Adriana Keating

Technologies to Support Community Flood Disaster Risk Reduction

Abstract Floods affect more people globally than any other type of natural hazard. Great potential exists for new technologies to support flood disaster risk reduction. In addition to existing expert-based data collection and analysis, direct input from communities and citizens across the globe may also be used to monitor, validate, and reduce flood risk. New technologies have already been proven to effectively aid in humanitarian response and recovery. However, while ex-ante technologies are increasingly utilized to collect information on exposure, efforts directed towards assessing and monitoring hazards and vulnerability remain limited. Hazard model validation and social vulnerability assessment deserve particular attention. New technologies offer great potential for engaging people and facilitating the coproduction of knowledge.

Revisiting the "disaster and development" debate - Toward a broader understanding of macroeconomic risk and resilience

Debate regarding the relationship between socioeconomic development and natural disasters remains at the fore of global discussions, as the potential risk from climate extremes and uncertainty pose an increasing threat to developmental prospects. This study reviews statistical investigations of disaster and development linkages, across topics of macroeconomic growth, public governance and others to identify key challenges to the current approach to macro-level statistical investigation. Both theoretically and qualitatively, disaster is known to affect development through a number of channels: haphazard development, weak institutions, lack of social safety nets and short-termism of our decision-making practices are some of the factors that drive natural disaster risk. Developmental potentials, including the prospects for sustainable and equitable growth, are in turn threatened by such accumulation of disaster risks. However, quantitative evidence regarding these complex causality chains remains contested due to several reasons. A number of theoretical and methodological limitations have been identified, including the use of GDP as a proxy measurement of welfare, issues with natural disaster damage reporting and the adoption of ad hoc model specifications and variables, which render interpretation and cross-comparison of statistical analysis difficult. Additionally, while greater attention is paid to economic and institutional parameters such as GDP, remittance, corruption and public expenditure as opposed to hard-to-quantify yet critical factors such as environmental conditions and social vulnerabilities. These are gaps in our approach that hamper our comprehensive understanding of the disaster-development nexus. Important areas for further research are identified, including recognizing and addressing the data constraints, incorporating sustainability and equity concerns through alternatives to GDP, and finding novel approaches to examining the complex and dynamic relationships between risk, vulnerability, resilience, adaptive capacity and development.

Disaster resilience: What it is and how it can engender a meaningful change in development policy

Disasters pose a growing threat to sustainable development. Disaster risk management efforts have largely failed to arrest the underlying drivers of growing risk globally: uncontrolled urbanization and proliferation of assets in hazardous areas. Resilience provides an opportunity to confront the social-ecological foundations of risk and development; yet it has been vaguely conceptualized, without offering a concrete approach to operationalization. We propose a conceptualization of disaster resilience centred on wellbeing: ‘The ability of a system, community or society to pursue its social, ecological and economic development objectives, while managing its disaster risk over time in a mutually reinforcing way.’ We present a conceptual framework for understanding the interconnections between disasters and development, and outline how it is being operationalized in practice.

An overdue alignment of risk and resilience? A conceptual contribution to community resilience

A systematic review of literature on community resilience measurement published between 2005 and 2014 revealed that the profound lack of clarity on risk and resilience is one of the main reasons why confusion about terms such as adaptive capacity, resilience, and vulnerability persists, despite the effort spared to operationalise these concepts. Resilience is measured in isolation in some cases, where a shock is perceived to arise external to the system of interest. Problematically, this contradicts the way in which the climate change and disaster communities perceive risk as manifesting itself endogenously as a function of exposure, hazard, and vulnerability. The common conceptualisation of resilience as predominantly positive is problematic as well when, in reality, many undesirable properties of a system are resilient. Consequently, this paper presents an integrative framework that highlights the interactions between risk drivers and coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities, providing an improved conceptual basis for resilience measurement.

Government liabilities for disaster risk in industrialized countries: a case study of Australia

ABSTRACT This paper explores sovereign risk preferences against direct and indirect natural disasters losses in industrialized countries. Using Australia as a case study, the analysis compares expected disaster losses and government capacity to finance losses. Utilizing a national disaster loss dataset, extreme value theory is applied to estimate an all-hazard annual loss distribution. Unusually but critically, the dataset includes direct as well as indirect losses, allowing for the analysis to consider the oft-ignored issue of indirect losses. Expected annual losses (direct, and direct plus indirect) are overlaid with a risk-layer approach, to distinguish low, medium and extreme loss events. Each risk layer is compared to available fiscal resources for financing losses, grounded in the political reality of Australian disaster financing. When considering direct losses only, we find support for a risk-neutral preference on the part of the Australian government for low and medium loss levels, and a risk-averse preference in regard to extreme losses. When indirect losses are also estimated, we find that even medium loss levels are expected to overwhelm available fiscal resources, thereby violating the available resources assumption underlying arguments for sovereign risk neutrality. Our analysis provides empirical support for the assertion that indirect losses are a major, under-recognised concern for industrialized countries. A risk-averse preference in regard to medium and extreme loss events recommends enhanced investment in both corrective and prospective risk reduction in relation to these risks level, in particular to reduce indirect losses.

If Numbers Can Speak, Who Listens? Creating Engagement and Learning for Effective Uptake of DRR Investment in Developing Countries

Introduction: With a renewed emphasis on evidence-based risk sensitive investment promoted under the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, technical demands for analytical tools such as probabilistic cost-benefit analysis (CBA) will likely increase in the foreseeable future. This begs a number of pragmatic questions such as whether or not sophisticated quantitative appraisal tools are effective in raising policy awareness and what alternatives are available. Method: This article briefly reviews current practices of analytical tools such as probabilistic cost-benefit analysis and identifies issues associated with its applications in small scale community based DRR interventions. Results: The article illustrate that while best scientific knowledge should inform policy and practice in principle, it should not create an unrealistic expectation that the state-of-the art methods must be used in all cases, especially for small scale DRR interventions in developing countries, where data and resource limitations and uncertainty are high, and complex interaction and feedback may exist between DRR investment, community response and longer-term development outcome. Discussion: Alternative and more participatory approaches for DRR appraisals are suggested which includes participatory serious games that are increasingly being used to raise awareness and identify pragmatic strategies for change that are needed to bring about successful uptake of DRR investment and implementation of DRR mainstreaming.