Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

200
Natural and human-made disasters
Box 8.5 Risk assessment strengthens local capacity and resilience in Lima, Peru
Risk, in any one
place, is an outcome
of decision-making
and action – or
inaction- at local,
municipal, national
and international
scales
Located along the boundary of two tectonic
plates, Lima is at risk from earthquakes,
floods and landslides. One of the city’s highrisk
zones is Caquetá, a highly congested
Good
Very good
area with large amounts of waste produced
Average
by street traders and an irregular rubbish
Bad
collection service. An estimated 15,500
people live in Caquetá in 3000 formal and
informal dwellings consisting of a mixture of
wooden shacks and four- and five-storey
concrete frame/brick-infill and rendered
houses. The Caquetá ravine, cut through by
the Rimac River, is a site for a potentially
deadly combination of hazard and vulnerability.
Poorly enforced building and planning
codes, high densities and rapid urbanization (due to its proximity to
commercial locations) combine with frequent landslides to increase
the vulnerability of the squatter housing perched on the ravine
edge. As a result, shelter damage and collapse are frequent, with
losses of investments and sometimes lives.
A risk assessment was undertaken – jointly by the Oxford
Centre for Disaster Studies and the Peruvian non-governmental
organization (NGO) Instituto Para la Democracia Local – to gather
data on hazard, vulnerability and capacity to be used for the formulation
of ‘risk reduction action plans. Data was gathered on the
ravine area, informal markets and a consolidated squatter area in
Caquetá.
The assessment was undertaken using a combination of
research tools. Participatory rural appraisal tools were applied
during meetings with housing and market association representatives.
Activities included community mapping; time-line
development to link the accumulation of risk with local disasters
and recovery; the development of disaster matrices recording views
of causes and possible solutions; and hazard ranking. Additional
State of buildings
Rio
Rimac
research tools included the review of
existing research, preparation of maps
identifying building and infrastructure
standards, and administration of
questionnaires with households and
organizations.
Figure 8.2
Participatory mapping
of building quality:
Caquetá ravine in
Lima, Peru
The assessment helped to build relations with key actors at
community, NGO and municipality levels and, importantly, provided
credibility for the initiative among authorities. Findings from the
assessment and the relationships built up in the process led to a
three-day workshop attended by 30 representatives of local associations,
municipalities, local NGOs, the fire service and international
NGOs. Key problems were presented and participants scoped
ideas for workable solutions. These included training for fire awareness,
ravine improvement through lobbying, and information
exchange. As a result of the workshop, local groups, including
communities and the municipality, began to communicate more
frequently, and the importance of risk awareness and vulnerability
reduction was recognized.
Source: Sanderson, 1997
Challenges of urban risk assessments
Risk assessments are undertaken at a range of scales, from
the local to the global. There is great diversity in the target of
assessments (people, buildings and the urban economy), in
the sources of data (interviews, existing datasets, satellite
imagery or expert judgements) and in the degree to which
they are participatory or extractive in collecting data. In all
cases, assessments aim to simplify complicated experiences
of risk in order to assist in decision-making. Complexity
comes from:
• The multiple hazards to which people are simultaneously
exposed. Recent and frequently experienced hazard
types may be more visible to assessors than others at
any one moment. Following the Indian Ocean Tsunami,
many assessments of tsunami risk were undertaken
despite the likelihood of a future tsunami being much
lower than seasonal rainfall flooding or armed conflict.
• The multiple sectors that are at risk. It is difficult to
aggregate vulnerability across sectors such as housing,
communication networks, water and sanitation, education,
healthcare infrastructure, power networks, etc.
Each sector will have different exposure and susceptibility
to risk and capacities and resources for coping and
recovery.
• The multiple scales at which risk is felt and responded
to. Risk, in any one place, is an outcome of decisionmaking
and action – or inaction – at local, municipal,
national and international scales. It is challenging to
include all of these scales in the analysis of impacts and
capacity.
• The multiple assets to be accounted for in measuring
vulnerability and capacity. This applies to all scales, from
the individual to the urban scale. Some assets will be
contingent upon the utilization of others and rarely are
different types of assets commensurate.