Search results

As the human and financial costs of disasters rise, there are increasing demands for evidence that mitigation “pays”. Until this proof exists, many development organisations remain reluctant to pursue risk reduction as a key objective, or even to protect their own projects against potential hazards.

This paper outlines how such evidence could, in fact, be relatively easily obtained by integrating natural hazard related risks concerns into the design and evaluation of potential projects using standard appraisal and evaluation tools. It shows that there is nothing intrinsically difficult about either appraising risks or monitoring and evaluating the impact of related mitigation measures as part of these broader analyses - if this task is approached thoughtfully and knowledgeably, and adequately resourced.

Provision of appropriate methodological tools is not sufficient in itself, however, to secure improvements in the management of risk. The paper identifies a series of further critical factors that need to be addressed in order to secure long-term commitment to risk reduction, as reflected in the broad policies, objectives and priorities of both governments and development organisations, and actual practice on the ground. In particular, development organisations and governments need to accept greater accountability for disaster-related losses.

The paper is based on the findings of an ongoing ProVention Consortium project, 'Measuring Mitigation': Methodologies for Assessing Natural Hazard Risks and the Net Benefits of Mitigation.

Globally, over 95% of fire related deaths and injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries. Within informal settlements, the risk of fire resulting in injury or death is particularly high. This paper examines fire risks in informal settlements in New Delhi and Cape Town, and tented informal settlements in Lebanon.

Our analysis draws on primary sources, secondary literature, statistical data and qualitative interviews.

The distribution of fire risk across urban societies is a fundamentally political issue. Residential fire risk can be tackled by accessible, affordable, safety-compliant housing. That said, important interim measures can be taken to mitigate fire risk. Some of the risks requiring attention are similar across our case studies, driven by high population densities; flammable housing materials; unreliable or inaccessible access to safe power sources; and – in the case of Cape Town and New Delhi particularly – the inability of fire services to reach sites of fire. However, these common risks are embedded in distinct social, economic and political contexts that must be placed at the center of any intervention. Interventions must also be aware that the risk of fire is not spread evenly within informal settlements, intersecting as it does with factors like gender, age, health and disability.

Informal settlement fires have been under-studied to date. The studies that do exist tend to operate within disciplinary silos. This paper represents an important interdisciplinary approach to fire within informal settlements, which grounds technical data, modeling and experiments in political, social and economic realities.

Using risk-related data often require a significant amount of upfront work to collect, extract and transform data. In addition, the lack of a consistent data structure hinders the development of tools that can be used with more than one set of data. The purpose of this paper is to report on an effort to solve these problems through the development of extensible, internally consistent schemas for risk-related data.

The consortia coordinated their efforts so the hazard, exposure and vulnerability schemas are compatible. Hazard data can be provided as either event footprints or stochastic catalogs. Exposure classes include buildings, infrastructure, agriculture, livestock, forestry and socio-economic data. The vulnerability component includes fragility and vulnerability functions and indicators for physical and social vulnerability. The schemas also provide the ability to define uncertainties and allow the scoring of vulnerability data for relevance and quality.

As a proof of concept, the schemas were populated with data for Tanzania and with exposure data for several other countries.

The data schema and data exploration tool are open source and, if widely accepted, could become widely used by practitioners.

A single set of hazard, exposure and vulnerability schemas will not fit all purposes. Tools will be needed to transform the data into other formats.

This paper describes extensible, internally consistent, multi-hazard, exposure and vulnerability schemas that can be used to store disaster risk-related data and a data exploration tool that promotes data discovery and use.

This article provides an introduction and assessment of the English and Spanish literatures on gender relations in disaster contexts. We analyze regional patterns of differences and similarities in women’s disaster experiences and the differing research questions raised by these patterns in the scholarly and practice‐based literature. The analysis supports the claim that how gender is theorized makes a difference in public policy and practical approaches to disaster risk management. We propose new directions in the field of disaster social science and contribute a current bibliography in the emerging gender and disaster field.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the experiences of vulnerable people during flood events, impacts of changes in mobility on well-being and the extent to which frontline services, emergency planning officers and other service providers allocate resources for vulnerable members of the community to meet the challenges posed by floods.

In-depth qualitative interviews carried out with 15 vulnerable residents, seven community representatives and eight service providers.

Vulnerable people’s well-being was negatively affected by the disruption to travel caused by floods, though support from the community to some extent redressed these negative feelings. Whilst there seems to be a strong response from both the community and the local authorities to the mobility needs of vulnerable people during floods, what seems to be missing is an equal response from the private sector in terms of provision of transport services to access goods such as food and money.

More needs to be done to make sure that communication and support networks are formalised to address the potential unevenness of informal networks. Private companies need to engage more with customers. Improved information and more resilient services such as 4×4 vehicles and doorstep provision of goods and money would directly support vulnerable people who are highly dependent on their services.

This study is the first in the UK to explore and compare the private experiences of vulnerable people with the views of stakeholders who could support them during floods.

This transcript provides a historical overview of the discussions on economics in disaster risk reduction.

The transcript and video was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the History of DRR.

The transcript discusses how the work on the economic impacts of disasters started and evolved over time.

The interview highlights the importance of studying and understanding risk and risk creation in disaster risk management.

Households are exposed to a wide array of risks, characterized by a known or unknown probability distribution of events. Disasters are one of these risks at the extreme end. Understanding the nature of these risks is critical to recommending appropriate mitigation measures. A household’s resilience in resisting the negative outcomes of these risky events is indicative of its level of vulnerability. Vulnerability has emerged as the most critical concept in disaster studies, with several attempts at defining, measuring, indexing and modeling it. The paper presents the concept and meanings of risk and vulnerability as they have evolved in different disciplines. Building on these basic concepts, the paper suggests that assets are the key to reducing risk and vulnerability. Households resist and cope with adverse consequences of disasters and other risks through the assets that they can mobilize in face of shocks. Asustainable strategy for disaster reduction must therefore focus on asset‐building. There could be different types of assets, and their selection and application for disaster risk management is necessarily a contextual exercise. The mix of asset‐building strategies could vary from one community to another, depending upon households’ asset profile. The paper addresses the dynamics of assets‐risk interaction, thus focusing on the role of assets in risk management.