3. Disaster risk paradigms Flashcards
4 general concepts towards reducing disaster risk - different perspectives
- (engineer) focus on reducing the likelihood of natural hazards and increasing the resilience of the built environment.
- (gov/engineer) educate society about natural hazards so they can make more informed decisions about where and how they build; and we need to design and stringently enforce planning controls/ building codes that reduce risk.
- (social scientists) support those at risk to become more resilient by addressing issues such as poverty
- (activists) address the failings of our potential socio-economic systems which mean that the most vulnerable countries and communities are most at risk
Disaster risk paradigm 1 and the main issues and activities
Engineering
Pre 1950
What causes hazards and how can we reduce consequences?
Predict hazard frequency-magnitude; build protective structures; understand mechanics of infrastructure and components under hazard loading; develop building codes
Disaster risk paradigm 2 and the main issues and activities
Behavioural
1950s to 1970s
Why do hazards cause so much damage and how can changes in behaviours minimise consequences.
Hazard prediction; early warning, planning controls in developed countries
Disaster risk paradigm 3 and the main issues and activities
Development
1980s and 1990s
Why do developing countries suffer more disasters and what makes them socio-economically vulnerable?
Recognise voluntary and involuntary risks; concepts of vulnerability, capacity and disasters in developing countries
Disaster risk paradigm 4 and the main issues and activities
Complex
Current
How can we sustainably reduce risk.
Multi-hazard, multi disciplinary risk management for local contexts, climate change, urbanisation and long-term
4 DDR challenges
1) Humanitarian
2) Urban
3) Complexity
4) Uncertainty
DDR challenge: Humanitarian
Humanitarian - the finite resources and abilities of governments and humanitarian actors to effectively respond to disasters and assist recovery.
DDR challenge: Urban
The implications of rapid growth on development and infrastructure which is leading to increased vulnerability
DDR challenge: Complexity
The dynamic nature of urban environments, and implications of cascading failures due to inter-relationships between infrastructure, institutions and ecosystems.
DDR challenge: Uncertainty
Greater exposure to weather-related hazards and increased vulnerability arising from climate change which cannot accurately be forecast, and limitations in our ability to model complex systems.
Methods for assessing vulnerability of structures (4)
1) Direct vulnerability mapping (qual)
2) Heuristic or index based methods (qual)
3) Empirical analysis of landslide damage inventories (quant)
4) Analytical models (quant)
Description of the engineering paradigm
Then (17th & 18th century rationalism): nature is constant and can therefore be investigated and predicted (science), and controlled or resisted
Structural and scientific measures can often protect or mitigate against natural hazards e.g. River dams, Seismic structures, Levees, hazard monitoring etc.
Typically top-down technical and engineered solutions informed by the science of hazard assessment
Description of the behavioural paradigm
Criticism of over-reliance of US gov on flood controls. Hazards not separate from people actions - shouldn’t study them in isolation
Human ecology - links physical and social sciences to balance human needs and environment
Recognise the role of human behaviour, or culture, in creating disasters. Bounded rationalism - poor decisions about how we relate environment are caused by mis-interpretations/irrational beliefs in the balance of risk and economic reward.
Need to combine technical/structural solutions with non-structural approaches (land use planning etc.)
Learn the interactions between human and natural behaviour.
Top-down approaches (starts at government level) e.g. strengthening institutional capacities
Describe the development paradigm (1)
Previous paradigms failed to address increasing DR in DC’s
Disasters largely the result of a clash between natural processes and the longstanding and deeply rooted socio-economic processes that create human vulnerability
KEY CONCEPT - PAR model: traces the progression of vulnerability from root causes, to dynamic pressures to unsafe conditions
Disasters are primarily caused by human exploitation. Macro-scale roots cause most vulnerable to live in unsafe places
Normalisation of frequent disasters (bad)
DR required fundamental changes in distribution of wealth and power
Modernisation and tech transfers are inappropriate; self-help and local approaches better
What is the PAR model
Its for the development paradigms.
Looks at how vulnerability is created, what are the root causes.
Political and economic model - who has the power? Less power –> less control over how and where they live and access to resources. They then lack training skills, standards etc….
Imbalances at a top level, root causes, political and economic systems create pressures causing tangible impacts at lower levels.
When environmental hazards clash with these pressures/problems –> disaster
