Enabling knowledge for disaster risk reduction in integration to climate change adaptation

Bolzano-Bozen December 2013 Scira Menoni – Politecnico di Milano, Italy

A debate has started regarding the use of knowledge in “risk governance”: how “available” knowledge is used, how it is shared/not shared, applied/not applied, considered/not considered by a variety of actors with responsibilities in prevention, mitigation and adaptation. Including the “civil society”. One of the first milestone the article by Gilbert White et al., 2001: “Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazard management”.

The Know4drr project: the initial proposal

WP6: M

anagement

WP3: Developing a knowledge management framework for DRR . Setting the base of system structuring the knowledge developed within the project.

WP2 Mapping knowledge and information flows through the coordination activity among stakeholders of different social groups

WP1 Knowldege developed, shared, applied and forgotten by: the private and the public sectors, scientists and the “civil society”

WP4: Monitoring the development and implementation of relevant EU policies for DRR (and possibly intervening in the arena)

WP5 Dissemination: how to create links with the world outside the project. Different tools and metods to be used in order to connect with ongoing initiatives

Know4drr is an action aimed at coordinating existing research, yet for us it is important toa chieve a tangible result

Scientifically interesting and useful (in our field is there so much difference between theoretical, applied, new research?)

A basis for future research; identification of key topics and issues that deserve to be put forward (the idea of a knowledge management system framework)

WP1

First outputs have been produced: a deliverable aimed at setting the knoweldge basement and the functional requirements for our own team-work and a deliverable based on different case studies to analyse barriers and potential bridges among different societal groups in knowledge sharing, (co-)production, enactment ….

Decision making process

Implementation

Whose knowledge: Scientists, citizens, decision makers, policy makers….

WP1

You will see those results summarized in posters that are providing an idea of the type of analysis that has been carried out. The excellent proposal to present the results transversally, according to the different perspectives that have been developed regarding the private sector, scientists, the public sector, and the civil society allowed to represent at best the type of work that has been done insofar.

WP1

A small “library” of the project has been created, based on the five readings each partner believes to be the most relevant in the field we are working on (Knowledge on DRR integrated to CCA).

Partner Number Title  of  publication

J.Weichselgartner

1  Cash,  D.W.,  Clark,  W.C.,  Alcock,  F.,  Dickson,  N.M.,  Eckley,  N.,  Guston,  D.H.,  Jäger,  J.  &  Mitchell,  R.B.  (2003):  Knowledge  systems  for  sustainable  development.  PNAS  (100):  8086-­‐8091.

J.Weichselgartner

2Jasanoff,  S.  (2004):  States  of  knowledge:  The  co-­‐production  of  science  and  social  order.  London,  Routledge.

POLIMI 3Ginzburg  C.  Morelli,  Freud  and  Scherlock  Holmes:  Clues  and  Scientific  Method      http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/burt/GinzburgMorelliFreudHolmes.pdf  

POLIMI 4  Davenport  T.H.,  Prusak  L.  2000.  Working  Knowledge:  How  Organizations  Manage  What  they  Know.  http://wang.ist.psu.edu/course/05/IST597/papers/Davenport_know.pdf

J.Weichselgartner

5Hessels,  L.K.  &  van  Lente,  H.  (2008).  Re-­‐thinking  new  knowledge  production:  A  literature  review  and  a  research  agenda.  Research  Policy  (37):  740-­‐760.

CIESAS  and  ADELPHI

6

WHITE,  G.F.,  KATES,  R.W.,  BURTON,  I.  Knowing  better  and  losing  even  more:  the  use  of  knowledge  in  hazard  management.  Global  Environmental  Change  Part  B:  Environmental  Hazards  3  (3–4),  81–92.  2001.

PLUS  and  ADELPHI

7

Weichselgartner,  J.,  and  Kasperson,  R.  (2010):  Barriers  in  the  science-­‐policy-­‐practice  interface:  toward  a  knowledge-­‐action-­‐system  in  global  environmental  change  research.  Global  Environmental  Change,  20,  266-­‐277.

WP1

We have to give the same space to gaps and barriers as to bridges and positive aspects of knowledge enactment. Perhaps we should go much beyond “good” or “best” practices, those are too static, whereas we need practices that are evolving with needs, new legislation, new requirments, emerging problems.

WP2

Mapping knowledge and information flows through the coordination activity among stakeholders of different social groups. This is the current effort we are carrying out. In this workshop we aim at analysing together such knowledge flows, even in the simulation provided by the game, providing an opportunity to “test” knowledge and information flows in a given scenario.

WP1 and WP2

The departure of the project was a definition of Zeleny, according to whom knowledge is such if it can be enacted, if it becomes “visible” through the action of, in our case, preventing in certain ways or reducing the potential impact of natural hazards and their consequences. This implies that knowledge brings to certain decisions which in their turn must be somehow implemented. Coherently, knowledge is put at the intersection of decision making and implementation of risk mitigation measures

Knowedgedevelopedbydifferent scientificcommunities

Knowledgedevelopedby the  private  sector in  differentdomains

Knwledge of the  public  sectordealingwith DRR  and  CC  adaptation Local peoples’  

knowledge regardingDR  and  CC,  adaptation and  mitigation measures

Bridging

among

expertsin  

differentdisciplines(including

CC  and  D

R);  bridging

between

scientistsand  practitioners

Knwledge of the  public  sectorin  complementarydomains

Creating a  program with a  radio   (and  with a  social  media?)  todisseminate  both the  projet results and  to create  an opportunityfor larger participation in  the  implementation of DRR  inditative Coordination activities of the  

project

Knowledge sharing and  maintenance across groups

Knowledge sharing inside  groups

Knowledges that wewish toaddress

WP1 and WP2

Perhaps an effort going throughout the entire project: what do we mean by knowledge, information, data, and ... wisdom. In particular Jennex suggests that while data and information are clearly the bricks of knowledge, you need knowledge to search for the right data and information, to be able to select in the noise the relevant information.

WP5 Dissemination: how to create links with the world outside the project. Different tools and metods to be used in order to connect with ongoing initiatives. We are going to develop an input paper for the GAR 15

WP5 Dissemination: how to create links with the world outside the project. Trying to develop a rich wesite, with several growing links with many others with which actual co-work is programmed or ongoing

http://www.know4drr.polimi.it/

1.  Workshop among “scientists” (+ others): main topic: uncertainty

2. Workshop: network of networks

3. Workshop: vertical and horizontal itegration goverments (+ others)

4. 1 Seminar Greece (crisis)

5. 1 seminar Mexico (international cooperation)

6. 1 Seminar Spain (courts)

WP5 and others…

All events that are part of the coordination activities. Each event is prepared by research work aimed at achieving specific results from the events

WP5 and others…

A way to reach a wider audience: working with TiconUno, to develop videos for a webTV and an important national Italian radio (radio 24)

WP5 and others…

A way to reach a wider audience: working with TiconUno, to develop videos for a webTV and an important national Italian radio (radio 24)

WP3 Developing a knowledge management framework for DRR . Setting the base of system structuring the knowledge developed within the project. It is therefore a meta-object, structuring knowledge on knowledge (regarding DRR and CC mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures)

Structured content Unstructured content Example “Data which can be stored

int tables”. I.e. historical measurements of a specific parameter

“Data which cannot be stored into tables”. I.e. maps, texts, procedures and regulations, etc.

Technology to store data Relational DBMS (Oracle, MS SQL Server, MySQL, …)

- Repository - Indexing technologies - NoSQL DBMS (Alfresco, Box, CouchDB, …)

Technology to extract data SQL queries and languages supporting structured queries

Meta-search engines, SQL-like queries, tagging engines. Support to unstructured queries (Google Search Appliance, Vivisimo, etc.)

Cost of management and extraction of information

If the contents to be recorded are structures, The process of recording is simple. If the contents are unstructured and need to be transformed and reorganized, the process is long and expensive

The process of recording content is simple in any case.

WP3 According to these assumptions, in KNOW-4-DRR we aim to define: -  a selection of the knowledge bases currently available on the Web that can be considered relevant for the project (e.g., PreventionWeb) -  a model for classifying the knowledge offers that overcome the limitation of the keyword-based tagging -  a model for defining the knowledge needs that can be usable for the emergency operators - a matchmaking algorithm able to compare the needs and the offers and to filter the relevant knowledge for a given need.

Knowledge))Base)

(meta0info))

Knowledge)in)the)Web)

classifica9on)

Ins9tu9onal)sites) Social))

Media)

Other)sources)

Knowledge)retrieval)

Retrieve)links)

Knowledge)usage)

Knoweldge)user)

Knoweldge)provider)

Publish))docs)&)tools)

WP3 The living labs of the project: in the DOW, potentially new ones to be included. A living lab is a real life case where project partners can actually interact with several other stakeholders, also with the aim of introducing innovation in the way knowledge is shared, co-produced, used…Originally the living labs have been conceived as occasions to enact knowledge for risk reduction and prevention..however recent events have “forced” some of the partners to be more involved also in post-disaster efforts in an actual cooperation and integration with different stakeholders…

WP3 The living labs of the project: in the DOW, potentially new ones to be included. A living lab is a real life case where project partners can actually interact with several other stakeholders, also with the aim of introducing innovation in the way knowledge is shared, co-produced, used…Originally the living labs have been conceived as occasions to enact knowledge for risk reduction and prevention..however recent events have “forced” some of the partners to be more involved also in post-disaster efforts in an actual cooperation and integration with different stakeholders…

In the future

As we will hear from Patricia Longstaff whom we invited to give an introductive speech to our workshop, managing risks in a way to respond to multiple demands, facing multiple constraints, in a globablizing world, is a sort of “mission impossible”…

In the future

However we are determined to face the challenge and try to develop the knowledge management framework as we have imagined while setting WP3. What form will it take? Could we interact with existing frameworks such as Preventionweb? Is it just a structure of a search engine or is it much more?

Knowledge))Base)

(meta0info))

Knowledge)in)the)Web)

classifica9on)

Ins9tu9onal)sites) Social))

Media)

Other)sources)

Knowledge)retrieval)

Retrieve)links)

Knowledge)usage)

Knoweldge)user)

Knoweldge)provider)

Publish))docs)&)tools)

In the future

One way to answer those questions is to consider real life scenarios: -  Case studies of the project; -  Living labs; -  Interactive workshops providing the opportunity to scientists, decision makers, representatives of the public, and the private sector, of the media ..to share and exchange knowledge and understanding on risks through traditional and less traditional tools, such as games…