Anthropocentric principles for effective early warning systems

Full text

8
Anthropocentric principles for effective early warning systems
Spyros Schismenos1
Email Address: spyros.yuntech@gmail.com
1Research Center for Soil & Water Resources and Natural Disaster Prevention, National
Yunlin University of Science and Technology
Abstract
While the impacts of climate change and
extreme weather events are continuously
rising, both humanity and the
environment as we know it are in great
danger. Although international
frameworks and normative instruments
have been strengthened globally under
the United Nations oversight, the number
of natural and geophysical disasters
taking place each year is noticeably
increasing. Over the last decades,
enormous amounts of funds have
supported governments to establish early
warning systems; yet, the society seems
unprepared and the lack of information
remains, regardless of the technological
improvements. This research presents
major weaknesses of national or regional
early warning strategies for extreme
hazards from an anthropocentric
perspective and it investigates their
factors and causes. Moreover, it suggests
comprehensive solutions in global actions
for disaster risk reduction that focus on
the society and the needs of the local
populations.
Introduction
In worldwide statistics, the extreme
weather-driven disasters, such as storm
surges, extreme precipitation, floods and
heat waves, are becoming more frequent
and intense, due to climate change,
causing catastrophic disasters
1
. Since
1970 more than 5,000 natural hazards
have threatened the Asia and the Pacific
region alone; a shocking number that is
equal to 43 percent of the global total.
These disasters affected more than 6
billion people, caused over 2 million
fatalities and cost more than US$ 1.15
trillion (2005), affecting mostly the socio-
economic growth of the developing
countries
2
. In the West, the impacts of
climate change were massively disastrous
as well. In 2003, Europe and North
America faced floods and storms that
caused 15 deaths and almost US$ 3 billion
in total damages
3
.
1
CRED: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International
Disaster Database, available at: www.emdat.be
(last access: 13 March 2013), Universit´e
Catholique de Louvain, Brussels (Belgium), 2011.
2
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific, Overview of Natural Disasters and their
Impacts in Asia and the Pacific, 1970–2014,
(Bangkok, 2015).
3
Economic Research and Consulting, Swiss
Reinsurance Company. Natural catastrophes and
man-made disasters in 2003: many fatalities,
comparatively moderate insured losses. (Sigma
insurance research series, no. 1). Zurich,
Switzerland: Swiss Reinsurance Company, 2004.

9
In order to reduce such phenomena,
systems related to early warning
mechanisms are vital both for the safety
of the public, as well as for the efficiency
in disaster risk reduction (DRR). The term
‘‘early warning’’ refers to the
identification of such events that can be
detected prior to the causative phase and
the damages they may produce. Most
early warning systems (EWS) are
designed for natural geophysical and
biological hazards, industrial hazards,
health risks, socio-related, geo-political
emergencies, etc. In the current United
Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) terminology,
early warning is defined as “an integrated
system of hazard monitoring, forecasting
and prediction, disaster risk assessment,
communication and preparedness
activities systems and processes that
enables individuals, communities,
governments, businesses and others to
take timely action to reduce disaster risks
in advance of hazardous events.”
4
.
In order for EWS to be effective and
complete, they need to comprise four
interacting elements: (1) Risk knowledge,
(2) Monitoring and warning service, (3)
Dissemination and communication, and
(4) Response capability
5
. The EWS are
usually cost-effective, especially in
regions with frequent hazards, such as
East and South East Asia, where typhoons
4
UNISDR, 2009. Terminology: Terminology on
DRR.
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#
letter-e, International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction, Geneva.
5
ISDR-PPEW, 2005a. Many of the points presented
in this paper have been discussed and illustrated
in the early warning web pages of the ISDR. The 4-
element view of effective people-centered early
warning systems is discussed at
http://www.unisdr.org/ppew/whatsew/basics-
ew.htm and in ISDR-PPEW (2005b). ISDR Platform
for the Promotion of Early Warning (PPEW), Bonn.
and floods occur annually. They can be
predicted on time, which is critical for
protecting lives and securing properties.
According to research undertaken by the
World Bank, the investments in hydro-
meteorological EWS in developing
countries have a cost-benefit ratio
between 4 and 36 which means that every
dollar that is invested, produces between
4 and 36 dollars in benefits
6
.
Methods and Discussion
The EWS usually cover national or
regional territories and their design is
based on advanced technological and
scientific achievements. Many of them use
numerical weather predictions (NWP) as
basic input data. This enables the “early”
detection of extreme events; therefore,
the sufficient lead-time is usually enough
for emergency and response planning.
The key factor of these systems is that the
NWP can increase or even modify the
forecast horizon, based on the input data,
leading to efficient risk reduction. As a
result, the data obtained by the EWS, may
determine to what degree a disaster may
trigger larger catastrophes, including
human and material losses. Nevertheless,
the potential of EWS does not always
receive the attention it deserves.
Although a lot of progress has been made
in the technical aspect, in matters of
policy and socio-education there is still a
lot more to be done. Despite the reliable
evidence in DRR, the EWS cannot be
embodied in national decision-making
6
Stéphane Hallegatte, “A cost effective solution to
reduce disaster losses in developing countries:
hydro-meteorological services, early warning, and
evacuation”, Policy Research Working Paper, No.
6058 (Washington, D.C., World Bank, 2012).
Available from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream
/handle/10986/9359/WPS6058.pdf?sequence=1.

10
policies, because of multiple factors. The
most significant is, perhaps, the impassive
public awareness and support due to
other factors of social vulnerability, such
as abuse and social exclusion.
Nonetheless, the public awareness for
natural hazards becomes high,
immediately after an extreme disaster.
For instance, the magnitude 9.0 richter
earthquake that hit northeastern Japan on
March 11, 2011, caused a tsunami that
left 15,894 dead, 6,152 injured and 2,562
people missing across twenty prefectures,
besides the meltdown at the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear plant. This hazard
awakened the public awareness and
support worldwide.
To further shield the countries against
such phenomena, the United Nations
adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action,
a broader international political approach
to promote EWS as an important tool for
risk reduction of natural hazards. This
framework emphasizes the need for
building the resilience of society to
disasters and it provides guidance on how
to reduce disaster risk and its impact
7
.
Indeed, solutions based on pure
technically and high quality predictions
are insufficient to reduce the levels in
losses and impacts on their own. The
human factor in EWS is very significant,
that is why every phase of DRR must be
formulated in such a way so to serve the
people; to become more people-centered
8
.
7
United Nations, 2005. Hyogo framework for
action 2005–2015: building the resilience of
nations and communities to disasters. In: World
Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan,
18–22 January 2005.
8
Twigg, J., 2002. “The human factor in early
warnings: risk perception and appropriate
communications”. In Early Warning Systems for
Natural Disaster Reduction (ed. J. Zschau & A. N.
Küppers), ch. 1.3, pp. 19-26, Springer, Berlin.
Designing, establishing and managing
efficient EWS is a complex procedure, full
of obstacles, both in the technical and the
social level. The different hazards are
operated by separate authorized
institutions that usually act
independently; in some cases their
available personnel is not enough to deal
with all the issues, especially in
developing countries. Due to the
dominance of experts, the research data
and the related knowledge cannot
disseminate easily to the local
communities, fact that lows the scientific
value from a realistic point of view. Same
with the design and the operations of the
EWS; there is a narrowed involvement of
those at risk, and this often causes the
loss of interest of the local populations for
the procedures. Furthermore, it leads to
misdirected strategies created by the
experts, since they do not truly focus on
the needs of the local populations, so their
feedback is false or limited.
Additionally, warning and response
policies may differ among countries and
communities, due to the variations in
geomorphology, socio-economy,
capabilities and previous experience. The
main purpose of the global early warning
mechanisms is to protect the public;
therefore, it is essential to focus on the
challenges that affect the people, when it
comes to disaster preparedness. Such
challenges involve the lack of human and
financial resources of the local
governments and authorized
organizations, the lack of DRR awareness
of the local populations because of other
important issues, such as poverty
reduction and life quality improvement
which are always perceived as higher
priorities, as well as the lack of political
will, both at the local and central level, to
improve the community-based DDR
activities. These causes often lead to a

11
general DRR apathy, which is also
adopted and maintained by the younger
generations. The Hurricane Katrina
disaster in 2005 that hit the US Gulf Coast
is an example that includes most of the
aforementioned weaknesses of the EWS
and the response mechanisms. Although
the meteorological warnings were
accurate and were sent many hours in
advance, the officials’ and the public’s
response were inadequate.
Approximately 1,800 people died and the
damages were over US$ 80 billion
9
.
How can EWS be best used for other
priorities and what could motivate and
enable communities to participate more
actively in DRR? In order to boost the
effectiveness and the sustainability of
DRR, current approaches should be re-
designed. Strict scientifically-driven
polices should include sufficient
requirements and needs of their end-
users; the local societies. Successful
cultural and historical experiences
against natural hazards of the affected
populations should be largely taken into
consideration by the experts. Socio-
economic strategies should be effectively
strengthened by the authorities, in order
to influence positively the response of the
population, in matters of DRR. All kinds of
education and training programs or
guidelines in DRR should be translated
into many languages and dialects and
written in a simple and substantial way,
considering the cultural characteristics,
lack of education, age, etc. Furthermore,
they should also involve the participation
of the elderly and people with disabilities;
9
EWC II, 2004. Early Warning as a Matter of Policy:
The conclusions of the Second International
Conference on Early Warning, 16-18 October,
Bonn, Germany. International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (ISDR) secretariat and the
German Disaster Reduction Committee (DKKV),
28pp.
actions that could reduce the casualty
percentage of their groups when disasters
occur.
However, regardless of the preferred
methods and the desired actions, the
main purpose is the same; the EWS must
be designed by the people and for their
life needs. The EWS should not only warn
the earliest possible about the threats
people face, but also their living
conditions and the factors that can slow
or even reduce their growth. The idea of
EWS should be evolved from its current
state to an anthropocentric core of wide
defense-warning principles.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of this millennium,
many remarkable goals have been
accomplished in the DRR and the EWS
globally. The determination of the United
Nations on this matter, in combination
with the rapid technological
improvements in the related fields,
specified proper response mechanisms
and activated international DRR
frameworks. Nevertheless, it is well-
known that a wide and multi-national
participation is required to direct and
accomplish all the essential procedures.
The involvement of local populations is
vital in shaping polices along with the
experts and authorities. All the
participants must agree that a
commitment focused on people and based
on a philosophy for a comprehensive
response that is measured by its
performance, could benefit those at risk
and their environment.
Acknowledgements

12
I thank Professor George N. Zaimes at the
Department of Forestry and Natural
Environment Management, Eastern
Macedonia and Thrace Institute of
Technology and Deputy Chair of the
UNESCO CHAIR Con-E-Ect on the
Conservation and Ecotourism of Riparian
and Deltaic Ecosystems for his great
assistance.