This document (Deliverable 1.1) is the first attempt to establish how the concepts that serve BuildERS’ theoretical framework - risk awareness, risk perception, social capital and vulnerability - are connected to the overall work of resilience by providing a coherent and visually intuitive conceptual structure or model that shows their interdependences within the crisis management cycle.
This document (Deliverable 1.2) is the second and final report on how the concepts of BuildERS’ theoretical framework – resilience, risk awareness, social capital and vulnerability - are connected to the overall work of resilience building of European communities against natural and man-made crises and disasters.
This report (Deliverable 1.4) aims to improve the understanding of how communication related issues and actions may affect vulnerability and resilience – the ability and capacity to respond to and recover from crises. We analyse the information behaviour and particularly social media use among European populations, paying particular attention to vulnerable populations, and explore trust in media sources and proneness to be affected by misinformation.
In this article (Deliverable 1.6), we promote the application of the intersectionality perspective in the study of vulnerable groups, and we call for intersectionality as a guiding principle in risk and crisis management, to provide a better and more nuanced picture of vulnerabilities and vulnerable groups.
This report (Deliverable 2.4) assesses the institutional functioning (organisations, processes, resources, tools/assets, guidelines) for resilience management in sample countries and clarify the determinants of effective disasterresilient systems as well as describes the practices of government social media campaigns and how they are received and spread by audience and provide good practices and recommendations on effective responses in cases where disinformation interferes with official messages.
This report (Deliverable D2.5) looks at how vulnerability has been defined in the crisis management systems of eight European countries: Germnay, Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia. We first review how the concept of vulnerability is presented and defined in institutional systems of different European countries with varying historical and socio-economic backgrounds. Secondly, we identify the distinct typical waysin which responding to vulnerability has been organised by those systems.
To support BuildERS activities PUC and VTT have established a co-creation and co-design workspace on a Howspace platform (owned by Humap software), which enables users from various professional backgrounds to participate online. This report (Deliverable 6.1) introduces the platform and the way it is used in the BuildERS project.
The main goal of the first research colloquium was to share research results from the first year of the project. The colloquium invitations were sent to BuildERS partners including Advisory Board (AB) members. The other ongoing or just started DRS01 projects RESILOC, ENGAGE and LINKS contact persons were also invited to the colloquium.
The document (Deliverable 8.2) outlines the development of the dissemination materials for the BuildERS project with the aim to incite and encourage the formation of a community that would be interested to know more about social resilience in the wake of natural or manmade disasters.
The BuidERS activity report (Deliverable 9.1) gives an overview of the activities and results achieved during the first project year. The project had a strong start: several deliverables have been submitted to the Participant Portal and all milestones have been met.
This document (Deliverable 1.5) consists of two scientific publications. The first is called, a conceptual framework linking societal resilience, vulnerability, social capital and risk awareness within crisis’ phases and the second, social capital in time of crises: a critical appraisal.
In this report (Deliverable D1.3), we aim to promote vulnerability, and the interchangeably used terms vulnerable groups and segments of vulnerable population, as describing phenomena about an acute condition in a certain situation. The way we use these terms in BuildERS underlines that there are people who have a higher risk to be vulnerable because of structural circumstances and inequalities.
The aim of this report (Deliverable 2.2) is to explore the similarities and differences in interpretations and functioning of the various dimensions of resilience and crisis management across Europe.
The study (Deliverable 3.1) presents results that prove empirical and geo-spatial substance for the pan-European survey which will explore how the recent natural and man-made hazards affected life conditions of severely vulnerable segments of EU population. This mandate is directly connected to the BuidERS project’s overall objective which seeks to increase social security and safety for the most disadvantaged social groups by creating new knowledge informing social policy makers how to strengthen social capital and resilience towards hazards of all EU communities exposed to climate change but foremost those who are most susceptible to these perils .
This report (Deliverable 6.2) documents the overall “theory” and the main principles and practical steps of co-creation approach implemented in BuildERS project. The first part (Chapters 1-3) will introduce, what co-creation means here, and the main challenges and lessons learned so far. Second part presents the activities and end-results.
This report (Deliverable 4.1) outlines the methods, materials, and results of BuildERS project task T4.1 Finnish Case Study “Dangerous Chemical Explosion in a City Centre, Finland”. The case study in Finland emphasises on people with different types of difficulties in terms of communication and interaction: people with mental health conditions, neuropsychiatric disorders, and/or intellectual disabilities.
The report (Deliverable 4.4) introduces the possibilities for combining data from various national registries and existing survey data (and other) to identify vulnerable people with the help of the elaborated vulnerability assessment tool.
This report (Deliverable 4.5) presents the German case study “Lessons learned from Flooding Disasters during 2002, 2006 and 2013 with special focus on underprivileged groups in urban (Dresden) and non-urban environments (in the State of Saxony)”.In this case study, the German Red Cross together with University of Tübingen focus on social innovation by exploring what needs to be considered to make disaster management and technologies appropriate to serve all members of societies.
This report (Deliverable 6.3) presents the results of a series of tabletop exercises and workshops on risk and crisis communication discussing the information disorder, which refers to the prevalence and spread of different types of false and harmful information: mis-, dis- and malinformation.
This document (Deliverable 6.8) provides the results of the BuildERS second online colloquium taken place on 14th December 2020.
The document (Deliverable 8.3) outlines various new dissemination materials for the BuildERS project to motivate and encourage the formation of a community interested in the BuildERS’ project results.
This report (Deliverable 4.3) demonstrates the possibilities of mobile positioning data (MPD) usage in the crisis management area
This report (Deliverable 4.7) aims for product innovation for more precise rescue planning and emergency management in Indonesia. The University of Indonesia together with Positium demonstrate a product innovation of how mobile operators’ data can be used to locate, protect and evacuate tourists and other vulnerable groups in disasters.
The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information – unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on – all around the world.
In this article, the authors put forward a heuristic framework for explaining how communication-related factors may adversely affect people's capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters.
This article promotes the application of the intersectionality perspective in the study of vulnerable groups, and we call for intersectionality as a guiding principle in risk and crisis management, to provide a better and more nuanced picture of vulnerabilities and vulnerable groups.
Several models have been developed to facilitate decision-making in disaster management, especially in relation to emergency resource allocations. This paper presents a decision-making model that helps search and rescue teams determine the number of personnel to deploy.
A new comparative study maps false information tackling practices in European emergency management systems. The study, carried out simultaneously in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Hungary, Norway, Finland, and Estonia, revealed that approaches vary from instituted central management of identifying and tackling false information to prioritizing the spreading of accurate information. The diffusion of false information is strongly affected by the lack of timely and verifiable information from governments. In several countries, the emergence of false information is often associated with malicious foreign influence activities. According to the studied real-life crisis experiences, the primary and most efficient countermeasure to false information is enhancing crisis managers ability to provide accurate information without delay. Understanding how emergency managers handle false information will help future decision-makers at multiple governance levels to alleviate the detrimental impact of false information in emergency management.
While social vulnerability in the face of crises like the pandemic has received increasing attention, little is known about how vulnerability is addressed in practice by institutions involved in disaster management. Our recent study charts the practitioners’ approaches to disaster vulnerability in eight European countries: Germany, Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Estonia.
We found only a few countries and limited areas (e.g. climate extremes), where more systematic vulnerability assessment and response procedures are foreseen. We suggest that for an improved response, greater conceptual clarity needs to be established on who is considered vulnerable, due to what reasons, and who should do what to alleviate vulnerability. To stimulate the discussion, we put forward a model for explicating different sources of vulnerability along the dimensions of human agency and technological structures as well as social support through private relations and state actors.