Risk, Vulnerability and Asset Based Approach to Disaster Risk Management
-
Upload
pragya-pradhan -
Category
Documents
-
view
70 -
download
8
Transcript of Risk, Vulnerability and Asset Based Approach to Disaster Risk Management
Risk, Vulnerability, and Asset-based Approach to Disaster Risk Man-
agement
by Krishna S. Vatsa, Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management,
George Washington University,Washington, D.C.
Abstract
Households are exposed to a wide array of risks, characterized by a known
or unknown probability distribution of events. Disasters are one of these
risks at the extreme end. Understanding the nature of these risks is critical to
recommending appropriate mitigation measures. A household’s resilience in
resisting the negative outcomes of these risky events is indicative of its level
of vulnerability. Vulnerability has emerged as the most critical concept in
disaster studies, with several attempts at defining, measuring, indexing and
modeling it. The paper presents the concept and meanings of risk and vul-
nerability as they have evolved in different disciplines. Building on these
basic concepts, the paper suggests that assets are the key to reducing risk
and vulnerability. Households resist and cope with adverse consequences of
disasters and other risks through the assets that they can mobilize in face of
shocks. A sustainable strategy for disaster reduction must therefore focus on
asset-building. There could be different types of assets, and their selection
and application for disaster risk management is necessarily a contextual ex-
ercise. The mix of asset-building strategies could vary from one community
to another, depending upon households’ asset profile. The paper addresses
the dynamics of assets-risk interaction, thus focusing on the role of assets in
risk management.
Keywords: Risk, Vulnerability, Assets, and Mitigation
Section I: Introduction
Contrary to what we often get to see in the preamble to many publications on
disasters, global trends and macroeconomic variables help us little in under-
standing the impact of disasters on people, their habitat, and livelihoods. It is
necessary to disaggregate the impact of disasters to understand how regions,
communities or households within a country are affected by disasters. Dis-
aster impacts and losses are not distributed evenly across populations. Its
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 1
distribution depends upon underlying vulnerabilities which arise from fac-
tors such as location of human settlements and economic enterprises, condi-
tions of housing, and access to resources and information. These
vulnerabilities exist in both the developed and developing countries, though
spatial and physical aspects of vulnerability tend to be more pronounced in
developing countries.
It is often stated that the poorer segments of the population are more
exposed to disaster risks. With increasingly greater concentration of settle-
ments and buildings in hazard-prone areas, this statement needs to be quali-
fied somewhat. In the Bhuj earthquake (2001) in India, the high- and
middle-income groups lost more of their asset value. Most of the people
who died in collapse of mid-rise apartment buildings in Ahmedabad and
Bhuj belonged to the middle class (Vatsa, 2002). In the Marmara earthquake
(1999) in Turkey, 90 percent of casualties took place in mid-rise reinforced
concrete apartment blocks, owned by urban upper middle classes (Erdik,
2001). In Germany, 2002 floods in River Elbe inundated the city of Dresden,
did not spare any segment of the population, as it caused inundation of all
the residential and commercial properties and damaged many historical
buildings in the city center (Toothill, 2002). In the United States, when an
earthquake strikes California hillsides or a hurricane strikes the coastal areas
of Florida, absolute disaster losses in dollar terms are higher for upper and
middle classes than for the poor, though in relative terms the poor generally
lose a larger percentage of their material assets and suffer more lasting ef-
fects (Bolin and Stanford, 1999).
While the distribution of disaster impacts has become more compli-
cated across social classes, it is also true that stable employment, insurance,
credit and assets help upper and middle classes to recover faster from a dis-
aster. The low-income group, on the other hand, has fewer options than the
wealthy for coping with a disaster. They have fewer assets, almost no insur-
ance, and less diversified sources of income, and a disaster can push them
into destitution (World Bank, 2001). In rural areas in Vietnam it was re-
ported that those with capital have a buffer and are better able to survive and
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 2
recover, whereas poorer households without capital reserves go under with
even the smallest shock (Narayan, et al., 2000).
In the 1990s, El Niño-related disasters and the East Asian financial
crisis underscored the importance of reducing risk and vulnerability to sus-
tain our economic and welfare gains. Reducing volatility in income and con-
sumption has become a serious public policy concern. Along with
opportunity and empowerment, security as embodied in risk and vulnerabil-
ity reduction is posited as a cornerstone of development and poverty eradi-
cation (World Bank, 2001). Households1 are exposed to a wide array of
risks, characterized by a known or unknown probability distribution of
events. Disasters are one of these risks at the extreme end. A household’s re-
silience in resisting the negative outcomes of these risky events is indicative
of its level of vulnerability. The means of resistance are the assets that
households can mobilize in face of these shocks (Moser, 1997). This paper
aims to develop a conceptual framework of risk management, focusing on
the role of assets in risk management.
The paper is divided into six sections. The following section discusses
the concept of risk and how it has been understood in physical and social sci-
ences. Section III analyzes the meaning and structure of “vulnerability”.
Section IV briefly presents a brief review of literature on vulnerability as-
sessment, measurement, indexing, and modeling. Section V presents the as-
set framework of risk management and the dynamics of assets-risk
interaction. Section VI discusses specific asset-building strategies for disas-
ter risk management.
Section II: Understanding Risk
During the past quarter-century, the term “risk” has been a subject of inten-
sive conceptual and empirical research. The field of risk analysis has grown
rapidly, focusing on issues of risk assessment and risk management. The
former involves the identification, quantification, and characterization of
threats to human health and the environment. The latter, risk management,
centers around processes of communication, mitigation, and decision-
making (Slovic and Weber, 2002).
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 3
2.1 Classical Concept of Risk
The classical conception views risk as “the chance of injury, damage, or
loss.” It distinguishes between risk— defined as the probability that a par-
ticular adverse event occurs during a stated period of time, or results from a
particular challenge— and detriment— defined as a numerical measure of
the expected harm or loss associated with an adverse event. The probabili-
ties and consequences of adverse events are assumed to be produced by
physical and natural processes in ways that can be objectively quantified by
risk assessment. One way to describe risks and uncertainty is to construct an
exceedance probability (EP) curve. An EP curve specifies the probabilities
that a certain level of losses will be exceeded. A critical issue in constructing
an EP curve is the degree of uncertainty regarding both probability and out-
comes. For low probability-high consequence risks, the spread between the
three curves depicted in Fig.1 shows the degree of indeterminacy of these
events. Information on uncertainty enhances the credibility of a risk assess-
ment exercise (Swift, 1999; Adams, 1995; Kunreuther and Slovic, 1996;
Kunreuther, 2002).
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 4
������ �� ��� � �� �������� ������ ��� ������
������� ��������� � �
Such a view of risk agrees upon the objective nature of risk. There is
general agreement among those who hold such a view of risk that progress
lies in refining the methods of measurement and collecting more data on
both the probabilities of adverse events and their magnitudes. A report by
the Britain’s Royal Society called “Risk Assessment” concluded that there
was a need for “better estimates of actual risk based on direct observation of
what happens in society” (cited in Adams, 1995).2
This approach also distinguishes between objective risk—the sort of
thing “experts” know about—and perceived risk—the lay person’s often
very different anticipation of future events. Perceptions of risk play a promi-
nent role in the decisions people make, in the sense that differences in risk
perception lie at the heart of disagreements about the best course of action
between technical experts and members of the general public (Slovic and
Weber, 2002). We may express objective and perceived risk as in the matrix
below:
Figure 2: Risk Matrix
Risk Detriment
Objective
(measured as)
Statistical probability Economic cost
Perceived
(measured as)
Perceptions of likelihood
of different events by
different actors
· Economic cost
· Non-economic cost (including,
self-esteem, community solidarity,
future livelihood solidarity)
Source: Swift, 1999
2.2 “Risk” in Social Sciences
Much social science analysis rejects such a notion of risk. In this tradition,
such objective characterization of the distribution of possible outcomes is
incomplete at best and misleading at worst. The distinction between objec-
tive risk and perceived risk is considered false. According to this perspec-
tive, both the adverse nature of particular events and their probability are
inherently subjective. For example, between 1950 and 1970, coal mines in
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 5
the US became much less risky in terms of deaths from accidents per ton of
coals, but they became marginally riskier in terms of deaths from accidents
per miner. Which measure one thinks more appropriate for decision-making
depends on one’s point of view (Kunreuther and Slovic, 1996; Adams,
1995).
In social science, the concept of risk is primarily concerned with the
distribution of risky outcomes and its impact on the people who experience
them. Over their lifetime, all men and women are subject to a wide variety of
risks: unemployment, illness, injury, disability, death, loss of residential and
commercial property, crop failure, etc. Different disciplines within social
science have discussed these risks from their own point of view.
One of the most important contributions to social theories of risk came
from the European sociologists, Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens. In the
globalized modern world, which Beck characterized as a “risk society”, the
future has become uncertain. Possible events which technology unintention-
ally generates cannot be insured against because they have unimaginable
implications. Beck, citing the example of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion
in 1986, associates nuclear power with suspension of “the principle of insur-
ance not only in the economic, but also in the medical, psychological, cul-
tural and religious sense. The residual risk society has become an
uninsured society” (Beck, 1992: 101).3
Giddens makes a similar point by distinguishing between external
risks emanating from bad harvests, floods, plagues or famines and manufac-
tured risks which include most of the environmental risks. Not only has ex-
ternal risks been supplanted by manufactured risks, but we know very little
on how to handle the latter. As manufactured risk expands, there is a new
riskiness to risk. “We simply don’t know what the level of risk is, and in
many cases we wouldn’t know for sure until it is too late.” Further, “we live
in a world where hazards created by ourselves are as, or more threatening
than those that come from outside” (Giddens, 2000 cited in Quarantelli,
2000).
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 6
2.3 Elements of Risk
The concept of “risks” as discussed by Beck and Giddens derives its context
from the developed world. Such a notion of “risk” is inherent in the pursuit
of energy-intensive economic growth and affluence, an inescapable condi-
tion of the post-industrial society. These risks are qualitatively different
from those faced by households with limited resources in both developed
and developing countries. Most of the households are exposed to “risks”,
which arise from an economy based on lack of resources and limited op-
tions. In the field of development, the “risk” is closely related to poverty,
deprivation and lack of insurance. A great deal of research has taken place
on the subject of household risks, but most of it deal with agricultural and
pastoral societies trying to cope with individual risks such as illness and un-
employment or collective risks such as droughts and scarcities (Udry, 1994;
Morduch, 1995; Dercon; 1999, Sinha and Lipton, 1999; Fafchamps, 1999).
At the level of households, risk refers to uncertain events that can
damage well-being—the risk of becoming ill, or the risk that a drought will
occur. The uncertainty can pertain to the timing or the magnitude of the
event (World Bank, 2001). Many risks such as illnesses, death of an earning
member, or individual loss of job, are household-specific, and called idio-
syncratic (individual) risks. The natural disaster risks such as floods and
drought simultaneously affect many households in a community or region,
and are called covariate (collective) risks. The covariation of risks depends
upon the size of risk pool, the group that households can draw upon for as-
sistance in managing the impacts of risk. The capacity to insure depends
upon the size of risk pool. If the risk pool is small, as could be the case in re-
mote rural areas, even idiosyncratic risks have impacts similar to those of
covariate risks. The distinction between idiosyncratic and covariate risks is,
therefore, largely contextual (Siegel, 2000).
While the probability and frequency of these risks and their magni-
tude, an outcome of physical and natural processes, can be estimated with
some approximation, it is difficult to forecast what will be the ultimate im-
pact of the risky event on vulnerable households. It depends upon the house-
hold’s level of vulnerability or resilience (Holzmann and Jørgensen, 2001,
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 7
Siegel and Alwang, 1999). The EP curve is useful here only in a limited
sense, and the concept of risk in these situations clearly diverges from the
one used in physical and engineering sciences.
Risk, combined with the household responses, lead to the outcome.
The outcome is the change in welfare that results from the realization of risk
– the shock – and from the success or failure of risk management instru-
ments applied. Asset losses, unemployment, decline in production and
wages, illness, injuries, deaths are some of the outcomes of a disaster.
Households cope with these losses by withdrawing their savings, borrow-
ing, reducing their expenditures, and selling their assets. Their capacity to
insure against these losses is enhanced by the availability of public-funded
and market-based mechanisms of risk management. A household’s vulner-
ability is ascertained on the basis of its asset endowment, likely welfare
losses, and risk management strategy. The household is thus said to be vul-
nerable to suffering an undesirable outcome, and this vulnerability comes
from exposure to risk (Alwang, Siegel and Jørgensen, 2001).
Risk (disaster) in disaster management has been defined as the cumu-
lative impact of hazard and vulnerability (Blaikie et. al., 1994), expressed
through the following equation:
R = HV
where R stands for the loss or realized risk (disaster), H for hazard (the prob-
ability of occurrence of a specific hazard in a given area over a given time
period, and V for vulnerability (the degree of loss resulting from the occur-
rence of the phenomenon). The United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator
(UNDRO) provided an official definition of risk as “expected losses from a
given hazard to a given element at risk over a specified period of time (cited
in Coburn et. al. 1994). For example, risk may be expressed in terms of aver-
age expected losses, such as “10,000 lost over 20 years period” or a “10 per-
cent probability of economic losses to property exceeding US$25 million in
the town of Puerto Novo within the next 10 years.” It introduces stochastic
factors in calculation of risk, as total risk (RT ) becomes a function of expo-
sure to hazard over time (tE), vulnerability (V) of elements at risk (E), and
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 8
the probability that a natural hazard will strike in a certain way (P) (Alexan-
der, 2001):
RT = fcn { tE , V(E), P}
Risk is compiled from hazard and vulnerability data and from the in-
ventory of elements at risk. A variety of ways of presenting risk are avail-
able such as scenario mapping, potential loss mapping, and annualized risk.
While the probability of occurrence of a hazard may always be estimated on
the basis of historical data and physical information, and some of the ele-
ments at risk (buildings and population) can be identified and inventorized,
the issue of measuring vulnerability and resilience is always difficult. While
we understand that zoning, land use planning, improved building technol-
ogy, and lower population density should lead to a lower number of deaths
and injuries, the precise connection between human losses and spatial and
demographic factors is always difficult to establish. This is why the equa-
tions as mentioned have remained abstract, and have not been used for ac-
tual estimation of risk. It points to the constraints in measuring a range of
socio-economic factors which could be classified under the broad category
of “vulnerability”.
Section III: Perspectives on Vulnerability
Vulnerability is the key factor which explains how the outcome of a risky
event is distributed across households. Most of the literature regarding cata-
strophic risk in risk sciences is conspicuous by the absence of reference to
“vulnerability.”4 In social sciences, however, the use of the term “vulner-
ability” has proliferated. It has been discussed in the context of a wide range
of risks to which households are exposed. As there is a greater concern for
reducing welfare losses before they actually happen, and more public policy
support for ex ante approach to risk management, vulnerability has become
a central theme of all the broader approaches to poverty alleviation and risk
management.
Vulnerability has been defined in terms of exposure to welfare losses,
rather than in terms of exposure to poverty. An individual, a household, or a
community can be considered vulnerable when there is a probability that
they will experience a level of well being that is below a socially accepted
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 9
threshold (Glewwe and Hall, 1998; Cunningham and Maloney, 2000; Al-
wang, Siegel and Jørgensen, 2001). It represents a general definition,
though in the context of a specific discipline, the meaning of vulnerability
changes according to its primary focus. For instance, in economics, vulner-
ability is discussed in terms of decline in income and consumption, whereas
in disaster management, the focus is on human and property losses.5
Downing and Bakker (2000) list the central concepts of vulnerability
as follows:
· Vulnerability is a relative measure—critical levels of vulnerability
must be defined.
· Everyone is vulnerable, although their vulnerability differs in its
casual structure, its evolution, and the severity of the likely
consequences.
· Vulnerability relates to the consequences of a perturbation, rather than
its agent. Thus people are vulnerable to loss of life, livelihoods, assets
and income, rather than to specific agents of disaster, such as floods,
windstorms or technological hazards. This focuses vulnerability on
the social systems rather than the nature of hazard itself.
· The locus of vulnerability is the individual related to social structures
of household, community, society and world-system. Places can only
be ascribed a vulnerability ranking in the context of the people who
occupy them.
· Vulnerability is spatially and temporally variable. Vulnerable groups
are dispersed over space and change over time. More critically,
patterns of vulnerability depend on geographical linkages and are
often contingent on past conditions.
3.1 Poverty and Vulnerability
Though the poor and near-poor tend to be vulnerable, poverty and vulner-
ability are not synonymous. Poverty is a static concept, an ex post state of
being, measured in terms of a minimum level of income and consumption.
Vulnerability, on the other hand, is a dynamic concept, characterized by
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 10
changes in socio-economic status, and refers to an inability to cope with
risks, shocks, and stress. So a vulnerable household may have a level of wel-
fare at a point in time that exceeds the minimum level, but under the influ-
ence of a shock, this household would fall below this level. Vulnerability is
thus both an ex ante and ex post state associated with the probability of fal-
ling below a minimum threshold of well-being (Alwang, Siegel and Jør-
gensen, 2001; Glewwe and Hall, 1998).
A failure to distinguish vulnerability from poverty has led to making
frequent statements about the disaster-poverty nexus, without any concrete
evidence. It gives us little idea about how the non-poor are affected by disas-
ters. It also has a bad impact on policy-making. Anti-poverty programs can
reduce poverty, but at the same time they can increase vulnerability. Be-
sides, elimination of poverty is a long-range goal requiring social justice and
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 11
Figure 3: Sequence of Vulnerability
Adapted from Glewwe and Hall, 1998
��������
�� ���
���Shock/Disaste
r
������ �
���� � �
CommunitySupport /Household’s
��������
��� �
adapts
��������
�� ����
��������
���� �����
Povertyline
�� �� �� ��
� �
equity, and income and resource distribution, and disaster management need
not wait for the achievement of such goals (Chambers, 1989; Wisner, 1993).
3.2 “Vulnerability” in Disaster Management
In disaster management literature, the discussion of vulnerability had its
precursor in the concept of ‘a range of adjustments’, developed by Gilbert
White. White (1961) recommended a set of possible accommodations to
given hazards, and the best mix of them is more effective than single solu-
tions, as had prevailed for instance, in the approach to flood hazards in
North American through engineering control works. In making these alter-
native adjustments, White emphasized the question of choice and adjust-
ments people at risk choose or would prefer. An important theme is that the
adjustments which people consider and make depend upon social organiza-
tion, and the capacity to choose adjustments—or lack of it. Choice is con-
strained by status and rights within a society. Those least likely to have a
voice in public safety and risky developments are so often the ones to suffer
most in disasters (Hewitt, 1997).
When the concept of “vulnerability” was introduced in disaster man-
agement in 1970s, it was predominantly in terms of vulnerability of the criti-
cal infrastructure and urban lifelines: buildings, pipelines, roads, etc.
Vulnerability assessment was concerned with estimating losses and dam-
ages to physical objects (Arnold, 1984). The Office of the United Nations
Disaster Relief Coordinator (1982, cited in Alexander, 1993) echoed this
view in their definition of vulnerability as the “degree of loss (from 0 % to
100 %) to a given element or set of elements at risk resulting from the occur-
rence of a natural phenomenon of a given magnitude. It is expressed on a
scale from 0 (no damage) to 1 (total loss).” Such a view considered that a
natural hazard risk was the same for all who were exposed to it, and there
was no concept of differential vulnerability.
Around the same time, a more socialized interpretation of disasters
emerged which suggested that economic processes could increase the vul-
nerability of populations to natural disasters and should be considered in the
same way as were the more obvious physical or environmental phenomena.
There was a process of marginalization at work, which had a strong spatial
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 12
implication in terms of pushing the poor into unsafe living conditions. Some
of these views traced their ideological underpinnings to the dependence the-
ory, and provided a strong critique of the relationship between relief and un-
derdevelopment. These views had a distinct flavor of political economy
approach to disasters. Amartya Sen’s work on poverty and famines in 1981
reinforced such an interpretation of disasters. Sen challenged the widely
held conviction that lack of food availability (or supply) due to lack of rains
and crop failures was the primary explanation for famines; instead, he pos-
ited lack of purchasing power or access as the key to understanding who
went hungry and why. Over the years, a number of social scientists and ge-
ographers have steadily developed this approach which repudiated the dis-
tinction between physical and social vulnerability, and developed a more
integrated explanation of natural disasters (Westgate and O’Keefe, 1976,
Winchester, 1992; Wisner, 1993; Blaikie, et.al., 1994, Varley; 1994, Can-
non, 1994; Hewitt, 1997).
Westgate and O’Keefe define vulnerability as “the degree to which a
community was at risk from the occurrence of extreme physical or natural
phenomena, where risk refers to the probability of occurrence and the de-
gree to which socio-economic and socio-political factors affect the commu-
nity’s capacity to absorb and recover from extreme phenomena.” This
definition could be considered a definitive view of vulnerability within the
field of disaster research. It suggests that the likelihood of being affected by
disasters depends on (i) frequency and severity of the impact—the more fre-
quent and severe the impact, if the impact is not cushioned and mitigated,
higher the vulnerability; and (ii) the peoples’ resilience to a given shock. Re-
silience is therefore an integral part of the concept of vulnerability. It is
linked to the household’s capacity to resist and recover from the adverse im-
pact of a disaster. Since we take the view that assets are the means of resis-
tance to the impact of a disaster, a household’s resilience is closely linked to
the asset ownership.
Miller and Nigg (1993) have developed the concept of “event vulner-
ability” and “consequence vulnerability”, the former referring to the house-
hold vulnerability associated with the direct impacts of a disaster event and
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 13
the latter referring to the household vulnerability associated with the social
and political processes of recovering from the disaster event. Whereas upper
and middle income-groups are vulnerable to the “event”, the lower classes
share both the “event” and “consequence” vulnerability. A low asset base
and limited livelihood opportunities trap low-income group into a vicious
cycle of poverty and deprivation. The vicious cycle of vulnerability can be
represented as:
Limited asset base >= management of risk leads to inefficient allocation of as-
sets >= low returns >= low consumption >= low savings and investment >=
limited asset base >=lower returns, consumption and savings (Siegel and Al-
wang, 1999, p. vi).
3.3 Structure of Vulnerability
Resilience is just one part of their vulnerability map; a number of structural
factors contribute to and complete this map. These factors could be identi-
fied as social class, gender, race, caste, ethnicity, age, etc (Winchester, 1992;
Cannon, 1993; Blaikie, et.al., 1994; Bolin and Stanford, 1999). It is neces-
sary to assess these structural factors to understand who is vulnerable to the
sufferings and losses from a natural disaster, and which segment of popula-
tion is more likely to be affected by a disaster event.
Social class is generally a marker of access to resources and can in-
clude type and stability of employment, income, savings, and education lev-
els (Blaikie, et.al., 1994). People in low-income groups find it difficult to
secure financial resources and technical skills to recover after disaster. Loss
of life, injury, and disability can trap poor families in chronic poverty
(World Bank, 2001).
Women as a group are disproportionately affected by disasters. For
example, post-disaster mortality, injury, and illness rates are often (but not
universally) higher for girls and women. Women also have to assume
greater responsibility following a disaster in managing household responsi-
bilities, reviving livelihoods and supporting reconstruction. There have also
been reports of increased incidence of sexual and domestic violence against
girls and women in disaster contexts (Enarson, 2000).
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 14
In all the multiethnic and pluralistic societies, race / caste / ethnicity is
closely related to the material losses experiences and to differential abilities
to acquire resources for recovery. The effects of race / ethnicity in disaster
have been documented in numerous US disasters. Research on recent U.S.
disaster documents racial and ethnic discrimination in relief aid (Bolin and
Stanford, 1999). In the relief operations following the Bhuj earthquake in
India, it was reported that there was discrimination against the lower caste
people in the distribution of aid.6
Elderly victims of natural disasters find it difficult to recover from
natural disasters due to impaired coping abilities, limited incomes, the avail-
ability of support systems and their own health (Covan, et.al, 2000).7 In
some instances, elders are overrepresented among the casualties of disaster
due to frailty and being housebound (Hewitt, 1997, cited in Bolin and Stan-
ford, 1999 p. 96).
In rural areas, vulnerable groups include smallholder agriculturalists,
pastoralists, landless laborers, and the destitute. In urban areas, these could
come from unemployed destitute, underemployed poor people, and refugees
(Downing and Bakker, 1997). Winchester (1992) identifies household char-
acteristics, which contribute to the making of differential vulnerability. Im-
portant characteristics are: family type, household size, age, sex
composition of the household, skills / education, and caste.
However, it needs to be pointed out that these specific categories of
population by themselves do not mark vulnerability. It is their level of par-
ticipation in social and economic processes that impinges on vulnerability.
Lack of education and skills, weak social support and protection, low in-
come, poor health care, and single parenthood are the attributes that make
these segments of civil society especially vulnerable. This explains why the
state policies and social protection measures have a substantial impact on
the levels of vulnerability. In many developing countries, where social wel-
fare and protection policies are not adequate, the level of vulnerability is
high, particularly for lower-income groups. Public policies are not always
non-partisan, and tend to marginalize certain communities. In the U.S., fed-
eral relief programs traditionally privilege middle class home owners over
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 15
renters and the marginally housed, revealing a persistent (if unintended)
class preference (Comerio et.al. 1996, cited in Bolin and Stanford, 1999). In
erstwhile socialist countries, where the public-supported welfare system has
been dismantled, the level of vulnerability has gone up significantly. In
Mongolia, the dismantling of state support for pastoral collectives wreaked
havoc on nomadic communities when they were struck by droughts and
winter zud between 1999 and 2002 (Bass, Batjargal, and Swift, 2001).
Section IV: Modeling, Assessing, Measuring, and Indexing Vulnerabil-
ity
4.1 Modeling Vulnerability
Blaikie, et.al. (1994) have attempted to model vulnerability for explaining
its causation, structure and possible response. They discuss two models,
which are (1) Pressure and Release and (2) Access models. The Pressure
and Release (PAR) model attributes disasters to the interaction between
vulnerability on one side and physical exposure to hazard on the other side.
Increasing pressure can come from either side, but to relieve the pressure,
vulnerability has to be reduced. The model can be represented as follows:
1 →Root causes →2 Dynamic pressures →3 Unsafe conditions →Disaster
← Hazards
The PAR model proposes a ‘progression’ of vulnerability with three
main levels: root causes, dynamic pressures, and unsafe conditions. Vulner-
ability begins with root causes, which are economic, demographic, and po-
litical processes. These root causes interact with dynamic pressures such as
population growth, rapid urbanization, and deforestation to produce unsafe
conditions. Unsafe conditions are the specific forms in which the vulnerabil-
ity of a population is expressed in time and space in conjunction with a haz-
ard. Examples of unsafe conditions are people living in fragile physical
environment, like dangerous locations or unprotected buildings and infra-
structure, weak local economy with low income and uncertain livelihoods,
population categories at risk such as the old and disabled, prevalence of en-
demic disease and lack of disaster preparedness. All of these factors change
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 16
over time, sometimes rapidly. They also interact with each other in complex
ways. The outcome can be unpredictable (Twigg, 2001).
The PAR model takes a structural view of vulnerability. It explains the
systemic pressures contributing to vulnerability, but does not suggest a strat-
egy for reducing it. It also does not provide insight into what constitutes vul-
nerability at the household level. It is the access model, which explains the
household vulnerability. The model suggests that it is the level of access to
resources that determines the vulnerability of people and turns some natural
events into disasters for some people. Each household has a range or profile
of resources and assets that represent their particular access level. These
may include land of various qualities, livestock, tools and equipment, capi-
tal and stock, reserves of food, jewelry, as well as labor power and specialist
skills. Non-material ‘resources’, qualities, or qualifications such as gender,
and membership of caste or kinship-based organizations may also be in-
cluded. Access to all the resources that each individual or household pos-
sesses can collectively be called its access profile. Those who possess
access qualifications for a large number of income opportunities have more
flexibility in securing a livelihood under generally adverse conditions, com-
mand considerable resources, have reserves of food, and can be said to have
a well-resourced profile. On the other hand, those whose access profiles are
limited usually have little choice in income opportunities, less store of value
to draw upon, and have the least flexibility in adverse conditions (Blaikie,
et.al., 1994).
However, even ‘Access’ model provides just an abstract framework.
It is not modeled on empirical observations in the field, nor has it been vali-
dated through actual experiences. Besides, the model is not sufficiently dy-
namic to explain vulnerability. A household economy is not isolated or
disconnected; it is connected strongly to the regional, national and interna-
tional economy. These connections, which enable households to reduce
their vulnerability, have not been incorporated in the model. Further, the
model does little further than explaining vulnerability. It does not specify
the instruments or programs, which could be used for reducing or mitigating
disaster risks. Vulnerability requires a broader and dynamic framework,
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 17
which includes an instrumental perspective too. It is not only necessary to
explain what constitutes vulnerability, but also how vulnerability could be
reduced. A model, which is based on a critical mass of empirical observa-
tions, will also provide a choice of strategies, measures and programs, for
reducing vulnerability.
4.2 Assessing Vulnerability
Several methods of vulnerability assessment have evolved in line with the
requirements of a particular discipline or organization. These methods are
applied at different levels—households, communities, countries, and re-
gions. Vulnerability at one level influences vulnerability at other levels of
aggregation (Ribot, 1996). While a detailed review of these issues could the
subject of an independent discussion, we present here a brief review of dif-
ferent methods of vulnerability assessment (VA) in the field of natural disas-
ters.
4.2.1 Vulnerability Assessment in the US
In the US, the Project Impact8 carries out an assessment, which includes
both hazard identification and VA. The stated purpose of hazard identifica-
tion is to gather existing information about areas with a high likelihood of
hazard occurrences and compile the information into a useful format. Simi-
larly, the purpose of VA is to gather and organize existing information about
the location and vulnerability of buildings, utilities, and transportation sys-
tems serving the community. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (NOAA) goes one step further with the tool it has developed for
comprehensive community-wide VA.9 It specifies a series of steps through
which this assessment is conducted. Though the NOAA methodology in-
cludes societal analysis in its vulnerability framework, this too focuses more
on hazard identification and prioritization, built environment, and economic
centers.
4.2.2 Vulnerability Assessment in Developing Countries
Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) and Vulnerability Analysis and
Mapping (VAM): In developing countries, communities’ vulnerability has
been assessed first in terms of food security, due to incidence of droughts
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 18
and famine and high levels of mortality. The USAID has developed a dis-
tinct methodology for conducting VA in the context of improving food secu-
rity in sub-Saharan Africa under the Famine Early Warning System
(FEWS).10. However, the concept and methodology of VA applied in the
FEWS has the perspective of a donor organization, and it is used primarily
as a tool to assist decision-makers faced with the responsibility of respond-
ing to any potential threat of famine. As is the case with FEWS, food secu-
rity is the leading perspective in the Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
(VAM) conducted by the World Food Program (WFP), a UN agency.11
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)-based Vulnerabilities and Capacities
Analysis (VCA):
The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods, extensively practiced in
development activities, have been used for carrying out the Vulnerabilities
and Capacities Analysis (VCA). Developed in the context of relief work un-
dertaken by NGOs, the VCA undertakes an assessment by dividing societal
capacities and vulnerabilities into three categories: physical/material; so-
cial/organizational; and motivational/ attitudinal (Anderson and Woodrow,
1998). The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Socie-
ties (IFRC) has adopted the Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (VCA) as a
diagnostic tool to assess institutional capacity and evaluate the effectiveness
of current programs. The IFRC national societies have preferred VCA over
needs-based assessment approach, as it emphasizes capacity building and
community participation, making their mitigation programs more adaptive
and responsive (IFRC, 1999).
Given the multi-dimensionality of vulnerability, not all of the assess-
ment can be encompassed in a single model. Instead, a number of analytical
techniques could be used to assess vulnerability, which includes quantitative
data of different measures of vulnerability, qualitative information upon dif-
ferent vulnerable groups, descriptive details of spatial and geographical
situation, and multivariate modeling of vulnerability with respect to out-
come indicators such as consumption (Tesliuc and Lindert, 2002).
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 19
4.3 Measuring and Indexing Vulnerability
Can vulnerability be measured? At what level is it feasible to measure vul-
nerability? According to the World Development Report 2000/1, it is espe-
cially difficult to measure vulnerability at the household level. It observes as
follows:
“…since the concept is dynamic, it cannot be measured by observing house-
holds once. Only with household panel data—that is, household surveys that
follow the same households over several years—can the basic information be
gathered to capture and quantify the volatility and vulnerability that poor
households say is so important. Moreover, people’s movements in and out of
poverty are informative about vulnerability only after the fact. The challenge is
to find indicators of vulnerability that can identify at-risk households and
populations beforehand.”
There has been some research at measuring vulnerability at household
level using panel and cross-sectional data. A number of country-based stud-
ies have attempted to measure vulnerability on the basis of variability of
consumption, expenditure, and household characteristics in Pakistan, Indo-
nesia; and Guatemala (Mansuri and Healy, 2000; Chaudhary, Jalan, and
Suryahad, 2002; Tesliuc and Lindert, 2002). Another study uses longitudi-
nal data on rainfall in Ethiopia to estimate the vulnerability to poverty aris-
ing from variation in rainfall (Dabelen, Poupart, and Kline, 2002).12 These
studies are part of the economic research, and are primarily concerned with
the future risk of households falling below poverty line. Many indices of
losses associated with natural disasters are not included in these studies.
At the country level, there have been recent initiatives to measure and
index vulnerability. The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
(SOPAC) is in the process of developing an Environmental Vulnerability In-
dex (EVI), which will provide a general sense of the environmental condi-
tion and vulnerability of a country, particularly for small island developing
countries (SIDS). It has included 54 indicators, covering natural hazards and
information on national eco-system. The EVI has been developed and is
now undergoing testing and refinement in order to make it a globally appli-
cable tool.13
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 20
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is preparing a
World Vulnerability Report. As part of the report, it is developing a Global
Risk and Vulnerability Index at the national level. The index, which will
rank countries in terms of their vulnerability to natural disaster losses, is
based on a wide range of data, drawn from different sources. Among the
data it has taken into consideration is the data on hazards, disaster losses,
and socio-economic information. Social vulnerability is reflected through a
number of indicators such as economic aggregates, resource endowments,
demography, health and sanitation, capacity for disaster response, and cor-
ruption.14
These and similar other initiatives at indexing vulnerability at the na-
tional and sub-national levels are in progress. However, there is still a dis-
tance to go before there is a consensus on indices of vulnerability and their
measurement. It is likely that these efforts at national indexing will provide
the necessary framework for measuring and indexing vulnerability at the
sub-national and community levels.
V. Asset-based Approach to Disaster Risk Management
5.1 Evolving Mitigation Strategies
In the last few decades, the nature of disaster mitigation has changed signifi-
cantly. In the mid-20th century, the US, traditionally the world leader in dis-
aster mitigation, was still almost entirely dependent on engineering
measures. However, the structural approach generally failed to reduce the
scale and cost of damages. In developing countries too, mitigation began
with structural measures, particularly the construction of dams and embank-
ments to reduce floods. These measures did not produce intended results;
their consequences in terms of environment and displacement of settlements
were indeed adverse. The failure of structural approach led to a steady shift
towards non-structural approaches, which included land use planning, zon-
ing restrictions, building codes and insurance schemes.
Despite the emphasis on the management of human systems, these
non-structural measures predominantly represent a technocratic model, fo-
cusing on hazards. It does not take into account social and economic vulner-
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 21
ability of communities in developing countries, nor does it heed the cultural
aspect of community life (Alexander, 1997). The alternative to these stan-
dard notions of mitigation planning is provided by community-based miti-
gation plans. However, despite all the rhetoric, the examples of successful
community-based mitigation plans in developing countries are difficult to
identify (Vatsa, 2000). Besides, community projects too do not address the
central issue: how to provide more resources and information to households
and communities and build more assets with a view to reduce their endemic
vulnerability?
While there is a greater agreement among experts and academics on
reducing vulnerability, the literature on disaster management does not offer
many ideas about how to reduce vulnerability. Interventions that are gener-
ally recommended for disaster risk reduction are from the conventional
menu, borrowed from the literature of urban and regional planning and ar-
chitecture. There is a surfeit of rhetoric about linking disaster management
with development, but again there is no road map about securing the link-
age. The interventions and instruments, which effectively link disaster man-
agement with development, have not been identified, let alone practiced.
5.2 Asset-based Approach to Mitigation
Against this backdrop, an asset-based approach promises to be an innova-
tive way of pursuing disaster mitigation and providing a bridge to develop-
ment. The main premise of this approach is that the assets play a central role
in reducing vulnerability. “The more assets people have, the less vulnerable
they are. And the greater the erosion of their assets, the greater their insecu-
rity” (Moser, 1997 p.2). By using a wider definition of assets, the approach
establishes links with programs related to livelihood, human rights, social
protection and social capital. It thus represents a comprehensive approach to
risk management, drawing from different disciplines.
Assets may be defined as the stock of wealth in a household, repre-
senting its gross wealth. Assets can be tangible, such as land, house, jewelry,
savings, and education and skills, or intangible assets such as household re-
lations, social capital, proximity to markets and health and education facili-
ties, and empowerment. The economic literature emphasizes productive
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22
tangible assets as they generate financial returns. Sociologists and anthro-
pologists often focus on intangible assets. However, there is growing con-
sensus that both tangible and intangible assets, and their interplay, are
important in the context of risk management of vulnerable households
(Shearraden, 1991; Siegel and Alwang, 1999).
The household asset-based approach traces its beginnings to Amartya
Sen’s “entitlement” approach, developed in the context of famine. Sen in his
classic book, Poverty and Famines (Sen, 1981), showed that famines could
be attributed to failures in securing individual entitlements, which emanates
from all the endowments (assets)—their labor, cash crops, or animals— at
her or his command. The value of these endowments and related production
activities is liable to collapse in relation to staple food prices, denying indi-
viduals and households the capacity to purchase food. A household’s failure
to secure its entitlement is thus primarily a failure in exchange rate or terms
of trade rather than crop or production failure.
Though Sen’s concept of entitlements includes all the productive re-
sources and tangible assets owned by a household, he has analyzed famine
predominantly in terms of exchange and terms of trade failures. It does not
always explain differential vulnerability within some communities and be-
tween similar communities apparently facing similar production or ex-
change failures. How can a particular community cope longer and better
than other communities? Jeremy Swift (1989) therefore employs a wider
meaning of assets as consisting of investments, stores and claims (Figure 3).
“Assets in this broad sense are created when production leads to a surplus
beyond immediate consumption requirements, and households use this sur-
plus, willingly or unwillingly, to invest (including investment in better edu-
cation or health), to build up physical stores of all sorts, and to “invest in
claims’ by putting more resources into the community or government
(p.11).” Investments, stores, and claims together build the asset profile of an
individual or household.
Asset-based approach was incorporated into the sociological / anthro-
pological literature by the late 1980s, which expanded the concept of assets
(Moser, 1998; Bebbington, 1999). It also came to be applied to the analysis
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 23
of poverty (Reardon and Vosti, 1995; Attanasio and Székely, 1999). In the
US, Michael Sherraden (1991) applied asset-based approach to social pol-
icy. According to Sherraden, assets exert impacts in ways that cut across
economic, psychological, and institutional effects. Siegel and Alwang
(1999) provide the most detailed exposition of asset-based approach in the
context of social risk management.
5.3 Classification of Assets
Assets can be classified in many ways. Distinctions may be made between
enterprise assets and individual and household assets; productive and non-
productive assets; tangible and intangible assets; and the ease with which as-
sets can be liquidated. Moser (1998) offers a five-fold classification of as-
sets: labor, human capital, productive assets, household relations, and social
capital. Another scheme of classification —natural, financial, physical, hu-
man and social assets—is more straight and clear as presented below (Siegel
and Alwang, 2000; Sebstad and Cohen, 1999, p.15):
Natural assets: Pasture, forests, fisheries, water: quality and quantity
Financial assets: cash, savings, loans and gifts, regular remittances or pen-
sions, other financial instruments;
Physical assets: housing; buildings and land, and improvements to these; land
and other physical items that maintain or increase in value, such as gold jew-
elry; and physical items that decrease in value, including consumer durables
such as household appliances, shoes, clothing, and vehicles; and productive
assets, including fixed-enterprise assets;
Human assets: skills and knowledge, ability to labor, good health, self-
esteem, bargaining power, autonomy, and control over decisions; and
Social assets: networks, group memberships, relationships of trust, access to
wider institutions of society, and freedom from violence.
Each category of assets has specific relevance for reducing vulner-
ability. Natural assets help households in reducing environmental stress, in
addition to providing the necessary wherewithal for the physical assets (e.g.,
provision of water for irrigation of lands, and pastures for cattle). Financial
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 24
assets can be used to smooth consumption, or they can be invested in a vari-
ety of ways that help smooth incomes. Physical assets can be pawned or
mortgaged or turned into productive assets to increase household income.
Human assets form the basis for labor mobilization, a key strategy for cop-
ing with shocks and stress events. Social assets are a critical source of finan-
cial and non-financial support in times of need, and clients place high
priority on building and maintaining these assets (Sebstad and Cohen, p.
72). Depletion of assets in a certain category would have a corresponding
impact on the associated vulnerability. An asset vulnerability matrix, which
identifies indicators of increasing and decreasing vulnerability associated
with a certain category of assets at the household level, has been presented
below (see Figure 4):
Figure 4: Asset Vulnerability Matrix
Type of
Assets
Indicator of Increasing
Vulnerability
Indicator of Decreasing
Vulnerability
Financial
Assets
Withdrawal of savings
Rise in indebtedness
Loans for consumption
Default or postponement of loan
repayment
Dependence on remittances
Lack of insurance
Sustained level of savings
Diversified financial investments
Credit for productive assets
Loan repayment on schedule
Availability of insurance
Availability of a wide array of
financial instruments
Physical
Assets
Crop failure
Soil erosion and degradation of
land
Damaged and destroyed houses
Disruption or closure of businesses
Distress sale of household
consumer durables
Diversified cropping
Soil and water conservation
Structural reinforcement of houses
Business continuity plans
Increased level of security for house,
crops, business and household goods
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 25
Human
Assets
Illnesses and loss of health
Deaths and disability
Poor nutrition
Withdrawal from schools
Primary concern with coping
strategy
Bonded and child labor
Good health
Physical capacity to work
Availability of nutrition
Educational opportunities for
children
Opportunities for learning skills
Independence and self-esteem
Social
Assets
Discrimination based on race, sex,
caste or ethnicity
Social disintegration and lack of
trust
Lack of participation in community
organizations
Dependence on charity
Looting and criminal activities
Relief and assistance based on equity
and special needs of different social
groups
Community solidarity, cohesion,
reciprocity and presence of social
networks
Participation in community initiatives
and volunteerism
Self-help and mobilization of
community resources
Mutual support and cooperation
5.4 Household Assets, Risk, and Vulnerability
A household’s level of assets has a positive, if not direct, relationship with
its ability to deal with risks. The greater the household’s level of assets,
more the capacity to cope with risk and the lower its level of vulnerability.
A household must have a minimum level of assets to cope with risks.
If the household does not have the bare essential assets, it slips to situation
where it cannot cope with risks and reaches a breakdown point. The asset-
level of a household corresponds to its poverty level. Extremely poor house-
holds have lower level of assets. Moderate and vulnerable non-poor house-
holds have increasingly higher level of assets (Sebstad and Cohen, 1999).
The interaction of assets with risk is always complex. It is not just the
level of assets, but also the mix of assets that influence the capacity to man-
age risks. While the importance of financial, physical assets is obvious, hu-
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26
man and social assets have also emerged as important variables in risk
management. Education, skills, and information equip households in deal-
ing with risks in a more balanced way. Similarly, social cohesion, commu-
nity networks, gender relations, and participation in social organizations,
which are considered to be the expressions of social capital or assets, play
important roles in responding to risks and crisis situations. A great deal of
transactions, involving reciprocal arrangements, gifts, and loans, take place
on the basis of expectations and obligations, helping households and com-
munities. For example, human and social assets are more important for ex-
tremely poor households, while the moderate and vulnerable non-poor may
find physical and financial assets more important (Vatsa and Krimgold,
2000; Sebstad and Cohen, 1999).
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 27
Figure 5: Relationship between Household Assets and Vulnerability
Source: Sebstad and Cohen, 1999
Les
s
Vuln
erab
le
Mo
reV
uln
erab
le
������� ����
Househol
d
Moderate
Poor
Vulnerable
�� ����� �� ��� �
�����WNPOINT
Capacity
to
Asset Mix and
Least Risk
Disasters can drastically alter a household’s portfolio of assets by ei-
ther destroying them physically, or by dramatically reducing its value due to
prolonged collapse of asset markets (Vosti, 1999). In Malawi, the food
shock of 2001 is relatively small compared to 1991, yet its impact is far
more severe in the country. Recent research evidence suggests that the cur-
rent situation in rural Malawi, where three quarters of households corre-
sponded to the poorest households in Tanzania and Uganda, is due to an
erosion of Malawi’s assets over the last 10 years (Stevens, et.al. 2002).
Households reallocate their assets in response to risks. They use their
savings or insurance, draw down their physical stocks, borrow, sell or pawn
assets, reduce expenditures, modify their consumption, or seek help from
friends and relatives. A popular strategy is to make claims upon govern-
ments, NGOs, and international organizations, though such claims have
their own limits. Reducing assets (including claims) makes households and
communities more vulnerable, and its impact could be extended to pro-
cesses within households, particularly in respect of gender and intergenera-
tional assets and claims (Swift, 1989). For instance, it may result into
withdrawal of children from schools, reduced nutrition for women, migra-
tion, or other desperate measures.
Wealthier households allocate their assets more efficiently in dealing
with their risks, and manage their risks with minimal welfare loss. Research
findings collected during drought of 1999-2000 in Ethiopia indicate that
well-off households achieve or maintain higher asset holdings (livestock,
cash, equipment) due to their ability to fully respond to economic opportu-
nity, purchase devalued assets from poorer households, and keep their assets
and products off a devalued market. Asset-poor households find their accu-
mulation constrained by an inefficient asset-mix (abundant land, but insuffi-
cient labor), declining values for their meager assets as markets for these
goods also collapse, declining wages for their labor while costs of borrow-
ing increase, and declining access to social networks and support institu-
tions during periods of massive depletion (Little, 2002, p.2). However,
differential vulnerability between communities may always vary. For exam-
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 28
ple, the urban poor, though often very poor, make more effective claims
upon the government assistance compared to the urban poor (Swift, 1989).
Diversification of household assets and income-generating opportu-
nities improves risk management at the household level. Multiple assets can
increase creditworthiness of a household, thereby improving their ability to
borrow during a crisis. Households can engage in small businesses, off-farm
employment, and seasonal migration arrangements. The rural poor engage
in farming and livestock husbandry, in gathering wild food and fuel, and in
the nonagricultural sector (Vosti, 1999). Reardon, et.al. (1988) document
the practices of poorer households in Burkina Faso to spread income risks
across occupations and across space (cited in Seigel and Alwang, 1999).
Pastoralists of East Africa increasingly pursue non-pastoral strategies to
meet consumption needs and to buttress against shocks caused by climatic
fluctuations, animal disease, market failures, and insecurity (Little, et.al.,
1999).
As stated earlier, the poorest households are characterized by low as-
set endowment, and therefore, they tend to reach the threshold of collapse
much faster. Poorer households also tend to adopt risk management strate-
gies that concentrate in lower risk and lower return assets, trapping them in
the vicious cycle of poverty (Swift, 1989; Jalan and Ravallion, 1998).
5.5. Level of Assets and their Interaction
The capacity to reduce risk and vulnerability depends not only upon the ini-
tial assets and endowments, but also by the ability to transform such assets
into income, food, or other basic necessities in an effective manner. Factors
at household, intra-household, community and extra-community levels de-
termine both the use of assets and the strategies adopted during the periods
of crisis and disasters. At the level of households, factors which influence its
response to a major shock are changes in household structure, composition,
and headship, care of children and the elderly, and domestic violence. Intra-
household factors basically refer to gender-based differences, which influ-
ence the process of resource allocation within a household. Within a house-
hold, the distribution of impact and resources in a crisis or disaster situation
are different for men and women, and boys and girls. At the community
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 29
level, the extent to which a disaster or crisis has increased or eroded social
capital may have long-term consequences for recovery strategies (Moser,
1997). At the extra-community level, labor, commodity and financial mar-
kets determine the economic returns, and political and institutional factors
determine relief, assistance and security.
There are strng linkages between different levels which allow house-
hold assets to draw on community and extra-community assets. Households
seek community and government’s help in strengthening flood control
measures at the local level. Flood and cyclone shelters, which are commu-
nity assets, can protect many household assets. Governments may provide
financial assistance to households for undertaking seismic strengthening of
their houses. These strategies may then create cross-boundary asset pools
and broaden the risk pool. Assets enlarge the risk pool, creating incentives
for households to contribute to the risk pool and draw upon its resources.
The asset-based approach, by using assets in a broader sense, embod-
ies elements of sustainable livelihoods and rights-based approaches, which
have been advanced by many stakeholders in international development. Its
strength lies in using multiple levels of assets—tangible and intangible—for
managing risks. However, asset-risk interaction needs to be investigated
more empirically to ascertain how different categories of assets correlate
with outcomes of risky events at the household level. Research on these is-
sues will provide better information on the component or a mix of assets re-
quired for dealing with a certain type of risk.
VI. Asset-building Strategies for Disaster Management
The discussion above underscores the importance of following a more com-
prehensive approach to reducing risk and vulnerability. Such a strategy
needs to connect the conventional measures of disaster management to the
world of development: financial assets, livelihoods, social protection, com-
munity networks, housing, and information sharing. Interventions that pro-
mote these issues could be used effectively for managing disaster risks.
Different components of the strategy and their application for ex-ante and
ex-post risk management are presented in a matrix below, followed by a dis-
cussion:
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 30
Figure 6: Asset-building and Risk Management
Asset-building
Strategy
Ex-ante
Risk Management
Ex-post
Risk Management
Building
Financial Assets
· Flexible savings
· Credit for asset-building
· Affordable insurance
· Withdrawal of savings
· Re-scheduling loan repayment
· Insurance payments
Promoting
Livelihoods
· Diversification of
income-earning opportunities
· Provision of training in skills
· Management of natural and
common property resources
· Assistance for business
recovery
· Assistance for resumption of
economic activities
· Commence large-scale public
works
· Reconstruction as an
opportunity for employment
generation
Investing in
Housing
· Improvement in sites and
services
· Wind- and seismic-resistance
housing
· Relocation
· Post-disaster reconstruction
· Application of disaster-resistant
technology in reconstruction
Supporting Social
Protection and
Safety Nets
· Microfinance for vulnerability
deduction
· Social / calamity Funds
· Public works (Employment
Generation) programs
· Cash transfer
· Food distribution
· Social insurance
· Public works (Employment
Generation) programs
Strengthening
Community
Networks
· Community-based mitigation
Programs
·Special programs for vulnerable
social groups such as women
· Community participation in
recovery and reconstruction
· Group insurance payment
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 31
Sharing
Information
· Risk and vulnerability mapping
· Early warning
· Household and
community-level Preparedness
· Information upon post-disaster
recovery and reconstruction
· Information upon mitigation
solutions financial mechanisms
for mitigation investment
6.1 Providing Financial Services
Households need to avail of financial services to the households—savings,
credit, and insurance—to reduce the impact of a major shock. Many house-
holds borrow, more do save, and all seek informal, if not formal, insurance.
The choice of these services depends upon the household situation. Credit is
obtained more for economic activities, and helps to reduce risk (income
smoothing). Savings can provide more efficient self-insurance to help miti-
gate and cope with risk (consumption smoothing). Formal insurance may
not be affordable for the households, but they seek insurance through their
savings and other physical assets (Siegel, 2000).
In developing countries, government is the primary source of disaster
assistance for households. Governments provide assistance through their
own resources or by borrowing from international financial institutions. In
the private sector, formal banking sector, insurance companies, and microfi-
nance institutions can provide a wide array of financial services and prod-
ucts, specifically designed for disaster risks. Flexibility and heterogeneity of
financial services and instruments offer more alternatives to households in
managing their risks.
6.2 Promoting Livelihoods
One of the important steps is to expand livelihood opportunities for the peo-
ple living in vulnerable situations. It may involve different strategies suited
to particular hazards. For example, those likely to be affected by drought
may be assisted for preventing soil erosion, water resource management,
dry land farming, social forestry, and common property resource manage-
ment. Households facing floods, cyclones and earthquakes may be assisted
with productive assets such as restoration of their business premises, re-
sumption of fishing operations, or replacement of their agricultural imple-
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32
ments. Training in different trades can also be organized for the people who
have to seek alternative sources of employment. Governments may begin
large-scale public works, which could provide employment to the people af-
fected by a disaster event.
Poor households have labor as their greatest asset. In face of a disas-
ter, a frequent response by poor households is to migrate or mobilize addi-
tional labor—principally women’s labor and sometime even children’s
labor. These strategies have their own welfare losses. If households have
more diversified livelihood opportunities, they may avoid these losses, and
maintain their level of economic and social well-being. A number of inter-
national agencies such as the DFID, UNDP, CARE International and Oxfam
are working on sustainable livelihood approaches. These organizations have
also underscored the importance of including livelihood strategies in their
disaster-related interventions (Carney et al. 1999, cited in Sanderson, 2002).
6.3 Investing in Housing
Housing is an important productive asset that can cushion households
against most of the big and small shocks. When households have secure
ownership of houses, they often use this asset with particular resourceful-
ness when other sources of income are reduced. Homeowners use their
housing as a base for enterprises or rent it to raise income. They sell part of
their plot or, as a last resort, all of their property. They save “imputed rent”
that would otherwise be added to household expenditure. And they use their
housing as a tool for extending personal relationships and generating social
capital (Moser, 1997, p. 7).
Housing can be promoted through infusion of public and private re-
sources. These resources need to be mobilized for the construction of new
and better houses, strengthening of existing houses, and improvement in
sites and services. People who live in unsafe conditions could be assisted to
move in safe and better houses. For instance, people living in flood-prone
areas could be helped with simple flood prevention measures such as rising
of plinths or building on stilts or even relocating. Insurance schemes could
be tied to specific mitigation measures. These policies could be pursued
through building incentives, and developing adequate legal and institutional
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 33
frameworks. The government alone cannot promote housing. Financial in-
stitutions and non-governmental organizations need to partner with the gov-
ernment in encouraging housing sector.
6.4 Supporting Social Protection and Safety Nets
Social protection or safety net programs assist individuals, households, and
communities to better manage a wide range of risks that leave people vul-
nerable. These programs deal with both the absolute deprivation and vulner-
ability of the poorest people and also with the need of the currently non-poor
for security in the face of shocks and life-cycle events. A number of safety
net programs are in nature of income support or social insurance. In view of
its equity-enhancing and social investment functions, it has received wide-
spread support from governments and development agencies.
Despite its growing portfolio worldwide, the agenda of social protec-
tion has not yet been linked very effectively to disaster risk reduction.
Though the literature recognizes the potential of safety nets for disaster risk
reduction, in practice, there have not been many successful examples (IDB,
2000). Applying social protection programs for disaster management will
mean introducing both ex ante and ex post measures, with a view to reduce
disaster risks. In practice, ex ante measures will include credit, subsidy and
assistance for improvement in shelter, flood protection, crop management,
and diversification of livelihoods, whereas ex post measures will mean us-
ing the financial services for resumption of economic activities, reconstruc-
tion, and even consumption. Among the instruments and services, which
could be used for both ex ante and ex post risk management, are microfi-
nance, social funds, insurance, and public works program.
Safety net programs involve targeting of the people who are the most
vulnerable or most affected. However, in very low-income countries, such
as Ethiopia, Nepal and Malawi, almost everyone is poor or affected. Be-
sides, in these poor countries too, there is a group of ultra-poor, which needs
to be supported very directly. Some of the options that could be used for
these groups involve cash transfers (selected / universal), food programs
(free distribution, food stamps, school-feeding, etc.), food subsidies, agri-
cultural inputs (subsidies, free packs), and health and education fee waiver
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 34
programs (Smith and Subbarao, 2002). In almost all the low-income coun-
tries, underlying vulnerability and institutional weaknesses are so serious
that a simple intervention would not work. It would require multiple inter-
ventions, encompassing both short- and long-term measures.
6.5 Strengthening Community Networks
The importance of community networks in mobilizing human, social and fi-
nancial assets has been demonstrated in recent disasters. A generous interna-
tional assistance for the Gujarat earthquake in 2001 could be attributed to
the political and commercial strength of the non-resident Gujarati commu-
nity in a number of developed countries (Vatsa, 2002). Similarly, El Salva-
dor tapped a large amount of resources through remittances from millions of
expatriates after the earthquake in 2001. These social networks could be
strengthened through participatory programs. Group-based insurance pro-
grams and community-based mitigation programs could be among the inter-
ventions required to promote community networks.
An important component of community programs is to support
women with special programs. In Honduras, women coped with hurricane
Mitch by mobilizing formal and informal social networks and organizing
women’s groups to meet needs, organize temporary shelters, and coordinate
relief efforts. They also used kin networks to take in affected family mem-
bers (Corrieia, 2001). Women also participated in construction of shelter
and digging of wells and ditches. In Maharashtra, India, after the Latur
earthquake of 1993, women’s participation in the seismic repairs and
strengthening program facilitated successful completion of owner-driven
earthquake reconstruction program.
6.6 Sharing Information and Knowledge
One of the valuable assets is information and knowledge that could be used
for risk management at the household and community level. Through elec-
tronic media and Internet, one can immediately get an access to data, and see
how a river is rising, track a tornado or hurricane, or observe the likely ex-
tent of damage caused by an earthquake that just occurred. One can access
the latest information on disaster resistant design, regions of high and low
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 35
risk, sources of emergency supplies, preparedness plan, and more. A risk
and vulnerability mapping can be undertaken to inform the people of their
risks and how to deal with these risks. The information could also be used to
seek the attention of decision-makers and enhance claims upon national and
international resources.
Several factors influence the value of information and knowledge.
The credibility of source, clarity of the message, and simplicity of solutions
are some of the important factors that help households to act upon the infor-
mation. Risk communication strategy is thus an essential part of the risk
management strategy. Though in the recent times, the global connectivity
has increased significantly, a digital divide still exists in developing coun-
tries. An important challenge lies in widening the channels of communica-
tion and providing relevant information to the individuals, households and
communities for taking more informed decisions.
6.7 Conclusion
An increasing concern about vulnerability in disaster management has re-
flected into programs that concentrate on households and communities. The
above-mentioned strategies form the integral part of these programs and in-
terventions, helping households and communities in accumulating assets,
and thus increasing their resilience and capacity to manage risks. With a bal-
anced mix of assets at their disposal, households are empowered to address
all kinds of risks: health and employment risks which arise frequently, life-
cycle risks related to old age and loss of income, and infrequent disaster
risks causing major losses. It provides a sense of personal and social secu-
rity, which is critical to households’ well-being.
The relative importance of these strategies would depend upon the
risk exposure and coping strengths of households and communities. While
certain households or communities can prepare or recover through access to
financial resources, there would be many others who would require social
protection measures and safety nets. Similarly, housing would be a critical
asset for reducing the risk of floods and earthquakes. It could, however, be
said that while access to financial resources, and sharing information and
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36
knowledge are emerging as the transformative strategies for reducing vul-
nerability, other strategies are more relevant for coping and sustenance.
Whether governments would extend the necessary support to house-
holds for building their assets or these should be driven by market incen-
tives, is an extremely important issue. A policy choice would be guided by
the context in which these interventions are called for. In respect of access to
financial services and housing, market institutions can implement a more
feasible strategy, while governments are more effective in implementing so-
cial protection and safety net measures and encouraging community net-
works. Both governments and market institutions can play a mutually
supportive role in creating livelihood opportunities and improving public
access to information and knowledge. A strong public policy support for
asset-based approaches would encourage both the governments and market
institutions to increase their commitment of resources for risk management
at the household and community level.
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 37
Endnotes
1. A household is a unit of social production with common eating arrange-
ments.
2. The Royal Society’s report in 1983, which strengthened the international
orthodoxy on the subject of risk, became a major work of reference. In 1992
when the Society returned to the subject with a new report entitled Risk:
analysis, perception and management, it was a significant deviation from
the earlier formulation of risk, sparking differences between physical and
social scientists. The Royal Society disowned the report, stating therein that
the “views expressed are those of the authors alone” and that it was merely
“a contribution to the ongoing debate”.
3. In Germany, Beck had a major impact on environmentalist politics and
thinking, but in the English-speaking world that impact has been considera-
bly lessened by the gap between original publication and translation (Beck’s
book was published in Germany in 1986; the English translation appeared in
1992).
4. Most of the papers produced by the The Risk Management and Decision
Processes Center, Wharton School and International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria on the subject of catastrophic risk do
not refer to social vulnerability.
5. For a detailed discussion, see Alwang, Siegel and Jørgensen, 2001. It
presents a review of perspectives on vulnerability provided by different dis-
ciplines.
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/naturaldisasters/story/0,7369,439143,00.html
7. http://www.ecu.edu/coas/floyd/papers/floyd007.pdf
8. The Project Impact was a community-based mitigation program launched
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1997. The pro-
gram was recently discontinued.
9. Information on NOAA’s vulnerability assessment method is available on
www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/step1.htm.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 38
10. The FEWS project conducts annual assessments of the ability of popula-
tions within numerous countries to meet their consumption requirements
since 1988. Steps involved in FEWS are preseason VA, season monitoring,
special alerts and warning, and contingency planning. More information is
available on www.fews.net.
11. More information on VAM is available on www.wfp.it/vam_docu-
ments/.
12. These papers were presented in a workshop organized by the World
Bank and International Food Policy Research (IFPRI) on “Risk and Vulner-
ability”.
13. The information on EVI is available on the following site: http://co-
balt.sopac.org.fj/Evi/.
14. The World Vulnerability is under preparation.
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 39
References
Adams, John. 1995. Risk. London: UCL Press.
Alexander, David. 2000. Confronting Catastrophe, New Perspectives on
Natural Disaster. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, David E. 1997. “The Study of Disasters 1977-1997: Some Re-
flections on a Changing Field of Knowledge.” Disasters 21(4): pp.284-304.
Alexander, David E. 1993. Natural Disasters. University College London
Press, London, and Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht and Boston, p.
632.
Alwang, Jeff, Paul Siegel, and S. Jorgensen. 2001. “Vulnerability: A View
from Different Disciplines.” SP Discussion Paper No. 0115. Social Protec-
tion Unit. The World Bank.
Anderson, Mary B. and Woodrow, Peter J. 1998. Rising from the Ashes, De-
velopment Strategies in Times of Disaster. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Boul-
der, Colorado.
Arnold, Christopher. 1984. “Techniques of Vulnerability Assessment.” Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Disaster Mitigation Program
Implementation. Ocho Rios, Jamaica. November 12-16. Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University.
Attanasio, Orazio and Szekely, Miguel. 1999. “An Asset-Based Approach
to the Analysis of Poverty in Latin America.” IDB-OCE Working Paper No.
R-376. Posted on www.cofi.ecn.ulaval.ca/privdom/PDocs/R-376.pdf.
Bass, Batjargal, and Swift. 2001. “Pastoral Risk Management for Disaster
Prevention and Preparedness in Central Asia with Special Reference to the
case of Mongolia.” Paper presented in Asia-Pacific Conference on Early
Warning, Prevention, Preparedness and Management of Disasters in Food
and Agriculture, Chiangmai, Thailand. 12-15 June. Mimeo.
Bebbington, A. (1999). “Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Ana-
lyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty.” World Develop-
ment. 27: pp.2021-2034.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 40
Beck, U.(1992a). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage
Publications, 1992.
Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis, I. and B. Wisner.1994. At Risk - Natural
Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge.
Bolin, Robert and Stanford, Lois. 1999. “Constructing Vulnerability in the
First World: The Northridge Earthquake in Southern California, 1994.” In.
Anthony Oliver-Smith and Susanna M. Hoffman (eds.). The Angry Earth,
Disaster in Anthropological Perspective. New York and London: Rout-
ledge.
Canon, Terry. 1994. “Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of “Natu-
ral’ Disasters”. In A. Varley (ed.) Disasters, Development and Environment.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Cannon, Terry.1993. “A Hazard Need Not a Disaster Make: Vulnerability
and the Causes of Natural Disasters.” In P. A. Merriman and C. W. A. Brow-
itt. (Eds). Natural Disasters, Protecting Vulnerable Communities. Proceed-
ings of the Conference held in London, 13-15 October 1993. London:
Thomas Telford.
Chambers, Roberts. 1989. “Vulnerability, coping and policy.” IDS Bulletin
20(2): 1-7.
Chaudhuri, Shubham, Jalan, Jyotsna, and Suryahadi, Asep. 2002. “Assess-
ing Household Vulnerability to Poverty from Cross-sectional Data: A Meth-
odology and Estimates from Indonesia.” Columbia University, Department
of Economics, Discussion Paper Series. New York, NY: April 2002. Posted
on http://www.ifpri.org/events/conferences/2002/092302/chaudhuri.pdf.
Coburn, Andrew, Spence, Robin, and Pomonis, A. 1994. “Disaster Mitiga-
tion.” 2nd Edition. Disaster Management Training Programme. UNDP.
Comerio, Mary. 1998. Disaster Hits Home, New Policy for Urban Housing
Recovery. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Correia, Maria. 2001. “Hurricane Mitch-the Gender Effects of Coping and
Crisis.” PREM Notes, World Bank, Posted on http://www1.world-
bank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote57.pdf.
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 41
Cunningham, Wendy, and William Maloney. 2000. Measuring Vulnerabil-
ity: Who Suffered in the 1995 Mexican Crisis? Latin America and Caribbean
Sector Management Unit for Poverty Reduction and Economic Manage-
ment. The World Bank.
Dabalen, Andrew, Poupart, Nadine and Kline, Patrick. 2002. Vulnerability
to Rainfall Shock in Ethiopia. Posted on http://www.ifpri.org/events/confer-
ences/2002/092302/dabalen.pdf.
Dercon, S. (1999). Income Risk, Coping Strategies and Safety Nets. Mimeo
prepared for the 2000/1 World Development Report. Katholieke Univer-
siteit Leuven.
Devereux, Stephen. 2002. State of disaster: Causes, consequences & policy
lessons from Malawi. ActionAid. Posted on http://www.action-
aid.org/newsandmedia/the_malawi_famine_of_2002.pdf.
Downing, Thomas E., and Karen Bakker. 2000. “Drought discourse and vul-
nerability.” In. Donald A. Wilhite (ed.). Drought: A global assessment, vol.
2, 213-230. London: Routledge.
Enarson, Elaine. 2000. Gender and Natural Disasters. Recovery and Recon-
struction Department. International Labor Organization. Geneva. Posted on
http://www-ilo-mirror.cornell.edu/public/english/employment/recon/cri-
sis/download/criswp1.pdf.
Erdik, Mustafa. 2001. “Recovery after 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce (Turkey)
Earthquakes.” Paper presented in the International Workshop on Earth-
quake Safer World in the 21st Century, January 29-31. Posted on
http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/ws2001/proceedings/ws_cdrom/6_sympo-
sium/6-4_panel3/6-4-3_erdik/erdik.pdf.
Fafchamps, Marcel. 1999. Rural Poverty, Risk and Development. Report
Submitted to Food and Agriculture Organization . Posted on
http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/marcel.fafchamps/homepage/fao3.pdf.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 42
Glewwe, P. and G. Hall. 1998. “Are Some Groups More Vulnerable to Mac-
roeconomic Shocks than Others? Hypothesis Tests Based on Panel Data
from Peru,” Journal of Development Economics. Vol 56, pp 181-206.
Hewitt, Kenneth. 1997. Regions of Risk, A Geographical Introduction to
Disasters. Essex: Longman.
Holzmann, Robert and S. Jorgensen. 1999. “Social Protection as Social Risk
Management: Conceptual Underpinnings for Social Protection Sector Strat-
egy Paper.” SP Discussion Paper No. 9904. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Holzmann, Robert. 2001. Risk and Vulnerability: The Forward looking
Role of Social Capital in a Globalizing World. Paper prepared for The Asia
and Pacific Forum on Poverty—Policy and Institutional Reforms for Pov-
erty Reduction, Asian Development Bank, Manila, February 5-9. 2001.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
1999. World Disaster Report. Geneva.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
1999. Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment. An International Federation
Guide. Geneva
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 2000. Social Protection for Eq-
uity and Growth. Washington, DC.
Jalan, J. and M. Ravallion (1998). “Transient Poverty in Postreform China.”
Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol 26, pp. 338-357.
Kunreuther, Howard. 2002. “Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Un-
certain World.” Risk Analysis. Vol. 22 No. 4 pp. 655-64.
Kunreuther, Howard. and Slovic, Paul. 1996. “Science, Values and Risk.”.
Annals. AAPSS, 545. May. pp. 116-25.
Little, Peter D. 2002. “Building Assets for Sustainable Recovery and Food
Security.” BASIS Brief No. 5. Posted on http://www.basis.wisc.edu/live/bas-
brief05.pdf.
Little, P.D., Cellarius, B., Barrett, C., and Coppock, D.L.. 1999. “Economic
Diversification and Risk Management among East African Herders: A Pre-
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 43
liminary Assessment and Literature Review.” Pastoral Risk Management
Research Brief 01-08-PARIMA. Utah State University, Logan. Posted on
http: / /glcrsp.ucdavis.edu/project_subpages/PRMP_folder/Re-
search%20Briefs/PARIMA8_Little.pdf.
Mansuri, G. and A. Healy (2000). “Vulnerability Prediction in Rural Paki-
stan.” Development Research Group. The World Bank. Posted on
http://www.ifpri.org/events/conferences/2002/092302/mansuri.pdf.
Miller, Kristen and Nigg, Joanne M. 1993. “Event and Consequence Vulner-
ability: Effects on the Disaster Recovery Process.” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society, Boston, MA. March
25-28. Posted on http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/217.pdf.
Morduch, Jonathan. 1999. “Between the state and the Market: Can informal
insurance patch the safety net?” The World Bank Research Observer 14 (2):
pp. 187-207.
Morduch, Jonathan. 1995. “Income Smoothing and Consumption Smooth-
ing.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (3): pp. 103-14.
Moser (1998), “The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban
Poverty Reduction Strategies”, World Development vol.26, no.1, pp. 1-19.
Moser, Caroline. 1997. Household Responses to Poverty and Vulnerability.
Volume 1: Confronting Crisis in Cisne Dos, Guayquil, Ecuador. Urban
Management Programme, Report 21 Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Narayan, Deepa, Robert Chambers, Meera K. Shah, and Patti Patesch. 2000.
Voices of the Poor. Crying Out for Change. New York: Oxford University
Press for the World Bank.
ODI. 2002. Famine and the Failure of Development, Southern Africa 2002.
Posted on http://www.odi.org.uk/southern_africa/report.html.
Quarantelli, E. L. 2000. Urban Vulnerability to Disasters in Developing So-
cieties: The Need for New Strategies and for Better Applications of Valid
Planning and Managing Principles. Mimeo.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 44
Reardon, Thomas and Stephen A. Vosti. 1995. “Link Between Rural Povety
and the Environment in Developing Countries: Asset Categories and Invest-
ment Poverty,” World Development. Vol. 23: 9, pp. 1495-1506.
Reardon, Thomas., Matlon P., and Delgado C.. 1988. “Coping with House-
hold- level Food Insecurity in Drought-Affected Areas of Burkina Faso,”
World Development, 16 (9): pp. 1065-1074.
Ribot, Jesse C., A.R. Magalhaes, and S. Panagides. 1996. Climate Variabil-
ity, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanderson, David. 2000. “Cities, disasters and livelihoods,” Environment
and Urbanization, October. Volume. 12, No. 2, pp. 93-102.
Sebstad Jennefer. and Monique Cohen. Editors. 1999. Microfinance, Risk
Management, and Poverty, Synthesis Report. Draft. USAID. Washington,
D.C.
Sen, Amartya. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and
Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sherraden, Michael. 1991. Assets and the Poor. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.
Sharpe.
Slovic, Paul and Weber Elke U. 2002. “Perception of Risk Posed by Ex-
treme Events.” Paper prepared for discussion at the conference “Risk Man-
agement strategies in an Uncertain World,” Palisades, New York, April
12-13. Posted on http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/CHRR/Roundta-
ble/slovic_wp.pdf.
Swift, Jeremy. 1989. Why are Rural People Vulnerable to Famine? IDS Bul-
letin. Vol. 20 (2): pp. 8-15.
Siegel, P. 2000. “Towards an Integrated Approach for Risk Management in
Rural Areas: Guiding Principles”. Paper Presented at the UNDP-World
Bank Sponsored Colloquium on Microfinance: Disaster Risk Reduction for
the Poor. February 2. The World Bank.
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 45
Siegel and Alwang. 1999. An Asset-based Approach to Social Risk Manage-
ment: A Conceptual Framework. Social Protection Discussion Paper 9926.
World Bank.
Sinha, S. and M. Lipton (2000). Undesirable Fluctuations, Risk and Pov-
erty: A Review. University of Sussex. Mimeo.
Smith, Jim and Subbarao Kalanidhi. 2002. Safety Nets in Very Low-Income
Countries. Posted on http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/socialprotec-
tion/srm/parisone/pdfpaper/incomeeng.pdf.
Stevens, Christopher, Devereux, Stephen, and Kennan, Jane. 2002. The Ma-
lawi Famine of 2002: More Questions than Answers. Posted on
http://www.odi.org.uk/southern_africa/devereux.pdf.
Tesliuc, Emil D. and Lindert, Kathy. 2002. “Vulnerability: A Quantitative
and Qualitative Assessment.” Guatemala Poverty Assessment Program.
The World Bank. Posted on http://www.ifpri.org/events/confer-
ences/2002/092302/tesliuc.pdf.
Toothill, Jane. 2002. “Central European Flooding.” August 2002. An
EQECAT Technical Report . Posted on http://www.absconsult-
ing.com/EQECAT%20flood/flood_rept.pdf.
Oxfam, 1995. The Oxfam Handbook of Development and Relief. Vol. 1 Ox-
ford: Oxfam..
Twigg, John. 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters.
Posted on http://www.benfieldhrc.com/DMU/WorkingPapers/workingpa-
per2.pdf.
Udry, C., (1994), “Risk and insurance in a rural credit market: An empirical
investigation of Northern Nigeria" Review of Economic Studies, 61, no.3,
pp. 495-526.
Udry, Christopher 1990. “Credit Markets in Northern Nigeria: Credit as In-
surance in a Rural Economy.” The World Bank Economic Review. 4 (3): pp.
251-69.
Varley, Ann (ed.) 1994. Disasters, Development and Environment. Chiches-
ter: John Wiley & Sons.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 46
Vatsa, Krishna 2002. “Government Response and Socio-economic Im-
pacts.” Spectra. Supplement A to Volume 18 Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Institute. Oakland.
Vatsa, Krishna. and F. Krimgold. 2000. “Financing Disaster Mitigation for
the Poor”. In. Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies. Eds. A.
Kreimer and M. Arnold. World Bank.
Vatsa, Krishna. 2000a. Notes on Vulnerability. Department of Engineering
Management, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Mimeo.
Vosti, Stepehen. 1999. Understanding and Coping with Natural Disasters:
El Nino in Latin America and the Caribbean. Mimeo.
Westgate, K. N., and P. O’Keefe. 1976. “Some Definitions of Disaster.” Dis-
aster Research Unit Occasional Paper 4. University of Bradford, Depart-
ment of Geography. U.K.
White, Gilbert F. 1961. Papers on Flood Control. Chicago: University of
Chicago Department of Geography.
Winchester, Peter. 1992. Power, Choice and Vulnerability, A Case Study in
Disaster Management in South India. London: James and James Science
Publishers, Ltd.
Wisner, Ben. 1993. Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power and Daily Life.
Posted on http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/geography_research/radix/re-
sources/dailylife93.doc.
World Bank. 2000. World Development Report 2001/2. Oxford: Oxford
University Press for the World Bank.
Volume 24 Number 10/11 2004 47
Web Sites
http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/217.pdf
www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/step1.htm.
www.usaid.gov/fews/va/vaterms.html#fews&va
www.wfp.it/vam_documents/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/naturaldisasters/story/0,7369,439143,00.html
http://www.ecu.edu/coas/floyd/papers/floyd007.pdf
http://cobalt.sopac.org.fj/Evi/.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 48