Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Risk, Vulnerability, and Asset-Based Approach To Disaster Risk Management
Risk, Vulnerability, and Asset-Based Approach To Disaster Risk Management
Risk, Vulnerability, and Asset-Based Approach To Disaster Risk Management
distribution depends upon underlying vulnerabilities which arise from factors such as location of human settlements and economic enterprises, conditions of housing, and access to resources and information. These
vulnerabilities exist in both the developed and developing countries, though
spatial and physical aspects of vulnerability tend to be more pronounced in
developing countries.
It is often stated that the poorer segments of the population are more
exposed to disaster risks. With increasingly greater concentration of settlements and buildings in hazard-prone areas, this statement needs to be qualified somewhat. In the Bhuj earthquake (2001) in India, the high- and
middle-income groups lost more of their asset value. Most of the people
who died in collapse of mid-rise apartment buildings in Ahmedabad and
Bhuj belonged to the middle class (Vatsa, 2002). In the Marmara earthquake
(1999) in Turkey, 90 percent of casualties took place in mid-rise reinforced
concrete apartment blocks, owned by urban upper middle classes (Erdik,
2001). In Germany, 2002 floods in River Elbe inundated the city of Dresden,
did not spare any segment of the population, as it caused inundation of all
the residential and commercial properties and damaged many historical
buildings in the city center (Toothill, 2002). In the United States, when an
earthquake strikes California hillsides or a hurricane strikes the coastal areas
of Florida, absolute disaster losses in dollar terms are higher for upper and
middle classes than for the poor, though in relative terms the poor generally
lose a larger percentage of their material assets and suffer more lasting effects (Bolin and Stanford, 1999).
While the distribution of disaster impacts has become more complicated across social classes, it is also true that stable employment, insurance,
credit and assets help upper and middle classes to recover faster from a disaster. The low-income group, on the other hand, has fewer options than the
wealthy for coping with a disaster. They have fewer assets, almost no insurance, and less diversified sources of income, and a disaster can push them
into destitution (World Bank, 2001). In rural areas in Vietnam it was reported that those with capital have a buffer and are better able to survive and
Such a view of risk agrees upon the objective nature of risk. There is
general agreement among those who hold such a view of risk that progress
lies in refining the methods of measurement and collecting more data on
both the probabilities of adverse events and their magnitudes. A report by
the Britains Royal Society called Risk Assessment concluded that there
was a need for better estimates of actual risk based on direct observation of
what happens in society (cited in Adams, 1995).2
This approach also distinguishes between objective riskthe sort of
thing experts know aboutand perceived riskthe lay persons often
very different anticipation of future events. Perceptions of risk play a prominent role in the decisions people make, in the sense that differences in risk
perception lie at the heart of disagreements about the best course of action
between technical experts and members of the general public (Slovic and
Weber, 2002). We may express objective and perceived risk as in the matrix
below:
Figure 2: Risk Matrix
Risk
Objective
(measured as)
Statistical probability
Perceived
(measured as)
Perceptions of likelihood
of different events by
different actors
Detriment
Economic cost
Economic cost
Non-economic cost (including,
self-esteem, community solidarity,
future livelihood solidarity)
the US became much less risky in terms of deaths from accidents per ton of
coals, but they became marginally riskier in terms of deaths from accidents
per miner. Which measure one thinks more appropriate for decision-making
depends on ones point of view (Kunreuther and Slovic, 1996; Adams,
1995).
In social science, the concept of risk is primarily concerned with the
distribution of risky outcomes and its impact on the people who experience
them. Over their lifetime, all men and women are subject to a wide variety of
risks: unemployment, illness, injury, disability, death, loss of residential and
commercial property, crop failure, etc. Different disciplines within social
science have discussed these risks from their own point of view.
One of the most important contributions to social theories of risk came
from the European sociologists, Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens. In the
globalized modern world, which Beck characterized as a risk society, the
future has become uncertain. Possible events which technology unintentionally generates cannot be insured against because they have unimaginable
implications. Beck, citing the example of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion
in 1986, associates nuclear power with suspension of the principle of insurance not only in the economic, but also in the medical, psychological, cultural and religious sense. The residual risk society has become an
uninsured society (Beck, 1992: 101).3
Giddens makes a similar point by distinguishing between external
risks emanating from bad harvests, floods, plagues or famines and manufactured risks which include most of the environmental risks. Not only has external risks been supplanted by manufactured risks, but we know very little
on how to handle the latter. As manufactured risk expands, there is a new
riskiness to risk. We simply dont know what the level of risk is, and in
many cases we wouldnt know for sure until it is too late. Further, we live
in a world where hazards created by ourselves are as, or more threatening
than those that come from outside (Giddens, 2000 cited in Quarantelli,
2000).
Siegel and Alwang, 1999). The EP curve is useful here only in a limited
sense, and the concept of risk in these situations clearly diverges from the
one used in physical and engineering sciences.
Risk, combined with the household responses, lead to the outcome.
The outcome is the change in welfare that results from the realization of risk
the shock and from the success or failure of risk management instruments applied. Asset losses, unemployment, decline in production and
wages, illness, injuries, deaths are some of the outcomes of a disaster.
Households cope with these losses by withdrawing their savings, borrowing, reducing their expenditures, and selling their assets. Their capacity to
insure against these losses is enhanced by the availability of public-funded
and market-based mechanisms of risk management. A households vulnerability is ascertained on the basis of its asset endowment, likely welfare
losses, and risk management strategy. The household is thus said to be vulnerable to suffering an undesirable outcome, and this vulnerability comes
from exposure to risk (Alwang, Siegel and Jrgensen, 2001).
Risk (disaster) in disaster management has been defined as the cumulative impact of hazard and vulnerability (Blaikie et. al., 1994), expressed
through the following equation:
R = HV
where R stands for the loss or realized risk (disaster), H for hazard (the probability of occurrence of a specific hazard in a given area over a given time
period, and V for vulnerability (the degree of loss resulting from the occurrence of the phenomenon). The United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator
(UNDRO) provided an official definition of risk as expected losses from a
given hazard to a given element at risk over a specified period of time (cited
in Coburn et. al. 1994). For example, risk may be expressed in terms of average expected losses, such as 10,000 lost over 20 years period or a 10 percent probability of economic losses to property exceeding US$25 million in
the town of Puerto Novo within the next 10 years. It introduces stochastic
factors in calculation of risk, as total risk (RT ) becomes a function of exposure to hazard over time (tE), vulnerability (V) of elements at risk (E), and
the probability that a natural hazard will strike in a certain way (P) (Alexander, 2001):
RT = fcn { tE , V(E), P}
Risk is compiled from hazard and vulnerability data and from the inventory of elements at risk. A variety of ways of presenting risk are available such as scenario mapping, potential loss mapping, and annualized risk.
While the probability of occurrence of a hazard may always be estimated on
the basis of historical data and physical information, and some of the elements at risk (buildings and population) can be identified and inventorized,
the issue of measuring vulnerability and resilience is always difficult. While
we understand that zoning, land use planning, improved building technology, and lower population density should lead to a lower number of deaths
and injuries, the precise connection between human losses and spatial and
demographic factors is always difficult to establish. This is why the equations as mentioned have remained abstract, and have not been used for actual estimation of risk. It points to the constraints in measuring a range of
socio-economic factors which could be classified under the broad category
of vulnerability.
Section III: Perspectives on Vulnerability
Vulnerability is the key factor which explains how the outcome of a risky
event is distributed across households. Most of the literature regarding catastrophic risk in risk sciences is conspicuous by the absence of reference to
vulnerability.4 In social sciences, however, the use of the term vulnerability has proliferated. It has been discussed in the context of a wide range
of risks to which households are exposed. As there is a greater concern for
reducing welfare losses before they actually happen, and more public policy
support for ex ante approach to risk management, vulnerability has become
a central theme of all the broader approaches to poverty alleviation and risk
management.
Vulnerability has been defined in terms of exposure to welfare losses,
rather than in terms of exposure to poverty. An individual, a household, or a
community can be considered vulnerable when there is a probability that
they will experience a level of well being that is below a socially accepted
10
threshold (Glewwe and Hall, 1998; Cunningham and Maloney, 2000; Alwang, Siegel and Jrgensen, 2001). It represents a general definition,
though in the context of a specific discipline, the meaning of vulnerability
changes according to its primary focus. For instance, in economics, vulnerability is discussed in terms of decline in income and consumption, whereas
in disaster management, the focus is on human and property losses.5
Downing and Bakker (2000) list the central concepts of vulnerability
as follows:
11
Standard
of Living
SL
Shock
/
Disaste
r
Household
Recovers
Relief /
Assistance /
Community
Support /
Household
s
Household
copes /
adapts
Household
Slips below
Poverty
line
6
6
6!
6
Time
12
equity, and income and resource distribution, and disaster management need
not wait for the achievement of such goals (Chambers, 1989; Wisner, 1993).
3.2 Vulnerability in Disaster Management
In disaster management literature, the discussion of vulnerability had its
precursor in the concept of a range of adjustments, developed by Gilbert
White. White (1961) recommended a set of possible accommodations to
given hazards, and the best mix of them is more effective than single solutions, as had prevailed for instance, in the approach to flood hazards in
North American through engineering control works. In making these alternative adjustments, White emphasized the question of choice and adjustments people at risk choose or would prefer. An important theme is that the
adjustments which people consider and make depend upon social organization, and the capacity to choose adjustmentsor lack of it. Choice is constrained by status and rights within a society. Those least likely to have a
voice in public safety and risky developments are so often the ones to suffer
most in disasters (Hewitt, 1997).
When the concept of vulnerability was introduced in disaster management in 1970s, it was predominantly in terms of vulnerability of the critical infrastructure and urban lifelines: buildings, pipelines, roads, etc.
Vulnerability assessment was concerned with estimating losses and damages to physical objects (Arnold, 1984). The Office of the United Nations
Disaster Relief Coordinator (1982, cited in Alexander, 1993) echoed this
view in their definition of vulnerability as the degree of loss (from 0 % to
100 %) to a given element or set of elements at risk resulting from the occurrence of a natural phenomenon of a given magnitude. It is expressed on a
scale from 0 (no damage) to 1 (total loss). Such a view considered that a
natural hazard risk was the same for all who were exposed to it, and there
was no concept of differential vulnerability.
Around the same time, a more socialized interpretation of disasters
emerged which suggested that economic processes could increase the vulnerability of populations to natural disasters and should be considered in the
same way as were the more obvious physical or environmental phenomena.
There was a process of marginalization at work, which had a strong spatial
13
implication in terms of pushing the poor into unsafe living conditions. Some
of these views traced their ideological underpinnings to the dependence theory, and provided a strong critique of the relationship between relief and underdevelopment. These views had a distinct flavor of political economy
approach to disasters. Amartya Sens work on poverty and famines in 1981
reinforced such an interpretation of disasters. Sen challenged the widely
held conviction that lack of food availability (or supply) due to lack of rains
and crop failures was the primary explanation for famines; instead, he posited lack of purchasing power or access as the key to understanding who
went hungry and why. Over the years, a number of social scientists and geographers have steadily developed this approach which repudiated the distinction between physical and social vulnerability, and developed a more
integrated explanation of natural disasters (Westgate and OKeefe, 1976,
Winchester, 1992; Wisner, 1993; Blaikie, et.al., 1994, Varley; 1994, Cannon, 1994; Hewitt, 1997).
Westgate and OKeefe define vulnerability as the degree to which a
community was at risk from the occurrence of extreme physical or natural
phenomena, where risk refers to the probability of occurrence and the degree to which socio-economic and socio-political factors affect the communitys capacity to absorb and recover from extreme phenomena. This
definition could be considered a definitive view of vulnerability within the
field of disaster research. It suggests that the likelihood of being affected by
disasters depends on (i) frequency and severity of the impactthe more frequent and severe the impact, if the impact is not cushioned and mitigated,
higher the vulnerability; and (ii) the peoples resilience to a given shock. Resilience is therefore an integral part of the concept of vulnerability. It is
linked to the households capacity to resist and recover from the adverse impact of a disaster. Since we take the view that assets are the means of resistance to the impact of a disaster, a households resilience is closely linked to
the asset ownership.
Miller and Nigg (1993) have developed the concept of event vulnerability and consequence vulnerability, the former referring to the household vulnerability associated with the direct impacts of a disaster event and
14
the latter referring to the household vulnerability associated with the social
and political processes of recovering from the disaster event. Whereas upper
and middle income-groups are vulnerable to the event, the lower classes
share both the event and consequence vulnerability. A low asset base
and limited livelihood opportunities trap low-income group into a vicious
cycle of poverty and deprivation. The vicious cycle of vulnerability can be
represented as:
Limited asset base >= management of risk leads to inefficient allocation of assets >= low returns >= low consumption >= low savings and investment >=
limited asset base >=lower returns, consumption and savings (Siegel and Alwang, 1999, p. vi).
15
16
17
over time, sometimes rapidly. They also interact with each other in complex
ways. The outcome can be unpredictable (Twigg, 2001).
The PAR model takes a structural view of vulnerability. It explains the
systemic pressures contributing to vulnerability, but does not suggest a strategy for reducing it. It also does not provide insight into what constitutes vulnerability at the household level. It is the access model, which explains the
household vulnerability. The model suggests that it is the level of access to
resources that determines the vulnerability of people and turns some natural
events into disasters for some people. Each household has a range or profile
of resources and assets that represent their particular access level. These
may include land of various qualities, livestock, tools and equipment, capital and stock, reserves of food, jewelry, as well as labor power and specialist
skills. Non-material resources, qualities, or qualifications such as gender,
and membership of caste or kinship-based organizations may also be included. Access to all the resources that each individual or household possesses can collectively be called its access profile. Those who possess
access qualifications for a large number of income opportunities have more
flexibility in securing a livelihood under generally adverse conditions, command considerable resources, have reserves of food, and can be said to have
a well-resourced profile. On the other hand, those whose access profiles are
limited usually have little choice in income opportunities, less store of value
to draw upon, and have the least flexibility in adverse conditions (Blaikie,
et.al., 1994).
However, even Access model provides just an abstract framework.
It is not modeled on empirical observations in the field, nor has it been validated through actual experiences. Besides, the model is not sufficiently dynamic to explain vulnerability. A household economy is not isolated or
disconnected; it is connected strongly to the regional, national and international economy. These connections, which enable households to reduce
their vulnerability, have not been incorporated in the model. Further, the
model does little further than explaining vulnerability. It does not specify
the instruments or programs, which could be used for reducing or mitigating
disaster risks. Vulnerability requires a broader and dynamic framework,
18
19
and famine and high levels of mortality. The USAID has developed a distinct methodology for conducting VA in the context of improving food security in sub-Saharan Africa under the Famine Early Warning System
(FEWS).10. However, the concept and methodology of VA applied in the
FEWS has the perspective of a donor organization, and it is used primarily
as a tool to assist decision-makers faced with the responsibility of responding to any potential threat of famine. As is the case with FEWS, food security is the leading perspective in the Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
(VAM) conducted by the World Food Program (WFP), a UN agency.11
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)-based Vulnerabilities and Capacities
Analysis (VCA):
The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods, extensively practiced in
development activities, have been used for carrying out the Vulnerabilities
and Capacities Analysis (VCA). Developed in the context of relief work undertaken by NGOs, the VCA undertakes an assessment by dividing societal
capacities and vulnerabilities into three categories: physical/material; social/organizational; and motivational/ attitudinal (Anderson and Woodrow,
1998). The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has adopted the Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (VCA) as a
diagnostic tool to assess institutional capacity and evaluate the effectiveness
of current programs. The IFRC national societies have preferred VCA over
needs-based assessment approach, as it emphasizes capacity building and
community participation, making their mitigation programs more adaptive
and responsive (IFRC, 1999).
Given the multi-dimensionality of vulnerability, not all of the assessment can be encompassed in a single model. Instead, a number of analytical
techniques could be used to assess vulnerability, which includes quantitative
data of different measures of vulnerability, qualitative information upon different vulnerable groups, descriptive details of spatial and geographical
situation, and multivariate modeling of vulnerability with respect to outcome indicators such as consumption (Tesliuc and Lindert, 2002).
20
21
22
23
tangible assets as they generate financial returns. Sociologists and anthropologists often focus on intangible assets. However, there is growing consensus that both tangible and intangible assets, and their interplay, are
important in the context of risk management of vulnerable households
(Shearraden, 1991; Siegel and Alwang, 1999).
The household asset-based approach traces its beginnings to Amartya
Sens entitlement approach, developed in the context of famine. Sen in his
classic book, Poverty and Famines (Sen, 1981), showed that famines could
be attributed to failures in securing individual entitlements, which emanates
from all the endowments (assets)their labor, cash crops, or animals at
her or his command. The value of these endowments and related production
activities is liable to collapse in relation to staple food prices, denying individuals and households the capacity to purchase food. A households failure
to secure its entitlement is thus primarily a failure in exchange rate or terms
of trade rather than crop or production failure.
Though Sens concept of entitlements includes all the productive resources and tangible assets owned by a household, he has analyzed famine
predominantly in terms of exchange and terms of trade failures. It does not
always explain differential vulnerability within some communities and between similar communities apparently facing similar production or exchange failures. How can a particular community cope longer and better
than other communities? Jeremy Swift (1989) therefore employs a wider
meaning of assets as consisting of investments, stores and claims (Figure 3).
Assets in this broad sense are created when production leads to a surplus
beyond immediate consumption requirements, and households use this surplus, willingly or unwillingly, to invest (including investment in better education or health), to build up physical stores of all sorts, and to invest in
claims by putting more resources into the community or government
(p.11). Investments, stores, and claims together build the asset profile of an
individual or household.
Asset-based approach was incorporated into the sociological / anthropological literature by the late 1980s, which expanded the concept of assets
(Moser, 1998; Bebbington, 1999). It also came to be applied to the analysis
24
of poverty (Reardon and Vosti, 1995; Attanasio and Szkely, 1999). In the
US, Michael Sherraden (1991) applied asset-based approach to social policy. According to Sherraden, assets exert impacts in ways that cut across
economic, psychological, and institutional effects. Siegel and Alwang
(1999) provide the most detailed exposition of asset-based approach in the
context of social risk management.
5.3 Classification of Assets
Assets can be classified in many ways. Distinctions may be made between
enterprise assets and individual and household assets; productive and nonproductive assets; tangible and intangible assets; and the ease with which assets can be liquidated. Moser (1998) offers a five-fold classification of assets: labor, human capital, productive assets, household relations, and social
capital. Another scheme of classification natural, financial, physical, human and social assetsis more straight and clear as presented below (Siegel
and Alwang, 2000; Sebstad and Cohen, 1999, p.15):
Natural assets: Pasture, forests, fisheries, water: quality and quantity
Financial assets: cash, savings, loans and gifts, regular remittances or pensions, other financial instruments;
Physical assets: housing; buildings and land, and improvements to these; land
and other physical items that maintain or increase in value, such as gold jewelry; and physical items that decrease in value, including consumer durables
such as household appliances, shoes, clothing, and vehicles; and productive
assets, including fixed-enterprise assets;
Human assets: skills and knowledge, ability to labor, good health, selfesteem, bargaining power, autonomy, and control over decisions; and
Social assets: networks, group memberships, relationships of trust, access to
wider institutions of society, and freedom from violence.
Each category of assets has specific relevance for reducing vulnerability. Natural assets help households in reducing environmental stress, in
addition to providing the necessary wherewithal for the physical assets (e.g.,
provision of water for irrigation of lands, and pastures for cattle). Financial
25
assets can be used to smooth consumption, or they can be invested in a variety of ways that help smooth incomes. Physical assets can be pawned or
mortgaged or turned into productive assets to increase household income.
Human assets form the basis for labor mobilization, a key strategy for coping with shocks and stress events. Social assets are a critical source of financial and non-financial support in times of need, and clients place high
priority on building and maintaining these assets (Sebstad and Cohen, p.
72). Depletion of assets in a certain category would have a corresponding
impact on the associated vulnerability. An asset vulnerability matrix, which
identifies indicators of increasing and decreasing vulnerability associated
with a certain category of assets at the household level, has been presented
below (see Figure 4):
Figure 4: Asset Vulnerability Matrix
Type of
Assets
Indicator of Increasing
Vulnerability
Indicator of Decreasing
Vulnerability
Financial
Assets
Withdrawal of savings
Rise in indebtedness
Dependence on remittances
Availability of insurance
Lack of insurance
Crop failure
Diversified cropping
Physical
Assets
Human
Assets
Social
Assets
26
Good health
Poor nutrition
Availability of nutrition
27
Capacity
Less
Vulnerable
to
More Vulnerable
Extreme Poor
BREAKDOWN
Moderate
Poor
Vulnerabl
e
POINT
BARE ESSENTIAL ASSETS
Househol
d
man and social assets have also emerged as important variables in risk
management. Education, skills, and information equip households in dealing with risks in a more balanced way. Similarly, social cohesion, community networks, gender relations, and participation in social organizations,
which are considered to be the expressions of social capital or assets, play
important roles in responding to risks and crisis situations. A great deal of
transactions, involving reciprocal arrangements, gifts, and loans, take place
on the basis of expectations and obligations, helping households and communities. For example, human and social assets are more important for extremely poor households, while the moderate and vulnerable non-poor may
find physical and financial assets more important (Vatsa and Krimgold,
2000; Sebstad and Cohen, 1999).
28
Disasters can drastically alter a households portfolio of assets by either destroying them physically, or by dramatically reducing its value due to
prolonged collapse of asset markets (Vosti, 1999). In Malawi, the food
shock of 2001 is relatively small compared to 1991, yet its impact is far
more severe in the country. Recent research evidence suggests that the current situation in rural Malawi, where three quarters of households corresponded to the poorest households in Tanzania and Uganda, is due to an
erosion of Malawis assets over the last 10 years (Stevens, et.al. 2002).
Households reallocate their assets in response to risks. They use their
savings or insurance, draw down their physical stocks, borrow, sell or pawn
assets, reduce expenditures, modify their consumption, or seek help from
friends and relatives. A popular strategy is to make claims upon governments, NGOs, and international organizations, though such claims have
their own limits. Reducing assets (including claims) makes households and
communities more vulnerable, and its impact could be extended to processes within households, particularly in respect of gender and intergenerational assets and claims (Swift, 1989). For instance, it may result into
withdrawal of children from schools, reduced nutrition for women, migration, or other desperate measures.
Wealthier households allocate their assets more efficiently in dealing
with their risks, and manage their risks with minimal welfare loss. Research
findings collected during drought of 1999-2000 in Ethiopia indicate that
well-off households achieve or maintain higher asset holdings (livestock,
cash, equipment) due to their ability to fully respond to economic opportunity, purchase devalued assets from poorer households, and keep their assets
and products off a devalued market. Asset-poor households find their accumulation constrained by an inefficient asset-mix (abundant land, but insufficient labor), declining values for their meager assets as markets for these
goods also collapse, declining wages for their labor while costs of borrowing increase, and declining access to social networks and support institutions during periods of massive depletion (Little, 2002, p.2). However,
differential vulnerability between communities may always vary. For exam-
29
ple, the urban poor, though often very poor, make more effective claims
upon the government assistance compared to the urban poor (Swift, 1989).
Diversification of household assets and income-generating opportunities improves risk management at the household level. Multiple assets can
increase creditworthiness of a household, thereby improving their ability to
borrow during a crisis. Households can engage in small businesses, off-farm
employment, and seasonal migration arrangements. The rural poor engage
in farming and livestock husbandry, in gathering wild food and fuel, and in
the nonagricultural sector (Vosti, 1999). Reardon, et.al. (1988) document
the practices of poorer households in Burkina Faso to spread income risks
across occupations and across space (cited in Seigel and Alwang, 1999).
Pastoralists of East Africa increasingly pursue non-pastoral strategies to
meet consumption needs and to buttress against shocks caused by climatic
fluctuations, animal disease, market failures, and insecurity (Little, et.al.,
1999).
As stated earlier, the poorest households are characterized by low asset endowment, and therefore, they tend to reach the threshold of collapse
much faster. Poorer households also tend to adopt risk management strategies that concentrate in lower risk and lower return assets, trapping them in
the vicious cycle of poverty (Swift, 1989; Jalan and Ravallion, 1998).
5.5. Level of Assets and their Interaction
The capacity to reduce risk and vulnerability depends not only upon the initial assets and endowments, but also by the ability to transform such assets
into income, food, or other basic necessities in an effective manner. Factors
at household, intra-household, community and extra-community levels determine both the use of assets and the strategies adopted during the periods
of crisis and disasters. At the level of households, factors which influence its
response to a major shock are changes in household structure, composition,
and headship, care of children and the elderly, and domestic violence. Intrahousehold factors basically refer to gender-based differences, which influence the process of resource allocation within a household. Within a household, the distribution of impact and resources in a crisis or disaster situation
are different for men and women, and boys and girls. At the community
30
level, the extent to which a disaster or crisis has increased or eroded social
capital may have long-term consequences for recovery strategies (Moser,
1997). At the extra-community level, labor, commodity and financial markets determine the economic returns, and political and institutional factors
determine relief, assistance and security.
There are strng linkages between different levels which allow household assets to draw on community and extra-community assets. Households
seek community and governments help in strengthening flood control
measures at the local level. Flood and cyclone shelters, which are community assets, can protect many household assets. Governments may provide
financial assistance to households for undertaking seismic strengthening of
their houses. These strategies may then create cross-boundary asset pools
and broaden the risk pool. Assets enlarge the risk pool, creating incentives
for households to contribute to the risk pool and draw upon its resources.
The asset-based approach, by using assets in a broader sense, embodies elements of sustainable livelihoods and rights-based approaches, which
have been advanced by many stakeholders in international development. Its
strength lies in using multiple levels of assetstangible and intangiblefor
managing risks. However, asset-risk interaction needs to be investigated
more empirically to ascertain how different categories of assets correlate
with outcomes of risky events at the household level. Research on these issues will provide better information on the component or a mix of assets required for dealing with a certain type of risk.
VI. Asset-building Strategies for Disaster Management
The discussion above underscores the importance of following a more comprehensive approach to reducing risk and vulnerability. Such a strategy
needs to connect the conventional measures of disaster management to the
world of development: financial assets, livelihoods, social protection, community networks, housing, and information sharing. Interventions that promote these issues could be used effectively for managing disaster risks.
Different components of the strategy and their application for ex-ante and
ex-post risk management are presented in a matrix below, followed by a discussion:
31
Ex-ante
Risk Management
Ex-post
Risk Management
Building
Financial Assets
Flexible savings
Withdrawal of savings
Affordable insurance
Insurance payments
Diversification of
income-earning opportunities
Promoting
Livelihoods
Reconstruction as an
opportunity for employment
generation
Investing in
Housing
Post-disaster reconstruction
Application of disaster-resistant
technology in reconstruction
Relocation
Supporting Social Microfinance for vulnerability
Protection and
deduction
Safety Nets
Social / calamity Funds
Public works (Employment
Generation) programs
Cash transfer
Food distribution
Social insurance
Public works (Employment
Generation) programs
Strengthening
Community
Networks
Community-based mitigation
Programs
Community participation in
recovery and reconstruction
Sharing
Information
32
Early warning
Household and
community-level Preparedness
33
ments. Training in different trades can also be organized for the people who
have to seek alternative sources of employment. Governments may begin
large-scale public works, which could provide employment to the people affected by a disaster event.
Poor households have labor as their greatest asset. In face of a disaster, a frequent response by poor households is to migrate or mobilize additional laborprincipally womens labor and sometime even childrens
labor. These strategies have their own welfare losses. If households have
more diversified livelihood opportunities, they may avoid these losses, and
maintain their level of economic and social well-being. A number of international agencies such as the DFID, UNDP, CARE International and Oxfam
are working on sustainable livelihood approaches. These organizations have
also underscored the importance of including livelihood strategies in their
disaster-related interventions (Carney et al. 1999, cited in Sanderson, 2002).
6.3 Investing in Housing
Housing is an important productive asset that can cushion households
against most of the big and small shocks. When households have secure
ownership of houses, they often use this asset with particular resourcefulness when other sources of income are reduced. Homeowners use their
housing as a base for enterprises or rent it to raise income. They sell part of
their plot or, as a last resort, all of their property. They save imputed rent
that would otherwise be added to household expenditure. And they use their
housing as a tool for extending personal relationships and generating social
capital (Moser, 1997, p. 7).
Housing can be promoted through infusion of public and private resources. These resources need to be mobilized for the construction of new
and better houses, strengthening of existing houses, and improvement in
sites and services. People who live in unsafe conditions could be assisted to
move in safe and better houses. For instance, people living in flood-prone
areas could be helped with simple flood prevention measures such as rising
of plinths or building on stilts or even relocating. Insurance schemes could
be tied to specific mitigation measures. These policies could be pursued
through building incentives, and developing adequate legal and institutional
34
frameworks. The government alone cannot promote housing. Financial institutions and non-governmental organizations need to partner with the government in encouraging housing sector.
6.4 Supporting Social Protection and Safety Nets
Social protection or safety net programs assist individuals, households, and
communities to better manage a wide range of risks that leave people vulnerable. These programs deal with both the absolute deprivation and vulnerability of the poorest people and also with the need of the currently non-poor
for security in the face of shocks and life-cycle events. A number of safety
net programs are in nature of income support or social insurance. In view of
its equity-enhancing and social investment functions, it has received widespread support from governments and development agencies.
Despite its growing portfolio worldwide, the agenda of social protection has not yet been linked very effectively to disaster risk reduction.
Though the literature recognizes the potential of safety nets for disaster risk
reduction, in practice, there have not been many successful examples (IDB,
2000). Applying social protection programs for disaster management will
mean introducing both ex ante and ex post measures, with a view to reduce
disaster risks. In practice, ex ante measures will include credit, subsidy and
assistance for improvement in shelter, flood protection, crop management,
and diversification of livelihoods, whereas ex post measures will mean using the financial services for resumption of economic activities, reconstruction, and even consumption. Among the instruments and services, which
could be used for both ex ante and ex post risk management, are microfinance, social funds, insurance, and public works program.
Safety net programs involve targeting of the people who are the most
vulnerable or most affected. However, in very low-income countries, such
as Ethiopia, Nepal and Malawi, almost everyone is poor or affected. Besides, in these poor countries too, there is a group of ultra-poor, which needs
to be supported very directly. Some of the options that could be used for
these groups involve cash transfers (selected / universal), food programs
(free distribution, food stamps, school-feeding, etc.), food subsidies, agricultural inputs (subsidies, free packs), and health and education fee waiver
35
programs (Smith and Subbarao, 2002). In almost all the low-income countries, underlying vulnerability and institutional weaknesses are so serious
that a simple intervention would not work. It would require multiple interventions, encompassing both short- and long-term measures.
6.5 Strengthening Community Networks
The importance of community networks in mobilizing human, social and financial assets has been demonstrated in recent disasters. A generous international assistance for the Gujarat earthquake in 2001 could be attributed to
the political and commercial strength of the non-resident Gujarati community in a number of developed countries (Vatsa, 2002). Similarly, El Salvador tapped a large amount of resources through remittances from millions of
expatriates after the earthquake in 2001. These social networks could be
strengthened through participatory programs. Group-based insurance programs and community-based mitigation programs could be among the interventions required to promote community networks.
An important component of community programs is to support
women with special programs. In Honduras, women coped with hurricane
Mitch by mobilizing formal and informal social networks and organizing
womens groups to meet needs, organize temporary shelters, and coordinate
relief efforts. They also used kin networks to take in affected family members (Corrieia, 2001). Women also participated in construction of shelter
and digging of wells and ditches. In Maharashtra, India, after the Latur
earthquake of 1993, womens participation in the seismic repairs and
strengthening program facilitated successful completion of owner-driven
earthquake reconstruction program.
6.6 Sharing Information and Knowledge
One of the valuable assets is information and knowledge that could be used
for risk management at the household and community level. Through electronic media and Internet, one can immediately get an access to data, and see
how a river is rising, track a tornado or hurricane, or observe the likely extent of damage caused by an earthquake that just occurred. One can access
the latest information on disaster resistant design, regions of high and low
36
37
knowledge are emerging as the transformative strategies for reducing vulnerability, other strategies are more relevant for coping and sustenance.
Whether governments would extend the necessary support to households for building their assets or these should be driven by market incentives, is an extremely important issue. A policy choice would be guided by
the context in which these interventions are called for. In respect of access to
financial services and housing, market institutions can implement a more
feasible strategy, while governments are more effective in implementing social protection and safety net measures and encouraging community networks. Both governments and market institutions can play a mutually
supportive role in creating livelihood opportunities and improving public
access to information and knowledge. A strong public policy support for
asset-based approaches would encourage both the governments and market
institutions to increase their commitment of resources for risk management
at the household and community level.
38
Endnotes
1. A household is a unit of social production with common eating arrangements.
2. The Royal Societys report in 1983, which strengthened the international
orthodoxy on the subject of risk, became a major work of reference. In 1992
when the Society returned to the subject with a new report entitled Risk:
analysis, perception and management, it was a significant deviation from
the earlier formulation of risk, sparking differences between physical and
social scientists. The Royal Society disowned the report, stating therein that
the views expressed are those of the authors alone and that it was merely
a contribution to the ongoing debate.
3. In Germany, Beck had a major impact on environmentalist politics and
thinking, but in the English-speaking world that impact has been considerably lessened by the gap between original publication and translation (Becks
book was published in Germany in 1986; the English translation appeared in
1992).
4. Most of the papers produced by the The Risk Management and Decision
Processes Center, Wharton School and International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria on the subject of catastrophic risk do
not refer to social vulnerability.
5. For a detailed discussion, see Alwang, Siegel and Jrgensen, 2001. It
presents a review of perspectives on vulnerability provided by different disciplines.
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/naturaldisasters/story/0,7369,439143,00.html
7. http://www.ecu.edu/coas/floyd/papers/floyd007.pdf
8. The Project Impact was a community-based mitigation program launched
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1997. The program was recently discontinued.
9. Information on NOAAs vulnerability assessment method is available on
www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/step1.htm.
39
10. The FEWS project conducts annual assessments of the ability of populations within numerous countries to meet their consumption requirements
since 1988. Steps involved in FEWS are preseason VA, season monitoring,
special alerts and warning, and contingency planning. More information is
available on www.fews.net.
11. More information on VAM is available on www.wfp.it/vam_documents/.
12. These papers were presented in a workshop organized by the World
Bank and International Food Policy Research (IFPRI) on Risk and Vulnerability.
13. The information on EVI is available on the following site: http://cobalt.sopac.org.fj/Evi/.
14. The World Vulnerability is under preparation.
40
References
Adams, John. 1995. Risk. London: UCL Press.
Alexander, David. 2000. Confronting Catastrophe, New Perspectives on
Natural Disaster. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, David E. 1997. The Study of Disasters 1977-1997: Some Reflections on a Changing Field of Knowledge. Disasters 21(4): pp.284-304.
Alexander, David E. 1993. Natural Disasters. University College London
Press, London, and Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht and Boston, p.
632.
Alwang, Jeff, Paul Siegel, and S. Jorgensen. 2001. Vulnerability: A View
from Different Disciplines. SP Discussion Paper No. 0115. Social Protection Unit. The World Bank.
Anderson, Mary B. and Woodrow, Peter J. 1998. Rising from the Ashes, Development Strategies in Times of Disaster. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Boulder, Colorado.
Arnold, Christopher. 1984. Techniques of Vulnerability Assessment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Disaster Mitigation Program
Implementation. Ocho Rios, Jamaica. November 12-16. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Attanasio, Orazio and Szekely, Miguel. 1999. An Asset-Based Approach
to the Analysis of Poverty in Latin America. IDB-OCE Working Paper No.
R-376. Posted on www.cofi.ecn.ulaval.ca/privdom/PDocs/R-376.pdf.
Bass, Batjargal, and Swift. 2001. Pastoral Risk Management for Disaster
Prevention and Preparedness in Central Asia with Special Reference to the
case of Mongolia. Paper presented in Asia-Pacific Conference on Early
Warning, Prevention, Preparedness and Management of Disasters in Food
and Agriculture, Chiangmai, Thailand. 12-15 June. Mimeo.
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development. 27: pp.2021-2034.
41
42
Cunningham, Wendy, and William Maloney. 2000. Measuring Vulnerability: Who Suffered in the 1995 Mexican Crisis? Latin America and Caribbean
Sector Management Unit for Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. The World Bank.
Dabalen, Andrew, Poupart, Nadine and Kline, Patrick. 2002. Vulnerability
to Rainfall Shock in Ethiopia. Posted on http://www.ifpri.org/events/conferences/2002/092302/dabalen.pdf.
Dercon, S. (1999). Income Risk, Coping Strategies and Safety Nets. Mimeo
prepared for the 2000/1 World Development Report. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Devereux, Stephen. 2002. State of disaster: Causes, consequences & policy
lessons from Malawi. ActionAid. Posted on http://www.actionaid.org/newsandmedia/the_malawi_famine_of_2002.pdf.
Downing, Thomas E., and Karen Bakker. 2000. Drought discourse and vulnerability. In. Donald A. Wilhite (ed.). Drought: A global assessment, vol.
2, 213-230. London: Routledge.
Enarson, Elaine. 2000. Gender and Natural Disasters. Recovery and Reconstruction Department. International Labor Organization. Geneva. Posted on
http://www-ilo-mirror.cornell.edu/public/english/employment/recon/crisis/download/criswp1.pdf.
Erdik, Mustafa. 2001. Recovery after 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce (Turkey)
Earthquakes. Paper presented in the International Workshop on Earthquake Safer World in the 21 st Century, January 29-31. Posted on
http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/ws2001/proceedings/ws_cdrom/6_symposium/6-4_panel3/6-4-3_erdik/erdik.pdf.
Fafchamps, Marcel. 1999. Rural Poverty, Risk and Development. Report
Submitted to Food and Agriculture Organization. Posted on
http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/marcel.fafchamps/homepage/fao3.pdf.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
43
Glewwe, P. and G. Hall. 1998. Are Some Groups More Vulnerable to Macroeconomic Shocks than Others? Hypothesis Tests Based on Panel Data
from Peru, Journal of Development Economics. Vol 56, pp 181-206.
Hewitt, Kenneth. 1997. Regions of Risk, A Geographical Introduction to
Disasters. Essex: Longman.
Holzmann, Robert and S. Jorgensen. 1999. Social Protection as Social Risk
Management: Conceptual Underpinnings for Social Protection Sector Strategy Paper. SP Discussion Paper No. 9904. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Holzmann, Robert. 2001. Risk and Vulnerability: The Forward looking
Role of Social Capital in a Globalizing World. Paper prepared for The Asia
and Pacific Forum on PovertyPolicy and Institutional Reforms for Poverty Reduction, Asian Development Bank, Manila, February 5-9. 2001.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
1999. World Disaster Report. Geneva.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
1999. Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment. An International Federation
Guide. Geneva
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 2000. Social Protection for Equity and Growth. Washington, DC.
Jalan, J. and M. Ravallion (1998). Transient Poverty in Postreform China.
Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol 26, pp. 338-357.
Kunreuther, Howard. 2002. Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Uncertain World. Risk Analysis. Vol. 22 No. 4 pp. 655-64.
Kunreuther, Howard. and Slovic, Paul. 1996. Science, Values and Risk..
Annals. AAPSS, 545. May. pp. 116-25.
Little, Peter D. 2002. Building Assets for Sustainable Recovery and Food
Security. BASIS Brief No. 5. Posted on http://www.basis.wisc.edu/live/basbrief05.pdf.
Little, P.D., Cellarius, B., Barrett, C., and Coppock, D.L.. 1999. Economic
Diversification and Risk Management among East African Herders: A Pre-
44
45
Reardon, Thomas and Stephen A. Vosti. 1995. Link Between Rural Povety
and the Environment in Developing Countries: Asset Categories and Investment Poverty, World Development. Vol. 23: 9, pp. 1495-1506.
Reardon, Thomas., Matlon P., and Delgado C.. 1988. Coping with Household- level Food Insecurity in Drought-Affected Areas of Burkina Faso,
World Development, 16 (9): pp. 1065-1074.
Ribot, Jesse C., A.R. Magalhaes, and S. Panagides. 1996. Climate Variability, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanderson, David. 2000. Cities, disasters and livelihoods, Environment
and Urbanization, October. Volume. 12, No. 2, pp. 93-102.
Sebstad Jennefer. and Monique Cohen. Editors. 1999. Microfinance, Risk
Management, and Poverty, Synthesis Report. Draft. USAID. Washington,
D.C.
Sen, Amartya. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and
Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sherraden, Michael. 1991. Assets and the Poor. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.
Sharpe.
Slovic, Paul and Weber Elke U. 2002. Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Paper prepared for discussion at the conference Risk Management strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York, April
12-13. Posted on http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/CHRR/Roundtable/slovic_wp.pdf.
Swift, Jeremy. 1989. Why are Rural People Vulnerable to Famine? IDS Bulletin. Vol. 20 (2): pp. 8-15.
Siegel, P. 2000. Towards an Integrated Approach for Risk Management in
Rural Areas: Guiding Principles. Paper Presented at the UNDP-World
Bank Sponsored Colloquium on Microfinance: Disaster Risk Reduction for
the Poor. February 2. The World Bank.
46
Siegel and Alwang. 1999. An Asset-based Approach to Social Risk Management: A Conceptual Framework. Social Protection Discussion Paper 9926.
World Bank.
Sinha, S. and M. Lipton (2000). Undesirable Fluctuations, Risk and Poverty: A Review. University of Sussex. Mimeo.
Smith, Jim and Subbarao Kalanidhi. 2002. Safety Nets in Very Low-Income
Countries. Posted on http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/socialprotection/srm/parisone/pdfpaper/incomeeng.pdf.
Stevens, Christopher, Devereux, Stephen, and Kennan, Jane. 2002. The Malawi Famine of 2002: More Questions than Answers. Posted on
http://www.odi.org.uk/southern_africa/devereux.pdf.
Tesliuc, Emil D. and Lindert, Kathy. 2002. Vulnerability: A Quantitative
and Qualitative Assessment. Guatemala Poverty Assessment Program.
The World Bank. Posted on http://www.ifpri.org/events/conferences/2002/092302/tesliuc.pdf.
Toothill, Jane. 2002. Central European Flooding. August 2002. An
EQECAT Technical Report. Posted on http://www.absconsulting.com/EQECAT%20flood/flood_rept.pdf.
Oxfam, 1995. The Oxfam Handbook of Development and Relief. Vol. 1 Oxford: Oxfam..
Twigg, John. 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters.
Posted on http://www.benfieldhrc.com/DMU/WorkingPapers/workingpaper2.pdf.
Udry, C., (1994), Risk and insurance in a rural credit market: An empirical
investigation of Northern Nigeria" Review of Economic Studies, 61, no.3,
pp. 495-526.
Udry, Christopher 1990. Credit Markets in Northern Nigeria: Credit as Insurance in a Rural Economy. The World Bank Economic Review. 4 (3): pp.
251-69.
Varley, Ann (ed.) 1994. Disasters, Development and Environment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
47
Vatsa, Krishna 2002. Government Response and Socio-economic Impacts. Spectra. Supplement A to Volume 18 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Oakland.
Vatsa, Krishna. and F. Krimgold. 2000. Financing Disaster Mitigation for
the Poor. In. Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies. Eds. A.
Kreimer and M. Arnold. World Bank.
Vatsa, Krishna. 2000a. Notes on Vulnerability. Department of Engineering
Management, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Mimeo.
Vosti, Stepehen. 1999. Understanding and Coping with Natural Disasters:
El Nino in Latin America and the Caribbean. Mimeo.
Westgate, K. N., and P. OKeefe. 1976. Some Definitions of Disaster. Disaster Research Unit Occasional Paper 4. University of Bradford, Department of Geography. U.K.
White, Gilbert F. 1961. Papers on Flood Control. Chicago: University of
Chicago Department of Geography.
Winchester, Peter. 1992. Power, Choice and Vulnerability, A Case Study in
Disaster Management in South India. London: James and James Science
Publishers, Ltd.
Wisner, Ben. 1993. Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power and Daily Life.
Posted on http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/geography_research/radix/resources/dailylife93.doc.
World Bank. 2000. World Development Report 2001/2. Oxford: Oxford
University Press for the World Bank.
48
Web Sites
http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/217.pdf
www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/step1.htm.
www.usaid.gov/fews/va/vaterms.html#fews&va
www.wfp.it/vam_documents/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/naturaldisasters/story/0,7369,439143,00.html
http://www.ecu.edu/coas/floyd/papers/floyd007.pdf
http://cobalt.sopac.org.fj/Evi/.