Natural Disaster, Mitigation and Sustainability

This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]On: 22 August 2015, At: 01:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

International PlanningStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

Natural Disaster, Mitigationand Sustainability: The Caseof Developing CountriesSouheil El-Masri & Graham TipplePublished online: 21 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Souheil El-Masri & Graham Tipple (2002) Natural Disaster,Mitigation and Sustainability: The Case of Developing Countries, InternationalPlanning Studies, 7:2, 157-175, DOI: 10.1080/13563470220132236

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563470220132236

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13563470220132236

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563470220132236

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Planning Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 157–175, 2002

Natural Disaster, Mitigation and Sustainability: TheCase of Developing Countries

SOUHEIL EL-MASRI1 & GRAHAM TIPPLE2

1Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering, University of Bahrain, P.O. Box 32038,Bahrain; 2Centre for Architectural Research and Development of Overseas (CARDO),University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

ABSTRACT The application of sustainable development principles to natural disaster mitigationin developing countries is examined. Three main and interrelated aspects are considered: land-useplanning and policies; shelter design, building materials and construction methods; and institu-tional organization at local, provincial, national and international levels. These three aspects areillustrated on the basis of experiences of human settlements in speci�c disaster situations and ofhousing the poor in developing countries in general. Taking into consideration the scale of theproblem and the variety of conditions, the most pressing issues are identi�ed, along with thedifferent remedies and the major areas for policy intervention. However, transferring these ideasinto implementation strategies, in which creative combinations of solutions, priorities, timeframesand resources are to be identi�ed, will depend on a particular disaster situation and obviouslycannot be carried out without detailed examination of the circumstances. Adjustments andchanges are proposed to the ways in which human settlements are shaped, grown and managedin order to ensure harmonious interactions between natural and human systems, so thatvulnerability to natural disasters is minimized.

Facts and Figures

It is dif�cult to construct an accurate global picture of the effects ofnatural disasters because of the changing risk patterns in relation to time,hazard types and varying local conditions. At the same time, available statisticsare notoriously unreliable, due to the lack of rigorous standardized methods ofdata collection to ensure comparison and measurement of direct and indirecteffects of disasters. However, it is generally agreed that natural disasters arebecoming more severe and more frequent in the case of developing countries(Smith, 1992, p. 30; Tolba, 1992, p. 86; Alexander, 1993, p. 495; InternationalDecade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), 1996, p. 10; Natural HazardsObserver, 2000a, p. 3). This is undoubtedly the result of an increase in humansettlements in vulnerable areas, rather than a rise in the number of geophysicalevents such as earthquakes, hurricanes or �oods (Deyle, 1998, p. 343). In 1980,the number of people affected by major natural disasters was 100 million; this�gure had reached 311 million by 1990, and it was estimated to be half abillion—or 8% of the world’s population—in the year 2000 (Berke, 1995, pp. 4–5).

1356-3475 Print/1469-9265 Online/02/020157-19 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1356347022013223 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015

158 S. El-Masri & G. Tipple

Between 1947 and 1980, the average loss of life per event amounted to 32 inNorth America and 224 in Europe, while the �gures reached 633 in CentralAmerica and the Caribbean, 657 in South America, and 2412 in Asia (Hewitt,1997, p. 61). Currently, 96% of natural-disaster-related deaths occur in develop-ing countries (Natural Hazards Observer, 2000a, p. 3). Other estimates reveal thatthe number killed in disasters is three to four times higher in developingcountries than in the developed ones. The striking difference, however, is in thenumber of affected survivors, which is estimated to be some 40 times higher indeveloping countries (Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA), 1993, p. 27).Based on different sources, Berke provides further evidence and illustrativeexamples:

The mean annual death tolls due to natural hazards declined by 75percent or more in developed countries like Japan and the United Statesduring the 1960s through the 1980s, but increased by over 400 percentin developing countries like India and Kenya over the same pe-riod.… In the economically vulnerable East African countries, includingEthiopia, Mozambique, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda, the costsexceeded over 20 percent of GNP at various times during the 1980s … .In contrast, the 24 billion loss from the 1992 Hurricane Andrew disasterin South Florida, which was at the costliest disaster in the history of theUnited States, represents an almost undetectable proportion of its $6trillion economy. (1995, pp. 3–4)

Rapid uncontrolled urbanization and precarious economic conditions are thetwo main reasons for the exacerbation of the effects of natural disaster indeveloping countries. Urban population has grown from about 1 billion peoplein 1980 to 1.4 billion in 1990 and to 2 billion in 2000, and estimates show that this�gure will reach 3.6 billion by 2020 (United Nations, 1989, Table A-3, quotedby Devas & Rakodi, 1993, p. 2). It is expected that 80% of the world’surban population will be in developing countries by the year 2025 (IDNDR,1996, p. 6). Even more pronounced are the statistics that between 1950 and 2000the number of cities with 1 million inhabitants has increased by a factor of sevenand that, out of the 15 mega cities in the world, 12 will be in developingcountries by 2015 (Topics, 1999, p. 70). This unprecedented urban growth hasbeen associated with the sizeable poorer sector of the population. The WorldBank (1989) estimated that around 330 million city dwellers, or 28% of thedeveloping world’s urban population, fell below the poverty line. The �gurereached 950 million in 2000, representing 49% of the total urban population.Their housing and living conditions are best described as threatening to life andhealth because of serious de�ciencies in infrastructure and service provision(Habitat Debate, 2000, p. 6).

The increasing shortage and squalid conditions of housing are the outcomesof a varied and complex set of causes such as mismanagement, bureaucracy,and lack of proper institutions, infrastructure and resources. They are alsogenerated by unrealistic building bye-laws, high building standards and theexclusion of the target population from planning and implementation processes(Choguill, 1994, pp. 25–28; Cobbett, 1999, p. 1). All these become barriers to thepoor accessing housing units produced by the ‘normal market’ and make itimpossible for them to acquire ‘shelter in an urbanized world’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015

Natural Disaster, Mitigation and Sustainability 159

Urbanization, Poverty and Vulnerability

In developing countries, urbanization and poverty have serious implications forworsening conditions of housing and for the spontaneous growth of settlements.They have pushed people to live as cheaply as possible on dangerous, marginalsites and in inadequately built houses. Overcrowded dwellings, subdivision andconversion of houses, lack of amenities and deterioration of building conditionsare common characteristics of these settlements (Tolba, 1992, pp. 190–192; Devas& Rakodi, 1993, pp. 8–12). Urban poverty also has negative impacts on healthand environmental conditions. Ironically, poor, desperate people not only sufferfrom environmental decline created by rapid uncontrolled urban expansion andinadequate policies, but also themselves become a cause of ecological deterio-ration by over-exploiting surrounding natural resources and by neglectingenvironmental quality under the pressure of survival (Overseas DevelopmentAdministration (ODA), 1992; Hardoy et al., 1993). The cruel logic of survivalleads to environmental decline, which in turn perpetuates poverty as degradedecosystems in peri-urban areas offer diminishing returns to those inhabitantsunable to take advantage of urban economic opportunities or to sell their landfor residential development. Within the built-up area, the neglect of environ-mental quality may encourage the spread of diseases or induce natural disasters.This helps to explain why ‘poor people stay poor’, because they are caught in avicious circle aggravating their misery and poverty. In such circumstances,neither the growth of settlements nor the housing units themselves help tomitigate the impact of natural disasters.

It is not surprising that the 1976 Guatemala earthquake is referred to as a‘class-quake’ or ‘poor-quake’. Even 20 years later, the urban poor are still at risk.In 1996, a study identi�ed 197 precarious settlements with a total of 589 900inhabitants around Guatemala City, of which 76 sites were considered highlysusceptible to earthquakes, �oods and landslides (IDNDR, 1996, p. 11). Similarly,the majority of victims in the earthquakes of 1985 in Mexico and 1986 in SanSalvador, and the 1982–83 �oods in Resistencia, Argentina, were poor people(Hardoy et al., 1993, p. 91). In Acapulco, Mexico, the poorest human settlementsare located in the highest elevations of the bay, and many of them haveexpanded into the gullies that drain seasonal heavy rains. This made the areasusceptible to hurricane Pauline, associated with extraordinary rainfall anddebris �ow that produced the worst natural disaster in Acapulco in the last 30years (Meli, 1998). This pattern was recon�rmed in the case of the �oods andlandslides in Venezuela in December 1999. Many of the victims were living inshanty towns that had sprung up in the mountain ravines and beside rivers inthe capital city of Caracas and in towns along the coast (Sancio, 2000).

Such ‘unsustainable’ growth of many human settlements not only endangersthe continuity into the future, but also puts the existing built environment atextreme risk and wastes valuable limited resources. Poor people are unwillinglyexposing themselves to risks because of the pressures of survival. Their decisionto occupy disaster-prone settlements is in�uenced by a lack of alternativeopportunities, scarce resources, the need to gain access to employment, andshort-term horizons. Both rapid urbanization and poverty perpetuate the vulner-ability of human settlements in developing countries, leading to a number ofserious negative aspects (Figure 1). In fact, the physical vulnerability of humansettlements is a manifestation of vulnerable socioeconomic conditions and insti-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015

160 S. El-Masri & G. TippleD

ownl

oade

d by

[IN

ASP

- P

akis

tan

(PE

RI)

] at

01:

19 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5


Figu

re1.

Urb

aniz

atio

n,p

over

tyan

dth

eir

effe

cts

onth

evu

lner

abili

tyof

hum

anse

ttle

men

ts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


tutional incapacity, which force people to expose themselves to risks in the �rstplace.

Mitigation and Sustainability

Mitigation within the framework of sustainability involves a long-term planningof multiple objectives. It aims to improve the living conditions of the poor andto safeguard the environment, while meeting needs of current and futuregenerations. Approaches to sustainable mitigation of natural disaster acknowl-edge that natural processes and human activities interrelate to produce disasters,and that most of the issues and solutions are therefore also interrelated.Therefore, a solution to one problem can meet more than one goal or need.

Two important lessons are vital to effective mitigation measures againstnatural disaster. The �rst lesson is that disasters must be considered as unre-solved development problems and that they are not unpredictable, isolated orindependent events. Indeed they are ‘failures in development’. Therefore mitiga-tion of natural disasters should address the ongoing socioeconomic processeswhich marginalize people and increase their vulnerability (Peacock, 1996). Thesecond lesson is that mitigation of natural disasters cannot depend solely upontechnological solutions and should be based on a wide range of measuresincluding engineering devices, land management, social regulation and econ-omic improvements. In fact, Winchester (1992) is highly critical of cyclonemitigation policies in South India, which rely on a narrow technical approachinstead of addressing the socioeconomic and political factors underlying vulner-ability to natural disasters.

The application of these lessons can only take place if the mitigation pro-grammes �t as closely as possible into the policies, regulations and programmesthat normally control urban development. However, this is not a simple under-taking because of the complexity and scale of the problems of urban settlementsin developing countries. The challenge for a comprehensive disaster mitigationprogramme for fast-growing cities is to continue general economic developmentand to provide jobs, shelter and basic amenities. It has to sustain urban growthwhile solving the environmental and equity problems, which are the real causesof vulnerability to natural disaster in developing countries. Other challenges arethe limited resources and the degraded environmental conditions, whichnecessitate the use of simple, reliable and low-cost measures for mitigatingnatural disasters.

By meeting these challenges, mitigation becomes an integral part of thedevelopment of sustainable human settlements. It is “a development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment, 1987, p. 43). The concept is guided by three important principles:intra-generational equity/futurity, inter-generational equity/social justice andtrans-frontier responsibility (Haughton & Hunter, 1994, p. 17). Thus it has manyfacets: ecological, social, economic and technological (Choguill, 1993, pp. 3–5).The basic objective of this approach is to reduce or to prevent the impact offuture disasters by improving and maintaining socioeconomic and physicalstandards, by using resources (renewable and non-renewable) in a responsiblemanner, and by keeping within the absorptive capacity of nature. These objec-tives would lead to economic ef�ciency in the use of resources, social equity in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


the distribution of development, enhancement of people’s self-reliance andparticipation, and the avoidance of serious setbacks to socioeconomic andphysical development (Environment and Urbanization, 1992). Considering thehuge losses resulting from natural disasters; properly balanced mitigation strate-gies would not require extra costs, but would require a different approach to thenatural system, including the consideration of production and consumption ofresources in the making of human settlements. Such approaches to mitigation ofnatural disasters would have major implications for: land-use planning andpolicies; shelter design, construction methods and choice of building materials;and the different levels of institutional organization.

Policy Implications of Urban Sustainability on Natural Disaster Mitigation

Land-use Planning Policies

Hazardous sites are favoured by the poor because of their low economicpotential and the high chance of avoiding eviction, as well as proximity toemployment opportunities in surrounding commercial and industrial areas. Thehigh costs of urban land, low levels of affordability, inappropriate land policiesand speculative developments by the private sector are some of the problems.Ironically, public housing schemes for the poor, with their high costs andstandards, have in general been ineffective in meeting people’s needs in bothqualitative and quantitative terms. The solution is to improve access to land forhousing the poor in order to limit the encroachment of residential settlementsonto physically hazardous sites. For example, in Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, thegovernment has made land available to volcano victims at a safe distance of20 km from the vulnerable site (IDNDR, 1996, p. 19). Also, a relocation processhas been established to reduce risks of landslide and �ooding in Lima, Peru(Leandro & Miranda, 2000). Moreover, on the volcanic slopes of the Pichincha(Quito, capital of Ecuador), a partnership was established between landowners,municipal companies and the private sector to promote eco-tourism and en-vironment-friendly agro-businesses (Paranhos, 2000). Other cases demonstratehow access to land for the poor could be facilitated. The Egyptian donation ofland for the Ismalia Development Project, coupled with appropriate empower-ment of families to utilize their collective energy and time, was essential for thesuccess of the initiative that in�uenced national housing policies (Serageldin,1997, pp. 102–104). Taiwan and Korea have devised joint private–public-sectorland acquisition and planning policies, which could increase the supply ofserviced land (Pugh, 1995, p. 57). A community organization on the outskirts ofXalapa in the state of Vera Cruz, Mexico, succeeded in developing 80 low-income neighbourhoods and having them of�cially recognized as part of thecity. The ‘Partners in Development’ in Naga City, Philippines, has successfullyadopted a con�ict resolution mechanism which brought government agencies,urban poor associations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and privatelandowners to solve land tenure problems. Moreover, the collective land acqui-sition in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and the call for urban reform in Bangladesh, aim tosecure tenure, to improve access to land, to regulate illegal settlements and toupgrade slum areas. Additionally, urban tenure reform in South Africa chal-lenges apartheid spatial forms and offers the chance of more equitable andsustainable urban development (Habitat Debate, 1999, pp. 11, 16–18).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


Access to land for the poor could be achieved through various channels inwhich government can intervene directly and indirectly. In this regard, Angel etal. (1983), McAuslan (1985) and Ansari & Von Einseidel (1998) explore urbanland policies and practices and suggest some important policy reforms tofacilitate access for housing the poor in general. In the case of disasters no singleapproach can be proposed, but there is a combination of possibilities, whichshould be considered in accordance with the types of hazards, costs and bene�ts,land market and socioeconomic conditions that characterize each situation.Therefore, it is suggested that these possibilities should focus on the following:

· directing development of human settlements into vacant public land byproviding incentives which could be in the form of: initiating sites andservices and core housing schemes; expanding infrastructure and residentialzoning; improving public transport and development of new employmentopportunities; improving access to �nancial sources; securing the right to land;and adopting suitable tax systems;

· increasing the supply of urban land for housing the poor by the private sectorthrough joint ventures between private and public sectors, e.g. land readjust-ment, land trading or guided land development. Many incentives could beprovided to the private sector to encourage the development of vacant land,through tax exemption, infrastructure development, �nancial incentives, im-proving zoning and regulations, improving land transactions, and byimposing higher land taxes on undeveloped property;

· improving access to existing public housing schemes through the reduction ofunfair allocation practices such as showing favouritism, and speeding upapplication procedures. Moreover, this should be associated with the re-examination of the physical conditions of settlements in order to improvedensity through increasing built-up areas or encouraging subdivision. Itshould also be associated with examining the people’s socioeconomic condi-tions and possibilities for their improvement;

· facilitating access to housing for the middle-income groups who usuallycompete with low-income groups for low-cost dwellings. This could be doneby encouraging the formation of housing associations, providing adequate�nancial institutions for loans and credit, improving rent laws in a way whichencourages landlords to make more housing available for rent, and byincreasing the built-up areas of low density urban locations;

· identifying hazardous sites and converting them into either parks or produc-tive urban farms; in both cases people’s participation is essential for thesuccess of these initiatives. Another alternative is to provide incentives forcommercial groups to develop these sites at acceptable levels of risk. Thismeans that mitigation measures could be taken into account at an early stagein the development of sites, risk-resistant construction methods could beincorporated into the building processes, and adequate eviction and emer-gency plans could be made from the outset.

Risks can be reduced not only by limiting the encroachment of residential areasonto hazardous sites, but also by reducing the fragility of existing vulnerablesettlements. This approach requires the legitimization and improvement ofexisting informal settlements and slum areas. Serageldin, in his edited book TheArchitecture of Empowerment (1997), presents various successful case studies fromPeru, Brazil, Jordan, Pakistan, India and Indonesia. These cases provide valuable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


lessons for upgrading and improving informal settlements and slum areas.Empowering the poor is imperative in promoting community organizations andcooperative actions for implementing incremental infrastructure and housingprojects, for reinforcing social harmony and sense of community and forimproving living, environmental and economic situations. Conditionally, sensi-tive participatory and negotiation processes, adequate access to land, resourcesand technical support, and the use of appropriate technology and local materialsare essential ingredients. Strengthening settlements’ conditions would improveroad networks and provide open areas for public use, which in turn wouldimprove escape routes and emergency procedures in the case of disaster. Forexample, a study in Caqueta, a vulnerable area of Lima, identi�es illegalencroachment of itinerants, which blocks access roads and emergency routes. Italso outlines an action plan for �re reduction in the informal commercial centresby preparing evacuation maps, and the organization of brigades and thehandling of �re extinguishers, stretchers and �rst-aid facilities (Leandro &Miranda, 2000).

The various approaches, which include the sustainable use of land resourcesand the reduction of exposure to hazards, require the political will to interveneand to invest in land with the goal of long-term sustainable bene�ts. To achievethis, �nancial resources can be generated directly and indirectly by the following:

· directing public funds away from building houses towards land development;· collecting taxes on undeveloped sites and implementing betterment taxes on

land which take into account types of usage, bene�ts gained and impacts onthe environment;

· mobilizing local resources to be used for housing development and formanaging and maintaining their settlement environments;

· encouraging national and international relief and emergency organizations toinvest a portion of their resources in mitigation measures instead of thepresent complete focus on relief aid and emergency activities.

There are also indirect resources, which could be conserved by improvinghousing conditions for the poor and reducing their vulnerability to naturaldisasters, and by improving the general environmental quality of the city. Thesechanges in approaches to mitigation would save large amounts of resourcespresently spent on remedial ad hoc measures. In fact, adequate housing hasimportant bene�ts not only for the individuals and their families, but also for thesociety as a whole. Shelter and development are mutually supportive andinterdependent. Moreover, there are indirect bene�ts to be gained from inte-grating the ‘marginal’, poor people into the general economy of the city andfrom reducing their exploitation and negative impact on the environment.Regularizing informal settlements encourages people to improve their housingconditions, facilitates the provision of urban services and helps to mobilizecommunities to contribute to the management of their settlements (Durand-Lasserve, 1999). Also, building homes using labour-intensive methods, and localmaterials and technologies, redistributes income to poorer households andincreases bene�ts to the local economy (United Nations Centre for HumanSettlements/International Labour Organization, 1995; Tipple, 1999; Nordberg,2000).

These shifts of approaches and the implied extra investments have certainessential requirements upon which their success or failure depends. They shouldtherefore address key issues such as the land market and management, admin-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


istrative issues and the incremental achievement of standards, and can bedetailed as follows:

· a clear understanding of the land market, including forces which affect supplyand demand, land use and zoning, planning and regulations, land tenure andregistration, as well as the main actors and bene�ciaries;

· a comprehensive set of data—graphic and non-graphic—on the urban landwhich shows: zoning and land use, quality and quantity of land, geologicaland ecological conditions, topography and hazardous areas, land tenure andregistration, and building regulations and standards;

· appropriate land-use policies to address three basic inter-linked objectives,environmental quality, management of natural resources and adequate hous-ing for the poor, in order to facilitate constructive land-developmentprocesses;

· a participatory planning practice involving consultations with the peopleconcerned which would increase the chances of mobilizing the community, itscooperation and its responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of thesettlements in the long term;

· incremental improvements in infrastructure which would require a progress-ive type of �nancial backing, effective land registration, rationalization ofmanagement and employment of appropriate technologies. All these wouldlead to reduced costs and increased coverage. Cost recovery could be achievedthrough the collection of taxes from private landlords on the improvement oftheir properties, as well as by imposing a basic tax on bene�ciaries of thescheme on the basis of the improved land registration and tenure;

· enhancement of the administrative sector dealing with urban land by im-provement of the collection of data about the city, coordination between thedifferent departments involved, and re-evaluation of building codes, regula-tions and standards;

· development of a deeper understanding of the interaction between humanand natural systems and their environmental and socioeconomic dimensionsnot only in hazardous areas, but also in surrounding areas through the sharedecosystem and socioeconomic networks.

Shelter Design, Construction Methods and Building Materials

Sustainable land-use policies for the mitigation of natural disasters should becomplemented by appropriate housing design, construction methods and use ofbuilding materials. These policies should be tailored to strengthen structuralconditions of the dwellings and reduce physical vulnerability, and to createemployment and generate income for the poor. Moreover, they should reduceconstruction costs and employ locally available materials and constructionmethods, and enhance community participation and quality control. Otherrequirements should focus on producing simple dwelling designs based onforms understood by the people, on allowing incremental and �exible growth ofthe dwellings depending on people’s resources and needs, and on providingadequate technical training and resources. In fact, these were the main reasonsfor the success of the programme ‘Typhoon-resistant Core Housing’ built for thepoorest of the poor in the Philippines (Diacon, 1997, p. 130). Such approachesconsider the various socioeconomic, cultural, physical and managerial aspects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


involved and their interrelationship. They also encourage interactions betweenprofessionals and the people. Hence, the acceleration of housing supply for thevulnerable poor should focus on the process of production rather than the endproduct in order to maximize the use of resources and opportunities forimprovement (Turner, 1976).

In addition to simplicity, �exibility and incremental growth of house design,careful consideration should be given to people’s needs and cultural values.They in�uence the design of the dwellings in terms of space articulation andarrangement, openings and partitions, appearance and form, as well as therelationship with the surrounding areas (Aysan & Oliver, 1987; El-Masri 1989;Dynes, 1992, pp. 67–70; Oliver-Smith, 1992, pp. 60–61). All these aspects arenormally carefully addressed in traditional forms of dwellings. However, thisdoes not imply that the copying of the traditional forms blindly will succeed,since many traditional ways of life have gone through a process of change withurbanization and modernization. Also, in some cases traditional forms, materialsand construction techniques increase vulnerability. A truly innovative design isone which harmonizes between traditional forms and present needs in order toachieve continuity and culturally rooted architecture (Norton, 1999).

In the case of informal settlements, shelter improvements should be based oncomprehensive analysis of the physical conditions of the dwelling in relation tothe existing hazard. The shape, height, building materials, construction methodsand space arrangements of the dwelling should be improved and modi�ed byapplying appropriate strengthening measures. All this could be undertakenduring the regularization and upgrading process. The United Nations DisasterRelief Co-ordinator (UNDRO, 1991, pp. 115–135) offers different technical solu-tions depending on the type of hazard, the physical conditions of settlementsand available resources (Table 1).

Innovative shelter design as a part of the housing process should be comple-mented with the use of local and renewable materials, and labour-intensiveconstruction methods, in order to generate employment, to reduce the costs ofconstruction, to promote people’s self-reliance, and to strengthen physical condi-tions (Nordberg, 2000). For example, in Quito, Ecuador, local materials,techniques and funds were used to retro�t 11 high-risk schools. The initiativeencouraged the US Agency for International Development and Ecuador NationalDirectorate for School Construction to agree to sponsor the design of new,earthquake-resistant school modules to be used for future school constructionthroughout the country (Natural Hazards Observer, 1996). Such approaches couldbe effective in guiding the management of natural resources in a way whichreduces exploitation and degradation of the environment. However, the successof sustainable local construction industry activities depends largely on twoconditions. These are the provision of �nancial incentives in the form of softloans and suitable credit packages, and the availability of training and infor-mation to producers and users, especially in the area of quality control. Theyshould also be supported by making renewable raw materials accessible toproducers and by imposing appropriate taxes on imported building materials inorder to make the locally produced materials competitive.

The viability of these practices can be amply illustrated with reference tothe ‘Shamboob Brick Producers Co-operative Society’ in Sudan, which won oneof the United Nations (UN) Best Practices awards in the year 2000. In Sudan,brick making has always bene�ted the middle-class businessman and the poor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


Table 1. Construction considerations in the case of various natural hazards

Type ofnatural disaster Technical considerations (building materials and construction methods)

Cyclone · avoid low-pitched and �at, lightweight roofs· ensure wall and roof stability· use good anchoring systems and anchor window frames· avoid objects projecting from buildings· close the space under the building to prevent its uplifting by wind force from

under the structure· avoid roof overhangs, canopies, etc.· connect roofs to walls to foundations strongly

Flood · elevate buildings above the �ooding level· use materials resistant to water, e.g. stabilized soil blocks with cement or lime

additives· avoid deterioration of mud walls by using overhanging roofs with adequate

slopes· use waterproof plaster to protect walls· build foundations and basements on a layer of gravel to prevent scouring caused

by inundation

Earthquake · use regular and symmetrical forms which perform better in earthquakes· separate buildings of different heights and provide breaks (expansion joints) at

regular intervals in long buildings: the length of the unjointed wall should notbe more than 10 times the thickness

· provide openings as small as possible, and they should not be located nearcorners

· build walls at right angles and avoid bevelled corners· build walls from good-quality materials (adobe, concrete blocks) and provide

good bonds between blocks with alternated vertical joints· use a plinth band in all walls and reinforced concrete footings· strengthen building by use of different reinforcements: horizontal (collar) and

vertical (buttress), which lead the rigidity of the building to be distributeduniformly

Volcanic eruption · strengthening structures to withstand the direct effects of volcanoes is not apractical option. It is best to avoid sites prone to volcanic activity and to directsettlement growth into safer areas. However, some of the indirect effects of thistype of disaster could be reduced by:· avoiding �at roofs in order to reduce the potential damage expected from the

fall of ash· using pitched roofs at a slope of more than 20 degrees; steeply-sloping roofs

covered by smooth metal sheeting do not retain the ash· protecting windows facing a volcano with metal sheeting· avoiding the use of material which could be burnt by hot lava fragments

Landslide · strengthening buildings is not a recommended option in landslide-prone areasbecause of the high level of vulnerability. However, in some cases measurescould be implemented to:

· strengthen walls subject to damage from land erosion· build a strong frame structure to avoid the collapse of the building due to debris

�ow

Source: Adapted from UNDRO (1991).

workers have remained poor. The Co-operative Society turned this situationaround by means of capacity building of the workers to manage their ownproduction, and negotiated with the authorities and the credit institutions to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


facilitate the workers to organize their own enterprises. Most importantly, it alsointroduced standards for bricks and promoted energy-ef�cient, environmentallyappropriate production processes, making the local brick industry commerciallyviable. Fifty per cent of wood used for brick burning has been substituted andthis �gure is expected to increase to 75%. These practices have led to improve-ments in incomes, resulting in access to education, health and better livingconditions. This demonstrates very clearly that if appropriate approaches areadopted, it is possible to help communities to improve their own circumstances(see the web site www.bestpractices.org).

The adaptation of appropriate technology is a vital measure in sustainingconstruction activities for the mitigation of natural disasters. Such a technologyis low in capital investments, and simple in technique and management. Also,it relies on inputs that are locally available, affordable, divisible, and easilygenerated and developed in order to maximize the use of available resourcesand skills and to improve on existing de�ciencies and practices. All thesecontribute to sound habitat conditions and good environmental quality. Theeffective application of appropriate technology can be promoted through theprovision of technical support and incentives for innovation, and the applicationof appropriate building regulations and standards. Such an approach wouldenable effective production and assemblage of elements, recycling of buildingmaterials, improvement of traditional, local techniques and the strengthening ofthe structural conditions of the dwelling. It would also require the developmentof appropriate contracting negotiations and applications, site management anddevelopment, labour organizations and procedures, and building regulationsand codes (Nordberg, 2000). Generally speaking, sustainable construction indus-try activities require a comprehensive knowledge of the following:· the mechanical properties of low-cost construction materials, including

speci�cations and their behaviour in hazardous conditions;· the existing building industries in terms of skills available, technologies used,

costs and production methods, problems and de�ciencies;· the available natural resources and their possible uses in the production of

building materials;· the grass-root approaches to building construction, the development of train-

ing and building teams, and the incorporation of maintenance and repairprogrammes;

· the incremental process of site and infrastructure development, and housedesign and construction phases;

· the impacts of building materials on socioeconomic development, humanhealth and ecosystems;

· the grass-root approaches and communal activities needed to pool efforts toconstruct individual houses or neighbourhood communal facilities;

· the relationships between the economic conditions of the household, the costof dwelling construction and the pattern of construction activities.

Institutional Organization: Local, Provincial, National and International

The different levels of authority—local, provincial, national and international—need to promote cooperation between them in order to complement each others’activities to ensure sustainable and equitable urban development (Badshah,1996). These institutions possess power, experience and resources which should

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


guide all aspects of decision making, leading to the execution of adequatemitigation measures against natural disasters for sustainable human settlements.To promote effective cooperation, the different organizations should rede�neand readjust their roles in order to establish adequate communication networksand warning systems; to disseminate existing and new knowledge; to help ineffective technology transfer; and to mobilize adequate resources. Also, co-operation helps to promote research and innovative solutions; to provide thenecessary legislative and institutional backup; and to develop education, train-ing and evaluation techniques in the �eld of natural disaster (Scott, 1992; UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development, 1993). Another niche forcooperation is the development of international databases on different areasrelated to disaster reduction, for example appropriate technology, low-costinfrastructure development and housing upgrading. An initiative has beenimplemented in this direction by the Pan American Health Organization(PAHO), which has established a Virtual Disaster Library (VDL) offering ampleinformation on various aspects of disasters which can be accessed by employinga simple search engine (Natural Hazards Observer, 1999).

Local Authorities

Local authorities have a crucial role in improving the conditions of humansettlements in order to mitigate the effects of natural disaster. They have directcontacts with people and they are responsible for the application of generalpolicies decided by central governments, and for the implementation of infra-structure and development projects. In addition, these authorities compete fornational resources and can, to a certain extent, re-shape the general policiesdecided at the central government level. These institutions possess the powerthat is crucial for turning policies into actions for the mitigation of naturaldisasters within the framework of sustainable urban settlements. Local policies,planning and regulations can be effective tools in guiding the interactionbetween the human-use system and the natural-events system, in promotinggrass-root approaches and community development, and in providing legisla-tive support in term of regulations and standards, as well as facilitating accessto resources. In fact, inadequately de�ned roles between local and national levelscan have serious implications.

… the 1997–98 El-Nino experience in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador showshow the civil defence organisations were rapidly pushed on the side bythe new temporary governmental organisations charged to deal withthe catastrophe. The results were confusion, duplication at the institu-tional level, and a serious loss of morale and credibility in eachcountry’s civil defence structure. (Natural Hazards Observer, 2000b)

Local authorities should promote education, public awareness and training atthe community level, by focusing on incremental infrastructure upgrading andimproved building construction, production of building materials and construc-tion methods, improvement of traditional techniques, development ofgroup-oriented activities, and dissemination of information and knowledge.These activities should be based on a clear understanding of people’s social andcultural conditions in order to capitalize on the existing social coping mecha-nisms, and to maximize the use of resources. This requires a broadening of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


base of decision-making power by altering the �ow of authority throughincreased public participation (Badshah, 1996, pp. 176–177).

These authorities should enhance legislative systems through their institu-tional policies for human settlements. This could be achieved by: promotingcooperation between the different departments involved and reducing bureauc-racy; reviewing staf�ng, skills and budgeting; developing training programmesfor employees; and evolving simpler and more precise rules for administrativeprocedures, including the supervision of policy implementation and projectaccountability. They should also encourage institutional innovations to integratenatural disaster mitigation measures into the planning process of settlements.This could be achieved by reviewing standards, zoning and land-use plans byassessing potential hazards and providing relevant information at city level, bypreparing local emergency and preparedness plans, and by focusing on researchand documentation in the area of natural disaster.

Provincial Level

The maximization of efforts to combat natural disaster should link local andprovincial levels by establishing channels for cooperation between the differentlocal authorities. Much of the local knowledge and experience, staff training andlegislative innovations could be shared between and developed by the differentlocal authorities. Moreover, the available resources needed for the developmentof human settlements in different localities could be mobilized on a regionallevel according to a comprehensive resource management plan. In fact, theimpacts of natural disasters are not con�ned to the damaged areas; they haveserious and immediate implications at a provincial level. These implicationsinclude the draining of regional resources for relief and emergency measures,people’s displacement to other areas and the increased demand for housing insafer surrounding areas, and disruption of regional socioeconomic conditions asa result of the crisis in a certain locality. This is what Smith (1992, pp. 29–30)refers to as a “disaster impact pyramid”, spreading from the immediate hazardzone to reach the world, or what Hewitt (1997, pp. 40–54) calls the“geographicalness of disaster”, recognizing the wider and intangible effects.

The enhancement of coordination and integration through provincial multi-disciplinary committees is bene�cial in two ways. First, cooperation ensures thesaving of resources and the reduction of duplication of efforts, as well asencouraging planning within sustainable regional development parameters.Moreover, most local data and information need to be viewed within the frameof the regional level in order to assess the source, scale and characteristics ofgeological and hydrological hazards. Also, warning, emergency and relief sys-tems could be developed at the regional level through improvedcommunications and dissemination of information. Second, sub-national com-mittees could play the important intermediate role needed to interpret nationalpolicies and programmes to local authorities and to aggregate and articulatelocal and sub-national issues at national level.

National Level

The state bears the primary responsibility for protecting its people, and the builtand natural environments, from the destruction caused by natural disaster. It

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


has a major role in providing the right conditions for enhancing the performanceof regional and local authorities. One of the most common problems in develop-ing countries is the centralized systems, which make it impossible for thedecision makers to be closer to communities because of spatial and socio-economic distance. Moreover, centralization of power has a spatial dimension infocusing development and resources in the capital, often at the expense ofdevelopment in other areas. Therefore comprehensive decentralization of de-cision making to sub-national and local levels would widely enhance localinitiatives, maximize the use of resources, respond to the real needs of thepeople, and build appropriate systems for de�ning responsibilities and account-ability in the administrative system. However, this is not a simple task, associoeconomic planning and participation of civil society are still new, but couldbe overcome by building consensus and capacity at different levels. Thiscoincides with the objectives of the City Development Strategies aiming ataddressing socioeconomic planning and spatial developing to reduce poverty(Barcelo, 2000).

Planning for the mitigation of natural disasters is an open-ended process. Itshould be integrated within the general planning process of human settlementsin order to ensure continuity between mitigation and sustainable human settle-ments. It should also be seen as a part of the national decentralization process.Therefore, the state should be expected to: enhance technical assistance forregional and local institutions; provide training for technicians, professionalsand administrators; distribute resources fairly; and develop plans which respondto the real problems of housing associated with poverty and rapid urbanization.The state should also create enabling policies, which deal with regulatorymechanisms, administrative readjustments, economic incentives, and the dis-semination of knowledge and information campaigns. Such measures at thenational level would enable the state to adequately respond to issues identi�edlocally, and to comprehensively plan for national strategies for the mitigation ofnatural disasters within the framework of sustainable human settlements. Fur-thermore, the state should perform its role in guiding outside interventions,including resources, technology transfer and cooperation at the internationallevel.

International Level

The inter-linkages between nations through economic, political and humani-tarian concerns, and the shared ecosystems, make natural disasters a matter ofinternational interest. In fact, the global importance of the mitigation of naturaldisasters was clearly manifested in the declaration of the 1990s as the Inter-national Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), forging links betweenthe political, scienti�c and technological communities. Initiatives such asRADIUS (Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas Against SeismicDisasters) for urban seismic assessment and the El-Nino inter-agency preventiveapproach aimed at reducing the loss of life, property damage and social andeconomic disruption caused by natural disasters (Natural Hazards Observer, 1998).The gravity of the matter and the necessity of international cooperation encour-aged the UN to establish a successor body named the International Agency forDisaster Reduction (ISDR) to carry on the decade’s work (Natural HazardsObserver, 2000c). Its mission is to in�uence the decision-making process and to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


increase communities’ resilience to disaster and to promote a culture of preven-tion within a sustainable development framework, especially in the case ofdeveloping countries (Natural Hazards Observer, 2000a; 2000c). In the same vein,the World Bank launched a consortium to provide a global partnership forreducing the risk of natural and technological disasters (Natural Hazards Ob-server, 2000a, p. 3). On a regional scale, both La Red in Central America and theAsian Disaster Centre in Asia and the Paci�c work to promote disaster aware-ness and the development of local capacity building, and to fosterinstitutionalized disaster management and mitigation policies. Additionally,NGOs such as FEDEVIVIENDA in Colombia and CEARAH PERIFETIA inBrazil, which are actively involved with grass-roots organizations and localcommunities to tackle poverty, have become regional anchors (Habitat Debate,2000, p. 19).

International experience in the �eld of disaster reduction can no longercontinue to be ignored. In many developing countries, the lack of knowledge,resources and expertise can be overcome by adequate global cooperationin tackling natural disasters. However, international technical and �nancialassistance can only be supportive to national initiatives, which have majorresponsibilities in reducing the vulnerability of human settlements. Thesupportive role of international agencies should be to assist countries in buildingmitigation programmes by applying existing knowledge, taking careful con-sideration of socioeconomic and cultural diversity among nations. This can beachieved through various channels of cooperation, such as comprehensivetechnology transfer, exchange of know-how and mobilization of resources.International agencies can also focus their efforts on promoting research intodifferent aspects of natural disaster, on disseminating existing and new infor-mation, and on establishing international database and information systems.Other areas of cooperation could be in fostering scienti�c and engineeringendeavours for the mitigation of natural disasters, including data analysis, riskassessment and warning systems. These international agencies can also developeducation, training and evaluation programmes for policy makers and profes-sionals in the �eld of natural disaster mitigation (Scott, 1992, pp. 218–221).

Conclusion

Horri�c images of recent disasters, such as Turkey’s earthquake of August 1999,the Venezuela �oods and landslides of December 1999, India’s earthquake ofFebruary 2001, and the Mozambique and Malawi �oods of March 2001, demon-strate the importance of shifting from post-disaster emergency actions topre-disaster mitigation. This shift aims to meet more than one goal, by operatingwithin the existing socioeconomic, cultural, technical and organizational pro-cesses which in�uence human settlement growth. Therefore, mitigation ofnatural disaster within the context of urban sustainability requires changes andadjustments in the ways human settlements are shaped, planned and managed.Resources, technologies and organizational processes should be inextricablylinked to the quality of the environment and to meeting the people’s needs. Inthis way, mitigation approaches can combat the real causes of vulnerability, andprevent and counteract the unnecessary creation of ecological and socioeconomicproblems. This approach would have productive and lasting results, whichwould lead to continuity between mitigation and sustainable development ofhuman settlements. It would require comprehensive land policies to facilitate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


access to land for housing the poor, appropriate house design, building industryactivities that strengthen physical conditions and increase self-reliance andparticipation of the community, and institutional reform at different levels toincrease cooperation, awareness and effectiveness. There is no doubt that theserecommendations would have positive impacts on the vulnerability of humansettlements, poverty and uncontrolled urbanization, and ensure that efforts andresources were equitably distributed and had lasting consequences for futuregenerations, while the environmental quality needed for the continuity of lifeitself would be protected.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr Ranjith Dayaratne for his most useful commentson the drafts of this paper.

References

Alexander, D. (1993) Natural Disasters (London: UCL Press).Angel, S., Archer, R., Tanphiphat, S. & Wegelin, E. (Eds) (1983) Land for Housing the Poor (Singapore:

Select Books).Ansari, J. & Von Einseidel, N. (1998) Urban Land Management: Improving Policies & Practices in

Developing Countries of Asia (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing).Aysan, Y. & Oliver, P. (1987) Housing and Culture after Earthquakes: A Guide for Future Policy Making

on Housing in Seismic Areas (Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic).Badshah, A. (1996) Our Urban Future: New Paradigns for Equity and Sustainability (London: Zed Books).Barcelo, J. (2000) Operational tools for reducing poverty in cities, Habitat Debate–United Nations Centre

for Human Settlements, 6(4), p. 11.Berke, P. (1995) Natural Hazard Reduction and Sustainable Development: A Global Assessment, Working

Paper no. S95–02 (Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University ofNorth Carolina).

Choguill, C. (1993) Sustainable cities: urban policies for the future, Habitat International, 17(3),pp. 1–12.

Choguill, C. (1994) Implementing urban development projects: a search for criteria for success, ThirdWorld Planning Review, 16(1), pp. 25–39.

Cobbett, W. (1999) Towards securing tenure for all, Habitat Debate, 5(3), pp. 1, 4–6.Department of Humanitarian Affairs (1993) Natural Disasters, DHA News, Jan/Feb, pp. 26–27

(Geneva: Department of Humanitarian Affairs).Devas, N. & Rakodi, C. (Eds) (1993) Managing Fast Growing Cities: New Approaches to Urban Planning

and Management in the Developing World (Harlow: Longman).Deyle, (1998) Reconstruction after disasters: issues & practices (book review), Habitat International,

22(3), pp. 342–344.Diacon, D. (1997) Typhoon resistant housing for the poorest of the poor in the Philippines, in: A.

Awotona (Ed.) Reconstruction After Disaster: Issues & Practices, pp. 130–147 (Aldershot: Ashgate).Durand-Lasserve, A. (1999) Bene�ts of regularizing informal settlements, Habitat Debate, 5(3),

pp. 13–15.Dynes, R. (1992) The socio-cultural and behavioural context of disasters and small dwellings, in: Y.

Aysan & I. Davis (Eds) Disasters and the Small Dwelling: Perspectives for the UN IDNDR, pp. 67–71(London: James & James).

El-Masri (1989) Reconstruction and cultural considerations: the case of war-damaged villages inLebanon, paper presented in the 2nd Workshop on Post War Settlement Reconstruction, Univer-sity of York–Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, 16–18 May.

Environment and Urbanization (1992) Sustainable cities (introduction), 4(2), pp. 3–8.Habitat Debate (1999) Issue on Security of Tenure, 5(3).Habitat Debate (2000) Issue on Poverty and Urbanisation, 6(4).Hardoy, J., Mitlin D. & Satterthwaite, D. (1993) Environmental Problems in Third World Cities (London:

Earthscan).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015


Haughton, G. & Hunter, C. (1994) Sustainable Cities (London: Jessica Kingsley).Hewitt, K. (1997) Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters (Harlow: Longman).International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1996) Cities at Risk; Making Cities Safer … Before

Disaster Strikes (Geneva: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction).Leandro, C. & Miranda, L. (2000) Lima preparing communities for disaster, Habitat Debate, 6(2),

pp. 25–26.McAuslan, P. (1985) Urban Land and Shelter for the Poor (London: Earthscan).Meli, R. (1998) Damage in Acapulco by Hurricane Pauline, Natural Hazards Observer, XXII(4), pp. 1–2.Natural Hazards Observer (1996) The Quito school retro�t project, XX(6), p. 5.Natural Hazards Observer (1998) Another IDNDR update, XXII (4), pp. 10–11.Natural Hazards Observer (1999) PAHO unveils virtual disaster library, XXIV(2), p. 16.Natural Hazards Observer (2000a) World Bank launches ProVention Consortium to mitigate disasters

in developing nations; and the decade lives on … (p. 9), XXIV(4), pp. 3, 9.Natural Hazards Observer (2000b) The hazards of responding to El-Nino in South America, XXIV(5),

p. 4.Natural Hazards Observer (2000c) Coping (or not) with El- Nino in South America, XXIV(6), p. 4.Nordberg, R. (2000) Alleviating poverty through housing development, Habitat Debate, 6(4),

pp. 12–13.Norton, J. (1999) Sustainable architecture: a de�nition, Habitat Debate, 5(2), pp. 10–11.Oliver-Smith, A. (1992) Problems in post disaster resettlement: cross cultural perspectives, in: Y.

Aysan & I. Davis (Eds) Disasters and the Small Dwelling: Perspectives for the UN IDNDR, pp. 58–66(London: James & James).

Overseas Development Administration (1992) Action for the Environment (London: Overseas Develop-ment Administration Information Department).

Paranhos, A. (2000) Managing the volcanic slopes of the Pichincha, Habitat Debate, 6(2), pp. 24–25.Peacock, W. (1996) Disasters, development and mitigation: taking a proactive stand, Natural Hazards

Observer, XX(4), pp. 1–2.Pugh, C. (1995) The role of the World Bank in housing, in: B. Aldrich & R. Sandhu (Eds) Housing the

Urban Poor: Policies and Practices in Developing Countries, pp. 34–95 (London: Zed Books).Sancio, R. (2000) Disaster in Venezuela: the �oods and landslides of December 1999, Natural Hazards

Observer, XXIV(4), pp. 1–2.Scott, S. (1992) The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction and the Geohazards Unit at

Polytechnic South West, Plymouth, UK, in: G. McCall, D. Laming & S. Scott (Eds) Geohazards:Natural and Man-Made, pp. 217–222 (London: Chapman & Hall).

Serageldin, I. (Ed.) (1997) The Architecture of Empowerment: People, Shelter & Liveable Cities (London:London Academy Group).

Smith, K. (1992) Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster (London: Routledge).Tipple, G. (1999) Building homes to build local economies, Habitat Debate, 5(2), pp. 12–13.Tolba, M. (1992) Saving Our Planet: Challenges and Hopes (London: Chapman & Hall).Topics (1999) Natural Catastrophes—The Current Position (Munich: Munich Re Group).Turner, J. (1976) Housing for the Poor; Towards Autonomy in Building Environments (London: Marion

Boyars).United Nations Centre for Human Settlements/International Labour Organization, (1995) Shelter

Provision and Employment Generation (Nairobi: UNCHS (Habitat) and Geneva: International LabourOrganization).

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1993) Agenda 21, Chapter 7: PromotingSustainable Human Settlement Development, Rio de Janeiro, June (Nairobi: United Nations Environ-ment Programme).

United Nations Department Relief Co-ordinator (1991) Mitigating Natural Disasters: Phenomena, Effectsand Options. A Manual for Policy Makers and Planners (Geneva: United Nations Department ReliefCo-ordinator).

Winchester, P. (1992) Power, Choice and Vulnerability; A Case Study in Disaster Mismanagement in SouthIndia 1977–1988 (London: James & James).

World Bank (1989) Reaching the Poor through Urban Operations (Washington, DC: World Bank,Infrastructure and Urban Development Department).

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

1:19

22

Aug

ust 2

015

Documents

Natural Disaster, Mitigation and Sustainability