3 Analysing the Vulnerability of people and their
assets.
4 Evaluating local capacities to reduce the risks or
respond to an emergency.
5 Estimating the potential damage and loss as a
result of a specific risk.
6 Zoning or mapping of risks in a sketch or plan.
Risks can be mapped out. A Practical Action
project in Peru developed a method to prepare Risk
Maps, which is summarised below and described
in more detail in Practical Action’s Technical
Brief: Preparation of Risk Maps. The method uses
geographical information systems, to produce
maps of both threats and vulnerabilities; the latter
includes an assessment of capacities, or rather the
lack thereof. Production of such maps involves the
following steps:
Applications
Some examples of reconstruction projects in
which aspects of learning are highlighted are
outlined below. These mainly cover demonstrating
safer housing construction to mitigate risks from
particular natural hazards.
Case 1: Rebuilding Timber Frame Houses in Rural Areas of Pakistan
The 2005 earthquake in Kashmir destroyed 450,000 houses completely, and caused damage to hundreds of
thousands more. These included houses built with traditional as well as modern materials and technologies. Many of
these houses were in remote rural areas that were difficult to supply. This was an important reason to try and rebuild as
far as possible with local technologies.
It was therefore very important to diagnose which types of construction had performed well during the earthquake,
and which ones did not, and why. If this is done by both experts and local people, it also helps to give the latter
reassurance in the technologies chosen for reconstruction. It was found that one particular type of construction, Dhajji
Dewari (lightweight patchwork walls, made of a braced timber frame with stone and mud infill) had withstood the
earthquake relatively well. But it was a dying technology, with only about 5,000 houses existing before the quake. In
some places, local residents started to rebuild Dhajji Dewari houses quite soon after the earthquake, if they had the
skills and resources. But it took the government reconstruction programme (ERRA) somewhat longer to adopt it as
one of the options, partly because it was not investigated soon enough, and because there was some objection to it
which claimed it did not meeting the required standards. The use of owner-driven reconstruction with Dhajji Dewari
was particularly instigated by UN-Habitat. More than 100,000 houses were ultimately rebuilt with it, at a fraction of
the cost of new materials and a significant reduction in vulnerability. This required a huge communication effort with
different target groups: engineers needed reference materials; builders needed how-to-build Guides and quantities; and
residents needed to know the costs and benefits, and be able to visualize the solution through demonstration.
See: Stephenson (2008) in the Resources section.
Case 2: Retrofitting and Rebuilding of Schools in Aceh, Indonesia
After the 2004 tsunami, inspectors checked the safety of schools in Aceh province that had not been destroyed.
Many were found to have been poorly built and badly maintained and therefore vulnerable to the earthquakes that
regularly occur in the region. The charity Save the Children decided to retrofit 58 deficient schools to make them more
earthquake resistant. They also decided to use the retrofitting process as an opportunity to raise awareness of seismic
safety and to mitigate the risks of damage and collapse of buildings. Pupils and community members participated
in discussions about vulnerability assessment, design and construction. A team of local builders was put together
and trained in retrofitting technologies. Teachers, pupils and local people were encouraged to observe the retrofitting
process and an engineer explained to them what was happening and why it was being done.
See: Shrestha in the Resources section.
Case 3: Participatory Vulnerability Analysis in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India
The islands suffered the impact of the tsunami in late 2004, destroying as many as 10,000 homes and killing
over 3,500 people. When the government drew up a list of people entitled to permanent housing, many vulnerable
households were left out for a number of reasons. The NGO Action Aid opted to work with them. Participatory
Vulnerability Analyses (PVA) were conducted to identify the most vulnerable and in need of housing support. The
programme also targeted the capacity building of vulnerable communities. This built on people’s knowledge, traditions,
building practices, designs and materials used, and strengthened the weak aspects of those through training and
technical support. Action Aid staff also performed a quality control role in the selection of materials and the actual
construction work.
See: UNDP India in the Resources section.
7