Can I Get a Second Opinion? – Translating Hazard Understanding to Disaster Response

Abstract:

Policy makers, operational response agencies and scientists are aware that when addressing hazard events decisions must be made in a timely manner with limited environmental information or less than 100% certainty. This presentation will examine how lessons captured from disaster events are mainstreaming the use of global earth observation data and derived products of sufficient reliability and timeliness to provide situational awareness. What is good enough for disaster response is a challenge, especially where the requirements for earth system research and experimentation are not the same as application science and operations. In areas of timeliness and access to data or processing of information to knowledge the economic and policy objectives are not always aligned between research and application. Even when both are addressing substantive science area questions and critical data is available, creating scientifically-informed guidance, forecasts and assessments may take considerable effort to be made accessible and understandable, and even longer to reflect consensus or consistency. Conveying the degree of science certainty and accountability that triggers a threshold for action is always a challenge at the interface of hazard characterization and disaster response. Often decisions and interpretation must be reached when staring down a hazard or potential disaster situation, which makes automation a potential solution. Yet human opinions remain important, social cultural and behavioral context suggest that observational information, maps, models and other derived information is only acted upon when provided by multiple trusted and reliable sources. This presentation will discuss examples drawn from NASA’s research and partnership portfolio in disaster application science and explore strategic approaches to strengthen disaster risk reduction and resilience.