Analysis of Hazards and Stresses
The following method is a guide for the analysis. Since each context is different and specific, you may add other
questions that appear useful to ask. Ask people to tell you stories on past events, how hazards impacted on their lives,
and how they coped. Try to build up a rich and detailed picture of the kinds of hazards and stresses people faced,
which groups were most affected, and what opportunities exist for strengthening resilience.
1. Identify what different hazards and stresses have affected the community or particular groups in living memory,
both on a regular basis and one-offs.
2. Prioritise the different hazards, e.g. according to severity, numbers affected or frequency.
3. Further explore the prioritised hazards with the following questions and tools:
• What is the typical frequency and duration of this hazard; has it changed over time?
• Are there any warning signs that a hazard event is likely to occur; are there any early warning systems?
• Are there any underlying causes of the hazards or stresses and does the community understand them, or
how to address them?
• Which groups within the community are most affected and how?
• Which communal or individual assets are affected and how?
• How do different groups typically respond immediately after the hazard occurs (are there contingency
plans, safe areas, emergency resources, response organisations etc.)?
• What particular long term coping strategies do these people (and particularly vulnerable groups) use to
recover from the hazard impact?
• Based on the issues raised, what opportunities and capacities are available, or could be strengthened to
help people cope and recover when hazards and stresses occur?
Suggested tools to use: group discussion; hazard mapping; story telling; EMMA toolkit (to analyse changes to
market systems).
Common Reasons for Disaster Damage to Buildings
1 The technology chosen is inherently unsafe for the type of hazards that may occur in a given location. An
example of this is the traditional house of adobe, stone or brick walls, with wooden poles lying across those
supporting cane and mats covered by a heavy layer of earth. Such roofs tend to move during earthquakes,
pushing the walls outwards, caving in on inhabitants. Earth walls are also very vulnerable to rain and flooding.
2 The building is poorly designed, e.g. with windows and doors close to corners or wall intersections weakening
the walls, or with irregular shapes which reduce its resistance to earthquakes, or with large roof overhangs or
verandas that can be ripped apart by strong winds.
3 Buildings are poorly located, e.g. on steep slopes with a risk of land slides, on alluvial plains at risk of flooding
or liquefaction, or on sites particularly exposed to strong winds (addressed in more detail under disaster risk
assessment).
4 Protection provided is insufficient to resist hazards of more than a medium magnitude, e.g. houses are built on
plinths or columns, but only to a height that saves them from minor floods.
5 The quality of work is not good enough. This happens when people build themselves where a skilled craftsman
is needed, or use novel technologies they do not properly understand. Reinforced concrete frames can provide
resistance to several disasters, but they are often poorly erected, and therefore regularly collapse.
6 The protection provided is stretched beyond its specification, e.g. people add floors to a building, or make
changes to its design.
7 Residents are unable to maintain their houses adequately, which can cause components to weaken e.g. through
humidity or insect attack.
that although some of the houses performed
better than others there is still scope to improve
them, then a modified design can be developed.
However, if such modifications add a lot to the
cost of construction, their take-up is likely to be
low – certainly when limited external assistance is
available – even if people recognise them as being
more disaster-resistant. Fortunately, though, it is
often possible to make houses a lot more disaster-
resistant without adding more than 10% to the
original construction budget. This works best if any
such change is accompanied by awareness raising
initiatives, demonstration, and training on how to
build and maintain such houses.
5