Nat Hazards (2008) 44:163168

DOI 10.1007/s11069-007-9152-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Towards integrated disaster risk management:

case studies and trends from Asia

Aniello Amendola Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer Norio Okada Peijun Shi

Received: 24 May 2007 / Accepted: 9 June 2007 / Published online: 18 August 2007
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

1 Background

Integrated disaster risk management (IDRiM) is a process for comprehensively and

credibly estimating and managing risks from multiple synergistic sources, and, as such,
presents a challenge to science and policy communities. IDRiM becomes increasingly
complex as human interventions contribute to escalating disasters losses. Over the period
19842003, more than four billion people were affected by extreme natural events:
between 1990 and 1999 the costs of natural disasters were more than 15 times higher than
during the period 19501959 (World Bank 2006a). The main factors, or drivers, behind
rising economic losses are changes in land use and increases in the concentration of people
and capital in high-risk areas, for example, in coastal regions exposed to windstorms, in
fertile river basins exposed to floods, and in urban areas exposed to earthquakes (Miletti
1999). There is also mounting evidence that climate change is contributing to rising
weather-related disaster events. Observations of long-term and widespread changes in wind
patterns and aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat
waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones, are increasingly linked with climate change
(Schonwiese et al. 2003; Emanuel 2005; IPCC 2007).
Integrated disaster risk management calls for rigorous risk analyses that integrate
multiple hazards and their drivers for estimating potential human, economic and

A. Amendola (&)
J. Linnerooth-Bayer

IIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg 2361, Austria
e-mail: aniello.amendola@tiscali.it

N. Okada
DPRI, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

P. Shi
ADREM, Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing, China

123
164 Nat Hazards (2008) 44:163168

environmental losses. An integrated assessment of disaster risk not only takes account of
the potential losses, but also of how they are distributed among communities and regions,
and how they may differentially affect the poor or women. Since natural disasters can be
confounded by technological failures and trigger further failures, for example, the levee
break in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and subsequent pollution,
integration also means broadening the policy context to include multiple natural and
technological hazards.
Integrated disaster risk management not only requires rigorous and multi-factor risk
assessment, but it also calls for procedures and institutions that credibly reduce the risks.
Experience shows that knowledge, regulations, codes, and other policy measures are of
little use without effective implementation (Wisner 2004). The Hyogo Framework for
Action 20052015 (2005) notably underlined the need for ensuring that disaster risk
reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for imple-
mentation (Article 16). Even with rigorous assessment, there will remain contending
views on the seriousness of the hazards and their acceptability, as well as the economic and
ecological costs of mitigation. To maintain legitimacy with an ever more skeptical public,
policy makers increasingly need to involve the affected persons and institutions, or the
stakeholders. IDRiM thus necessitates a multi-disciplinary approach, involving not only
scholars in multiple disciplines (e.g., from engineering to social sciences, urban and land-
use planning to economics and finance), but also practitioners in the different fields, public
policy makers at the national and community level, and community and NGO
representatives.
While there has been progress in moving toward IDRiM in many countries and contexts,
the standard approach to disasters remains reactive. Far more resources are devoted to
relief and reconstruction than to pro-active prevention and preparedness (World Bank
2006b). Moreover, in most countries there has been little integration of the relevant policy
communities, for instance, responsibility for disaster preparedness is generally not linked
with responsibility for land-use planning. Nor is there sufficient contact among different
hazard communities. The scientific tribes of climate experts and disaster practitioners (to
use the terminology of Horlick-Jones 1995) are only beginning to coordinate their research
and activities (Amendola 2004). Finally, there is increasing evidence that disasters are a
major factor in prolonging poverty; yet, the development community is only beginning to
prioritize disaster risk management as an important component of international develop-
ment and aid strategies, as well as an important consideration in adapting to climate
change.
The intent of this special issue is to contribute to the science and practice of IDRiM with
a focus on disasters in Asian countries. The papers were presented at the 2005 annual
IIASADPRI Forum on IDRiM, organized in cooperation with the Beijing Normal Uni-
versity (BNU). The 2005 Forum focused on two themes: (1) financial instruments to reduce
disaster risk in developing countries and (2) Asian case studies of IDRiM. Papers on pro-
active financing to reduce vulnerability in developing countries, including financial risk
transfer and catastrophe insurance, have been collected in a companion volume (Linn-
erooth-Bayer et al. 2007). This volume reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the IDRiM
Forum by illustrating progress toward IDRiM strategies or related research in Asian
countries (including Turkey). The papers include case studies on planning and recovery, as
well as research on public participation and awareness. The scale of the topics ranges from
individual perceptions and decisions to hazard identification procedures, mitigation and
recovery plans, and approaches toward public participation.

123
Nat Hazards (2008) 44:163168 165

2 Contents

China is severely exposed to natural hazards, and is also experiencing very rapid
urbanization growth, which contributes to the recent rise in disaster losses. In their
paper, The Regionalization of Urban Natural Disasters in China, Jing-ai Wang, Pei-jun
Shi, Xiang-sheng Yi, Hui-cong Jia, and Lai-yin Zhu develop an integrated risk index for
multiple natural disasters in urban areas. To calculate an overall disaster risk index the
authors integrate risk estimates of multiple hazards, including floods, earthquakes,
typhoons, landslides, and sandstorms, with indices describing urbanization and infra-
structure levels. With this index, they classify regions in China according to their
exposure to major disasters. This knowledge can serve many policy agendas: priori-
tizing governmental interventions for mitigation and preparedness, raising the awareness
of business and industry with respect to their vulnerability, restricting development in
risky areas, and designing risk sharing strategies to improve resilience (Forstmoser
2007).
Mustafa Erdik and Eser Durukal in their paper, Earthquake Risk and its Mitigation in
Istanbul, describe an integrated plan to mitigate the consequences of a devastating
earthquake in the mega-city of Istanbul. Estimates show that a major earthquake in this city
would result in expected human and economic losses of up to 40,000 deaths and 120,000
injured, and USD 11 billion from damaged buildings. In response, city officials have
developed a comprehensive Master Plan, which recommends diverse measures to manage
the risk, including: revised construction codes, the retrofit of high-risk buildings, the
assurance of sufficient redundancy of infrastructures, land-use regulation, relocation of
very high-risk communities, public awareness programs, and risk-transfer provisions. The
authors discuss the practical difficulties in achieving the objectives of the Master Plan. As
an example, retrofitting a residential apartment building is dependent on the voluntary
initiative of tenants and owners of single units, who often do not reach the requisite
agreement. This is one of many examples that illustrate the importance of institutional and
legal reforms for effective implementation of the plan. Lessons can also be gleaned by
following the development of the mandatory insurance scheme, which was developed
without stakeholder involvement and, partly for this reason, has had difficulty gaining
public support.
A related paper Earthquake Risk to Industry in Istanbul and its Management by
Eser Durukal, Mustafa Erdik, and Eren Uckan focuses on the expected consequences of
a major earthquake in industry. Istanbul is home to 40% of the industrial facilities in
Turkey, employing 30% of industrial workers. A major earthquake would directly
impact industrial activity, and consequent fires and toxic spills can lead to secondary
losses. Although most major industrial facilities have insurance coverage, business
disruption over long recovery periods would cause enormous damage to the economy of
the country and severe unemployment problems, especially to small- and medium-sized
enterprises. The paper reports on a detailed inventory of industrial facilities of any kind
and a first-order assessment of expected losses given Istanbuls seismic risk. In addition
it warns on cascade risks created by possible fires and toxic chemical releases. The
analysis builds on historical experience. Toxic emissions during the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake prompted the evacuation of residents within an 18-kilometer radius and
hampered emergency response to both the industrial facilities and earthquake victims
(Cruz and Steinberg 2005). Overall, the paper is intended to raise awareness of central
and local governments, as well as other stakeholders, for the development of a national
risk-mitigation policy for industrial facilities.

123
166 Nat Hazards (2008) 44:163168

Once again the importance of integrating the risk of major accident hazards in the
overall policy of disaster prevention and mitigation must be emphasized especially as far as
land-use planning is concerned (see also Christou et al. 1999).
Continuing the focus on chemical facilities, Ana Maria Cruz and Norio Okada give a
comprehensive comparison of current risk-management practices in Japan with practises
in the USA and the EU in their paper, Consideration of Natural Hazards in the Design
and Risk Management of Chemical Industrial Facilities. The analysis shows a general
lack of provisions to prevent or respond to simultaneous accidents from single or mul-
tiple sources triggered by a natural event. In addition in Japan, industrial safety is
regulated by a variety of laws covering particular aspects and systems, but legislation
lacks a systemic risk management framework as in the EU and USA, with the EU
pioneering provisions for land-use planning and information to the public. While hazard
maps for natural events are available to the public in the USA and Japan, and in some
countries in Europe, in no country these depict potential consequences of chemical
releases possibly associated.
A case study on the recovery from the BAM earthquake, Post BAM Recovery and
Reconstruction, by Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany and Mahmood Hosseini underlines the
importance of preserving the cultural heritage in post-disaster reconstruction. The authors
also show the need for innovative post-disaster land-use policy, enforcement of codes and
long-term educational programs. Effective reconstruction in Iran involves careful man-
agement of international aid and loans, and delays often result from the lack of an in-
advance reconstruction plan. Experience from other disasters has shown the importance of
pre-disaster financial provisions, including reserve funds, insurance, and other risk-transfer
instruments, for increasing resilience and recovery capability (Mechler et al. 2006). This
paper calls for greater attention to social reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Mental health rehabilitation is the subject of the paper by Naghmeh Sadeghi and
Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi, titled Mental Health Preparedness for Natural Disasters in
Iran, which describes the actions by trained local community volunteers after the BAM
earthquake. The paper documents statistics of mental disorders attributed to the event, and
stresses the need for developing a mental health preparedness plan based on available
international guidelines and lessons learned from past events.
The assessment of indirect disaster losses is a complex task characterized by large
uncertainties. These assessments generally make use of models that specify the risks of
future events and the robustness and redundancy of critical infrastructure to reduce eco-
nomic impacts. The case of transportation networks after the 2004 Niigata-Chuetsu
earthquake is the subject of the paper by Hirokazu Tatano and Satoshi Tsuchiya,
A Framework of Economic Seismic Loss Estimation for Transportation Network Disrup-
tion. The authors propose a model that is capable of analyzing the indirect losses to
a regional economy caused by shocks to trade and human mobility. Sub-models include a
production model for each relevant firm, a consumption model for households and a
transportation model. Owing to the overall complexity of the models, however, simplifying
assumptions (like that of general equilibrium conditions applied to transient conditions) are
made. Despite the approximations involved, the methodology appears capable of providing
very useful results. These show that disaster losses reverberate to distant localities and
significant losses (measured by per-day disruption) can be expected in rather remote zones
of the country, whereas 40% of total losses are experienced in the Kanto region.
The remaining four papers move beyond modeling exercises and risk assessments to
examining multiple perspectives on disaster risks, building risk awareness through par-
ticipation and examining individual attitudes towards adopting mitigation measures.

123
Nat Hazards (2008) 44:163168 167

A wide scoping discussion of risk analysis paradigms1 to cope with low-probability but
high-consequence disasters opens the paper, Towards an Integrated Management
Framework for Emerging Disaster Risks in Japan, by Saburo Ikeda, Teruko Sato, and
Teruki Fukuzono. Since the 2000 Tokai Flood in Japan, there has been a shift in the
management strategy from disaster prevention with a presumed zero risk to disaster
reduction with an acceptable risk. The authors argue (1) that the public should be made
aware of risk in a topdown approach; (2) that integration of different risk mitigation
options in terms of structural and non-structural measures should be practices; and (3)
participation of stakeholders throughout the entire cycle of risk management should be
pursued. The paper concentrates on the first step of this process by describing a platform
for risk communication and giving results from its experimental use in public information
exercises.
A similar trend toward risk communication is described by Robert Bajek, Yoko Mat-
suda and Norio Okada in their paper Japans Jishu-Bosai-Soshiki Community Activities:
Analysis of its Role in Participatory Community Disaster Risk Management. Jishu-bosai-
soshiki or Jishubo for short, literally meaning autonomous organization for disaster
reduction, is a neighborhood association for disaster preparedness and rescue activity.
Although the formation of Jishubo is not legally mandated, local governments persuade
community people to organize their participation in disaster management activities.
Therefore, participants in Jishubo activities tend to be guided and mobilized by local
governments, instead of self-motivated to reduce disaster risks in their residential areas.
In both cases, the process of risk communication is initiated in a topdown manner. Will
the distribution of risk information move the Japanese society toward a more participative
role of stakeholders in risk management decisions? Will it also result in a demand for
better information on threats of other kinds, such as technological hazards? The authors
suggest that it is too early to attempt an answer to such questions.
Diverse objectives that motivate individuals attitudes to adopt risk-mitigation measure
are documented in the paper by Hiroyuki Sakakibara, H. Murakami, S. Esaki, D. Mori, and
H. Nakata, Modeling Households Decisions on Reconstruction of Houses Damaged by
EarthquakesJapanese Case Study. On the same topic, Shuyeu Lin, Daigee Shaw and
Ming-Chou Ho examine the dichotomy between victims and non-victim attitudes, in their
paper Why are Flood and Landslide Victims Less Willing to take Mitigation Measures than
the Public?
The former paper utilizes questionnaire data to establish a formal discrete-choice model
for studying the effects of governmental subsidies on household decisions with respect to
rebuilding/repairing houses damaged after an earthquake. The analysis shows that moti-
vations depend on age, family composition and location of households. The latter paper
examines several factors in relation to hazard mitigation behaviors: social economic status
(education, income), psychological vulnerability (sense of powerless and helpless), risk
perception (perceived impact and control) and social trust. A rather surprising finding is
that in comparison with general public, victims are less willing to adopt risk prevention
measures than the public, even though they perceive larger impact, worry more about the
hazard, and pay more attention to hazard information. Further, psychological variables are
stronger predictors for mitigation intentions than that of social economic variables. Trust
is confirmed to be generally2 a positive predictor for mitigation intentions, and therefore an
essential component of the policy implementation effort.
1
For a general overview of their development and use see Amendola (2001).
2
For the dominance of trust among the factors for a consistent approach to Risk Governance see EC 2000.

123
168 Nat Hazards (2008) 44:163168

3 Concluding remarks

Integration has been the key concept guiding the paper collection in this volume. Inte-
gration encompasses the multiplicity of the hazards, the structural and non-structural
measures available for a risk control policy, stakeholder participation in the IDRiM pro-
cess, and the manyfold disciplines needing convergence. Public awareness and stakeholder
participation have been seen as crucial factors for implementation. The papers in this
volume demonstrate rather encouraging trends in moving toward pro-active IDRiM.

References

Amendola A (2001) Recent paradigms for risk informed decision-making. Saf Sci 40(14):1730
Amendola A (2004) Management of change, disaster risk, and uncertainty: an overview. J Nat Disaster Sci
26(2):5561
Christou MD, Amendola A, Smeder M (1999) The control of major accident hazards: the land-use planning
issue. In: Amendola A, Cassidy K (eds) The Seveso-II Directive (96/82/EC) on the control of major
accident hazards involving dangerous substances J Hazard Mater 65(12): 1 March Special Issue
Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ (2005) Industry preparedness for earthquakes and earthquake-triggered hazmat
accidents during the kocaeli earthquake in 1999: a survey. Earthq Spectra 21(2):285303
Emanuel K (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:
686688
EC (European Commission) (2000) The TRUSTNET framework: a new perspective on risk governance.
EUR 19136 EN. ISBN 92894-0044-7, Luxembourg
Forstmoser K (2007) The Outlook for Innovative Insurance Instruments in China. In: Linnerooth-Bayer J,
Amendola A, Okada N, Shi P (eds) Disaster risk management: Pro-active financing to reduce
vulnerability, Environ Hazards, doi: 10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.003
Horlick-Jones T (1995) Prospects for a coherent approach to civil protection in Europe. In: Horlick-Jones T,
Amendola A, Casale R (eds) Natural risk and civil protection. Spon, London
Hyogo Framework for Action 20052015, 2005, http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/
L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf#search = Hyogo%20Framework
IPPC, Intergovernmental panel on climate change, 2007 Climate change 2007: the physical science basis,
summary for policymakers, contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change, http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Linnerooth-Bayer J, Amendola A, Okada N, Shi P (eds) (2007) Disaster risk management: pro-active
financing to reduce vulnerability. Environ Hazards (in press)
Mechler R, Hochrainer S, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Pflug G (2006) Assessing financial vulnerability and coping
capacity: the IIASA CATSIM model. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability and coping capacity
to hazards of natural origin. Concepts and methods. United Nations University Press, New York
Miletti D (1999) Disasters by design. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC
Schonwiese CD, Grieser J, Tromel S (2003) Secular change of extreme monthly precipitation in Europe.
Theor Appl Climatol 4:132139
Wisner B (2004) The challenge of Implementation Science. The IDRiM 4th Forum: CUEBC, Ravello,
Italy, July 2004, http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/dpri2004/
World Bank (2006a) Hazards of nature, risks to development: an IEG evaluation of World Bank assistance
for natural disasters. The World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2006b) Natural disasters: reducing risk, recovering faster. The World Bank, Washington, DC

123