i an Davis Em Barcelona July 2003

8/13/2019 i an Davis Em Barcelona July 2003

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/i-an-davis-em-barcelona-july-2003 1/19

INTER -AMERICANDEVELOPMENTBANK

Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Manizales

Instituto de Estudios Ambientales

- IDEA -

INFORMATION AND INDICATORS PROGRAM

FOR DISASTER R ISK MANAGEMENTIADB - ECLAC - IDEA

EXECUTION OF COMPONENT II

Indicators for Disaster Risk ManagementOPERATIONATN/ JF-7907-RG

The Effectiveness of Current Tools for the Identification, Measurement,

Analysis and Synthesis of Vulnerability and Disaster Risk

Professor Ian Davis

Disaster Management Centre

Cranfield University

Manizales - Colombia

August 2003





Instituto de Estudios Ambientales - IDEA

- 1 -

The Effectiveness of Current Tools for the Identification, Measurement,

Analysis and Synthesis of Vulnerability and Disaster Risk

Ian Davis

"A truly civilised society can be easily recognised as one that pays the greatest

attention to its most vulnerable citizens”

This initiative provides welcome evidence of a well known definition of ‘civilisation’ by ananonymous author. It is this concern to reduce risks to vulnerable people that has motivated theInter American Development Bank to support this project. The initiative deserves widespread

support and attention since it has the potential to highlight the priority need for vulnerabilityassessment and reduction. The project seeks to define both the opportunities of communities to

adapt or cope with threats as well as to define and explore the responsibilities of authorities totheir most vulnerable citizens. It is a source of encouragement that the Universidad Nacional deColombia Sede Manizales Instituto de Estudios Ambientales is committed to the successful

completion and application of this task. This paper will consider nine issues that relate to mytopic. After each section of the paper a ‘summary requirement’ will outline what needs to occur

in relation to a given issue to reduce vulnerability.

ORIENTING QUESTIONS

The consultants of this project have been asked to address a number of orienting questions. Thefollowing have been selected from the overall list for consideration in this paper:

Character and Purpose:

• What is the purpose of evaluation?

• Will it be global, broad, non-specific?

• Should it be multidimensional evaluation?

• How can the results be used?

• Who can use the information?

Indicatum:

• What aspects must be specified in order to evaluate vulnerability?

•What issues arise if the country is the unit of measurement?

Some of these questions will be addressed within the text of this paper, however to make certainthey are fully answered the concluding section of this paper will return to the above list.






- 2 -

CRITICAL ISSUES IN RISK ASSESSMENT

1. Using Precise, Accurate and Accessible Terminology

“The Department of International Development (DFID) should sponsor vulnerabilityassessments in developing countries and use the information to help target work on

adaptation where vulnerability is greatest”

House of Commons, International Development CommitteeRecommendation, No. 16. (2002)

This quotation is probably the first time the need for Vulnerability Assessments, and thesuggestion that the government should support such activities, has found its way into an official

publication of the UK government. As such it is an encouraging, (if overdue) indicator of aconcern of a donor government to promote the process of risk assessment to assist in targetingdisaster risk reduction initiatives.

The first contextual issue relates to terminology and it is worth noting the revealing word used by

the authors of the report quoted above, a Committee of Members of Parliament, who form theInternational Committee on International Development. They regarded the ‘product’ of avulnerability assessment merely as ‘adaptation’ ( probably by the community themselves), rather

than a fundamental ‘change’, perhaps even a ‘policy reversal’, (by those who placed them atrisk), such as moving them away from a threat to their lives and livelihoods. Effective

vulnerability and capacity assessments has to cover both the internal capacities of vulnerablecommunities for adaptive behaviour as well as defining the responsibilities of authorities to createand maintain safe conditions for their citizens who are ‘at risk’.

When considering the descriptions used in this field it is unfortunate that the current widespread

application of the term ‘vulnerability’ . This word is often used to describe a wide diversity ofsituations, and it appears to be following in the same direction as a clutch of other overworkeddevelopment expressions such as ‘sustainable development’, ‘gender sensitive’, ‘livelihood

security’, ‘integrated development’, ‘stakeholder partnerships’ and ‘social capital’ . Suchubiquitous expressions or clichés now commonly appear throughout the literature to the point of

numbing the mind and devaluing each important concept. When this occurs there is a need toconsider precise meanings and find accurate alternative expressions to convey accurate messagesto a diversity of audiences.

A set of working definitions has been included in the Appendix 11: Glossary (page 34) of theWorking Document: ‘Indicators for Disaster Risk Management’ . This provides a useful set ofdefinitions for the project, yet the problem remains of a lack of an agreed terminology in thissubject that is resulting in considerable confusion. I will cite some examples of varied meanings

or of differing interpretations.

The word ‘vulnerability’ is currently used to cover all sectors or elements that are at risk: such as people, buildings, infrastructure, economies, livelihoods, the natural environment and






- 3 -

ecosystems. However the authors of the forthcoming second edition of ‘At Risk, Peoples

Vulnerability to Natural Disasters’ confine the word ‘vulnerability’ specifically to people, anduse alternative expressions for other elements at risk:

‘Vulnerability’, as we use the word, only refers to people, not to buildings(susceptible, unsafe), economies (fragile), nor unstable slopes (hazardous) or

regions of the earth’s surface (hazard prone).(Wisner, et al 2003)

Within the community of people working in the disaster field a broad consensus has nowemerged that it is necessary to consider an assessment of vulnerability in parallel to a

measurement of capacity in all sectors. In recent years this process has being commonly calledVulnerability /Capacity Assessment (VCA) This method has been used particularly to assess

social vulnerability, but it can be usefully extended to cover all key sectors: social, economic, physical, environmental elements. To underline the various processes, and avoid future confusionthe name of VCA should ideally be replaced with a prefix of ‘social’ (so-VCA), ‘economic’ (ec-

VCA), ‘physical’ (ph-VCA) and ‘environmental’ (en-VCA) . In time, additional elements mayneed to be added such as ‘political’ Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (pol-VCA).

Another expression-‘exposure’ is also commonly used in current literature. Some authors use theword interchangeably with ‘vulnerability’ while others use the word very differently in its strict

insurance meaning, referring to the level of financial exposure of a given individual or company.

The fourth example relates to the process of investigating vulnerability. This is sometimesreferred to as ‘vulnerability assessment’ , in other contexts it is described as ‘vulnerabilityevaluation’ ,‘vulnerability measurement’ , ‘vulnerability appraisal’, ‘vulnerability monitoring’

while other writers from a geographical background prefer the expression ‘vulnerabilitymapping’ However, these descriptions contain subtle differences that can be usefully adopted

in appropriate contexts to convey specific meanings.

To reinforce this point numerous words are in common use to describe the strengths of a given

community and their property such as: ‘adaptation’, ‘capacity’, ‘resilience’, ‘capability’,‘resources’, and ‘coping abilities’ or ‘coping mechanisms’. While these words are often used

interchangeably due to their similar meanings, the words have differing nuances based ondifferent associations which are very important and must not be lost. Thus the expressions:‘resilience’ and ‘coping abilities’ can describe the same general process, but the two words can

convey different aspects of behaviour in a disaster situation where a given group may be able to

cope but may singularly lack resilience. In other situations groups may possess abundant‘resources’ but be unable to ‘adapt’ or vice-versa.

Therefore, given such subtle distinctions it is not desirable to standardise methodologies with a

single word, such as ‘assessment’ or ‘capacity’, since this would eliminate important differencesof emphasis that are present in the alternative descriptions noted above. Thus the advice of Walt

Whitman remains valid in this field when he advised writers to always: ‘seek the correct wordfor what you are attempting to say, not its second cousin’.






- 4 -

Definition issues are clearly important, and it is essential throughout this well conceived projectto clarify terms and wherever possible to replace fashionable academic jargon with more precise

and specific terminology, even if this requires the use of fresh words and innovative descriptions.Clarity of expression is essential given the needs of lay audiences of Government and NGOofficials, (often unaware of the fashions of current developmental literature), to clearly

understand these issues to the point of being able to apply them with confidence within their ownoperational environment. Clear, precise meanings are also essential in the original text since well

received advice can be translated into various languages, with the serious risk of furthercompounding errors of expression.

Summary Requirement, Issue 1.

Precise expressions wi th unambiguous meanings are needed to explain issues and intentions

given the widespread and often loose application of the term ‘vulnerabil ity’ . However, thedesir e to simpl i fy terminology to an agreed set of standar d terms or expressions should be

strongly r esisted since this ‘ reductionism’ wil l eliminate vital and subtle descri ptions that are

essent ial in both descri bing and defining the complexiti es of th is subject.

2. Delivering Practical Outcomes

‘Every good idea needs a ‘home’ where it will belong and be nurtured’

David Oakley’s concern to ‘earth’ theoretical concerns into practical tools’ was expressed in a

Disaster Management Training Workshop in Oxford Polytechnic in 1985. His quote aptlysummarises my third contextual issue. This is to relate an increasingly abstract body of writingon vulnerability to actions that need to be taken on the ground. A highly experienced colleague

who will remain anonymous wrote to me in relation to the Barcelona seminar to express his hopefor practical outcomes.

“ …as a side comment, noting the seeming preponderance of academic and/or

international institutional motivated participants, I also hope the Barcelona meeting doesnot become too academic and devoid of practical reality or applications from the

standpoint of practitioners labouring under the strictures and uncertainties of therealities attendant in all government bureaucracies. I hope that you may strive toencourage a somewhat "de-intellectualized" and more appropriate context of application

than that otherwise suggested by my reading of the background paper for Barcelonadiscussions”

This is a genuine concern since much of the rapidly accumulating literature on

vulnerability, while being ‘useful’ in building a conceptual framework fails to become ‘usable’ indefining the ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. This may be due to the concernof authors to develop an academic discourse or it may derive from their isolation from direct






- 5 -

contact with vulnerable communities or from a lack of ‘face to face’ contact with hard pressed

government officials who struggle with the mandate to reduce disaster risks. Thus, the focus ofthis paper concerns the urgent need for practical advice based on well conducted research. This is

needed to determine who needs to do what, with what resources to identify, assess, implementand reduce vulnerable conditions.


The growth of theoretical wr iti ng has assisted in bui lding a conceptual fr amework that is

needed in developing thi s subject area, but practical and usable outcomes are needed to ‘ earth’the theory into provi ding practical advice on effective actions to be taken by off icials

3. Addressing a Critical Gap in Risk Assessment

There is a missing element in most processes of disaster risk identification: ‘Social Vulnerability

and Capacity Assessment’ . My subjective impression of this omission comes from empiricalevidence gathered in undertaking consultancies and research in a number of widely different

contexts, (Tanzania, Japan, Ukraine, Mozambique, South Pacific, Mexico, Yemen, Caribbean,China, Nepal and India) over the past fifteen years. (Aysan, Coburn, Davis,and Spence, 1989),(Davis, 1994),

This fieldwork has directly or indirectly concerned the development of risk assessment and riskreduction strategies. In addition I have regularly led training sessions on risk assessment in

disaster management training courses for senior Government Officials from 1981 until the present and the senior officials on these courses confirm this lack of attention.

From these experiences a general awareness has grown of strictly limited, or of zero attention being applied to Social Vulnerability Assessment by Governments and NGO’s. This conviction

echoes the theme of this paper, the limited development and application of accessible SocialVulnerability tools and methodologies. These gaps have had serious consequences in major

omissions in the development of risk reduction strategies or measures, since without accuratediagnosis sharply focused remedies will inevitably remain in short supply.

The following obstacles to the development and application of social vulnerability may apply:

LIMITED SCOPE AND HISTORY

• reliance on hazard mapping as the sum total of vulnerability assessment,

• the later arrival of social vulnerability studies as compared to say physicalvulnerability,

POLITICAL FEARS

• political sensitivities in exposing why people are exposed to vulnerable situations,

STAFFING






- 6 -

• lack of social scientists to conduct assessments,

• over reliance on professional assessors,

TOOLS

•

the lack of proven assessment tools and techniques, • the lack of knowledge of the relative effectiveness of existing assessment tools.

• a lack of any agreed set of indicators of social vulnerability.

• a lack of understanding concerning ways to merge data from various aspects ofvulnerability (for example the link between studies of the vulnerability of building

structures and the vulnerability of building occupation)

This list is a subjective perception that needs to be replaced by solid evidence to confirm or reject

these opinions. The failure to undertake social vulnerability assessment may or may not derivefrom these reasons, and each needs to be confirmed or rejected, or other constraints added. Then

these constraints need to be analysed and addressed before significant progress can be made.

Such gaps will only be closed by applied, interdisciplinary research to rigorously compareassessment approaches across different hazard categories within different country and cultural

contexts in order to identify key variables that are needed relative to different hazards.

From these evaluations, it will be possible to identify elements of ‘best practice’. Such anevidence-based approach is urgently needed to replace the ‘ad-hoc’ process that currently prevails.


I f , as suggested, a major gap sti ll exi sts in the development and appl ication of Social

Vu lnerabil ity Assessment, then this must be closed and be ful ly incorporated into a range ofthe key vulnerabil ity factors, (physical, economic, envi ronmental etc.)

4. Undertaking Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA)

As noted above there has yet to be any research to determine what tools and techniques are in

current use to identify, measure, analyse and synthesise data on social vulnerability and capacity.Up to the present time there has not been any useful assessment of effectiveness or comparison

between approaches. The most widely adopted method is the IFRCS approach to Vulnerabilityand Capacity Assessment (VCA) (IFRC 1999) (IFRC, 2002) this approach by the Red Cross wasoriginally developed by Mary Anderson and Peter Woodrow in the late 1980’s. (Anderson and

Woodrow, 1989) (Bethke, Good, and Thompson,1997)

The intrinsic value of the VCA approach lies in its focus on ‘unmet needs’ and thus provides

assisting groups with an understanding of their role that will build from the strength of localcapacities. But a note of caution is needed to recognize the inherent dangers in the development

of the VCA approach. This is the real possibility that cynical Government officials will becomeaware of the strength of local capacities and thus give even less attention to addressing patterns ofvulnerability than would have been the case without such assessment.






- 7 -

In addition, (or in combination with the above) various Participatory Appraisal Assessment(PRA) approaches have been used when assessments have been undertaken at the community

level . (Bhatt, 1999) (Davis and Hall, 1999)


A review is needed wi th comparative in ternational ly based research to determine the present

state of social vulnerabil i ty and capacity assessment as a key element i n mappi ng disaster r isks.What social vul nerabi l i ty and capacity assessments processes have been completed, or are

being under taken, with what resul ts? How do these tools function t o assess social vul nerabil i ty

and capaci ty in relati on to vari ed hazards?

5. Linking Pre and Post Disaster Assessments

A further gap is the link between pre- and post-disaster assessments. For example, there are

obvious benefits in the same person or agency collecting, storing and analysing data from bothcontexts. Pre-disaster Vulnerability - Capacity Assessments (VCA) are inevitably speculative,

comprising projections concerning likely damage and casualties, as well as the effectiveness oflocal capacities. However, hard data from post-disaster needs and damage assessments willalways form the acid test of actual vulnerability and capacity. Both processes need to be merged

within an integrated ‘Disaster Management Information System’ (DMIS) Such a system mayappropriately adopt a Geographical Information System (GIS) as a highly appropriate system to

manage and synthesise the large quantities of spatial data that are a characteristic of suchassessments. Inevitably the problem of using GIS information technology is one of cost. Suchapplications will have to become more affordable and accessible for use in poor developing

countries before this tool can begin to fulfil its massive potential.

A key issue to always remember is the need for those who undertake risk assessment and riskmanagement need to give much closer attention to the collection of accurate and consistent data.Quality of data is likely to be far more important that the quantity of the information gathered.


Systems are needed in all hazard-prone countr ies to l ink pre-disaster CVA data with post- disaster needs and damage assessments into a single Disaster M anagement I nf ormation

System (DM IS) .

Whi le effective tools are needed for data collection and analysis, they wil l only be as good asthe qual ity and consistency of the data being used.






- 8 -

6. Expanding VCA to cover causal factors

Unless there is a rapid and radical expansion of VCA to move far beyond the cosmetics of

addressing unsafe conditions to addressing the reasons why they exist, there will be minimal progress in risk reduction. This will require a wider vision among NGO leaders as well as National Governments becoming centre stage in the process. They will need to sit down together

to work out how to undertake integrated assessments and operations.

However, as VCA moves towards causal factors, it will inevitably enter the political world andchallenge powerful political and commercial forces that will resist such enquiries. Thus, theassessment of root causes will lead to the need for political advocacy to strengthen some policies

and reverse others.

Summary Requirement. Issue 6.

I f serious and sustained progress is to be made in reducing risks, Vu lnerabi l ity and CapacityAssessments wi l l need to urgently move beyond descript ions of unsafe or i nsecure condi ti ons to

an assessment of the root causes of such fai lur es or weaknesses.

7. Who should undertake VCA?

A recurring objection to the implantation of Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments is theregular observation of senior government officials that they do not have sufficient trained staff to

undertake assessments or to analyse them. The response to this constraint is to seek to de-

professionalise the assessment process though the use of skilled and experienced persons whocan be found in most communities. These may usefully include local teachers, agricultural

extensionists, religious leaders, midwives etc.

' The concept of vulnerability also helps in the promotion of the involvement ofcommunity and citizen groups in the planning and development process, andcontributes to the goals of empowerment, democratization, and the advancement

of human rights.' (White et al, 2001)

However, community involvement does not remove the need for leadership where experienced professionals will train local assessors and develop templates for assessment.


Local personnel, when trained can play highly effective roles in the assessment of capaciti es

and vul nerabil i ties. This locali sed process has the added value of creating greater awareness

wi thi n communi ties of the threats they face as wel l as thei r in ternal capaciti es to resist them.






- 9 -

8. Developing Indicators. Benchmarks and Performance Targets

We live in an age where political leaders and senior officials are intoxicated with a desire to

create indicators in virtually every sector of life in order to secure targets or benchmarks tomeasure progress or attainment. Thus we have a plethora of indicators of hospital efficiency,success in solving crimes, levels or literacy, educational achievement etc. These indicators are

often to measure the work of others, rather than the performance of the originating or overseeingagency and this is why indicators are often bitterly resented by those being measured, since they

are regarded as control measures that inhibit their own judgements and professional standards.Also, attending to the demands of indicators can become a tedious ‘form filling’ chore, placingdemands on staff that they perceive to be a distraction from their main tasks.

At best good indicators can be used to help organisations to understand where they have reached

in their progress towards agreed goals. They can also assist them in planning ahead to see wherethey need to move in a given time frame of say two or five years. A further value is in raisingawareness within organisations concerning the nature of work as well as making aims and

objectives well known. This function is particularly useful in organisations that suffer from highlevels of staff turnover.

However, the negative side is that indicators can easily over simplify highly complex variablesthat crudely average out subtle variables and as a result may totally fail to recognise the essence

of a given issue. They are also heavily biased towards what can be easily measured, or in thefield of risk assessment biased towards the tangible data from the physical sciences and biased

against the less tangible data that is needed from the social sciences.

For example within the field of social vulnerability assessment it is relatively easy to develop

indicators of say the extent to which all high risk social groups have been identified and cateredfor in disaster planning. Most societies with reasonably reliable census data and social services

records know roughly where their elderly population live as well as their level of impairment /mobility. Such matters are fairly straight forward in developing vulnerability indicators.However, in moving into the field of mental attitudes such as the perception of risk it is a much

harder task to establish reliable indicators given the intangible complexities of varied socialvalues attached to various risks as well as the wide range of individual perceptions.

A further problem is that of ‘scale’. To be of any practical value a given set of indicators need tocarefully designed so that they are appropriate for the area of concern. This brings us to the very

essence of disaster risk assessment where differing scales can relate to hazard, vulnerability,

capacity and potential loss.

In 1995, Professor Nick Ambraseys of Imperial College, London made the simple yet perceptiveobservation in a Royal Society seminar:

‘while hazards may be mapped at an international scale, vulnerabilities are by their

nature localised’.






- 10 -

Therefore it is possible, and essential for the seismologists and geo-physicists of a given country

to construct a seismic risk map of a given country with various indicators of seismic risk.However, any attempt to undertake a similar study of say the vulnerability of the national

building stock, or of the vulnerability of communities, or of the vulnerabilities of microeconomies runs into the immediate problems of scale.

For example, one street of a town may be far more vulnerable that the next due to the age of buildings. In one street the buildings were built before a seismic code was implemented while the

next street was built a decade later with an enhanced level of protection. Some communities may be relatively stable with only minor changes over time as people arrive and depart, however, inother areas, (often urban conurbations) it is not uncommon for there to be a 25 percent rate of

change per annum. Within the stable community there is a chance that social affiliations,community activities as well as local leadership may have developed to the point that it is to be

regarded as a capacity, while in a turbulent, ever changing community this may be an outrightimpossibility where people have no knowledge of their neighbours and there is an absence of anycommunity solidarity.

The same variables can apply to the local economy. Some regions may have a single economy

such as the development of a single cash crop, while in other locations the economy is made upof thousands of micro-enterprises operating from small workshops. When each is consideredthrough the lens of disaster potential it may be possible for economists to gather some useful data

for the direct and indirect impact of say a flood or cyclone upon a unified single crop economy, but the task may be impossible for any situation of multiple industries.

One group that have invested time and effort in the development of performance targets inrelation to the flood hazard is Middlesex University’s Flood Hazard Research Centre (FHRC).

The staff of this Centre have spent about twenty years gradually developing what they describe asa ‘Modified criteria –development matrix’. This was initially applied to Flood Warning

Dissemination , but in a research project concerning Cyclone Warnings in Mauritius, ProfessorDennis Parker has adapted the flood model to Cyclone Warning Dissemination with a total of 27indicators. (Parker and Budgen, 1999)

A five part development scale is used in this performance indicator matrix. This provides for five

stages of development from ‘Basic’ to ‘Optimum’. It may be useful to quote 1 of their 27indicators for cyclone warnings to give an example of the way the indicators are described.

‘Public Education about cyclones and cyclone warnings:

STAGE 1 (Basic / Not functioning/ Rudimentary) Non existent or virtually so

STAGE 2 (Below average) Efforts to include material in the school curriculum are apparent, other methods

are ad hoc.






- 11 -

STAGE 3 (Average)

Embedded in school curriculum, linked to some exposure in audio- visual and printed media; un-evaluated; special needs and ethnic minorities not

distinguished.

STAGE 4 (Above average)

Embedded in school curriculum, linked to some exposure in audio- visual and printed media; either un-evaluated or special needs and ethnic minorities not

distinguished.

STAGE 5 (Optimum, Advanced, (no identifiable shortcomings)

Integrated approach employing school and college curriculum; audio-visual and printed media; effectiveness formally evaluated ; ethnic minority and special

needs groups given special attention.(Parker and Budgen, 1999 pp 1.34-1.35)

If this structure is adopted for the development of indicators it is possible that the following couldapply for:

‘The Development of Disaster Risk Assessment’

STAGE 1 (Basic / Not functioning/ Rudimentary –almost totalshortcomings )

Non existent with the exception of basic hazard mapping

STAGE 2 (Below average- many shortcomings)

Hazard mapping as well as vulnerability assessment of building structures.

STAGE 3 (Average - some shortcomings) Hazard mapping as well as vulnerability assessment of all physical assets;

economic vulnerability assessment and social vulnerability /capacity assessment.

STAGE 4 (Above average-very few shortcomings) Hazard mapping as well as vulnerability assessment of all physical assets;economic vulnerability assessment and social vulnerability /capacity; attention

given to the assessment of risks to all critical facilities; loss estimation scenarios;

use of GIS for the management of risk data

STAGE 5 (Optimum, Advanced -no identifiable shortcomings) Hazard mapping as well as vulnerability assessment of all physical assets;

economic vulnerability assessment and social vulnerability /capacity; attention given to the assessment of risks to all critical facilities; loss estimation scenarios;

in all high risk areas community preparedness system in place including local riskassessment and monitoring; use of GIS for the management of risk data with full






- 12 -

public access; hazard and vulnerability patterns regularly monitored and

incorporated into the system; risk assessment system linked to forecast andwarning system; risk assessment system fully coordinated and integrated with

disaster management and risk reduction structures .

It is worth noting that this scale is made up of five stages, alternatives could be a seven stage

scale for a more sophisticated set if differential stages of developments, or a three stage scale fora much courser grain index of progress. The important point is to always select an odd number so

that the central point in the scale gives an ‘average’ rating. Given the early development of suchscales in disaster risk assessment it would appear most appropriate to use the five stages asopposed to seven since this may be unnecessarily fine grained.


I ndicators of vulnerabili ty have positi ve value to assist in forward plann ing and to raiseawareness at all levels. However, whi le some hazard indi cators can be useful ly coll ected and

used at the national , or even regional scale, vulnerabili ty indicators are only valid at locali sed

levels since vulnerabil ity, by its nature, is always ‘area specif ic’ .

A five stage development scale is proposed for disaster r isk assessment, ranging from 1.

‘Basic’ , 2. ‘Below Average’ , 3. ‘Average’ , 4. ‘Above Average’ , 5. ‘Advanced/Optimum’ .

9. Selecting and Weighting Indicators.

When seeking to develop comprehensive and well integrated vulnerability assessments it isessential to include all the critical issues, not just those that the assessor, or assessment team find

to be interesting or familiar territory.

(The following observations are an extract from a chapter I have written in the forthcoming book: Bankoff, G (Ed.)

(2003) ‘Mapping Vulnerability’ Earthscan, London, (Davis, (2003) Chapter 9, pp 184-186)

A vivid indicator of the dangers of narrow sectoral thinking came in an important ongoinginternational programme called the Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI) (Geo HazardsInternational and UNCRD, 2001). The pilot programme, completed in 2001, examined the

seismic safety of 21 cities. In order to define the seismic vulnerability of each city, the projectteam defined a five-part methodology, with data being collected on the following topics:

• ‘building fatality potential’ (soils/building stock/building construction and

materials/building occupancy rates);

• ‘landslide fatality potential’ (landslides triggered by the earthquake);

• ‘search and rescue life-saving potential’ (numbers of people available to participate/levels of training, etc);

• ‘fire fatality potential’ (fires induced by earthquakes);






- 13 -

• ‘medical care life-saving potential’ (casualty management).

It is notable that this list inexplicably omits a range of critical key factors that also have a

decisive impact on vulnerability and capacity:

• ‘the level and effectiveness of public awareness programmes’ (particularly those that arefocused on school children);

• ‘the level and effectiveness of disaster plans’ (disaster plans at all levels, from national tolocal);

• ‘high-risk social groups’ (social vulnerability and capacity assessment);

• ‘economic assessment’ urban seismic vulnerability is intimately related to an

identification of any industries/commerce and individual livelihoods that are at risk).

Explanations for such gaps may include the fact that the project is primarily the work of civil

engineers for whom such concerns as public awareness, disaster planning, and social andeconomic vulnerability may be unfamiliar territory. However, as this project expands with a new

range of international urban studies, it is vital for the organizers of GESI to radically expand theirassessment criteria and to build interdisciplinary teams in order to undertake the work in each citythat is investigated. Without this wider multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary frame of reference,

the project is fundamentally flawed in its current design since the results will fail to provide thenecessary holistic picture of urban vulnerability.

Reasons for such gaps probably lie in the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary problems increating integrated actions, and the lack of leadership in assembling a total picture. If risk

assessment is likened to a jigsaw puzzle, there are often missing pieces because the individuals

assembling the picture lack an awareness or understanding of the elements that are needed tocomprise an integrated ‘whole’. Assessors from social backgrounds can typically lack anunderstanding of engineering aspects of vulnerability; economists are unfamiliar withenvironmental considerations, and so on. Therefore, improved interdisciplinary education and

integrated teamwork are required at all levels to tackle problems and to synthesize issues. But forthis to occur, there is a need for inspired leadership to grasp the totality of the problem and the

opportunities. In addition, there is a need for improved publications and better field-basedtraining in assessment methodologies that will cover both manual, as well as GIS, applications.(Davis, 2003)

A related issue concerns the weighting of one vulnerability factor in relation to another. In the

development of indicators it is common practice for assessors to weight certain factors in ahierarchy of value or significance. However, I suggest that within the disaster vulnerability thishighly subjective process is premature, (akin to comparing and defining the relative value or

importance of apples, apricots and bananas!)

For example, in considering the vulnerability of building structures to seismic impact it would bean exceedingly brave assessor who would have the confidence to weigh any of the followingvulnerability factors more highly that others on the list in any general hierarchy. This would be






- 14 -

particularly difficult in relating the relative values to a generalised context, unrelated to an actual

measurable situation. More specifically, if the following list was given to say ten differentearthquake specialists, with the request that they rank them in order of importance for seismic

safety, it is almost certain that they would each come forward with different lists. Thevulnerability factors could include the following:

• Structural design

• Structural design relative to the application of successive seismic building codes

• Quality of building construction

• Maintenance of the building

• Configuration of building

• Design details, (such as wall openings, open ground floor etc.)

• Siting of building

• Selection of Building Materials

• Soil conditions• Relationship to adjacent buildings

• Means of escape

• Density of building occupation

In my view it will be most unwise to attempt to weight any vulnerability factors more highly thanothers until we have built up a detailed body of evidence from carefully observed failure under

disaster conditions. To avoid the inevitable professional bias entering the picture, (as may wellhave happened in the GESI example quoted in the previous section), this evidence would thenneed to be reviewed by expert multi and inter disciplinary teams of assessors before any

weighting values ccould be contemplated. The essence is to develop a rigorous, evidence based

approach based on observed hazard impact, in lieu of subjective selection.


in any ranked order of sign if icance can only be achieved if detail ed evidence of disaster

damage and casual ties can be coll ected and analysed by in ter and mul tidiscipli nar y teams inorder to accurately determine the causal factors of damage and casual ties. In the absence of a

reliable evidence based approach, that has yet to be developed, all indi cators shou ld be given

an equal value.

ORIENTING QUESTIONS

My comments, in summary form, to the orienting questions are as follows:

Character and Purpose:

• What is the purpose of evaluation?

Evaluation relates to two contexts: Firstly the evaluation of risks is to determine,

where possible by objectively measurable indicators, their value and the threatthey pose to people and their property. Secondly the evaluation of a risk






- 15 -

assessment system is to determine its overall and specific effectiveness in terms of

the value gained from the investment of human and material resources

• Will it be global, broad, non-specifi c?

Some aspects of hazard mapping may be undertaken at regional or national scales,

however since vulnerability as well as capacity is ‘area specific’ this has to occurat local levels of towns/ districts to be of any practical value. Any attempt toaverage these indicators to create a national index runs the serious risk of

providing decision makers with a very blunt tool based on sets of information thatmay fail to indicate specific areas of high vulnerability.

• Shoul d it be mul tidimensional evaluation?

Yes, as described in issue 9 of this paper vulnerability applies to physical/ social/economic/ and environmental factors and all need to be undertaken and integrated,to avoid portraying a distorted picture of vulnerability

• How can the resul ts be used?

The fundamental basis of an effective disaster management system and a systemfor risk reduction is an effective, balanced, integrated, monitored and regularlyupdated risk assessment system. However, risk assessment data is also important

information for a galaxy of other uses in resource planning at all levels ofgovernment.

• Who can use the inf ormation ?

All the stakeholders involved in the risk assessment/ management and risk

reduction process. For example:o Risk Assessors

o Disaster Planners and Disaster Managerso Emergency Management Staff

o Communities ‘at risk’o Professional Groups such (as engineers/ geologists/ hydrologists/

architects/ sociologists/ economists etc)

o Academic Bodieso Political Leaders

o NGO officialso Private Sector interests

Indicatum:

• What aspects must be specif ied in order to evaluate vulnerabi li ty?

Hazard Mapping :Frequency, duration, severity, location, impact characteristics. Localised hazard

mapping by microzonation studies.

Vulnerability Assessment:






- 16 -

In each of the following sectors vulnerability needs to be assessed alongside

capacity (or resilience)

o Social Vulnerability/Capacity Assessment (soVCA)This has to include:

High Risk Groups

Family incomes and livelihood securityRisk perception and awareness

Population densityLevels of literacy

o Disaster Management Vulnerability/Capacity Assessment (dmVCA)This has to include:

Public awareness National Disaster PlanningEmergency Management System and Structures including

Emergency Operating Centres (EOC’s)Hospital emergency planning

Education and TrainingComprehensive risk assessment systemRegulatory environment (bye laws and land use planning

controls)Community level disaster preparedness

Forecast and early warning systems

o Physical Vulnerability/Capacity Assessment (phVCA)

This has to include:The protection of critical facilities that include:

• Basic services: (water /telephones/ electricity/ waste collection etc)

• Prisons

• Emergency facilities (fire/ police/ ambulance/ rescue etc)

• Buildings of high occupancy (theatres/ cinemas/ churches/ mosques

etc)

• Schools

• Medical Facilities

• Historical monuments and assets (museums/ public sculpture/

libraries/ public records/ art galleries etc)• Transportation facilities (airports/ docks/ rail stations etc)

• Government offices where essential functions are carried out

• Communications facilities (TV/ Radio stations/ etc)

• Key economic assets needed to maintain the economy






- 17 -

General Buildings (excluding those on the above list of critical

facilities) Physical infrastructure (excluding those on the above list ofcritical facilities).

o Economic Vulnerability/Capacity Assessment (ecVCA)This has to include a range of factors relating to direct and indirect loss

potential:Business continuity planning

Insurance and re-insurance protectionThe economic vulnerability of key industrial and commercial sectorsThe economic vulnerability of key fisheries and agricultural / agro-

industry sectors

o Environmental Vulnerability/Capacity Assessment (enVCA)This has to include a range of factors relating to direct and indirect loss potential:

AgricultureForestry

FisheriesEco-systems Natural resources including wild life

• What issues ari se if the countr y is the uni t of measurement?

This has been discussed in the above paper, Issue No 8. My perspective is torecognise the potential for hazard mapping at the national level but not to attempt

vulnerability assessment at the national level, since vulnerability is highly variablesince it is ‘area specific’. The exception to this approach will be in very smallisland countries where the small geographical scale will make all forms of

vulnerability assessment feasible and essential.

Conclusion

This paper has highlighted a number of critical issues that need to be addressed. The nine

‘summary requirements’ listed after each section are a formidable agenda of complex anddemanding tasks. However if an effective risk assessment system can be institutionalised on the

lines indicated, then rich dividends in public safety are within reach.

References

Ambraseys. N. (1995) Comment made at a Workshop on Vulnerability Assessment organised by

the UK IDNDR National Committee, held at the Royal Society in April 1995 (unpublished)Anderson, M and Woodrow, P (1989) Rising from the Ashes; Development Strategies in Times of

Disaster, Westview Press, London

Aysan, Y F, Coburn, A W, Davis, I R and Spence, R J S (1989) Mitigation of Urban Seismic Risk: Actions to Reduce the Impact of Earthquakes on Highly Vulnerable Areas of Mexico






- 18 -

City. Report of Bilateral Technical Cooperation Agreement between the Governments of

Mexico City and the United Kingdom, Disaster Management Centre, Oxford Polytechnic andUniversity of Cambridge, Oxford and Cambridge

Bethke, L., Good, J. and Thompson, P. (1997) ‘Building Capacities for Risk Reduction’ Geneva:United Nations, Department of Humanitarian Affaires (DHA) Disaster Management TrainingProgramme (DMTP)

Bhatt, M. (1999) ‘Mapping Vulnerability-Participatory Tool Kits’ pp 94- 95 in Ingleton, J. Natural Disaster Management Leicester: Tudor Rose

Davis, I (1994) ‘ Assessing Community Vulnerability’, pp11-13, in UK National CoordinationCommittee for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR ), ‘Medicinein the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR)’, Proceedings of a

Workshop at the Royal Society, London 19 April 1993Davis,I and Hall,N. (1999) ‘Ways to Measure Community Vulnerability’ pp 87- 89 in Ingleton, J.

Natural Disaster Management Leicester: Tudor Rose Davis, I (2003) Chapter 9 in Bankoff, G Ed. (2003) ‘Mapping Vulnerability’ Earthscan , LondonGHI and UNCHD (2001) Global Earthquake Safety Initiative, Pilot Project Final Report,

GeoHazards International (GHI) and UN Centre for Human Development (UNCHD), KobeHouse of Commons, International Development Committee (2002) ‘Global Climate Change and

Sustainable Development’, Third Report of Session 2001-2002 Recommendation 16(1): 74,The Stationary Office, London

IFRCS (1999) ‘Vulnerability and capacity assessment, An International Federation Guide’ ,

IFRCS, GenevaIFRCS (2002) World Disasters Report, Focus on Reducing Risk Chapter 6, Assessing

vulnerabilities and capacities- during peace and war, International Federation of Red Crossand Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, pp129-47

Parker , D and Budgen, P (1999) ‘The tropical cyclone warning dissemination system in

Mauritius’ pp 1.3-1.88 in United Kingdom National Coordination Committee for theInternational Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, Forecasts and Warnings Thomas

Telford, London White, G F, Kates, R W, and Burton, I (2001) ‘Knowing better and losing even more: the use of

knowledge in hazards management’, Environmental Hazards 3(3,4): 81-92

Wisner, B, Blaikie, P, Cannon, T and Davis I (2003) Second edition of At Risk: Naturalhazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters’ Routledge , London and New York

i an Davis Em Barcelona July 2003

Documents

Transcript of i an Davis Em Barcelona July 2003