Science For Sendai – Bridging the gap between research and application

Abstract:

Disasters have an enormous cost in lives and livelihoods, but the use of rigorous evidence-based scientific approaches to minimise their impact remains poor. Vast amounts of science which could be readily applied for disaster risk reduction (DRR) is under-utilised, if used at all. Previous international agreements have failed to change this picture, but there is a clear call from the international community that the 2015 Sendai framework should make a difference; it is thus re-appraising how to bridge the chasm that exists between DRR relevant scientists and potential users of their research. There is widespread recognition of the need for risk affected countries and communities to engage in science-based decision-making, but several barriers, such as a lack of infrastructure or necessary skills, institutions, and enforcement of science-based policies require significant attention. There are now incentives for governments to respond: the framework has science embedded throughout and it sets-out national targets against which science uptake can be monitored; similarly, widening access to insurance also demands sound science. Advances such as open-data and models, increasing computational capacity, expanding networks, evolving diverse mobile technologies and the other multiple facets of the big data agenda, also should drive change. So, how does the scientific community need to adapt? Whilst vast amounts of ‘DRR-relevant’ science has been produced, too little of it can be readily used in DRR science. Much remains highly disciplinary and focused on analysis of limited distributions or single processes with a small number of agents; by contrast real-world DRR problems are commonly complex, with multiple drivers and uncertainties. There is a major need for a trans-disciplinary DRR-focused risk research agenda to evolve. Not only do research funders need to develop and resource risk research, but researchers themselves need to identify that focussing on the bigger risk picture is commonly more important than addressing the traditional disciplinary topics that they have commonly engaged.