Fighting disaster: reducing risk in cities

How can links between disaster mitigation and urban planning be strengthened? Can urban livelihood strategies reduce poor city dwellers’ vulnerability to disaster? Scant attention is currently paid by relief organisations to urban planning and disaster mitigation, according to a recent Care International report.

CARE International’s Household Livelihood Security (HLS) model enables integration of poverty reduction measures with measures to reduce risk from disasters. The aim is to help low-income groups and community organisations to strengthen and diversify their assets.

Disasters such as the earthquakes in Venezuela and Turkey highlight the terrible convergence of urbanisation and natural hazards. Increasing urbanisation inevitably means higher risks are involved. So why are disasters rarely included in urban development strategies? Why does national disaster management focus almost exclusively on rural areas?

Sustainable livelihoods approaches can combine disaster reduction and development interventions into one approach that looks at how households obtain and retain the assets essential for meeting basic needs and protecting against disaster.

What are the livelihood strategies of the urban poor? Examples include varied financial strategies such as loans, credit, seasonal and informal work. Many groups of people new to city life rely on mutual help and support and thus have strong social assets. Building stronger assets can increase self-reliance and preparedness strategies that may well save lives in the event of a disaster. Disaster risk reduction is thus a crucial development activity although disaster mitigation action at urban policy and management levels is also vital.

The HLS model helps to understand in particular the role that financial, physical and human assets play in strengthening households. Research findings suggest that:

• addressing vulnerability is integral to development
• urban planning legislation can result in poor people’s increased vulnerability
• existing disaster risk measures such as building regulations, often do not assist the most vulnerable - those living in unplanned or illegal settlements
• participatory approaches enable communities to address neighbourhood disaster mitigation issues and work towards self-reliance
• focusing on building assets at a household level lessens vulnerability and enables families and neighbourhoods to withstand shocks and stresses better.

Policy implications include the need to:

• widen the scope of livelihoods approaches to address disaster mitigation in cities
• ensure that risk reduction is integral to urban planning, development and policy
• give greater emphasis to community-led risk reduction measures and building of self-reliance at neighbourhood levels
• mainstream disaster mitigation into development practice

Source(s):
‘Cities, disasters and livelihoods’ Environment and Urbanisation: Sustainable Cities Revisited III, 12/2, IIED: London and Buenos Aires by David Sanderson October 2000 Full document.

Funded by: Care International

id21 Research Highlight: 11 May 2001

Further Information:
David Sanderson
CARE International UK
Tower House
8-14 Southampton Street
London WC2E 7HA
UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7379 5247
Fax: +44 (0)20 7379 0543
Contact the contributor: SANDERSON@CIUK.ORG

Contact the contributor: sanderson@uk.care.org

CARE International, UK

Other related links:
'Environment and Urbanisation' from IIED

Disaster offers access to a collection of "mirror sites" of organisations involved in disaster management

ReliefWeb provides information on humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters

The World Bank provides a more strategic response to Disaster Management

The Disaster Research Centre specialises in the study of disasters

More from the Natural Catastrophes and Developing Countries Project

The World Bank focuses on Disaster Management in Urban Development