As a result of their poverty, developing countries are especially vulnerable to natural hazards because they are unable to invest sufficiently in structural and non-structural measures to mitigate the impact of the natural hazards they face. This is why, at the commendable initiative and with the generous support of the Government of Japan, the Working Party on Development Assistance and Environment of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (*) decided in 1991 to develop Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Disaster Mitigation. These Guidelines, it was agreed, would help to increase the awareness among those involved in designing and implementing development co-operation programmes of the threat posed by natural hazards and of the range of measures that may be adopted so as to reduce their impacts on developing countries.
Disasters are "social" happenings and planning to reduce the consequences of such occasions involve actions by a variety of social units. The ultimate success of such efforts depends on the adequacy in understanding that social base.
The focus is on the local community which universally provides the materials and human resources in developing an emergency response. Several inadequate planning models are examined. Particular attention is given to the military model which views emergencies as conditions of chaos which can be rectified by command and control. A more adequate model is presented, based on conditions of continuity, coordination and cooperation. This problem-solving model provides a more adequate set of assumptions as the basis for planning, since it considers social units as resources rather than problems.
Investigations of recent major accidents invariably have pointed to the role of human error and it is often stated that 80-90 % of all accidents are caused by human error. The concept of human error is, however, very elusive. Careful analyses of such accidents tend to show that they are not caused by a stochastic coincidence of faults and human errors, but by a systemic erosion of the defenses due to decision making under competitive pressure in a dynamic environment. The presentation will discuss the nature of human error and the risk management problems found in a dynamic, competitive society facing a fast pace of technological change.
The topic of risk perception is discussed in relation to data obtained from Japanese students, who appear to have a highly vigilant approach to life's dangers and to welcome warnings, but at the same time have a somewhat fatalistic attitude to their own lives. After an overview of conceptual issues regarding stress and disasters including earthquakes, examples of human responses to massive stress are presented in the cases of an Underground railway fire, an aeroplane hijacking, a ferry boat sinking and a terrorist bomb explosion on a city street. Data are also presented on the coping strategies which people use to attempt to process traumatic events, and therapeutic outcomes from controlled treatment trials.
Fletcher speaks on the mission of FEMA and outlines methods used in the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural disasters. The concept of operations for the Federal Response Plan will be described together with FEMA's support of the emergency management infrastructure throughout the United states, at all levels of government. Partnership relationships between local, State, and Federal government will be discussed in the context of the four key components of Emergency Management; namely, Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery.
The great catastrophic earthquake occurred at 5:46 on January 17, 1995. Over 5,500 people were reported killed, more than 26,000 people were injured, and over 300,000 people were left homeless. Current estimates of losses are about 20 trillion yen. From this earthquake, we learned a lot of lessons for the earthquake engineering, seismology, earthquake disaster countermeasures and disaster preparedness. This report describe the major lessons for the engineering point as follows;
1) The earthquake occurred just beneath of the highly developed urban area.
2) The damages concentrated to the aged structures and the less aseismic capacity structures.
3) Did the myth of aseismic safety in Japan destroyed?