Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Franco-German Workshop
Urban Resilience and Crisis Management
Perspectives, Barriers, and Innovative Pathways
28-30 September 2016, Lyon, France
2
Table of Contents
1 General Information ....................................................................... 3
1.1 Workshop Dates and Participants …………........................................ 3
1.2 Workshop Rationale and Scope ........................................................... 4
1.2.1 Resilience Concept ............................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Urban Systems ..................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Themes and Principles ......................................................................... 4
2 Workshop Outline .......................................................................... 5
2.1 Intention and Objectives …..………....................................................... 5
2.2 Format and Organization ...................................................................... 5
2.3 Working Group Sessions and Composition .......................................... 7
2.4 Schedule and Agenda ……………….…………..................................... 8
3 Logistics and Travel Information .................................................. 9
3.1 Venue and Room Payment .................................................................. 9
3.2 Lodging and Meals ............................................................................... 9
3.3 Transportation and Directions .............................................................. 10
4 Preparation for the Workshop ……………….……......................... 11
4.1 Recommended Reading ....................................................................... 11
4.2 Online Survey ....................................................................................... 12
5 Appendices ………………............................................................... 13
5.1 Workshop Organizers ........................................................................... 13
5.2 Workshop Assistance ........................................................................... 13
5.3 Supporting Partners .............................................................................. 14
5.4 List of Participants ................................................................................ 15
5.5 At a Glance: Plenary/Working Group Sessions, Summaries …………. 17
3
1 General Information
1.1 Workshop Dates and Participants
The workshop starts on 28 September at 13:30, facilitating an arrival at the same day, and will end on 30 September at 13:00, enabling a timely departure for the participants. The workshop is not an open meeting; attendance is by invitation only. Around 40 selected participants from France and Germany are invited. English will be the official language of the workshop. However, a simultaneous translation from English to French will be available during the plenary sessions.
1.2 Workshop Rationale and Scope
Continuing disasters and crises worldwide remind us that we need to further advance our scien-tific understanding and policy action on mitigation and response, in particular with regard to densely populated urban areas. They are also clear indicators that in a rapidly changing world risk assessments, warning systems, legislation, and technical capacities that focus on hazard processes and security issues without addressing social vulnerability and resilience are incom-plete and insufficient.
1.2.1 Resilience Concept
Recently, the resilience concept has achieved considerable prominence. It is increasingly used with a diverse array of meanings in various scientific disciplines and different professional fields. One common thread among many contexts is the ability of materials, individuals, organizations and entire social-ecological systems, from critical infrastructure to urban communities, to with-stand severe conditions and to absorb shocks. Generally used to designate the capacity to cope with change and uncertainty, ‘resilience’ became the currency in academic and policy discourses and a guiding principle in development planning.
Despite the wide range of application and contexts, resilience is not a universally accepted term, nor does it have a universally accepted definition for single fields such as crisis management, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation or urban planning. Likewise, the view of governments and organizations on resilience is diverse: resilience as a process, a state and a quality, ranging from a global focus on food security and a national view on critical infrastructure to a sectoral view on business continuity and a local approach of operational response.
Indeed, critical views point out that resilience might appear to be somehow ‘equal’ or ‘democratic’ in the sense that it encourages us to think that any person or community can learn how to ‘bounce back’ from crisis, but it simultaneously masks the fact that resources are far from equally shared. By using the resilience concept to prepare for crises, one somehow neglects the changeable underlying conditions causing vulnerability. Is resilience blinding us to such issues by encouraging us to see it in purely positive terms? Can the resilience concept serve as a guiding framework for operational practice in crisis management and urban planning? Without doubt: the transition of resilience from a scientific concept to a policy agenda and an operational scheme provides both challenges and opportunities for science, policy, and practice.
1.2.2 Urban Systems
At present, more than two thirds of the European population lives in urban areas and this share continues to grow. Despite various efforts to enhance security and safety aspects, cities are dis-aster “hot spots” with critical infrastructure and significant drivers of risk: growing exposure to hazards, increasing populations and population density, interlaced infrastructure and energy systems, cascading risks and security aspects, and complexity of governance systems and re-sponsibilities. Hence, there is an urgent need for comprehensive development planning and integrative risk governance. In addition, the administrative boundaries of cities no longer reflect the reality of urban development and larger, interconnected areas have to be considered. Thus, new forms of flexible governance are needed. In particular, there is a lack of transdisciplinary projects tackling questions of transboundary risks and a need to apply multi-stakeholder project designs.
4
In recent times, governments around the world have developed plans and programs that aim to guide cities towards achieving resilience. In 2010, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR) launched the ‘Making Cities Resilient’ campaign – ‘My City is Getting Ready’ – to achieve resilient, sustainable urban communities. This 2010-2015 World Disaster Reduction Campaign addressed issues of local governance and urban risk while drawing upon the sustainable urbanization principles developed in the UN-Habitat World Urban Campaign 2009-2013. At the World Urban Forum 2012, UN-ISDR and UN-HABITAT agreed to strengthen joint efforts to promote disaster resilient cities and set up the City Resilience Profiling Program (CRPP), aiming at developing a comprehensive and integrated urban planning and management approach for measuring and monitoring urban resilience globally. In April 2013, ten partner cities were selected to test the tools and guidelines developed under the CRPP. In addition, cities started to invest in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) commu-nication infrastructure (“smart city” concept). The application of a wide range of electronic and digital technologies to communities and cities as well as the use of ICT to transform urban life and working environments is inevitably connected to the concept of resilience. Consequently, France has elaborated with the support of Cerema a framework for resilience of urban areas and inhabitants for the upcoming United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), to take place in Quito in October 2016.
1.2.3 Themes and Principles
It is timely to address the highly relevant topic of urban resilience in greater detail by a concerted integrative action. The Franco-German expert workshop allows for intensive and stimulating dis-cussions on the following key themes and their connections:
Resilience: urban perspectives and dimensions
Crisis management: interdependencies, cascading effects, and cross-boundary cooperation
Urban development: innovation and key technologies to enhance resilience.
The workshop’s premise is that highlighting prominent challenges by analyzing concrete social contexts and institutional settings can bring some light to the clouded interpretation of resilience and reduce existing gaps between academic works, operational missions, and the possibilities offered by new technologies. Following the first scoping workshop in Lyon, a second workshop in Germany is planned in spring 2017, in which relevant findings will be further explored to identify and outline innovative pathways for strengthening urban resilience.
Both meetings are considered fertile ground for the elaboration of a joint project. For instance, the EU Framework Program for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 (Challenge #7: Secure Societies) offers possibilities for the French-German network to cooperate on European level. Another option is provided by the French National Research Agency (ANR) and the German Fed-eral Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with their coordinated call for proposals on Future Security in Urban Areas to support interdisciplinary research projects that enhance the security of today’s and future cities in France and Germany. This call is based on an agreement between BMBF and ANR to cooperate in the field of civil security research, which is reflected in the German Federal Government’s "Research for Civil Security" framework program and in the current French ANR “Work Program”. The latter explicitly addresses “Risks, management of crises of all types, resilience of systems” (Challenge #9). Moreover, three priority research areas have been identified: “Preventing and anticipating risks and threats” (#39); “An integrated approach to crisis management” (#40); and “Resilience of security systems” (#41). Germany’s framework program addresses "Urban security" (#2.2), among others, and lists "The resilient city" and "Security of infrastructures and the economy" as focal points of support. On day 3 of the workshop, two presentations will provide an overview on priority areas, funding schemes, and past research projects.
The scope and design of the workshop are structured along the following four dimensions of urban resilience:
1. Scales, e.g., temporal, spatial, and administrative scales 2. Governance, e.g., decision-making, stakeholders, hierarchies 3. Response, e.g., anticipation, prevention, intervention 4. Culture, e.g., risk perception, socio-economic structures, coping capacities.
5
2 Workshop Outline
2.1 Intention and Objectives
The organizers’ intension is twofold: firstly, to bring relevant experts from France and Germany together to analyze contextual similarities/differences in crisis management in urban environ-ments, identify barriers and bridges of applying the resilience concept, thus strengthening cross-national collaborative efforts. Secondly, to better connect scientists and decision-makers in policy and practice to integrate multiple perspectives, bridge existing barriers between research, policy and operational practice, and stimulate new technologies and innovative so-lutions. Through an exchange of scientific knowledge and real-world experiences, the workshop specifically aims at:
Exploring systematically the applicability of the resilience concept in urban environments
Analyzing the contextual surroundings of crisis management in France and Germany
Examining strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of current practices
Stimulating French-German collaborative partnerships and joint projects.
A concrete envisioned deliverable is a vision statement, a kind of „Lyon Action Plan for im-proved cross-country Collaboration” (LAPCO).
2.2 Format and Organization
The workshop concept is the systems approach to understanding, seeking innovation as an emergent property of different kinds of knowledge. The overall goal of the meeting is not neces-sarily to reach a consensus on the resilience concept or the mode of crisis management, but rather to identify knowledge gaps, structural shortcomings, and innovative assets, to find new ways in approaching controversial issues, as well as to define priorities for joint future research and collaborative activities.
Prior to the workshop, selected literature and a short online survey (please complete until 15 August) will be provided to the participants to facilitate preparation and discussion. The workshop format follows the Dahlem-concept (see Lupp 2004) to effectively foster innovative thinking based upon multiple expertise and best practices learned. Selected participants are invited to this workshop in order to work in a relaxed, but structured manner. Lectures and formal presentations are kept to a minimum. Instead, concentrated discussion – be it between individual participants or within working groups – is the means by which maximum communication is achieved. Cross-national and cross-sectoral interaction is both stressed and encouraged. Through these intensive interaction the workshop starts where regular meetings usually end: with discussions, the debate of questions and collective thinking.
These aspects are facilitated by working group sessions and plenary discussions. The workshop is structured in 4 working group sessions with a total of 12 working groups (WGs), which are always differently assembled with respect to sectoral and na-tional expertise in order to efficiently use the multiplicity of diverse knowledge (see 2.3).
In addition, the SWOT-framework is used as a guiding concept to help participants develop a full awareness of the factors, pos-itive and negative, that may affect strategic planning and decision-making (see Fig.).
SWOT framework with examples
6
A SWOT-framework is an excellent assessment tool for organizing information, presenting solu-tions, identifying roadblocks and emphasizing opportunities. In a SWOT-analysis, strengths and weaknesses refer to internal factors, which means the resources and experience readily avail-able to you. Examples of areas typically considered include: financial resources (e.g., budget, funding sources, investment opportunities), physical resources (e.g., the organization's facilities and equipment), human resources (e.g., employees, target audiences), and current processes (e.g., department hierarchies, information systems). External forces influence and affect every organization and individual and are connected directly or indirectly to opportunities or threats. External factors typically reference things you or your organization do not control, such as: market trends (e.g., new products and technologies, shifts in audience needs), demographics (e.g., changes in population's age, race, and gender), partner relationships, and political, envi-ronmental, and economic regulations.
Prior to the workshop, participants are invited to use the selected literature made available online (see 4.1) and reflect on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of current thinking and practices with regard to the four dimensions of resilience, i.e., scales, governance, response, and culture. By means of an online-survey (see 4.2), participants are (anonymously) asked to express their views on aspects for improving urban resilience. This feedback will help the organizers to refine the WG sessions.
To date, the workshop is structured in four WG sessions. In WG session I, for the first time an advancement of the SWOT methodology will be applied. Developed in the frame of a new re-search project on „Civil Protection within Societal Change“, the SWOT-analysis will be advanced to a SWAP-analysis (i.e., Status-quo Swap and transformation Assessment through a Participa-tive process) in order to identify pressing needs and required changes in the status quo. The goal of the applied methodology is to capture key changes and transformations within urban planning and crisis management over the past decade. Such changes may be triggered by external pro-cesses, e.g., a specific crisis event, but also by internal processes, e.g., legislative or budgetary changes. In addition, the SWAP focus supports the identification of issues that have not changed, e.g., specific policy strategies or practices. The explicit goal of WG session I is to identify re-quired changes with respect to the four resilience dimensions. Thus, participants are split into four WGs (WG1-4) and, by the end of the session, each WG should present at least two required changes for each of the four resilience dimensions to the plenary. The guiding question of WG session I is: what needs to be changed to improve urban resilience?
In WG session II, participants are split into two groups (WG5-6) to identify options for future collaboration within the broader field of French-German cooperation, may it with regard to urban planning, crisis management or any other domain. The explicit goal of WG session II is to identify at least four feasible activities (per WG) with respect to each of the four resilience dimen-sions. If possible, they should relate to the changes identified in the former session. The guiding question of WG session II is: what are feasible options to foster cross-sectoral and/or cross-national collaboration?
Through the sequence of structured working groups and panel discussions, the participants will develop the content of the vision statement (LAPCO), which will be formulated in WG session III (WG7-10). The vision statement shall contain a summary of the main findings of the SWAP analysis, as well as a brief statement on the identified key challenges, required changes and approaches, and proposals for solution. The vision statement serves as a guiding document for future pathways, which will be further elaborated in the last parallel WG session on Friday. The explicit goal of WG session IV (WG11-12) is to develop a road map that matches short-term and mid-term goals with specific follow-up activities to help meet those goals. The guiding question of WG session IV is: what needs to be done next?
At the end of each working group session, an appointed rapporteur will present the results of the analyses and discussion to the plenary and a synthesis statement will be jointly prepared. By the end of the workshop, through a collective effort, the participants will have identified and assem-bled a pool of the ideas, opinions, and contentious issues raised by the group. Moreover, direc-tions for future research are highlighted, as are problem areas still in need of resolution.
After the workshop, Cerema together with the organizers and the company “HAVEaPLAN” will prepare a high-quality report to document the workshop and disseminate the outcomes and findings.
7
2.3 Working Group Sessions and Composition
All working group sessions are taking place in the room “Valoise-Ecureuil”.
WG Session I: Identifying Changes in Status Quo (SWAP-Analysis)
WG1: Facilitator: F. Benaben, Rapporteur: J. Marrel (number of participants: 8) F. Benaben, F. Gache, P. Jakubowski, J. Marrel, P. Marty, S. Muhle, Y. Rougier, L. Vaillant
WG2: Facilitator: A. Fekete, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 8) A. Fekete, B. Guézo, J. Naumann, R. Nussbaum, E. Premat, E. Propeck-Zimmermann, O. Salvi, A. Voisard
WG3: Facilitator: P. Bubeck, Rapporteur: (number of participants: 8) P. Bubeck, A. Chanal, B. Grün, A. Mangiavillano, M. Maupetit, S. Mey-Richters, J. Norton, J. Weichselgartner
WG4: Facilitator: I. Wienand, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 8) E. Brévière, C. Despres, Y. Lespinat, P. Pigeon, U. Pohl-Meuthen, F. Rival, E. Schweitzer, I. Wienand
WG Session II: Identifying Options for Future Collaboration
WG5: Facilitator: P. Marty, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 16) F. Benaben, A. Chanal, B. Grün, A. Mangiavillano, J. Marrel, P. Marty, M. Maupetit, S. Mey-Richters, S. Muhle, U. Pohl-Meuthen, E. Propeck-Zimmermann, F. Rival, Y. Rougier, E. Schweitzer, L. Vaillant, I. Wienand
WG6: Facilitator: O. Salvi, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 16) E. Brévière, P. Bubeck, C. Despres, A. Fekete, F. Gache, B. Guézo, P. Jakubowski, Y. Lespinat, J. Naumann, J. Norton, R. Nussbaum, P. Pigeon, E. Premat, O. Salvi, A. Voisard, J. Weichselgartner
WG Session III: Formulating Vision Statement (LAPCO)
WG7: Facilitator: P. Pigeon, Rapporteur: E. Propeck-Zimmermann (number of participants: 8) F. Benaben, F. Gache, B. Grün, J. Marrel, P. Marty, S. Muhle, P. Pigeon, E. Propeck-Zimmermann
WG8: Facilitator: J. Norton, Rapporteur: R. Nussbaum (number of participants: 8) B. Guézo, Y. Lespinat, A. Mangiavillano, J. Norton, R. Nussbaum, E. Premat, Y. Rougier, L. Vaillant
WG9: Facilitator: J. Weichselgartner, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 8) P. Bubeck, A. Chanal, C. Despres, A. Fekete, M. Maupetit, O. Salvi, A. Voisard, J. Weichselgartner
WG10: Facilitator: P. Jakubowski, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 7) E. Brévière, P. Jakubowski, S. Mey-Richters, J. Naumann, U. Pohl-Meuthen, F. Rival, E. Schweitzer
WG Session IV: Drafting Future Pathways (Road Map)
WG11: Facilitator: S. Mey-Richters, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 15) F. Benaben, P. Bubeck, A. Chanal, Y. Lespinat, A. Mangiavillano, J. Marrel, S. Mey-Richters, S. Muhle, U. Pohl-Meuthen, F. Rival, Y. Rougier, E. Schweitzer, L. Vaillant, J. Weichselgartner
WG12: Facilitator: A. Voisard, Rapporteur: tbd (number of participants: 15) E. Brévière, A. Fekete, F. Gache, B. Grün, B. Guézo, P. Jakubowski, P. Marty, M. Maupetit, J. Naumann, J. Norton, R. Nussbaum, P. Pigeon, E. Premat, E. Propeck-Zimmermann, O. Salvi, A. Voisard
8
2.4 Schedule and Agenda
1. Day: 28 September 2016, Room “Les Essarts”
13:30 Registration
14:00 Welcome Addresses (H. Joly, C. Quintin, J.-P. Lagrange, S. Mey-Richters)
14:30 Opening Statement and Workshop Introduction (J. Weichselgartner, B. Guézo)
14:45 Introduction of Participants
15:45 Coffee Break
16:15 Introduction of Participants to be continued
17:15 Introductory Talks: Cross-Country Aspects of Resilience and Crisis Management The Atlas of Vulnerability and Resilience Project: Knowledge Management (A. Fekete) The Mont Blanc Tunnel Incident: Resilience Aspects 17 Years After (M. Tesson)
18:00 Discussion
18:30 Closure Day 1
19:00 Dinner at the restaurant of the Valpré Congress Hotel
2. Day: 29 September 2016, Room “Valoise-Ecureuil”
08:45 Welcome and Recap
09:00 Parallel Working Group Session I: Identifying Changes in Status Quo (SWAP-Analysis)
10:15 Plenary Session: Presentations of WG Results and Discussion
10:45 Coffee Break
11:15 Parallel Working Group Session I: to be continued
12:00 Plenary Session: Presentations of WG Results and Discussion
13:00 Lunch Break
14:00 Parallel Working Group Session II: Identifying Options for Future Collaboration
15:15 Plenary Session: Presentations of WG Results and Discussion
15:45 Coffee Break
16:15 Parallel Working Group Session III: Formulating Vision Statement (LAPCO)
17:30 Plenary Session: Presentations of WG Results and Discussion
17:45 Plenary Session: Review of Results
18:00 Closure Day 2
19:00 Transfer to the historic center of Lyon
20:00 Dinner at the restaurant Gourmand de Saint Jean
3. Day: 30 September 2016, Room “Valoise-Ecureuil”
09:00 Welcome and Recap
09:30 Introductory Talks: Programs and Funding Opportunities (S. Muhle, O. Salvi)
10:15 Discussion on Funding and Research Possibilities
10:45 Coffee Break
11:15 Parallel Working Group Session IV: Drafting Future Pathways (Road Map)
12:15 Plenary Session: Summary of Results and Outlook
13:00 Closing Statements (C. Cure)
Departure of Participants
9
3 Logistics and Travel Information
3.1 Venue and Room Payment
The workshop will be held at the Congress Hotel Valpré in Lyon, located north of Lyon city center. The distance to Part-Dieu railway station is about 14°km and to Lyon airport about 33°km. The hotel provides 120 modern and comfortable rooms. A breakfast buffet – included in the room rent – is served at the restaurant between 7:00 and 8:45. Valpré offers free WiFi Internet access and a free private parking with 150 parking places (closed at night). Take a virtual tour of the workshop venue.
The workshop organizers have negotiated discounted room rates of €°101,10 (single room) and €°122,20 (double room) per night including breakfast, VAT and local taxes. Participants are asked to make their room reservation via the Congress Hotel Valpre by 10 July 2016; afterwards, the discounted room rates may not apply. To reserve a room, please contact
Mrs. Manuella Boucourt Congress Hotel Valpré Lyon 1 chemin de Chalin, 69131 Ecully Cedex Tel.: +33(0)4 72 18 06 99 E-Mail: [email protected]
Be sure to make your payment by 10 July 2016, mentioning the booking code “resilience” to:
Bank: CIC CHAMPAGNE AU MONT D'OR Account Owner: ASS DE VALPRE IBAN: FR7610096180030004038900423 BIC: CMCIFRPP
The workshop is taking place in the Valpre Congress Hotel Lyon.
A breakfast buffet is included in the room rent.
Participants can enjoy excellent facilities and a nice atmosphere.
3.2 Lodging and Meals
For workshop participants, all meals are covered by the organizers. These includes refreshment breaks, lunch on 28th, and the dinners on 28th (at Valpre) and 29th (at the restaurant Gourmand de Saint Jean). In case of early arrival or late departure, there is the possibility to have lunch at the hotel Valpre at one’s own expense. Note that lunch and dinners for accompanying persons need to be arranged separately. Please, contact Emilie Brévière by 1 September 2016 (see 5.2).
10
3.3 Transportation and Directions
Plane: After arrival at Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport, it is recommended to take the Rhônexpress, an express tram line which links the airport with the Part-Dieu railway station located downtown. It takes 29 minutes and a return ticket is €°25,90. After arrival, just follow the signs at the airport and walk towards TGV/Rhônexpress. Tickets can be bought (cheaper) online prior to your arrival or at the vending machine located at the TGV train station near the airport. After your arrival at the Part-Dieu railway station (final stop of the Rhônexpress), take a taxi or use the public trans-portation as described below.
Train: After arrival at Part-Dieu railway station (Gare de la Part-Dieu), exit at porte Rhone to take the metro (line B) or take a taxi (exit at porte Alpes) and follow the instructions provided below.
Public transportation in Lyon center
Public transport: From the Part-Dieu railway station, exit at porte Rhone and take metro line°B (towards Gerland) to Saxe-Gambetta. There, change to line D (towards Gare de Vaise) and get off at Gorge de Loup. Leave the metro station at exit rue Sgt. Berthet, turn right and walk up the stairs. Pass the cross-walk (rue de la Pépinière Royale) and take the first bus stop on the left side (bus°19). Take bus°19 (towards Ecully le Pérollier) and get off at Valpré (duration 15°min.). Go downhill towards the roundabout and turn into Chemin de Chalin. As indicated, the Valpré con-gress center is on the right side. In case you arrive at the Perrache railway station, take line°A (towards Vaulx-en-Velin) and switch at Bellecour to line°D (towards Gare de Vaise) and stop at Gorge de Loup. There, take bus°19 and follow as described before. A single ticket is €°1,80 and valid for one hour. Information on the public transportation can be found at the TCL website.
Taxi: The fastest way to the Valpré congress center is by taxi. Several taxi services are available at Part-Dieu railway station (exit at porte Alpes), e.g., Taxi Lyonnais (Tel. +33-4-78268181). The estimated taxi fare is around €°20-25.
Car: If you arrive from direction Paris/Dijon, take the A6 exit Ecully-n°35. At the roundabout, take the exit towards Ecully-center, and after 500m, at the traffic light, just after passing la Maison de la Rencontre, turn left, take Chemin Louis Chirpaz (gas station at the corner) to Chalin; pass over the highway and at the roundabout take Chemin de Chalin. If you arrive from direction Mar-seilles/St. Etienne (Tunnel de Fourvière), take the A6 exit Ecully. Turn right to Champagne and, at the restaurant Courte Paille, turn right again to rue du Stade towards Espace Ecully. Pass two roundabouts and at the traffic light turn right to Chemin de la Sauvegarde. Continue and, at the roundabout, turn left to Chemin de Chalin.
11
4 Preparation for the Workshop
4.1 Recommended Reading
Most of the literature is available at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hlycioo17twvjr7/AAAipT5fQRcC6nHl91DQtZgha?dl=0
Aldunce P., Beilin R., Handmer J. & Howden M. (2016): Stakeholder participation in building resilience to disasters in a changing climate. Environmental Hazards 15 (1): 58-73.
Alexander D.E. (2013): Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13 (11): 2707-2716.
ANR/BMBF (2016): Franco-German Coordinated Call for Proposals on Future Security in Urban Areas. 14 January 2016.
Béné C., Al-Hassan R.M, Amarasinghe O., Fong P., Ocran J., Onumah E., Ratuniata R., Van Tuyen T., McGregor J.A. & Mills D.J. (2016): Is resilience socially constructed? Empirical evi-dence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Global Environmental Change (38): 153-170.
Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (2015): Smart Cities International: Strategien, Strukturen und Pilotvorhaben. Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR) im Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR), Bonn.
Cerema (2015): Villes et territoires résilients. Études et documents No. 123. Commissariat Gé-néral au Développement Durable, Paris.
Davies T. (2015): Developing resilience to naturally triggered disasters. Environment Systems and Decisions 35 (2): 237-251.
Duit A., Galaz V., Eckerberg K. & Ebbesson J. (2010): Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Environmental Change 20 (3): 363-368.
Eisinger A. (2013): Und nun auch noch Resilienz: Einige skeptische Gedanken zu einer modi-schen Denkfigur aus stadthistorischer Sicht. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (4) 309-313.
Endress M. (2015): The social constructedness of resilience. Social Sciences 4 (3): 533-545.
Fekete A., Hufschmidt G. & Kruse S. (2014): Benefits and challenges of resilience and vulnera-bility for disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 5 (1): 3-20.
Gillard R. (2016): Questioning the diffusion of resilience discourses in pursuit of transformational change. Global Environmental Politics 16 (1): 13-20.
Gross B. & Weichselgartner J. (2015): Modernes Risikomanagement: Zwischen Robustheit und Resilienz. BBK Bevölkerungsschutz (1): 12-17.
Guézo B. & Pigeon P. (2014): Les défis liés à la prévention des désastres dans les aires métro-politaines: exemple de Givors dans l’aire métropolitaine lyonnaise (France). VertigO (3), DOI: 10.4000/vertigo.15842.
Jakubowski P. (2013): Resilienz – eine zusätzliche Denkfigur für gute Stadtentwicklung. Informa-tionen zur Raumentwicklung (4): 371-378.
Jung K. & Song M. (2015): Linking emergency management networks to disaster resilience: Bonding and bridging strategy in hierarchical or horizontal collaboration networks. Quality & Quantity 49 (4): 1465-1483.
Kelman I., Gaillard J.C., Lewis J. & Mercer J. (2016): Learning from the history of disaster vulnera-bility and resilience research and practice for climate change. Natural Hazards (82): 129-143.
Leichenko R., McDermott M. & Bezborodko E. (2015): Barriers, limits and limitations to resilience. Journal of Extreme Events 2 (1), DOI: 10.1142/S2345737615500025.
Le Feuvre M., Medway D., Warnaby G., Ward K. & Goatman A. (2016): Understanding stake-holder interactions in urban partnerships. Cities (52): 55-63.
Lupp J. (2004): Dahlem Workshops. In: Schellnhuber H.J., Crutzen P.J., Clark W.C. & Claussen M. (eds.): Earth System Analysis for Sustainability. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. xii-x.
Manyena S.B., O’Brien G., O’Keefe P. & Rose J. (2011): Disaster resilience: A bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment 16 (5): 417-424.
12
McDaniels T.L., Chang S.E., Hawkins D., Chew G. & Longstaff H. (2015): Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts. Environment Systems and Decisions 35 (2): 252-263.
Meerow S., Newell J.P. & Stults M. (2016): Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning (147): 38-49.
O'Hare P. & White I. (2013): Deconstructing resilience: Lessons from planning practice. Planning, Practice & Research 28 (3): 275-279.
Pigeon P. (2012): Paradoxes de l'urbanisation: Pourquoi les catastrophes n'empêchent-elles pas l'urbanisation? Paris, L'Harmattan, 278 p.
Pugh J. (2014): Resilience, complexity and post-liberalism. Area 46 (3): 313-319.
The Kresge Foundation (2015): Bounce forward: Urban resilience in the era of climate change. Island Press.
Weichselgartner J. & Kelman I. (2015): Geographies of resilience: challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography 39 (3): 249-267.
Weichselgartner J. & Pigeon P. (2015): The role of knowledge in disaster risk reduction. Inter-national Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6 (2): 107-116.
White I. & O’Hare P. (2014): From rhetoric to reality: Which resilience, why resilience, and whose resilience in spatial planning? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (5): 934-950.
Yu D.J., Shin H.C., Pérez I., Anderies J.M. & Janssen M.A. (2016): Learning for resilience-based management: Generating hypotheses from a behavioral study. Global Environmental Change (37): 69-78.
4.2 Online Survey
We would like to ask participants to complete a brief online survey until 15 August 2016. Your answers will provide valuable information for preparing the workshop. Thank you for your support. Go to survey: http://goo.gl/forms/azSsy7yN4g
13
5 Appendices
5.1 Workshop Organizers
Juergen Weichselgartner, PhD: Studied geography, political science, ethnology in Hei-delberg, Malta, Santander and Bonn; 1999-01 University of Cantabria; 2002-04 Inter-national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; 2004-06 University of Tokyo; 2006-07 Harvard University, 2007-12 Helmholtz-Center Geesthacht; 2013-14 Politecnico di Milano; 2014-15 University of Munich; since 2015 Collegium de Lyon; Awardee of 9 individual fellowships, 4 academic prizes, and several grants; Secretary IGU Commis-sion “Hazards and Risks”, reviewer for the IPCC, ESF, among others. Working areas: global change, risk management, societal transformation, knowledge systems.
Université de Lyon, Collegium de Lyon, 92 rue Pasteur, 69361 Lyon, France Phone: +33 – (0) 6 14 11 67 62 / E-Mail: [email protected]
Bernard Guézo, PhD: Centre for Studies and Expertise on Risks, Environment, Mobil-ity, and Planning (Cerema), Urban vulnerability, Risks and Water, Head of Group; Steering activities on risks, vulnerability, resilience, crisis management; Training for local authorities and executives; Methodological work at national and international level on urban resilience, systemic vulnerability, natural hazards, industrial risks, e.g., 2004-06 Security and Trust in Cities Project, 2008 Proactive Crisis Management of Urban Infrastructure; 2009-11 Earthquake Prevention in French Antilles; 2013-15 Resilient Cities. Working areas: natural hazards, vulnerability, urban risks.
Cerema, 2 rue Antoine Charial, 69426 Lyon, France Phone: +33 – (0) 4 72 74 58 51 / E-Mail: [email protected]
Alexander Fekete, PhD: Studied geography, geology, archaeology in Würzburg; 2002-05 German Aerospace Centre and University of Würzburg; 2005-09 United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security; 2009-12 German Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, Bonn; since 2012 Professor of Risk and Crisis Management at the Cologne University of Applied Sciences; Consultant to WHO, GTZ, DKKV; reviewer for the EC, BMBF, among others; speaker of Working Group Natural Hazards / Natural Risks, German Association of Geographers. Working areas: critical infrastructures, risk and crisis management, civil protection strategies.
TH Köln - University of Applied Sciences, Betzdorfer Straße 2, 50679 Köln, Germany Phone: +49 – (0) 221 82 75 26 04 / E-Mail: [email protected]
Wolfram Geier, PhD: Studied political science, sociology, philosophy, and psychology in Marburg; worked in several rescue service organizations; 1999-01 Disaster Research Unit, Kiel University; since 2002 different leading positions in the German federal administration, e.g., Academy for Crisis Management, Emergency Planning and Civil Pro-tection; since 2007 Director of the Department for Risk Management and Inter-national Affairs, Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance; since 2006 lecturer for Risk and Crisis Communication at Bonn University; Working areas: risk and crisis management, critical infrastructure.
Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, Provinzialstr. 95, 53127 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 – (0) 228 99 550 3000 / E-Mail: [email protected]
5.2 Workshop Assistance
Logistical arrangements and on-site support (English, French, German) is provided by
Dr. Emilie Brévière, Tel.: +33(0)6 63 01 39 47 / E-Mail: [email protected]
14
The workshop documentation is supported by
Camille Di Rocco ([email protected]) and Matthieu Dubuis ([email protected]) from “HAVEaPLAN”, 7 rue Robert et Reynier, 69190 Saint-Fons
5.3 Supporting Partners (in alphabetical order)
The organizers received core funding from the French LabEx (Laboratoire d'Excellence) program; matching funds are provided by the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy/Defense, Security and Economic Intelligence Service, French Ministry of Housing and Territorial Equality, Cerema, German Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, and Cologne University of Applied Sciences.
Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK)
Centre d'études et d'expertise sur les risques, l'environnement, la mobilité et l'aménagement (Cerema)
EC-FP7 Marie Curie Actions
École internationale des sciences du traitement de l'information (EISTI)
EURIAS Fellowship Programme
Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie - Service de défense, de sécurité et d’intelligence économique (MEDDE/SDSIE) Ministère du logement, de l’égalité des territoires et de la ruralité (MLET)
Réseau français des instituts d’études avancées (RFIEA)
Technische Hochschule Köln, Institut für Rettungsingenieurwesen und Gefahrenabwehr (IRG)
Université de Lyon, Collegium de Lyon
15
5.4 List of Participants (in alphabetical order)
No Surname, Name E-Mail
Affiliation a Field of Expertise b
Societal Sector c
Proposed WG d
CM RE UP #
1 Beerlage, Irmtraud
Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences, Department of Social Work, Health and Media
● ● SC 3, 5, 9, 12
2 Bénaben, Frédérick
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines d'Albi-Carmaux, Industrial Engineering Center
● ● SC 1, 5, 7, 11
3 Brévière, Emilie
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel
SC 4, 6, 10, 12
4 Bubeck, Philip
University of Potsdam, Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences
● ● SC 3, 6, 9, 11
5 Chanal, Anne [email protected]
Cerema, Vulnerability and Risk Management ● ● PO 3, 5, 9, 11
6 Despres, Christian
Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, General Secretariat Defense, Security and Economic Intelligence
● PO 4, 6, 9, 12
7 Fekete, Alexander
TH Köln - University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Rescue Engineering and Civil Protection
● ● SC 2, 6, 9, 12
8 Gache, Frédéric
EPTB Seine Grands Lacs, Department Support to Territories
● ● OP 1, 6, 7, 12
9 Gruen, Bjoern
Emschergenossenschaft/Lippeverband, River Basin Management
● ● PR 3, 5, 7, 12
10 Guézo, Bernard
Cerema, Department of Environment and Information Systems
● ● PO 2, 6, 8, 12
11 Jakubowski, Peter
Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, Division I5: Digital Cities, Risk Prevention and Transportation
● PO 1, 6, 10, 12
12 Kantorek, Wolfram
Deutsche Telekom AG ● OP 2, 6, 10, 12
13 Lespinat, Yves
Adjoint Sécurité Défense, Zone de Défense Sud ● PO 4, 6, 8, 11
14 Mangiavillano, Adrien
SAFE Cluster, Innovation Engineering on Security and Safety
● ● OP 3, 5, 8, 11
15 Marrel, Joris
Cerema, European Affairs ● PO 1, 5, 7, 11
16 Marty, Pascal
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, UMR: Environment, City, Society
● SC 1, 5, 7, 12
17 Maupetit, Mathieu
Cerema, Direction Territoriale Normandie Centre ● PO 3, 5, 9, 12
18 Mey-Richters, Stefanie
Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, Department for Risk Management and International Affairs
● PO 3, 5, 10, 11
19 Muhle, Steffen
VDI Technologiezentrum, Project Agency and National Contact Point Security Research (BMBF)
PO 1, 5, 7, 11
20 Naumann, Jens
Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, Department for Risk Management and International Affairs
● PO 2, 6, 10, 12
16
21 Norton, John
Development Workshop France ● ● OP 3, 6, 8, 12
22 Nussbaum, Roland
Mission Risques Naturels, France ● PO 2, 6, 8, 12
23 Pigeon, Patrick
Savoie-Mont-Blanc University, Department of Geography
● ● SC 4, 6, 7, 12
24 Pohl-Meuthen, Ulrike
TH Köln - University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Rescue Engineering and Civil Protection
● SC 4, 5, 10, 11
25 Premat, Eric
Centre d'Etudes des Tunnels (CETU) ● PO 2, 6, 8, 12
26 Propeck-Zimmermann, Eliane
University of Strasbourg, Laboratoire Image, Ville et Environnement
● ● SC 2, 5, 7, 12
27 Rival, Fabien
Cerema, Department of Environment and Information Systems
● ● PO 4, 5, 10, 11
28 Rougier, Yves
Cerema, Center of Transport Systems and Mobility ● PO 1, 5, 8, 11
29 Salvi, Olivier
Ineris Developpement SAS ● OP 2, 6, 9, 12
30 Schweitzer, Eva
Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, Division I5: Digital Cities, Risk Prevention and Transportation
● PO 4, 5, 10, 11
31 Vaillant, Ludovic
Cerema, Department of Transport and Mobility ● PO 1, 5, 8, 11
32 Voisard, Agnès
Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems and Free University of Berlin, Institute of Computer Science
● SC 2, 6, 9, 12
33 Weichselgartner, Juergen
University of Lyon, Collegium de Lyon ● ● SC 3, 6, 9, 11
34 Wienand, Ina [email protected]
Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, Department for Risk Management and International Affairs
● PO 4, 5
a Country: Blue = France (FR) Red = Germany (GE) b Field of Expertise: CM = Crisis Management RE = Resilience UP = Urban Planning c Sector: SC = Science PO = Policy OP = Operational Practice d Working Group: Participation in working group (might be adjusted)
Guests and Support
Tesson, Marc
marc.tesson@developpement-
durable.gouv.fr
Centre for Tunnel Studies
Di Rocco, Camille
HAVEaPLAN, Saint-Fons
Dubuis, Matthieu
HAVEaPLAN, Saint-Fons
Ripert, Rémy
Aix Marseille Université, Quality, Industrial Logistics and Organization
17
5.5 At a Glance: Plenary Sessions, Working Group Sessions, Summaries
Day Wednesday 28.09. Thursday 29.09. Friday 30.09.
Time/ Room
Les Essarts Valoise-Ecureuil Valoise-Ecureuil
09:00 - 10:15
WG1-4 SWAP-Analysis
Plenary 10:15 - 10:45
Plenary
10:45 - 11:15
Coffee Break
11:15 - 12:15
WG1-4 SWAP-Analysis
WG11-12 Road Map
12:15 - 13:00
Plenary Plenary
13:00 - 14:00
Lunch Break Closure
14:00 - 15:15
Plenary
WG5-6 Collaboration
15:15 - 15:45
Plenary
15:45 - 16:15
Coffee Break
16:15 - 17:30
Plenary
WG7-10 Vision Statement
17:30 - 18:30
Plenary
18:30 Closure
French Summary: Du 28 au 30 septembre 2016 aura lieu à Lyon un atelier franco-allemand sur le thème de «La résilience urbaine et la gestion de crise°: Perspectives, obstacles et moyens novateurs». La participation n’est possible que sur invitation par les organisateurs. L’atelier sera articulé autour de trois thèmes fondamentaux ainsi que leur interdépendances: 1) la résilience: perspectives et dimensions urbaines, 2) la gestion de crise: interdépendances, effets en cascade et coopération transnationale, et 3) le développement urbain: technologies d’innovation et évolu-tions fondamentales. L'objectif de l'atelier est de mettre en évidence les différents aspects de la résilience urbaine, d’établir quelles sont les questions pertinentes et de proposer des solutions innovantes en termes de sécurité et de gestion des crises dans les espaces urbanisés. En outre, un réseau franco-allemand d'experts sera ainsi mis en place, ce qui – sur la base d'un second atelier en Allemagne – permettra de créer des activités conjointes et des projets de recherche.
German Summary: Vom 28. bis 30. September 2016 findet in Lyon ein Französisch-Deutscher Workshop zum Thema “Urbane Resilienz und Krisenmanagement: Perspektiven, Hindernisse und innovative Wege“ statt. Eine Teilnahme ist nur auf Einladung durch die Veranstalter möglich. Der Fokus des Workshops liegt auf drei Kernthemen sowie ihren Interdependenzen: 1) Resilienz: Urbane Perspektiven und Dimensionen, 2) Krisenmanagement: Interdependenzen, Kaskaden-effekte und länderübergreifende Kooperation, und 3) Stadtentwicklung: Innovation und Kerntech-nologien. Ziel des Workshops ist es, unterschiedliche Aspekte urbaner Resilienz zu beleuchten und diesbezüglich relevante Fragestellungen und innovative Lösungsansätze in Bezug auf Sicherheit und Krisenmanagement in urbanen Räumen herauszuarbeiten. Zudem soll ein Fran-zösisch-Deutsches Expertennetzwerk aufgebaut werden, welches – auf einen zweiten Workshop in Deutschland aufbauend – gemeinsame Aktivitäten und Forschungsanträge generiert.
