Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

The broad objective of this special issue of is to address some of the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the policies, programs, and measures that might be applied to natural hazards and their impacts in an era of climate change. Given the global impacts of climate change and world-wide pattern of increasing losses from natural hazards we necessarily adopt an international perspective. The specific goals of the special issue are to: (a) encompass experiential aspects, emphasizing current practice of mitigation and its associated measures, and their results; and (b) explore primary or root causes of alarming shifts in human and economic costs of environmental extremes. Special emphasis is placed on how human activities are playing a key role in enhancing vulnerability to NTEE (nature-triggered environmental extremes), quite independently from the anthropogenic causes of climate change. The goals are also (c) to examine costs, risks, and benefits (of all kinds including social, political, ecological) of mitigation, and adjustment and adaptation measures; and (d) analyze policy implications of alternative measures. These components are expected to make significant contributions to policy considerations — formulation, implementation and evaluation. There is much uncertainty about the rate of climate change; however, the fact of increase of the atmospheric temperature in the last century is no longer a subject of scientific or policy debate. Due to such changes in the geophysical parameters, certain types of nature-triggered environmental extreme events are likely to continue to increase. How global warming will affect regional climates and pertinent variables is not well known, limiting our ability to predict consequential effects. This factor poses serious constraints against any straightforward policy decisions. Research findings of the work of this volume reaffirm that human dimensions, specifically our awareness and decision-making behavior, are powerful explanatory factors of increasing disaster losses. Disaster mitigation through addressing human, social, and physical vulnerability is one of the best means for contributing to ‘climate change adaptation plans’, and sustainable development goals. Recent lessons from various countries have depicted that the formulation of mitigation strategies cannot be exclusively top-down as it requires social, political, and cultural acceptance and sense of ownership. An interactive, participatory process, involving local communities, produces best expected outcomes concerning mitigation, preparedness, and recovery. An emerging consensus is that there is a need to move towards the ‘mission’ of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction which aims at building disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance of disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development, with the goal of reducing human, social, economic and environmental losses due to natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters. Sharing of best practices and lessons globally is certain to produce more efficiency and understanding in policy and decision making.

Mitigation strategies for natural hazards will always be dealing with risk. With climate change bringing a new set of risks, each with its uncertainties, the risk manager has new challenges. Since natural hazards like tornadoes have large impacts and divert resources towards mitigation and recovery, changing natural hazards are a factor affecting development. In this paper, an analysis of tornado risk in Canada in the context of a changing climate is given which leads to the conclusion that risk-management strategies should assume more frequent events in the future.

Community mitigation of hazard impact requires hazard knowledge and preparedness on the part of the members of diverse and complex communities. Longitudinal research in the tropical cyclone prone north of Australia has gathered extensive datasets on community awareness, preparedness and knowledge, in order to contribute to education campaigns and mitigation strategies. Data have been used to identify issues of vulnerability to cyclones and capacity to deal with the hazard. This has been developed as a community vulnerability and capacity model that may be applied to diverse communities in order to assess levels of capability to mitigate and deal with the cyclone hazard. The model is presented here in a simplified form as its development is evolving and ongoing.

This paper focuses on the importance of rainwater harvesting to mitigate the scarcity of water in the semi-arid region of Brazil. It is a case study about the Million Cisterns Project, an initiative developed by NGOs with the support of Brazilian Federal Government Institutions and international funding organizations. The project is innovative in a series of ways when compared to mitigation measures previously implemented by the government. Instead of focussing on short-term, top-down, palliative measures based on the construction of dams and wells, it focuses on low cost, bottom-up, long-term measures and, most importantly, it involves an educational component. Thus, the provision of water is closely related to the empowerment of the most destitute population and this leads to the sustainability of the actions. The case study serves to illustrate the relevance of the partnership between grassroots organizations and governmental institutions in the context of mitigation.

The first part of this paper discusses the links between hazard, risk and vulnerability (HRV) analysis and the development of mitigative strategies. The second part discusses the need to include public participation when completing an HRV analysis. Two current HRV models are used to illustrate the general failure of HRV analysis to include public participation. The third part of this paper provides a brief overview of the Hazard, Impact, Risk and Vulnerability (HIRV) model and its use of public participation. The paper concludes by offering a synopsis of a case study in the town and regional area surrounding Barriere, British Columbia, Canada. This case study demonstrates a positive outcome when public participation is incorporated into an HIRV analysis.

Many proponents of disaster mitigation claim that it offers potential benefits in terms of saved lives and property far exceeding its costs. To provide evidence for this, and to justify the use of public funds, agencies involved in mitigation can use benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Such analysis, if well done, offers a testable, defensible means of evaluating and comparing projects, helps decision-makers choose between mitigation projects, and provides a means to assess the way we spend public funds. In this critical overview of the more contentious issues and latest developments in BCA, I emphasize the pragmatic choices that one can make in accordance with good practice in project evaluation.

Natural disasters are complex phenomena, the causes of which lie to a large extent in human behavior that creates vulnerable communities. In order to reduce vulnerability and thereby mitigate the risk of disasters, it is important to consider underlying values, particularly with respect to how people view and interact with the natural world. Advancing an interdisciplinary, ecological paradigm, this paper argues that disaster mitigation needs to be addressed through a process that results in a greater emphasis on our interactions with and reliance upon the natural world, and the development of community resilience.

It has become clear that natural and related technological hazards and disasters are not problems that can be solved in isolation. The occurrence of disasters is a symptom of broader and more basic social problems. Since 1994, a team of over 100 expert academics and practitioners — including members of the private sector — have assessed, evaluated, and summarized knowledge about natural and technological hazards in the United States from the perspectives of the physical, natural, social, behavioral, and engineering sciences. The major thesis of the findings was losses from hazards and inability to comprehensively reduce losses of all types are the consequences of narrowand shortsighted development patterns, cultural premises, and attitudes toward the natural environment, science, and technology. To address these broad and basic problems, the study included proposals for ways in which people and the institutions of the United States can take responsibility for disaster losses, reduce future hazard losses, and link hazard mitigation to sustainable development.

Canada is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human-induced disasters. Recent experience with major natural disasters demonstrated that more needs to be done to protect Canadians from the impacts of future disasters. The Government of Canada, through the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, has conducted consultations with provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a national disaster mitigation strategy (NDMS) aimed at enhancing Canada’s capacity to prevent disasters before they occur and promoting the development of disaster-resilient communities. This paper provides an overview of Canada’s emergency management and hazards context. It reports on the preliminary findings of consultations with stakeholders and evaluates the usefulness of the deliberative dialogue methodology that was used to facilitate the consultations. Examples that are illustrative of recent Canadian efforts on disaster mitigation and the challenges respecting the development and future implementation of a NDMS are also discussed.

Turkey’s disastrous earthquakes in 1999 required a monumental task for rebuilding the affected regions. This has now been largely completed by the massive loans borrowed from international institutions and domestic resources. The organization of the resources to accomplish reconstruction is described. Yet, having successfully accomplished the tasks of addressing the long-term needs of the victims in terms of reconstruction/restoration of lost homes and businesses, and dealing with the disruption that the disaster has caused in community life, cannot be viewed as signs that success has been achieved. This article stresses that once the initial shock of the disaster has worn off, institutional adjustments required for mitigation for future disasters have not been enacted vigorously.