FORTRESS Cascading Effects presentation -ISCRAM 2015
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
2 j'aime•800 vues
Presentation given on the FORTRESS project's work on triggers of cascading effects. ISCRAM Conference 2015.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (17)
Similaire à FORTRESS Cascading Effects presentation -ISCRAM 2015
Similaire à FORTRESS Cascading Effects presentation -ISCRAM 2015 (20)
Plus de Trilateral Research
Plus de Trilateral Research (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
FORTRESS Cascading Effects presentation -ISCRAM 2015
- 1. @FORTRESS_EUhttp://fortress-project.eu Cascading effects in crises: categorisation and analysis of triggers Kim Hagen, Meropi Tzanetakis, Hayley Watson ISCRAM, Kristiansand, 25 May 2015
- 2. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Triggers of cascading effects • Cascading effects: Situations where a disruption of one element, such as infrastructure, causes a sequence of disruptive events, which can cause deleterious impacts far beyond the initial impacts of the crisis (Little, 2010) • FORTRESS project - Identify and understand cascading effects, how they unfold, and what their triggers are.
- 3. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Case studies of cascading disasters • Selection: • Frequency of crises • Cross-border aspect of crises • Presence and severity of cascading effects • Commonly occurring crises in Europe – EMDAT • Large non-European crises • Recent crises
- 4. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu List of case studies • 2005 London attacks, UK • 2000 Enschede fireworks factory explosion, the Netherlands • 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan • 1999 Galtür avalanche disaster, Austria • 2003 Heatwave, France • 2014 MH17 plane crash, Ukraine
- 5. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Approach and methodology • Excel sheet • Triggers of cascading effects • Time- when did what happen • Unfolding of events and actions in crisis management • Unfolding of the crisis itself • Negative effects • Sectors directly affected • Sectors indirectly affected
- 7. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Blue arrow- direct causal relation Yellow arrow- of influence on Green line- subsequent steps but not a causal relation
- 8. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Blue arrow- direct causal relation Yellow arrow- of influence on Green line- subsequent steps but not a causal relation Red line- connects trigger in green column to the cascade it caused
- 11. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Approach and methodology Uniform approach for categorising the triggers of cascading effects • Disruption of • Information relation • Organisation relation • Supply relation • Malfunctioning of legal and regulatory relation • Disturbance relation • Pre-disaster conditions
- 12. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis What are common triggers of cascading effects and what are the implications for emergency management?
- 13. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of • Information relation • Organisation relation • Supply relation 2. Malfunctioning of legal and regulatory relation 3. Disturbance relation 4. Pre-disaster conditions
- 14. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of relations Disruption of information relations: 11 times • Congestion of telecommunication networks
- 15. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Enschede fireworks factory explosion -Increase in call traffic placed constraints on communication between emergency managers and first responders.
- 16. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of relations Disruption of information relations: 11 times • Congestion of telecommunication networks ►Importance of having separate reliable communication systems
- 17. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of relations Disruption of organisational relations: 10 times • Decisions proved to be incorrect • Decisions based on incorrect information • Organisational responsibilities were not agreed upon
- 18. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Heatwave- France -No heatwave response plan was in place -Classification as an ‘emergency situation’ was delayed- it did not fit in the existing format -Poorly coordinated and inadequate response to the event
- 19. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of relations Disruption of organisational relations: 10 times • Decisions based on incorrect information • Decisions proved to be wrong • Organisational responsibilities were not agreed upon ►Triangulation of knowledge provided by those who have a stake in the situation ►Importance of systematic organisation of both resources and people, between and within organisations, pre- and during disaster
- 20. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of relations Disruption of supply relations: 7 times
- 21. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Galtür avalanche -Roads were inaccessible- no transport via roads -Not enough helicopters to bring emergency personnel and evacuate people
- 22. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Analysis 1. Disruption of relations Disruption of supply relations: 7 times • Supply of water ►Importance of access to resources
- 23. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Take home lessons ►Triggers of cascading effects can originate prior or during crisis ►Effective regulations can limit cascading effects ►Pre-crisis mitigation and preparation measures can limit the occurrence of triggers of cascading effects during crises ►Systems and human resources cannot be considered in isolation from each other
- 24. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu THANK YOU If you have any further questions or would like to be kept up-to-date with the project’s findings and events please contact: kim.hagen@trilateralresearch.com meropi.tzanetakis@vicesse.eu FORTRESS has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 607579.
- 25. @FORTRESS_EU http://fortress-project.eu Questions for discussion Paper: PPDR Information Systems – A Current Status Review Report by Dimitrios Kavallieros, George Leventakis, Stefanos Malliaros, Ioannis Daniilidis, Vasileios Grizis (KEMEA) 1. What are limitations of Information Systems being currently in place? 2. Which were the selection criteria for the reported Information Systems in the field of crisis management? questions
Notes de l'éditeur
- We’d like to present some of the work we have carried out for the FORTRESS project. FORTRESS project (is a 3 year project) we aim to Identify and understand cascading effects, how they unfold, and what their triggers are. This information will feed into the development of a modelling platform for cascading and cross-border effects of disasters, and the development of an incident evolution tool/decision support tool that assists decision makers in preparing for and addressing cascading effects in crisis situations. The historical case studies contribute to the empirical basis for the technical development of these tools at a later stage.
- Cascading effects can be defined as situations where a disruption of one element, for example an infrastructure, causes a sequence of disruptive events, which can cause deleterious impacts far beyond the initial impacts of the crisis (Little, 2010).
- We selected 6 case studies according to -the frequency of certain types of crises, -as well as the cross-border aspect of disasters -and the presence and severity of cascading effects. The choice of the crises case studies was informed by an analysis of crises most frequently occurring in Europe between 2003 and 2013, based on data available in Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). Additionally, non-European cascading crises were included And we considered crises that occurred in a relatively recent timeframe (the MH17 plane crash)
- List of the following 6 case studies (note: no need to read out the list as we are pressured for time)
- For each of the case studies we created an Excel sheet, as a means of visually presenting information, with seven columns in which more information on the event was detailed. (note: no need to read out the columns as we are pressured for time)
- In each of these columns we identified what happened in that particular crisis. Based on academic literature, event related literature, evaluation reports & news articles. We listed that in boxes.
- Next, we used arrows and lines to indicate the relations between the boxes. Blue arrow indicatesa Direct causal relation (no need to read out the explanation in italics as we are pressured for time- it’s there to address possible questions) A naturally leads to B – fire in the factory expands (if the fire is not extinguished)- A Yellow arrow is of influence on s-th (no need to read out the explanation in italics as we are pressured for time- it’s there to address possible questions) something either influences how A leads to B, or something influences actions taken.- first horizontal yellow arrow shows that as the firefighters focussed on the factory alone, and not on the areas around the factory, the fire around the factory expanded. If the firefighters would have focused on the areas around the factory as well, the fire might not have expanded the way it did. Hence, their actions influenced the expansion of fire, which was indicated by the blue arrow. Green lines are subsequent steps but not a causal relation (no need to read out the explanation in italics as we are pressured for time- it’s there to address possible questions) things that followed each other up in time. For example: actions in crisis management: they are subsequent, but one step is not the inevitable consequence of another step.
- And we indicated in the green column what caused the event to unfold and cascade the way it did, so basically extracting the triggering factors. And we brought in a red line to link the trigger listed in the box in the green column to the cascade it caused.
- Like this we identified all triggers of cascading effects we could find.
- We did this for all case studies, producing overviews like this.
- After extensive discussions we agreed on a uniform approach for categorising the triggers of cascading effects which I will introduce briefly:: 1) Disruption of -information relation – s-th is not functioning in the production or delivery of information–e.g., phone lines are overloaded and emergency responders cannot communicate with one another 2) organisation relation- refers to malfunctioning or flaws of the organisation of crisis management 3) supply relation – such as the supply of physical resources or manpower such as firemen 4)-legal and regulatory relation- e.g., inspections on fire safety that were not carried out. 5) Disturbance relation- relations between systems or actors that did not exist prior to the crisis but came into being during the crisis and caused cascading effects. E.g., in the case of Fukushima the cooling of the reactors depended on sea water. As this automatic injection of sea water stopped due to the earthquake, firedepartment had to provide water injections. In an everyday situation the cooling of reactors did not depend on firetrucks at all, so this relation between firefighters and fukushima was created due to the disturbance caused by the disaster. 6) Pre disaster conditions- As nuclear power business became less profitable, TEPCO put more emphasis on reducing costs, at the expense of safety. Proper diagrams and instruments were not in place.
- Using these categories we looked into: What are the most common triggers of cascading effects and what are the implications for emergency management?
- These were the most common triggers. Disruption of: -Information relation -Organisation relation -Supply relation Followed by: Disturbance relation and Pre-disaster conditions
- Disruption of information relations was identified 11 times as a trigger of cascading effects One of main triggers identified in this context was the Congestion of telecommunication networks
- … Backup mechanisms such as staelite phones were in place but people had not trained with this equipment.
- This placed a lot of emphasis on the xxx
- A second group of triggers relating to the disruption of relations concerned the disruption of organisational relations. Three prominent triggers in this category are: -Decisions that were taken proved to be incorrect -Decisions taken were based on incorrect information -Organisational responsibilities were not agreed upon
- The heatwave in France presents and example of the latter
- What this hightlighted was The importance of triangulation Stressed the importance of
- -Roads were inaccessible- no transport via roads -Not enough helicopters to bring emergency personnel and evacuate people -Helicopters had to be requested from neighbouring countries and NATO member states
- *Triggers of cascading effects can originate prior or during crisis- illustrates that disasters cannot be viewed in isolation to everyday events. *Effective regulations can limit cascading effects. How effective legislations are depends on their implementation as well as the compliance to such regulations. Compliance is the responsibility of both those being regulated and the regulator. *XXX Think of functioning back-up systems, checks, trainings, separate communication systems * XXX No cascading distaster happens merely because of one or the other. It is almost always a combination of the two.
- (note: If there is time for more questions:) On which level were the information systems reviewed (e.g., European, international?)? Under which criteria were the info systems presented reviewed?