The UK Science, Technology and Engineering Committee for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) was jointly established by The Fellowship of Engineering and The Royal Society, in 1990. Its purpose is to promote the aims of the IDNDR with particular reference to disaster risk reduction within developing countries.In order to provide a forum for people with a wide range of experience in this field to meet and exchange views, the Committee convened a one‐day Workshop, held at The Royal Society in London on 27 March 1992. The following is a shortened version of a position paper (originally drafted by Ian Davis and subsequently approved by the Committee), setting out seven ‘priorities’ for the IDNDR, which formed the basis of discussion at the Workshop.

The work deals with the structural analysis of an historic masonry building, Palazzo del Capitano in Mantua, subject to significant static instabilities due to an overturning of the longitudinal façades, probably related to ground settlements.The exact geometry of the structure is acquired by means of the laser scanning technique and thanks to previous investigations, the main mechanical properties of the materials are reasonably well defined.Based on these information a three-dimensional finite element model of the entire structure is implemented, taking into consideration all the geometrical (contact between not connected panels and large displacement effects) and material (elasto plastic damage behavior of the masonry) nonlinearities, in order to investigate the seismic behavior of the structure by means of nonlinear dynamic analysis.The outcome of the analysis points out that the longitudinal façade, overlooking Piazza Sordello, is poorly constrained both to the floors and to the transverse bracing elements, therefore not able to counteract its deformation when a seismic event occurs.Finally suggestions to reduce the seismic vulnerability of the building are critically assessed by the implemented finite element model.

This paper presents the application of Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) to assessing the vulnerability-resilience of at-risk communities alongside of the river channels on Kelud Volcano, East Java, Indonesia. The proposed method intends to bridge the gaps between the evaluations of resilience and vulnerability particularly since the former exists concomitantly in vulnerable groups in the aftermath of a natural disaster. These gaps emerge because vulnerability and resilience are analyzed separately using single weighting indicators but lacking spatiotemporal identifiers. Historically, Kelud Volcano erupted in 1000, 1586, 1901, 1919, 1951 1966, 1990, and 2014. The eruptions were generally short-lived and at a rapid speed. They produced Pyroclastic Density Currents (PDCs) and ashfalls, followed by dramatic lahars flowing through the river channels (Hidayati et al., 2009; Dibyosaputro et al., 2015; Nakashima et al., 2016). The hazard map of Kelud Volcano is currently available at the Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM), while the macro-scale risk map is accessible at the National Disaster Management Agency. Unfortunately, as yet the vulnerability map has not existed. Nevertheless, vulnerability information is integrated with hazard data as parts of disaster risk assessment and the production of macro-scale risk maps (UNISDR, 2015; UNISDR, 2017; Wilson et al., 2014). Whereas there are abundant scientific inquiries about volcanic hazard assessment, a few are about its vulnerability counterpart (Birkmann & Teichman, 2010; Jenkins et al., 2014; Hizbaron et al., 2015). The SMCE was thereby employed to 1) adjust the ill-structured theoretical foundation of vulnerability by allowing the use of abundant criteria, 2) generate the spatial characteristics of vulnerability along two different channels, i.e. Konto and Ngobo Rivers in Kediri Regency, and 3) combine the spatial and non-spatial data as the inputs of a balanced decision-making process that takes account of various plausible output scenarios. This research expressed vulnerability as the degree of potential damage or loss caused by potential disaster, which was scaled from 0 (no damage) to 1 (total damage). The results indicated that the SMCE delivered vulnerability as a function of social, economic, physical and hazard aspects that surrounded the at-risk communities. There were 34.48% out of the total 29 hamlets. Longside of Konto and Ngobo Rivers classified as highly vulnerable due to their physical aspects. Meanwhile, 54.17% out of the research area was subject to moderate vulnerability due to its social aspects, while 58.62% of it was subject to moderate vulnerability due to its economic aspects. As derived from the results, the social and economic criteria generated rather distinctive spatial characteristics. Reflecting these findings into the theoretical basis, the research expanded to the explorative possibility of vulnerability to be an indication of resilience. Resilience has been measured using various perspectives, including those that rely on the influence of social and economic aspects. Accordingly, this research argued that vulnerability assessment using SMCE, which emphasized on the combination of physical, social, and economic characteristics, might estimate the determinants of the resilience of at-risk community.

DisastersVolume 1, Issue 1 p. 62-65 SOME INITIAL LESSONS FROM GUATEMALA Ian Davis, Ian Davis Department of Architecture, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, U.K. March 6 1976Search for more papers by this author Ian Davis, Ian Davis Department of Architecture, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, U.K. March 6 1976Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1977 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1977.tb00011.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume1, Issue1March 1977Pages 62-65 RelatedInformation

DisastersVolume 1, Issue 1 p. 23-39 EMERGENCY SHELTER Ian Davis, Ian Davis Department of Architecture, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, U.K.Search for more papers by this author Ian Davis, Ian Davis Department of Architecture, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, U.K.Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1977 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1977.tb00006.xCitations: 24AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume1, Issue1March 1977Pages 23-39 RelatedInformation