather systems with the topography of the island may trigger fl ash fl oods and/or mudslides.
Given the continuously increasing moisture content in the atmosphere it appears, based on empirical data, that extreme precipitation events where the amount of rain

It helps to defi ne terms:
In order to communicate effectively about risk it is essential to defi ne key terms to be used.It is only through this process that we will all understand each other.In arriving at these defi nitions two criteria are important: In addition to defi ning these terms it is benefi cial to dissect and explore each key term in depth to gain a better understanding and really appreciate what it means, and how each of these concepts plays an important role in the fi eld of risk management.
For example, when we defi ne hazard as a source of damage do we really understand what is meant by damage?This question is partially answered by defi ning the term 'damage', but from the perspective of risk management it is also important to understand damage can be direct, indirect or consequential.Relative to this it is also important to understand the meaning of 'causality' and the process of 'cause and effect' that it embodies.In summary, the defi nition of key terms contributes to establishing a common language to promote an effective dialog and exchange of knowledge and ideas relative to the practice of risk management.Similarly, demographic changes where the make-up of the population of a community changes over time or the construction of new protective structures will also lead to changes in vulnerability.
From a practical standpoint what this means is that the vulnerability of a place or site needs to be reassessed periodically to gauge how it may have changed over time.
In large urban communities undergoing rapid growth it is recommended vulnerability be reassessed every 2 to 3 years on a community-wide basis, but yearly on a sitespecifi c basis especially when a new construction project is about to be designed.
Vulnerability is shared: vulnerability is a shared concern for all residents in a vulnerable community, meaning that even if the impact of a hazard varies from one district to another, all residents will be affected to some degree (fi g. 20).
Another way of looking at this is that in a vulnerable community whatever action or lack thereof by any members of such community affects all residents in said community.No one really has the luxury of saying "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care?" For architects, engineers, urban planners, community developers and risk managers knowing and understanding these characteristics of vulnerability equips them with tools for a planning and design process that will effectively address the vulnerability of a project site.

There are impact modifi ers:
There are natural and human features that exist locally, which may have the capacity for modifying the impact of a hazard on a community or site-specifi c basis.
For example the geology of a place, the type of soil upon which buildings are built, affect the way seismic waves propagate as well as the acceleration of gravity which in turn modify the impact on buildings, hence the potential for damage during earthquakes; Also the topography of a site and the near shore bathymetry will modify the behavior of storm surge and wave height during hurricanes; consequently these factors modify the impact and potential for damage on buildings in coastal locations.
It is important then, to identify impact modifi ers during a process of vulnerability assessment for a given location.

Disasters are opportunities for learning:
Often in the aftermath of a hazard event or a disaster in the rush to respond and assist those in need, we forget that the damage we see presents invaluable opportunities to identify causes of damage, to learn what worked well and what did not, to evaluate the effectiveness of emergency plans and preparedness measures adopted before the impact.Beyond the clear need to respond and recover from the impact of a hazard and a resulting disaster, these events must be viewed as opportunities to learn lessons that can be applied to improve and enhance existing plans.

Empirical knowledge is an effective tool:
Also on the topic of opportunities for learning it is important to emphasize that the knowledge we acquire through direct observation, empirical knowledge, in the aftermath of a hazard event is one of the most effective tools to learn valuable practical lessons about the impacts of hazards and the practice of risk management.In this regard the acquisition of post event empirical knowledge should be incorporated as a critical component of risk management and emergency plans.

Embrace technology as practical tool:
Technological advances such as improvements in remote sensing instrumentation and analytical software, computer simulation and animation, GIS and enhanced mapping technologies, and many others can signifi cantly contribute to the practice of risk management.
Technology should be embraced to the degree that it can enhance our ability to practice emergency management to reduce the potential for damage to vulnerable communities, in doing so however technology must be considered as a tool we use not as 'the solution'.

The best alternative is mitigation:
On a worldwide basis it is still common to explain the practice of emergency management as being supported by three key elements, three pillars, which are (fi g.The answer to these three questions is the same.We plan and prepare in order to minimize damage, protect life and property, from the impact of a hazard.We      The views on the left of this fi gure show several hotels built on the water side of the dune of the original island and the use of retention walls to allow for landscaping and even sand to be maintained on the waterfront of these buildings.The pictures on the right show buildings on the northern man-made land bridge linking the original Cancun Island to the mainland, which has no dune allowing for buildings to be built even closer to the waterline and at lower elevations (as low as only 1.5 to 2 m above mean sea level) with respect to mean sea level.The same approach used in above fi gures (fi g.s 30, 31 and 32) is used to depict building interaction with water, the other main damage component in tropical cyclones.
With the benefi t of this 'primer' on visualization of building-wind interaction let us examine evidence of some of the damage caused by hurricane Wilma as it hit Cancun in 2005 (fi g.s 33, 34 and 35).An example of such good performance is shown in this picture: a house built with heavy masonry walls, well protected exterior door and windows, a heavy timber roof structure and light roof covering that while impermeable to water is porous to wind.This combination of design and construction features performed quite well under the impact of such a major hurricane.This is a present day example of Maya architecture and construction.
A question that emerges from above examples is: why is it that modern architects, planners and builders with  There are examples of communities that feared nature and saw hazard events as 'Acts-of-God' or as Divine punishment, making prayer and sacrifi ces their main lines of defense against the impacts of hazards.On the other hand there are numerous example where architecture and construction were used to reduce the potential for damage from various hazards, such as elevated buildings in regions where fl ooding was a major hazard, or the thick-walled buildings with screened windows and central courtyards and fountains build in many Mediterranean and dessert settings to ward off extreme heat and sunlight, or the steep-roofed buildings in countries where snow precipitation is a major concern.
Over the years humankind has emerged from that pessimistic approach that blamed God for disasters, to one where it is possible for humankind to take action in its own defense against the impact of hazards.Curiously the terms "act of God" or "force majeure" still survive in some sectors, such as insurance and law, as a way to avoid responsibility for some outcomes.
It is clear however that in the fi eld of emergency management, with proper respect for the power of Nature, there is no substitute for sound knowledge, understanding and effective execution when it comes to infl uencing the outcome of a hazard event.
Put differently luck and other esoteric factors have nothing to do with the practice of emergency management, but the effective application of sound practical knowledge does.
e) It is all about the human impact: returning to the issue of the "why" it is critically important for emergency managers to realize the main objective of the practice is to reduce the human impact.
Along these lines practitioners must understand that the main reason we harden buildings and protect infrastructure is not the value of the building or its contents, but the protection of human life and the continuity of human activity that is sheltered by a building or supported by infrastructure.
In this regard it is true that physical and structural damages are the most obvious and easily seen in the aftermath of a hazard event, but it is the dead, and the injured, and the long-lasting adverse health and social consequences for residents of the affected community, and the human suffering, which truly represent the worst damage.This is why minimizing the human impact, reducing damage, must be central to the practice of emergency management.
f) We must simplify: what to do with all these elements of knowledge that have been described before?Careful review of the various concepts introduced here will show that these, in effect, describe the components for a simple yet effective model for the practice of emergency management.From this it follows that by incorporating these elements of knowledge into the practice of emergency management we simplify.
In this day and age when there appears to be a tendency for adding more layers of bureaucracy and regulatory constraints, and more complex methodologies, into the practice of risk management, there are examples of where this approach has failed even though on paper at least it appeared to work.One such example is the case of hurricane Katrina impacting several Gulf states in the United States, and the catastrophic disaster that resulted, which happened just after a new bureaucratic and more complex government structure for emergency management and national response plan had been adopted replacing a model that had worked well during prior events.
Complexity of approach does not equal effectiveness of result.A simpler model that integrates essential critical elements and focuses of damage reduction will foster improved execution, and effective results.

GAPS, FLAWS AND WEAKNESSES
First hand observations or the review of written reports provide important knowledge about the practice of risk management around the world.
While there are examples of excellent performance and best practices in the management of emergencies and disasters, there still remain numerous gaps and voids and weaknesses that must be closed or strengthened in order to better protect our vulnerable communities.
Weaknesses in the practice of risk management include those listed below: 1. Emphasis on response: there appears to be an emphasis on response, which makes most models reactive rather than anticipatory or proactive.While an effective initial response to a hazard event can be instrumental in reducing consequential damages it basically has no bearing in the reduction of direct damage from the impact of a hazard.The emphasis of this model will be on the characterization of impacts by specifi c natural hazards on a community and even site-specifi c basis.Such characterization of impact will take into account all contributing factors including the design criteria and construction methods, as well as natural and artifi cial impact modifi ers that may affect the outcome of the resulting hazard event.

No
This characterization of impact will be used to identify the existing capabilities of the built environment and supporting infrastructure in the community under study, and that in turn will be used to identify and assess the effectiveness of various hazard mitigation alternatives that reduce the potential for damage from recurring events.The characterization of impacts will also take into account projected future impacts from hazards The main focus of proposed simplifi ed model will be on hazard mitigation, meaning the full range of cost-effective technologically and structurally sound measures, designed to reduce the potential for damage and minimize the human impact from recurring hazard events that may affect a given vulnerable community.
All emergency plans and other design and planning efforts based on the use of this simplifi ed model will be forward looking, in the sense that while using historical empirical knowledge as a foundation they will also incorporate projected changes in the behavior of natural processes, results from future applied research, lessons learned from future hazards events, and above all the dynamic, interactive and shared characteristics of vulnerability.

AN IDEA FOR FUTURE ACTION
The formula to achieve an effective and practical version of such proposed model calls for EDUCATION, EDUCATION and more EDUCATION.
All sectors and all levels of society must be educated in the key concepts and components of this simplifi ed plan.Elementary and secondary schools must educate children while also engaging their parents, so that young students may develop an interest in these concepts that may provide the incentive to continue on these fi elds of study at the university level, and eventually become the future scientists, engineers, planners and emergency management practitioners in charge of reducing the potential for future damage to their vulnerable communities.

•Fig. 1 :
Fig. 1: In an average span of ten years the impact of natural hazards cause vast damage worldwide.

Fig. 5 :
Fig. 5: Picture of volcano San Cristobal.One of several active volcanoes along a mountain chain paralleling the Pacifi c coastline in Nicaragua, which is also part of the so-called Pacifi c 'Rim of Fire'.

Fig. 6 :
Fig.6: Volcano Ometepe one of two volcanoes on the island of the same name in Lake Nicaragua, Nicaragua.The topography of the slopes of this volcano show where lava and water have fl owed down the sides of the mountain over the course of hundred and even thousands of years.If we were to dig into the soil and take core samples, we would fi nd deep layers of volcanic soil containing the lavas and ashes from past eruptions.

Fig. 8 :Fig. 7 :
Fig. 8: Topographic map of Madeira.Viewing the marked features of this island, what signals is Nature sending us?
over a certain period of time mat exceed the drainage capacity of natural and man-made fl ow structures (i.e.: natural rivers, or man-made canals and other engineered water management works) leading to fl ooding events, are becoming more common and are also contributing to the increased vulnerability and risk of given locations.The main signal given by these natural features of the island of Madeira relates to the high risk of fl ooding faced by coastal communities in Madeira.Such high risk became evident earlier in 2010 when extreme rain events in Madeira triggered fl ash fl oods (see fi g. 16) and mudslides that impacted Funchal and other coastal communities, causing death, injury, and both structural and property damage, which led to the declaration of a state of emergency by local civil defense authorities on the island.

5.
There is a surprise factor; In 1998 major hurricane Georges crossed over the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba and then the Florida Keys.Interviews conducted afterwards in the Florida Keys revealed that less that 27% had obeyed the mandatory evacuation order, but more than 50% expressed surprise at the amount of water that had fl ooded the islands driven by the surge caused by the hurricane.Considering that the highest elevation on the islands is approximately 1.8 meters above mean sea level and the surge from hurricane Georges had been forecast at 3 meters plus wave action on top of it, how could anyone have been surprised?This example is neither rare nor the exception, in fact I have heard the comment of having been surprised quite often in the aftermath of many hazard events ranging from hurricanes and fl oods to earthquakes and wild fi res.Why do we keep being surprised by the power of Nature? 6. Damage from hazards is often repetitive: Something else I have learned over the years is that you see the same type and amount of damage happening again and again at the same location over the years, as new impacts occur.Why do we see damage being repeated?
(a) using the root of the word as a foundation for a defi nition, for example: vulnerability from the Latin, vulnus = wound, vulnerare = to wound, immediately gives one a vision of something painful and damaging; (b) simplifying and shortening each defi nition as much as possible, the fewer words used in defi ning a term the easiest it will be to understand and remember.A basic vocabulary on the topic of risk consists of the following six terms: HAZARD, VULNERABILITY, DAMAGE, MITIGATION, HAZARD EVENT, RISK (fi g.s 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17).

8.
We need to understand the characteristics of vulnerability: In addition to defi ning vulnerability it is essential to know and understand that it has three main characteristics, which are graphically depicted below, see fi g.s 18, 19 and 20: Vulnerability is interactive: This means that the capacity of a hazard as a source of potential damage and actions taken by the vulnerable community as a receptor of damage actually affect each other.So in reality vulnerability is a two-way street where the eventual level of damage from the impact of a hazard is affected by the interaction of the hazard's damage components and the community's defenses (fi g. 18).

Fig. 18 :
Fig.18: vulnerability if a two-way street where the impact of a hazard will be shaped by its damage components as well as by the actions and defenses of the affected community.

Fig. 19 :
Fig. 19: the relative vulnerability of a community changes over time in response to a number of factors.

Fig. 20 :
Fig. 20: regarding the vulnerability of a community all residents are in it together.
10.All disasters are local: Beyond the spatial or temporal characteristics of the impact of a hazard, what really matters most to an individual are the effects upon the local community, the home and family, places of work etc.In this sense all disasters are local.
21): PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE and RECOVERY.In analyzing such three-component model for emergency management there are critical questions that must be asked.For example: Why do we need to plan and prepare before a hazard event?Why must we initiate response activities as early as feasibly possible after the impact of a hazard?Why do we need to move from response activities to actual repair of damage and reconstruction as part of recovery efforts after a hazard event?

Fig. 21 :
Fig. 21: Current model is missing a critical element.
carry out response activities to assist those in need and to reduce the potential for loss of life, further injury and to reduce the potential for additional damage.Recovery initiatives are undertaken to make the impacted community whole again as a way of reducing long lasting damages.If the main reason we practice emergency management, and we carryout activities under the three generally accepted components of emergency management, is to reduce damage then this model of emergency management leaves out what is undoubtedly a critically important component of the practice; it leaves out MITIGATION, which has been defi ned as being about DAMAGE REDUCTION.Mitigation, damage reduction, is central and critically essential to the practice of emergency management, consequently a four-component model must be adopted, one where mitigation becomes the core of the practice (fi g. 22).

Fig. 23 :
Fig. 23: Panoramic view of Cancun' hotel strip, beach and lagoon from the air.

Fig. 24 :
Fig. 24: View of Cancun hotel strip's southern point from the air.

Fig. 25 :
Fig. 25: Typical hotel architecture in Cancun.Retention walls are commonly used to protect landscaping and exterior recreational infrastructure for hotels sited as close to the waterline as possible.Reinforced concrete construction in prevalent and several hotels incorporate spectacular design features such as the skylight above a central open space as shown on the photo on the right.

Fig. 26 :
Fig.26: other views of the built environment that is typical of the hotel resort area in Cancun.The views on the left of this fi gure show several hotels built on the water side of the dune of the original island and the use of retention walls to allow for landscaping and even sand to be maintained on the waterfront of these buildings.The pictures on the right show buildings on the northern man-made land bridge linking the original Cancun Island to the mainland, which has no dune allowing for buildings to be built even closer to the waterline and at lower elevations (as low as only 1.5 to 2 m above mean sea level) with respect to mean sea level.

Fig. 27 :
Fig.27: two views of one luxury hotel in Cancun showing the main lobby and reception area and the pool, terrace and outdoor beach-side recreational areas.The ground fl oor of this particular hotel and outdoor terrace areas are elevated 3.5 m to 4 m above mean sea level, which is higher that many of the other hotels.

Fig. 28 :
Fig. 28: a picture is worth 1000 words; the map in this fi gure clearly tells the story of Cancun's high vulnerability to tropical cyclones.This map shows 183 tracks of tropical cyclones that affected the state of Quintana Roo during the 1886 to 2006 period.

Fig. 29 :
Fig. 29: satellite view of category 4 Hurricane Wilma making landfall in the Cancun environs in the early morning hours of October 22, 2005.

Fig. 30 :
Fig. 30: Shown in this fi gure clockwise from top left are the following effects of wind as it interacts with a building: (a) Positive wind-velocity pressure; (b) Negative (suction) windvelocity pressure; (c) Buffeting, and (d) Leveling-off also known as 'clean-off' effect.

Fig. 31 :
Fig. 31: The schematic on this fi gure depicts the effect of Drag as the building interacts with hurricane winds.

Fig. 32 :
Fig. 32: Clockwise from top left we see: (a) Several wind effects happening simultaneously; (b) Vibration; (c) Wind-cupping, and (d) Vortices, generated when the wind hits the corner of a building r at a certain angle of attack.

Fig. 33 :
Fig. 33: In this fi gure Clockwise from top left: (a) Loss of beach from the impact of storm surge, and some structural failure on exterior infrastructure; (b) Total beach erosion; (c) Failure of a reinforced concrete retention wall, the dark line about 1.5 m up the wall is where the upper level of the sand used to be marking the tremendous amount of erosion that took place; and (d) Beach erosion and damage to external infrastructure.

Fig. 34 :Fig. 35 :
Fig. 34: Other examples of damage; top right shows wind damage to the interior and contents; bottom right shows storm surge damage to interior and contents; top left, total structural failure of reinforced concrete building due to undermining of foundations by storm surge; top center shows impact of fl oating debris on a building; bottom left shows damage to a skylight atop a high rise hotel building.

Fig. 36 :
Fig. 36: two aerial views of the Tulum archeological site 120 kilometers to the south of Cancun, in the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico.Several religious and scientifi c buildings constructed bythe Maya some 800 years ago still stand today despite having suffered numerous hits from hurricanes over the years.When observing these buildings, whether in person or in these photographs, it is important to try and visualize them interacting with damage components of tropical cyclones meaning wind and water.

Fig. 37 :
Fig.37: aerial view of the Tulum complex showing some of the main building on the site and also delineating the typical extent of surge penetration and the fact that all buildings were built well above that hazard.

Fig. 38 :
Fig. 38: In 2007 category 5 Hurricane Dean made landfall in Quintana Roo to the east and just north of the Bay of Chetumal.The town of Bacalar and surrounding areas on the western shores of Chetumal Bay were hit by storm surge and sustained hurricane winds of 240 kph.Evident after the impact was how well some building performed under such damage components.An example of such good performance is shown in this picture: a house built with heavy masonry walls, well protected exterior door and windows, a heavy timber roof structure and light roof covering that while impermeable to water is porous to wind.This combination of design and construction features performed quite well under the impact of such a major hurricane.This is a present day example of Maya architecture and construction.
more technology and supposedly better tools, methods and materials of construction have seen so much damage to their buildings and infrastructure from the impact of hurricanes, when hundreds of years ago Maya builders and planners were able to design and built for the same hazards in similar vulnerable communities buildings that remain standing to this day?Clearly the Maya provide us with examples of best practices in design and construction for vulnerable regions.
17.Other factors to take into account: Accumulated empirical knowledge leads to the understanding that there are several other key factors, which must be taken into account and incorporated into the current practice of emergency management if we want to bring about positive and effective change; change could be instrumental in reducing the high price we universally pay for our vulnerability to natural hazards.Given the potential criticality of such factors of change it is important that we defi ne and review them.These factors include those described below: a) It is about changing outcomes; it would appear that emergency managers as well as scientists, researchers and professionals in many fi elds, all of us who contribute to the practice of emergency management often concentrate so much on the 'how' that we lose sight of the 'why' or the 'what for'.Specifi c models, methods and practices in the fi eld of emergency management all have a common purpose, which is to change the outcome of the impact of a hazard.The clearest example of a change in outcome is to have the impact of a hazard without having a disaster.Experiencing a hazard event without having a disaster is possible when emergency management practices are designed and implemented with a clear focus on damage reduction.b) We need to change behavior: A change in outcome requires a change in behavior.This means a continuous, effective, long-lasting wholesale change in behavior among those who reside in a vulnerable community, region or country.The most signifi cant behavioral changes are those that would transform a community's 'business-as-usual' outlook toward its vulnerability to a true 'culture of mitigation', where all residents understand the shared nature of vulnerability and take actions that can prove effective in reducing the potential for damage from the impacts of recurring hazards.Such culture of mitigation is based on behavior that focuses on damage reduction.This also requires all sectors of society to adopt this culture of mitigation, from professionals in many fi elds, to emergency management practitioners, policy makers, educators and the general public, all need to understand their actions, behavior, focusing on damage reduction can effectively change the outcome of a hazard event.c) In risk management the public is a resource: current models of emergency management including planning a community's response to a hazard event generally look at population almost abstractly in terms of potential number of victims, dead and injured, as if residents of a vulnerable community are passive bystanders waiting for the impact of a hazard they are powerless to modify.This clearly needs to change, residents of vulnerable communities must be considered a resource; these are individuals who can be empowered to take charge of the potential outcome of a hazard event, and proactively contribute to their own protection and that of their community.The general public must be educated and provided with knowledge that can be used as practical tools to reduce the potential for damage from a hazard event.This change is a critical component of behavioral change and a major contributor to the change in outcomes that is needed.d) In risk management success depends on knowledge not luck: the historical record offers plenty of contrasting examples of how humankind has approached its vulnerability at different times and places throughout history.
the purpose of this simplifi ed model is to attack existing weaknesses and gaps in current practice by using the critical elements of knowledge acquired through observation of actual events.This model uses empirical knowledge as its foundation, and will be continuously updated and enhanced based on observations; meaning observations in the full range of the defi nition of that term, which involves physical observations of the consequences of actual hazards events in the fi eld or by using remote sensing technology, also virtual observations of hazard events acting on specifi c communities through computer aided visualization or simulations based on computer animation.The model will also make use of observations and data collection while interacting with hazards, through the use of especially designed hazard-resistant autonomous data acquisition equipment deployed in the path of or in areas expected to be directly affected by a natural hazards.
that may be exacerbated by natural processes including global climate change and its damage components such as sea level rise, global warming and others.This model proposes viewing people in the community under study as potential survivors rather than potential victims, who must be educated and empowered to become active contributors in the protection of their community.In this sense people are a resource to be considered in emergency plans.This proposal will also embrace scientifi c research that can be converted to actual applications to meet the objectives of the simplifi ed model.Such applied research will tackle the full range of components and needs of the proposed model, from data acquisition, to characterization of impact, to the design and implementation of actual solutions.The clearly stated objectives of this model will be:(a)    to change the outcome of potential hazards events that have been identifi ed through the practice of vulnerability assessment; (b) to modify behavior at all levels and in all sectors within the vulnerable community, including emergency management practitioners, building design and construction professionals, policy-makers, and the public-at-large; (c) to achieve signifi cant damage reduction through the design and implementation of solutions designed on the basis of criteria derived from the characterization of impact.
knowledge of a number of weaknesses in the practice of emergency management also acquired empirically.What can we do with this knowledge?I wrote a book about this topic, but on a more practical note I propose such knowledge needs to be incorporated into a new and simplifi ed model for risk assessment, something that can truly become a widely-used effective and practical tool to minimize the human impact and reduce the potential for damage to vulnerable communities everywhere.
12. The blame game avoids responsibility: often in the aftermath of a disaster various sectors blame each other or some other third party for failures in execution or for the level of damage suffered by So, here we have a number of critical elements of knowledge gained through observation on the one hand, and