This part of the module illustrates the difference between passive and active methods of risk reduction as well as five basic types of measures available for use in planning mitigation programs:Engineering and construction measures
Physical planning measures
Economic measures
Management and institutional measures
Societal measures
Protection against threats can be achieved by removing the causes of the threat, (reducing the hazard) or by reducing the effects of the threat if it occurs (reducing the vulnerability of elements at risk).
For most types of natural disaster, it is impossible to prevent the actual geological or meteorological process from occurring: volcanos erupt, earthquakes occur, cyclones and wind storms rage. The focus of mitigation policies against these hazards is primarily on reducing the vulnerability of elements that are likely to be affected. Some natural hazards can be reduced in certain circumstances
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE MITIGATION MESURES
Passive mitigation measuresAuthorities prevent undesired actions through controls and penalties by:
Checking compliance of controls on-site
Imposing court proceedings, fines, closure orders on offenders
Control of land use
Denial of utilities and infrastructure to areas where development is undesired
Compulsory insurance
b. Acceptance by the affected community of the objectives and the authority imposing the controls
c. The economic capability of the affected community to comply with the regulations.
Authorities promote desired actions through incentives like:
Planning control dispensations
Training and education
Economic assistance (grants and preferential loans)
Subsidies on safety equipment, safer building materials, etc.
Provision of facilities: safer buildings, refuge points, storage
Public information dissemination and awareness raising
Promotion of voluntary insurance
Creation of community organizations
Active Programs
b. Require large budgets, skilled manpower and extensive administration.
c. Are useful in areas of low income, rural areas or elsewhere where there is no external jurisdiction over land use or building activity.
Safety standards, construction codes and building regulations form part of the normal apparatus that government use to help a community protect itself. One of the simplest measures for national authorities to take is to pass legislation for a national building code that requires new buildings and infrastructures to be resistant to the various hazards prevalent in that country. Some 40 earthquake-prone countries currently have seismic building codes for new construction. However, codes themselves are likely to have little effect unless the building designers are aware of them and understand them, and unless the community considers them necessary, and unless they are enforced by competent administrators
The multiplicity of hazards and the different ways of reducing their various effects on the elements at risk is further compounded by the type of community powers and budgets available to the decision-makers. There is no standard solution to mitigating a disaster risk. The construction of large-scale engineering projects in Japan and other high-income countries to give protection against floods and volcanic debris flows, is not appropriate to mitigating similar hazards in developing countries. The enforcement of town planning regulations, and what is considered an acceptable level of interference by an authority on individual's right to build, varies considerably from one country to another, it varies from rural to urban situations and from one community and culture to the next.
The prohibition of building houses on hazardous slopes may seem sensible but is unenforceable in cities where economic pressures to locate on such locations outstrip concerns of illegality. The right of a municipal engineer to inspect the seismic resistance of a building under construction may be accepted in major cities of a country but would be objected to in the more remote villages of the same province.
TECHNIQUES AND MESURES OF MITIGATION
The techniques or measures that an authority might consider in assembling an appropriate package for disaster mitigation can be classified as:
Physical planning
Economic
Management and institutional
Societal
Engineering measures are of two types. Those that result in stronger individual structures that are more resistant to hazards, and those that create structures whose function is primarily disaster protection - flood control structures, dikes, levees, infiltration dams, etc.
Actions of the first type are mainly actions on individual buildings and structures and are sometimes referred to as 'hardening' facilities against hazard forces. Improving the design and construction of buildings, agricultural structures, infrastructure and other facilities can be achieved in a number of ways.
Design standards, building codes and performance specifications are important for facilities designed by engineers. Engineering design against the various hazards may include design for vibration, lateral loads, load surcharges, wind loads, impact, combustibility, flood resistance and other safety factors. Building codes are the critical front line defence for achieving stronger engineered structures, including large private buildings, public sector buildings, infrastructure, transportation networks and industrial facilities.
Disaster-resistance based building codes are unlikely to result in stronger buildings unless the engineers who have to implement the code accept its importance and endorse its use, understand the code and the design criteria required of them and unless the code is fully enforced by authorities through checking and penalizing designs that do not comply
A large number of the buildings likely to be affected in a disaster, and those most vulnerable to hazards are not designed by engineers and will be unaffected by safety standards established in the building codes. Persuading owners and communities to build safer, more disaster-resistant structures and to pay the additional costs involved is required to make builder training effective.
Apart from new buildings, the existing building stock also may need to be 'hardened' against future hazard impacts. The vulnerability of existing buildings can be reduced to some degree by regular maintenance and structural care
Physical planning measures
Many hazards are localized with their likely effects confined to specific known areas: Floods affect flood plains, landslides affect steep soft slopes, etc. The effects can be greatly reduced if it is possible to avoid the hazardous areas being used for settlements or as sites for important structures. Most urban masterplans involving land use zoning probably already attempt to separate hazardous industrial activities from major population centers. Urban planning needs to integrate awareness of natural hazards and disaster risk mitigation into the normal processes of planning the development of a city.
Location of public sector facilities is easier to control than private sector location or land use. The careful location of public sector facilities can itself play an important role in reducing the vulnerability of a settlement. An important principle is deconcentration of elements at risk: services provided by one central facility are always more at risk than those provided by several smaller facilities. The principle of deconcentration also applies to population densities in a city: a denser concentration of people will always have more disaster potential than if they are more dispersed.
The location of public sector facilities is easier to control than those in the private sector. In many rapidly developing cities, the control of private sector land use through urban masterplanning and development permissions is almost impossible. It is often private sector land use, the informal sectors and shanty towns that pose the highest risks of disaster
Economic measuresMitigation measures that help the community reduce future economic losses, help members withstand losses and improve their ability to recover after loss and measures that make it possible for communities to afford higher levels of safety are important elements of an overall mitigation program
Diversification
Economic incentives and penalties are an important part of the powers of any authority. Grants, loans, taxes, tax concessions and fines can be used to influence the decisions people make to reduce disaster-related risks. Industrial location is commonly influenced by government incentives which can be used to attract industry to safer locations or to act as a focus for population relocation. Property taxation can be used to penalize more vulnerable structures and structures built in less desirable locations. Grants and loans can be offered to assist owners to upgrade their property and make buildings more disaster resistant.
Commercial insurance is expensive and its viability is determined by accurate calculation of risk. With only a small number of premium payers, premiums remain high and are prohibitive to potential policy holders. The more widespread policy holding becomes, the lower the premiums are and the more widespread insurance use is likely to be. Encouragement of people to protect themselves through insurance ensures that a level of protection is built up.
Compulsory insurance schemes have not been successful and national governments rarely have the financial resources to dedicate to disaster insurance guarantees, although many countries build up a disaster reconstruction fund through general taxation. Disaster insurance is high-risk finance and only multi-national insurance companies can gather the resources to cover the losses of any sizeable disaster. It is unlikely to be available to protect poorer or rural communities and their disaster-protection investments unless backed by a large development agency.
Management and institutional measures
Disaster mitigation also requires certain organizational and procedural measures. The time span over which a significant reduction can be achieved in the potential for disaster is long. Changes in physical planning, upgrading structures and changes in the characteristics of building stock are processes that take decades. The objectives and policies that guide the mitigation processes have to be sustained over a number of years, and have to survive the changes in political administration that are likely to happen within that time, the changes in budgetary priorities and policies on other matters. The institutionalization of disaster mitigation requires a consensus of opinion that efforts to reduce disaster risk are of continual importance.
Education, training and professional competence, and political will, are necessary aspects of institutionalizing disaster mitigation. The professional training of engineers, planners, economists, social scientists and other managers to include hazards and risk reduction within their normal area of competence is gradually becoming common. Increasing the exposure of these groups to international expertise and transfer of technology in disaster mitigation is an important part of building capability in the affected country.
Information is a critical element in planning for disaster mitigation, but there are many hazard-prone countries where the basic meteorological and geological observatories to monitor hazards have not been established or do not have the resources to carry out their job. Research, technical expertise and policy-making organizations are important resources for developing mitigation strategies both nationally and locally.
Information is a critical element in planning for disaster mitigation, but there are many hazard-prone countries where the basic meteorological and geological observatories to monitor hazards have not been established or do not have the resources to carry out their job. Research, technical expertise and policy-making organizations are important resources for developing mitigation strategies both nationally and locally.
Societal measures
The mitigation of disasters will only come about when there is a consensus that it is desirable, feasible and affordable. In many places, the individual hazards that threaten are not recognized, the steps that people can take to protect themselves are not known and the demand of the community to have themselves protected is not forthcoming. Mitigation planning should aim to develop a disaster 'safety culture' in which the people are fully aware of the hazards they face, protect themselves as fully as they can and fully support efforts made on their behalf to protect them.
Public awareness can be raised in a number of ways, from short-term, high-profile campaigns using broadcasts, literature and posters, to more long-term, low-profile campaigns that are carried out through general education. Education should attempt to familiarize and de-sensationalize. Everyone who lives in a hazard-prone area should understand hazards as a fact of life. Information about hazards should be part of the standard curriculum of children at school and be part of everyday information sources, with occasional mentions of them in stories, TV soap operas, newspapers and other common media. The objective is to develop an everyday acknowledgment of hazard safety where people take conscious, automatic precautions through being aware of, but not terrified of, the possibility of hazard occurrence. Their understanding should include being aware of what to do in the event, and a sense that their choice of house, the placement of that bookcase or stove and the quality of construction of the garden wall around their children's play area all affect their own safety.
of economic activity is as important an economic principle as deconcentration is in physical planning. A single industry (or single-crop) economy is always more vulnerable than an economy made up of many different activities. The linkages between different sectors of an economy - the transportation of goods, the flow of information, the labor market - may be more vulnerable to disruption from a disaster than the physical infrastructure that is the means of production.
No comments:
Post a Comment