Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:48:59 -0700WeeblyTue, 17 Mar 2015 00:51:55 GMThttp://www.disasterdiary.org/open-space-for-practices/citizen-voices-on-the-hfa2The disaster diary project launched the Citizen Voices on the HFA2 Survey on October 24, 2014. The Survey was launched with the objective of collating citizens’ general understanding of disaster risk and their expectations of an international framework for disaster risk reduction.

As 6000 experts convene in Sendai, week of March 14 – 18, 2015 to finalize text for a post-2015 international framework for disaster risk reduction at the Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, the Survey findings hope to inform the ongoing debate and framing of key issues. 

The Survey was initiated in response to the absence of systematic public surveys on disaster risk reduction (such as the ‘My World 2015’ Survey[1] which was initiated to inform the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals).

The Survey is cognizant of global and regional efforts such as the ISDR’s ‘Road to Sendai’ and GNDR’s ‘Reality Check from the Frontline’ campaigns. However, it also recognizes that the value of open public engagement in the process of framing key issues for a post-2015 disaster risk reduction framework has only been belatedly acknowledged.

The Survey was launched via an online tool[2] with a global reach and respondents were asked 15 questions (of which 10 gauge respondents’ general understanding and expectations of international disaster risk reduction efforts, and 5 questions profile respondents based on demographic and other information).

Listed below, are the Surveys’ key findings (collated as of March 13, 2015) based on a total of 205 responses:

1. At least half the respondents (47.03%) think a disaster is somewhat likely to affect their community/ city in the next year. However, more people think it not likely (31.68%), than very likely (21.29%).

2. The majority of people (69.76%) think that disasters occur due to both nature’s fury and human error in planning and building. An equal number of respondents think that each factor is solely responsible (13.17%, 13.17% respectively). A small number (3.90%) cite additional and specific causes such as climate change and global warming.

3.     The majority of respondents (83.74%) think that disasters have increased in frequency, complexity and impact over the last 10 years, worldwide.

4.     The majority of respondents locate responsibility for ensuring people’s safety from disasters with the national government (42.79%) and local government and agencies (40.30%). A large number cite oneself as being solely responsible (38.81%). More than a third (38.31%) cite all stakeholders listed - self, national government, local government and agencies, civil society organizations/ NGOs/ Volunteer groups, small businesses/ private sector, religious community/ place of worship, United Nations and other international agencies as responsible for ensuring safety from disasters. About 16.92% cite the United Nations and other international agencies as being responsible, followed by civil society organizations/ NGOs/ volunteer groups (13.43%), small businesses/ private sector (2.99%) and religious community/ place of worship (1.49%). Some respondents also cited others – such as community at large/ community members, schools and universities as bearing responsibility.

5.     Most people think some progress has been made in preparing to deal with disaster impacts over the last 10 years, but critical gaps and challenges remain (80.30%). Marginally more people think that we are worse prepared relative to the new risks we face (10.84%) compared to those who think great progress has been made on many fronts (8.87%).

6.     An overwhelming majority of respondents did not know about the HFA (78.79%).

7.     An overwhelming majority of respondents were not aware that a post-2015 international framework for disaster risk reduction is being currently drafted for adoption at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, March 2015 (82.53%).

8.     A majority of respondents stated that the five proposed global targets reasonably reflect their aspirations for a safer world (83.95%). However, respondents also suggested additional targets and measures to focus on:  
a.     Under Target ii (reduce the number of disaster affected people):
-       Introduce concrete targets to assess timely and efficient response recovery and rehabilitation.
-       Introduce targets that encourage general public awareness about disaster risks so that the causes, processes and outcomes of disaster risk are publicly known and easily understood.
-       Make disasters quantifiable and policy evidence based.
-       Conduct more widespread public awareness and training on disaster risk management actions.
-       Ensure risk management systems are made participatory to allow planning and implementation with and by the most vulnerable.

b.     Under Target iii (reduce disaster economic losses): 
-       Increase local resources/spending pools for disaster risk management.
-       Introduce a public/ private funded corpus for disasters.
-       Allocate x percent of national and local budgets towards disaster risk management.

c.      Under Target iv (reduce damage to health and educational facilities):
-       Include targets to reduce damage to nuclear facilities, dams, public transportation and other major public utilities.
-       Increase participation of civil society organizations and at-risk communities.

d.     Under Target v (number of countries with national and local strategies):
-       Ensure that broader development policy and targets are mandated to reflect disaster risk management strategies and actions.

e.     Introduce some positive indicators of resilience capacities so that disaster risk management is not just marked by a reduction in loss and damage but also by the presence of certain enabling factors.

f.      Reduce human contribution to green house emissions, global warming, illegal mining, etc.

g.     Reduce the time line for achieving targets to 2025. It should remain a 10-year plan.

h.     Invest in institutional, international, regional, national and local accountability and transparency measures for tracking funding and progress in disaster risk reduction.

9.     Well over half the respondents (60%) think it important to prioritize all the four proposed HFA2 areas – i.e. Improved knowledge and understanding of disaster risks (Priority 1); Strengthened governance for disaster risk management (Priority 2); Investments in social, cultural, economic and environmental measures to save lives and prevent and reduce major disaster losses (Priority 3); Enhance preparedness for effective response and knowledge of how to build back better (Priority 4). An equal number of respondents think it important for their respective governments to focus on priority 4 (24.38%), a focus on Priority 3 (24.38%), followed by a focus on Priority 1 (21.88%) and Priority 2 (14.37%).

10.  Almost half of the respondents (46.88%) think they are most likely to contribute to the successful implementation of the post-2015 international framework for disaster risk reduction by making family, friends and neighbors more aware of their risk from disasters; followed by enhancing their own skills in disaster preparedness and response by signing up for trainings and participate in drills (36.88%); contribute to local planning processes, city council meetings and appropriately influence decisions that affect you/ your community (16.88%), volunteer with a local community based organization/ NGO in creating awareness and local projects aimed at creating community resilience (15.63%).   

Respondent Profiling: 

1.     The most number of responses came from the United States of America, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Philippines. Other country representation includes Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Singapore, Sweden and Japan.

2.     Most respondents are currently employed in business, management, computer, architecture and engineering, community and social service, education and training related occupations.

3.     Most respondents are 30-39 years old (34.62%), followed by 21-29 years (22.44%), 40-49 years (19.23%) and 50-59 years (13.46%).

4.     Most respondents are male (73.08%).


The Survey has two main limitations: timing (it was conceptualized and publicized late October 2014, only days before the formal negotiation process for the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction was to begin) and limited reach (response numbers are small and at best present a random sample of perspectives from around the world).

Through 2015, the disaster diary project hopes to collaborate with volunteer and civil society groups to launch follow up public surveys’ on better understanding citizen perspectives on disaster risk and enabling an online system of public feedback and monitoring of disaster risk reduction efforts worldwide.

For any clarifications or interest in collaboration, please write to Shefali J Lakhina at: juneja.shef@gmail.com



[1] http://vote.myworld2015.org/


[2] https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/citizenvoicesonhfa2


[3] Targets expressed in terms of x percentage (as a function of number of hazardous events) 


]]>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 04:39:17 GMThttp://www.disasterdiary.org/open-space-for-practices/e-governance-through-e-communities-by-shefali-j-lakhina Last week, I attended a seminar on ‘The democratizing power of technology’. It was organized by SPUR – an association that works to make resilience-based approaches an integral part of San Francisco’s urban policy and planning agenda.

The seminar kicked off with a presentation by the San Francisco city governments ‘Chief Innovation Officer’ (CIO). If you’re ignorant of what that is, don’t fret. In the last 6 months, Philadelphia happens to be only the second city in the United States to have appointed a Municipal Chief Innovation Officer.

What exactly do these CIO’s do? They think up innovative strategies on how city governments can deliver better services, enhance citizen participation and lower administrative costs. Are we moving towards a soon-to-be ubiquitous trend of e-governance through e-communities? In fact, are we already in it? 

It is clear that city governments are confronted with new challenges. Most parts of this country have seen enormous cut backs and re-prioritization of public spending in past years. However, this time around, something is different.

Governments are no longer trying to figure this out on their own - they are crowd-sourcing solutions to some of the most pressing problems their cities face. Whether its improving the quality of public transportation, access to taxi services, safe infrastructure and housing, or making online form submissions to various departments efficient, the San Francisco city government is opening up its department silos by adopting an integrated systems approach to governance – making it more transparent, accountable and collaborative.

But what has motivated this trend towards ‘open government’? In short: a debilitated economy and the advent of citizen driven open-data platforms (now being touted as ‘humanity’s dashboard’).

It makes sense too. Unemployment (and underemployment) is at an all time high, which means you have highly skilled people sitting around. This pool of skilled, tech-savvy, engaged citizens is a perfect match for a city government that is willing to let go off its bureaucratic processes and embrace an open data platform – one that facilitates useful inputs from data-rich, data-aware and data-smart citizens.

If you want more history to it, look up Obama's White House Open Government Directive. In 2009, it created national access to www.data.gov with a view to make all kinds of government data accessible to the public. 

This national momentum towards open government means we’re going to see an evolution from previous technology-led interfaces (mere information sharing through city administration websites, for instance), to user-led platforms (where solutions to city problems are identified in 'hackathons') that feed into smart e-governance services (taxes, transport etc). 

What is most exciting is that city governments are gearing up to make the best use of easy access to intellectual capital – their citizens.

I wonder how the open government and its e-governance tools will fare on creating more resilient e-communities though? Remains to be seen, but we're certainly on the right track!   ]]>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 06:18:00 GMThttp://www.disasterdiary.org/open-space-for-practices/tedx-disasters Since 1984, the initial Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) talks have made space to accommodate emerging perspectives in business, science, culture, the arts and ‘global issues’. Its obvious then, that over the past decades, TED has become the ultimate forum for blue-sky, optimist thinking. Its the space where ideas germinate and actions initiate. 

In 2010, TED embraced a radical democratization through the concept of TED ‘x’ – independent, locally organized events of all shapes and sizes (literally). Since last year, 700+ TEDx events have engaged millions across the world not just through online viewing, but through real time participation in live, locally organized TEDx events. As anyone who has participated in a TEDx will tell you, the talks are sometimes riveting and at all times inspiring.

So, it is worth pondering, what would it mean to have a TEDx event – or a series of TEDx events – on the ‘(natural) disasters’ theme?

Imagine the kind of impact a series of TEDx local events across the world could have on introducing fresh perspectives on how we think about disasters. New perspectives could help influence the terms of public debate around an issue that is now more relevant than ever before.

The talks could be delivered by inspiring speakers and community leaders, who don’t just explore disasters through the lens of ‘identifying or managing risk’, but from an innovations and technology lens, a design perspective, a social media angle, or through social narratives that tell us stories about how we relate to the habitats we live in.

All TEDx event talks are put online ted.com and reach an estimated million plus viewers with open translations in a number of languages. 

So, the question, as always, is - where do we start?

If you have innovative, actionable ideas/ comments/ suggestions on where the first TEDx event on Disasters can be organized, please do write in with your comments and suggestions! 

Be sure to cover the following points in your response:  

1.     Location – ‘Where' and 'Why’?

2.     Venue – ‘Where', 'How' and 'Why’?

3.     Partners – ‘Who', 'Why’ and ‘How’?

4.     Speakers – ‘Who’, ‘Why’ and 'How'?

5.     Key messages/ talk ideas – ‘What’ and ‘Why’?

6.     Other comments/ recommendations?

The disaster diary project would be honored to lead/ or associate with any attempt at organizing a first TEDx Disaster event.

Write in with your suggestions and lets make it happen! 


]]>Fri, 27 May 2011 01:21:18 GMThttp://www.disasterdiary.org/open-space-for-practices/surveying-risk-by-shefali-j-lakhinaHave you ever taken a public survey on natural disasters? Have you thought of why disaster surveys could be important? And why the next time you come across one you should absolutely take it?

I can give you three reasons why:

1. What you think matters. Disaster survey results present experts, planners and local administrations with a good tool to ‘match’ disaster prevention policy and programs to your needs. If the planners don’t know how you’re thinking about your disaster preparedness or what kind of support you’re expecting, they won’t be able to match you/ your neighborhood with appropriate assistance initiatives.

2. Show and tell. Disaster surveys can inculcate accountability among government agencies and local administrations through your participation and interest in the issue. Through your participation in a public disaster survey, you show you’re interested in reducing your risk from a probable tornado or earthquake. The authorities and local agencies will be more accountable for what information they share with you and how they help protect and prepare you for crises.

3. Save your life! After taking a disaster survey, you are more likely to be better informed of your community’s risk from probable disasters and the local safety and preparedness requirements. You are also more likely to participate in/ volunteer for a neighborhood drill on disaster preparedness after taking a disaster survey – skills that could be vital to saving lives during a disaster!

This said, disaster surveys have had an under-explored potential so far. If more national and local administrations, planners, private sector enterprises and civil society organizations were to undertake disaster surveys this would help map people’s risk perceptions and target more appropriate initiatives to diverse communities/ demography’s.  

Surely, it isn’t enough to pronounce disaster risk levels, map the most vulnerable areas and have an inventory of local capacities/ first responders. It is equally important to know how different communities/ different people in communities are likely to prepare for a disaster, what priorities they are likely to invest in, what resources they are likely to draw upon during a crises and what kind of assistance/ support they are most likely to seek from local administrations and community networks.

A recent release of survey results by the MWH in Australia, presents interesting results to demonstrate this point. 

According to the MWH 2011 Report on critical infrastructure, ‘the majority of Australians believe the country is most vulnerable (93%) to bushfires, followed by drought (91%), flood (84%) and cyclones (73%). Further, ‘Australians living in remote areas feel more vulnerable to all types of natural disaster than those living in cities… Only one in four Australians (27%) consider the government is doing enough to protect the nation from natural disasters. 45% believe the government can do more to protect Australians and prepare for natural disasters (28% unsure).’ Check out the report for more on the prevailing perception of public investments required in 'resistant' and 'resilient' risk reduction measures.

Isn’t this a wealth of information to work with?

The disaster diary’s April-May 2011 global survey/poll came up with a qualitatively different, but an equally interesting profile:

Most respondents (66.67%) felt that they were ‘somewhat likely’ to be affected by a disaster in the next couple of years, while 20% felt they were ‘not likely’ to be affected.

More respondents stated they were likely to be assisted in disaster preparedness efforts by local community networks (25%) than by their local government administrations (5%).

When asked if respondents felt the need to know/ read more about ways to reduce risk from disaster, an interesting trend emerges. More people said ‘yes it would be important’ (52%) but a large number said ‘maybe – if the information is easily accessible and available’ (43%).

Do these results give us insights on areas that need more focused efforts, globally?

More importantly, we need more public disaster surveys that can balance and complement the findings of Hyogo Framework for Action centered reviews/ polls/ surveys that talk to regional inter-governmental organizations, national authorities and local organizations. Why? Because we need to make sure someone is also talking to people – the ‘public’.

]]>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:30:34 GMThttp://www.disasterdiary.org/open-space-for-practices/public-survey-know-your-riskPlease click on the link below to take a quick survey on how well you know your risk! 

Do remember to send the survey link to anyone you think will be interested and have 5 minutes to participate. The survey will remain open and active on this link until May 5th.

Once we have enough responses back, we will discuss some of the findings in a subsequent post! 

Click here: http://www.eSurveysPro.com/Survey.aspx?id=25fb3c48-bf2a-4049-bf19-adddf043e7ea ]]>