Disaster risk reduction

Our approach to disaster risk reduction focuses on identification of points of entry within institutions for reducing or managing risk and vulnerability, strengthening resilience and encouraging adaptation through structural and directed forms of action. In addition our approach emphasizes the dynamic nature of risk and, as a result, recognizes that opportunities for disaster risk reduction are both time and scale dependent. Windows of opportunity that can shape future vulnerability for long periods of time often open in specific contexts and then close rapidly. What do we mean by all this?

Vulnerability to disasters is heavily influenced not just by physical or economic exposure to specific natural hazards but also by a wide variety of societal factors that shape the impact of hazard events and ability to recover from them. Focusing on vulnerability enables the development of strategic approaches to disaster risk reduction that carefully target the factors contributing to risk. As a result, while our approach to disaster risk reduction focuses heavily on strategies that directly address the physical impacts associated with specific natural hazards in a given region (that is the impact floods, droughts, storms and other extreme events have on infrastructure and assets) it also emphasizes the way social, institutional, financial, communication and other systems mediate and alter the nature of risk for different groups.

Where the physical factors contributing to hazard exposure are concerned, physical interventions designed to reduce risk from natural hazards can prove counterproductive over the long-term. Flood control measures that provide protection in relation to specific design conditions, for example, can increase the ultimate scale of disasters if they give a false sense of security and, as a result, people build behind them. Issues of this type will be a growing problem as changes in climate undermine the scientific basis for estimating design parameters such as the 100 hear flood or storm event. As a result, our approach to physical interventions for hazard mitigation focuses on technologies that are inherently resilient and provide a degree of risk mitigation under widely varying projections concerning the frequency or magnitude of specific events. Technical approaches that enable people to “live with” floods, droughts and storm events rather than directly attempting to control them are of particular relevance in this context.

Where societal factors are concerned, vulnerability at the level of individuals, households and communities depends heavily on what might be called the “opportunity-constraint set” embedded within livelihood systems. Groups with similar exposure to a given natural hazard are often affected in a very different manner by specific hazard events. In many societies, for example, women or specific cultural groups are confined to certain types of work while men and other cultural groups are in able to access much more diversified livelihood options. This is also the case with respect to the other “systemic” factors influencing vulnerability. Specific groups, for example, may have better access than others to communications (and thus early warning), institutions (and thus the ability to organize risk reduction or disaster response activities), education (and thus a wider job market when one source of income is destroyed), and credit or insurance (and thus the ability to rebuild following disaster). 

The “opportunity-constraint set” facing individuals, households, businesses and other actors determines the courses of action they take in response to the risks they perceive. Such responses are what might be called “autonomous” strategies for adapting to risk – they are the emergent, generally unplanned, courses of action that occur in virtually all local contexts and serve either to mitigate and spread risks or to concentrate them. These emergent properties can be shaped by targeted interventions designed to reduce constraints, increase opportunities or change perceptions of risk. While the potential array of interventions is extremely wide, they can broadly be classified as that either involve “structural” changes or directed action.

Structural approaches seek to identify points of entry where improvements in the underlying systems that support resilience within livelihood systems can be improved in ways that address risk. These points of entry involve features such as the presence of diversified institutions, access to communications, financial, transport and other systems, mobility and education. Actions targeted at improving access to such basic systems for vulnerable groups are, we believe, absolutely central to disaster risk reduction. This is based on earlier research demonstrating the critical role livelihood diversification, access to communications, financial systems, education and other basic systemic properties play in the strategies households are able to adopt for risk mitigation in flood and drought prone regions (Adaptive Capacity and Livelihood Resilience: Adaptive strategies for responding to floods and droughts in South Asia). As this research found, in many cases the consequences of hazard events depended far more on the ability of households and other actors to shift strategies (for example from farming to non-farm work) rather than the proximate impact on a given activity. 

Directed action forms of intervention for disaster risk reduction are an essential complement to structural ones. Directed action forms of intervention involve specific social, financial or institutional responses to risk. Such forms of action can range from disaster planning and establishment of early warning systems to the development of insurance programs or land use regulations designed to reduce hazard exposure, reduce or spread risks and improve responses.

Because the utility of both structural and directed forms of intervention in any given situation depends heavily on conditions, needs and incentives within local communities approaches, that are rooted in and driven by communities are often essential. This said, since the structural factors shaping risk are generally determined at higher institutional, policy and economic system levels congruence between approaches and interventions across scales is equally essential. In many cases community-based strategies can have little impact on risk unless they are complemented by higher level interventions and vice versa.

Finally, it is important to recognize that opportunities for disaster risk reduction depend heavily on windows of opportunity. Events are strong catalysts. Local communities and higher level actors are often directly willing to consider basic changes that, for example, respond to drought risks when they are in the midst of a drought. Similarly, the political and social will to implement land use or other regulations and to change the nature of infrastructure is often present immediately following disasters when pre-existing conditions and infrastructure have been disrupted. Because such contexts are inherently disrupted, the ability to rebuild in ways that reduce future risk patterns is often lost. Advance planning for reconstruction in regions regularly affected by hazard events could, however, alter this. As a result, identifying points of entry through which this can occur is a final element in our strategic approach to disaster risk reduction.