Listado de la etiqueta: resilience

,

1247 | | Rural urban peripheries: slow dying or a chance for resurrection? | Tibor Kovács (1)

In the (post-) postmodern era in many parts of the European Union (including Hungary), besides the deindustrialisation and multiple de-economisation of certain regions and settlements, this complex phenomenon can be connected and completed with the demographic transformation and decline of towns (population decline/shrinkage, aging society, selective wandering, ethnical conflicts, poverty, lack of financial resources etc.), which can be characterised by the dilemma of ‘decreasing population – decreasing abilities (?)’, let alone the issue of maintaining, developing and making viable such small towns in the middle and the long run.
Because of the forementioned problems in many places of Europe there are rural places, where small towns (and the other settlements) strive for their survival. Demographic changes and their (urban) consequences are real challenges for these small towns; they face complex social, economic and environmental problems and challenges.
The postmodern period requires the existence and adaptation of different resources compared to the economy of the previous period of Fordism. Nowadays, the conditions for local and regional development do not depend only upon hard infrastructures but on soft infrastructures, among which culture occupies a privileged position. Today, motors of competitiveness and sustainable development are parameters like: quality of life, natural environment, social solidarity, cultural activities and services and the broad participation in them by social groups.
The future-oriented, new strategic way of thinking, urban planning (moreover: designing) and implementation focuses not only on material developments with an engineering aspect but it has a complex socio-philosophic approach as well. “It would consciously plan the potential penetration points of the town taking into account the special qualities, endogenous resources, local intellectual potential and the capital involved in the existing cultural symbols and man-made heritage of the given settlement.”
The town is a symbol: “the town is not a mere collection of dimensions given mostly by measurable parameters, perceptible and extended in time and mostly in space, [but] also a separate entity, not or partly comparable with something else, a closed universe which can be comprehended only by its unique qualities.” That’s why there is no universal cure for the maintenance and development of these towns, nor for stopping demographic shrinkage; resilience (based on symbols, man-made heritage or environmental resources) and local culture can provide good conditions to deal with the urban issues raised.   Presentations are required, in English.

Tibor Kovács (1)
(1) 1

 
ID Abstract:

por
, ,

1219 | 345 | Limitations of measuring resilience through SFDRR – is IDRM the answer? | Ronja Winkhardt-Enz and Benni Thiebes

The climate crisis, extreme weather events, and disasters are becoming increasingly tangible for many people around the world. To address multiple challenges like these, the international community has agreed on different frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR). Adopted in 2015, it plays a central role in the field of disaster risk reduction. The overarching goal of SFDRR is to increase the commitment of society as a whole. This applies to the reduction and prevention of disasters; therefore it focusses on 4 major priorities and 7 global targets. For each target, sets of indicators are used to measure the progress. 2023 marks the point of the Mid Term Review. The goals achieved so far are not in proportion to the time left. The use of indicators, although seemingly straightforward, is not without challenges. Firstly the goals of SFDRR are global, thus, improvements in one country are potentially outweights by shortcomings in another country. Secondly the necessary statistics required for the indicators are in many instances not readily available. Thirdly reflecting on the broad understanding of resilience as a capacity to learn, adapt and transform from disasters, such qualitative improvements are not directly reflected by statistics. There is a need to complement the current indicator set with a more qualitative and holistic approach implemented at the local level, which allows space for learning processes. One approach to solving this is with integrated disaster risk management (IDRM). With this complex and dynamic societal process of all actors involved, effective and efficient measures can be taken in a coordinated manner to prevent disasters and, in case of their occurrence, to avert harm and ensure the well-being of the people at risk under dynamically changing conditions. Current limitations of measuring resilience through SFDRR will be presented to then show opportunities of IDRM to foster and increase the overall resilience.

Ronja Winkhardt-Enz and Benni Thiebes
German Committee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV)

 
ID Abstract: 345

por
,

1219 | | Integrated Disaster Risk Management for a Resilient Future: Geographical linkages of social, spatial, and temporal dimensions | Vicente Sandoval (1); Verena Flörchinger (1); Peter Priesmeier (2)

Not long ago, disasters were mainly seen by people as ‘Acts of God’, as divine punishment to humankind for their evil ways. The first historical shift came with the advent of Enlightenment, rationality, and modern scientific thinking in the eighteenth century. Disasters and risk were seen as ‘Acts of Nature’, and since then, natural extreme events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods were synonymous with disasters. The second and last historical shift is brought forth by social sciences and the idea of disasters as ‘social constructions’. Today, geographers and other scholars have referred to disasters as ‘Acts of Men and Women’ to interpret disasters as results of conflicting socio-economic, political, and cultural processes which, when translated into vulnerability, are ‘triggered’ by a given natural extreme event. This interpretation or approach is the very starting point of this session that deals with the integration of different forms of knowledge, practices, actors, and cultures in the field of disaster risk management, that is, the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses.
As far as we know, the idea of an integrated disaster risk management (IDRM) has been around for at least three decades. Starting from the 1990s, conversations on integration and disaster risk management have intertwined with concepts such as sustainability and climate change. Nevertheless, conceptualising and rendering IDRM in practical cases have been elusive, in part because it has never taken a central place in the development and disaster discourses and in part because ‘integration’ tends to mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
In this session we invite geographers and other researchers who are working at the interface of and from environmental and social sciences to submit their works –empirical or theoretical– on topics related to:

Integration of disaster risk management actors: e.g., civil society, academia and research institutions, public and private sectors, among others.
Physical and human/social research on hazards and risks, with focus on integration of different forms of knowledge and practices
Resilience research at different or multiple scales: from local to global
Studies and cases at different or integrated phases of disaster risk management: response, recovery, reconstruction, prevention, preparedness, and transformation.
Integration on civil protection, rescue engineering, and critical infrastructure

Vicente Sandoval (1); Verena Flörchinger (1); Peter Priesmeier (2)
(1) Disaster Research Unit, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, (2) Institute of Rescue Engineering and Civil Protection, the Cologne University of Applied Sciences (TH-Köln), Germany

 
ID Abstract:

por
,

1185 | | The Valuable Future of Tourism in the European Regions | Csilla Petyko (1); Márton Magyar (2)

Since the modern era, with the advent of mass tourism, Europe has clearly played a dominant role in the development of international tourism. The region is characterised by its diversity in geographical, socio-cultural and economic terms. It is therefore no coincidence that for decades, more than half of international tourists have preferred the region. In many European regions, tourism has been a driving force for development, but the covid epidemic has shaken the whole tourism industry. Overnight, trips were cancelled, guests and visitors were lost, and operators went from a prosperous business to a crisis. The struggle for survival began, but after the initial shock, the reflection also began. Thinking about how to solve the problems encountered in the earlier development phase, about what and how to adapt in order to avoid negative impacts. As the pandemic eased, people were on the move again and Europe had not lost its appeal. There are visible signs that tourism is coming back to life. However, there are many ways to relaunch, to recover, to save value, and it is a very exciting task for researchers today to follow where and what solutions are being found. All this while facing new difficulties for both operators and tourists, brought about by the energy crisis.
How do tourism developers in capital cities and rural municipalities or regions think? What can the diverse providers of culture, creative industries and recreation contribute to the development of tourism in new methods and in new ways?
What are the tourism enterprises in the region, from micro-enterprises to affiliates of large international chains, planning? How are they adapting to change, i.e. how is resilience reflected in their operations? Do the principles of sustainability and corporate social responsibility apply to development concepts? Do tourism service providers apply accessibility criteria and, with it, equal opportunities criteria in terms of hospitality and employment?
Of course, many more questions could be raised in this area. We welcome all researchers and PhD students who are looking for answers to these questions. presentationsthe session needs to be in English

Csilla Petyko (1); Márton Magyar (2)
(1) Budapest Business School, Faculty of Commerce, Hospitality and Tourism, Tourism Department, (2) Eotvos Lorand University, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Institute of Heath Promotion and Sciences

 
ID Abstract:

por