Constructing a Holistic Approach

8/12/2019 Constructing a Holistic Approach

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constructing-a-holistic-approach 1/17

Constructing a holistic approach todisaster risk reduction: the significance

of focusing on vulnerability reductionRoshani Palliyaguru Lecturer, Heriot-Watt University, United Kingdom,

Dilanthi Amaratunga Professor and Head of Centre for Disaster Resilience,

University of Salford, United Kingdom, and David Baldry Deputy Head of School

and Senior Lecturer, University of Salford, United Kingdom

As a result of the increase in natural disaster losses, policy-makers, practitioners, and members of

the research community around the world are seeking effective and efficient means of overcoming

or minimising them. Although various theoretical constructs are beneficial to understanding thedisaster phenomenon and the means of minimising losses, the disaster risk management process

becomes less effective if theory and practice are set apart from one another. Consequently, this

paper seeks to establish a relationship between two theoretical constructs, ‘disaster risk reduction

(DRR)’ and ‘vulnerability reduction’, and to develop a holistic approach to DRR with particular

reference to improving its applicability in practical settings. It is based on a literature review and

on an overall understanding gained through two case studies of post-disaster infrastructure recon-

struction projects in Sri Lanka and three expert interviews in Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.

Keywords: disaster risk reduction (DRR), holistic approach to disaster risk reduction,vulnerability, vulnerability reduction

Introduction

Background

The functions of everyday life can stall owing to disasters—irrespective of where they

happen—which have an assortment of consequences in a variety of areas. Disaster

losses cannot be measured simply in monetary terms as the loss of life is immeasur-able and the impact on communities is either direct or indirect in nature. Disaster

losses occur at all levels, ranging from individual household losses to national- and

international-level losses due to exceptional catastrophic events (UNDP, 2004).

As a result of the increase in natural disaster losses, policy-makers, practitioners,

and members of the research community around the world are seeking effective and

efficient means of overcoming or minimising them. This has led to the introduction

of numerous theoretical constructs related to the disaster risk management domain.

Although many of these theoretical constructs, such as ‘disaster risk’, ‘disaster risk

reduction (DRR)’, ‘hazard mitigation’, ‘resil ience’, ‘resistant’, ‘susceptibil ity’, and‘vulnerability reduction’, have been advantageous for disaster management scholar-

ship, they have failed to address sufficiently the triggering agents, functional areas,

actors, variables, and disciplines pertaining to disaster events (McEntire et al., 2002).

doi:10.1111/disa.12031

Disasters, 2014, 38(1): 45−61. © 2014 The Author(s). Disasters © Overseas Development Institute, 2014

Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA



Roshani Palliyaguru, Dilanthi Amaratunga, and David Baldry46

The aim of the paper

‘Disaster risk reduction’ and ‘vulnerability reduction’ are commonly discussed topics

in the contemporary disaster management sphere. They are used interchangeably to

mean ways of overcoming and minimising disaster losses. In this context, this paper

concentrates on establishing a relationship between these two theoretical constructs

to develop a holistic approach to DRR with particular reference to improving its

applicability in practical settings.

Research methodology

This paper is based on a literature review and on an overall understanding gained

through two case studies of post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction projects in Sri

Lanka and three expert interviews in Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom. The litera-

ture review and the empirical research explored the influence of the integration ofDRR into infrastructure reconstruction on socioeconomic development. Both qual-

itative and quantitative data were collected and analysed to investigate the impact of

the integration of DRR into infrastructure reconstruction on vulnerability reduc-

tion in communities and projects. Two case studies were conducted within a water

supply and sanitation reconstruction project and a road reconstruction project follow-

ing the tsunami of 2004. The case studies consisted of a series of semi-structured

interviews and a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire survey was carried out pri-

marily to triangulate the data gathered from the semi-structured interviews. It added

depth to the study by using multiple sources of evidence. While the semi-structuredinterviews were analysed using NVivo (version 8) software, the questionnaires were

analysed using descriptive statistics techniques. The expert interviews were convened

to overcome the difficulty of generalising the findings of a case-study approach within

a wider population—expert interview findings are not context-specific. Both the

literature review and the empirical study helped to create, therefore, a novel argument

about the relationship between the two concepts and understanding of the applica-

bility of their theoretical meanings in practical settings.

Current understanding of risk of natural disasters

McEntire (2001) explains disasters as the disruptive and/or deadly and destructive

outcomes of triggering agent(s) when they interact with, and are exacerbated by,

various forms of vulnerability. The UK Department for International Development

(DFID) also describes disaster risk as the product of a combination of hazards (in

other words, triggering agents) and people’s vulnerability to them (DFID, 2005a).

While triggering agents stand as the independent component of a disaster that may

originate in the realms of the natural environment or human activity, or a combi-nation of these two spheres, vulnerability is considered to be the dependent compo-

nent that is determined by the degree of risk, susceptibility, resistance, and resilience

(McEntire, 2001).



Constructing a holistic approach to disaster risk reduction 47

A disaster is a function of the risk process (UNISDR, 2004a, p. 16). Hence, ‘dis-

aster risk’ is defined as ‘the probability of harmful consequences, or expected loss

(of lives, people injured, property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or envi-

ronment damaged) resulting from interactions between natural or human-induced

hazards and vulnerable conditions’ (UNISDR, 2004b). Earthquakes, storms, andtorrential rains are some of the natural phenomena that are referred to as ‘hazards’

and that are not considered to be disasters in themselves. For example, an earthquake

that occurs on a desert island does not trigger a disaster because there is no existing

population or property to be affected (ADRC, 2005). In addition to a hazard, some

‘vulnerability’ to the natural phenomenon must be present for an event to constitute

a natural disaster.

Conventionally, risk is expressed by the equation (UNISDR, 2004a):

Risk = hazard (frequency and severity) × vulnerability (exposure/capacity) According to the above equation, vulnerability is seen as a function of exposure

and capacity. However, the Asian Disaster Reduction Centre (ADRC) views dis-

aster risk as a function of the hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (ADRC, 2005),

which is interpreted as follows:

Disaster risk = function (hazard, exposure, vulnerability)

According to this definition, exposure is defined as being outside of vulnerability.

Following a critical review of the existing literature in this domain, however, it became

apparent that both exposure and capacity can be considered as aspects of vulnera-

bility. This point is discussed in the following sections of the paper.

Hazards

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) describes

hazard as a ‘potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity

that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic dis-

ruption or environmental degradation’ (UNISDR, 2004a, p. 16). Hazards can have

different origins: they may be natural or man-made (UNISDR, 2004b). Naturalhazards result from natural phenomena, such as events with a geological, meteoro-

logical, or even biological source. Examples of natural hazards are cyclones, earthquakes,

tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions (Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan, 2008). Man-made

hazards, meanwhile, are those caused, for example, by a dam failure, an explosion,

human negligence, pollution or the leakage of toxic waste, or war or civil strife

(Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan, 2008). In contrast to the classification of the UNISDR

(2004b), Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan (2008) draw attention to socio-natural hazards,

caused by both natural and man-made phenomena. Droughts, floods, fires, and

landslides all fall into this classification. Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan (2008) adoptedthe summarised classification of hazards produced in 2006 by the Central Board of

Secondary Education (CBSE) (CBSE, 2006, cited in Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan (2008),

as depicted in Table 1.




Table 1. Classification of hazards

Type of hazard Examples

Geological hazards • Earthquake, landslide, mine fire, tsunami, volcanic eruption.

Water and climatic hazards • Cloudburst, drought, flood, hailstorm, heat- and cold-wave, hurricane, land slide, sea erosion, snow avalanche, tornado, tropical cyclone.

Environmental hazards • Deforestation, environmental pollution.

Biological hazards • Animal/human epidemic, food poisoning, pest attack.

Chemical, industrial, and

nuclear accidents

• Chemical, industrial, nuclear disaster, oil spill/fire.

Accident-related hazards • Aeroplane crash, boat/road/train accident, bomb/serial bomb disaster/blast ,

building collapse, electric accident, festival related, forest fire, mine flooding,

rural/urban fire.

Source: CBSE (2006), cited in Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan (2008).

Vulnerabilities

Vulnerability is a term used in the field of risk, hazard, and disaster management as

well as in the areas of global change and environment and development studies

(Weichselgartner, 2001). The UNISDR (2004a, p. 16) defines it as ‘the conditions

determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which

increase the susceptibility of a community to the impacts of hazards’. According to

that organisation, vulnerability to hazards is expressed as the degree of exposure ofthe population/property and its capacity to prepare for and respond to the hazard

(UNISDR, 2004a). Meanwhile, Buckle, Marsh, and Smale (2000, p. 9) adopt the

1998 definition of Emergency Management Australia: ‘the degree of susceptibility

and resilience of the community and environment to hazards’. For Wisner et al. (2003,

p. 11), vulnerability means ‘the characteristics of a person or group and their situ-

ation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from

the impact of a natural hazard (an extreme natural event or process)’. Nevertheless,

the definition of vulnerability remains vague and thus there is no common concep-

tualisation of the term among scholars (Cutter, 1996, cited in Weichselgartner, 2001;McEntire, Gilmore Crocker, and Peters, 2010).

McEntire (2001), though, views vulnerability as a product of four components:

risk, susceptibility, resistance, and resilience (see Figure 1). Here, the entire environ-

ment is divided into two parts: the physical environment (composed of natural systems

as well as built environmental and technological structures) and the social environment

(composed of individuals and groups of individuals as well as cultural, economic, and

political systems). McEntire (2001) defines the four components as follows:

• The physical environment faces a risk owing to its proximity or its exposure tohazards, which increases the probability of a disaster and the potential for losses

(Reynolds, 1993, cited in McEntire, 2001; Buckle, Marsh, and Smale, 2000, cited

in McEntire, 2001).




Figure 1. Components of vulnerability

Source: based on McEntire (2001).

ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL

ATTRIBUTES

Physical

(including built, natural,

technological)

Liabilities Risk Susceptibility

ResilienceResistanceCapabilities

Social

(including cultural, economic,

political, technological)

Vulnerability

• The social environment is susceptible to disasters owing to cultural, economic, politi-

cal, and social forces and activities that determine the proneness of individuals and

groups to the adverse affects of a disaster (Buckle, 1995, cited in McEntire, 2001).

• The physical environment’s ability to resist the damage imposed by hazards is called

resistance (Norton and Chantry, 1993, cited in McEntire, 2001).

• The capacity of the social environment to cope with or its ability to react or to

recover effectively from a hazard that becomes disastrous is cal led resilience (Mileti,1999; Buckle, Marsh, and Smale, 2000).

Although McEntire (2001) takes ‘risk’ to mean the physical environment’s prox-

imity or exposure to hazards, it can be termed dif ferently to avoid any confusion—

‘risk’ has an overall meaning and ‘vulnerability’ is certainly a part of ‘risk’. Therefore,

‘risk’, according to the definition of McEntire (2001), can be replaced with a more

meaningful term, such as ‘fragility’.

Similarly, Weichselgartner (2001) views vulnerability from the perspective of:

• Individual vulnerability—personal or individual potential for, or sensitivity to,

losses that have both spatial and non-spatial dimensions.

• Social vulnerability—the susceptibility of social groups or society at large to poten-

tial losses owing to disastrous events.

• Technical vulnerabil ity—of a house, an electricity grid, or transport infrastruc-

ture, for example.

Weichselgartner (2001) also identifies a social environment’s susceptibility and

resilience, and a physical environment’s fragility and resistance to disasters, as com-ponents of a more compact notion of vulnerability, using different terminology.

Although certain pieces of literature, such as ADRC (2005), consider the term

‘exposure’ to be a separate component of risk, other research works define it as one




aspect of the entire concept of ‘vulnerability’. According to the ADRC (2005), ‘expo-

sure’ refers to that which is affected by disasters, such as people and property, where

mounting exposure results in an increased number of natural disasters and greater

levels of loss. A community is said to be at ‘risk’ when it is ‘exposed’ to ‘hazards’ and

is likely to be adversely affected by them (Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan, 2008). Ingeneral, ‘risk’ is defined as the expected loss of life and property owing to hazards.

If a community or a property is more exposed to hazards, then it is said to be more

vulnerable to them. Furthermore, the UNISDR (2004a) claims that exposure and

capacity are the root causes of vulnerability, justifying further the vulnerability con-

cept emphasised by McEntire (2001) in Figure 1. Capacity can be defined as the means,

resources, and strengths that exist in communities, properties, and households, and

which enable them to cope with, withstand, prepare for, prevent, mitigate, or recover

quickly from a disaster (Khan, Vasilescu, and Khan, 2008).

However, vulnerability does not only stand for exposure to a hazard and a lack of

capacity, but also it represents a series of resultant states of cultural, economic, envi-

ronmental, physical, political, social, and technological under-development processes,

before, during, and after a disaster (McEntire, 2001; Jigyasu, 2004). Drawing on a

similar line of argument, Wisner et al. (2003) claim that vulnerability involves a

combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone’s life, livelihood,

property, and other assets are put at risk by a discreet and identifiable event. Eshghi

and Larson (2008) note that vulnerability is influenced by factors such as location,

state of housing, and the level of preparedness and the ability to evacuate and perform

emergency operations. Different societies have differing levels of vulnerability; this

is one reason why hazards of a similar type and intensity can have quite varied effects

on different populations (Eshghi and Larson, 2008). McEntire (2001) claims that there

are innumerable variables that interact to produce a future of increased vulnerability,

which in turn have been categorised under the headings of physical, social, cultural,

political, economic, and technological vulnerabil ity, as depicted in Table 2.

Velasquez and Tanhueco (2005), working on social issues connected to disaster

vulnerability, identified a number of major issues contributing to the vulnerability

of the focus-group participants in their research, including: hazard experience; aware-ness of hazards; the effects of hazards on livelihoods and income; the consequences

of hazards for persons and property; health and ability to obtain medical treatment;

socio-demographic qualities; the availability of social support systems; the social

aspects of structural vulnerability to hazards; and the implementation of land-use

controls. While Velasquez and Tanhueco (2005) identified some of the issues as social

vulnerabilities, similar types of issues are categorised under different headings in the

work of McEntire (2001). However, the dif ferent issues identified by Velasquez and

Tanhueco (2005) are important in enhancing the list produced by McEntire (2001),

and thereby in establishing a more convincing catalogue of factors. As a result, manyother authors, such as Wisner et al. (2003) and Pell ing (2007, 2011), have been able

to research more accurately the issues contributing to vulnerability. Thus, social vul-

nerability alone would not make physical and social environments vulnerable to a




disaster since there are many other variables that contribute to vulnerability, such as

poor land-use planning, inadequate construction, environmental degradation, cultural

attitudes and practices, law and policy, a lack of planning, insufficient training, ineffec-

tive warning systems, communication failures, and inability to improvise (McEntire,

Gilmore Crocker, and Peters, 2010).

Moreover, Buckle, Marsh, and Smale (2001) recognise certain levels where resil-

ience and vulnerability could exist. Although the concept of resilience is defined

outside of vulnerabil ity in their research, the view presented by them is useful in

understanding the different levels of vulnerability that could exist. It categorises these

different levels of vulnerability as personal factors, community factors, and struc-

tural factors. Accordingly, while demographic groups such as women, children, andthe vulnerable are deemed to be personal factors, agencies, communities, infrastruc-

ture, and systems are seen as community factors, since they have different perceptions

of who is vulnerable and who lacks resilience. The third level, structural factors, refers

Table 2. Factors producing vulnerability

Type of vulnerability Variables that interact to generate vulnerability

Physical vulnerability • Proximity of people and property to triggering agents.

• Improper construction of buildings.• Inadequate foresight relating to the infrastructure.

• Degradation of the environment.

Social vulnerability • Limited education (including insuf ficient knowledge of disasters).

• Inadequate routine and emergency healthcare.

• Massive and unplanned migration to urban areas.

• Marginalisation of specific groups and individuals.

Cultural vulnerability • Public apathy towards disasters.

• Defiance of safety precautions and regulations.

• Loss of traditional coping measures.• Dependency and absence of personal responsibility.

Political vulnerabilit y • Minimal support for disaster programmes among elec ted officials.

• Inability to enforce or to encourage mitigation steps.

• Over-centralisation of decision-making.

• Isolated or weak disaster-related institutions.

Economic vulnerability • Growing divergence in the distribution of wealth.

• The pursuit of profit with little regard for consequences.

• Failure to purchase insurance.

• Sparse resources for disaster prevention, planning, and management.

Technological vulnerabilit y • Lack of structural mitigation devices .

• Over-reliance on warning systems or ineffective warning systems.

• Carelessness in industrial production.

• Lack of foresight vis-à-vis computer equipment/programmes.

Source: McEntire (2001).




to contextual issues such as change and development in an area or a community, social

and demographic trends, and economic conditions.

It is evident, therefore, that it is not only individuals and communities that are

vulnerable to disasters but also built-environment structures such as road networks,

sanitation projects, and water supplies. Thus, all of the vulnerabilities tabulated inTable 2 are commonly applicable to individuals, communities, and built-environment

structures.

In this way, different authors have defined the concept of vulnerability in various

ways. It is evident now, though, that disaster risk is developed because of hazards and

the vulnerabilities of the social and the physical environments to those hazards.

Academics, members of the research community, and practitioners propose certain

measures, ‘disaster risk reduction strategies’, to overcome disaster risks. The next sec-

tion presents the critical ly reviewed literature concerned with the concept of DRR

and current opinions on this concept.

DRR and its typologies

The impetus for DRR is to be found largely in the severe loss of life and property

owing to both major and minor natural and man-made disasters. The engineering

community, scientists, and policymakers now recognise the substantial effects of

DRR initiatives. DRR seeks to tackle the fundamental elements of disaster risk:

vulnerability and hazards (DFID, 2006). The UNISDR (2004b) defines DRR as ‘the

conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimise vul-

nerabilities and disaster risks throughout society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit

(mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad con-

text of sustainable development’. Adding to this definition, UNISDR (2009) states

that DRR represents the ‘systematic development and application of policies, strat-

egies and practices to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout society,

to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts

of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development’. DRR encompasses

measures to curb disaster losses by addressing hazards and the vulnerability of people

to them (DFID, 2005a). However, it is evident from the above that the concept ofDRR not only refers to structural or technically advanced strategies, but also to ‘soft

methods’ such as policy and planning and knowledge management strategies (Mileti,

1999). As Weichselgartner (2001) emphasises, although the complex nature of natu-

ral disasters has led to the belief that ‘hard engineering measures’ are more superior

than ‘soft methods’, it is very important to consider soft methods within the DRR

process and to make use of social rather than physical approaches.

There is a wide range of DRR strategies, which the research community has cat-

egorised in different ways. The literature contains var ious classifications of DRR

strategies. Mercer (2010) broadly identifies them as DRR policies and strategies thatneed to evolve from a top-down as well as a bottom-up standpoint. In addition, she

highlights the importance of appropriately linking grassroots strategies and suitable

top-down strategies and local government interventions (Mercer, 2010).




Nateghi-A (2000) provides a basic classification of disaster mitigation strategies:

• preparedness measures—to provide warnings, to establish contingency plans, and

to develop the capacity for an emergency response; and

• prevention/mitigation measures—to reduce vulnerabil ity and thereby risks on along-term and permanent basis.

Nevertheless, surpassing this basic classification, Nateghi-A (2000) proposes a com-

prehensive classification of a range of techniques that the city of Tehran, Iran, has

instigated to mitigate earthquake disasters:

• Engineering and construction measures:

• engineering measures that result in stronger individual structures that are more

resistant to hazards; and• engineering measures that create structures whose function is primarily dis-

aster protection, including earthquake shelters.

• Physical planning measures: measures that result in the proper selection of sites for

settlements and structures to avoid hazardous areas.

• Economic planning measures: measures that enable communities to become eco-

nomically stable in order for them to withstand losses and measures that make it

possible for communities to afford higher levels of safety, such as through diversi-

fication of economic activities.

• Policy guidance measures:

• organisational and procedural measures; and

• educational measures: professional training of engineers, planners, economists,

social scientists, and other managers (including hazard and risk reduction within

their normal area of competence), and the generation of political will, which

results in the institutionalisation of disaster mitigation.

• Public response measures: measures that result in a disaster ‘safety culture’ within

which the general public is total ly aware of potential hazards and associated vul-

nerabilities, al lowing them to protect themselves as completely as possible and to

support fully efforts made on their behalf to protect them.

Concern Worldwide (2005), a non-governmental, international, humanitar ian

organisation, has produced a relatively similar version of the basic classification of

DRR strategies of Nateghi-A (2000). Here, the term ‘DRR’ includes the following

three aspects of a disaster reduction strategy:

• mitigation;

• preparedness; and

• advocacy.

These three categories are not mutually exclusive (Concern Worldwide, 2005).

Mitigation measures can be divided into infrastructural and non-infrastructural




measures that reduce the frequency, the intensity, the scale, and the impact of hazards.

Preparedness plans often include capacity-building, and usually are knowledge-based

and incorporate early-warning systems that monitor and predict the occurrence of

hazards, as well as contingency plans for an effective response. Advocacy seeks to

change favourably policies and practice through networking and the application ofinfluence (Concern Worldwide, 2005).

DFID (2005b) has produced a clearly understood classification of DRR strategies:

• Policy and planning measures: a national plan for protection against disasters,

including preparedness and contingency planning; land-use planning; integrated

management of flooding and the water supply; an integrated warning and response

system; and improving networks/links with local governments.

• Physical preventative measures: flood defences (such as a dam, multipurpose, sea-

borne) and sea walls; natural protection against floods (such as reforestation ofwatersheds); and installation of drainage pumps.

• Physical coping and/or adaptive measures: resilient roads and infrastructure (such

as raised roads); resilient water supply systems (such as boreholes, raised hand-pumps);

and the design and building of contingency mechanisms for coping with disasters

(such as escape roads).

• Community capacity-building measures: training communities in disaster pre-

paredness; and public warning systems.

On reviewing the established DRR strategies and their classifications, it is evident

that there are strategies that fall under policy and planning strategies, physical/technical strategies, emergency preparedness strategies, natural protection strategies,

and knowledge management strategies. These could exist at the international, national,

institutional, project/programme, and community/individual level. What the inter-

national, national, and community level means is clear; the institutional level, mean-

while, stands for local and urban authorities and construction companies, for example,

whereas the project/programme level stands for construction or reconstruction projects

and disaster mitigation programmes, for instance. Policy and planning strategies,

including various frameworks and guidelines, could exist at the international, national,

or institutional level—they have a direct effect on each other from top to bottom—aswell as at the project/programme level and the community and individual level.

Physical/technical strategies, emergency preparedness strategies, and natural protec-

tion strategies could exist at the project/programme level, while knowledge man-

agement strategies could exist at both the project/programme and the community

and individual level.

Figure 2 depicts this proposed classification of DRR strategies. The dashed lines

indicate the influence of policy and planning strategies on different levels, and at

each of the following levels. All of the DRR strategy categories are of paramount

importance to the physical and social environments. However, the applicability of theDRR concept is not limited to a particular time frame. Effective DRR happens well

before disasters strike, and continues afterwards, building resilience to future hazards

(DFID, 2005a).




Discussion: constructing a holistic DRR approachTo establish a holistic approach to DRR, it is important to explore its significance for

vulnerability reduction—that is, how DRR strategies may support vulnerability reduc-

tion. This understanding wil l enable decisions to be made on which DRR strategies

could address triggering agents, functional areas, actors, variables, and disciplines per-

taining to disaster events.

The prevention and mitigation of disaster risk can be achieved through:

1. the prevention or mitigation of hazards; and/or

2. the prevention or mitigation of vulnerabilities.

However, there are preventable and unpreventable hazards (Cannon, 1993, cited

in McEntire, 2005). Pall iyaguru and Amaratunga (2011) claim that certain hazards,

Figure 2. Classification of disaster risk reduction strategies

INTERNATIONAL

LEVEL

NATIONAL

LEVEL

INSTITUTIONAL

LEVEL

PROJECT/

PROGRAMME LEVEL

COMMUNITY AND

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

Policy and planningguidelines;

frameworks

Policy and planning

guidelines;

frameworks

Policy and planning

guidelines;

frameworks

Physical/

technical

strategies

Emergency

preparedness

strategies

National

protection

strategies

Knowledge

management

strategies

Source: authors.




such as floods, are preventable via the prevention of associated vulnerabilities whereas

hazards such as earthquakes are unpreventable. It is claimed, therefore, that, although

these hazards may or may not be preventable, their effects and losses can be pre-

vented or mitigated. Palliyaguru and Amaratunga (2011) state that the best way to

prevent or mitigate disaster losses is to prevent (eliminate) or mitigate (reduce) vul-nerabilities, commonly referred to as ‘vulnerability reduction’.

McEntire (2004) acknowledges that one certainly can limit, although not elimi-

nate completely, vulnerability to disasters. Rautela (2006) notes that all risk reduction-

related efforts are associated with decreasing the vulnerability of the community, as

this is the most critical variable in relation to the impact of a disaster. Weichselgartner

(2001, p. 87) offers the same argument, adding that ‘the concept of vulnerability can

provide a vehicle to explore a contextual approach to the reduction of losses due to

natural hazards, and address the salient issues of sustainability and quality of life’.

Stenchion (1997) reiterates that development and disaster management are bothaimed at vulnerability reduction. In this context, McEntire et al. (2002) emphasise

the importance of incorporating a broad scope of variables in the future paradigm

and considering vulnerability reduction through development and disaster manage-

ment activities alike. Yodmani (2001), researching proactive disaster management

with a particular focus on the reduction of disaster risks, underlines that DRR can

make a significant contribution to protecting vulnerable communities, in terms of

life, assets, and livelihoods. One can contend that DRR strategies aimed at helping

poorer communities should work towards reducing economic vulnerability, and

simultaneously capitalise on, and perhaps foster, the inherent cultural and social capaci-ties of poorer communities, because disaster risks originate in and are exaggerated by

economic, environmental, political, and socia l factors (Mercer, 2010). Moreover,

Thomalla et al. (2006) identify DRR as one of four methods used by the research and

policy communities involved in the reduction of vulnerability to natural hazards—

the other three are climate change adaptation, environmental management, and

poverty reduction. Concentrating on disaster reduction and climate adoption as prin-

ciple methods of vulnerability reduction, Thomalla et al. (2006) claim that, to date,

both have failed to decrease vulnerability. However, Mercer (2010), while discuss-

ing DRR and climate change adaptation, asserts that DRR evolved from both a top-down and bottom-up perspective, and that climate change adaptation generally

emerged from a top-down driven policy that initially was not adequately connected

to the communities directly affected by climate change. The ADRC (2005) states

that vulnerability reduction can be achieved through mitigation and preparedness

strategies. Thus, it is evident that DRR should be aimed at vulnerabil ity reduction.

In other words, vulnerability is lessened through the adoption of DRR strategies.

McEntire, Gilmore Crocker, and Peters (2010), while presenting an improved

model of vulnerability reduction, identified four ideal schools of thought on vulner-

ability reduction:

• physical science school;

• engineering school;




• structural school; and

• organisational school.

All four possess their own strengths and weaknesses, but two are categorised as

technocratic and the remaining two as sociological (McEntire, Gilmore Crocker,and Peters, 2010):

• Physical science school—it concentrates on living in safe areas and focuses mostly

on exposure to hazards and risk reduction. As discussed by Mileti et al. (1995, cited

in McEntire, 2010), Mileti (1999, cited in McEntire, 2010), Chakraborty et al.

(2000, cited in McEntire, 2010), and Reddy (2000, cited in McEntire, 2010), this

school relies heavily on analysis of the physical environment.

• Engineering school—it concentrates on the built environment and on ways to

increase resistance through construction practices and methods of fabrication.

• Structural school—it concentrates more on traditional notions of vulnerabil ity

than the other three, and it stresses susceptibility based on socioeconomic factors

and demographic characteristics, including age, ethnicity, gender, and race. This

is a relatively new school of thought. The main idea is that the individual becomes

vulnerable first and foremost owing to his/her social structure and not necessarily

because of other life choices.

• Organisational school—it concentrates on resilience or the effectiveness of response

and recovery operations, and underscores the importance of preparedness, leader-

ship, management, and the ability to adapt, to improvise, and to be creative.

In addition, McEntire, Gilmore Crocker, and Peters (2010) propose strategies to

overcome each of these types of vulnerability. Table 3 summarises these strategies,

which are similar to the DRR strategies examined earlier.

Table 3. DRR strategies to overcome vulnerability

School of thought Strategies to overcome vulnerabili ty

Physical science school • Creation of warning systems.

• Cautious development.• Environmental protection.

• Complete relocation of vulnerable communities in extreme cases.

• Land-use planning.

• Careful settlement patterns.

• General categorisation of a place’s ‘hazardousness’.

Engineering school • Ways to increase resistance through construction practices and fabrication methods.

• Build structures and infrastructure adequately.

Structural school • Improve socioeconomic and demographic factors (such as age, ethnicity, gender, poverty,race) that usually increase a community’s susceptibility.

Organisational school • Effective response and recovery operations.

• Effective preparedness.

• Effective leadership and management and the ability to adapt, to improvise, and to becreative to help enhance disaster activities.




F i g u r e

3 . F

r a m e w o r k s h o w i n g t h e i n fl u

e n c e o f D R R o n v u l n e r a b i l i t y

r e d u c t i o n

S o u r c e : a u t h

o r s .




In this context, a theoretical framework was developed (see Figure 3) based on the

above literature review and an overall understanding gained through the doctoral

research of Roshani Palliyaguru. It clearly categorises the DRR strategies that can be

effective in overcoming the factors generating various vulnerabil ities (see Table 2).

Based on Figure 3, Table 4 summarises the influence of DRR strategies on vulner-

ability reduction.

As suggested by existing research, international-, national-, and institutional-level

policies can have the greatest influence on reducing all types of vulnerabilities, address-

ing al l of the factors that generate such vulnerabil ity (see Table 2). What is lacking

in the current policies, though, is identification of the key factors generating the

vulnerability of communities and projects. This research proves that physical/technical

strategies and emergency preparedness strategies are more effective in decreasing phys-ical and technological vulnerability because they are more technical and technological

in orientation, resulting in turn in the effective positioning of infrastructure. However,

emergency preparedness strategies also can lead to a reduction in social vulnerabilities

because they can largely overcome factors such as a lack of education, over-reliance

on warning systems or ineffective warning systems, and inadequate emergency pre-

paredness among communities, which produce social vulnerability. While natural

protection strategies are effective primarily in lessening physical vulnerabilities,

knowledge management strategies are useful in overcoming all forms of vulnerabil-

ity. They involve predominantly improving the education standards of constructionprofessionals and communities, increasing women’s engagement in project decision-

making, and enhancing communication and information management and sharing

inside and outside of projects.

Conclusion

The term ‘disaster risk reduction’ encompasses a wide range of issues pertaining to

disaster risk management. Using an integrated approach, this paper presents an effec-tive classification of DRR strategies: policy and planning; physical/technical; emer-

gency preparedness; natural protection; and knowledge management strategies.

These five categories of DRR strategies exist at the international, national, institutional,

Table 4. Influence of DRR strategies on vulnerability reduction

DRR strategies Types of vulnerability that can be overcome

Policy and planning strategies • Cultural, economic, political, physical, social, technological.

Physical /technical strategies • Physical, technological.

Emergency preparedness strategies • Physical, social, technological.

Natural protection strategies • Physical.

Knowledge management strategies • Cultural, economic, political, physical, social, technological.




project/programme, and community/individual level. While most other classifica-

tions offered by researchers and practitioners are limited to a few categories, this study

covers the whole spectrum of issues, ranging from the international to the community/

individual level, to produce an effective catalogue of DRR strategies.

The primary aim of this paper was to develop a holistic DRR approach. It soughtto establish a link between the theoretical constructs of ‘disaster risk reduction’ and

‘vulnerabil ity reduction’, which resulted in an analysis of the effects of DRR strat-

egies on vulnerability reduction, as the literature review highlighted that an effective

way of mitigating disaster losses is to reduce vulnerability—commonly called ‘vul-

nerability reduction’. The proposed theoretical framework elucidated the influence

of DRR strategies on variables that interact to produce vulnerability. Furthermore,

the literature review and the empirical investigation in Roshani Palliyaguru’s doc-

toral research, on which this paper is based, revealed that policy and planning strate-

gies and knowledge management strategies are useful in overcoming all six typesof vulnerability (cultural, economic, physical, political, social, and technological).

Moreover, they demonstrated that physical/technical strategies are beneficial for phys-

ical and technological vulnerability reduction, that emergency preparedness strategies

are beneficial for physical, technological, and social vulnerability reduction, and that

natural protection strategies are beneficial for physical vulnerability reduction.

CorrespondenceDr Roshani Pal liyaguru, Lecturer, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt

University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom.

Telephone: +44 (0)131 451 3154; e-mail: [email protected]

ReferencesADRC (Asian Disaster Reduction Centre) (2005) Total Disaster Risk Management – Good Practices 2005.

ADRC, Kobe.

Buckle, P., G. Marsh, and S. Smale (2000) ‘New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience’. Australian Journal of Emergency Management . 15(2). pp. 8 – 14.

Buckle, P., G. Marsh, and S. Smale (2001) Assessing Resilience and Vulnerability: Principles, Strategies and

Actions – Guidelines. Emergency Management Australia, Barton, ACT.

Concern Worldwide (2005) Approaches to Disaster Risk Reduction. Concern Worldwide, London.

DFID (Department for International Development) (2005a) Disaster Risk Reduction: A Development

Concern. DFID, London.

DFID (2005b) Natural Disaster and Disaster Risk Reduction Measures: A Desk Review of Costs and Benefits.

Draft Final Report. DFID, London.

DFID (2006) Reducing the Risk of Disasters – Helping to Achieve Sustainable Poverty Reduction in a Vulnerable

World. DFID Policy Paper. DFID, London.

Eshghi, K. and R.C. Larson (2008) ‘Disasters : lessons from the past 105 years’. Disaster Prevention and

Management . 17(1). pp. 62 – 82.

Jigyasu, R. (2004) Sustainable Post Disaster Reconstruction through Integrated Risk Management: The Case of

Rural Communities in South Asia. International conference and student competition on post-disaster




reconstruction, ‘planning for reconstruction’, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom,

22 – 23 April 2004.

Khan, H., L.G. Vasilescu, and A. Khan (2008) ‘Disaster management cycle: a theoretical approach’.

Management and Marketing . 6(1). pp. 43 – 50.

McEntire, D.A. (2001) ‘Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction: towards a holistic

paradigm’. Disaster Prevention and Management . 10(3). pp. 189 – 196.McEntire, D.A. (2004) ‘Tenets of vulnerabil ity: an as sessment of a fundamental disaster concept’.

Journal of Emergency Management . 2(2). pp. 23 – 29.

McEntire, D.A. (2005) ‘Why vulnerability matters: exploring the merit of an inclusive disaster reduc-

tion concept’. Disaster Prevention and Management . 14(2). pp. 206 – 222.

McEntire, D.A., C. Fuller, C.W. Johnston, and R. Weber (2002) ‘A comparison of disaster para-

digms: the search for a holistic policy guide’. Public Administration Review . 62(3). pp. 267 – 281.

McEntire, D.A., C. Gilmore Crocker, and E. Peters (2010) ‘Addressing vulnerability through an inte-

grated approach’. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment . 1(1). pp. 50 – 64.

Mercer, J. (2010) ‘Disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation: are we reinventing the wheel?’.

Journal of International Development . 22(2). pp. 247 – 264.

Mileti, D.S. (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Joseph

Henry Press, Washington, DC.

Nateghi-A, F. (2000) ‘Disaster mitigation strategies in Teheran, Iran’. Disaster Prevention and Management .

9(3). pp. 205 – 211.

Palliyaguru, R.S. and D. Amaratunga (2011) ‘Linking reconstruction to sustainable socio-economic

development’. In D. Amaratunga and R. Haigh (eds.) Reconstructing for Resilience: Strategies for Building

Sustainable Communities after a Disaster. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. pp. 268 – 286.

Pelling, M. (2007) ‘Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk

assessment’. Disasters. 31(4). pp. 373 – 385.

Pelling, M. (2011) Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. Routledge, Abingdon.

Rautela, P. (2006) ‘Risk management for vibrant economic growth and sustained development’.Disaster Prevention and Management . 15(4). pp. 585 – 597.

Stenchion, P. (1997) ‘Development and disaster management’. Australian Journal of Emergency Management .

12(3). pp. 40 – 44.

Thomal la, F., T. Downing, E. Spanger-Siegfr ied, and G. Han (2006) ‘Reducing hazard vulnerability:

towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adoption’. Disasters. 30(1).

pp. 39 – 48.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2004) A Global Report – Reducing Disaster Risk:

A Challenge for Development. Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP, New York, NY.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2004a) Living With Risk:

A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Inter-Agency Secretar iat of the United Nations

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva.UNISDR (2004b) ‘Terminology: basic terms of disaster risk reduction’. http://www.unisdr.org/files

/7817 _ 7819isdrterminology11.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2013).

UNISDR (2009) Terminology on DRR. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng.htm

(accessed on 20 February 2009).

Velasquez, G. and R.M.T Tanhueco (2005) ‘Incorporating social issues in disaster risk assessment’.

In United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ed.) Know Risk. Tudor Rose,

Geneva. pp. 91 – 92.

Weichselgartner, J. (2001) ‘Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited’. Disaster Preven-

tion and Management . 10(2). pp. 85 – 94.

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability

and Disasters. Second edition. Routledge, London.

Yodmani, S. (2001) Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting the Poor. ‘Asia and

Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policies and Inst itutions for Poverty Reduction’, Asian

Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, 5 – 9 February 2001.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aurea-de-jesus-romo
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Constructing a Holistic Approach

Documents