Authors: Valerie November*, CNRS/LATTS, Paris, France, Erin Hughey, Pacific Disaster Center, Hawaï, USA, Todd Bosse, Pacific Disaster Center, Hawaï, USA
Topics: Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, Hazards and Vulnerability, Geographic Information Science and Systems
Keywords: risk, disaster, infrastructure, crisis, decision
Session Type: Virtual Paper
Start / End Time: 9:35 AM / 10:50 AM
Room: Virtual 7
Presentation File: No File Uploaded
Risk management and crisis management seem to belong to different worlds. They do not have the same time frame, they do not involve the same urgency for action and they do not concern the same actors or the same administrations. However, when a crisis emerges, 2 types of information is needed: one relates to the new situation and the other relates to already existing data on risks and vulnerabilities. However, this need comes up against major difficulties: the format of the knowledge accumulated in prevention (anticipation) is not easily transferable to a crisis situation. The information that crisis managers need in EOC requires transformation and simplification in order to be able to lead to decisions (who to evacuate first, how much supply needed, what infrastructures are usable, etc.), information that is constantly evolving over time.
This paper is based on a case study carried out at the Pacific Disaster Center (USA) and analyzes the tool they developed, entitled DisasterAware, to show how both data on risks (collected country by country specifically during their own program), models on natural risks, while monitoring risks and crises at the global level thanks to their warning system. Finally, this tool is also used by crisis managers in crisis units.
In short, we can consider this tool as a real infrastructure that makes the risk-crisis continuum visible.