Search results

Although the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 explicitly recognizes the need for psychosocial support and mental health services, the focus of this and many disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) plans lies in the response, recovery, and rehabilitation phases. Less attention has been given to how mental health aspects affect the predisaster phase. This chapter explores the less understood concept of “resistance” in the perspectives model of disaster mental health, which is related to DRRM themes of “prevention and mitigation” and “preparedness” interventions. Four strategies are identified by which DRRM interventions can contribute to psychosocial support and mental health: increasing stress resistance, fostering cohesion and social support, fostering positive cognition, and building self-efficacy and hardiness. We review the cases of the Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand and report existing socio-political DRRM initiatives for prevention, mitigation, and preparedness that can potentially enhance resistance as a predisaster intervention. Beyond medical services or clinical mental health interventions for select populations, DRRM interventions can benefit the general public. Despite natural intersections, there remains a need for deliberate and targeted initiatives that explore how vertical pyschosocial care programs can be created to straddle both DRRM and health sectors in practice.

Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) initiatives have strong roots in Philippine society not only because of the country's contributory vulnerability to disasters but also because of a culture of community cooperation known as bayanihan and a history of social movement driven by the citizens’ discontent with bad governance leading to social injustice and environmental degradation (Heijmans, 2009). CBDRM in the Philippines has been a mechanism for change within civil society (Allen, 2006; Heijmans, 2009). In this way, community-based approaches are a fundamental form of empowerment of participants and a compelling strategy for enforcing the transmission of ideas and claims from the bottom up (Allen, 2006).

Advances in disaster prevention and mitigation in Southeast Asia (SEA) have increasingly included plans for mental health and psychosocial support. However, substantial challenges remain, particularly in the areas of (a) disaster communication and preparedness, (b) institutionalized disaster education, (c) culturally adapted and evidence-based tools and interventions, (d) developing capacities and caring for disaster responders, and (e) enabling collective resilience. In addition, the impacts of poverty, lack of access to education, and other forms of marginalization result in less resources to prepare for hazardous event and increased vulnerability to environmental hazards for SEA countries. These issues highlight the need for SEA governments to address deeply rooted human development issues that put communities at risk and heighten vulnerabilities of SEA populations.

In recent years, several studies have focused on city clusters like megacities and mega urban areas, as they concentrate a significant part of the world's human population and critical economic assets in potentially hazardous locations (Yusuf, 2007; WWF, 2009; Kraas, 2007; Jones, 2009). Metro Manila is one of such megacities, where even “regular” disasters affect a large number of people. The rapid pace of urbanization, coupled with an ever-increasing population burden, has significantly increased the overall vulnerability of urban agglomerations to natural disasters. By 2050, world population is expected to reach 9 billion people. Large numbers of people will be concentrated in megacities and on fragile lands, making the reduction of vulnerability to disasters in metropolitan areas a critical challenge facing development. Unmanaged rapid urban growth strains the capacity of national and local governments to provide even the most basic of services such as health, food, shelter, employment, and education. The challenge then is for the national government and most especially the local governments to develop effective policies, programs, and strategies that will help them manage urbanization to ensure development.