LUND UNIVERSITY

PO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00

Managing urban disasters

Wamsler, Christine

Published in:Open House International

2006

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Wamsler, C. (2006). Managing urban disasters. Open House International, 31(1), 4-9.

General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Chris

tine

Wam

sler

4

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

1,

No.

1,

Mar

ch 2

00

6

MMAANNAAGGIINNGG UURRBBAANN DDIISSAASSTTEERRSS

11.. HHAAZZAARRDDSS SSHHOOUULLDD NNOOTT MMEEAANNDDIISSAASSTTEERR

Imagine, for a moment, human settlements thatare organised to overcome and withstand earth-quakes or hurricanes, infrastructures that reinforcethemselves and seal cracks of their own accord, orbuildings that elevate themselves during flooding.Imagine settlements that provide information sys-tems that warn when a tsunami is approaching, orwhen houses are overburdened and may be liableto imminent collapse due to landslides, fire orother hazards. Such human settlements wouldsecure the livelihood of all their inhabitants,empowering them to cope and deal with naturalthreats. As with a living organism, these settle-ments would adjust their social, political and eco-nomic systems in such a rapid way that they canaccount for damage, effect repairs, learn fromexperience, and retire - urbanely - once they canno longer fulfil their protective and defensiblefunction.

Such ideas may be far fetched. However, thisspecial issue on "Managing Urban Disasters"shows that the integration of an appropriate riskreduction strategy in the fields of housing and set-tlement planning is possible and is a first step toconvert such a utopian situation into an effectiveand realistic vision. In fact, such integrated urbanhousing and planning can prevent and mitigatedisasters or, at least, minimise its effects.

Nevertheless, "disaster risk reduction"1 is still arelatively new area of knowledge. It is slowlydeveloping and undergoing a multifacetedprocess of institutionalisation, especially within ourprofessional disciplines. Those working in housingand settlement planning far too often think aboutrisk reduction in a purely physical way, ensnaringthemselves in physical/constructive (high-)techdiscussions and discourses, that are seldom of rel-evance to the approximately one billion poorresiding in precarious and dangerous living con-

ditions worldwide (UN-HABITAT:XXV). Such dis-cussions tackle only a small part of the necessaryand possible measures, and too often ignore theroot causes of vulnerability.

22.. CCOOUUNNTTEERRIINNGG DDIISSAASSTTEERRSS:: TTAARRGGEETT IINNGG VVUULLNNEERRAABBII LL IITTYY

With the increasing occurrence of disasters world-wide and the growing human and economic loss-es due to the destruction of the built environment,the integration of an appropriate disaster riskreduction strategy in the fields of housing and set-tlement planning is urgently required and highlyrelevant. Some recent developments give reasonsfor optimism. In fact, the disaster discoursechanged significantly over the last decade.Disasters, originally often seen and presented asan "act of God", are today increasingly discussedand analysed as a human-induced problem.When the flooding in Mumbai on July 26th thisyear cost almost 1,000 fatalities and losses of anestimated 2.6 billion US dollars, the InternationalHerald Tribune stated:

Many citizens, a week into the disaster, beganto question how a downpour could cause sucha calamity (…). The storm-drain system, muchof it built a century ago, has been clogged withgarbage. The shanties of the poor, as well asthe trash of the rich, have blocked gutters andcreeks. Mangrove swamps, which act as anature's bathtub during the rainy season, havebeen built over. A river that once allowed stormwater to be carried down to the Arabian Seahas been pitched by the construction of a roadto connect a northern suburb to midtownMumbai. (INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRI-BUNE, 2005:2)

However, while the discourses about disastersseem to have changed2, the practical reality andthe response of officials and civic organisationstoo often remains the same: sporadic, passive

EDITORIAL

1 Disaster risk reduction is "The conceptual framework ofelements considered with the possibilities to minimize vulner-abilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid(prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) theadverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sus-tainable development." Information obtained underhttp://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm (Terminology of ISDR regarding basic

terms of disaster risk reduction).2 Regardless of the described developments, religious andsecular commentators alike have rushed to attach moralsignificance to the destruction of New Orleans afterHurricane Katrina on the 29th of August this year. See:"Don't call them 'acts of God'" underhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/.

5

Chr

istin

e W

amsl

erop

en h

ouse

inte

rnat

iona

l Vol

31,

No.

1,

Mar

ch 2

00

6

and reactive. A potential turning point was theoccurrence of the Asian tsunami at the end of2004.3 More than 280,000 people were killedand around five million were displaced in 11countries (see also Wisner & Walker, in this issue).Whilst the tsunami shocked the world and createdan awareness of the tragic impacts natural disas-ters can cause, much needed changes in themanagement of disaster risk have not apparentlyoccurred. This special issue - which is publishedexactly one year after the tsunami - is meant to bea reminder of this disastrous event, reminding andreinforcing the importance and the need to put allour efforts into helping to prevent such disasters inthe future.

In the shadow of the Asian tsunami, the UnitedNations World Conference on Disaster Reduction(WCDR) took place in Kobe Hyogo, Japan (18.-22. January 2005) with more than 4,000 partici-pants. The resulting and approved "Framework forAction" aims at reducing the human, socio-eco-nomic and environmental disaster losses consid-erably by the year 2015, and urges that the issueof disaster risk in urban planning is addressed byrequesting governments to:

Mainstream disaster risk considerations intoplanning procedures for major infrastructureprojects, including the criteria for design,approval and implementation of such projectsand considerations based on social, econom-ic and environmental impact assessments. Todevelop, upgrade and encourage the use ofguidelines and monitoring tools for the reduc-tion of disaster risk in the context of land-usepolicy and planning. To encourage the revisionof existing, or the development of new buildingcodes, standards, rehabilitation and recon-struction practices at the national or local lev-els, (…) particularly in informal and marginalhuman settlements, (…). (Section 4, para-graph 19, iii)4

During the WCDR, developments and changes inrisk reduction were showcased. While discussionsabout risk reduction originated in the context of

post-disaster recovery, natural disasters areincreasingly recognised as a threat to sustainabledevelopment and poverty alleviation. Thus, theissue of mainstreaming risk reduction in the fieldof development gained an increased importance.

A considerable incentive for rethinking riskreduction as an integral part of the developmentprocess also stems from the aim of achieving theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) laid outin the Millennium Declaration in 2000.5 The clos-est related to settlement planning is target 11 ofthe MDG number 7, also known as the "CitiesWithout Slums" target. It states: "By 2020, to haveachieved a significant improvement in the lives ofat least 100 million slum dwellers, while providingadequate alternatives to new slum formation".6

Naturally, it will be impossible to achieve this goalwithout developing policies and practice to, firstly,confront the current high risk level of slumdwellers within upgrading programmes, and sec-ondly, to include risk reduction as a priority issuewithin the creation or enabling of new low-incomesettlements. With housing and secure land owner-ship being key livelihood assets for the urbanpoor, the integration of risk reduction in housingand settlement planning aspects is crucial to erad-icate extreme poverty and hunger. Therefore, it isimportant to emphasise that not only risk reduc-tion programmes should prioritise housing andsustainable planning to preserve livelihoods, butalso housing and urban planning programmeshave to be carried out in a way that gives risk andpoverty reduction priority.

33.. TTHHEE DDEEFFEENNSSIIBBLLEE CCIITTYY:: MMOORREETTHHAANN TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYY

This special issue on "Managing Urban Disasters"is aimed at policy makers, academics, and prac-titioners of the various disciplines dealing withhousing, design and development in the builtenvironment. The act of planning settlements is, initself, an act of risk reduction. In fact, historicallyone of the main functions of the city as a whole,

3 A tragic event which - as we have now learned eightmonths later - can also happen in a developed country: "Itis really the same thing we have seen during the tsunami2004 in Indonesia as in New Orleans" (statement of Prof.Djillali Benouar, Algeria, RADIX network, 09.09.2005).4 The "Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building theResilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters", gener-

ally referred to as "Framework for Action", is available onlineat http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf5 The United Nations Millennium Declaration is availableonline at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/millennium.htm6 Extended definition based on GARAU et al (2005:3).

6

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

1,

No.

1,

Mar

ch 2

00

6C

hris

tine

Wam

sler as well as housing as such, was to provide

defence and protection for its inhabitants(WAMSLER, 2004:15). With more and more dis-asters occurring and with the emergence of newthreats, the neglect of this relationship finds itsexpression in increased urban vulnerability.Hence, the focus of this issue lies in showing con-crete projects, experiences and best practices fromAfrica, Asia and Latin America with new integrat-ed approaches to risk reduction that link differentstakeholders and levels, and do not focus only ontechnical, but also on social, economic and polit-ical aspects. The papers presented clearly demon-strate that the "utopia of defensible cities" will notmaterialise if faith is placed only in thephysical/constructive aspects. The underlying fac-tors which determine or relate to the vulnerabilityor resilience of cities in respect of natural disastersmust be addressed and are, therefore, discussedin this special issue.

This compendium comprises outstanding con-tributions, original research and field reports,which are presented by a group of distinguishedand experienced authors, who act as advocatesfor the different topics presented. Due to thepressing importance of the subject, more descrip-tive reports of the practical experiences of organ-isations dealing with risk reduction on the groundare included, along with conceptual contributionsand those that combine theory with rich empiricaldata. The different approaches complement eachother and demonstrate the complex and manifoldconnecting points between risk reduction, housingand settlement planning.

Every effort was made to provide a balancedselection of topics, hazards, and countries.Specific topics relate to appropriate housingdesign, construction materials and techniques,land use and urban development planning, poli-cies, legislation, governance, as well as relatedadvocacy campaigns, institutional strategies,methods and tools. The articles address differenttypes of hazards in a variety of countries, such as,fire risk in South Africa, flooding in Mozambique,hurricanes in Central America and the Caribbean,earthquakes in Peru, India and Turkey, includingthe recent tsunami in the Asian region. Naturally,there are great contrasts amongst the countriesanalysed and the particular context-specific risksthey face. Yet, the different experiences share anumber of common barriers, limitations and rec-ommendations.

DDuurriinngg,, aafftteerr - aanndd bbeeffoorreeIn order to achieve the "utopia of defensiblecities", risk reduction has to be applied during,after - and most notably before the occurrence ofdisasters. The structure of this special issue reflectsthese three points in time: The first paper by Davis& Izadkhah provides an overview exploring theconcept of "resilience" in general and what thismeans in both, the post- and pre-disaster context.The authors define how resilience can be devel-oped and maintained including the physical/tech-nical, social and economic aspects. The followingarticles presented in the first part of this issue focuson the possibilities of reducing risks in the post-disaster context, presenting a range of recoveryand/or reconstruction projects. The second part ofthe issue is dedicated to the pre-disaster or devel-opmental context. The search for adequatepapers in this specific context proved difficult asrelatively little research has been carried out withsuch a specific focus. This is indicative of the pri-mary problem identified - the lack of integration ofrisk reduction in housing and settlement planningdevelopment.

RReeccoovveerryy aanndd rreeccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn:: aa sseeccoonndd ddiissaasstteerr??The papers dedicated to the post-disaster context,provide evidence that reconstruction projects andprogrammes can prove to be almost as disastrousas the disasters as such. Experience shows that, inorder to reduce risks in a more sustainable way, itis crucial to determine and work on the causesrather than the effects of disasters. Consequently,different aspects are discussed that must be takeninto account, such as, access to technology andinformation, local capacities to recover and sus-tain livelihoods, decision-making structures, andthe responsibilities of local governments, othergovernmental institutions and civil society organi-sations.

In describing case studies from Cuba andHonduras, the papers by Martirena & Olivera andRhyner respectively draw attention to the impor-tance of the production and use of ecomaterialsas a catalyst for achieving integral risk reduction.In fact, creating or enhancing local and participa-tive mechanisms to manage and produce ecoma-terials may bring about delays in the delivery ofthe initial disaster relief in the affected areas.However, it can yield better results over the long

7

Chr

istin

e W

amsl

erop

en h

ouse

inte

rnat

iona

l Vol

31,

No.

1,

Mar

ch 2

00

6

term, as the organisational structures and physicalfacilities created can evolve into permanent oneswhich then contribute to future disaster preven-tion. The significance of the decision-makingstructures for achieving sustainability of such riskreduction processes is emphasised by Martirena &Olivera. Rhyner further highlights the importanceof local building advisory services to empower theurban poor by providing access to information.The following article by Ferradas presents generalguidelines for improved reconstruction which isbased on a systematisation of reconstruction pro-jects implemented in Peru by the IntermediateTechnology Development Group (ITDG) followingearthquakes and internal war. The article bySaglamer et al focuses mainly on the analysis ofsocio-cultural aspects. A Turkish reconstructionproject is presented, which had as its major objec-tive, in addition to the provision of shelter, the re-establishment of those values that had been lost inrespect of the traditional Turkish culture.

Wisner & Walker take up the Asian tsunami toexamine troubling and fundamental issuesregarding the potential of warning systems, as wellas those of accountability, transparency, and theuneven manner in which the international com-munity responds to crises. Furthermore, the rootcauses of vulnerabilities related to settlements andlivelihoods are discussed. The last paper of thefirst part of this issue, dealing with the post-disas-ter context, is presented by Zlatanova et al andshows the importance of geographic-informationsystems (GIS) for risk reduction. Organisational,institutional and technological barriers are identi-fied which explain why the use of GIS is still limit-ed. Recommendations are made as to how thesecan be overcome.

SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt tthhrroouugghh rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonnWamsler leads over to the second part of thisissue, which is dedicated to the pre-disaster ordevelopmental context. In describing a case studyfrom El Salvador, the article shows how socialhousing organisations can include post-disasterexperiences gained in risk reduction within theirusual work. A conceptual model presents how theexisting separation between risk reduction, urbanplanning and housing can be overcome and inte-gration achieved. Linking short-term risk reductionactivities, such as post-disaster responses, with

long-term efforts, such as development, is empha-sised.

The subsequent papers look at differentaspects of possibilities for risk reduction in the pre-disaster context. The article by Gavidia &Crivellari presents results of a study carried out inCentral America, Cuba and the DominicanRepublic regarding the role legislation plays in riskreduction. The study looks into the complemen-tarities and gaps between regulations for disastermanagement and for municipal/urban manage-ment.

In cases where the legislative and institutionalframework dealing with poor urban settlements atthe central and/or municipal level is not yet oper-ational, the problem for the urban poor living inrisk areas is further aggravated. It is thus neces-sary to initiate a parallel and more pro-activeapproach addressing the slum issues at the locallevel and from the bottom-up. Gupta et al high-light the possibilities of the Community ActionPlanning approach for risk reduction, which hasbeen refined over the last ten years. The presenta-tion of a project carried out by SEEDS (SustainableEnvironment and Ecological DevelopmentSociety), an Indian non-governmental organisa-tion, provides a valuable insight into the impor-tance of achieving the desired mix of technicaltools, community processes, governance, and thework through local level partnerships. Morrissey &Taylor equally emphasise the importance of locallevel work, and extend the discussion to thehousehold level. They suggest an approach to riskreduction which considers both the broader devel-opment needs of the community and the intrica-cies of intra-settlement risk at the household level.In addition, their case study analysing fire risk inan informal settlement of Cape Town, SouthAfrica, draws attention to the particularities of firerisk, where both the vulnerability and hazard ele-ments of risk can be internally generated. The dis-cussion regarding the importance of scale andlevel for risk reduction and analysis is carried fur-ther by Spaliviero, who presents an integrated andparticipative slum upgrading project for flood mit-igation in Mozambique. The project is carried outby UN-HABITAT and is aimed at strengthening therelationships between the different organisationallevels (i.e. between central government, localauthorities and resident communities). Another

8

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

1,

No.

1,

Mar

ch 2

00

6C

hris

tine

Wam

sler slum upgrading project is tackled in the subse-

quent paper by Gökmen et al which focuses onearthquake mitigation in Istanbul, Turkey.

The following papers by Pelling, and Benson &Twigg discuss the usefulness of existing tools forrisk reduction. Pelling assesses the state of the artin urban vulnerability and risk assessment tools.Such tools are a precursor for the development ofbenchmarks with which policy progress for urbansustainability and risk reduction can be tracked.Benson & Twigg review existing standard tools,which are used by development organisations indesigning and evaluating projects, in order to pro-vide recommendations on how to integrate riskconcerns into the application of these tools. This isnecessary in order to convince developmentorganisations, which mostly still remain reluctantto pursue risk reduction as a key objective, of thefact that risk reduction is a no regret instrument,i.e. a guaranteed win-win instrument that leads tofavourable outcomes.

The four final contributions are informative andanalytical reports on practical experiences, focusareas, and lessons learnt by specific organisationsand networks. Kessler points out and illustratesimportant developments of the Asian DisasterPreparedness Centre (ADPC), which focuses itswork on risk reduction. Ferrero & Gargantini, aswell as Benouar et al, provide information abouttwo valuable networks related to urban risk reduc-tion, one for Latin America, and one for Africa.Finally, Hohmann & Schaef present some projectexperiences of the German Agency for TechnicalCooperation (GTZ) in El Salvador after the 2001earthquakes.

44.. PPOOTTEENNTTIIAALLSS AANNDD LL IIMMIITTAATT IIOONNSS

The papers contributing to this special issue pre-sent manifold and unique research, case studies,and experiences regarding the management ofurban disaster risks. Whilst there is a lack of ade-quate platforms and tools for systematising suchlessons to provide guidance for organisations toreplicate them, their dissemination through chan-nels, such as this issue of Open HouseInternational, is crucial for the promotion of riskreduction in housing and settlement planning.Managing urban disasters is a field of activity

where close cooperation and/or inter-actionbetween academic research and practice can,and must, complement each other, in order todevelop sustainable solutions for the urban poor.Further research and action is required, especial-ly in the pre-disaster context.

Cities are living systems composed, not only ofbuildings and infrastructure, but also of "invisible"structures, such as institutions and regulations,and, most importantly, the inhabitants, who guidetheir functioning. As destruction caused by natur-al disasters has its most visible impact on the builtenvironment, efforts to reduce the effects of natur-al hazards have often mistakenly focused on howto improve the resistance of building materialsand constructions. The papers presented in thisissue show that the "utopia of defensible cities"that can easily withstand and overcome disasters,can only become a reality if risk reduction encom-passes elements of social, political and economicdevelopment which are sensitive to current liveli-hood strategies. Therefore, a more inter-sectoraland multi-disciplinary approach is needed, as wellas a better exchange between the community ofpractitioners working on urban risk reduction andthe housing and urban planning community.

If we wish to regain the historical function ofhuman settlements and houses as the placeswhere citizens can find safety and protection, notonly risk reduction should prioritise housing andsustainable planning, but work on housing andurban planning also needs to prioritise risk andpoverty reduction. As several papers presented inthis issue demonstrate, housing and urban plan-ning have the potential to act as an entry point orcatalyst for the promotion of integral, participa-tive, and locally-based risk reduction. This is amatter of survival for millions of urban poor. Isanother tsunami needed to remind humanity ofthis critical issue?

9

Chr

istin

e W

amsl

erop

en h

ouse

inte

rnat

iona

l Vol

31,

No.

1,

Mar

ch 2

00

6

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

GARAU, P., SCALAR, E., CAROLINI, G. 2005, A home in the

city, UN Millennium Project, Task Force on Improving the

Lives of Slum Dwellers, Earthscan, London

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, 2005, Torrential rains

unearth a city's frailties: Hasty development weakened

Mumbai, by Somini Sengupta, International Herald Tribune,

Thursday August 4, p.2

UN-HABITAT, 2003, The Challenge of slums, Global report

on human settlements 2003, UN-HABITAT, Earthscan,

London

WAMSLER, C. 2004, Managing Urban Risk: Perceptions of

Housing and Planning as a Tool for Reducing Disaster Risk;

GBER (Global Built Environment) Vol.4 No.2 pp 11-28.

Available online:

http://www.hdm.lth.se/STAFF/christine/Article%20Christine%

20Wamsler.pdf

Author's AAddress:Christine WamslerHousing Development & Management (HDM)Lund UniversityP.O. Box 11822100 Lund, Swedenchristine.wamsler@hdm.lth.sehttp://www.hdm.lth.se/