Page 1 of 1

Disaster recovery management

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 1999 10:42 am
by Yaman Barlas
In my earlier posting, I inquired about sd models of earthquake dynamics
(cycles) along a given fault. A few people wrote to me suggesting that sd
may be more effectively used in designing effective after-disaster
recovery systems. I too, believe that there is a good potential for sd in
disaster
ecovery management.
Does anybody know of any completed such projects? Or any on going work?

Thanks and regards

Yaman BArlas
From: Yaman Barlas <ybarlas@boun.edu.tr>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaman Barlas, Ph.D.
Prof. of Industrial Engg
Bogazici University,
80815 Bebek, Istanbul
Turkey. Fax. +90-212-265 1800. Tel. 90-212-263 1540; ext.2073
http://www.ie.boun.edu.tr/faculty/barlas

System Dynamics Society (http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/ )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disaster recovery management

Posted: Wed Sep 08, 1999 6:28 am
by "j-d"
Professor Rob Olshansky at the Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Dept
of Urban and Regional Planning), my alma mater, did a lot of work in this
area (post-earthquake recovery). Not SD, but you may still like to contact
him if interested. It was done for/after the big California earthquakes.

www.urban.uiuc.edu

Regards

Jaideep
From: "j-d" <j-d@technologist.com>

Jaideep Mukherjee, Ph. D.
713 523 2713

Disaster recovery management

Posted: Wed Sep 08, 1999 9:55 am
by "David Gillespie"
Im developing a model of earthquake mitigation (steps taken to prevent
damage before an earthquake) and preparedness (ability to respond
effectively after a quake) for a small town of about 17,000 located near the
New Madrid fault line. The dynamics betweeen mitigation and preparedness are
potentially interesting because the costs and time frames are different. For
example, making structural changes in buildings (mitigation) involves a long
process which requires large amounts of money with no guarantee that there
will be a damaging earthquake. But once made, these modifications have a
fairly long life. In contrast, preparedness activities need to be repeated
frequently. Peoples interest, knowledge, skills, etc. are continually
needing to be refreshed and updated. These differences lead to some trade
offs. Lower levels of preparedness can be accepted with higher levels of
mitigation.

Im interested in learning about models that are being developed for any of
the disaster phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

David Gillespie
davidfg@fidnet.com

Disaster recovery management

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 1999 11:20 am
by Phil Emmi
Earthquake Disaster Management: A Role for Systems Dynamics?

Earthquakes are often an indirect result of mountain-building. When
they occur in unpopulated regions, they are not a problem. Frequently,
however, this is not the case. And there are system dynamic reasons why.
A long-term process of local mountain building often interacts with
a short-term process of local annual weather cycles. Air flows are driven
up against the mountains. The resulting orographic effect produces upland
percipitation. Percipitation provides the water needed to maintain a rich
variety of plant and animal life suffient to attract human populations.
Thus people tend increasingly to live in zones with substantial earthquake
hazards.
Earthquake themselves result from the slow accummulation and sudden
release of seismic energy. This, too, can be represented as a sytem dynamic
process but with little advantage over traditional methods.
Other than this, earthquake disaster preparedness and mitigation is
a spatial organizational problem and is thus well informed by geographic
information analysis. Two articles that use this approach may prove
helpful. They are:

Philip C. Emmi and Carl A. Horton. 1993. A GIS-based assessment of
earthquake property damage and casualty risk: Salt Lake County, Utah.
Earthquake Spectra, 9:11-35.

Philip C. Emmi and Carl A. Horton. 1993. The benefits of a seismic retrofit
program for commercial unreinforced masonry structures: Salt Lake County,
Utah. Earthquake Spectra, 9: 1-10.

Prof. Philip C. Emmi
University of Utah
Geography Dept - Urban Planning Program
260 S Central Campus Dr Rm 270 OSH
Salt Lake City UT 84112-9155
ph: 801-581-5562
fax: 801-581-8219
home:801-582-0719
email: pcemmi@geog.utah.edu
http://www.geog.utah.edu/geography/faculty/emmi.html