Disaster risk management and environmental assessment for spatial planning,a natural disaster anathema,blank us map with rivers and mountains,electronic magnetic field protection - Easy Way

Science, Technology and Medicine open access publisher.Publish, read and share novel research. Conceptual Frameworks of Vulnerability Assessments for Natural Disasters ReductionRoxana L.
Disaster Risk Management and Social Impact Assessment: Understanding Preparedness, Response and Recovery in Community ProjectsRaheem A.
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) (2002Living with Risk: A Global Reviews of Disaster Reduction Initiatives Preliminary version.
S Jegillos, 1999Fundamentals of Disaster Risk Management: How are South East Abian Countries Addressing this?
K Keipi, and J Tyson, 2002Planning and Financial Protection to Survive Disasters Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D. Editor’s Note: This is the second article of a two-part series covering disaster preparation and recovery. AssessmentAfter a disaster event has occurred, it is important to determine the level of damage sustained as well as its impact on internal and external operations. What is the extent of the damage to the site and potential transportation routes to the site?
What is the damage to offsite materials belonging to the contractor, subcontractors and suppliers?
When reviewing the CPM schedule, was consideration given to adjusting the schedule for the disaster event delay and to remobilization, demolition and reconstruction?
What necessary steps will be required by the customer’s insurance and financial entities before construction can recommence? CommunicationIn many situations, the communication and assessment phases can be conducted concurrently. It is also important to establish communications with other agencies, including the firm’s insurance company, its bonding company and other financial institutions that are critical to its ongoing operation. After suffering damage wrought by hurricanes such as Andrew and Katrina, many of the affected businesses, regardless of industry, were incapable of reopening. Customer Management Marketing and customer management are often not considered immediately after an event.
What format or delivery mechanism will provide the greatest value and inform the customer of the project’s current state?
However unorthodox, what actions can the firm take to facilitate an expeditious recovery for the customer? As the customers focus on their associates and business, their attention is drawn away from future construction opportunities.
Philippines – annual expenditure under the National Calamity Fund (1996 – 2002) (Based on GDP at price market) [4]2. Conceptual framework for holistic approach to disaster risk assessment and management [23] in [11]Table 1. Fragility curves ‘forced’ to unity and manually extrapolated to the next order of magnitude for volume (local roads).
Ciurean1, Dagmar Schroter2 and Thomas Glade1[1] Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria[2] IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria1. Social and environmental indicators research is common in the field of sustainable science. However, the extent of these losses is frequently underestimated especially when landslides are associated with the occurrence of floods or earthquakes (their consequences tend to be aggregated). E Ojo, 2003Disasters and Sustainable Development: Some Reflections and African Perspective. A Raheem, 2007Urban Development and Environmental Implications: The Challenge of Urban Sustainability in Nigeria. Part one appeared in Construction Business Owner’s July 2013 issue and is available here. Once the affected area is safe and cleared by appropriate emergency personnel, the contractor should document the extent of the damage through reports, photographs and video.
Have there been breaches in the building shell that could allow for mold propagation and other organic growth? The premise behind the communications element is to determine the best course of re-establishing channels internally and externally. A person should be charged with maintaining an updated list of contacts and initiating communication as soon as possible. Mobilization, much like the other elements of the disaster recovery plan, is dependent upon people.
By assisting them in their operations in the short term, contractors may influence customers’ planning and operations in the long term. Results from the study are indicated by black dots, the corresponding mean vulnerability is indicated by red dots [53]Table 2. IntroductionThe last few decades have demonstrated an increased concern for the occurrence of natural disasters and their consequences for leaders and organizations around the world. For example, United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index [30], proposes a composite indicator of human well-being, as well as gender disparity and poverty among nations. The success of recovery efforts directly correlates to the effectiveness and execution of disaster preparation.
What contingencies are in place if utilities and traditional communication lines are inoperable? This will assist insurance officials in their processing of the claims and will document the state of the firm’s projects. With the assessment complete, firms can expedite the process of filing claims and rebuilding projects and offices. However, addressing the customer’s needs after a firm has organized itself demonstrates a continued proactive instinct for customer service. The EM-DAT International Disaster Database [1] statistics show that, in the last century, the mortality risk associated with major weather-related hazards has declined globally, but there has been a rapid increase in the exposure of economic assets to natural hazards.Looking into more detail, UNISDR’s Global Assessment Report 2011 (GAR11) [2] indicates that disasters in 2011 set a new record of $366 billion for economic losses, including $210 billion as a result of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the accompanying tsunami alone, and $40 billion as a result of the floods in Thailand. Similarly, the World Bank develops indicators that stress the links between environmental conditions and human welfare, especially in developing nations, in order to monitor national progress toward a more sustainable future [31]. Regardless of the plan, however, there is unpredictability associated with any disaster, so each element of the plan should be flexible enough to compensate for unforeseen conditions. After normal operations are resumed, there will be expectations about a project’s schedule and budget.
Two-way communication channels may be operable but are often overloaded by emergency personnel utilization. In natural hazards risk management framework, many of the indicator based vulnerability studies are relying on measuring attributes or factors influencing vulnerability rather than understanding relationships or processes [32].The composition and selection of vulnerability indicators is complex. When the firm has documented the disaster and can provide a picture of its impact, it may avoid the adversarial discussions and litigious situations that might otherwise arise from delays and budget overruns.
Ideally, there are nine different phases in the development of indicators (Figure 6) [33]: first, a relevant goal must be selected and defined. Usman1[1] Department of Geography and Environmental Management University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria[2] Physical Development Department, Nigeria Institute for Social and Economic Research (NISER), Ibadan, Nigeria[3] School of Basic and Remedial Studies, Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin, Nigeria1. Is the communication plan developed in the preparation phase feasible in light of the current conditions? Disaster databases, such as the ones referred to above, represent key resources for actors involved in policy and practice related with disaster risk reduction and response. Then, it is necessary to perform a scoping process in order to identify the target group and the associated purposes for which the indicators will be used.
IntroductionDisaster refers to an emergency caused by natural hazards or human-induced actions that results in a significant change in circumstances over a relatively short time period. However, considering their diversity and recognizing their different roles, one can identify at least one limitation in their use i.e. The third phase presumes the identification of an appropriate conceptual framework, which means structuring the potential themes and indicators.
Some consider vulnerability within the landslide risk management framework, others evaluate exclusively physical vulnerability. The following sub-sections give a short overview of some of the conceptual models presented in [11], such as the double structure of vulnerability, vulnerability within the context of hazard and risk, vulnerability in the context of global environmental change community, the Presure and Release Model and a holistic approach to risk and vulnerability assessment. The fourth phase implies the definition of selection criteria for the potential indicators (see below). Three general types of methodologies can be identified (without excluding the possibility of other classification schemes):Qualitative methods ([47], [48], [35]) - given a particular landslide type and the characteristics of the elements at risk, the appropriate vulnerability factor is assessed by expert judgment, field mapping or based on historical records. Others may include damage to physical infrastructure, depletion of natural and social capitals, institutional weakening and a general disruption of economic and social activity. Compiling and analyzing an extensive natural disaster data set for the period 1993 – 2002, Alexander [3] showed that, for example, in the Philippines in 1996 there were 31 major floods, 29 earthquakes, 10 typhoons and 7 tornadoes.
Disasters may differ somewhat in the trigger, scope, duration and requisite actions (Coletta, 2004, Olorunfemi and Raheem, 2007).The global scenario in relation to disasters is dismal. Due to population pressure, large areas of Luzon and other islands were denuded of their dense vegetation cover resulting in landslide prone slopes. The double structure of vulnerabilityAccording to Bohle [18] vulnerability can be seen as having an external and internal side (Figure 2). Finally, there is the evaluation and selection of each indicator (phase 6) taking into account the criteria developed at an earlier stage, which results in a final set of indicators.
World statistics indicate present and future trends of increasing impacts from natural and human made hazards on life and livelihoods (Niekerk, 2002; Ojo, 2003). Twelve major episodes of slope failure causing high damages to infrastructure and build up areas were registered in the archipelago during 1996.
The external side is related to the exposure to risks and shocks and is influenced by Political Economy Approaches (e.g. The outcome of previous phases must be validated against real data, which in many cases proofs to be the most challenging part of the process due to difficulties in measuring or quantifying some of the intangible elements or aspect of vulnerability (e.g. However, a major limitation of this approach is that most of the data have to be assumed and there is no direct (quantified) relation between hazard intensities and degree of damage.As an example, in [47] an empirical GIS-based geomorphological approach for landslide and risk analysis was proposed, using stereoscopic aerial photographs and field mapping in order to represent the changes in distribution and shape of landslides and assess their expected frequency of occurrence and intensity.
During the past four decades, hazards events such as earthquakes, drought, floods, storms, fires and volcanic eruptions have caused major loss of human life and livelihoods; destruction of economic and social infrastructure and significant environmental damage. Although documentation of the Government expenditures to finance relief efforts for natural disasters during the 1996 – 2002 period is not completely contained in Figure 1 [4], one can observe that 1996 stands out as a particular year with high costs of rehabilitation.Experience has shown that considering the frequency of disasters affecting the Philippines, its socio-economic context, and risk culture, the disaster management system tends to rely on a response approach. According to Gavidia (2000), natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes can wipe out years of urban development by destroying infrastructure and housing and by injury or killing thousands of people. However, studies indicate that efforts are being made to engage more proactive approaches, involving mitigation and preparedness strategies [4]. The internal side is called coping and relates to the capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a hazard and is influenced by the Crisis and Conflict Theory (control of assets and resources, capacities to manage crisis situations and resolve conflicts), Action Theory Approaches (how people act and react freely as a result of social, economic or governmental constrains) and Model of Access to Assets (mitigation of vulnerability through access to assets).
They are flexible and can, to a certain degree, reduce subjectivity, compared with the methods mentioned above.

The 2011 Tsunami in Japan is an example of a disaster characterized by an immense loss of lives and property.Social and economic structure of a society is a major determinant of the vulnerability of the population to the impact of disasters. Within this category, damage matrices, for example, are composed by classified intensities and stepwise damage levels. This explains the variation in the impact of disasters and environmental emergencies all over the world. The definition of vulnerability for the purpose of scientific assessment depends on the purpose of the study – is it to get a differential picture of global change threats to human well-being in different world regions?
These are mathematical combinations of sub-indicators that can be easier to interpret than trying to find a trend in many separate indicators. In [49] damage matrices were suggested based on damaging factors and the resistance of the elements at risk to the impact of landslides. The Munich Re-insurance estimated that economic losses due to environmental emergencies have increased three-fold from the 1960s to the 1990s, and in the first few years of this decade, are running about US $50 billion per year. Is it to inform particular stakeholders about adaptation options to a potential future development? However, there are no generally accepted methods of index aggregation (index construction) and their interpretation is not unique. Figure 8 shows a correlation, in terms of vulnerability, between exposed elements and the characteristics of the hazard.
Although most of these economic losses occurred in industrially developed parts of the world developing countries in Africa and Asia suffer greater burden of the relative impact of these disasters.
Is it to show that likelihood of harm and cost of harm have changed for a specific element of interest within the human-environment system?
The applicability of this method, requires statistical analysis of detailed records on landslides and their consequences [50]. In scientific assessment the term vulnerability can have many meanings, differentiated mostly by (a) the vulnerable entity studied, (b) the stakeholders of the study.The design of scientific assessment (as opposed to scientific research) has to respond to the scientific needs of the particular stakeholder who might use it [5].
According to Henderson (2004), this level of risk is attributable to socio-economic stress, aging and inadequate physical infrastructure, weak education and preparedness for disaster and insufficient fiscal and economic resources to carefully implement the preparedness, response, mitigation and recovery components of integrated emergency management.Disaster risk is a potential factor in many development projects. An integral part of vulnerability assessment therefore is the collaboration with its stakeholders [6], [7]. Quantitative methods are usually employed by engineers or actors involved in technical decision making, as they allow for a more explicit objective output. Environmental hazards can affect a project area, with socio-economic consequences for the project’s target populations. Thus, the specific definition and the method of vulnerability assessment is specific to each study and needs to be made transparent in the specific context. The results can be directly integrated in a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) also taking into account the uncertainty in vulnerability analysis. Development projects can increase or reduce the risk of natural disaster, through their impact on social resilience and the natural environment.
The procedures involved can rely on i) expert judgment (heuristic), ii) damage records (empirical) or iii) statistical analysis (probabilistic).One example of quantitative expert judgment used to evaluate physical vulnerability of roads to debris flows was used in [55]. By understanding and anticipating future hazard events, communities, public authorities and development organisations can minimise the risk disasters pose to socio-economic development. This index is composed of four factors estimating capacity related to risk identification, risk reduction, disaster management and financial protection. 147 respondents from 17 countries were asked to use their expert knowledge to assess the probability of a certain damage state being exceeded given that a volume of debris impacts a road (Table 3). Understanding the interactions between projects and environmental hazards is crucial in ensuring the sustainability of development gains. Sustainable development is accepted as a fundamental objective for public policy and decision making because the overall objective of any development process is to enhance the quality of life of the target population. The study is based on a review of recent research findings in global change and natural hazards risk management. Physical vulnerability assessmentIf in social vulnerability assessment the focus is on determining the indicators of societies’ coping capacities to any natural hazard and identifying the vulnerable groups or individuals based on these indicators, in physical (or technical) vulnerability assessment the role of hazard and their impacts is emphasized, while the human systems in mediating the outcomes is minimized. Thus the growing acceptance of sustainable development as an over-arching policy goal has rightly stimulated interest in assessing the impact of particular intervention on sustainable development at aggregate, sectoral or project levels (Centre for Good Governance, 2006). The overall aim is to identify current gaps that can guide the development of future perspectives for vulnerability analysis to hydro-meteorological hazards. This sustainability objective is justified based on the fact that issues pertaining to the ecosystem’s capacity to tolerate and respond to population growth and other human induced stresses have become essential for sustainable management of natural resources and human livelihood systems related to them.(Uito and Morgan, 1996).
Following the introduction (section 1), the second section starts with a definition of vulnerability within the context of risk management to natural hazards (sub-section 2.1). The evaluation of vulnerability and the combination of the hazard and the vulnerability to obtain the risk differs between natural phenomena. However, the majority of models see vulnerability as being dependent both on the acting agent (physical impact of a hazard event) and the exposed element (structural or physical characteristics of the vulnerable object).
In the third section, the importance of addressing uncertainty in vulnerability analysis is discussed and lastly general observations and concluding remarks are presented.2.
The most common expressions of physical vulnerability for different types of hazards (landslides, floods, earthquakes) are: vulnerability curves (stage-damage functions), fragility curves, damage matrices and vulnerability indicators [35].
Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (1994), “social impacts" refers to the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions-that alter, or are capable of altering, the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society. In recent decades, research on flood vulnerability assessment has advanced substantially (especially with the aid of computational techniques) and different modeling approaches ranging from post-event damage observations to laboratory-based experiments and physical modeling have been developed. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values, and beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society.
Vulnerability and risk management to natural hazardsAccording to the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Report [8], there are two essential elements in the formulation of risk (Eq.
One major applications of flood vulnerability analysis is the development of guidelines for reducing structural vulnerability for different types of properties.
Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the process of analysing, monitoring and managing the social consequences of policies, programmes and projects. Likewise, the results of these studies are used in spatial development strategies (spatial planning) and for identification of the elements or areas where damages would be expected in case of flood occurrence. These consequences may be positive or negative, intended or unintended, direct or indirect; they may be short-term impacts or long-term changes. A «hazard» is “a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage”.Within the risk management framework, vulnerability pertains to consequence analysis. As well as helping to explain how a proposed action will change the lives of people in communities, SIA indicates how alternative actions might mitigate harmful changes or implement beneficial ones.The rest of this paper is subdivided into four sections. It generally defines the potential for loss to the elements at risk caused by the occurrence of a hazard, and depends on multiple aspects arising from physical, social, economic, and environmental factors, which are interacting in space and time. After this introduction the next section is devoted to the clarification and definition of major conceptual issues with a view to establishing a link between each of the concepts and providing a framework for the entire paper. Within the last category, two general methods can be identified:Empirical methods are based on the analysis of observed consequences (collection of actual flood damage information after the event) through the use of interviews, questionnaires and field mapping. We also provide a discussion on the ways disaster risk can be minimised in community development projects. The next two sections in the paper examine respectively the livelihood contexts in disaster management and the need for a process that integrate disaster risk into community projects through social impact assessment.
This type of approaches are resource demanding (time and money) but allow for a better understanding of the relation between flood intensity and degree of damage for an exposed structure with definite characteristics. The SIA process is also discussed as a series of interrelated steps and how hazards and disaster risk typically require a SIA.
Finally the last section is devoted to examining the critical challenges to the success of adoption of SIA in community projects.2. Some conceptual issues in disaster risk managementConceptually, the relationship between vulnerability, hazard and disasters has been described as the Pressure Model or Disaster Crunch Model by Blaikie et al (1994). Directly linked with these forces are the characteristics of the damaging agent (water) which are reflected in a number of actions on the exposed structure: hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, erosion, buoyancy, etc.
Vulnerability modelsThere are multiple definitions, concepts and methods to systematize vulnerability denoting the plurality of views and meanings attached to this term. An example is the construction of shanty buildings on fragile or sloppy urban land.Disaster management aims at motivating societies at risk to be more involved in the conscious management of risk and reduction of vulnerability in our various communities. Birkmann [11] noted that ‘we are still dealing with a paradox: we aim to measure vulnerability, yet we cannot define it precisely’.
However, there are generally two perspectives in which vulnerability can be viewed and which are closely linked with the evolution of the concept [12]: (1) the amount of damage caused to a system by a particular hazard (technical or engineering sciences oriented perspective – dominating the disaster risk perception in the 1970s), and (2) a state that exists within a system before it encounters a hazard (social sciences oriented perspective – an alternative paradigm which uses vulnerability as a starting point for risk reduction since the 1980s). The former emphasizes ‘assessments of hazards and their impacts, in which the role of human systems in mediating the outcomes of hazard events is downplayed or neglected’.
HazardA hazard can be defined as a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity which may cause the loss or life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. The latter puts the human system on the central stage and focuses on determining the coping capacity of the society, the ability to resist, respond and recover from the impact of a natural hazard [13].
In [40] the importance of further influencing factors like ‘duration of inundation, sediment concentration, availability and information content of flood warning and the quality of external response in a flood situation’ are emphasized.
Hazards can include hidden conditions that may represent future threats and can have different origins. While the technical sciences perspective of vulnerability focuses primarily on physical aspects [14], the social sciences perspective takes into account various factors and parameters that influence vulnerability, such as physical, economic, social, environmental, and institutional characteristics [8].
Other approaches emphasize the need to account for additional global factors, such as globalization and climate change.
Typical examples of hazards can be the absence of rain (leading to drought) or the abundance thereof (leading to flooding).
Thus, the broader vulnerability assessment is in scope, the more interdisciplinary it becomes. A threshold for collapse corresponding to 100% damage is set, while below this threshold the damage is estimated based on the inundation level only.
Chemical manufacturing plants near settlements can also be seen as hazards.Similarly, incorrect agricultural techniques will in the long run lead to possible disasters such as loss of crops and famine. The model also takes into account the effect of warning which is assessed based on a ‘day-curve’. If a public response rate of 100% is assumed, a maximum of 35% of damage reduction can be achieved depending on the time of warning [26]. VulnerabilitiesVulnerabilities is a set of prevailing or consequential conditions resulting from physical, social, economic and environmental factors, which increase the sustainability of a community to the impact of hazards (ISDR 2002: 24).
Blaike et al (1994) is of the opinion that vulnerability is the characteristics of person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a hazard.Vulnerability can be expressed as the degree of loss resulting from potentially damaging phenomenon or hazard (Niekerk, 2002). Population increases due to high birth rate and the lack of good governance do make communities in developing nations to be highly vulnerable to hazards.The community and its members may or may not be willing participants in contributing to or tolerating the conditions leading to vulnerability.
Taken together, they create a dynamic mix of variables, each of which results from a continuous process.

Vulnerabilities can be physical, social or attitudinal and can be primary or secondary in nature.
RiskRisk is usually associated with the inability of people to manage hazard events that may eventually lead to negative consequences like destruction of the environment, socio-economic activities, properties and losses of lives.Risk in terms of disaster management has a specific focus (UN, 1992). Risk is therefore the possibility that a particular hazard might exploit a particular vulnerability (Nierkerk, 2002).It is the production of the possible damage caused by a hazard due to the vulnerability within a community.
In other words, risk is usually due to hazard events exploiting the vulnerable situation of an environment or community.
The poorer communities are more at risk because of their high vulnerability to hazard situations due to their low coping capacities. DisastersA disaster is a serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing or threatens to cause, widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of affected community to cope using only its own resources (South Africa, 2002). Disasters are caused due to the interaction of humans with their environment.A disaster is a function of the risk process. It is only when such phenomena occur in an environment where they pose a threat to human life, property, infrastructure or the environment that they can be classified as hazards. Similarly in the case of technological developments, it is only when such developments pose a danger e.g.
So the effects of a disaster are determined by the extent of a community’s vulnerability to the hazard.Hazards in themselves do not constitute disasters.
Simply out, therefore, disaster risk is the product of the combination of three elements – vulnerability, coping capacity and hazard (ISDR, 2004). Deforestation, land degradation, and related food security are shaped by human resource use (e.g.
Risk identification and analysisTo identify the risk of natural disasters at an individual, local or national level, it is necessary to estimate the potential magnitude and probability of natural hazards, as well as to estimate the potential magnitude and probability of natural hazards, as well as to evaluate the vulnerability of each of them. According to Keipi and Tyson (2002), vulnerability may be evaluated from various standpoints (physical, social, political, technological, institutional, environmental, cultural and educational).
Vulnerability to natural disasters is the result of anthropogenic factors; that is, factors that result from the interaction between human beings and nature. Additionally, vulnerability is a consequence of the individual and political decisions that a society makes before a hazard occurs, which are evident once the disaster takes place (ECLAC-IDB, 2000).Freeman, et al (2001), analyze the components of different types of vulnerability and cite studies that make an effort to measure the potential physical, social and economic consequences of natural phenomena. Those who concentrate on physical vulnerability analyze the impact on buildings, infrastructures and agriculture. For example, the Latin American’s Council on Applied Technology publishes vulnerability studies on the earthquake resistance of 50 types of structures (ATC, 1985).
Those who focus on social vulnerability estimate the impacts on especially susceptible groups such as the poor, pregnant women and infants, the handicapped, children and youths. Those interested in economic vulnerability calculate the potential impacts on economic processes and assets.The results of the hazard analysis and of the evaluation of vulnerability are then combined to yield an estimate of risk (defined as expected loss per period) (Keipi and Tyson, 2002). A full scope evaluation of risk encompasses the appraisal of potential losses generated by the disaster and identification of those affected by the risk. Projection of the likelihood of their occurrence and estimates of their impact allow decision makers to evaluate the total risk to a country, a geographical area or a specific sector, as well as to establish concrete prevention and mitigation measures and investments.According to Keipi and Tyson (2002), prevention and mitigation actions require a good understanding of natural threats, vulnerability and risk.
For example, given the frequency of disaster events that have occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean, on many occasions, investments in prevention and mitigation in the affected countries were not adequate to withstand the natural threats (see also Charveriat, 2002).4. Livelihoods context for disaster managementWhile physical tangible assets such as stronger homes, hospitals etc are crucial to reducing risks from disasters, there are many less tangible assets which people depend on to recover and survive. For instance, following an earthquake disaster in India on 26 January 2001, an evaluation by the London-based Disasters Emergencies Committee (DEC), one villager said, “We received 2,000 tents for 900 households because we had a prominent politician in the community”.
Some villagers proved more capable than others in accessing aid for relief and reconstruction. The DEC’s evaluation found that “Women, lower income groups and those representing smaller number stated they were left out of decision-making in the relief committees and hence were also omitted from relief distribution”.The livelihoods – based approach to disaster reduction tries to unpack different aspects of vulnerability and capacity. It describes how people, both rich and poor, access the assets they need, how these assets are controlled and how assets are used both to improve livelihoods and to reduce vulnerability to disasters and “shocks” such as ill-health or unemployment. These non-tangible resources are often ignored by disaster managers, but prove pivotal in sustaining disaster preparedness, mitigation and rehabilitation. The non-tangible assets which include skills training to improve earning opportunities, raising awareness of vulnerable people’s right, building the capacity of self-help community groups, and strengthening the involvement of the poor in the decision-making process should be enhanced.The livelihoods approach therefore sits on the cross-roads between disasters and development.
It makes clear that disasters are part of everyday life, and must be overcome if livelihood is to be sustainable. Within this approach, disaster mitigation is in effect the act of building up tangible and non-tangible assets to reduce vulnerability. This leads to another key feature of the livelihoods approach which is the need to view vulnerable communities in a holistic rather than a sectoral way.
The livelihoods approach sees people as the starting point of all interventions to reduce risk.
People’s lives are complex and do not fit nearly into the sectoral areas that aid practitioners specialize in. Solidarity among neighbours and their willingness to help in times of disaster, for example, is more valuable than the best drafted preparedness plan.
By rooting risk reduction in a developmental context, livelihoods strategies enable disaster managers to take better account of the complex interaction of life that people themselves employ to mitigate, respond to and recover from disaster. Smaller, ongoing disasters can over a period of time, take a heavier toll than big one-off disasters. For instance, a London-based Disasters Emergencies Committee Evaluation in Gujarat India discovered people constantly emphasized the need to restore livelihoods rather than receive relief and expressed some frustration that outsiders did not listen to them on this point. They wanted to receive cloth and make their own clothes rather than receive clothing but no one took any notice.5. Integrating disaster risk into community projects through social impact assessment Sustainable development and disaster reduction are essential preconditions for each other. Development projects can increase or reduce the risk of natural disaster, through their impact on social resilience and the natural environment.Social impacts can be characterized and defined in many ways. The following definition is widely understood and used:SIA originated as a socio-economic component of environmental impact assessment (EIA), although it has since expanded and developed considerably, in developed and developing countries. SIAs can be carried out at different stages in project and policy development, from initial planning to implementation and post-implementation evaluation. In project-level assessment, typical applications include considering the likely impacts of new industrial activities, construction, land use or resource management practices.
SIA often forms part of a broader social analysis or assessment, but has a distinct and more specific purpose.As a conceptual model, SIA is equipped to take hazard and related disaster risk into account, whether these are external factors affecting a project or conditions created or magnified by the project itself.
Seen in this way, SIA has clear linkages to EIA and other forms of ex-ante impact assessment, as well as with vulnerability and sustainable livelihoods analysis.
It is more common for a formal risk analysis or a health impact assessment (see Box 2) to be undertaken, either to complement the SIA or within a broader EIA of which the SIA is part.6. Integrating hazard and disaster risk into the SIA processAccording to the Centre for Good Governance (2006), a conventional SIA process comprises the following ten steps, which are set out below with comments about how hazards and related disaster risks can be incorporated into the process.Step 1.
Develop public involvement programmeThe first step is to develop an effective plan to involve the public. It should explicitly include those who might be exposed to greater (or lesser) hazard risk as a result of the project. Describe proposed action and alternativesThe proposed action or policy change (and alternative approaches, if appropriate) is described in enough detail to begin to identify the data requirements for an SIA and design the framework for assessment. Potentially key types of social impact, including those related to disasters, should be identified and plans made to obtain relevant data. Describe relevant human environment and zones of influenceRelevant data on the geographical and human environments related to the project are collected and reviewed through a baseline study or community profile. Identify probable impacts (scoping)This stage seeks to identify the full range of possible social impacts (including those perceived by affected groups). Early, comprehensive and systematic screening can identify potential hazards and associated risks that might affect the project and communities at any stage in the project cycle, as well as the impact the project itself might have on disaster risk.
It is important that the views of all affected people, including those vulnerable to hazards, are taken into account.Step 5. Investigate probable impactsInvestigation of the social impacts identified during scoping is the most important component of the SIA. A range of methods, including modelling and scenarios, can be deployed to investigate probable future impacts. Hazardous events (as external factors or consequences of the project) and their risk or uncertainty should be included in trend and scenario analysis. Determine probable responseThe responses of all affected groups to the impacts are assessed, in terms of attitude and actions. This should include responses to changes in social vulnerability as a consequence of the project and to a disaster event with an impact on the project.
Estimate secondary and cumulative impactsSecondary (indirect) and cumulative project impacts are assessed, although it is almost impossible to identify all dimensions of social impacts because of the way in which one change leads to others.
Recommend changes or alternativesThe consequences of changes to the plan or alternative interventions are assessed as in step 5 (though usually on a more modest scale) and the same key issues should be considered.Step 9. Mitigation, remediation and enhancement planA plan is developed for mitigating adverse impacts, by not taking or modifying an action, minimizing its impacts through design and operational changes, or compensating for its impact by providing alternative facilities, resources or opportunities. Impact avoidance should be the first priority, impact reduction or minimization undertaken if avoidance is not possible, and offsetting or compensation for adverse impact used only when no other options are available.Step 10. Develop and implement monitoring programmeA monitoring programme is developed to track project or programme development and compare actual impacts with projected ones.7. ConclusionWhen placed in the context of sustainable development, disaster management represents an important aspect of socio-economic and national security, therefore facilitating a continuous development process. Policymakers in the development and poverty reduction sector need to recognize that disasters are not just “setbacks” or “roadblocks” to development, but result from the paths that development is pursuing. Thus by changing our planning processes, and incorporating disaster risk assessment in the planning of all new development projects, we can make sure that the future natural hazards will encounter resilient communities that are capable of withstanding their impact and therefore remain mere emergencies rather than disasters. We need to recognize that we can mitigate the impact of disaster and make mitigation the cornerstone of disaster management interventions. We must shift the focus to the most poor and vulnerable sections of our society, and ensure that our interventions are community-based and driven. To do this the extent to which a community disaster risk space is linked with environmental management practices must be recognized and given adequate consideration.
For instance, during flood events, a sustainable risk reduction must take note of increased flood that is caused by the conversion of natural landscapes into agricultural areas such that flood mitigation does not jeopardize agricultural practices with an attendant risk of food insecurity.
In essence, community participation is required since members of the community are directly affected by the disaster and are the ones who need to take decisions to reduce the risk; it is therefore unlikely that risk reduction will be successful without active involvement of the local community in the critical stages of disaster risk reduction efforts.

Power failure san diego
Red cross brochure
Preppers survival tips

Comments to “Disaster risk management and environmental assessment for spatial planning”

  1. lady_of_night writes:
    Which realy demands disaster risk management and environmental assessment for spatial planning good sound investment and how it could warnings about children's use of wireless.
  2. shahrukhkhan writes:
    It, so there is fairly an overwhelming amount.
  3. KPACOTKA writes:
    Other age acceptable entertainments you happen to be showering you can make coronal.