117 / 156
[
] 117
But is disaster a ‘reality,’ or the ‘construct’ that these categoriza-
tions make of it?
4, 5
The complexity and dynamism of vulnerabilities and capacities
makes ‘disaster’ a very loose term, with no beginning or endpoint.
Disaster situations need to be viewed within a continuum, with
actions during various phases impacting each other. We need to
establish backward and forward linkages while deciding actions
and interventions at various stages.
This further implies that disaster can only be measured for the
phenomenological discussion of the nature, increase and decrease
of vulnerabilities and capacities before and in response to specific
natural hazards. Discussion of phases such as pre-disaster or post
disaster is therefore inappropriate. Instead, shifts in the magnitude,
scale and severity of vulnerabilities and capacities must be examined
at various stages with reference to the hazard event that catalysed
the disaster situation. These are:
• Normal situation (without the impact of natural hazard)
• Emergency situation (a few days or months after the hazard
has struck)
• Transition phase from relief to recovery (a few months to a
year after the event)
• Rehabilitation phase (over the years, through the rehabilitation
process)
• Long-term, post-rehabilitation phase (to assess the impact
of post-natural-risk interventions).
6
This model essentially describes how vulnerability situations
develop by elaborating on the causal relationships involved.
However, the model is linear, and conceives disaster as an end
product. If development is a fundamental context within which
all the above situations interrelate and take shape on the ground,
then it is either externally driven or driven by local communities.
Therefore, in the disaster management cycle, development is
not a phase in itself; rather it interacts and separately affects
each of the above situations which are, in turn, each affected
among themselves, ultimately shaping the developmental
context itself.
However, disasters are very much a part of the overall risk
framework. The term ‘risk’ is understood as the product of
hazards and vulnerability. In conventional terms, the risk of a site
or property is understood in relation to one hazard such as
earthquake or flooding, and vulnerability is understood as the
exposure of that site to that particular hazard at one particular
time, mainly in physical terms.
Contrary to conventional means, the integrated method of
understanding risk to a site or property may stem from exposure
to one or more hazards and other determinants. A holistic
understanding of risks from various hazard sources is needed,
as well as an understanding of vulnerability processes while
incorporating actions and strategies for specific kinds of hazard.
The physical vulnerability of both movable and immovable
aspects of a site or property must also be linked to those result-
ing from social, economic and underdevelopment processes.
For example, risks to physical fabric are not only linked to
structural weakness, but also to the social, political and
economic context in which they are located. Local meanings
and perceptions may also have a bearing.
Post-disaster reconstruction and integrated risk
management
Risk management is a well-developed subject with well-defined
components and universally accepted definitions. It includes
proactive tools, techniques, strategies and actions for risk assess-
ment and control at various stages with respect to a disaster
situation. Therefore we need to organize the subject of risk
preparedness, primarily under the universally accepted phases of
risk management (risk identification and analysis, evaluation,
monitoring, prevention/mitigation, disaster preparedness, emer-
gency response, long-term recovery etc.) before addressing various
types of risk. The risk management framework is a prerequisite
for a disaster management framework – various activities under-
taken during preparedness, response and recovery phases of a
disaster must be subject to risk identification, analysis, assessment
and control.
Undertaken as part of integrated risk management, risk
assessment will involve integrated vulnerability analysis on one
hand and integrated hazard mapping on the other. Integrated
vulnerability analysis takes into consideration social, political,
economic and attitudinal aspects of vulnerability alongside phys-
ical aspects of their impact on each other. Vulnerability is
considered not only as a product in the form of exposure to risks
at a particular time, but also as a process over time.
Damage and needs for reconstruction
Disaster assessment encompasses the survey and information
collection activities that determine the effects of a disaster on
the affected population, and their resulting needs. The
assessment process is usually conducted at two distinct stages
of a disaster.
Immediately after a disaster, a preliminary or ‘rapid’ assess-
ment is conducted to obtain an early but full picture of the
geographical extent of damage and the number, categories, loca-
tion, and circumstances of the disaster-affected population. It
provides a general picture of where people are, what condition
they are in, what they are doing, their needs and resources, and
what services are still available to them. It usually takes the form
of a reconnaissance that can guide search-and-rescue and relief
operations. Preliminary thematic maps that locate affected or
damaged sites and infrastructure can then be produced. As
needs change day by day in the immediate aftermath of a
disaster, a series of rapid assessments may be needed. Their
results provide valuable baseline data for monitoring the post-
disaster situation.
At a later stage, a more detailed assessment is done to collect
more specific information about the nature, location, and extent
of loss and damage, and the resulting needs of affected
populations. Information about damage to housing and other
buildings, livelihood, agriculture and livestock, services, infra-
structure and utilities is gathered and used for planning and
implementing reconstruction programmes.
Specialists in each sector determine the damage. Structural or
civil engineers, for example, examine the damage to housing,
commercial and public buildings, physical infrastructure and util-
ities. Agricultural specialists determine losses to crops and forests,
among others, and economists determine damages to the local
economy. Many special plans developed by local governments,
for example neighbourhood plans, also provide an ideal
opportunity to sharpen the focus of post-disaster planning.
Neighbourhoods in hazard-prone areas, especially if they are
developed with a high level of citizen participation, can raise citi-
zens’ awareness of the need for preparedness and mitigation and
of more sustainable rebuilding methods. Could better storm water
detention systems ease a neighbourhood flooding problem? Might
fire-resistant landscaping requirements for a homeowners’ asso-