Multi-Hazard Vulnerability and Resilience Building: Cross Cutting Issues

By Rajib Shaw

Multi-hazard Vulnerability and Resilience Building: Cross Cutting Issues presents multi-disciplinary issues facing disaster risk reduction and sustainable development, focusing on various dimensions of existing and future risk scenarios and highlighting concerted efforts of scientific communities to find new adaptation methods. Disaster risk reduction and resilience requires participation of a wide array of stakeholders, ranging from academicians to policy makers to disaster managers. The book offers evidence-based, problem-solving techniques from social, natural, engineering, and other perspectives, and connects data, research, and conceptual work with practical cases on disaster risk management to capture multi-sectoral aspects of disaster resilience, adaptation strategy, and sustainability.

• Provides foundational knowledge on integrated disaster vulnerability and resilience building
• Brings together disaster risk reduction and resilience scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners from different disciplines
• Includes case studies on disaster resilience and sustainable development from a multi-disciplinary perspective

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Mar 21, 2023
• ISBN: 9780323956833

Book preview

Chapter 1: An overview of vulnerability and resilience building in the Asia Pacific region

Indrajit Pal ¹ , Rajib Shaw ² , Ganesh Dhungana ¹ , Anirban Mukhopadhyay ¹ , and Satya Venkata Sai Aditya Bharadwaz Ganni ¹       ¹ Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani, Thailand      ² Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

In recent trends, it has been observed that extreme weather events have become more common and frequency and fury of disasters are increasing. Geo-physical location Asia–Pacific exposed them to a range of natural hazards, which is exacerbated by rapidly growing populations and over exploitation of natural resources, etc. The increasing risk from climate-induced extreme events and natural disasters demands increased national and regional disaster management capacities. The development, evaluation, and implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction programs have increased resilience to various interconnected and cascading disasters. This chapter summarizes various case studies and research outcomes across Asia–Pacific discussing opportunities and challenges experienced by farmers while adopting indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainability in due course of climate change, indigenous knowledge, and the advanced frameworks on the best ways to integrate it with science. The chapter also highlights how indigenous communities learn from experience and concrete outcomes of their pragmatic practices to produce epistemic practices that enable them to reliably understand and pragmatically tackle disasters. Conclusively, a framework for integrating various dimensions of climate change, multihazard vulnerability, and resilience also has been proposed to provide an overview of vulnerability and resilience development in the Asia–Pacific region.

Keywords

Climate change; Indigenous knowledge; Natural hazards; Sustainability; Vulnerability

1. Introduction

The frequency and severity of disasters are increasing and affecting larger, more populous areas (Cuthbertson et al., 2021). In recent years, extreme weather events have become more common (Taghizadeh-Hesary et al., 2021). Trias et al. (2019) discuss that the geographical location and physical characteristics of Asia–Pacific are subject to a wide range of natural hazards which indicates that people in the region are among the most vulnerable to disasters influenced by climate hazards. Precisely, Asia–Pacific is becoming more vulnerable to disasters due to its rapidly growing population, extensive use of resources, diverse geological and topographical features, and other factors (Uchiyama et al., 2021). The catastrophic event may cause short and long-term impacts on the social and economic development of the country (Rahman et al., 2021). Asia appeared to be one of the most vulnerable continents to floods and storms accounting for 44% of all disaster events, 58% of total deaths, and 70% of total people affected (Taghizadeh-Hesary et al., 2021). As Asia is rapidly urbanizing, with 8 of the 10 fastest-growing cities, there is also a growing threat of hydro-meteorological disasters and climate change to coastal urban centers (Chatterjee et al., 2016). Therefore, it is essential to systematically investigate the vulnerability and resilience of the region so that the necessary mitigation action can be taken before it is too late.

The increasing risk from climate-induced extreme events and natural disasters demands increased national and regional disaster management capacities (Pal & Bhatia, 2017). Science and technology play an important role in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and serve as the basis for a multi-hazard and inclusive risk-informed decision-making process (Pal & Karnjana, 2021). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) emphasizes that the post-2015 sustainable development agenda recognizes that disasters impede development gains, and it is, therefore, necessary to build resilience in people and communities (Uchiyama et al., 2021). However, the bitter reality that urbanization's rapid growth, high population density, and concentration of economic and political power further incline the risk (Pal & Bhatia, 2018). So, this is high time to have an essential component of a comprehensive risk management strategy with DRR centered on cohesive risk management, which necessitates extensive knowledge and consideration of risk factors (Hishan et al., 2021). Uchiyama et al. (2021) discuss that combining structural and nonstructural measures in risk reduction and adaptation contextualized based on local situations is important. Nevertheless, vulnerability and resilience are complex in multirisk interactions. Therefore, resilience policies can only consider each actor's full spectrum of hazards (Pal & Bhatia, 2018). Consequently, the priority should be given to measures like local level resilience-building, ensuring the risk and vulnerability assessment. Abenir et al. (2022) have suggested cultivating strategies that are more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable to better prepare communities for impending dangers and further enhance their community resilience to natural disasters. Ribeiro et al. (2022) underline that disaster risk management require understanding disaster risk in all its dimensions (hazard exposure, vulnerability, and response capacity). Furthermore, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to develop resilient human settlements by strengthening resilience and capacities, have prioritized vulnerability and capacity assessments.

2. Resilience building and key challenges

Resilience is a system, community, or society's ability to quickly resist, absorb, adapt to, and recover from hazards. The four main resilience components are institutional, infrastructure, economic, and social (Pal & Bhatia, 2018). Resilience as capacity has broad and flexible appeal. Many development interventions that explicitly or implicitly aim to build resilience also require a conceptualization and measure of resilience that can serve as an outcome so that resilience can be rigorously monitored and evaluated among intervention participants (Barrett et al., 2021). The concept of resilience is essential to understanding risk and vulnerability. The development, evaluation, and implementation of DRR programs have increased resilience to various interconnected and cascading disasters. This necessitated a multifaceted, people-centered approach, ensuring a climate of prevention and flexibility (Hishan et al., 2021). So, it could be a way to internalize the need for growing awareness of and demand practitioners to use proactive and participatory approaches to aid in the adaptive response planning process.

Disaster resilience gains impetus from innovations and technological know-how. Various phases of disaster management, including preparedness, mitigation, response, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, incorporated technological innovations, tools, and techniques. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines vulnerability as the degree to which a system cannot handle the destructive effects of climate change or is unable to do so. Whether or not a system is vulnerable depends on how exposed it is, how sensitive it is, and how well it can adapt (Heath et al., 2020). Hazardous events have the potential to wreak havoc on humanity and its surroundings. In many parts of the world, loss of livelihood and significant economic loss has become a major concern (Rajkumari et al., 2022). In such conditions, people from socioeconomically disadvantaged, vulnerable populations, exposed to high-risk conditions and limited adaptive capacity, are disproportionately affected (Gan et al., 2021). Furthermore, the level of economic development also influences the magnitude of the disaster's effects and the subsequent rate of recovery (Taghizadeh-Hesary et al., 2021).

Another important aspect to add on is the complicated interactions between cultural, economic, social, and biophysical processes, as it is getting harder for policymakers to make decisions about risk reduction planning that are better informed and based on facts (Heath et al., 2020). The recent academic and public discourses has given significant attention to the investigation of social vulnerability to the occurrence of natural disasters. Yet, a knowledge gap prevents us from accurately predicting how social vulnerability will develop in response to shifts in the factors contributing to it (Zarghami & Dumrak, 2021). Gan et al. (2021) suggest that vulnerability assessments are required to inform translational research on developing effective adaptation strategies. Moreover, considering the long-term nature of disasters is fundamental to understanding the creation and perpetuation of vulnerability over time, as well as the possibility that decisions made in the distant past may be essential to comprehending vulnerability in the present day (Walshe, 2022).

A combination of early coping and adaptive responses with lessons learned from previous shocks can help inform steps to build resilience in the sector (Love et al., 2021). However, despite much evidence, most studies only look at a few countries and natural disasters and use cross-sectional data at only one scale of analysis. Because of this, there is not much generalizable evidence, and incredibly rigorous impact evaluations can help agencies decide if or how they should build resilience among their target populations (Barrett et al., 2021). Before discussing that, it is crucial to understand that most definitions of resilience include two essential components: resilience refers to systems, and resilience refers to the capacity to manage (Hills et al., 2018).

3. Climate change, multihazard vulnerability, and sustainability

Legislation and policies at the international, national, and local levels of government are essential tools that can be used to build capacity and eliminate gaps in local preparedness. They effectively contribute to building resilience (Chatterjee et al., 2016). Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2021) highlight those studies on the effect of prevention and mitigation policies that have been conducted to reduce the impact of disasters. While risk prevention policies aim to reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring, mitigation policies aim to reduce the damage caused by the disaster after it has occurred. Thus, to comprehensively address the complexity and scale of disasters, a variety of capacities are required (Trias et al., 2019). Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2021) suggest that improving infrastructure quality can help to mitigate the effects of disasters. Constructing resilience and protecting oneself from unfavorable outcomes can be accomplished through the upkeep and growth of diversity and connectivity at the community, company, and national levels (Love et al., 2021). Trias et al. (2019) add that reducing and managing disaster risks requires partnerships, effort, and resources. This requires inclusive, collective, efficient, and transparent disaster risk governance. In DRR and management, it is essential to consider the complexities of disaster risk governance and how social, political, and economic dimensions interact. Adaptation is the process of making decisions and the actions that people, communities, organizations, and governments take to deal with changes that are happening now or that are expected to happen in the future (Hills et al., 2018). Abenir et al. (2022) recommend that it is critical to employ strategies that focus on strengthening and increasing social capital in the community, so it is crucial to recommend that, in addition to increasing people's knowledge and awareness of DRR.

The findings of Zarghami and Dumrak (2021) support the idea that vulnerability and risk are linked. As a result, a practical risk assessment framework should consider both social vulnerability and disaster characteristics at the same time. However, when doing the assessment, it is essential to understand the most recent vulnerability and deprivation to deal with differences between countries. This is because these factors are key to understanding the paradigm of shifting modality in risk governance in the post-COVID context (Pal, Dhungana, & Pal, 2022; Pal, Shaw, & Dhungana, 2022). Gan et al. (2021) indicate that there is a lack of long-term investment and policy support for capacity building and multisectoral collaborative research that addresses the needs of vulnerable populations and suggest that governments and international agencies must prioritize funding policies to close this gap to better prepare for future disasters. Geo-climatically, Asia–Pacific is the world's most disaster-prone region (Pal & Bhatia, 2018). Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2021) observed that infrastructure, disaster intensity, poverty and economic development, and institutions all play a role in reducing the effects of natural disasters. Likewise, Hishan et al. (2021) Suggest that Every part of society, including the government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, has a role to play in understanding disaster risks and building resilience. Thus, this book is a step toward contributing to the scientific community by bringing cases from diverse dimensions across the Asia Pacific region, which can be helpful for academia, policymakers, and practitioners for their understanding and references in contributing to the region's resilience.

As the threat from disasters continues to increase, the concept of resilience has gained prominent attention in the disaster literature and research because not all disasters can be averted. Societies are putting efforts to enhance community resilience against various types of hazards. Resilience is becoming increasingly important for modern societies as communities accept that they cannot prevent every risk from being realized but must learn to adapt and manage risks in a way that minimizes impact on humans and other systems. Therefore, communities around the world are increasingly debating ways to enhance their resilience (Renschler et al., 2010). Likewise, efforts to enhance preparedness measures and response capacities for effective postdisaster relief and recovery provide opportunities to handle future disasters efficiently. While these activities are important to enhance resilience measures, quantifying resilience in multiple hazards is a cumbersome and tedious task. Furthermore, deliberating and quantifying means for comparing communities in terms of their resilience or for determining whether individual communities are moving in the direction of becoming more resilient in the face of multiple hazards is equally challenging (Bruneau et al., 2003). Fig. 1.1 shows the framework integrating dimensions of climate change, multi-hazard vulnerability, and resilience. Climate change induces positive and negative impacts. Since it poses more negative impacts on the environment and society, the scientific community gave more emphasis on the negative impacts. Climate change induces different hazards, especially hydro-meteorological hazards, together with societal vulnerabilities; it impacts the natural environment, built environment, human capital, and social capital. On the other hand, a resilience which comprises robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity, provides positive impacts on society.

Figure 1.1  Framework for climate change, multihazard vulnerability, and resilience. Source: Authors.

4. Outline of the book

The book begins with a case study of An Giang Province, Vietnam discussing opportunities and challenges experienced by farmers while adopting indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainability in due course of climate change. Pham Xuan Phu and Ngo Thuy Bao Tran, in the chapter, have shown how the indigenous communities used a variety of effective indigenous knowledge to cope with floods and have also raised the concern how such valuable indigenous knowledge has not yet been recorded or documented in written materials for sharing with the next generation and communities. Similarly, the chapter entitled Integrating Indigenous Knowledge with Science to Suitably Tackle Disasters from Climate and Environmental Change: an overview of the progress and way forward by Bosco Bwambale discusses how scholars and institutions emphasize combining indigenous and scientific knowledge to combat climate and environmental disasters. The chapter focuses on the (socio-) epistemic nature of indigenous knowledge and the advanced frameworks on the best ways to integrate it with science. It highlights how indigenous communities learn from experience and concrete outcomes of their pragmatic practices to produce epistemic practices that enable them to reliably understand and pragmatically tackle disasters. Understanding the vacuum between the indigenous knowledge and the scientific community, Ganesh Dhungana and others in the chapter Foundation of Indigenous Knowledge Theory for Disaster Risk Reduction propose elements that can serve as a foundation in developing a novel theory that can help scholars and practitioners to integrate the indigenous knowledge for effective disaster management. Further, the chapter also explores the possible ways by contextualizing how integrating indigenous practice and scientific knowledge of DRR can assist development organizations and policymakers in planning effective and practical activities to mitigate and manage disaster risk in indigenous communities. Thus, all aspects of indigenous knowledge in the book can be used as a reference by relevant authorities to ensure that indigenous knowledge and practices are given adequate space in disaster management in both practice and policies.

The chapters in the book are blended equally with the social and technical knowledge to give a better view of understanding the vulnerability as well as resilience status of the region. Here, visualizing a detailed understanding of the social phenomena in disaster management, the chapter A Proposal for Disaster Risk Management in the Local Level: lesson learned from an earthquake-prone area in Sengon Village, Central Java, Indonesia by Djati Mardiatno and others presents a case study of Indonesia village and shows how the community was able to design and determine evacuation routes, potential evacuation sites, and identify elements at risk as well as earthquake vulnerability. Furthermore, the chapter demonstrates that the Sengon village has comprehensive programs that enhance the community's capacity for earthquake risk reduction. However, the chapter also suggests that routine simulations are required as a follow-up to testing the success rate of the earthquake risk reduction program. Similarly, discussing the importance of community participation in DRR in the chapter entitled Community Resilience for Disaster Risk Reduction by Engaging local Governance in Bihar Geetanjali Kumari discusses the importance of community participation in reducing the disaster risks. Additionally, the chapter also discussed how SFDRR had stated the importance of adopting and implementing community and local DRR strategies and plans as a sustainable tool to address and mitigate the risk. Taking the case of Bihar, the chapter has highlighted how Bihar's government developed a DRR roadmap based on the SFDRR, which has prioritized the resilient village concept. Taking a case from rural women of Fiji in the chapter entitled Strengthening Capacity for Disaster Resilience of Rural Women in Fiji Ifte Ahmed discussed that remote and rural Fijian communities face high disaster risk. Women have important community roles in such a context and can provide disaster resilience leadership. This embeddedness stems from their vital family roles, where they contribute to important decisions. With the prevalence of extended families, such roles have relevance at the community level and put forward the importance of how women play a vital community role and can lead to disaster resilience and argue for the necessities to be better equipped.

The book also contains chapters presenting the scientific testing and assessments of different aspects associated with risk and vulnerability. For example, the chapter entitled Development of a Disaster and Climate Risk Atlas in Bangladesh: Methodology for Quantification of Risk by Nurun Nahar and others presents the risk atlas of Bangladesh that can be used to do Climate Risk Screening (CSR), Climate Risk Vulnerability Assessment (CRVA), and Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) of development projects and can be used as a decision-making tool to find CCA and DRR options to protect development projects. Similarly, in the chapter entitled Comparison of the Vulnerability Assessment of Step–Back Configuration and Set–Back Configuration Structures on Hill Slopes, Yaman Hooda and Pradeep K. Goyal discuss that due to horizontal and vertical irregularities; hillside structures are more seismically vulnerable than flat structures. The chapter also analyzes various aspects of assessment and suggests that if a structure is structurally unfit retrofitting techniques with bracing can strengthen weak elements. Darshini S Shekhar and Jagdish H Godihal, in the chapter Sustainability Assessment of Residential Building in Urban Area—A case study focused on an analysis of a residential building in Bengaluru's Silicon City highlight the importance of green construction based on the finding of the analysis. The analysis discussed in the chapter was performed considering the existing building's planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. In the chapter entitled Time-dependent reliability system of the continuous steel beam I-shapes with corrosion damage, Ngoc-Long Tran and others investigate construction in Vietnam under changing climate conditions. The findings of this chapter could be used to evaluate climate adaptation measures during the design stage and conduct a cost-technical analysis of climate adaptation measures. In the chapter entitled Predict the critical load of rectangular concrete-filled steel tube columns with ultra-high-strength concrete with software ANSYS Phan Van-Phuc and others present a more straightforward method than simulation studies for the previous Drucker-Prager model. In this chapter, the results of this study obtained the effect of the Drucker Prager model parameters on the results of the simulation method with the experiment. Besides, the simulation results with the parameters of the Drucker-Prager model are also presented and the error compared with the experiment is