DRH-Asia: Disaster Reduction Hyperbase
(by Google translation. Translation will be reset by reloading.)

ver.7.3 20100107


Template for DRH Database   (ver.7.3)

Disaster Reduction Technology and Knowledge under Implementation Strategies

I. Heading

1. Title


2. Major significance (summary less than 60 words)






3. Keywords



II. Categories (Multiple answers allowed)

4. Focus of this information

Instruction for writers:

- For definitions, see the DRH website. http://drh.bosai.go.jp/

   Implementation Oriented Technology

   Process Technology

   Transferable indigenous knowledge

5-1. Practitioners


- Mark main and sub categories freely.There are no hierarchical rules.

- Items of "experts" may overlap with other categories. In that case, mark both categories.

  Community leaders (voluntary base)

  Administrative officers

  Municipalities

  National governments and other intermediate government bodies (state, prefecture, district, etc.)

  NGO/NPO project managers and staff

  International organizations (UN organizations and programmes, WB, ADRC, EC, etc.)

  Commercial entrepreneurs

  Financing and insurance business personnel

  Experts

  Teachers and educators

  Architects and engineers

  Sociologists and political economists

  Information technology specialists

  Urban planners

  Rural planners

  Environmental/Ecological specialists

  Others (Explain using the blank space below.)




5-2. Other users




  Policy makers

  Motivated researchers

  Local residents

6. Hazards focused


- Secondary hazard should be included in the categories of the original hazards.

- Multi-hazard approach: Initiatives that focus on the combined risks of all hazards likely to occur in a given region.

  Earthquake

  Tsunami

  Volcanic eruption

  Landslide

  Mudflow

  Dust storm

  Cold wave

  Heat wave

  Zud

  Cyclone/ Typhoon

  Storm surge

  Flood

  Flash flood

  Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF)

  Snow avalanches

  Epidemic

  Wildfire

  Drought


  Desertification

  Climate change impact

  Land degradation


  Multi-hazard (Multi-hazard approach)


  Others (Explain using the blank space below. Other hazards, disaster chains, etc.)




7. Elements at risk

  Human lives

  Human networks in local communities

  Business and livelihoods

  Infrastructure

  Buildings

  Information and communication system

  Urban areas

  Rural areas

  Coastal areas

  River banks and fluvial basin

  Mountain slopes

  Agricultural lands

  Cultural heritages


  Others (Explain using the blank space below.)




III. Contact Information

8. Proposer(s) information (Writer(s) of this template)

Name(s), position and affiliation, and other information (at least one of mailing address, e-mail address, tel. & fax.) are required.

9. Place where the technology/ knowledge originated

9-1. Country(ies)

9-2. Location(s)

10. Names and institutions of technology/knowledge developers





11. Title of relevant projects if any




12. References and publications




13. Note on ownership if any




IV. Background

14. Disaster events and/or societal circumstances, which became the driving force either for developing the technology/knowledge or enhancing its practice














V. Descriptions

15. Feature and attribute (Aim and key mechanism to achieve the aim)













16. Necessary process to implement (Procedure and major actors)













17. Strength and limitations (Positive and negative sides)








18. Lessons learned through implementation if any








VI. Resources required

19. Facilities and equipments required











20. Costs, organization, manpower, etc.











VII. Message from the proposer (if any)

Instruction for writers:

- Any message from you to readers regarding intention, interpretation, utilization, etc. of this technology/knowledge.

21. Your message






VIII. Self evaluation in relation to applicability

22. How do you evaluate the technology/knowledge that you have proposed?


Instruction for writers:

- Only a single answer allowed

"It is a technology/knowledge that..."


  a. has high application potential verified by implementation in various field sites.

  b. has fair applicability demonstrated by implementation in one or more field sites.

  c. is shown to be effective based on case studies/experiments in field sites.

  d. is shown to be effective based so far only on scientific experiments in laboratory.


  e. Others (Explain using the blank space below.)




23. Notes on the applicability if any





IX. Application examples

Instruction for writers:

- Fill in this section with the examples that the technology/knowledge was applied to any fields. You may also write about

 ongoing projects.

- Writers who marked "a" and "b" in Section VIII are expected to provide as many examples as possible. Those who marked "c"

 to "e" are also strongly recommended to fill in here, but not compulsory.

No.1 (E1)

E1-1. Project name if available

E1-2. Place

- Specify as much as possible.

E1-3. Year

E1-4. Investor

E1-5. People involved

- Indicate all contributors with their titles when available.

E1-6. Monetary costs incurred

- Show the breakdown with approximate cost for each facility or equipment, if possible.

E1-7. Total workload required (Time frame and human resources)




E1-8. Evidence of positive results (Tangible / intangible)




No. 2 (E2)

E2-1. Project name if available

E2-2. Place



E2-3. Year

E2-4. Investor

E2-5. People involved




E2-6. Monetary costs incurred






E2-7. Total workload required (Time frame and human resources)




E2-8. Evidence of positive results (Tangible / intangible)




No. 3 (E3)

E3-1. Project name if available

E3-2. Place



E3-3. Year

E3-4. Investor

E3-5. People involved




E3-6. Monetary costs incurred






E3-7. Total workload required (Time frame and human resources)




E3-8. Evidence of positive results (Tangible / intangible)




No. 4 (E4)

E4-1. Project name if available

E4-2. Place



E4-3. Year

E4-4. Investor

E4-5. People involved




E4-6. Monetary costs incurred






E4-7. Total workload required (Time frame and human resources)




E4-8. Evidence of positive results (Tangible / intangible)




No. 5 (E5)

E5-1. Project name if available

E5-2. Place



E5-3. Year

E5-4. Investor

E5-5. People involved




E5-6. Monetary costs incurred






E5-7. Total workload required (Time frame and human resources)




E5-8. Evidence of positive results (Tangible / intangible)




X. Other related parallel initiatives (if any)





XI. Remarks for version upgrade





Institutions contributing to DRH Contents (Click here): posted on request