2.3 risk assessment - eird.org · risk assessment process 2.3 risk assessment risk assessments...

2Risk awareness and assessment2.3 Risk assessment

63

Figure 2.10Risk assessment process

2.3 Risk assessment

Risk assessments include detailed quantitative and qualitative understanding of risk, itsphysical, social, economic and environmental factors and consequences. It is a necessary firststep for any serious consideration of disaster reduction strategies.

Its relevance for planning and development of disaster risk reduction strategies was explicitlyaddressed during the IDNDR. “In the year 2000, all countries, as part of their plans toachieve sustainable development, should have in place comprehensive national assessments ofrisks from natural hazards, with these assessments taken into account in development plans.”

This was also outlined in Principle 1 of the 1994 Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for aSafer World. “Risk assessment is a required step for the adoption of adequate and successfuldisaster reduction policies and measures.”

Risk assessment encompasses the systematic use of available information to determine thelikelihood of certain events occurring and the magnitude of their possible consequences. As aprocess, it is generally agreed that it includes:

• identifying the nature, location, intensity and probability of a threat;• determining the existence and degree of vulnerabilities and exposure to those threats;• identifying the capacities and resources available to address or manage threats; and• determining acceptable levels of risk.

Figure 2.10 shows the basic stages undertaken in a risk assessment process. The identification ofhazards is usually the starting point for a systematic assessment of risk.

RRiisskk aasssseessssmmeennttA methodology todetermine the nature andextent of risk by analysingpotential hazards andevaluating existingconditions of vulnerabilitythat could pose a potentialthreat or harm to people,property, livelihoods andthe environment on whichthey depend.

Iden t i f i ca t ion o f R isk Fac to r

HazardHazard Vu lnerab i l i t y / Capac i t ies

Vu lnerab i l i t y / Capac i t ies

Determinesgeograph ica l

loca t ion , in tens i tyand probab i l i t y

Determinesgeograph ica l

loca t ion , in tens i tyand probab i l i t y

Determinessuscept ib i l i t i es

& capac i t ies

Determinessuscept ib i l i t i es

& capac i t ies

Soc io -economic cos t /benef i t ana lys isEs tab l i shment o f p r io r i t i es

Es tab l i shment o f acceptab le leve l o f r i skE labora t ion o f scenar ios and measures

Est imates leve l o f r i sk

Eva lua tes r i sks

Ri sk

Ana l ys i s

Risk

Assessment

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

64

Both hazard and vulnerability/capacityassessments utilize formal procedures that includecollection of primary data, monitoring of hazardand vulnerability factors, data processing,mapping and social survey techniques.

The distinction between risk assessment and riskperception has important implications for disasterrisk reduction. In some cases, as in vulnerability/capacity assessment exercises, risk perception maybe formally included in the assessment process, byincorporating people’s own ideas and perceptionson the risks they are exposed to.

The increasing use of computer-assistedtechniques, such as geographic informationsystems (GIS), may widen the breach between theinformation produced by technical riskassessments and the understanding of risk bypeople. Therefore, acceptable levels of risk mayvary according to the relative views on objectiverisk versus perceived risk.

In the case of hazard assessment, where technicalmeans are often employed for monitoring andstoring data of geological and atmosphericconditions, the assessment activities typicallyinvolve scientific specialists. By contrast,vulnerability/capacity assessments make use ofmore conventional methods such as community-based mapping techniques, in which thecommunity at risk should also play an active role.

Beyond these particularities, hazard andvulnerability/capacity assessments follow a set ofprocedures that are generally conveyed by theconcept of risk analysis. Risk analysis constitutes acore element of the whole risk assessment process

Table 2.5Differences between risk assessment and risk perception

Phase of analysis Risk assessment processes Risk perception processes

Risk identification Event monitoring Statistical inference

Individual intuition Personal awareness

Risk estimation Magnitude/frequency Economic costs

Personal experienceIntangible losses

Risk evaluation Cost/benefit analysis Community policy

Personality factorsIndividual action

Adapted from: K. Smith. Environmental hazards, 1997

of providing relatively objective and technicalinformation from which levels of risk can beprojected.

The information produced by technical riskanalysis allows for the determination of impartialgovernment policy, resources needed for disasterpreparedness and insurance schemes. Inproceeding from the estimated levels of risk to theestablishment of acceptable levels of risk, adifferent range of value judgments is usually takeninto account.

Socio-economic cost/benefit analyses can highlightpriorities that help calculate acceptable levels ofrisk. These will depend largely on combinedgovernment and community priorities, interestsand capacities, ideally advanced through dialogue.

Hazard assessment

The objective of a hazard assessment is to identifythe probability of occurrence of a specific hazard,in a specific future time period, as well as itsintensity and area of impact.

For example, the assessment of flood hazards isextremely important in the design of engineeringfacilities and in zoning for land use. Constructionof buildings and residences is often restricted inhigh flood hazard areas. Flood assessments shouldbe developed for the design of sewerage treatmentfacilities, as well as for sites having industrialmaterials of a toxic or dangerous nature.

Certain hazards have well-established techniquesavailable for their assessment. This is the case for


65

floods, earthquakes and volcanic hazards. Many ofthe analytical techniques useful for hazardassessments can be accomplished by usingstandard computers and widely available softwarepackages.

For seismic hazards, ground shaking and groundmovement are the two most important effectsconsidered in the analysis. Dynamic groundshaking is a critical consideration for buildingsand construction.

The objective of a statistical earthquake hazardassessment is to assess the probability that aparticular level of ground motion at a site isreached or exceeded during a specified timeinterval. An alternative approach is to evaluate theground motion produced by the maximumconceivable earthquake in the most unfavourabledistance to a specific site.

Earthquake hazard assessment in areas of lowseismic activity is more prone to errors than inareas with more frequent earthquake activity. Thisis especially the case if the time span of theavailable data is considerably smaller than the

mean return interval of large events, for which thehazard has to be calculated.

In most cases, the overall activity of a volcano andits potential danger can be gleaned from fieldobservations by mapping the various historical andprehistoric volcanic deposits. These deposits can,in turn, be interpreted in terms of eruptivephenomena, usually by analogy with visuallyobserved eruptions.

Other hazards have less well-defined parameters. Inthe future, efforts must continue to increase ourunderstanding and develop methodologies for theassessment of hazards such as heat waves and duststorms, in particular, with regard to the factors thatinfluence their development, movement and decay.

Multi-hazard assessments are difficult toaccomplish due to the different approaches inassessing individual hazards. But multi-hazardassessments are essential, for example, in the caseof the multiple potential effects of tropical storms.

Box 2.15The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and hazard assessment

WMO and the IDNDR Scientific and TechnicalCommittee promoted a project to further develop theconcept of comprehensive, multi-hazard or jointassessment of natural hazards. It was recognized thatsociety is usually at risk from several different hazards,many of which are not water-related or natural inorigin.

More importantly, it was also noted that jointassessment of risk from these various hazards was inits infancy. Therefore the project focused on the mostdestructive and most widespread natural disasters,namely those of meteorological, hydrological, seismic,and volcanic origin.

An example of the development and application ofsuch an approach to land-use planning was providedby Switzerland where the composite exposure to risksfrom floods, landslides and avalanches wasconsidered. The project noted that an increasedunderstanding of the hazard assessmentmethodologies of each discipline is required, as theyvaried from one discipline to another.

Source: Comprehensive Risk Assessment for NaturalHazards, WMO, 1999.

Box 2.16Multi-hazard assessment in Turrialba, Costa Rica

In the framework of a UNESCO sponsored project incapacity building for natural disaster reduction, a casestudy was carried out on multi-hazard risk assessmentof the city of Turrialba, located in the central part ofCosta Rica. This city of 33,000 people is located in anarea regularly affected by flooding, landslides andearthquakes. In order to assist the local emergencycommission and the municipality, a pilot study wasconducted to develop a GIS application for riskassessment and management.

The cadastral database of the city was used incombination with various hazard maps for differentreturn periods to generate vulnerability maps for thecity. In order to determine the cost of elements at risk,a distinction was made between the costs ofconstruction and the value of building contents. Thesecost maps were then combined with the vulnerabilitymaps and individual hazard maps for the differentreturn periods, to obtain graphs of probability andresulting loss values.

The resulting database is an example of a tool forlocal authorities to assess the effects of differentmitigation measures, and for which cost-benefitanalysis can be conducted.

Source: International Institute for GeoinformationScience and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, TheNetherlands, <http://www.itc.nl>.


66

These events cannot be considered in isolation andassessments should take account of the differentcomponents that actually represent the risksoccurring either separately or in combination.

The use of GIS techniques has broadened thepossibilities to undertake multi-hazardassessments. The following case study exemplifiesthe potential for multi-hazard assessment usingGIS in urban areas.

Various hazards can be measured according todifferent scales, which can make comparisonsdifficult. An earthquake can be quantified basedon the amount of energy released (Richter scale)or the amount of damage potentially caused(Modified Mercalli scale). A heat wave ismeasured using maximum temperatures and awindstorm is graded by using wind velocity.

Even without sophisticated assessment tools, it ispossible for local communities to collect hazardinformation. Such steps are suggested in UNEP’sHazard Identification and Evaluation in a LocalCommunity, consisting of basic checklists toidentify and map major hazards.

Hazard mapping, awareness and public policy

Key dimensions of hazard assessments are thepresentation of the results and assuring theunderstanding of the added value of hazardmapping and awareness by policy makers. Mapscan be prepared manually using standardcartographic techniques or electronically with GIS.

Different types of hazards will require differentmapping techniques. The importance lies in theeasy understanding and clear intended purpose ofthe information generated.

For example, maps are the standard format forpresenting flood hazards. Flood-hazard areas areusually divided according to severity (deep orshallow), type (quiet water or high velocity) orfrequency. In Sweden, for instance, flood riskmaps are used to highlight the areas under threatfrom floods during periods with high water levelsand discharge.

In the case of volcanic hazards, the zoning of eachdirect and indirect hazard can be drawn accordingto the intensity, the extent of the hazard, thefrequency of occurrence or in combination.

Composite hazard maps are important tools forjoint hazard assessments. These combined hazardassessments need to be presented using simpleclassification, such as indicating high, mediumand low risk, or no danger. One example ofhazard mapping conducted for joint hazardassessment is provided by the Sri Lanka UrbanMulti-Hazard Disaster Mitigation Project.

Hazard mapping is challenged by severalconstraining factors. First and foremost the lack oftechnological infrastructure can be a basic

Box 2.17Hazard mapping and risk awareness

Several initiatives on hazard mapping were developedduring the 1990s as part of the International Decadefor Natural Disaster Reduction. One example was theEastern Asia Natural Hazards Mapping Project, whichstarted in Japan in 1994. The objectives of the projectwere to enhance awareness of natural hazards, inparticular geological hazards, among planners andpolicy makers of national and regional development,as well as the general public in a given region. Also,the project aimed to promote scientific studies ongeological hazards and to transfer technology onhazard mapping to developing countries throughcollaborative activities. The Eastern Asia GeologicalHazards Map is one of the products available.

Source: Geological Survey of Japan, 2002.

Box 2.18General flood risk maps in Sweden

Since 1998, two Swedish agencies have beenconducting a general mapping of Sweden’swaterways, aiming to cover 10,000 kilometres, orabout 10 per cent of the total. Waterway mapshighlight flood-prone areas for two probable levelsaccording to statistical calculations based on a seriesof existing measures. The probability of floodoccurrence is calculated for a century return-period.The calculation is made on a systematic combinationof all the critical factors that contribute to a flood (e.g.precipitation, snowmelt, upper ground moisture,dimensions of dams and the filling of basins ingoverned waterways). The work is done with the useof GIS techniques and a digital elevation modeldatabase for the water level. The two probable floodmodels are mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 withuseful background information including waterways,lakes, roads, railways, buildings and built-up areas.Further refinements are planned, like the production of1:50,000 maps that will assess potential socio-economic damages from different flood scenarios.

limitation. Further, the importance of hazardmapping is not always as appreciated amongdecision makers and practitioners as it could be. Itis not usually so visible and not a priority on manyinstitutional agendas.

Additionally, inadequate training and insufficientcommunication or collaboration among relevant

bodies also can adversely affect the hazardmapping process. For example, in Bangladesh,while many different entities are carrying outprojects in risk and hazard mapping and land-useplanning, there exists no common focal point forthe coordination of these related initiatives.


67

Box 2.19Mapping risk in Switzerland

Since 1998, the canton of Bern, in Switzerland,has been using a planning tool which indicatespotential risk areas. Maps are designed usingcomputer modelling and GIS. The maps are notexpensive and allow a complete overview of thecanton based on a uniform set of criteria. Therisk areas cover approximately 44 per cent ofthe territory, mostly in non-residential areas.However, about 8 per cent of inhabitants are inpotential risk zones.

The maps indicate:

• exposed areas, which could potentially beaffected by mudflows, avalanches, rock fallsand landslides;

• vulnerable assets, include habitats, railroads,and all roads serving residential areas;

• potential impact zones, which overlapexposed areas and the vulnerable assets;

• protection forest, which provide an importantprotective role for residential areas andcommunication networks.

One particular hazard not modelled is flood risk,despite it causing severe social and economicimpacts. The types of impact related to floodsdepend heavily on flows that are too low to becurrently modelled satisfactorily.

Potential hazards

Sector exposed to mud flowsand other flash floods

Sector exposed to avalanches

Sector exposed to stone falls

Sector exposed to deeplandslides

Sector exposed to average todeep landslides

Residential area

Vulnerable assets

Main roadsAccess roadsRailroads

Forest with an importantprotection function

Forest with a protectionfunction

Other forests

Exposed zones represented ina simplified manner

Forest

Source: Office des forêts du Canton de Berne,Switzerland, 1999.

and power lines is commonly used in theexamination of the physical aspects ofvulnerability.

The Organization of American States (OAS) hasbeen one of the pioneers in Latin America and theCaribbean in using GIS tools for physicalvulnerability assessment, focused on infrastructureand critical facilities.

A pilot project launched early in the 1980s hasimplemented more than 200 activities in 20countries by integrating hazards, naturalresources, population and infrastructure data.


68

Vulnerability and capacity assessment

Vulnerability/capacity assessments are anindispensable complement to hazard assessmentexercises. Despite the considerable efforts andachievements reflected in the improved qualityand coverage of scientific data on differenthazards, the mapping and assessment of social,economic and environmental vulnerabilities ofpopulations are not equally developed.

Some aspects of the social nature ofvulnerability/capacity pose different challenges torisk assessment. Gender-specific data and gender-balanced assessments are needed but oftenlacking. Women and men assessing disaster effectson livelihood resources, for example, may see verydifferent problems and solutions simply becausethe gender division of labour situates themdifferently in the production process. The same istrue with respect to women’s and men’s differentsocial networks and personal coping skills.

Often, there is a huge gap in the understandingand application of vulnerability/capacityassessments between the technical or academicinstitutions undertaking these tasks and the localauthorities and communities involved in theexercise.

A great deal of work has been focused on theassessment of the physical aspects of vulnerability.This has been done mainly in relation to moreconventional hazardous phenomenon, such aswindstorms, earthquakes and floods. The spatialoverlapping of hazard zones with infrastructuresuch as airports, main highways, health facilities,

Box 2.20Hazard mapping in South Africa

In South Africa, various institutions are engaged in hazard mapping. While projects are sometimes conducted in isolationand the data is not widely used, there are other examples where the resulting information is beneficial to additionalinstitutions beyond the one that collected it.

Most hazard maps are becoming available online and they often function as scaled image maps containing additionalinformation about particular areas. The Agriculture Research Council, the National Disaster Management Centre, theDepartment of Water Affairs and Forestry, and the Department of Health are all using satellite data to compile hazardmaps, which then become part of their much larger geographical information systems.

Use of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite data further enables the generation oflocally relevant geo-referenced maps. The National Botanical Institute of South Africa also embarked on the mapping ofdegradation patterns for the whole of the south of the country. These maps provide valuable information on the state ofSouth Africa’s ground cover.

Source: National Disaster Management Centre.

Box 2.21Community risk in Australia

One of the advantages of GIS techniques is thepossibility to carry out multi-hazard analysis.Community Risk in Cairns is the first of a series ofmulti-hazard case studies by the Australian GeologicalSurvey Organization (AGSO). It considersearthquakes, landslides, floods and cyclones.

The AGSO Cities Project undertakes research for themitigation of the risks posed by a range of geo-hazards to Australian urban communities. GIS hasbeen used extensively to drive the analysis andassessment. Risk-GIS, as it has been christened inthe Cities Project, is a fusion of the decision supportcapabilities of GIS and the philosophy of riskmanagement. An interactive mapping system of theCommunity Risk in Cairns project and an advancedmapping system for experienced GIS users areavailable on the Internet.<http://www.ga.gov.au/map/cairns>.

Source: Australian Geological Survey Organization.


69

As examples of the benefits, it was discovered thatall of the main airports in Guatemala were locatedin high intensity seismic areas, and 670 kilometresof paved roads in Ecuador were located in a 30-kilometre radius of active volcanoes.

The Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) ofBritish Columbia, Canada, has developed acomplete step-by-step hazard, risk andvulnerability analysis tool kit. The purpose of thetool kit is to help the community make risk-basedchoices to address the potential impact of hazards.It is also a requirement mandated by the LocalAuthority Emergency Management Regulation ofthe British Columbia Emergency Program. Thetool kit can be downloaded from the PEP web site<http://www.pep.bc.ca>.

The US National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), in collaboration withthe Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), has produced a communityvulnerability assessment tool, presented as a CD-ROM. It is called Helping communities determineand prioritize their vulnerabilities to hazards. ThisCD-ROM provides another step-by-step guidefor conducting community-wide risk andvulnerability assessments.

It also provides a case study demonstrating theprocess for analyzing physical, social, economicand environmental vulnerability to hazards at thelocal level. The intended audience includesemergency managers, planners, building officials,and others who are responsible or interested inreducing the impacts of hazards.

Also included on this CD-ROM is acomprehensive case study on the application of thevulnerability assessment methodology. NewHanover County, North Carolina, was a pilotcommunity for this methodology. As one of theoriginal seven pilot communities for the FEMAProject Impact Initiative, this communityembarked on a long-range hazard mitigationplanning effort that included the development of acommunity vulnerability assessment.

Several initiatives leading towards comprehensiverisk assessments are currently underway in thePacific islands states. In the Cook Islands, riskassessments related to tropical cyclones and

associated flooding have been conducted. Theseinclude hazard mapping, vulnerabilityassessments of infrastructure and critical facilities,and recording the social aspects of economiclosses on communities.

The risk assessment information provided inputfor community early warning systems for tropicalcyclones, as well as primary information forreports, plans and technical support materials.

In Fiji, in recent years, several comprehensive riskassessment projects also have been undertaken.These have always involved the relevantgovernment departments and infrastructureagencies and include representatives from NGOsand the private sector. International agencies andconsultants have participated to ensure that up todate methodologies were employed.

Risk assessments undertaken in Fiji have beenbased on detailed hazard and vulnerabilityassessments, integrating scientific geological andmeteorological information with details about thebuilt environment (building stock, infrastructure,critical facilities and lifelines) and the naturalenvironment.

Modern methods have been employed, includingground surveys, remote sensing and GISmapping. The results have had major implicationsfor disaster management, such as in helping toformulate building codes and training emergencyservice personnel. These initiatives are being usedas the basis of similar studies in other Pacificisland states.

Box 2.22Risk assessment in Fiji

Examples of Fijian risk assessments include:

• the Suva Earthquake Risk Management ScenarioPilot Project, undertaken for the capital city of Suva(1995-1998) and involving an earthquake andtsunami exercise, SUVEQ 97 (based on thedevastating 1953 Suva earthquake and associatedtsunami)

• a comprehensive study of a potential eruption of theTaveuni Volcano which involved internationalscientists, senior government officials andinfrastructure agencies

• a comprehensive flood mitigation study of knownflood-prone areas on the island of Viti Levu.


70

Methodological challenges

While hazard mapping has been improved by thewider use of GIS techniques, the inclusion of social,economic and environmental variables into GISmodels remains a major challenge.

The need to assign quantifiable values to thevariables analyzed in the spatial models used by GISis not always possible for social and economicdimensions of vulnerability. Moreover, the diversescales at which different dimensions of socio-economic vulnerability operate make the spatialrepresentation through these techniques verydifficult. In addition, the quality and detail of thedata required by GIS analysis are in many casesnon-existent, especially in LDCs.

On the other hand, well-conceived low-techapproaches can be a very good option to GIS-basedtechniques. The approach adopted for hazardmapping and risk assessment by the KathmanduValley Earthquake Risk Management Project is anexcellent example of what can be achieved withsimple and affordable but methodical techniques.

The use of GIS for vulnerability/capacity analysis isstill at an embryonic stage in comparison with itswider use in hazard mapping. Several researchinitiatives are aiming to solve these currentmethodological constraints, especially those dealingwith quantifying social aspects of vulnerability.

Assessing socio-economic vulnerability

Socio-economic vulnerability assessments rely onmore conventional methods, which provide otheropportunities and advantages, such as the activeinvolvement of the communities at risk inmapping and assessment exercises.

The physical aspects of vulnerability assessmentanswer the questions: What is vulnerable? Whereis it vulnerable? Socio-economic aspects ofvulnerability answer the questions: Who isvulnerable? How have they become vulnerable?

Attributes of groups and individuals, such associo-economic class, ethnicity, caste membership,gender, age, physical disability and religion areamong the characteristics that differentiatevulnerability to hazards.

Conceptual frameworks and models provide abasis for vulnerability analysis in relation tospecific hazards. The “pressure and release” and“access” models, developed in the 1990s, provideda good basis for the analysis and furtheridentification of specific vulnerable conditions.These models have linked dynamic processes atdifferent scales and access to resources withvulnerability conditions.

In most cases, the occurrence of a disaster hasserved to validate models of vulnerability analysis.

Box 2.23Simplicity pays! The experience in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal

In the approach adopted for hazard mapping and risk assessment in the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk ManagementProject an emphasis was placed on utilizing the geological and seismological data already available rather than spendingresources to generate new data or information by conducting special research.

The only prior suitable example of an earthquake scenario developed in a developing country was that of Quito, Ecuador.The project built upon that methodology and adapted it to suit the conditions prevailing in Nepal.

The project consistently adopted simple technical approaches, which made the project cost-effective and understandable forthe lay people involved. For example, simple plastic-laminated maps that showed the location of potential damage toinfrastructure with names of localities and rivers were found most suited to convince managers of the potential losses ofcritical facilities.

During the whole process of evaluating the earthquake hazard or assessing the earthquake risk, the research teaminteracted closely with the management of the critical municipal facilities and the emergency response services. Thusdifferent institutions accepted the earthquake scenario and the loss estimation easily without encountering much apathy.About 30 institutions participated in this process, and the earthquake damage scenario proved to be a great awareness-raising tool.

Source: Mani Dixit et al, “Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment: Experiences from the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake RiskManagement Project” in Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Mitigation: Lessons Learned from the AsianUrban Disaster Mitigation Program and other Initiatives, Bali, Indonesia, 2002.


71

The analysis of the damages experienced indisasters constitutes a major source of informationfor vulnerability/capacity identification.

As opposed to the inductive analysis used in GIStechniques – where level of risk is inducted byintegrating layers of information – an historicalanalysis of disaster data provides the informationto deduce levels of risk based on past experiences.In addition, historical disaster databases areessential to identify the dynamic aspects involvedin vulnerability, providing the criteria to assignrelative weights to different dimensions ofvulnerability in risk assessment exercises. In thiscontext, the refinement, maintenance andsystematic feeding of disaster data sets are vital forrisk assessment as a whole.

The insurance industry’s approach to disaster riskis based on this kind of data. Some of these issuesare being addressed by the Task Force through itsworking group on risk, vulnerability and impactassessment.

Droughts have proven to be a particularly difficulttask for risk assessment. Risk assessment toolsdeveloped for food security provide conceptualinputs as well as primary data related tovulnerability to droughts.

The World Food Programme (WFP) and theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) workwith other UN agencies, national governments,and NGOs to integrate vulnerability analysis andmapping techniques. The Disaster Risk Index(DRI), produced as part of UNDP’s reportReducing Disaster Risk: A challenge for development,is studying ways to integrate drought data into acomprehensive risk index.

The Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis ofUrban Areas against Seismic Disasters(RADIUS) provides a good example of hazard-specific tools that contribute to defining urban riskscenarios. The IDNDR Secretariat launched theRADIUS initiative in 1996 to promote worldwideactivities for reduction of urban seismic risk.

In the Americas, vulnerability assessment andtechniques workshops are being held under theauspices of OAS. They provide an opportunity toexplore methodological challenges and applicabilityof risk assessments. The technical information andcomments generated by this and similar activitiessupport the policy work carried out by the workinggroup on Vulnerability Assessments and Indexingof the Inter-American Committee for NaturalDisaster Reduction, also a member of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction.

Figure 2.11Vulnerability analysis

Limited access to:

• Power

• Structures

• Resources

• Political systems

• Economic systems

Lack of:• Local institutions• Training• Appropriate skills• Local investments• Local markets• Press freedom • Ethical standards in public life

Macro-forces:

• Rapid population growth

• Rapid urbanization

• Debt repayment schedules• Deforestation• Decline in soil productivity

Fragile physicalenvironment• Dangerous locations• Unprotected buildings and infrastructures

• Livelihoods at risk• Low income levels

Vulnerable society• Special groups at risk• Lack of local institutions

Public actions• Lack of disaster preparedness• Prevalence of endemic deseases

Earthquakes

High winds(cyclone/hurricanes

/typhoons)

Flooding

Volcanic eruptions

Landslides

Droughts

Virus and pests

Technological

The Progression of Vulnerability

Root Causes Dynamic Pressures Unsafe Conditions Disasters Hazards

Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability

Ideologies:

Fragile local economy

Adapted from: Blaikie et al., 1994


72

The assessment of the economic impact ofdisasters on a society or local community is a veryimportant input to the overall disaster riskassessment process. The Economic Commissionfor Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)has a well-established methodology to assess themacroeconomic, social and environmental impactof natural disasters in the region.

A recent report from ECLAC looks at the disasterimpacts on infrastructure and various productivesectors, and focuses on the methodological andconceptual aspects of disaster impact assessment.Policy implications of the ECLAC methodologyof disaster impact are also explored.<http://www.eclac.cl>

In 2002, Emergency Management Australia (EMA)produced Disaster Loss Assessment Guidelines, as afollow-up of the Economic Costs of Natural Disasters inAustralia, published in 2001 by the Bureau ofTransport and Regional Economics. Theseguidelines provide a comprehensive review ofmethods to assess the economic impacts of a disasterin a regional context.

Box 2.24ISDR working group on risk, vulnerability andimpact assessment

The WG3 on risk, vulnerability and impact assessmentis chaired by UNDP. Its main goal is to contribute tosustainable reduction in disaster risk by incorporatingapproaches, methods and tools for risk, vulnerabilityand impact assessment in risk reduction processes.The working group is subdivided into three sub-groups:

• Sub-group 1: improving the quality, coverageand accuracy of disaster databases, chaired byIRI, Columbia University This sub-group initiated a series of studies tocompare existing disaster databases, in particularEM-DAT (maintained by CRED) and DesInventar LARED. An other main area of focus is the potential forlinking disaster and related data from differentsources through a common unique identifyingnumber (GLIDE) that would be assigned to eachevent.

• Sub-group 2: review of indexes relevant for riskand vulnerability indexing, chaired by UNDPThis newly established sub-group covers thefollowing topics: review of relevant indexes,examples of disaster risk indexes, disaster riskreduction framework and its potential indexing.

• Sub-group 3: tools and best practices for riskand vulnerability analysis at the local and urbanLevels, chaired by UN-HABITATThis Sub-group is working in collection andorganisation of an inventory of risk analysis andvulnerability mitigation tools, which can be easily,accessed both by UN/ISDR partners and the generalpublic through the internet. The sub-group is presentlyin the implementation phase of the project, which issupported by UNDP and the ISDR Secretariat.

<http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/tf-working-groups3-eng.htm>

Box 2.25Vulnerability assessment products and services

The Unit of Sustainable Development (USDE) of OAS andNOAA have created several vulnerability assessmentproducts and services available to development planners,researchers, and coastal resource and emergencymanagers, designed to help reduce vulnerability to theadverse impacts of natural hazards. These products andservices include the Vulnerability Assessment Techniquesworkshop series, the Vulnerability Assessment Techniquesand Applications web site and a related list server.

Vulnerability Assessment Techniques (VAT)workshops The VAT workshop series has been created to provide aforum for networking opportunities and dialogue to explorenew ideas and potential partnerships in the development,analysis and application of vulnerability assessments. VATworkshops bring together researchers and practitionersfrom government agencies, academic institutions, and theprivate sector in the Western Hemisphere, that share aninterest in vulnerability assessment methodologies.Professionals are exposed to a variety of risk andvulnerability assessment techniques and their applicationsat local, state, national and regional levels of activity.

Vulnerability Assessment Techniques andApplications (VATA) web siteThe VATA web site provides a central source forvulnerability assessment research, policy initiatives, linksand resources, in addition to over 40 case studiespresented during the VAT workshop series. This sitesupplies resources to support community-based decision-making to protect lives and property to sustain economicstability and to preserve the environment. One key featureof the VATA web site is the case study locator tool, whichallows users to search the workshop case studies easilyby geographic location, hazard type and developmentarea. The NOAA Coastal Services Center and theOAS/USDE created and maintain the VATA web site<http://www.csc.noaa.gov/vata/>.

Vulnerability Assessment Techniques andApplications (VATA) list serverBy special request, the NOAA Coastal Services Centerhas created the VATA list server so that people interestedin the area of vulnerability assessments may easilycommunicate with each other. The stimulating discussionsthat occurred at the VAT workshops are continued throughthis list server <http://csc.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/vata>.


73

The US National Institute of Building Sciencesdeveloped Hazards US (HAZUS), astandardized methodology for estimating potentiallosses from earthquakes, wind and floods, underagreements with FEMA. Using GIS technology,HAZUS allows users to compute estimates ofdamage and losses that could result from an

earthquake. To support FEMA’s mitigation andemergency preparedness efforts, HAZUS is beingexpanded into HAZUS-MH , a multi-hazardmethodology with new modules for estimatingpotential losses from wind and flood (riverine andcoastal) hazards. <http://www.fema.gov/hazus>.

Box 2.26The RADIUS initiative

The RADIUS initiative achieved four main objectives, since its launch in 1996:

• develop earthquake damage scenarios and actions plans for nine case study cities around the world;• produce practical tools for estimation and management of urban seismic risk;• raise public awareness of seismic risk;• promote information exchange for seismic risk mitigation at city level.

The seismic damage scenarios developeddescribe human loss, damage to buildingsand infrastructure, and their effect on urbanactivities for nine cities: Addis Ababa,Ethiopia; Antofagasta, Chile; Bandung,Indonesia; Guayaquil, Ecuador; Izmir,Turkey; Skopje, Macedonia; Tashkent,Uzbekistan; Tijuana, Mexico; and Zigong,China.

The action plans proposed new prioritiesfor urban planning and for improvement ofexisting urban structures and emergencyactivities. The experiences of these ninecities were incorporated into a practicalmanual for damage estimation andguidelines for RADIUS-type projects,applicable to cities elsewhere.

With the tools, cities can conduct similar projects to estimate earthquake damage and prepare a risk management plan ontheir own. In addition, a comparative study was conducted to develop greater understanding of aspects contributing toseismic risk. Over 70 cities worldwide participated in this study called Understanding Seismic Risk around the World. Morethan 30 cities joined RADIUS as associate cities.

An evaluation of RADIUS found that significant progress has been made in the management of earthquake risk in RADIUScities. There has been an important increase of public awareness about the need to reduce urban risk, and new riskmanagement programmes are underway.

In several RADIUS cities, new risk management organizations have been created or existing ones have been restructuredto monitor the implementation of the project recommendations. RADIUS reports are available on the Internet.

Source: <http://www.geohaz.org/radius>.


74

Participatory vulnerability/capacity assessment methodologies

The relationship between vulnerability andcapacity has increasingly been expressed in riskassessment methodologies in terms of vulnerabilityand capacities assessments (VCA).

Work has been done to incorporate issues relatedto social inequity into risk management at the locallevel. This includes participatory diagnosis,training methods, and analytical frameworks suchas the capabilities and vulnerabilities analysis,which examine people’s strengths and abilities, aswell as their susceptibilities. It makes up asignificant part of the overall VCA.

As part of this system, the socio-economic andgender analysis looks at disadvantaged socialgroups, incorporating them into the developmentprocess as effective change agents, rather than asbeneficiaries. IFRC is very proactive in promotingthe vulnerability/capacity approach.

Box 2.27Vulnerability and capacity assessments andthe International Federation of Red Cross andRed Crescent Societies (IFRC)

Vulnerability and capacity assessments (VCA) are akey tool used by the IFRC for risk analysis with morethan 40 country-specific assessments completed.

The use of VCAs is based on the premise that they arenot solely for disaster preparedness but intended toadvance overall capacity-building. It is aninterdisciplinary approach involving health,organizational development, and related Red Crossand Red Crescent programmes.

In 2002, this formed the basis for programmeimplementation in five North African countries,Mongolia, and other countries in East Asia. More VCAactivities are planned and a training workshop hasbeen developed by the IFRC in order to use VCAs on awider basis.

Source: Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment,IFRC, 2002.

Table 2.6Community risk assessment based on vulnerability and resilience

Contextual aspects

Highly vulnerable socialgroups

Identifying basic socialneeds/values

Increasingcapacities/reducing vulnerability

Practical assessmentmethods

Analysis of current and predicted demographics. Recent hazard events; economic conditions;political structures and issues; geophysical location; environmental condition;access/distribution of information and traditional knowledge; community involvement;organizations and management capacity; linkages with other regional/national bodies; criticalinfrastructures and systems

Infants/Children; frail elderly; economically disadvantaged; intellectually, psychologically andphysically disabled; single parent families; new immigrants and visitors; socially/physicallyisolated; seriously ill; poorly sheltered.

Sustaining life; physical and mental well-being; safety and security; home/shelter; food andwater; sanitary facilities; social links; information; sustain livelihoods; maintain socialvalues/ethics.

Positive economic and social trends; access to productive livelihoods; sound family and socialstructures; good governance; established networks regionally/nationally; participatorycommunity structures and management; suitable physical and service infrastructures; localplans and arrangements; reserve financial and material resources; shared communityvalues/goals; environmental resilience.

Constructive frameworks; data sources include: local experts, focus groups; census data;surveys questionnaires; outreach programmes; historical records; maps; environmentalprofiles.

Source: IFRC, 2002.


75

The work carried out by Ecociudad, a PeruvianNGO, provides another example ofvulnerability/capacity mapping, wherecommunities have participated withenthusiasm. Working with environmentalmanagement issues related to disaster riskreduction, Ecociudad has supportedcommunity-based risk mapping in Caquetá, aneighbourhood in Lima with a very hazardouslandscape <http://ciudad.org.pe/eco>.

Emergency Management Australia releasedthe findings of a study on the assessment ofpersonal and community resilience andvulnerability in 2001, in conjunction with anumber of related agencies.

The need for such a report followed a series ofevents including the 1997 wildland firesaround Melbourne, and the 1998 floods inEast Gippsland. The study outlinescomprehensive guidelines on the concepts andprocesses of vulnerability and resilience forpractical application in community riskassessment.

Box 2.28Ecociudad – participatory risk assessment in PeruLima is situated along the boundary of two tectonicplates, making it highly prone to earthquakes. Thereis an ever-present risk of the fires, landslides andflash flooding that result in death and destructionevery year. These risks have been increasing as aresult of uncontrolled urban growth. The experienceof the Peruvian NGO Ecociudad highlights anumber of high-risk concerns in the localcommunity:

• Houses are located on the banks of a riverexposed to the threat of collapse in the event of aflood or landslide

• Human settlements are situated in numerousareas prone to landslides and subject to periodicearth tremors

• Informal markets and more establishedcommercial centres are densely crowded andhighly vulnerable to fire.

Community meetings have been convened to mapthe threats, vulnerabilities and capacities based onparticipation of the inhabitants and their localknowledge. This process has led to theestablishment of volunteer brigades specialized inemergency rescue. Other settlements located alongthe river are being relocated by a neighbourhoodcommittee collaborating with the government.

Box 2.29 Preparing risk maps – community tools that buildawareness and invite participationAs part of the 2001 World Disaster Reduction Campaign, a riskmapping contest was launched. This was one of the ISDRawareness and promotion activities in keeping with the year’stheme, “Countering Disasters, Targeting Vulnerability”.

The winners of the contest were:

Local CommunitiesCategoryFirst: Daw San Yi U Tin KoKo, MyanmarSecond: CTAR Piura,Comité Regional deDefensa Civil, Piura, Peru

Children’s CategoryFirst: Shree Bal Bikash SecondarySchool, Kathmandu District, NepalSecond: Instituto Nacional de Berlin, 1erAño de Bachillerato Tecnico Vocacional,Usulutan, El Salvador

A risk map is a map of a community or geographical zone thatidentifies the places and the buildings – homes, schools, healthfacilities and others – that might be adversely affected in theevent of hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcaniceruptions, landslides, and other natural hazards and relatedtechnological or environmental disasters. The production of arisk map requires consideration of areas and features at riskwithin the community or geographic zone, consultation withpeople and groups of varying expertise, and the discussion ofpossible solutions to reduce risk.

The purpose of the risk mapping contest was to challenge peopleto produce a risk map for their local geographic zone orcommunity. The exercise provided an opportunity forschoolchildren, teachers and local communities to read, researchand learn key concepts of disaster reduction, as well as considervulnerability and the potential threat of natural hazards to theirlocal surroundings. By increasing public awareness aboutdisaster reduction, more disaster management measures couldbe developed and implemented in all sectors of society.

The risk mapping contest encouraged participants to consult andinteract with the various actors in natural disaster reduction suchas public authorities, health-care workers, NGOs andenvironmental experts. Communication and interaction betweendifferent people allowed for more effective collaborative effortstowards building a culture of prevention from natural disasters.

The risk mapping contest was an integral part of the overall2001 World Disaster Reduction Campaign, and made a valuablecontribution in its capacity to reach its target audience,schoolchildren and local communities.

These efforts demonstrate that risk assessments prepared bypeople working together can become powerful educational toolsraising the level of public awareness about shared disaster risks.


76

Chall

enge

s Future challenges and priorities Risk assessment

The notions of hazard, vulnerability and capacity are the foundation for an effective strategy of riskreduction and the operational basis for a culture of prevention. While identification and monitoringactivities related to hazard assessments have been improved, some aspects of the overall risk assessmentprocess remain weak.

In particular, incorporating people’s risk perceptions, and the socio-economic and environmentalcontexts where they live, is essential in the identification of risk scenarios. New trends in hazards andvulnerability also challenge the procedures and conventional methodologies and call for an integratedand comprehensive risk assessment.

Recognition and analysis of the changing nature of hazards and vulnerabilities is needed. The influenceof ecological imbalances such as climate change is affecting the frequency and intensity of hazardousnatural phenomenon. Additionally, environmental degradation is exacerbating the impact of naturalhazards.

Risk assessments need to reflect the dynamic and complex scenarios to properly feed into disaster riskreduction strategies. Multiple hazards and comprehensive vulnerability/capacity assessments that takeaccount of the changing patterns in disaster risk are starting points for raising risk awareness.

The emergent trends in hazards and vulnerability described in this chapter pose major challenges to theoverall risk assessment process. These changes affect not only the formal procedures of risk assessmentin place, but also the prevailing patterns of risk perception.

Community knowledge of hazards has been challenged by complex and new forms of danger. Therepercussions of environmental degradation on current vulnerability and hazard patterns and theincreasing exposure to technological hazards raise a different range of concerns. An integrated andeffective process of risk assessment needs to engage these challenges to truly provide the foundation fordisaster risk reduction in the 21st century.

Special areas of concern in relation to risk awareness and assessment are the following:

Data and methodology

Data is the primary input for identifying trends in hazards and vulnerability. For many countries,relevant data is unavailable or inaccurate. Often, information collected by governments and at the locallevel is not gender-specific although gender is indeed a primary organizing principle before, during,and after disasters. There is a need to work towards the standardization of all issues related to thetechnical soundness, political neutrality, methodologies and processes related to the collection, analysis,storage, maintenance and dissemination of data.

In terms of methodologies, there are many different conceptual models attempting to examine thesame things. Still, one of the major issues is how hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessments can beused to reduce risk. Mechanisms of integration are needed so that issues and proposed remedialinitiatives are not fragmented when presented to decision makers.


77

Chall

enge

sImproved visibility and higher priority to reduce vulnerability and strengthen capacity

Reducing vulnerability to risk still falls mainly under the responsibility of the public authorities. Dataregarding disaster impact, especially concerning small and medium scale disasters, as well as the socialand environmental considerations of impact, are still lacking. Political authorities usually see economicconsiderations as highly influential in their decision-making. Without a quantitative measurement ofrisk it is difficult for political decision makers to factor risk reduction into legislative agendas anddevelopment planning efforts. Following this, fiscal commitments need to be specified in nationalbudgets.

An enhanced conceptual framework must be expressed to emphasize capacity as a key factor in thedisaster risk formula, including the incorporation of vulnerability and capacity in tools such as riskindexes. UNDP’s Global Risk Vulnerability Index and the framework to guide progress on disasterrisk reduction being developed by ISDR are good examples of timely efforts leading to that objective.

Culturally relevant and gender-inclusive analyses of capacities and vulnerabilities in disaster contextsare more likely when communities undertake their own assessments. A number of models for gender-sensitive and participatory vulnerability/capacity assessments at the community level are now available.

An overall challenge is to review and document how risk assessments have contributed to modify riskand how they are being utilized in the decision-making process.

2.3 risk assessment - eird.org · risk assessment process 2.3 risk assessment risk assessments...

Documents