1. TOWARDS COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR A “KNOCK OUT DISASTER”
More lectures at Disasters Supercourse - 
Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA 

2. CREATING A COMMON AGENDA

3. EVERY TIME ANOTHER DISASTER OCCURS, WE’RE ARE WRITING THE NEXT CHAPTER IN THE “GLOBAL BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE” ON DISASTER RESILIENCE

4. KNOWLEDGE - Perspectives
BOOK OF
KNOWLEDGE Perspectives
On Science, Policy,
And Change

5. EDUCATION FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
REGIONAL BLUEPRINTS
PACIFIC
EUROPE
ASIA
LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN
SUB-SAHARA AFRICA
MEDITERRANEAN
NORTH AMERICA
TOPICAL BLUEPRINTS
BLUEPRINTS FOR LIVING WITH …
BLUEPRINTS FOR BUILDING TO WITHSTAND…
BLUEPRINTS FOR LEARNING FROM…
BLUEPRINTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION...

6. EDUCATION FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
KNOWLEDGE
MUNICH RE ANNUAL REPORTS, “TOPICS”
PROCEEDINGS OF WCDR, JANUARY 2005
PROCEEDINGS OF INCEED, JULY 2005
PROCEEDINGS OF DAVOS, 2006, 2008, 2012
EDUCATION
INTEGRATED CURRICULA
GENERIC MODELS
MODELS FOR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
MODELS FOR SPECIFIC HAZARDS
TRAINING

7. TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE
GOAL: TO FIND THE COMMON AGENDA
(CA) OF TECHNICAL
AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS CA

8. TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE
FACT: THE COMMON AGENDA IS BASED
ON EACH COMMUNITY’S STAPLE FACTORS
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
STAPLE FACTORS P T S O CA

9. ELEMENTS OF RISK IN EVERY COMMUNITY
HAZARDS
EXPOSURE
RISK
VULNERABILITY
LOCATION

10. HAZARDS, EXPOSURE, VULNERABILITY AND RISK DIFFER IN EVERY COMMUNITY

11. SO DO THE THE STAPLE FACTORS, WHICH VARY WITH
TIME
PLACE
CIRCUMSTANCES

12. SOCIAL (ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE OF WHAT THEY NEED?)
SOCIAL SYSTEMS
SOCIAL (ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE OF WHAT THEY NEED?)
TECHNICAL (IS THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE BEING APPLIED?)
ADMINISTRATIVE (WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE?)
POLITICAL (ARE PUBLIC POLICIES RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE THREAT?)
COMMUNITY
STAPLE FACTORS
LEGAL (ARE EXISTIN LEGAL MANDATES ENFORCED?)
ECONOMIC (WILLINGNESS AND CAPACITY TO PAY FOR SAFETY?)
GOAL: COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE

13. TOWARDS GLOBAL DISASTER RESILIENCE
GOAL: TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES
IN TECHNICAL
AND POLITICAL THINKING
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS CA

14. DIFFERENCES IN PERSPECTIVES OF POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS
BASED ON “NOT WELL ADVISED,”
SZANTON (1981)

15. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE POLITICAL DECISION IS TO HAVE THE “LEAST REGRETS”
TECHNICAL
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE TECHNICAL DECISION IS TO HAVE THE “BEST SCIENCE”

16. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THE DESIRED OUTCOME IS APPROVAL OF THE DECISIONMAKER’S CONSTITUENTS (ELECTORATE, STOCK HOLDERS)
TECHNICAL
THE DESIRED OUTCOME IS RESPECT OF THE SCIENTIST’S OR ENGINEER’S PEERS

17. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THE TIME HORIZON IS SHORT AND A SOLUTION IS WANTED NOW
TECHNICAL
THE TIME HORIZON IS LONG AND “THE SOLUTION” TAKES A LITTLE MORE TIME

18. POLITICAL VERSUS TECHNICAL
THE MOST VALUED OUTCOME IS A RELIABLE SOLUTION WITH UNCERTAINTIES SUBMERGED
TECHNICAL
THE MOST VALUED OUTCOME IS SCIENTIFIC INSIGHT WITH UNCERTAINTIES EMPHASIZED

19. MYTH VERSUS REALITY MYTH
IN EVERY COMMUNITY, THERE IS A GENERAL PUBLIC, WHICH HAS A COMMON PERCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM
REALITY
IN EVERY COMMUNITY, THERE ARE MANY PUBLICS, WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROBLEM

20. MYTH VERSUS REALITY MYTH
ING A REPORT IS EFFECTIVE IN INFLUENCING THE COMMUNITY’S PUBLICS AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS
REALITY
ING A REPORT IS INEFFECTIVE IN INFLUENCING THE COMMUNITY’S PUBLICS AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS

21. MYTH VERSUS REALITY MYTH
FOR A SCIENTIFIC DECISION, SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS A NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION
REALITY
FOR A POLITICAL DECISION, SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS ONLY ONE OF AT LEAST SIX CONSIDERATIONS

22. DECISIONS FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
INTEGRATE THE STAPLE FACTORS
BALANCE THE COMMUNITY’S STAPLE FACTORS
DETERMINE BENEFIT/COST

23. RESULTS OF A COMMON AGENDA FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE
REDUCTION OF VULNERABILITY
REDUCTION OF UNACCEPTABLE RISK
NO “KNOCK OUT DISASTERS”
POLITICAL ENABLEMENT
ENHANCED TECHNICAL CAPACITY