Remove 2013 Remove Natural Hazard Remove Vulnerability
article thumbnail

Resilience is an illusion

Emergency Planning

Previously (Alexander 2013), I thought that Holling was wrong about resilience. Secondly, and more importantly, vulnerability, risk, impact and their controlling factors are all trending. I recommend going back to vulnerability and endeavouring to identify, understand and reduce it. What can we do instead? Holling, C.S

article thumbnail

Foresight

Emergency Planning

The cascade is a result of the progression of a shock through different kinds of vulnerability. It is obvious that military instability is likely to complicate and retard the process of getting natural hazard impacts under control. There has recently been a surge of research interest in disaster and conflict (ref).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

The 2019 Global Assessment Report (GAR)

Emergency Planning

An example of this for the 2013 GAR can be found in Di Mauro (2014). Unofficial voices have suggested that the 'cure to damage ratio' for natural hazards is 1:43. Global probabilistic assessment of risk from natural hazards for the Global Assessment Report 2013 (GAR13). The 'should ratio'. GNCSODR 2015.

article thumbnail

Towards a Taxonomy of Disasters

Emergency Planning

The study of disasters is a 'lateral discipline' that, to varying degrees embraces at least 42 other disciplines and professions (Alexander 2013). For example, counter-terrorism policy and policy against natural hazards can be quite different. Disaster is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Alexander, D. Alexander, D.E.