Transcript Disaster Risk Reduction:
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION:
Learning from the 2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake Erin Joakim, PhD Candidate, University of Waterloo, Canada [email protected]
Presentation Outline
Introduction Disaster Risk Reduction Disaster Risk Reduction Framework PD-SLRV Framework Examples from 2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake Conclusion
Introduction
Introduction
“Can modern societies afford to value their social and material assets only after they have been lost in a disaster?” (UN/ISDR, 2004)
Disaster Risk Reduction
The conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development. (UN/ISDR, 2004) The outcome of DRR activities should be the “substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and social, economic and environmental assets of communities and countries” (HFA, 2005)
Disaster Risk Reduction
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) Priorities: Make DRR a Priority DRR as national and local priority with strong, collaborative institutional base for implementation Know the Risks and Take Action Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks – and enhance early warning Build Understanding and Awareness Use knowledge (including local knowledge), innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels Reduce Risk Acknowledge and reduce underling causes and risk factors Be Prepared and Ready to Act Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels
Disaster Risk Reduction
Two aims of disaster risk reduction: Build resilient societies Ensure development efforts to do not perpetuate or contribute to vulnerability
Disaster Risk Reduction Framework
Vulnerability
Root Causes Dynamic Pressures Visible Manifestations
Sustainable Livelihoods
Human Social Natural Physical Financial Cultural Political Access Model
Effective DRR
Undefined XY-Axis Relationship
Resilience
Resistance Recovery Creativity
Vulnerability
Defined as “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard” (Wisner et al., 2004:11)
Vulnerability
Influenced by a variety of social, economic and political structures as well as individual agency Includes access to: Tangible and intangible assets (material & social goods) Knowledge and information Access to power
Vulnerability
Key points from various vulnerability models: Social-ecological perspective Focus on place + larger-scale processes Root causes of vulnerability
Resilience
Three conceptualizations of resilience: Resistance Stems from ecological literature and relates to the ability to withstand and/or absorb the impacts of external pressures and disturbances without experiencing long-term impacts Recovery Common interpretation of resilience which examines the amount of time it takes a community to ‘bounce back’ to previous levels of functioning after experiencing a hazardous event Creativity More recent understanding that incorporates ideas of adaptive capacity, whereby the post-disaster context is seen as a window of opportunity for increasing the functionality and resiliency of the community
Vulnerability and Resilience
Complexity of relationship Vulnerability and resilience as continuum Strength of institutions Level of skills versus education Level of experience Vulnerability and resilience as separate Relationship as X-Y axis
Sustainable Livelihoods
Defined as comprising “the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Chambers & Conway, 1992)
Sustainable Livelihoods
Connections between livelihoods and disasters: Location of home and work activities (i.e. Fishing communities)
Sustainable Livelihoods
Connections between livelihoods and disasters: Location of home and work activities (i.e. Fishing communities)
Sustainable Livelihoods
Connections between livelihoods and disasters: Location of home and work activities (i.e. Fishing communities) Livelihood impacts on environment leading to increased risk (i.e. Logging & deforestation) Impacts level of income and access to resources to prepare, respond and recover from hazardous events Connection between emergency aid and longer-term development projects
2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake
2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake
Vulnerability Examples: Lack of political power Diversion of funds and resources Lack of knowledge for obtaining funding for projects Physical geography Limited productivity of rice fields Savings The role of savings for recovery
2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake
Resilience Examples: House rebuilding effort Construction standards National and International social connections Funding for development programming Improved community development programming Adaptations after earthquake
2006 Yogyakarta Earthquake
Sustainable Livelihoods Examples: Livelihood training Tailors, construction labourers Livelihood capital Sewing machines Livelihood opportunities Job opportunities/availability Livelihood networks Market saturation, marketing skills
Conclusion
Disaster risk reduction measure require a holistic approach that include all sectors and actors of society These initiatives need to be long-term, address some of the underlying causes of vulnerability and access, improve livelihood conditions and build various forms of resilience