1 / 29

Enhancing Disaster Resilience in Megacities

Discover strategies for making megacities more disaster resilient, learn from history, assess vulnerabilities, and implement effective measures to mitigate risks. Explore the interlocking concepts of disaster resilience and public policies.

fswanson
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Disaster Resilience in Megacities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STRATEGIES FOR BECOMING DISASTER RESILIENT DURING 2013 Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA 

  2. PART 3: MAKE THE MEGACITIES MORE DISASTER RESILIENT

  3. MEGACITIES FACE HUGE DISASTERS FROM … • EARTHQUAKES • FLOODS • SEVERE WINDSTORMS • LANDSLIDES • VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS • WILDFIRES • TSUNAMIS • DROUGHTS

  4. WHAT HISTORY TEACHES • CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT, WHICH CAN BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT NOTICE.

  5. A DISASTER OCCURS WHEN THE MEGACITY’S PUBLIC POLICIES ALLOW IT TO BE … UN—PREPARED UN—PROTECTED UN--WARNED UN—ABLE TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY UN (NON)—RESILIENT IN RECOVERY

  6. QUESTION • WHAT IS A MEGACITY AND WHAT VULNERABILITY REDUCTION MEASURES WILL MAKE IT LESS VULNERABLE TO THE POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS OF A NATURAL HAZARD?

  7. TOKYO: 21.9 M NEW YORK: 15.6 M MEXICO CITY: 13.9 M SAO PAULO: 12.5 M SHANGHAI: 11.7 OSAKA: 10.0 M BUENOS AIRES: 9.9 M LOS ANGELES: 9.5 M CALCUTA 9.0 M BEIJING 9.0 M SOURCE: THE POPULATION INSTITUTE 2/3/01 MEGACITIES IN 1900WORLD POPULATION:1.6 BILLION

  8. TOKYO: 25.4 M BOMBAY: 18.6 M MEXICO CITY: 18.3 M SAO PAULO: 18.0 M NEW YORK: 16.7 M LAGOS: 14.1 M CALCUTA 13.2 M LOS ANGELES: 13.2 M SHANGHAI: 13.0 M BUENOS AIRES: 12.7 M SOURCE: THE POPULATION INSTITUTE 2/3/01 MEGACITIES IN 2000WORLD POPULATION:6 BILLION

  9. BOMBAY: 28.5 M TOKYO: 27.3 M LAGOS: 26.5 M DHAKA: 24.0 M KARACHI: 21.7 M SAO PAULO: 21.3 M MEXICO CITY: 19.6 M JAKARTA: 19.4 CALCUTA 18.8 M NEW DEHLI: 18:4 M SOURCE: THE POPULATION INSTITUTE 2/3/01 MEGACITIES IN 2020WORLD POPULATION:10 BILLION

  10. TOKYO IS A MEGACITY AT RISK FROM NATURAL HAZARDS

  11. CAIRO IS A MEGACITY AT RISK FROM NATURAL HAZARDS

  12. ISTHANBUL IS A MEGACITY AT RISK FROM NATURAL HAZARDS

  13. ISTHANBUL: CAUSES OF VULNERABILITIES • SIZE • FRAGILITY OF EXISTING BUIDINGS/INFRASTRUCTURE • INADEQUATE PROTECTION MEASURES • CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND PRACTICES

  14. SAN FRANCISCO: DEPENDENT ON TRANSPORTATION • DAMAGE TO ONE SPAN OF THE BAY BRIDGE IN 1989 CHANGED THE LIVES OF MILLIONS AND DISRUPTED MANY BUSINESSES. • NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUE COST.

  15. LOS ANGELES: DEPENDENT ON UTILITY SYSTEMS • DAMAGE TO A UTILIYY CORRIDOR CAUSED WIDESPREAD OUTAGES OF POWER, GAS, WATER, AND WASTE CENTERS. • OUTAGES LED TO LOSSES IN THE BILLIONS.

  16. SAN FRANCISCO: SUSCEPTIBLE TO FIRE

  17. NAT. HAZARDS • INVENTORY • VULNERABILITY • LOCATION • PREPAREDNESS • PRPTECTION • EARLY WARNING • EMERGENCY RESPONSE • RECOVERY • EDUCATIONAL SURGES RISK ASSESSMENT DISASTER RESILIENCE ACCEPTABLE RISK RISK UNACCEPTABLE RISK VULNERABILITY REDUCTON DATA BASES AND INFORMATION MEGACITY HAZARDS: GROUND SHAKING GROUND FAILURE SURFACE FAULTING TECTONIC DEFORMATION TSUNAMI RUN UP AFTERSHOCKS

  18. QUESTION • CAN WE MAKE MEGACITIES MORE RESILIENT TO NATURAL HAZARDS?

  19. YES BUT, IT IS A TIME-, PEOPLE-,, AND STAPLE- DEPENDENT PROCESS!

  20. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS • NATURAL HAZARDS, GENERATE POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS WHICH CREATE RISK TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. • THE CHOICE: LIVE WITH UNACCEPTABLE RISK OR ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF RISK.

  21. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS • UNACCEPTABLE RISK CALLS FOR PUBLIC POLICIES TO REDUCE VULNER-ABILITIES.

  22. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS • VULNERABILITIES REFLECT POLICY FLAWS WITH RESPECT TO PREPAREDNESS, PROTECTION, EARLY WARNING, EMERGENCY RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

  23. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS • PREPAREDNESS, PROTECTION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEASURES. • BUT, THEY ARE HARD TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC AND TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT.

  24. POLITICAL SOLUTIONS CA MEGACITY DISASTER RESILIENCE WHAT’S NEEDED: A COMMON AGENDA (CA) OF TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

  25. POLITICAL SOLUTIONS CA STAPLE FACTORS S P O T THE EFFECTIVE SOLUTION FOR GREATER DISASTER RESILIENCE FACT: BUILD ON EACH MEGACITY’S UNIQUE STAPLE FACTORS TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

  26. A COMMUNITY’S STAPLE FACTORS ARE UNIQUE • SOCIAL • TECHNICAL • ADMINISTRATIVE • POLITICAL • LEGAL • ECONOMIC

More Related