30INNOVATIONS
for DRR
Disaster
Risk
Reduction

30 innovations for Disaster Risk Reduction

About this publication :This publication is developed by a group of individuals from the International
Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University, Keio University, theUniversity of Tokyo, the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Studyof Sustainability (UNU-IAS), and Church World Service (CWS) Japan in collaboration
with the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) Multi-Hazards Program. The
case studies of the 30 innovations were selected in a series of discussions with thegroup. The innovations are not limited to the 30 cases included in this publication.

This publication is not the official voice of any organizations and countries. The
analysis presented in this publication is of the author of each innovation.

Team members :Takako Izumi (IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Rajib Shaw (Keio University)
Mikio Ishiwatari (the University of Tokyo)
Riyanti Djalante (UNU-IAS)
Takeshi Komino (CWS Japan)

How to refer this publication :Please refer to this publication as follows:
Izumi, T., Shaw, R., Ishiwatari, M., Djalante, R., Komino, T. 2019 30 innovations fordisaster risk reduction by IRIDeS, Keio University, the University of Tokyo, UNU-IAS,CWS Japan, Japan, 80 pages.
March 2019

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share
Alike 4.0 International License.

Foreword

This publication is indeed a very valuable collection of thought provoking work which will contribute
greatly to the world’s understanding of disaster risk and how it can be managed through the practicalapplication of science and technology. The volume is a wonderful response from the world of
academia to the Sendai Framework’s call for the promotion of scientific research and to support the“availability and application of science and technology to decision making.”
It is particularly interesting to see this collection of 30 innovations divided into products on the one
hand and approaches on the other.
From the high tech innovations such as GIS and Doppler radar, to the introduction of seismic
codes and earthquake early warning systems, it is clear that science and technology is making a
profound difference in the world’s ability to reduce death tolls in disasters and the damage to criticalinfrastructure.
These innovations can only make a difference if they are applied intelligently to improve the built
environment around us so it is equally fascinating to review the list of 16 approaches included
here which have been judged as sufficiently innovative to merit inclusion alongside the scientificbreakthroughs.
It is encouraging to see the Sendai Framework’s predecessor, the Hyogo Framework for Action
being included for the significant role it played in engaging stakeholders in a common effort tobuild resilience to disasters, and to monitor and share progress reports. That experience has greatly
informed the process now underway to monitor progress against delivery of the Sendai Framework
targets and the Sustainable Development Goals.
This volume concludes with the results of a survey of 228 experts from academia, government, NGOs
and the private sector which chose Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction as the most importantinnovation of the thirty listed.
The message here is that the approach matters just as much as technical innovation; our efforts mustbe people-centered and inclusive if we are to make progress on reducing disaster risk and disasterlosses.

Mami Mizutori,
United Nations Special Representativeof the Secretary-Generalfor Disaster Risk Reduction

01

Preface

It has never been more important to connect sociological and scientific research and technologicalinnovation to policy and practice. In 2018, the world faced a seemingly unending cycle of disasters:
heatwaves, droughts, floods, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruptions. This increased frequency
and intensity of extreme events requires us to accelerate our disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts andcreate innovative solutions to minimize the damage and wide-ranging secondary impacts of future events.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR) encouraged an increased focus
on science and technology as a key tool to confront such global challenges. Innovative approaches andtechnological responses in DRR need to take account of underlying disaster risks such as inequality,
climate change, urbanization, the increase in population density, and environmental degradation.
The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), is a network of 50 leading research universities fromaround the Pacific Rim – the North and South America, East and Southeast Asia, and Oceania. APRU
established the Multi-Hazards (MH) program in 2013 with the major objectives of harnessing its members’
collective capacities for cutting edge research on DRR and contributing to the discussions for sciencebased policy-making at international and regional levels. The APRU program hub has been hosted by Tohoku
University at Sendai in Japan. The International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) established in2012 after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami is honored to contribute to the program as thesecretariat through various activities such as organizing the summer school and the academic conference andmeetings. This publication is one of the collaborative efforts among the member universities under the APRU
MH program and aims to share the most effective technological and other innovations for DRR.
This publication features 30 innovations across its member network for DRR including products andapproaches. As a group of academic researchers and experts, we strive continuously to share data,
information, and research findings, aiming to translate these into practice. We believe such collaborative
efforts across academia, the private sector, governments and other stakeholders will contribute to theimplementation of the SFDRR. The innovations introduced in this report are not only high-tech products
but also provide contextual approaches, traditional ideas and social science insights, offering solutions
that do not require large budgets or the use of advanced technology. Economies and regions can identify
the most suitable solutions for their own geographical conditions, financial and human resources andavailability of technology. In this way, we intend this publication will support the development of localized
innovations for reducing future disaster risks, providing increasingly effective and prompt responses,
promoting “build back better” in the recovery stage, and building disaster-resilient communities.

Christopher Tremewan

Fumihiko Imamura

Secretary General,

Director,

Association of Pacific Rim Universities

International Research Institute of Disaster
Science, Tohoku University

03

TABLE OF CONTENTS
30innovations for DRR
Foreword ................................................................................................................... 01
Preface ...................................................................................................................... 03
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 07
PRODUCTS ................................................................................................................. 09
01. GIS and remote sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
02. Drones ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
03. Social networking service / system (SNS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4
04. Concrete and steel: Building material and infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
05. Disaster risk insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
06. Disaster prevention radio (Bosai musen) and the telemetry system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
07. School cum cyclone shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
08. Seismic code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 24
09. Seismic micro-zonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Earthquake early warning for high speed train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1 1. Doppler radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 30
12. Disaster resilient materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13. Rain water harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14. Electricity resistant survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

APPROACHES ............................................................................................................. 39
01. Community-based disaster risk reduction/risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
02. Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
03. Hazard mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
04. National platforms for disaster risk reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
05. Safe schools and hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
06. Assessments and index approach: Vulnerability, resilience, sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
07. Crowdsourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
08. Sphere standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
09. Terminologies of resilience and vulnerability (R&V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10. Post Disaster Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1 1. Transnational initiative on resilient cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
12. Mobile payment: A tool for accessing distribution/funds after a disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
13. A dollar for DRR saves seven dollars in disaster response/recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
14. Traditional practices and evacuation behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
15. Indigenous DRR technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
16. River engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Summary of survey result on the innovations for DRR: products and approaches ........ 73
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... 77- Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
- Project team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 79

Introduction

The need for increased application of innovation and technology for disaster risk reduction (DRR)
has never been greater in order to foster new development and implementation of more effective
evidence-based approaches. Tremendous DRR efforts have been ongoing for many years; however,further improvements and new methods of DRR beyond the conventional and traditional initiatives
are urgently required, especially those related to serious underlying causes such as climate change,poverty, urbanization, population density, and environmental degradation. Further, the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction encourages better access and support for innovation andtechnology as well as increased investment in DRR to develop new innovations that are both costeffective and beneficial when applied in all disaster management phases: response, recovery,
mitigation, and preparedness. In addition, strong collaboration between various stakeholders suchas government, academia, NGOs, and the private sector is crucial to the application of technology
and innovations. A series of discussions about many forms of potential collaboration continue to takeplace.
The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) Multi-Hazards Program organized a strategic
meeting to discuss their influence on disaster risk reduction policy at Tohoku University in February
2018 with APRU member universities and partner organizations. At the meeting, all agreed that a
viable link between researchers and practitioners is currently absent. Academia conducts researchbased on science and technology, but many of these research results and findings are either notshared, inaccessible, or barely recognized by actual users and practitioners. To improve this situationand create a mutually cooperative environment, it was suggested that material be developed to be
used at training sessions, seminars, and classes to introduce the DRR products and approaches
considered to be the most innovative and effective based on science and technology, especially thosethat target practitioners. Named 30 Innovations for DRR, the collection aims to share information
about the most effective technology and innovations for DRR. It also provides guidelines to identify
the most important, most suitable, and innovative DRR tools that can contribute to reducing disasterrisks and preparing for future disasters in the readers’ own countries or regions.
30 Innovations for DRR includes the innovative products and approaches considered to be
extremely effective and those that have already contributed to reducing disaster risks. They wereidentified in discussions between experts primarily from Keio University, University of Tokyo, United
Nations University, CWS Japan, and IRIDeS of Tohoku University. This does not imply that only thirty
innovations exist to date, rather that many others also exist. They were identified as the very best of
many innovations in discussions between experts. The DRR innovations listed in this publication are
divided into products (14) and approaches (16). The innovations listed first in each section are those
applied for 1) multi-hazards. The list continues with specific hazard types: 2) Earthquake, 3) Flood,07and 4) Others. In this format, readers can easily identify the DRR innovations suitable for tacklingthe hazards that affect them most.
Parallel to the publication, a survey was conducted to determine the innovations for DRR
considered to be the most effective among academia, NGOs, international organizations, governments,
and the private sector. The question asked participants to select three innovations considered orproven to be most effective out of thirty innovations. The survey received 228 responses. A summaryof the survey results is included after the list of innovations. Of special interest to many, of the teninnovations selected most frequently, five are products and six are approaches (two received thesame score). These results show that products and approaches are equally recognized as innovations,and that they both contribute to improving existing and traditional DRR efforts for tackling newchallenges. We must not forget that technology and innovations are not only high-tech products but
also soft-measures such as approaches and frameworks that can lead to changes as well as influencepeople’s thinking and behavior.

08

30innovations for DRR :PRODUCTS
01. GIS and remote sensing
02. Drones
03. Social networking service / system (SNS)04. Concrete and steel: Building material and infrastructure
05. Disaster risk insurance
06. Disaster prevention radio (Bosai musen) and the telemetry system
07. School cum cyclone shelter
08. Seismic code
09. Seismic micro-zonation
1 0. Earthquake early warning for high speed train
1 1 . Doppler radar
12. Disaster resilient materials
13. Rain water harvesting
14. Electricity resistant survey

01

GIS and remote sensing

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerbased tool for mapping and analyzing feature eventson earth. GIS technology integrates common database
operations, such as query and statistical analysis, with
maps. GIS manages location-based informationand provides tools for display and analysis of various
statistics, including population characteristics,
economic development opportunities, and vegetation
types. GIS allows you to link databases and maps
to create dynamic displays. Additionally, it provides
tools to visualize, query, and overlay those databases
in ways not possible with traditional spreadsheets.

These abilities distinguish GIS from other information
systems, and make it valuable to a wide range of
public and private enterprises for explaining events,
predicting outcomes, and planning strategies1.
Remote sensing is the art and science of making
measurements of the earth using sensors on airplanes
or satellites. These sensors collect data in the formof images and provide specialized capabilities for
manipulating, analyzing, and visualizing those images.
Remote sensed imagery is integrated within a GIS.
1

https://kb.iu.edu/d/anhs

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

10

4
4
5
5
5
4

With proper use of the combination, it can reduce death and affected people significantly.
Similar to death / affected people, it helps only it is planned and used.
Extremely cost effective
Very high level of penetration, and widely used
No negative impact on the environment
Spatial mapping has helped significantly to understand the risk and enhance behavior
change.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
GIS is now the very basic information system for any disaster related data base at the local,
national and regional level. This has tremendously changed the concept of mapping withdifferent overlying layers, which can be used on a customized way. Thus, GIS is consideredas the basic mapping tool for many purposes, and disaster risk reduction is no exception tothat. Remote sensing images are used for interpretation of resources as well as risks and canbe used for effective pre-disaster mitigation measures. With current high precision remotesensing data, especially using high precision satellite images, the urban diagnosis has become
easier as well as effective. Before after remote sensing images help to understand the extent ofdamages immediately after a disaster. Thus, the combination of GIS and remote sensing has
drastically changed the concept of mapping and spatial interpretation of risk and resources.

11

02

DronesMany technological breakthroughs in recent years

agile, fast and robust, empower response teams withhave emerged in places areas where it was leasta substantial upper hand without costing as much

expected. Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), foras manned flight operations. Because many areexample, have transitioned from highly defense-

autonomously flown, drones can access hard-to-reachfocused applications to a multitude of commercial

areas and perform data-gathering tasks that areuse cases that transcend industries1. But what makesotherwise unsafe or impossible for humans.

UAS, more commonly referred to as drones, fit for1

HTTPGEOAWESOMENESSCOMDRONES mY RESCUE

emergency response? Aerial views are critically helpful
in large-scale disaster zones. Drones, designed to beAssessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

12

3
3
5
5
5
4

Drones have not been able to save people’s lives that much, but possibility transportationof emergency medicine, blood etc. to the affected areas would help in reducing death andaffected people.

It has somehow been able to reduce the agriculture loss in some way, but needs
improvements.
Extremely good for cost effectiveness.
Penetration is extremely good.
No negative impact on the environment
When combined with entertainment, drone can help in changing mindset of people.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Many disaster management protocols have been tested over the years. While many of thesestrategies have been successful, they also come with major hurdles. Time is the mostimportant issue in disaster response. This becomes more crucial when the terrains hit
by disaster become inaccessible, especially in the mountain regions. Drones can play animportant role in getting first hand image of the terrains hit by the disaster in the crucial
first few hours. When the disaster scale is large, drone can be helpful to give an aerial viewof damages.
This was especially useful for the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal that claimed
the lives of 9,000 people and injured 23,000 others. The drones in Japan were extremely
effective in the radiation survey, where the human accessibility was restricted. Drones canalso be used for pre-disaster survey, especially for agriculture and forestry, and can help in
deciding pre-disaster preparedness aspects.
It can also help in different survey process, especially landslide risk reduction in
the mountain areas. Thus, Drones are considered as one of the eight new / emerging
technologies which have changed the concept of disaster management. However, there
needs to have proper aviation regulation and expertise to be developed.

13

03

Social networking service / system (SNS)The social network service/system (SNS), often
termed as “social media,” is an online spacefor making connections with others. SNS users
create a profile and connect with others throughfile-sharing, emails, messages, or comments.
Traditionally, disaster information was passedon through radio and television. The first SNS,
namely SixDegrees.com, started in 1997 and wassoon followed by Friendster, MySpace, Facebook,YouTube, Google Plus, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn,
Reddit, Snapchat, Tumblr, Pinterest, and Vine.

The development of computers, smart phones,
and tablets allows for the proliferation of SNS use.
Recently, SNS has become an important tool for
DRR that can make communities and societies
more resilient to disasters and crises. It offers
opportunities to educate people, especially the
youth, on knowledge of hazards; allow collection ofdisaster data; give voice to people, especially during
an emergency; and provide information on logisticand humanitarian needs. However, some negative
effects of SNS have been observed in relation todisaster information.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

14

4
3
5
5
5
5

SNS can help reduce deaths and affected people through preparedness and situational
information
Reducing disaster economic loss can be done through better targeting of recipients
Cost-effectiveness is achieved through better planning due to more data is available
The concepts have been used world widely.
No negative impact on the environment.
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically on governments as well as
various stakeholders.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The use of the SNS in DRR has changed the way people perceive and respond to disaster
information and even to decision-making processes by government or other organizations
working in disaster management. In most disasters, the first responders are the public, whothen gather social capital, either directly or through SNS, in the form of the mobilization ofskills, leadership, networks, and support systems.
After the Haiti earthquake in January 2010, people posted texts, photos, and personal
experiences via SNSs, which led to the pouring in of resources in a very short time and a costeffective way for donations. Through mass participation, correct information was used much
more prominently in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March
2011. After an extreme event or immediate attack, SNSs can help create social cohesion andpromote therapeutic initiatives through the use of media by people to inform their family andfriends that they are safe.
Data obtained through social media can be collected and analyzed by researchers foreducation and decision-making purposes. On the negative side, immediately after the 2010
earthquake in Chile, when information from government/authorities were scarce, rumors
circulated about an impending earthquake and tsunami. In Indonesia and Italy, scientists had
trouble with the authorities as the information they gave were used and quoted inappropriately,
which lead to chaos and insecurity among people.

15

04

Concrete and steel: Building material andinfrastructure

Concrete and steel have various advantages as theused in place of wood, stone, or mud by usingmaterials for the DRR structure. These materials

modern engineering with the ability to manipulate

remain strong for a long period and make it easierconcrete and steel.

to maintain the structures. The materials can be

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

16

5
5
5
3
1
3

Enormous number of people are being protected from natural disasters. This cannot be
achieved without concrete and steel.
Structures with these materials are protecting assets in urban areas and crucial facilities
from natural disasters.
Structures constructed with these materials are cost-effective as shown in various costbenefit analyses.
The materials can be used from mega- to small structures. Megastructures needmanaging capacity of technology and institution.
Social and environment impacts by large scale infrastructure should be properly managed.
Development agencies have developed safety guards for managing these impacts.
People can live safely because of concrete and steel structures, but may lose indigenous
knowledge of managing disasters. People are protected well by these structures from frequentdisasters, and have less chance to suffer from disasters.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersMLIT

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Concrete and steel are used widely for large structures to decrease flood and drought damage.
Dams, weirs, irrigation channels, levees, and protection works can be constructed using thesematerials. It has become possible to construct over 300-meter height dams nowadays.
A reinforced concrete structure is common for anti-earthquake buildings as well. Without
these materials, high-rise buildings cannot be constructed.
These materials are used for small structures. For example, gabion boxes, made with steel
wire mesh and filled with stones, are used for preventing river erosion and landslides. Works
with the gabion boxes are low-cost and easily installed without high skills at the community
level.

17

05

Disaster risk insurance

Disaster risk insurance (DRI) is increasingly
recognized as a tool to deal with increasing disasterlosses, strengthen resilience to external shocks,
and reduce future expenditure in case of a disaster.
Against a premium, DRI covers the costs incurredfrom extreme weather or natural disasters (e.g.,
earthquake, floods, and droughts). In the last 10
years, damage from disasters has reached around
1.4 Trillion USD (UNISDR, 2018). Disaster losses
are measured in terms of insured and non-insured
losses. The schemes cover the costs incurredfrom extreme weather and disasters. DRI covers
hazards arising from geological, meteorological,hydrological, climatological, oceanic, biological,

technological/man-made events, and increasingly
complex and interlinked disasters. While insurance
has been widely used in sectors like finance,
trading, and health, those that cover natural
disaster risks are still largely taken by private
entities. In developed countries, the insurance
market is dominated by private companies offeringcommercial products. Insurance uptake at thecommunity level is still low. There is a choice of
microfinance and insurance to alleviate poverty
in developing countries. The forms of insurance
policies include traditional and index-based, which
are sometimes offered as bundled schemes or
independently and voluntarily.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

18

2
5
3
3
3
5

Disaster insurance covers for loss of life but not able to reduce loss of life.
Allow for accounting of losses, through comparing insured and uninsured losses.
Different schemes have different effectiveness at different levels.
At global and regional level and national level. Few at community and local level due tolack of awareness and affordability
Linked to environmental protection (e.g. Resilient Bond). This is however at early stage.
Greatly influence risk-informed behaviors and decision making.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
DRI forms a safety net for vulnerability in countries, groups, and communities. They allow forpooling and various innovative mechanisms to increase affordability and accessibility. Indexinsurance allows for the burden of proof from the payer and a provision in changing climate.
Innovations in technology and assessments of weather hazards allow for determination of
options to determine the trigger for insurance payment. More innovative insurance schemes
are emerging to deal with extremely costly disasters and impacts of climate change, such as
Catastrophic Bonds, Resilience Bonds, and InsuResilience.
Catastrophe bonds (also known as cat bonds) such as the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk
Insurance Facility (CCRIF), African Risk Capacity (ARC), and Pacific Catastrophe Risk
Insurance Company (PCRIC) allow for sovereign insurance and insurance pools. CCRIF is theworld’s first multi-country risk pool to provide parametric insurance. International climate
funds allow for increase in financial tools to support counties and communities to deal with
the impacts of disasters and climate change.
Resilience bonds are innovative since they provide a dual application of insurancewith risk reduction measures, which allow for better risk knowledge and awareness.
“InsuResilience” is the G7 initiative which aims to insure 400 million more people
against climate risks by 2020. Weather derivatives and weather index insurance canhelp communities and counties to deal with abnormal or extreme weather events. At thecommunity and individual level, micro-insurance helps small farmers, fishermen, and local
laborers to deal with the impacts of flood or droughts.

19

06

Disaster prevention radio (Bosai musen) andthe telemetry system

A telemetry system is used to monitor various

facilities on a real-time basis. A disaster prevention

disaster situations such as earthquakes, volcanos,

radio system in Japan, Bosai musen aims at sharing

floods, and environment as well as to operate DRR

disaster information with local residents.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

20

5
3
5
3
5
3

Telemetry and Bosai musen systems contribute to decrease the number of death andaffected people by sharing disaster information with local communities.
The private sector and ordinarily people can prepare for disasters by obtaining real-time
information.
The cost of the system has decreased because of development ICT.
A certain level of capacity and technology is required to operate the system.
Social and environment impacts are minimal.
While these systems are useful for evacuation and response. using disaster information
for actions on the ground is a challenge. Risk communication with the ordinarily people
is key to change people’s behavior.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersMOC

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The organizations concerned can collect real-time information on disasters and DRR facilities
through the telemetry systems. Real-time data is essential in issuing early warning andevacuation orders. Ordinary people can also access information on the weather, rivers, andvolcanos on the World Wide Web or through smartphones to prepare for disasters.
The organizations concerned can get to understand disaster situations more clearlyby collecting image data and large data because of developing technology, such as opticalfibers, Closed Circuit TeleVision, digitalization, and climate radars. In the 1960s, before
wireless systems had been installed in Japan, observers monitored water and rain gages
directly and reported the findings to the organizations concerned through telephones.
Staff can safely operate DRR facilities of pumps and gates from offices through thetelemetry systems without having to stay on site. Operators can avoid facing risks of disasters
from floods and tsunamis.
Local governments can issue disaster information, warnings, and evacuation orders
through Bosai Musen. This system started operating in the 1950s in Japan, and consists ofcentral stations at government offices responsible for sending information throughout towns
or to individual receivers and households through loud speakers.

21

07

School cum cyclone shelter

School is considered as a vital infrastructure, ascases, local governments construct public schools,

well as an important community facility. It is not

it is assumed that the schools are relatively safer

only a place for education, but also considered asbuilding in the community, where people can takea place of community gathering, social bonding

shelter in case their houses are destroyed by aand inter generational communication. Since in mostdisaster.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

22

5
3
4
4
5
4

This has been very effective in reducing life losses and reduction of number of affected
peopleIn some cases, the shelters are designed to bring the livestock, so can reduce certain
economic losses
The school cum shelter needs good amount of investment, but it is cost effective interms to saving people’s lives
This is quite widely used as the concept, especially in the coastal areas.
No negative impact on the environment
Effective in behavioral change, especially for early evacuation.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The innovation presented here is a concept, which is applied to the coastal communities indeveloping countries. This is especially relevant in case of Bangladesh, which has been prone
to severe cyclones, and in 1970s, there has been severe life and property losses in the coastal
areas of the country. The coastal delta areas being relatively flat, there is no higher ground toevacuate during the coastal storm surges. Then came the concept to develop cyclone sheltersin the coastal areas as 3-4 stories strong concrete buildings, where people could evacuate
during the cyclone and take shelter. However, the question comes on how to maintain thosebuildings in the regular time.
The innovative approach of using the shelters as the schools would address the education
issues in the rural communities. By using them as schools would also familiarize communities
as their locations and facilities, which would facilitate evacuation before the cyclone. Red
Cross and Red Crescent Society applied this concept in the coastal areas of Bangladesh in
mid 1970s, which has been then taken up by several donor agencies to promote widely in the
country. Now-a-days, this is a popular concept in other delta areas, which are prone to coastal
hazards like cyclone/ typhoon and storm surge.

23

08

Seismic code

Building structures resilient to ground shaking are

Seismic codes are designed to protect human lives

crucial in mitigating damage from earthquakes.

and property from the earthquakes.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

24

5
5
4
3
5
3

By implementing building code, enormous number of people’s lives can be saved fromearthquakes.
Assets also can be protected from earthquakes.
Government organizations need administration costs of introducing and implementing thebuilding code.
A certain level of capacity and technology is needed.
Social and environment impacts are minimal.
Introducing and implementing building code needs behavioral change.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersPresidential palace at the Haiti earthquake
https://www.unmultimedia.org/s/photo/detail/424/0424989.htm

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The Haiti earthquake in 2010 demonstrates the importance of seismic codes. A 7.0 magnitude
earthquake struck the country when an official building code failed to function. The earthquake
damaged more than 180,000 homes, killing some 220,000 people. Since crucial facilities
for disaster management, such as hospitals, schools, the presidential palace, and government
offices, had collapsed, response activities were hindered.
Some countries have revised building codes according to the surveys of damage tobuildings by major earthquakes and have strengthened societies’ resilience to earthquakes.
Following the Messina Straits earthquake that killed some 80,000 people in 1908, the Italian
government issued the first seismic code. The code stipulates the seismic ratio (seismic
acceleration divided by the gravity acceleration) at 1/12 for the first floor and 1/8 for the floors
above. The government has also revised the code several times, and the current code covers
the whole country.
In Japan, the Great Kanto Earthquake killed more than 100,000 people in 1923. The
government introduced a seismic code in 1924, which is the first nationwide seismic codein the world. The current code aims at ensuring that human lives are not threatened by any
scale of earthquakes, and specifies that buildings should withstand a lateral force equal to thebuilding’s weight. Human loss limited the minimum scale of 200 people despite the Mw 9.0
Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011.
Developing countries face difficulties in introducing and enforcing seismic codes.
Government organizations, especially local governments, need to develop legal systems,
permission procedures, and institutions. However, they do not have enough capacity, such as
skilled experts and financial resources. Also, more public awareness activities are needed in
the private sector and for house owners to apply seismic codes to buildings.

25

09

Seismic micro-zonation

Seismic micro-zonation is defined as the process ofearthquake damage. In micro-zonation map, thesubdividing a potential seismic or earthquake prone

data of buildings, infrastructures are also added. In

area into zones with respect to some geologicalmost general terms, seismic micro-zonation is theand geophysical characteristics of the sites suchprocess of estimating the response of soil layers

as ground shaking, liquefaction susceptibility,

under earthquake excitations and thus the variation

landslide and rock fall hazard, earthquake-relatedof earthquake characteristics on the ground surface,

flooding, so that seismic hazards at different

and its impacts on the building and infrastructures.

locations within the area can correctly be identified1.
1

Micro-zonation provides the basis for site-specifichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_microzonation

risk analysis, which can assist in the mitigation ofAssessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

26

4
4
3
3
5
4

Micro-zonation is the first tool. It does not help in reducing the number of losses, unless
it is used for planning.
Similar to death / affected people, it helps only it is planned and used properly.
It is rather costly process, and most of the time, obtaining data is a real challenge.
Penetration is rather slow, and needs more collective efforts.
No negative impact on the environment
When properly done, it provides a good overview of the damages, and thus can be used
for behavior change.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The first attempt of seismic micro-zonation of any urban area i.e. an industrial as well as
population center was carried out in city of Yokohama, Japan in 1954 considering various
zones, corresponding soil conditions and design seismic coefficients for different types ofstructures located in that different zones. Seismic micro-zonation is the first step in earthquake
risk mitigation study and requires multi-disciplinary approach with major contributions
from the field of geology, seismology, geophysics, geotechnical, structural engineering andplanning. This not only identifies the sub-surface condition, but when the data of buildings
and other infrastructures (like road, water, electricity, gas pipelines) etc. are added, it shows
the vulnerability of the buildings and/or infrastructures. Thus, it provides a very good tool fordeveloping risk reduction plan for earthquakes.

27

10

Earthquake early warning for high speed train
Shinkansen, in Japan.
The system called Urgent Earthquake Detection
and Alarm System (UrEDAS) is made up ofseismometers installed at different locations. As
with the Shinkansen seismometer, when they detect
earthquake-induced tremors, they determine theexpected effect of the earthquake and send out
warning signals to cut the power supply to the trains.

Earthquakes are difficult to predict. Usually, thechallenge of the earthquake early warning systemis the time between the warning is issued and theearthquake hits. The P wave of earthquake is detected
earlier than the S wave, and thus, the gap between
the P and S waves are used to issue the early warning.
The time difference is usually very small for humanbeings to react, however, this is used to stop themachines and vehicles, like high speed trains, called

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

28

5
4
4
3
5
3

Saved people’s lives with no accident
Saved economic losses also
Good cost effectiveness
Need more penetration in different countries and regions
No negative impact on the environment
Difficult to say, but influenced to certain way by non-accident.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
For an earthquake, the necessary qualities for early warning systems may be summarized as: 1)
Fully Automated: As the time margin is limited, the facility should be directly controlled without
human judgment, 2) Quick and Reliable: As there is limited time to respond to earthquake
motion, this kind of system is required to be quick and reliable, 3) Small and Cheap: To installeasily, the system must be small and cheap, 4) Independence: To issue fail-safe alarms, thesystem must be independent of other systems, 5) Easy to Connect Network: To deliver theearthquake information, the system must be easy to connect network, and 6) Accuracy is Better:
For the alarm, accuracy of the information is not such a serious problem1.
UrEDAS, is the first real-time P-wave alarm system in practical use in the world. It is able
to process digitized waveforms step by step without storing the waveform data. As the amount ofprocessing does not differ whether or not an earthquake occurs, system failure due to overload
will not occur. The quakeproof systems and reinforcement works extremely effectively, could not,however, save the railways from avoiding any damage. However, it could avoid major accidents,
and could save people’s lives, in a high earthquake prone country like Japan, and thus considereda major innovation in disaster risk reduction.
1

.AKAMURA9 3AITA* 5R%$!3 THE%ARTHQUAKE7ARNING3YSTEM4ODAYAND4OMORROW)N'ASPARINI0 -ANFREDI' :SCHAU*EDS %ARTHQUAKE%ARLY7ARNING
3YSTEMS3PRINGER "ERLIN (EIDELBERG

29

11

Doppler radar

A Doppler radar is the specialized radar that uses thesignals can be interpreted by circuits in the radar

Doppler effect to produce velocity data about objects

receiver and used to determine the speed of a storm.

at a distance. In 1960, research on the application

This is particularly important for severe storms suchof Doppler radar for probing the atmosphere began

as tornadoes and hurricanes. The latest Doppler

1

to have meteorological applications . The Doppler

radar sets locate feature of tornadoes that provide

effect is a frequency shift caused by radar waves

meteorologists with the information needed to issue

bouncing off a moving object. It is similar to the way

reliable hazard warnings tens of minutes before aa train horn changes pitch as the train passes you.

tornado even touches the ground.

In radar, this change of “pitch” in the reflected radar1

https://ethw.org/Radar_and_Weather_Forecasting

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

30

5
3
3
3
5
4

This has been very effective in reducing life losses and reduction of number of affected
people, especially by providing timely early warning
It has reduced economic losses by predicting cyclones and tornado
This is rather costly, and needs certain level of external funding for developing countries.
Penetration of Doppler radar is yet to be seen, mainly because of its relatively high costand maintenance.
No negative impact on the environment
Certain level of effectiveness in behavioral change, however, the key challenge remains for
actual evacuation behavior.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

Others (Tornado)

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
One of the crucial issues in developing country is early warning for wind related hazards,
since a signify art of its population lives on the coastal areas. Back in 1970, when thecyclone Bhola hits Bangladesh, the casualty was estimated to be over 500,000. One of the
key reasons is mentioned as lack of early warning. However, the classic preparedness andeffectiveness of early warning was observed in 2009 during Cyclone Aila, when a similar event
caused a casualty of 190 people. This is often attributed to a very timely and advanced early
warning using Doppler Radar, availability of school cum shelter in coastal areas, and volunteer
networks, which enhance the timely evacuation.
Thus, while the radar only cannot reduce the casualty, but it is the first step to provide
advanced early warning system. That helps a lot in the evacuation planning and other related
preparedness before the cyclone/typhoon or tornado (with a shorter lead time) hits the land.

31

12

Disaster resilient materials

Various materials have been developed to mitigate

To manage fires it is most effective to finish interior

damages caused by disasters. Waterproof materials

decoration of walls and ceilings of buildings withare used for temporal measures to protect assets

fireproof materials that are hardly ignited withfrom flooding, while embankments, floodgates, andordinary fire source or do not ignite.

other structural measures are permanent solutions.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

32

4
4
3
3
5
3

While these are not permanent solutions, floodwater can be controlled during flooding.
Fireproof materials have contributed to decrease fire events.
Temporal barriers are effective to protect crucial facilities, such as underground shopping malls or
metro stations, from flooding. The house was made of flammable materials such as straw and wood
As temporal solutions, these are efficient solutions. Affordable fireproof materials havebeen developed.
A certain level of capacity and technology is required to produce these materials.
Social and environment impacts are minimal.
Response mechanisms need to be established to respond to floods and fire.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Temporary and demountable flood protection materials can reduce flood damage by closing
pathways for floodwater and restricting its spread. Various temporary defense products
becomes available. Piling sandbags are widely used for temporary measures to secure
additional heights of flood barriers for the long time. Water bags are used instead of
sandbags to place on embankment or towns to protect flooding in urban areas where sands
would be unavailable. These bags can be easily moved and installed on-site. Steel sheets canclose the entrances of metros and underground malls, which are vulnerable to inundation.
Large-scale fires have destroyed cities throughout the world. For example, Edo, theformer Tokyo, where houses were made of flammable materials of straws and woods had
repeatedly suffered large-scale fires from the 16th century until 19th century. These fires leftseveral thousands or over ten thousands death. Because of development and use of fireproof
materials, the number of large-scale fires decreased. Also, firefighters, electricians, and oil
drillers use flame-retardant clothing made of fibers and fabrics and can conduct their duties
more safely.

33

13

Rain water harvesting

Rain water is an essential part of human life in many

becoming the source of drinking water in water

sense over historic time. One of the direct relevancescare areas, both in the aril climate as well as inof rain water is rain fed agriculture, which is still

the coastal zones, where the safe drinking water is

a common practice in the most of the developing

becoming an increasing problem due to increasing

countries. However, rain water is increasingly

salinity and other freshwater scarcity problems.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

34

5
3
5
5
5
3

This has been very effective in reducing life losses and reduction of number of affected
people, especially on health impacts
It has reduced losses on agriculture sector in arid areas. For coastal areas, in some cases,
it has helped in vegetable garden etc.
This is extremely cost effective, and use simple technique
Because of it simplicity, it can have larger penetration and replication.
No negative impact on the environment
Certain level of effectiveness in behavioral change, however, the key challenge remains in
the urban areas.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

Others (Drought)

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
In many arid areas, rain water harvesting is practiced in household level, and becomes the
key source of drinking water for the family. Modern day rain water harvesting system is basedon the same old and basic principle, with some inputs from the improvements in the slope ofthe roof, water collection process (like use to appropriate pipes, and water retention tank). In
several arid areas, rain water harvesting system has become part of the public building code,and it is part of the schools, offices and other government facilities. Rain water harvesting is
also an integral component of green retrofitting of private buildings in many arid cities.
In coastal areas, rain water harvesting is found to be effective for wider community
usage, and rain water from several neighboring house roofs are collected together in a larger
tank to be used for the 4-5 families collectively. This has helped in solving drinking water
problem in the coastal communities, where salinity, Arsenic (in underground water) areperennial problems for safe drinking water. This rainwater harvesting system is very effective
to reduce water stress, and thereby decrease the water related health issues.

35

14

Electricity resistant survey

Electrical resistance survey (ERS) is one of theidentify groundwater zones, their geometry, variation

methods used in archaeological geophysics, as

in salinity, and direction of water movement. In

well as in engineering geological investigations.

the simplest form of electrical resistivity method, a

In this type of survey electrical resistance meters

known amount of electrical current is passed into theare used to detect and map subsurface objects

ground through a pair of electrodes, which generates

or aquifer. The purpose of electrical surveys is toelectronic signals.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

36

3
3
4
3
5
4

ERS has significantly contributed to determination of underground water patterns, , andhave contributed to increase in availability of water sources.
ERS has potentially have reduced the cost for well digging.
Being simple technology, it is relatively low cost solution.
ERS has been widely used, but it is still at research stage in its application in developing
countries.
No negative impact on the environment
It made behavioral changes in understanding and handling of underground water sources.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

Others (Drought)
HTTPSWWWNATURECOMSCITABLEKNOWLEDGELIBRARYIDENTIFYINGGROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION USING RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AT 

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
ERS allows determination of depth and location of aquifers which in many countries rely on
past experiences. It is true however that the levels of aquifers change due to rainfall patterns
and geographical characteristics of the area. When combined with constant monitoring ofwater levels of the wells in the area, as well as rainfall patterns, one can determine the area
where rainfall patterns have direct consequence to water level, and where it is unlikely to
influence. Particularly in drought affected area where water available is already scares, such
preciseness of understanding underground water availability and characteristic, including
contamination trends, play a key factor in the community’s resilience.

3730innovations for DRR :APPROACHES
01. Community-based disaster risk reduction/risk management
02. Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)
03. Hazard mapping
04. National platforms for disaster risk reduction
05. Safe schools and hospitals
06. Assessments and index approach: Vulnerability, resilience, sustainability
07. Crowdsourcing
08. Sphere standard
09. Terminologies of resilience and vulnerability (R&V)
1 0. Post Disaster Needs Assessment
1 1 . Transnational initiative on resilient cities
12. Mobile payment: A tool for accessing distribution/funds after a disaster
13. A dollar for DRR saves seven dollars in disaster response/recovery
14. Traditional practices and evacuation behaviors
15. Indigenous DRR technology
16. River engineering

01

Community-based disaster risk reduction/riskmanagement

Disaster response, recovery, and risk reduction are

getting increasingly important. Community-Basedconsidered major responsibilities of governments.

Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) or Community-

However, it is now obvious that just the support

Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) is aand intervention of governments are not sufficient

community- and people-centered approach which

to tackle the globally increasing disaster issues. In

especially encourages the involvement of local

addition, the need to address small- and medium-stakeholders who understand the major challenges

scale hazards that affect local people every year isand resources at the local level.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

40

4
4
4
4
4
5

With involvement of communities, the DRR efforts was much strengthened.
Communities could protect their assets by learning preparedness and DRR with thisapproach.
At the initial stage, it requires technical support by international and national level forcapacity development and project activities.
The importance of this approach has been understood widely, however, there should becases local communities and authorities could not receive any support for implementing
the approach and activities.

Negative impact on the environment should be reduced by the involvement of local
people.
It increased the participation of communities and changed mindset of especiallyinternational actors.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The CBDRR or CBDRM approach is crucial because it creates a local ownership that leads tosustainability, addresses local hazards, and maximizes local resources.
1) Sustainability: Without communities understanding the DRR concept, DRR will never
become a part of their culture and reduce vulnerability, which requires sustainable andlong-term efforts. CBDRR/DRM emphasizes the capacity development of communities andwill act as a base for the success of long-term and sustainable DRR efforts.
2) Reducing vulnerability to local hazards: Although large-scale disasters easily attract theattention of media and people, the impacts of small- and medium-scale hazards arehigher at a local level because of their frequent occurrence. To respond to and prepare
for these hazards, it is crucial that communities take initiatives. This is because thepeople are in the best position to reduce risks as they understand the local problems,vulnerability, and those who need extra support, e.g., children, elderly, and people withdisabilities.
3) Local assets: Communities can be a great asset for DRR as they understand the patternof hazards, possess knowledge from the local stories as well as from history of the place
as to which assets could be or not be useful and so on. Moreover, by giving ownership tocommunities, the programs and projects initiated by international organizations and NGOs
could also be strengthened and made sustainable.

41

02

Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) was adopted

4) Reducing underlying risk factors

by 168 countries at the UN World Conference on5) Preparedness for effective response

Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Japan, in January
2005. It was a 10-year plan to guide national andIt was the first international framework tointernational efforts to reduce hazard risks andidentify and address the tasks and responsibilities

vulnerability and included five priority actions:of various stakeholders such as governments,
international and regional organizations, civil society
organizations, the private sector, academia, media

1) Making disaster risk reduction a policy, institutionaland communities and encouraged their active

strengthening,2) Risk assessment and early warning systems

involvement and collaboration to develop and scale3) Education, information and public awarenessup DRR initiatives.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

42

4
3
4
4
5
5

HFA led various DRR initiatives at all levels.
HFA contributed to reducing economic loss but still there is a need for working harder for
reducing economic loss.
The promotion of HFA required certain amount of cost but it was very effective and worth
the investment.
HFA had a high awareness globally, but there is some room for further awareness raisingon this global strategy especially at local level.
No negative impact on the environment
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically on governments as well as
various stakeholders.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The role of the HFA was extremely significant in the sense that it brought all the
stakeholders into a common system of coordination and clearly addressed the five priority
actions at all levels. In addition, it identified some issues that need to be considered while
carrying out the key activities under the priority actions: the importance of the multi-hazard
approach for all actions; the gender perspective; community and volunteer participation;
capacity development, and technology transfer.
The HFA also emphasized a strong linkage between DRR and development and theimportance of the participation of local stakeholders. Eventually, it became a driving force
in taking DRR measures to contribute to the HFA implementation. Various mechanisms andinstruments, such as the Global Platform for DRR, National Platforms for DRR, and the Global
Assessment Report on DRR, were developed for the stakeholders to discuss the progressof and challenges in the HFA implementation and to learn from each other’s experiences.
Based on these platforms, new partnerships and collaborations were formed among different
stakeholders. DRR was no longer a major responsibility of the national government, but
was understood as something to be achieved through the active participation, support, andcontribution of all the stakeholders.
In order to ensure the progress of its implementation, the HFA Monitoring and Progress
Review process was facilitated at the national, regional, and international levels to capture key
trends and areas of progress and challenges at all levels with regard to achieving the strategic
goals of the HFA. This process encouraged governments, in particular, to take initiatives orfurther steps in their own DRR strategies and contribute to the HFA implementation.

43

03

Hazard mapping

Hazard maps provide graphic information on the risks

measures of disaster risk reduction. In addition,of disasters such as earthquakes, floods, landslides,

Japanese hazard maps include other information ontsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. They serve as aevacuation routes, shelters, and response resources.

basis to formulate relevant policies and counter-

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

44

5
3
5
3
5
3

Hazard maps can support to guide and facilitate prompt evacuation and save people’s
lives from disasters.
Information of Hazard maps are useful to properly guide urban development.
Comparing structural measures, producing hazard maps need lower costs.
Various methods can be used according to technological levels.
Social and environment impacts are minimal.
Hazard maps are useful tools to raise public awareness.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

Others

Source: MLIT

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Ordinary people can use information from the hazard maps for preparedness and evacuation.
Also, the information is useful in formulating urban plans and land use plans to integrate
disaster risk reduction in infrastructure development, to raise public awareness, and toprepare for evacuation. In Japan, the first hazard map of flooding was opened to the public in
Yokohama City in the Tsurumigawa river basin in 1981.
Risk areas and intensity can be estimated by using numerical models. Precise assessment
is possible, and the effects of the disaster prevention structures can be taken into account.
Using numerical models requires technology and hydrological and topographical data. If
numerical models are not available, historical records of inundation areas can be used. This isa simple and low-cost method. However, the construction of disaster reduction facilities anddevelopment activities cannot be reflected in hazard maps.
By involving local communities in production processes, the views of the community
members as well as counter-measures of evacuation and preparedness can be reflected on thehazard maps. Risk perception gaps between local communities, governments, and experts canbe bridged.
Users should be aware of the limitations and uncertainty of hazard maps. For example,
hazard maps usually cover the risk areas of one or a limited number of scenarios and show
unnecessary scenarios of maximum-possible hazards. Risk information produced by simulation
are not perfect because of the limitation of topographical information and numerical models.

45

04

National platforms for disaster risk reduction

National platforms are nationally owned and led

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk

multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms for

Reduction places strong emphasis on the critical

DRR. They aim to bring relevant expertise at therole played by national platforms in supporting

country level to support effective coordination,

the implementation, monitoring, and review of theimplementation, and monitoring of DRR at theframework through effective coordinated action at

national level. They encourage the participation of

the national level and appropriate linkages withrepresentatives of all stakeholders involved, such as

the local level. It also calls for greater investments

the government, international organizations, NGOs,

to support national platforms, which would allow

academic institutions, the private sector, and thethem to perform their function effectively andmedia.

increase their legitimacy and accountability at thenational level.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

46

4
4
4
3
5
5

NP led the development of a new partnership and initiative to reduce number of death
and affected people.
NP may not have directly contributed to reducing economic loss but contributed tostrengthen response capacity among various stakeholders.
To have good number of participation by various stakeholders is challenging, not costly but timeconsuming. It is important for government to understand its value of multi-stakeholder involvement.
64 countries has so far developed this platform. It is nearly one third of the countries
adopted the SFDRR. Much efforts is needed to strengthen the form of NP.
No negative impact on the environment
It increased the participation in DRR activities by the private sector, the media andacademia as well as the awareness raising.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The importance and need for multi-stakeholder collaboration have been highlighted on
various occasions. However, it is often done on an ad-hoc basis. In addition, most of thetime, collaboration is agreed upon only with major and traditional stakeholders such as, thegovernment, internal organizations, and NGOs, which have been involved in DRR activities formany years and already have good knowledge of DRR. Thus, it is rare for a new partnership andcollaboration to be established.
Forming a national platform allowed inviting non-traditional DRR stakeholders such as
the private sector, academia, and media into the discussion on a national DRR strategy andcapacity development. Eventually, a new collaboration and involvement of more stakeholders
in DRR has been achieved through national platforms. Furthermore, linking science andtechnology with policy making is one of the crucial goals in the current DRR strategies, andit can also be facilitated through the platforms. Also, the mechanism contributed to the DRR
reporting process and was seen as a means of validation through consultative, participatory andrepresentative processes channeled by the platforms.

47

05

Safe schools and hospitals

As a part of the Making Cities Resilient campaign,

The One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals

UNISDR highlighted the urgent need to disaster-

initiative encourages people, organizations, companies

proof public services and infrastructure such as

and governments to pledge to make a school orschools and hospitals is evident when earthquakes,

hospital safe and resilient to disasters. When schools

typhoons and cyclones destroy thousands of theseare damaged, learning opportunities are disrupted,

essential facilities globally. A global safe schools andand the quality of education drops. When hospitals

safe health structures campaign in disaster-prone

and health facilities are destroyed, the treatment ofareas with voluntary commitments was announced

the sick is hampered and saving of victims during

at the Third UN World Conference for Disaster Riska catastrophe becomes difficult. Consequently, thisReduction in Japan in 2015.

initiative is a global advocacy effort to make schools
and hospitals safe from disasters

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Environmental
friendliness

Cost effectivenessLevel of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

48

4
4
4
4
5
4

Due to retrofitting of buildings, it is considered that the number of death of students andin hospitals were reduced.
The cost for recovery could be saved with retrofitting and safe facilitates.
The campaign itself does not cost, however, the implementation requires certain level ofbudget.
At this point, it is difficult to prove the effectiveness of this campaign, however, the awarenessof the impotence and link with DRR and health and education could be increased.
No negative impact on the environment is considered.
It is considered the campaign made influence on decision making in education andhealth sectors, however, the actual implementation is not clear yet.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
Why is it innovative?
Reducing damage to schools and hospitals and their quick recovery from disaster are
extremely important as these two facilities could also be used as evacuation centers.
Moreover, hospitals need to treat the injured and maintain their regular operation underemergencies. However, the close link between health or education and DRR is often notadequately understood. To empathize the close connection and link between these areas is
indispensable.
UNISDR, in collaboration with WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank, ADB and otherpartners, initiated the campaign for the safe school and hospitals aiming to raise publicawareness and create a demand for safe schools, hospitals, and other health facilities. The
objectives of the initiative are to protect the lives of school children and the sick by ensuringthat proper safety measures are installed, to ensure the continuity of hospital functions evenafter a disaster strikes, and to improve the risk reduction capacity of all school and hospitalstakeholders. There are no concrete results of this campaign; however, the awareness on safe
schools, hospitals, and health facilities has markedly increased.

49

06

Assessments and index approach: Vulnerability,
resilience, sustainability

The 21st Century is the sustainability century bywhich the 17 Sustainable Development Goals
were adopted in 2015 adopted to supersede the
8 Millennium Development Goals adopted in
2000. Goals and targets specifications is the newmode of governing sustainability. Development
and humanitarian organizations have long used
Vulnerability Assessment as a tool to determine
how shocks and changes including from disasters
affect communities. The International Federation
for Red Cross/Red Crescent (IFRC) has used anddeveloped the assessment tool over the last 10
years. Vulnerability index is often comprised ofhazard, risk, vulnerability assessment together
with response and risk reduction plans. Similarly,
the Resilience or Sustainability indexes are otherapproaches to determine progress achieving
sustainability. These indexes are mostly appliedat city level, comparing progress worldwide. The
Resilient Cities campaign by the UNISDR outlines
the Ten Essentials to implement the Sendai
Framework at local level. The Arcadis’ Sustainable
Cities Index for example has three components ofPeople, Planet and Profit to represent the threepillars of sustainability, the environment, society
and economy.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

50

3
3
5
5
5
5

Increased preparedness at city level strongly allow for reduction in number of deaths andpeople affected.
Reducing disaster economic loss is one of the major component of vulnerability assessment
but not directly resulted from the data
Cost-effectiveness is achieved through integrated actions at city level not only in dealing
with disasters, but also poverty, climate change, urbanization, etc.
The concepts have been used world widely.
No negative impact on the environment.
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically on governments as well as
various stakeholders.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
This assessment and index approach is innovative since it can be applied from global
down to the local and community level. Especially at the community level, the processesof conducting the assessment allow for participation of vulnerable and minority group who
would otherwise be left out. The participatory processes allow for determining people’s
exposure and capacity to withstand shocks from natural hazards. It is a space to discussand agree on community-based disaster preparedness strategies. The availability of theassessments and index allow for local priorities to be decided and included in the moreformal development planning processes in the village/local government. These tools also
allow visualization (often through combination with GIS) which can be used for more
effective communication of disaster hazard, vulnerability and risks.
The Resilience and Sustainable Cities indexes allow for comparison of cities’ progress
toward sustainability. The index allows for better identification of priorities for actions withincities. The processes and data requirements in measuring different components within theindex allow for identification and collection of data which will be useful for planning andevaluation. Achievement of these indexes allow for cross-learning between stakeholders
within cities and between cities transnationally.

51

07

Crowdsourcing

With wide spread mobile and smartphone users,

contaminated water sources, identification of location-

crowdsourcing allows obtaining of real-time andat-risk of future disasters, etc. Crowdsourcing andlocal information. This technology allows pooling thesuch citizen science and participatory mapping are

public’s contribution on the location of evacuees,

gaining recognition within disaster risk reductionneeds of disaster affected communities, locations ofcommunity.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

52

4
3
5
5
5
5

Crowdsourcing allows disaster responders and authorities to access more real-time local
information.
It allows analysis of infrastructural risks at the local level.
Being voluntary contribution of data, users could access without much cost involved.
Crowdsourcing has a high awareness globally, and locally.
No negative impact on the environment.
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically within aid sector.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

Others!MERICAN2ED#ROSS:HTTPSWWWPREPARECENTERORGSITESDEFAULTFILESCASE?STUDY?
COMMUNITY?MAPPING?AUGPDF

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The biggest benefit of crowdsourcing is that one can obtain information from wider public,
which opens the door to vast amount of real-time and local information. Analyzing disaster risk
information from macro-level data limits the analysis of the impact at the local level. When thecrowdsourcing of local data is integrated into risk reduction analysis and plans, it can prompt
further local actions based on local risks. Another important impact of crowdsourcing in risk
assessment is that the process itself becomes a way in which participating communities learn
about their risks; thus an avenue of disaster risk communication.

53

08

Sphere standard

The Sphere Standard was established in 1997, and it

supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion; foodbecame the most widely known and recognized set of

security and nutrition; shelter, settlement and non-common principles and universal minimum standards

food items; and health action. Based on moral andfor humanitarian assistance, enabling humanitarian

legal principles spelled out in the Humanitarian

actors to ensure quality and accountability in theirCharter, it also defines Protection Principles and Core

work.

Standards which inform any humanitarian response
in a spirit of quality and accountability to the affected

The Handbook collects evidence-based universal

populations. (http://www.sphereproject.org/about/)minimum standards in four life-saving sectors: water

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

54

4
3
5
5
5
5

Sphere led more timely and effective response, which significantly reduced the number of
secondary deaths and affected people.
Sphere’s motive is always on saving lives, but companion standard ‘Minimum Economic
Recovery Standards’ was adopted.
Being voluntary commitments, users could access without much cost involved.
Sphere had a high awareness globally, and locally.
No negative impact on the environment.
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically within aid sector.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
It was the initiative that set the principle that ‘doing good is not enough’, and the aid sector
had to put more efforts in professionalizing the sector; big lesson learnt from bitter experienceat Rwanda refugee crisis in 1990’s. Sphere’s unique characteristic as ‘voluntary commitments’
allowed relatively easy access to those who were willing to professionalize their response, andas a result Sphere is used in almost 150 countries around the world. The handbook is alsotranslated into 29 languages.
Sphere handbook is revised periodically, and the most recent version is Sphere 2018.
The organization has recently restricted and the new website is http://www.spherestandards.
org/.

55

09

Terminologies of resilience and vulnerability (R&V)

The terms “resilience” and “vulnerability” have been

adapt to, transform and recover from the effects ofused in disaster research and practices. Resilience,a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including

as a scientific concept, has been used in biology,

through the preservation and restoration of its

ecology, economy, engineering, and social-ecologicalessential basic structures and functions through risk

system analysis. The two concepts have gained

management”, and vulnerability as “The conditions

worldwide recognition in the disaster field when they

determined by physical, social, economic andwere used as key concepts to understand disasters

environmental factors or processes which increase

and DRR, especially in the HFA 2005-2015 and thethe susceptibility of an individual, a community,

SFDRR 2015-2030. The UNISDR defines resilience

assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.”

as “The ability of a system, community or society
exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate,

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

56

3
3
4
5
5
5

Greater understanding on R&V will help to reduce dumber of deaths / affected people.
Greater understanding on R&V will help to reduce dumber of deaths / affected people.
Understanding R&V will allow better targeting of vulnerability groups which in turn help
to research cost-effectiveness.
The concepts have been used world widely.
No negative impact on the environment
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically on governments as well as
various stakeholders.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Within the scientific community, the concept of vulnerability has been subjected to many
debates, studies, discussions, and eventually turned into a proposal for resilience andvulnerability frameworks. Both terms offer a broader and more integrated view of how nations
and communities are vulnerable and how their resilience can be enhanced. This enables anintegrated and comprehensive understanding of the dynamics and root causes of disasters.
In practice, development and humanitarian organizations proposed and utilized
develop Resilience and Vulnerability (R&V) Assessment Frameworks as tools for integrated
understanding and engagement with communities. With the help of a participatory-based
method, these frameworks help in better understanding how inequality influences vulnerability.
At the higher level, formal discussions between stakeholders are conducted throughmapping and assessment exercises. Development and humanitarian organizations aredeveloping and using various Disaster R&V frameworks. Resilient initiatives such as Resilient
Nations, Resilient Cities, and Resilient Communities programs are being implemented
everywhere. Funding for resilience initiatives, such as the 100RC program, is obtained fromfinancial tools like Resilience Bonds and Resilient Infrastructure.

57

10

Post Disaster Needs Assessment

The Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) is ainternational organizations, and assistant agencies

methodology for estimating the physical damages,

can formulate recovery and rehabilitation frameworks

economic losses, and recovery costs following

and plans, identify appropriate projects, and arrange

natural disasters. According to PDNA, government,

financing.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

58

1
3
5
5
3
3

PDNA is a post-disaster process, and cannot directly contribute to mitigate damage.
While PDNA does not decrease economic losses as preparedness measure, the assessment
contribute to effective economic recovery.
PDNA is an efficient process.
Developing countries with limited capacity can be supported by internationalorganizations and assistance agencies.
Social and environment impacts are considered for rehabilitation projects to some extent.
PDNA supports quality recovery.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersMLIT

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean developed themethodology for damage and loss assessment of disasters in 1972. Based on this methodology,
PDNA was developed.
Duplication of needs assessment efforts by various organizations can be avoided byparticipating in the PDNA process. If various organizations conduct assessment separately,
limited resources, such as local staff and transportation, would be wasted under severe conditions
following disasters.
The PDNA process initiates coordination of recovery efforts. Various stakeholders, such as
assistance agencies, international organizations, and civil society organizations, can share thecommon information using PDNA.
Ideally, the affected country governments are expected to lead the process. Assistanceagencies support the process if necessary. Training and assessment are conducted to build thecapacity of experts at normal times.
The experts in various sectors conduct field surveys and develop sector-wide damage andloss assessments. The following sectors are covered:al: housing, education, health, and culture;● Social: housing, education, health, and culture;● Infrastructure: water and sanitation, community infrastructure,● Energy and electricity, transport, and telecommunications;● Productive: agriculture, livestock and fisheries, commerce and industry, and tourism;● Macro-economy: GDP, fiscal deficit and balance of trade;● Finance: banks and non-banking financial institutions;● Cross-cutting themes: governance, disaster risk reduction, employment andlivelihoods, environment, and gender;● Human development: poverty and human development.

59

11

Transnational initiative on resilient cities

The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) aims to

hospitals as well as on the sustainable urbanization

make nations and communities resilient to disasters.

principles developed in the UN-Habitat WorldOne of the key campaigns in implementing the

Urban Campaign 2009-2013. Several international

HFA is the Resilient Cities Program. The “Making

agencies are also implementing similar programs.

Cities Resilient” campaign addresses issues of local

One of the most notable is the 100 Resilient Cities

governance and urban risks while drawing upon

(100 RC) program by the Rockefeller Foundation.

previous UNISDR campaigns on safer schools andAssessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

60

5
5
5
5
5
5

Increased preparedness at city level strongly allow for reduction in number of deaths andpeople affected.
Reducing disaster economic loss is one of the major aim of building resilient cities.
Cost-effectiveness is achieved through integrated actions at city level not only in dealing
with disasters, but also poverty, climate change, urbanization, etc.
The concepts have been used world widely.
No negative impact on the environment.
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically on governments as well as
various stakeholders.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The concept of resilient cities is innovative in many ways. It calls for strengthening the roles ofcities in urban DRR. The cities that participated in this campaign can share experiences andlearn among them. It facilitates and strengthens the policy relevance and advocacy of cities
in international advocacy. Cities are recognized as key stakeholders in the related meeting of
the UNISDR, UN-Habitat, and UNFCCC. Through targeting issues at the city level, integrated
actions can be taken, and win-win solutions are generated to deal with urban disasters,
addressing urban poverty, urban climate issues on mitigation and adaptation. Sometimes, cities
take actions when the national government refuses to act, as is the case in the US. Mayor
Bloomberg of New York is appointed as a special envoy for cities and climate change.

61

12

Mobile payment: A tool for accessing distribution/
funds after a disaster

Mobile payment, known with services such as Mpay

increasing. The payment can be made for utilities,

or M-PESA, is a form of payment through mobile

services, goods, etc. and it enabled millions of

networks which enabled access to financial services‘unbanked’ people to access financial tools. It helps

even for people who didn’t have access to official

affected people to access cash distribution after abanking. It is estimated that 2 billion people arounddisaster and make transactions locally without going

the world are ‘unbanked’, whereas the number ofto nearby city center.

‘unbanked’ people possessing mobile phones are

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

62

4
4
5
5
5
5

Mobile payment allows provision of financial services to unbanked population, whichallows early recovery investment.
Mobile payment allows faster and small-scale transfer to be made for local businesses andindividuals.
Users can access the services with minimal cost/investment.
It has become worldwide phenomenon.
No negative impact on the environment.
It made cash-transfer safer and more mainstreamed within aid sector.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Mobile payment tools have drastically changed how people access goods and services throughrepayments done with mobile phones. For instance, it has diversified access to energy sources(e.g. solar energy pay as you go model). It enabled those without a credit to receive loans theoptions of accessing financial tools to re-build their livelihood after disasters. Furthermore, in
the aftermath of disaster where it is difficult to obtain cash, mobile payment allows access tomonetary credits necessary to buy the daily necessities for survival. It also allows payment toemployees even when bank system is not functioning due to the damage in infrastructure. By
integrating mobile payment into disaster preparedness plan, it can ensure a real time access tomonetary credits by disaster affected communities at all phases of disaster management.

63

13

A dollar for DRR saves seven dollars in disaster
response/recovery

The quote “DRR saves $7 for every $1 invested” hasfollow non-structural approaches such as education,

been used very widely to prove the effectiveness ofpolicy, and planning. In addition, the citation that led

DRR and to shift the focus from disaster responseto the figure in the quote are not verifiable, and theto DRR and preparedness. This statement wascalculations or methods used are not clear i. Currently,

impactful as it increased people’s understanding ofvarious studies have been conducted to prove DRR

DRR and showed the evidence of its effectivenesscost-effectiveness not only based on this simple figure

with the numbers.

but also in multiple other ways.

However, recently, there has been a discussion
about whether the quote considers all the elements of
DRR cost-effectiveness as most of the DRR measuresi +ELMAN ) "ACKGROUNDNOTE$ISASTER-ITIGATIONIS#OST%FFECTIVE( h t t p : // s i t e r e s o u r c e s . w o r l d b a n k . o r g / E X T N W D R 2 0 13 / R e s o u r cES   
WDR14_bp_Disaster_Mitigation_is_Cost_Effective_Kelman.pdf)

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

64

4
4
4
4
5
5

It increased the understanding of DRR importance and increased the investment in DRR.
Increased DRR projects and investment reduced damage and impact.
No cost is required to disseminate the message.
The message was widely disseminated however how much it was implemented is anotherquestion.
No negative impact on the environment.
The understanding towards DRR and preparedness could be changed.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
It may not be only because of this figure, but the quote helped people to start paying
attention to DRR or to invest in effective disaster preparedness. For instance, some countries
such as Indonesia and Philippines have invested heavily, and continue to do so, in reducing
risk levels, often allocating much higher volumes for this than for international financing ii.
These countries are extremely disaster-prone; therefore, the need for DRR can also be
understood based on their past experiences.
It is important that the countries/organizations that have not been heavily affected bydisasters in the past also understand the importance and cost-effectiveness of DRR. For thispurpose, further research is needed. Moreover, the findings and results would have to bedelivered in such a way that they are easily understandable and convincing for the policy anddecision makers.
ii

+ELLETT *AND#ARAVANI ! &INANCING$ISASTER2ISK2EDUCTION! YEARSTORYOFINTERNATIONALAID

65

14

Traditional practices and evacuation behaviors(SMONG from Simeuleu Island, Indonesia, andTendengko from Tohoku, Japan)

The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (IOT) and the 2011

generations saved the islanders. Stories recounting

Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) and tsunami

the 1907 tsunami were passed on from generation to

are the two deadliest and most destructive tsunami-

generation, which influenced the community to run

related disasters ever recorded in modern history.

up to the hills after a very strong shake. Along the

The IOT epicenter was off Sumatra, Indonesia,

Tohoku/Sanriku coasts, the term “Tsunami Tendenko”

while the GEJE epicenter was near Tohoku, Japan.

has been handed down through generations and it

While Indonesia was affected the most, deaths andis known only locally. It calls for people to escapedestruction occurred mostly in the mainland of

separately when a tsunami is anticipated and to

Sumatra. One place that stood out with only sevenrun uphill as quickly as possible even if they must

deaths was the Simeulue Island. The oral history

leave their parents or children. The priority is to saveand indigenous knowledge (IK) of Smong (translates

oneself, which is a foreign concept to the family-

to tsunami or tidal waves) that was passed throughoriented/communal Japanese.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

66

5
1
5
2
5
5

Smong and Tendenko has helped to reduce number of deaths from the earthquake andtsunami dramaticallySmong and Tendenko has not able to reduce number of economic loss since the community
suffered very bad damage
The story was passed through generations on how to detect and survive from tsunami
Within the closed-knitted community, the concept has been successfully introduced,
but not to those outside. Though, there is increasing scientific recognition and media
reporting on the concepts.

No negative impact on the environment
It made behavioral changes drastically and systematically on governments as well as
various stakeholders.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersHow did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
The two concepts of Smong or Tendenko are innovative since they originate from local
wisdom, knowledge, and practices of the Indonesian and Japanese communities. The
concepts show that tsunamis have been occurring in the past and the communities, overtime, have accumulated relevant knowledge and wisdom and passed them on to their next
generations. The concept of Smong allows the community to quickly identify the signs ofa strong earthquake and possible tsunami and take the early action of running away fromthe coast to higher ground. The Tendenko goes against the Japanese strong community
cohesiveness and calls for an exception since it is an emergency. Moreover, both concepts are
known only locally with very little (before the events) introduction to the larger communities,
such as the scientific and policy communities.

67

15

Indigenous DRR technology

Every country has fought against disasters throughout

They used local materials of stone and wood for

its history and developed indigenous technologies forthe structures. Some structures are still functioning

flood prevention and water resource management.

throughout the world.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

68

3
3
4
4
5
3

Measures using indigenous technology is effective, but cannot be used at large scale.
These measures are local solutions and cannot be used at large scale.
These are low-cost measures.
Practices and technology are needed to be shared.

These are eco-friendly measures.
Community efforts are required to implement these measures.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersSoda mattress in Lao PDR

Source: MLIT

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Dujiangyan was constructed to protect the Chengdu Plain from flooding and to provide
irrigation water in the plain in the 2nd century BC in Sichuan, China. This structure is still
functioning, irrigating agriculture fields of over 5,300 square kilometers.
Tank cascade systems have evolved in dry areas in Sri Lanka since the 3rd century BC tomanage water for agriculture. Some 12,000 tanks are in use.
In Japan, local communities were forced to protect their own communities. They
constructed Waju (ring dykes), surrounding the communities to protect their lives, houses, andpaddy fields from floods. Before modernization in the late 19th century, Japan had limited
technology and financial resources to protect society from floods. Emperors, Bakufus, andshogunate (or federal lords) protected strategic areas only, such as capitals, castles, major
towns, and major irrigation facilities.
Structure measures using indigenous technology have recently been applied as ecofriendly measures of river works, instead of concrete works. These measures are made ofnatural materials such as wood and stone. Also, these measures are used in developing
countries as a low-cost solution. For example, soda-mattresses, which are made of brushwood,
wild twigs, wooden piles, and stones, are used for the prevention of riverbank erosion indeveloping countries, with the Japanese assistance. The mattresses are flexible as they follow
the riverbed changes, while concrete works are solid and can be broken by riverbed change.
Furthermore, the materials are available locally.

69

16

River engineering

Every country has developed technologies forlate 19th century, the country introduced westernflood prevention and water resource management

technology in river engineering for preventing floods

according to natural, topographical, and hydrologicaland developing water resources. Other countries,

conditions. However, indigenous technology often

such as Mexico and China, also started introducing

has the limitation of the scientific basis. When Japan

river engineering from western countries, with thewas established following the Meiji Revolution in theJapanese assistance.

Assessment
Number of death/affected people
54Behavioral change

3

Economic loss

2
1

Cost effectiveness

Environmental
friendliness

Level of application/penetration

Number of death / affected people
Economic loss
Cost effectivenessLevel of application / penetration
Environmental friendliness
Behavioral change

70

5
5
3
3
3
3

Western technology is currently used at large scale.
Western technology is used at large scale.
Applying some technology, such as long dykes and dams, need large costs.
Capacity building is needed to apply the technology.

Some technology need management measures of environmental and social impacts.
Experts became to use scientific knowledge and data analysis.

Era

Type

Stage

Before 1960s

Earthquake

Response

1960s

Flood

Recovery1970s

Typhoon/ Cyclone

Mitigation

1980s

TsunamiPreparedness

1990s

Volcano2000s

Landslides

2010s

OthersMAFF

How did it drastically change the existing DRR status and strategies?
How is it innovative?
Dutch engineers introduced the scientific approach of river engineering in Japan. While Japan
had constructed flood prevention facilities throughout its history of nearly 2,000 years, experts
developed their technology based mainly on experimentation. The Dutch engineers guided theJapanese engineers to develop monitoring stations to collect hydrological information essential
for river planning. They produced the first textbook on the surveying and designing of riverfacilities. They also introduced the concept of designing flood volumes as a basis for planningfacilities of flood prevention, such as dykes and channels. Japanese experts have developed
technology based on these concepts and currently use such technology on a large scale.
Johannis de Rijke, a Dutch engineer, came to Japan in 1873 and stayed for 30 years until
1903. He was engaged in flood prevention in major rivers throughout the country, including
Yodogawa River and Joganji River. He emphasized on managing sedimentation in upper stream
and river channels, promoting water transportation, and formulating plans at a river basin
scale.
Other countries have also introduced western river engineering. Mexican engineers
received training from the US Bureau of Reclamation and promoted dam and irrigation projects
in Mexico. China founded training institutes based on European and American models in thelate 19th and early 20th centuries. China received technical advice from Soviet engineers
for constructing dams and river structures in the 1950s. Engineering firms, NGOs, research
institutes, and universities in the Netherlands are delivering technical solutions to developing
countries. Japan has also supported training engineers, mainly in Asian countries, includingIndonesia and the Philippines, under official development assistance.

71Summary of survey result on the innovations for DRR:
products and approaches

Summary of survey result
The online survey related to the 30 Innovations in DRR publication was conducted from December 2018 toJanuary 2019. In total, 228 answers were received. The breakdown of responses were universities (145),
government (30), NGOs (24), the private sector (6), international organizations (16), and others (7). The
question asked participants to select three innovations considered most effective. The top ten innovations
selected were as follows:

Innovations
1. Community-based disaster risk reduction/risk management
2. Hazard mapping
3. GIS and remote sensing
4. Assessments and index approach: Vulnerability assessment, resilience, sustainability
5. Disaster risk insurance
6. National platforms for disaster risk reduction
7. Social networking service/system (SNS)8. Drones
8. Disaster resilient materials
10. Indigenous DRR technology
10. Crowdsourcing

Of the top ten innovations, five were products (GIS

Normally, when innovations are discussed,

and remote sensing, Disaster risk insurance, SNS,they are often considered as products applied

Drones, and Disaster resilient materials), and six wereto advanced technology. However, in this survey,

approaches (CBDRR, Hazard mapping, Assessments

the innovation considered most effective in DRR

and index approach, National platforms, Indigenous

was not a product but an approach, CBDRR. ThisDRR technology, and Crowdsourcing). Theseshows that it is not ideal to rely only on advanced

innovations are considered very effective; however,technology; instead, it is also very important tothe application is not always simple.

devise a key conceptual approach that serves

Several aspects need to be considered, suchas the guiding principles and framework for

as applicability for specific hazard types, budget,

implementing DRR efforts and the application

availability of knowledge and technology, andof technology and innovations in actual practice.

human resources. There are many possibilities

When DRR efforts that combine both products andof collaboration to mobilize funding. Particularly,

approaches are implemented, the most effective

the private sector and academia could be goodand efficient DRR strategies and efforts will bepartners for the practitioners.

created.

75

Appendix

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to everyone who responded to the survey on theinnovations for DRR. Also, we greatly appreciate the input of Ms. Mariko Onodera (IRIDeS, Tohoku
University) and Ms. Sayaka Kobayashi (IRIDeS, Tohoku University). Ms. Onodera dedicated her timeand effort to survey and graphic development. Ms. Kobayashi worked diligently to compile the casestudies and on cover page design. Without their hard work, this publication would not have beenpossible.

78

Project team

Takako Izumi
Associate Professor, International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS),
Tohoku University
She also serves as Program Director of the Multi Hazards Program under the Association of Pacific Lim Universities(APRU), which comprises 50 universities and academic institutes in the Pacific Lim. Her research interests include
international and regional frameworks/strategies for disaster risk reduction (DRR), international humanitarianassistance, and DRR initiatives at the local and community levels. She was appointed as a member of UNISDR’s
Asia Science Technology and Academia Advisory Group (ASTAAG) in May 2015.
Previously she worked for an international NGO in Malaysia and UN agencies such as UN Habitat, UN
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), and UN Office for the Recovery Coordinator for
Ache and Nias (UNORC) to assist the recovery efforts after the Indian Ocean Tsunami. She holds Ph.D. in Global
Environmental Study from Kyoto University, Japan.

Rajib Shaw
Professor, Graduate School of Media and Governance in Keio University

He is also the Senior Fellow of Institute of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Japan, and the Chairpersonof SEEDS Asia and CWS Japan, two Japanese NGOs. Earlier, he was the Executive Director of the Integrated
Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) and was a Professor in Kyoto University. His expertise includes disastergovernance, community-based disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, urban risk management,
and disaster and environmental education. Professor Shaw is the Chair of the United Nations Science Technology
Advisory Group (STAG) for disaster risk reduction; and also the Co-chair of the Asia Science Technology
Academic Advisory Group (ASTAAG). He is also the CLA (Coordinating Lead Author) for Asia chapter of IPCC’s 6th
Assessment Report. He is the editor-in-chief of the Elsevier’s journal “Progress in Disaster Science”, and series
editor of a Springer book series on disaster risk reduction. Prof. Shaw has published more than 45 books and over
300 academic papers and book chapters.

Mikio Ishiwatari
Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Frontier sciences,
The University of Tokyo
He is also Senior Advisor on Disaster Management and Water Resources Management at Japan International
Cooperation Agency. He has been engaged in the projects and research works of DRR, climate change adaptation,
and water. He led formulation of the Japanese assistance policies of climate change adaptation and communitybased disaster management.
He worked at the World Bank as Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist and Senior Water Specialist. He
worked at various positions at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, Japan for 17 years. He formulated
and supervised national projects of flood risk management and highways in Iwami District as Director of Hamada
River and Road Office, and was responsible for research and technology development as Senior Deputy Director forRiver Technology and Information. He worked as Urban Development Specialist at the Asian Development Bank. He
holds a PhD in international studies and MSc in Urban Engineering from the University of Tokyo.

79Project teamRiyanti Djalante
Academic Programme Officer, The United Nations University Institute for the Advances Study of Sustainability (IAS).
She coordinates the Research and Policy Development stream on Global Change and Resilience, which conduct
researches to address climate change, build community resilience, and reduce disaster risks. She is the Lead
Author of IPCC Assessment Report 6 Working Group II, IPCC Special Report on impacts of 1.5 degree warming,and the Global Environmental Outlook 6 of the UN Environment. She is the scientific editor of the Journal of
Sustainability Science and Progress in Disaster Science Journal. Her current appointments include a member of
the Scientific Committee of the IRDR, research fellow of the Earth System Governance Network (ESG), Social
Science Fellow of the International Council for Science (ICS). She is the UNU focal point to the UNISDR.
Previously, she worked as a Research Associate at the UNU Institute of Environment and Human Security inGermany. She also worked for the government in Indonesia accumulatively for ten years.

Takeshi Komino
General Secretary of CWS Japan

Takeshi Komino serves as Secretary General and a member of Executive Committee for Asian Disaster Reduction
and Response Network (ADRRN), and Regional Steering Group member of World Humanitarian Summit (WHS). In
addition, he is co-chairperson of Japan Platform (JPF), joint secretariat of Japan CSO Coalition for DRR (JCC-DRR),
chairperson of Japan Quality and Accountability Network (JQAN). He graduated from Doshisha University, and holds
Development Studies M.A. from Brandeis University.

80