What will you be able to do?
From outcomes to observable evidence
hadr-foundations · v0.1.0Intended outcomes
Knowledge
Explain the relationship between hazards, vulnerability, exposure and capacity.
Skills
Prioritise needs using incomplete information.
Ethics
Justify assistance allocation without discrimination.
Character
Acknowledge uncertainty and revise judgements when evidence changes.
Practise through an activity
Prepare a one-page needs-prioritisation note for two fictional communities. Ask a peer to challenge one assumption, then revise the note while retaining the original.
Collect evidence for assessment
- Knowledge
An annotated risk map.
HADR-K- Skills
A needs table with explicit verification questions.
HADR-S- Ethics
A rationale addressing people facing access barriers.
HADR-E- Character
A reflection comparing initial and revised decisions.
HADR-C
Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.
Module references:[sendai-2015][oslo-2007][ddpm-plan]
Start with risk, not equipment
The Sendai Framework identifies four priorities: understanding risk, strengthening risk governance, investing in risk reduction, and improving preparedness and recovery. This connects immediate assistance with longer-term resilience. Teaching example: two villages experience similar water levels, but one has residents with limited mobility while the other has several accessible exits. Their support needs may differ. Record the information missing from the comparison before declaring either community safer.
Needs provide the rationale for assistance
The Oslo Guidelines state humanitarian principles, including humanity, neutrality and impartiality, within their operational scope. Assistance should respond to need. Our learning proposal is a three-column table separating known information, assumptions and questions for verification. Confirmed shelter occupancy, for example, differs from an estimate of expected arrivals. Request only information relevant to the decision; use aggregate figures on public exercise displays instead of personal names or health records.
Complement capacity and coordinate roles
Thailand's national plan provides the domestic master framework. The Oslo Guidelines concern foreign military and civil-defence assets, with specific conditions for support to UN humanitarian agencies, including last resort. Do not turn that condition into a blanket prohibition on Thailand's domestic military roles. In our exercise, learners distinguish decision authority, information providers, supporting organisations and affected people, then identify the applicable authority document before drafting an operational instruction.
Make the reasoning inspectable
Teaching proposal: record the time, source, alternatives, rationale, owner and review trigger for each decision. When a road is reported closed, identify who reported it and when. Separate verified constraints from unconfirmed reports. Ask a peer to read the note without an additional verbal briefing. If they cannot identify the next verification task, improve the record. This activity develops accountable reasoning; it is not an official agency reporting form.
See the process at a glance
A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.
Observe
Identify people, places, hazards and missing information in the fictional scenario.
Prioritise
Compare urgent needs with available capacity and explain limitations.
Coordinate
Assign each follow-up question to an owner and specify evidence needed.
Review
Update the rationale when information changes and record the learning.
Explore a decision
Fictional scenario: one rescue boat is available. Community A is prominent on social media; community B is difficult to contact and reportedly includes people with limited mobility. What is the best initial decision?
This selects a needs-based verification process without pre-deciding which community gets the boat. Actual operations require the responsible authority's safety assessment and authorisation.
From knowledge to evidence
Prepare a one-page needs-prioritisation note for two fictional communities. Ask a peer to challenge one assumption, then revise the note while retaining the original.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing |
|---|---|---|
| Reasoning and evidence | Separates facts, assumptions and gaps with references | States conclusions without traceable evidence |
| Fairness | Considers access barriers and verifies needs | Uses visibility as the main criterion |
| Reflective improvement | Shows how new evidence changed the rationale | Changes the answer without explanation |
A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.
Check your understanding
Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.
References & further verification
- Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 ↗United Nations / UNDRR · 2015; adopted 18 March 2015
Overview: four priorities for action; full framework paragraphs 23–34 - Oslo Guidelines: Guidelines on the Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief ↗United Nations OCHA; official document hosted by IFRC Disaster Law · Revision 1.1, November 2007
Definitions para 5; Principles and concepts paras 20–34; UN-agency use of MCDA para 32 - แผนการป้องกันและบรรเทาสาธารณภัยแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2564–2570 ↗กรมป้องกันและบรรเทาสาธารณภัย (DDPM) · พ.ศ. 2564–2570 (2021–2027)
Printed p. 43, Figure 3-2 (PDF p. 54); printed p. 124, incident-management support, items 5.1–5.5 (PDF p. 135); official catalog dpm-gd007
Cite this module
PK-Research. (2026). HADR foundations and people-centred assistance (hadr-foundations, v0.1.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/hadr-foundations/