David Alexander was born in London and graduated in geography at the London School of Economics. In 1977 he obtained his PhD in Mediterranean geomorphology from University College London (UCL). From 1978 until 1980 he was Research Fellow at UCL, during which time he studied erosional processes in clay badlands. From 1982 until 2002 he taught geomorphology, physical geography, natural hazards and disaster studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (USA). He has also taught extensively at five Italian universities and, briefly, at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji. He has participated widely as a teacher in emergency management training courses and currently directs disaster preparedness training for the regional government of Lombardy in Italy, where he is the Scientific Director of the Advanced School of Civil Protection. He collaborates extensively with emergency services at all levels in Italy. In addition, at the University of Florence he was a leading member of the team that designed, launched and taught Italy’s first Master of Civil Protection course. For the academic year 2002-3 he was Professor of Disaster Management at Cranfield University in the UK, based at the Royal Military College of Science, where he directed the Cranfield Disaster Management Centre. During 2004 he was Professor and Head of the Disaster Management Subject Group at Coventry University, UK, the largest centre for disaster studies in Britain. Currently he is Ministerial Contract Professor of Disaster Management in CESPRO, Centre for the Study of Risk Conditions and Civil Protection at the University of Florence. He is based in the Faculty of Medicine. At present he is working on an encyclopedia of natural hazards.

What are you currently working on?

I am studying the L’Aquila earthquake that happened in Italy in April 2009 from an epidemiological perspective. I am looking at the human effects of earthquakes, how to protect people, as well as the relationship between what people did, conditions and the chance of being killed or injured. I am also studying welfare in the aftermath of the earthquake. When we plan for disasters, we always tend to plan for the last one rather than the next one. Since 1993 I have also been keeping a record of disasters from all over the world.

Can you envision major wild cards (positive or negative) that may occur in the next 20 years?

• The unexpected is always becoming more likely.
• I am not sure that we have a clear signal on climate change and its effects. Recent disasters in China, Pakistan and India are symptoms of change in weather – which is not the same as a change in climate. Weather is different from climate and very variable. We cannot deduce trends from very short sequences.
• A major climatic event – for example the first European hurricane. We had a tropical storm in Portugal in 2008, for example. There is an interesting project looking at this – the Katrina project. It has nothing to do with America, but is modelling the effects of a super storm in Europe. There is a strong potential for a major storm that could affect many countries at once or in turn. We have had these recently – in 2000 and 2002 there were floods in six countries. Tornadoes are also highly underrated in Europe – these have happened (for example, one in Birmingham). They have been relatively small, but we should prepare for a major one, which could result in a higher loss of life.
• Seismicity in Europe – a major earthquake. In some parts in Europe seismicity is not very well known, for example Northern Europe and Britain. There are places, though, with some seismicity – to date smaller earthquakes have not done anything. However, were these to hit sensitive places like a nuclear power
plant, things would be different. Also, earthquakes can lead to tsunamis.
• Volcanic eruptions. Possible danger from lesser known, although very large volcanoes under the sea.  Italy’s biggest volcano, Marsili, is under the sea. It is not active but it has very long slopes and these are unstable; possible slope collapse could lead to tsunami. There is highly occupied coast not far away – this could potentially be a serious disaster. Were this to erupt, earthquakes and tsunamis would follow. There is also an undersea volcano in the Caribbean. Were this to erupt, this would have an effect on both sides of the Atlantic – in cities like New York.

We need to look at these things in the light of probability. If you start discussing volcanic eruptions, earthquakes etc. in the same breath as asteroid or meteorite impact, then you are muddling up your probabilities a lot. There is a possibility of asteroid or meteorite impact, there are examples of this. However, the real question hinges on probability, which is very low.

What will be the dramatic impact of the wild cards you mentioned, and how it should be addressed by future research? In which field?

In many ways it is not about research – but about preparedness and especially about the translation of research results into actions and preventive measures. The trouble with volcanic eruptions, for example, is that although one can see an eruption coming, it is difficult to predict the moment at which it will take place and its magnitude. Volcanoes can cause massive destruction, although they do not necessarily erupt due to
inflation and deflation of the ground surface.
Evacuating millions of people is very problematic – moving millions of people around to stay for perhaps a few months. Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland erupted for a few months, but it became apparent that there is no coordination of response or interchangeability of transport. Millions of people were stranded. It was only for a week, but some records say that Eyjafjallajökull erupted for 13 months. The uncertainty here was – how long will this go on for? There were serious consequences for transport – for example, bone marrow could not be delivered to hospitals in North America. Also, Eyjafjallajökull erupted on the scale 2, which is not immense – Hekla and Krafla are larger volcanoes that are known to erupt with great disruption – toxic ash clouds all over Europe. Also a long disruption to flights and transport in Europe could have devastating effects. Perhaps we need more research on Emergency planning and coordination. We need to keep in mind though that it is difficult to plan for a very improbable event. You need procedures that can be adapted to fit events, even thought the magnitude varies.

What are the weak signals that (if detected) could hint at a growing likelihood (or imminent realization) of the wild cards that you mentioned?

Look at how we have tackled events in the past and look for the weaknesses in that. Then perhaps we have a guide to what could happen in a major event in the future. One example was the inability to coordinate means of transport during the volcanic eruption. This was significant in many ways, as it highlighted the massive disruption that can be caused to European society. Europe is a densely settled and complex place, with high levels of technology;

what happens when it does not turn out right?
This is also true for other types of events – terrorist attacks, largescale contamination events (chemical, radiation etc.). For example, if this were to happen in a very a busy place like King’s Cross – this could not be easily decontaminated. It is not easy having to bypass major cities – everything is centred around large cities. For example, during the polonium poisoning of the Russian spy Alexander, 30 localities were contaminated, 1,000 people requested tests, restaurants and hotels had to be completely gutted and this was a very minor incident! Huge costs and difficulties were involved in this rather minor incident.
Looking ahead to the future of European research – which of the Wi/We that you mentioned should be
given top priority in the EU research?
• Bearing in mind that I have just dealt with natural and technological wild cards, I would say impact of climate change needs most attention. It is not easy to assess the impact of climate, because you are most often assessing the impact of weather.
• We have had a case of tropical diseasing emerging in Europe. With a warmer climate these could potentially take hold, for example cases of malaria – brought with people coming back from holiday. This could potentially become a tricky problem.

• Various major natural hazards, such as volcanic activity, which would need some research attention. Tsunamis as well – Mediterranean countries and countries with Atlantic coastlines.
• Earthquake hazards – Italy and Turkey in particular in Europe. Then there are many places waiting for the big one to happen:  Istanbul, Kathmandu, Tokyo, etc. Damage and loss of life has been estimated, but figures are being contested.
• Volcanic eruption that could change the climate. For example we could see four years without summer.

• Then we have events that may have major consequences, like Chernobyl, for example. We see now that nuclear energy is undergoing a revival, and the effects this may have are unknown.

• Damage to grain production, could have large-scale consequences.

Do you prefer other definitions of wild card and weak signals? If these concepts are ambiguous in your opinion, how could they be more clarified and better defined?

• Wild card definition: I think this is fine; you need a short, simple definition, which is not contaminated with jargon.

• Weak signal: Here we should also include recent events in addition to current events. We might look back in time – not too far, as society has changed so much in recent times. But we can have hidden messages in the last 40 years, which could affect current events. Weak signals can lie in recent events, rather than just current ones.

Are there interesting lessons from previous foresight studies that employed the WI-WE approach?

I am working currently with scenarios in my earthquake research.

What are the best methods to identify WI-WEs?

It is a function of ability and experience. If you have had lots of training in it, you will have the ability to recognise what is significant and what is not. There is not a simple cookbook manual of saying: look for the following. You cannot plonk a 20-year-old graduate in front of a computer and say ‘figure out the wild cards’. It is much more to do with feelings for the subjects. We are dealing with complex realities here.

Anything to add?

In the end, you have got two important tasks, I am not sure to what extent the project does both. In the first instance, you discover the wild cards and weak signals. Then you need to assess which are more likely than others. Somebody will have to do that if the project does not. We want to prepare for the more probable events, rather than the less probable. We would perhaps not want to prepare for the invisibility spray, but more for a rise of fascism, or the wheat disease.